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.

Saturday, May 31, 2008


Sorry; it seems I got that wrong. It should have read:

IDF fires into crowd of 3000 Hamas protestors at Gaza border – World couldn’t care less”.


Allan ‘Acker’ Jones was twenty one when he joined the AIF as a volunteer shortly after the fall of France in June 1940. As a member of the 2/43 Battalion, Ninth Division, he served in North Africa for seven months during the siege of Tobruk and later at the battles for El Alamein. After returning to Australia in 1941, his battalion trained in Queensland for jungle warfare before combating the Japanese in New Guinea. This story vividly describes the locations, events, characters and emotions that one infantryman encountered and experienced from the day he signed up to the day he was discharged in 1945.

AU$20 includes post and packaging.

To place order and for payment details

Were your parents, grandparents or great-grandparents ordinary soldiers, sailors or airman in wars gone by? Have they left memoirs, notes, photos or letters telling of their experience?All too often such fragments of history end up in attics and sheds never ever seeing the light of day.About Time Publications is dedicated to real history. Your loved ones stories might not become best sellers but their stories are part of history.
If you have a story you believe needs to be told then contact us now before it disappears forever.We are interested in all stories from all sides of all wars.Let their experience help give peace a chance.

Friday, May 30, 2008


Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Israeli Likud party, ultra right-wing Zionist and close friend of neoconservatives everywhere and America’s warmongering Vice-President Dick Cheney, sniffs an Israeli election in the wind. At a Likud rally held on the Israeli occupied Golan Heights last week Netanyahu declared that the Golan Heights will never be anything other than Israeli. Displaying his obsessive hatred of Iran he told his audience “…If we don't live here, Iranian soldiers will”, a remark that hints toward what the foreign policy of a Netanyahu-led Israeli government is likely to be if this warmongering lunatic were to actually win an election – especially if it is won before Bush’s time in the White House runs out in November.

The combination of Bush still in the White House and Netanyahu leading Israel is likely to be lethal cocktail of ultra right-wing warmongering aimed directly at Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Any dream of any kind of Palestinian state will be long gone and the Gazan people can look forward to being squeezed even harder and could even expect to be transferred out of the Gaza to the Sinai, the West Bank or Jordan.

The mood in Israel at the moment generally seems to be that an election is in the wind as a result of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s dealings with an American financier with close ties to Israel. If Olmert decides to step aside then Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni would likely take his place though even Livni is now talking of preparing for an election. However, if Olmert refuses to step aside and the Israeli Labour Party under Defence Minister Ehud Barak withdraws from the Kadima-led coalition government then there will be a snap election. Increasingly the call now is for an election regardless of what Olmert does.

Netanyahu, after months of keeping his head down, is beginning to look more and more like a politician that can sniff an election in the wind; he’s even got a book waiting to be released just in time for an election. There has been no date set yet for his book to be launched but one can surmise that it will be within days or even hours of a date being set for an election.

The idea of Netanyahu leading Israel is bad enough for all of the Middle East, but the thought of Netanyahu leading Israel whilst Bush and Cheney are still in the White House would be cause enough for the world to tremble.

Thursday, May 29, 2008


I've little doubt that the current management team of Margo Kingston's Webdiary would refuse to publish a reply by me to Fiona Reynolds comment today, so I submit it here to enable those who seek the truth to see both sides and decide for themselves what has occurred.

What you will read below is Fiona's comment, in which she takes each point of my earlier comment and provides her position on it. Between the "stars" is my response to Fiona's position on each point:

In detail, then

Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on May 29, 2008 - 10:19am.

It has taken me longer than I hoped to respond to Craig Rowley’s post, but the excuses are reasonable: travel preparation, a busy week on Webdiary, and the need to work through three months of last year’s posts to make sure that I responded accurately. Now, I get annoyed when Webdiarists reproduce the entirety of an earlier post, but I feel obliged to respond to Craig in that manner to make sure that I cover all the points that he raised.

CR: Over the past year my simple question (the second, censored one) has been met with anything but an answer, Fiona. It has never been answered. Not by Margo, nor by any other members of Webdiary management.

