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.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009


At 5.00 pm Israeli time today Israel’s extreme right-wing government headed up by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be sworn in.

Netanyahu’s government will likely be the most overtly right-wing government the nation of Israel has ever had. It is outwardly racist, insisting that the state of Israel is exclusively a Jewish state, and has no intention whatsoever of ever allowing the Palestinian people to have a state of their own preferring instead to eventually be able to incorporate the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in to what they hope will become Greater Israel as the openly expansionist Zionists move into the West Bank and Jerusalem.

From this day on Israel’s declared enemies, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, together with Syria and Iran, should be prepared for attacks against them by Israel. Netanyahu has said that, “Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence”, and, referring to Hezbollah, added that, “The terrorist forces of Iran threaten us from the north. For decades, Israel has not faced such formidable challenges,” making it clear that war will be inevitable. Netanyahu and his right-wing cohorts have dedicated themselves to the destruction of all of Israel’s enemies.

Despite the change of Presidency in the US the world should be under no illusions about where President Obama stands. Obama might come across as the complete opposite to Bush’s warmongering ways but one can rest assured that, when push comes to shove, the US will be behind Israel regardless of what Israel does. When Israel decides to attack its enemies Obama will do all in his power to protect Israel regardless of how reckless or ill-advised Israeli action may seem. Once Netanyahu attacks his enemies, even if it is against the advice of Obama himself, the US will come to Israel’s aid especially if Israel is threatened by Iranian retaliation.

With the swearing in of the Netanyahu Israeli fascist government comes a new era of extreme danger for the Palestinian peoples and the peoples of the Middle East generally.

Thursday, March 26, 2009


Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband has announced that the British government will have an enquiry into the Iraq war at some time after most of the remaining British troops in Iraq return home after 31 July 2009.

While Andrew Porter of the UK ‘Daily Telegraph’ reports that “Number 10 strategists believe that announcing a full inquiry is vital in persuading the many Labour voters who turned away from the party after the 2003 invasion that the same mistakes will not be made again”, there are no details of how wide-ranging the enquiry is likely to be. Other reports, however, suggest that the enquiry will be held in private.

What is clear is that the enquiry will be more for political reasons inasmuch that it aims to attract those Labour voters that turned away from the party because of the invasion of Iraq rather than be a sincere enquiry into the true circumstances surrounding then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s insistence on allying Britain to Bush’s determination to invade Iraq and the ruses and downright lies that Blair used in his efforts to get British public opinion to support the invasion. One wonders, therefore, just how far the enquiry will really go in terms of making an effort to determine the extent of lies and falsehoods Blair and his pro-war supporters used to involve the UK in the war that a large majority of Britons did not support.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009


There seems to be a lot of mixed and confusing messages coming from President Obama over the last few days about what he plans to do about Afghanistan – and all seem to contradict each other in some way or another.

In the UK ‘Daily Mail’ there is a report that Obama is now beginning to talk in terms of there having to be an ‘exit strategy’, something that has rarely been mentioned over the last seven years since the Bush administration and their allies decided to invade the place.

Meanwhile, in an interview after having had talks with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Obama tells the world that ‘the war in Afghanistan will go on for years’ adding that the world must not back down in the face of “vicious killers”.

And to top off the confusion, not three weeks ago Obama was saying that “there could be talks with moderate elements of the Taleban in Afghanistan as part of a process of reconciliation”.

Obama seems to have little idea of what to do in Afghanistan.

The war has been raging there for over seven years now with the end result being that the Taliban is now enjoying a popular resurgence. It seems, while the Afghan people had very little time for the old style hard-line Taliban, they have even less time for the US and other foreigners that are on their dirt killing more and more of their innocent civilians, and being governed by a corrupt puppet government that has even less respect for the people of Afghanistan than the US claimed the Taliban had. But, despite the years of fruitless war, Obama has considered sending another 17,000 US soldiers there from Iraq just to become more canon fodder for a war that cannot be won.
His best options are to talk and come up with a quick exit strategy. But Obama is clearly confused and his aggressive talk will be welcomed by the warmongering hawks in our world. Rudd has told Obama that the war is not popular with Australians, especially over the last week or so when two more Australian soldiers were killed and three more badly wounded just today. Obama should also be aware that the war is not popular anywhere else in the world either, particularly in the US who are likely to bear the brunt of any increase in casualty numbers a result of any increase in troop numbers ‘surging’ the place.


