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, May 27, 2009


A bill passed a preliminary reading through the Knesset on Wednesday ‘that would mandate the imprisonment of anyone who calls for the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state’ according to a report in the ‘Jerusalem Post’.

If the bill goes through it could mean that Israelis that are interested in the one-state bi-national solution will be silenced or face imprisonment. Since much of the push for a one-state solution must come as much from the Israeli people as it does from the Palestinian people and the rest of the world including Jews throughout the Diaspora, the bill could become a major stumbling block for all those that seek peace there.

The right-wing Zionists that are pushing this bill are doing so to ensure that a one-state solution can never be openly supported in Israel because to do so would require calling for Israel to become a non-Jewish state. Since a two-state solution, despite Obama’s insistence, is never going to happen, the bill clearly is a blatant attempt to stifle all calls for a Palestinian state of any kind.

Furthermore, if the bill is successful, it may have severe repercussions on Diaspora Jews who support a one-state solution and occasionally travel to Israel. It is not clear yet if in these circumstances if a Diaspora Jew could face arrest when touching Israeli soil. Nor is it clear if an Israeli citizen calling for a one-state solution outside of Israel could also be arrested upon returning to Israel.

The proposal demonstrates the extent to which Israel has lurched to the right and how much closer to becoming a fascist state Israel under Netanyahu has become. It is time the true voice of Diaspora Jews who would like to see real peace prevail in the region to make their voices heard over and above those of the tiny but vocal right-wing Zionist lobby groups that tend to dominate Jewish opinion in the Western world.

Rally against this bill and rally for a one-state solution which is fast becoming the only solution. The Zionists are pushing this bill for one reason and one reason only – fear.



Just a quick one for now. ‘Commentary’ writer Michael Totten has a look at the latest story about who might have killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Totten writes: “Either Der Spiegel’s sources are taking the magazine for a ride, or the evidence against Hezbollah is authentic.” Totten also says: “The impression I've gotten is that it would be largely a political move, a way to nail Hezbollah – and by association Iran – while largely letting Syria off the hook in the interests of promoting this fantasy-world 'rapprochement' with Damascus. Everyone I've heard discussing this still believes Syria did it.”

Neglected entirely in his musings is the fact that the most likely culprit is Israel’s Mossad; Israel, after all, had the most to gain from the crime and Hezbollah the least while Syria would have lost a lot more than it gained.

Isn’t it odd how the ‘Der Spiegel’ piece hinting that the UN tribunal have pointed the finger at Hezbollah should come out now on the eve of the Lebanon elections. And not a quoted source to be seen to back up this monumental accusation.

Saturday, May 23, 2009


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is just itching to find an excuse to attack Iran and what better way than to try what his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, tried in 2006 – provoke Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon by getting them to retaliate with minor incidents to Israeli border provocations and then use this as an excuse to launch massive attacks against both.

Olmert failed in 2006, not through lack of effort, but because Hezbollah didn’t use its Iranian-built ordnance against Israel and Iran refrained from any direct, other than verbal, support to Hezbollah and Hamas. Nearly three years later Netanyahu awaits his opportunity. He knows that he will not be able to strike against Iran first because Obama has made it quite clear that he doesn’t support any Israeli unprovoked so-called preventative or pre-emptive attack against Iran.

This past week Israel conducted a full-scale ‘defence’ exercise simulating war with Hamas and Hezbollah indicating that this may be seen by the Netanyahu government as the most expedient way of getting Iran to act in such a way as to provide casus belli for Israel to attack Iran with US support.

The other alternative is for Israel to make such a lot of noise about a ‘pre-emptive’ attack on Iran that Iran makes a pre-emptive pre-emptive attack on Israel – hardly likely but, what would an Iranian attack against Israel look like? A massive explosion in the heart of Tel Aviv? A missile attack alarm going off two minutes before the explosion? Maybe a second explosion of similar size elsewhere? Follow it up with propaganda about ‘Iranian pre-emptive attack’ and, voila! Instant casus belli. Why not? The Zionists are quite happy to put their own people in harms way for the Zionist cause. They certainly had no qualms about putting the people of Ashkelon and Sderot in harms way by bombing the Palestinians in the Gaza knowing full well that Palestinian fighters would launch retaliatory rocket strikes against the Israelis. It’s exactly what the Israeli military wanted them to do in order to create their casus belli to launch their devastating onslaught against the Gazan people in 2008/09. There’s no chicken and egg question here; sixty years of Israeli aggression against the Gazan people demonstrate adequately that the Gazans were responding to Israeli aggression and deprivations, not the other way round – unless, of course, one believed the Israeli propaganda.