FR: Incorrect. (1) Margo made her position abundantly clear on several threads, in particular the Yep, says honest John and the Saudi Arabia behind Iraq terrorism threads. (2) I understand that Margo emailed you personally at least once about this matter. (3) I know that I also emailed you about it, and discussed the matter at length over lunch in August last year – or don’t I count as a member of Webdiary management?

My statement is, in fact, completely correct. Here's my email to Margo Kingston and her "answer" to that question:

Hello Margo,
Would you please just explain to me (if not all 'diarists for the sake of Transparency) why do you rule the remorseless ridicule routines of "Eliot Ramsey" as acceptable comment and rule out any questioning of your unexplained position on that?

Margo's response was:

"He's interesting, and he doesn't complain when he's DNPed I don't think he crosses the line, Craig. Simple as that. You disagree. That's fine with me. But I've ruled on Eliot several; times and I'm not going to change my mind. So you accept my view and move on at Webdiary, or go elsewhere. Simple."

In other words, Margo said as his content was interesting, therefore his "remorseless ridicule" campaign was acceptable to her; and, most importantly, she would not explain her rationale. Take it or leave.

If we're generous then there is one potential clue to her rationale in the statement she provided. It could be that where she points out that "he doesn't complain when he's DNPed" this is the core rationale. If so, then Margo's priority was no longer what was reflected in WD ethics through statements like:

"I will do my utmost to ensure that Webdiary is a space to which all readers, whatever their views or style, feel safe to contribute. If you are offended by something in Webdiary, feel free to respond. I won't publish any material which incites hatred."


"I will publish most contributions made in good faith which are critical of Webdiary's content or direction, or of me.

"Clearly the new "ethical" standard applied at WD is not to openly and transparently work through any issues raised by 'diarists.

Indeed, Margo's priority had become to devote as little, if any time as possible to the running of WD.

Take her near complete absence from the pages of WD (and even from behind the scenes) over the past year as evidence.

Fiona has been similarly motivated to not deal with essential issues, such as how WD ethics are applied, and that's due to not wanting to take the "time" necessary to deal with such issues.

Further, when Fiona and I shared lunch last year we did not discuss this matter "at length". There is, however, one item that did come up in our conversation that day and on other occasions that now need to be made clear to all interested parties and that is this: Fiona Reynolds' nickname for "Eliot Ramsey" is ERII. It signifies that "Eliot Ramsey" is the second identity used by a person whom had been previously registered with Webdiary using a different identity. That earlier identity was "C Parsons."


CR: And yes, I am a parent. I'm one who shared his real identity here; and to a degree put my family at some risk by sharing that genuine identity. You know I'd been threatened during the time I was moderating Webdiary.

FR: To the best of my knowledge and belief, (1) all people who have been moderating on Webdiary over the last two and a half years have shared our real identities here, and (2) all such moderators have received varying levels of threats during that period.


The issue I had raised was not pseudonymity amongst moderators. I've never taken issue with that aspect of WD. Indeed, for me the issue is not even pseudonymity per se. I understand that some people need to be protected behind a pseudonym. The issue I have, in fact, raised with WD management is a breach of WD's published Ethics. Specifically, the promise in those published Ethics that has been breached is:

"If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used."

If current WD management doesn't want to honour that promise any longer, then fine; but they could/should be transparent about it and simply alter the WD Ethics to say they will publish attacks by pseudonymous ‘diarists on other 'diarists.


CR: I'm also one of those whom you and the others allowed to be targeted by the ridiculer (engaging in what is a form of bullying; a most cowardly form as he sheltered behind his false identity).

FR: Incorrect. All moderators (perhaps me more than the rest) have taken considerable pains to protect Webdiarists and, indeed, you in particular, from much of what you have deemed to be “targeting” by the “ridiculer”.


No, considerable action would have been to very simply and straightforwardly tell him in editorial "bold" comment to cease targeting people. In other words, TROLLING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.


CR: Why? Well now you reveal it was because you consider his abusive personal attacks to be "entertaining" and "piffle."