When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published their book, ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ in 2007, the Israeli Zionists and their neocon supporters both in the US and around the world vehemently denied their was any such influential lobby and they even labelled Mearsheimer and Walt, and anyone else who agreed with them, as ‘anti-Semites’ for suggesting there was.

Earlier this month Chas Freeman, nominated for the position of chair of the US National Intelligence Council was forced to withdraw his acceptance of the position because of direct pressure from the Israel lobby in the US. What’s interesting is that the Israel lobby is now openly bragging about its success.

This success, however, seems to have confused the pro-Zionist hard right neocons. Writing in the US pro-Zionist neoconservative journal ‘Commentary’ this month, Jonathan Tobin says on the one hand:

Walt, in particular, and those who buy into his “Israel Lobby” thesis will take Freeman’s withdrawal as evidence that Israel’s friends have once again undermined U.S. foreign policy. In reality, all that has happened is that a pro-Saudi extremist who has no place in the government of a democratic nation was belatedly weeded out from a chaotic and poorly run administration. Rather than evidence of the “Lobby’s” hegemony, Freeman’s case shows that for all the talk about Obama’s competence replacing Bush’s incompetence, the Democrats are no slouches in coming up with lemons.

And then, on the other hand says this:

Freeman’s appointment didn’t collapse just because the pro-Israel right screamed bloody murder, though without the criticism that was heard from that quarter there is little doubt that Freeman might have slipped through. Rather, he’s gone because there are still more than enough pro-Israel Democrats in Congress who want nothing to do with a policy based on hostility to Israel.

What’s confused Tobin and his friends at Neocon Central is that they worked so hard at trying to deny any existence of an Israel Lobby after Mearsheimer and Walt published their book by demonising them as being anti-Semitic that now they have to continue their denial of An Israel lobby per se by saying that such decisions as pushing Chas Freeman out of the job are made because of America’s love for the Israeli-US relationship.

Neocons don’t adapt well to being exposed as liars and frauds; instead they simply plant their feet deeper into their mouths.

Monday, March 23, 2009


After more than seven years of war in which thousands have died, including 1117 coalition troops, the US and their allies, by considering appointing a ‘prime minister’ to bypass the originally appointed and now totally corrupt President Hamid Karzai, have conceded that there has been nothing achieved over those seven years of bloody war. This is simply one puppet leader being replaced by another while all along the US and their allies have been trying to tell the world that they wanted to capture bin Laden, oust the Taliban and bring democracy to the region.

Well, there’s been no democracy and now it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any for some time yet to come and, if the war goes on for much longer, it is going to be increasingly difficult to actually recall what it was all about in the first place. (Readers might recall the events of 11 September 2001 being blamed on people that came from a group whose leader was purportedly based in Afghanistan.) Well, that was the original reason we were told the US and their allies were going into Afghanistan but then George Bush lost interest in chasing the elusive Osama bin Laden as Bush turned his attention to invading Iraq. The propaganda shifted from specifically ‘let’s get bin Laden’ to the broader and more convenient ‘War on Terrorism’. But as time has gone by the world saw that it wasn’t so much a ‘war against terrorism’ but more terrorism against the Afghan people by the Western coalition as horrifying stories of coalition attacks against innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan emerged. And, as for the ‘Taliban’, they are back now with a vengeance and stronger than ever they were before having morphed away from their original extremism and intent now on simply ridding their country of foreigners and those that have collaborated with them.

The Taliban resurgence has been so successful that some Western leaders have now resorted to the original propaganda line that suggested that failure to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan will result in terror attacks on, if Britains Prime minister Gordon Brown is to be believed, UK soil, and if Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is to be believed, even on Australian shores as well.

So, what’s it really all about? It’s about what it has always been about; hegemony over the regions natural resources. It never was about anything else.

Saturday, March 21, 2009


It didn’t take too long for Murdoch’s chief neocon propagandist, William Kristol of the neocon comic ‘The Weekly Standard’, to pen his response to President Obama’s televised offering of a tentative hand of peace.

According to Kristol, Obama didn’t offer the Iranian people ‘liberty’ nor ‘freedom’ nor ‘democracy’ nor ‘human rights’. The reason for that is because Obama doesn’t have it to offer. Every where else the neocons have talked about giving people these things has turned to utter disaster. Why would Obama offer more of the same to Iran?

And does Kristol really expect the Iranian people to welcome the US and their allies after having seen what they have done to Afghanistan and Iraq?