FR: Incorrect – but we need to clarify something first. So-called remorseless ridicule, if it involves personal abuse, offends Webdiary’s moderation guidelines and is not published. So-called remorseless ridicule of other people’s points of view etc. does not amount to a personal attack but to robust contesting of ideas, and as such does not breach the moderation guidelines. Secondly, I have never regarded “abusive personal attacks” as entertaining. Thirdly – and I probably didn’t make this sufficiently clear, my observations were confined to so-called remorseless ridicule of ideas and opinions, and I did not say that I found that to be entertaining piffle – all I did was suggested that others might find it so.


CR: Do I really have to remind you that those targeted don't feel that it was particularly "entertaining" to be targeted?

FR: Partly accepted. I sometimes don’t find it entertaining to have my opinions challenged, but I don’t see that as a personal attack on me. On the contrary, I see it as part of the cut-and-thrust of the contest of ideas. What I (and other moderators) certainly do not find entertaining is being “targeted” by remorseless, relentless questioning (or, more accurately, banging on and on and on about something that was resolved long ago).


Three things are wrong here.

First, if Fiona was as dedicated to the contest of ideas as she claims then she'd not be party to censoring any debate on the ideas themselves.

Truth is she's censored a whole series of comments I'd made responding to the ideas expressed by her friends Jenny Hume and Ian MacDougall because they didn't want me to make those comments. They didn't want me to make comments on their comments because Jenny Hume had demanded (via Fiona Reynolds) that I make an apology to her friend Kathy Farrelly and when I didn't she judged me (the person) unworthy of Webdiary.

And yes, you read it right, Fiona Reynolds had made phone calls to my home to relay Jenny Hume's demands.

One rule for some, eh?

Second, if simply being asked to explain how a decision they'd made matched their published ethical standard caused so much discomfort to Fiona Reynolds, why is it that she cannot comprehend how unwelcoming, how unsafe Webdiary had become to those who were targeted by "C Parsons" and other trolls for "remorseless ridicule" (presumably in order for him to get off on the Schadenfreud).

BTW I've so often use that particular phrase and place it in quotation marks because "C Parsons" had actually stated that was his specific purpose in a comment that had been marked DNP.

Third, the issue has never been resolved. Not "long ago." Not recently. Not now.


CR: So now I understand the "why" (you thought it was fun to facilitate the bullying), but I still don't see how it squares with WD Ethics?

FR: Incorrect. See above.


Wrong with "incorrect" and lazy with "see above." Fiona's dodging the key issue which is this: How does the decision WD management had made square with their published ethical standard? They refuse to explain it; they don't seem able to explain it. I reckon it's because the decision simply cannot be shown to meet the published ethical standard.


CR: Indeed, as one or two of you have acknowledged over time that very point about the special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity (which is a deal it seems I cannot mention for fear of censorship), with no answer to my question I simply cannot comprehend how what's been done reflects WD Ethics.

FR: Incorrect, and fallacious. IF one takes the position that (original) identity A is the same as (now) identity B, one cannot assume that identity B is the pseudonymous identity. It’s equally plausible that identity A may have been the pseudonym, and if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual’s true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check), there is nothing more to be said.


Fiona's argument is that which is fallacious and this is what more is to be said. Whether one take's her "hypothetical" position, or even the position of any reasonable person apply simple logic, then one sees clearly that the person changing from identity A to identity B has either lied to Margo Kingston about their genuine identity when using identity A or when using identity B. Unless Margo Kingston had agree to provide pseudonymity twice. She's never admitted to that, and if she had agreed it during the "C. Parsons" period, then her poorly phased question to "Eliot Ramsey" about this issue was either absurd or devious.


CR: That's the very reason why I have asked the question more than once. I would really like to hear a reasoned response that attempts to demonstrate how the decision made to give that person a second identity could be ethical. It seems I never will.

FR: And so ad infinitem. This particular topic is closed. Permanently.


Aside for the "silencing" aspect of Fiona's final position, it is also once again avoiding an answer to my question. Where's the reasoned response I was seeking? Telling me to, in essence, "shut up and shove off" doesn't even begin to demonstrate how the decision to give "C Parsons" / "Eliot Ramsey" (CP=ER) a second identity is ethical.

Interestingly, in times past Fiona must have found it unethical to allow CP=ER another pseud. When suspended back in February he'd tried to fly a third and fourth (and possibly a fifth) identity. Hence the appearance and quick disappearance of "Patricia P Kennedy" and "Lesley Partika."


FR: After all of this, Craig, you may find it difficult to believe that I have great respect for you. You are an informed individual who demonstrates great compassion and an interestingly lateral approach to many troubling issues. Your contributions to Webdiary over the years have been appreciated by many people, including me. Your obduracy on this matter, however, is disturbing, unproductive, and frankly does you no credit. Maybe it’s time to take a break from Webdiary – but you know that you will always be welcome to contribute in the constructive way that you can do so well.


Welcome I may be, but return to WD I will not. Certainly not as long as WD management's obduracy on this matter continues to show them to be unethical, and lacking in empathy for those who were targeted by a pseudonymous nasty precisely because that had contributed to WD in the constructive way. So that's looking like it means probably not ever.


By blatantly twisting the facts regarding the identity of Webdiary’s notorious fraudster and liar, Eliot Ramsey, who as C. Parsons was banned from commenting at Webdiary, Fiona Reynolds has exposed herself as a manipulative deceiver.

Many Webdiarists were – and indeed, still are – disappointed that Webdiary did not ban Eliot Ramsey when he appeared at Webdiary very shortly after C. Parsons had been banned when it was so obvious that Parsons and Ramsey were one and the same person. Despite protestations from a number of Webdiarists, including myself, Kingston decided to allow this right-wing propagandist and fraudster to continue using Webdiary for purely propaganda purposes based solely on the fact that Ramsey had simply denied being Parsons when he was asked by Kingston outright whether or not he was Parsons. Ramsey, of course, denied that he was Parsons. He lied and everyone knew he lied.

I wrote to Reynolds asking what was going on. Reynolds wrote to me trying to fob me off with the same kind of pseudo-legal claptrap she is trying on now at Webdiary saying that because Ramsey had denied being Parsons that somehow Kingston’s hands tied implying that Kingston now had some sort of legal obligation to allow Ramsey to comment since he said he was not Parsons. This, of course, is complete nonsense. There is no legal obligation whatsoever. All Kingston needed to do was ban him anyway. Ramsey would certainly have had no legal recourse to pursue the matter through the courts.

No. Fiona Reynolds is just trying to be smart in attempting to use her legal credentials to deceive Webdiarists into believing that there is some kind of legal issue here. There isn’t.

However, there is a moral and ethical issue. When I say ‘everyone knew he (Ramsey) lied’, that includes Fiona Reynolds. I had assured Reynolds confidentiality regarding what she wrote to me about this matter but in the light of her ignoring her moral obligations to Webdiarists, I have no problems in exposing her for what she is by ignoring that assurance. Reynolds wrote to me saying:

Margo, as you may have noticed, asked ER whether he was C Parsons. A stupid question, and surprising given both her legal and journalistic experience. The correct question was: ER, have you ever posted on Webdiary under the name of C Parsons? Now, think about ER's response - that according to the nametag his mum had sewn on his undies, he was indeed ER. Now, If ER is ER's real name (ie., if CP were the pseud) then his response was veridacious and there is bugger all that Margo can do. If ER is NOT ER's real name (though the email matches - not that that's hard to fix) then Margo painted herself into a corner and can't do anything.

As for how it makes Webdiary look - please remember that we are all human and, thus, fallible. In my opinion, regulars are well aware of the double identity and, if anything, regard it with derisive amusement - the derision being directed towards ER/CP, given that we know that he knows that we know .... and so ad infinitem. For newcomers, I don't think it makes any difference. Perhaps more germane is the fact that ER is being taken on to good effect more often than not - though I doubt that that will deter him - yet. A gadfly, but one who may eventually come to regret his policy of "remorseless ridicule".