Liberty? Freedom? Democracy? Human Rights? Kristol has no idea what the words even mean. Kristol goes on:

Indeed, "the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations." Note: "the Islamic Republic of Iran." Does Obama routinely refer to Pakistan as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, its formal name? Of course not. But Obama goes out of his way to mention (twice) "the Islamic Republic of Iran." He's kowtowing to a regime that is anything but republican, implicitly forswearing any plan--any hope--of regime change to free the Iranian people.

Regime change? What regime change? Wasn’t it all about Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program?

Of course it’s about regime change. It has, for the Israelis and their neocon supporters, never ever been about anything else. Regime change in Iran means the Israelis get to have their Greater Israel sooner. Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas disappears and resistance by the Palestinians and the Lebanese to Israeli aggression all but disappears as well.
Kristol exposes the neocon and Israeli fraud – it’s not about Iran’s nuclear weapons program at all; it’s all about regime change.

Thursday, March 19, 2009


According to reports that began to emerge just a few days ago, the US air force claimed to have shot down an Iranian drone (unmanned aircraft) on 25 February 2009. Most reports say the drone was operating over an area some 60-70 miles northeast of Baghdad and was shot down after having operated over the area for 70 minutes. The US military identified the Iranian drone as an Ababil 3 unmanned aircraft. While the aircraft can be used as a type of flying bomb capable of delivering some 45kgs of explosives, its usual use is as a reconnaissance aircraft fitted out with cameras and other such equipment.

But, wearing my aeronautical engineers hat, here’s the problem with the story as the US is telling it: The Ababil 3 drone is capable of a speed of 300 kph and an operational radius of just 150 kms. or 300 kms. all-out straight flight range. Since the aircrafts maximum speed is only 300 kph this would give the aircraft an operational duration of just one hour (60 minutes) at full speed and full power yet we are told that the drone was flying around for 70 minutes and that, even if it included its flight time from the launch place in Iran to the place it was monitored operating over, is over the aircraft’s duration ability even if the motor had been throttled back to increase duration. And if the 70 minutes is the time it spent over the operational area and excluded the time it took to fly to there from the launch site in Iran, and presumably the time needed to fly the drone back to Iran for recovery, then we have a technical impossibility if we assume that the specs for the Ababil 3 are correct. (See ‘Janes All the Worlds Aircraft’.)

The US has not provided any physical evidence that supports their claim of having shot down the drone. Certainly there seems to be no photographic evidence of the wreckage that may identify the drone type. All we have is their claim.

To top it off there is also Iran’s denial that any of their drones was shot down over Iraq. While they are hardly likely to put their hands up and admit that they had, it does seem in this case that the US story has been fabricated as part of a propaganda campaign to prepare the West for the possibility of an attack against Iran in the future.


Readers are invited to contribute articles for this new blog aimed at exposing the biggest liars and propagandists behind the Murdoch media empire.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009


The other day Murdoch’s flagship Australian propaganda newspaper, ‘The Australian’, published another piece from the Australian Israeli Lobby shoving the ‘anti-Israel is anti-Semitism’ meme in support of the Australian Israel Lobby’s push to get Australia to withdraw from the Durban Review conference on racism.

In this case the article is aimed at the least well informed of Australian society and, appropriately enough, was written by an academic. Nick Dyrenfurth, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Sydney writes:

As I entered the grounds of the University of Sydney during Orientation Week, plastered across virtually every pole leading up to the university's entrance was a poster signed off by the far-left group Socialist Alternative.

Headlined "War: Why capitalism is to blame", the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine were presented as exhibits A, B and C. In the poster's foreground, a ubiquitous Uncle Sam figure loomed, his all-powerful hand resting on, you guessed it, his menacing pet bulldog, Israel.

The message was clear. Israel, the US's proxy in the Middle East, is to blame for all the problems of the Middle East, if not the woes of the world. Get rid of Israel and we'll all live happily ever after, presumably on a strict diet of lentils and tofu. The more serious and indeed frightening symbolism at play was the clearly racist, anti-Semitic linkage of Israel, and by association Jews, with the machinations of "evil" capitalism.

Here Dyrenfurth is attempting to be clever with his propaganda. He attempts to kill several birds with one stone linking, for example, Jews ‘by association’ with Israel. Well, of course, Israel is Jewish but that’s not to say that all Jews are Israeli which is what Dyrenfurth attempts to imply. There is also a not-so-subtle allusion to the ‘Far-left being anti-Semitic’. Dyrenfurth reinforces this notion with this which attempts to align the far-Left with the far-Right:

None of this of course is new. The far Left and, more often, the thugs of the far Right have long peddled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in which an all-powerful Zionist cabal controls the world's financial levers, a "fact" hidden, of course, by its control of Western media outlets and compliant governments.