In my opinion, the important thing is that Webdiary continues to be an active site with many different voices contributing in various ways to the contest of ideas. I see my role as one of the moderating team to keep the debate as civil as possible (at times a pretty big ask), but the vital thing is to keep the discussion going. Otherwise it would die.

Reynolds concedes that they all knew that Ramsey was Parsons but, despite knowing this, kept him on for the sake of ‘keeping the discussion going’. Then why ban him in the first place? It seems that Webdiary’s continued existence takes precedence over any moral or ethical issues that may threaten Webdiary’s functioning.

Providing a platform for debate is one thing but deliberately providing a platform for proven liars, fraudsters, warmongers and fascists to push their vile propaganda while banning the likes of Bob Wall and others is something else.

Reynolds is attempting to detract from Webdiary’s considerable moral and ethical shortcomings on this issue by trying to persuade Webdiarists that there are some kind of legal implications. There simply aren’t any. Reynolds has exposed herself to be as big a fraud as Ramsey is.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008


On the face of it, it looks like it could be all over for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. But, if he has proved to be nothing else, he has in the past proved to be a survivor. There weren’t many commentators that expected him to survive the preliminary Winograd report into the failings of Israel’s war against Hezbollah and the Lebanese people and there were even less who thought he might survive the full-on report when it was finally released. But he did.

However, the latest scandal that has embroiled him, the accusations of having accepted large amounts of money from an American businessman, may well see the end of Olmert. Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister and leader of Israel’s Labour Party that forms part of Olmert’s Kadima-led coalition government, is on the verge of threatening to withdraw from the coalition if Olmert does not quit as Prime Minister. Olmert, if he reacts anywhere near to form, is unlikely to quit unless the call becomes overwhelming from his own party as well which will leave Barak little choice but to withdraw the Labour Party from the coalition. Such action will be the trigger for an election.

If an election is called it is quite likely that the extreme right-wing Zionist Likud Party under Benjamin Netanyahu will win. If it does then the Middle East can look forward to the prospect of an Israeli attack against Iran and a full-on invasion of the Gaza Strip to ‘stop Hamas attacking Israel’ and possibly the West Bank in order to ‘pre-empt any Palestinian backlash against Israeli actions in the Gaza’. Hezbollah in Lebanon and, of course, the Lebanese people will also fall into Netanyahu’s sights.

Benjamin Netanyahu also is a very close friend of US Vice-President Dick Cheney and with the neoconservatives in the US and in the Bush administration. Netanyahu is a regular visitor to the neoconservative’s headquarters, the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, and at their retreat at Beaver Creek, Colorado, where he travels occasionally for private and discreet talks with Cheney and other neoconservatives to plot their next moves.
The Middle East now finds itself in a quandary; if Olmert stays the Palestinians in the Gaza are likely to continue to suffer as the Israeli government very slowly tightens the tourniquet on the arteries that supplies Gazans with the necessities of life. The farce of ‘peace talks’ will drag on until Bush finally goes, and the threats against Iran and Hezbollah will continue. If Olmert goes he will be replaced possibly by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni if he chooses to step down. The Middle East will fare no better under Livni. If Barak pulls out and forces an election, well… It doesn’t bear thinking about – especially if all this happens quickly and Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister while the Bush administration is still around.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008


According to the Murdoch owned ‘The Australian’ newspaper, “Iran continues to defy UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment and has yet to disprove allegations that it was pursuing nuclear power for military use.”

First off, one should be quite clear about who is demanding what from whom here. It is the US and Israel and their allies that are making the demands in order to isolate and demonise Iran as part of their propaganda and rhetoric campaign to gain public support for ‘regime change’ in Iran. The UN has only gone along with their charade simply to buy time and not give the US and Israel the excuse they are looking for to bomb Iran into ‘regime change’.

Iran has no legal obligation in International law to suspend uranium enrichment at the demand of anyone. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in accordance with Article IV of the NPT, Iran is quite entitled to pursue the science and technology required for nuclear enrichment for peaceful purposes such as power generation. It is true that under Article III of the NPT that Iran does have certain obligations to demonstrate that its nuclear program indeed does exclude the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But, despite years of accusations from Israel and the US that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, has not found a single skerrick of evidence to suggest that Iran is doing anything other than developing its nuclear program in pursuit of nuclear power generation.

All the IAEAs latest report does is tell the UN that Iran is continuing with its peaceful development of nuclear enrichment, as Iran, regardless of US or Israeli or even UN demands to stop, is quite entitled to do. The IAEA has still not found and evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran is enriching uranium beyond that which is required for power generation. Iran’s seeming intransigence is simply borne out of refusing to bow to Israeli and US threats.

‘The Australian’ says: “Iran… has yet to disprove allegations that it was pursuing nuclear power for military use.” The reality is that Iran has disproved time and time again that it isn’t ‘pursuing nuclear power for military use’, but time and time again, the same old accusers, the US and Israel, continue to make the same old tired allegations.

The quicker the world wakes up to the fact that the only nation in the Middle East that is a nuclear threat to the rest of the region is Israel the better. Our world and the region would be far better served if the world community through the UN and the IAEA investigated Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities and demanded that Israel surrendered its nuclear weapons. The UN should be listening to what the peoples of the world have to say, not what the US and Israel demands.

Monday, May 26, 2008


The election of General Michel Suleiman to the Lebanese presidency will likely be further cause for Israel to consider another attempt at attacking Lebanon and Hezbollah. Suleiman’s election strengthens Hezbollah’s hand immensely. He is an ally of Hezbollah – indeed, he is only President because he is acceptable to Hezbollah – and in the deal that was struck to elect Suleiman, Hezbollah has ended up with veto powers over all government decisions. This is likely to be totally unacceptable to Israel who are itching for any excuse to attack Hezbollah.

Israel’s Military Intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, said after Hezbollah had demonstrated earlier this month it’s fighting capabilities, “Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon... stronger than the Lebanese Army…” implying that all of Lebanon would now be a legitimate target for any future war against Hezbollah since Hezbollah now all but governs the country.

Factor in the other rhetoric and propaganda emanating from the US and Israel as they try to buy a little time by attempting to wedge Syria about Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hamas and we have a recipe for imminent disaster yet again in the Middle East.


Allan ‘Acker’ Jones was twenty one when he joined the AIF as a volunteer shortly after the fall of France in June 1940. As a member of the 2/43 Battalion, Ninth Division, he served in North Africa for seven months during the siege of Tobruk and later at the battles for El Alamein. After returning to Australia in 1941, his battalion trained in Queensland for jungle warfare before combating the Japanese in New Guinea. This story vividly describes the locations, events, characters and emotions that one infantryman encountered and experienced from the day he signed up to the day he was discharged in 1945.

AU$20 includes post and packaging.

To place order and for payment details email:

Sunday, May 25, 2008


I have written often on this blog about the reasons why the Bush administration, the neocons, and the Israeli right-wing Zionists need a final confrontation against Iran.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons ambitions but, rather, has everything to do with the right-wing Zionists ultimate vision of a Greater Israel that includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the Shebaa Farms and, so they hope, the south of Lebanon up to the Litani River; a Greater Israel in which Palestinians will have no place whatsoever.

Time-wise, the window of opportunity for Bush/Israel to bomb Iran into ‘regime change’ is closing with every day that passes as the US heads toward the 2008 presidential election in November. And, as the window closes, so the anti-Iran rhetoric from the Bush administration, the Republicans, the neocons and the Israeli Zionists grows in intensity and the propaganda against Iran becomes more and more outrageous and, not entirely unexpectedly, increasingly familiar as we recall the rhetoric and ridiculous lies that preceded the US attack on Iraq.

Iran and its support of Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian people are all that stand between the Israeli Zionists and their quest for a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people. The world should be aware that the Israeli Zionists have no intention of allowing a Palestinian state to exist despite so-called ‘peace initiatives’ and the current farce of negotiations between Abbas, Olmert and Rice and the rantings of Bush as he tries to make himself look good in the dying days of the most disastrous Presidency in US history.