Of course the far-Right have peddled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; that’s what they do. They are Jew-haters and have always been around. But to attempt to align the Left who are anti-Zionist with neo-Nazis and Jew-haters is just plain transparent and blatant Zionist propaganda and to suggest that the Left have peddled ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy theories’ is a deliberate lie.

The reality is this: Jew-hating Nazis have absolutely nothing in common with the anti-Zionism of the Left. Anti-Zionism is political, not racial, and is reviled by the Left for exactly the same reasons as the Left revile the politics of Nazism.

Dyrenfurth, far from being clever with his attempt to malign the Left at his university in order to promote lies and propaganda to support calls for Australia to boycott the Curban Review conference, merely exposes himself to be nothing more than just another Israeli Lobby propagandist who uses lies and deceit to push his pro-Zionist nonsense on Australians who don’t know any better.

Thankfully the world is beginning to wake up to this ‘anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism’ nonsense. Hopefully the world’s leaders will too.

This article is also posted at Murdoch’s Propagandists.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009


According to a report in Ha’aretz, Gabi Ashkenazi, the Israeli Defence Force Chief of Staff who has recently visited the US, said during his visit ‘that while Israel was interested in exhausting diplomatic options against Iran's nuclear program, the army must nevertheless prepare itself for a military attack’.

Israel is fond of frequently telling the world that it is the only real democracy in the region yet here is its unelected military commander visiting Israel’s greatest ally espousing what is essentially Israeli policy toward Iran.

If Ashkenazi had said something to the effect of; ‘Israel is preparing itself for the possibility of an attack against Iran if our government exhausts all diplomatic options against Iran’s nuclear program’ then (leaving aside any argument about why Israel is telling the world that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to them in the first place), such a statement would have been acceptable from even a military officer of a truly democratic nation. In this instance Ashkenazi would simply have been speaking as a messenger. However, in the original context as reported, Ashkenazi is displaying himself more as a political decider empowered to negotiate with the US about issues of Israeli foreign policy.

Now, this may seem like nitpicking and, if it were in isolation, it would be just that and it would not have been mentioned. The fact is though, it is not in isolation and Israel has a long history of its military playing a significant role in its political affairs. Indeed, many of Israel’s political leaders have come from military backgrounds; most notably Moshe Dyan and Ariel Sharon. Other military leaders have also been extremely influential in Israeli politics above and beyond merely offering advice to political leaders in the government. Both Dyan and Sharon before they became political leaders fell in to this category, while Dan Halutz, Israel’s defence chief during the 2006 Lebanon War also was politically influential though his failure to meet Israel’s war aims of destroying Hezbollah and occupying Lebanon up to the Litani river, aims that he himself had been a part of defining, eventually cost him dearly. Failure in Israel is rarely tolerated.

The military still have a very powerful political role to play in Israeli politics. It has the power to censor the media about its activities. It can enforce this censorship without recourse to the government unless the government changed the laws – which it would be unlikely to do on account of the military’s extensive influence. Since Israel seems always to be at war with somebody or another Israeli’s get to hear very little about some of the more unsavoury aspects of Israel activities against their enemies except as anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian propaganda.

Zionism dominates Israeli politics and Israeli ‘democracy’ tends only to revolve around the Zionist concept. Virtually all the political parties that are represented in the Knesset are staunchly Zionist. This means that Israelis get the opportunity in the main to vote only for Zionists with the only differences between them being the method by which a Greater Israel can be created and/or the concept of a Jews-only apartheid racist state can be maintained. The rest of the trappings of ‘democracy’ in Israel are a fa├žade. The military of any true democracy acts only in strict accordance with the instructions of the government. How the military operates is generally left up to the military but it does so within a framework clearly defined by government only policy. A military should advise on how best to achieve a governments desired outcome but not on what that outcome should be which is what Ashkenazi was advocating.

Israel, among other so-called ‘democratic’ nations, is a classic example of how the concept of the separation of powers has all but disappeared – to the detriment of humankind the world over.


Readers are invited to contribute articles for this new blog aimed at exposing the biggest liars and propagandists behind the Murdoch media empire.