One has to ask, however, if all this talk from the Bush administration about a ‘Palestinian state’ is not just a ruse to get Hamas and Hezbollah to ‘spoil’ plans for a ‘Palestinian state’, a state that under present options being discussed will see a ‘Palestinian state’ totally subservient to Israel. The Israelis and the US could then point the finger of blame at the failure of negotiations toward Iran; just one more reason for the final confrontation.

The propaganda and rhetoric against Iran is likely to increase over the next few months as the US heads toward the elections in November. We will hear more and more about how Iran is ‘defying the world’ with its ‘nuclear weapons’ ambitions; we will hear more and more about Iran supporting the insurgents in Iraq; we will hear more and more about Iran sending arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And the world will likely wake up one morning soon to learn that the US and Israel have bombed and killed the peoples of yet another nation state.

What the Zionists and their allies among the neocons and the Bush administration don’t realise is that the Palestinian people won’t simply go away because there has been ‘regime change’ in Iran. The Palestinian people are resilient and tenacious and, if anything, an attack against Iran will only stiffen their resolve to resist Israeli expansionism and carry on their fight for a sovereign state.

But for the Zionists and their allies who have come to believe their own lies and propaganda, the final confrontation is seen as bringing them another step closer to their goal of a Greater Israel.

Friday, May 23, 2008


I notice that Margo Kingston’s Webdiary has chosen to publish a piece written by the academic fraudster and well known liar, Dylan Kissane, and fellow traveller Andrea Charron.

The piece glaringly demonstrates Kissane’s hypocrisy. He writes: “The real threats to international peace and security are no longer confined to violations of state sovereignty for which the UN collective security system was created,”

This is gross hypocrisy coming from Kissane considering that he whole-heartedly supported the US and its allies, including Australia under Howard, as they violated, in defiance of the UN and the peoples of the world, the sovereignty of the Iraqi state.

Their hypocrisy is further exposed by Angela Ryan’s response to Kissane and Charron’s post when Angela Ryan points out the many, many, other disasters and human miseries that the peoples of various states around the world have had to endure mostly as a result of US and their allies inaction due to these events not being in their interests to actually do anything about or not having been politically expedient for them to act upon at the time.

Kissane is a cunning manipulator who has the propensity to lie and cheat in order to get his fascist message across. Margo Kingston is aware of Kissane’s lies and his fraudulent ways yet still chooses to publish his work. One wonders how much influence Kingston’s brother, Hamish Alcorn who, like Kissane, is also a neoconservative and who has an equal propensity to lie, has had in allowing this piece of neocon propaganda nonsense to be published bearing in mind that this is the same Hamish Alcorn who is a signatory to the neoconservative front organisation, the Euston Manifesto, and the same delusional Hamish Alcorn that thinks that Stalin was actually a communist simply because he led the so-called ‘Soviet Communist Party’. (One wonders where in Alcorn’s mind that leaves Hitler who led the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party!)

It’s up to the peoples of the world to confront ALL of the woes of our world – not just the selected ones that the likes of liars and fraudsters like Kissane think should be confronted to suit their own political agendas. His piece is pure opportunistic hypocrisy that abuses the plight of suffering peoples for political ends. And a once admired Margo Kingston sinks further into the abyss of hypocrisy.

Sunday, May 18, 2008


Two months ago I enthusiastically wrote a short piece with the title “Sensational news – the Palestine Authority abandons the ‘two-state solution’ in favour of the one-state binational solution”. I wrote it based on an article that appeared in the ‘Jerusalem Post’ which told of a:

“…plan, drawn by Ziad Abu Ein, a senior Fatah operative and Deputy Minister for Prisoners' Affairs in the Palestinian Authority, states that the Palestinians have decided to implement United Nations Resolution 194 regarding the refugees.

Article 11 of the resolution, which was passed in December 1948, says that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

The initiative is the first of its kind and is clearly aimed at embarrassing Israel during the anniversary celebrations by highlighting the issue of the "right of return" for the refugees.

Entitled "The Initiative of Return and Coexistence," the plan suggests that the PA has abandoned a two-state solution in favour of one state where all Arabs and Jews would live together.”

The article went on to explain how the “…plan calls on the refugees to return to Israel on May 14, 2008 with their suitcases and tents so that they could settle in their former villages and towns. The refugees are also requested to carry UN flags upon their return and to be equipped with their UNRWA-issued ID cards.”

Well, I guess it was too much to ask for this to actually happen and, of course, it didn’t and, in retrospect, I should have realised that the article was in all probability simply an outrageous piece of propaganda from the Israelis designed to belittle such notions. However, the notion of a ‘one-state binational solution’ hasn’t died with the fantasy of Palestinian refugees turning up in their droves at Israeli airports.

As the failures of Bush’s efforts to establish a Palestinian State as part of a two-state solution become obvious and it becomes increasingly apparent that it is never going to happen, so more and more people throughout Palestine, both Palestinians and Israelis, are coming round to the idea that the one-state binational solution is, indeed, the only solution. A Palestinian State emerging on terms dictated by the Israelis and the US will never be accepted by the Palestinian people and, if it were to be enforced upon them, there would be, at worst, all out war between the Palestinians and their allies and the Israeli state, and, at best, simply more of what is happening now going on for more decades to come; a war that the Israelis cannot ever win.

Western leaders now need to recognise that the one-state solution can be the only viable long-term solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict. The quicker this is achieved the better for both the Palestinian and the Israeli people. It is imperative that the peoples of the world support the call for a one-state binational solution in Palestine and insist that their leaders push for such a state through the United Nations.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008


This piece in the New York Times by Edward Luttwak is a classic piece of racist neocon propaganda that demonstrates how close the neocons are to being in a state of blind panic over the likely outcome of the up-coming Presidential election.

Increasingly, as it seems more and more likely that Hilary Clinton is not going to get up with the Democrat nomination, the neocons have been concentrating massive amounts of their propaganda energies in trying to deride Barack Obama rather than in trying to promote their man, John McCain, signifying that even the neocons are starting to think that McCain is a lost cause.

Luttwak attempts to paint Obama with what Luttwak thinks is the kiss of death in US Presidential politics; connections to Islam – despite Obama having no connections to Islam. Luttwak’s attempt is transparent. Perhaps the attention of Americans should be turned to Luttwak himself rather than Obama.

Perhaps if readers knew that Edward Luttwak is, and has been for years, a committed neoconservative, warmonger itching to get the US to bomb Iran, and ultra right-wing Zionist whose interests and loyalties are focussed more toward Israel than they are to America, then they might read Luttwak’s comments about Obama from an entirely different perspective; one which emphasises Luttwak’s own agenda rather than what he’s trying to con the American people into thinking about Obama’s non-existent ulterior motives.

Meanwhile, over at the neocon comic Weekly Standard, anti-Obama propaganda has reached fever pitch. Neocon writer Stanley Kurtz pens a hit piece that tries to show Obama up as someone who knew exactly what Preacher Wright’s views were. Kurtz desperately and presumptuously writes: “Barack Obama must have long been aware of his pastor's political radicalism,” and; “It seems inconceivable that, in 20 years, Obama would never have picked up a copy of Trumpet.” Kurtz’s ravings are purely guesswork and have no foundation whatsoever.

Neocons are getting desperate. They know they are about to lose their grip on power – and with their powerbase gone, Israeli influence over the Middle East diminishes substantially.

Something is going to have to give. Let’s hope that sanity will prevail.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008


I’ve just got time for a quick comment today… well, more of an observation. I read this in today’s New York Times: “As American strikes on Shiite fighters in Baghdad have widened, Iran has suspended talks with the United States on Iraqi security, with the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Monday citing the continued offensive as the reason. The American forces have been responding to fire from Shiite militias in the Amel neighbourhood in western Baghdad.”

The bit that gets me is where it says: ‘American forces have been responding to fire from Shiite militias…’ It doesn’t occur to the Americans that it is they that are in a foreign country killing its inhabitants and that it is actually the inhabitants that are responding to invasion and occupation. If the US had been invaded by Iraq, would Americans have behaved any differently? Or if Australia was invaded by Iraq, would Australians not be fighting back – even if the Iraqi invader had seen to the demise of John Howard!