Sunday, March 15, 2009


Though it might be hard to believe in the light of the recent warcrimes committed by Israel in the Gaza and the continued violence in both Afghanistan and Iraq what with the neocons calling for a massive increase in violence in Afghanistan, there is a definite trend away from thinking war all of the time and some consideration is now actually being given to talking.

The notion of actually talking to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran would have been out of the question just a few months ago but now there are some whispers trickling down through the mainstream media that some senior and influential advisors to Western governments are suggesting that it might be worth giving it a try.

‘Ha’aretz’ today reports that several senior officials and advisors including Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzenzinski and Paul Volcker, had written to President Obama before he took office saying that there is no reason that they could see why there can’t be talks with Hamas. Tony Blair, Britain’s ex-Prime Minister and warmonger-in-chief for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as early as the end of last January thought it was a good idea to talk to Hamas. And, taking the idea of talking just a step further, Britain’s Foreign Office has even suggested talking to Hezbollah though this may have been pushing the friendship (with the US and Israel) just a bit too far. Nonetheless, the idea was there, and it simply wouldn’t have been just a few months ago.

And, of course, Obama wanting talks with the mortal enemy of Israel and the neocons, Iran, is already very well known. Who knows; next they might well be talking about talking with the Taliban – the moderate ones, that is. (Who would have believed just a few months ago that there were any ‘moderate’ Taliban? My, how the rhetoric is changing.)

And, just to top it off, Hamas and Fatah are talking about talking, albeit rather tentatively and in an on-again-off-again sort of way, but, at least talking about talking.

If all this talking actually happens then it will most definitely leave Israel out on a limb. But that’s another story.


Readers are invited to contribute articles for this new blog aimed at exposing the biggest liars and propagandists behind the Murdoch media empire.

Friday, March 13, 2009


The UN Durban Review Conference, billed as a ‘World Conference against Racism, Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance’, due to begin in Geneva on 20 April, is shaping up to be one that exposes who exactly the worlds most racist nations actually are – by them being conspicuous by their absence.

Naturally, Israel will not be there. Nor will the US be there. Nor Canada. And now it looks like Australia may not be there either. As one Ha’aretz reader points out; “What do the U.S., Canada, Australia and Israel all have in common? All were created through ethnic cleansing and apartheid. No wonder they all stick together.”

It will come as no surprise to learn that other countries that have threatened to also boycott the conference include the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France and, with the irony noted, Germany; all nations that over the past few centuries have demonstrated their own propensity to establish racially orientated empires. And, of course, all of them are now supporters of the racist Jews-only apartheid state of Zionist Israel.


Readers are invited to contribute articles for this new blog aimed at exposing the biggest liars and propagandists behind the Murdoch media empire.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009


The issue of Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ continues to be propped up by the Israeli propaganda machine and is unlikely to be resolved until, if Israel has its way, Iran has been bombed into regime change.

Unfortunately – for the Israelis at least – and fortunately for the rest of the sane world, it seems as though the more sensible and realistic members of the US intelligence community’s hierarchy are raining on Israel’s ‘lets bomb Iran’ parade by telling the US Congress that Iran does not have any material with which they can build a bomb; that Iran is not known to have any facilities by which it is able to produce uranium enriched to the levels required for a nuclear weapon; that Iran has not made any decision to build a nuclear weapon, and that Irans recent launching of the Safir Space Launch Vehicle, while helpful in ballistic missile technology, was unrelated to Iran’s current nuclear project.

The US intelligence officials that spoke to Congress, Dennis Blair, who is Director of National Intelligence, and Lieutenant General Michael Maples, director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, also ceded that it would not be in Russia’s interest to allow Iran to be nuclear armed inferring that Russia would hardly be likely to be assisting Iran with its nuclear energy program if it believed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program.

Messrs. Blair and Maples have effectively, for now at least, put a big dampener on Israel’s expectations of direct support from the US with regard to any imminent military action against Iran.

However, it does not preclude Israel from taking unilateral pre-emptive action against Iran; though Israel, while it may have the means to destroy some of Irans nuclear sites, does not have anywhere near the wherewithal to bomb Iran into ‘regime change’ short of using nuclear weapons.

Israel would now be taking a big gamble if it were to decide to unilaterally attack Iran in the hope that, in order to prevent an Iranian counter attack or retaliation, the US would feel an obligation, no matter the reluctance, to come to Israel’s aid by launching a massive aerial bombardment against Iran in the hope of deterring further Iranian retaliatory attacks against Israel.

Any war instigated by Israel against Iran is likely to escalate rapidly and ultimately involve the US. It can only be hoped that the words of cooler realistic heads in Washington DC will be heard in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The reaction by the Zionist propaganda in the Israeli and US press will soon tell us if they’ve listened or not but with Benjamin Netanyahu waiting in the wings to become Israel’s Prime Minister, one should not be holding ones breath. There still some very dangerous days ahead despite Israel’s party having been rained on.

Wednesday, March 04, 2009


The international community has managed to raise some $5.2 billion for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip but the people of the Gaza Strip are unlikely to see much of it, if any at all.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it quite clear that no monies will be made available to Hamas who govern the Gaza but only to President Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority (PA). This straightaway presents a dilemma for the international community since the PA has no authority whatsoever in the Gaza Strip since it was booted out in June 2007 after trying to usurp political power from the elected Hamas government.

For years Fatah have been known to be corrupt to the core; indeed, to a large extent it was Fatah’s corruption that gave Hamas victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections in the first place. Why then would the international community want to hand over $5.2 billion to an organisation that has a long history of being corrupt?

The answer is simple: The promise of money (no one has actually coughed up the money yet; it has only been pledged) is being used for political purposes and has little to do with the actual reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. It is cynically being used to manipulate a series of political outcomes that will benefit only Israel, not least of which will be the hopeful sidelining of Hamas as a political power in the Gaza.

With Hamas unlikely to cede power in the Gaza to the Fatah-run PA, Israeli propaganda, backed by the western media, will accuse Hamas of denying the Gazan people of the prospect of rebuilding the Gaza. Israel will then close up the borders to put more pressure on Hamas to capitulate which, in turn, will result in more rockets and mortars being fired into Israel and so the whole cycle of violence and destruction is perpetuated yet again. The aim ultimately is for a situation to evolve whereby Israel, which by then will be under an extreme right-wing Zionist regime, will tell the world that it has no option but to permanently occupy all of the Gaza Strip and transfer the Palestinians ‘for their own good’ elsewhere.

The world must demand that Israel opens its borders and the world must accept the authority of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. There will be no reconstruction in the Gaza until these demands are made and accepted.

Monday, March 02, 2009


Not content with attempting to bomb the Gazans into rejecting Hamas, now they’re going to try and buy the Gazans into rejecting Hamas.

The Israelis tried to destroy Hamas by deliberately bombing the Gazan people together with their homes, their means of industrial and agricultural production and by destroying their utilities infrastructure. The Israelis literally tried to terrorise the Gazan people into rejecting Hamas as their government in an effort to get the people to support the far more compliant Fatah movement that currently controls the West Bank under the tenuous leadership of Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. Their attempts, however, despite the destruction and the massive and horrific casualties, failed miserably.

Now, in the light of that failure, Israel’s bankers, the US government, has followed up very conveniently with plan ‘B’. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is offering a massive bribe to the Gazan people of around a billion dollars, but with a catch; only the Palestinian Authority gets to spend it on reconstructing the Gaza. The aim, quite blatantly, is to ‘sideline’ Hamas.

Apart from wanting to sideline Hamas, one has to wonder what makes Secretary Clinton believe that Fatah are the right people to give this money to. For years Fatah have been known to be corrupt to the core; indeed, it was as much Fatah’s corruption that gave Hamas victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections in the first place. The Gazan people know that if Abbas and the Palestinian Authority get their hands on the money, very little of it will actually end up rebuilding the Gaza.

One of the reasons Hezbollah’s popularity increased in Lebanon after the 2006 Israeli attack against the Lebanese people, and despite the carnage the Israelis inflicted, was Hezbollah’s massive effort in reconstruction. However, Hamas has not been in the same position as Hezbollah and has been hamstrung in their efforts to attempt to rebuild the Gaza due to the blockade by Israel. What little money Hamas had tried to bring into the Gaza, money raised by donations to the Gazan people, to help get the economy going was stolen at the border between the Gaza and Egypt by the Egyptian authorities.

This blatant attempt by the US to get the Gazan people to abandon Hamas will be as much a failure as the Israelis attempt to bomb them into rejecting Hamas. Surely now it must be obvious to the leaders of the world that if there is going to be any headway at all then Hamas must be included. But, of course, we know exactly what Israel’s true intentions are; nothing less than the destruction of not just Hamas but also the Palestinian people in the Gaza as part of the process of creating a Greater Israel that includes the Gaza Strip for colonisation by Israelis only.