There is no option now for the Israelis but for the Iranians to be seen casting the first stone. Without that there can be no attack against Iran.


Friday, May 22, 2009


President Obama and his administration have created an air of intransigence over Israel’s desire to attack Iran. However, one wonders if this is merely a feint to create an impression of intransigence whereby Obama and his administration prefer not to be seen actually advocating or supporting military action against Iran but, rather, be seen to be going down the diplomatic road to peace instead.

Peace is the last thing that Netanyahu and his right-wing Zionist followers want. Peace will deprive them of any reason to remain in the West Bank. It may force them to give up the Golan Heights. The waters of the Litani River will become inaccessible forever. A Palestinian state will ultimately be Hamas dominated and the Gaza will be lost forever. Peace could also be a stepping stone toward a single state which ultimately will be dominated by Palestinians.

Obama has had no choice but to publicly show himself to be diametrically the opposite of everything that George W. Bush was. He was elected to the Presidency on that basis. He must placate both American and world public opinion in order to demonstrate that he is a President of change.

But beneath the bluster of change and peace and diplomacy there remains a President that unswervingly supports Israel before all else. If push comes to shove Obama will not hesitate to support Israel. The Netanyahu knows this intimately. Obama said as much to him last Monday when they met. All that Israel needs now is to be shoved.

Obama has made his position abundantly clear. The onus is now firmly on Israel to make the decision about a strike against Iran but the US cannot be seen to support a unilateral ‘preventative’ or ‘pre-emptive’ strike without good cause. This leaves Israel only two options: One, it can sit and wait for some situation to develop that will provide a casus belli for them to strike, or two, they can create some situation that will provide casus belli to attack.

In the past Israel has always been the aggressor while posing as the victim. In late June 2006 Israel massively attacked the Gaza Strip over the capture of a single Israeli conscript. The capture of Gilad Shalit served as the casus belli for Israeli jets to destroy much of Gaza’s infrastructure in an operation called Summer Rains aimed primarily at provoking Hezbollah and Iran to re-act. The provocation was reinforced when Israeli jets flew over the Syrian Presidential place in Damascus on the same day Israel attacked the Gaza.

A little over two weeks later, on 12 July 2006, Israel found excuse to also attack Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Two Israeli soldiers who had been part of a reconnaissance patrol in south Lebanon had been captured after a small fire-fight. The Israelis claimed that the two soldiers were ‘kidnapped’ from inside Israel close to the border and used this as an excuse to launch a massive aerial bombardment of Lebanon that killed over a thousand civilians and destroyed thousands of homes and Lebanese infrastructure. The bombardment lasted for over four weeks. The US refused to intervene despite the international outcry over its barbarity. Clearly, the Israelis were hoping by attacking Hezbollah to provoke Iran in to some kind of retaliation, perhaps by providing Hezbollah with more sophisticated missiles to launch against Israel; an action which the Israelis and the US could then use as a casus belli to strike Iran. Iran resisted and Israel’s attempt at creating a casus belli to strike Iran failed.

Ever since even before the creation of Israel they have made use of the ‘false flag’ technique of creating and manipulating affairs and events that they have subsequently used as a legitimate excuse to attack their enemies in the quest to expand and create their Greater Israel.

Now Israel needs once again to find casus belli to attack Iran. They have tried the simple propaganda of claiming that Iran has something it hasn’t just as it did with Iraq and its non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Now, even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, they are trying once again to insist that Iran is intent on creating a nuclear weapon with which, so the Zionists claim, they can specifically destroy Israel.

Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran know exactly what Israel’s game is and are not biting – just as Iran did not bite when Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006. Now Israel must find some other way to provoke Iran but it can be seen as an overt provocation. Instead, Israel must find a way of making it look as though Iran is doing the provocation. It is the only way that Israel will be able to get the US to support an attack against Iran – it would be absolutely impossible for Israel to do it without US support.
Creating a false flag event is now Israel’s only option if it is to strike at Iran. The US will not be interested in any so-called ‘preventative’ or ‘pre-emptive’ strike. However, a major ‘Iranian-sponsored’ Hezbollah ‘attack’ against either Israel or the US or both might just do the trick.


I’m not sure what Stephen ‘Smokey’ Hayes over at Murdoch’s neocon comic ‘The Weekly Standard’ has been puffing on this time but it seems to either hallucinatory or, more likely, just a little something that induces delusions.

In his latest piece he seems to think that Cheney, despite being ‘unpopular’ (try ‘despised’) is winning the debate on where US national security policy should be going. Smokey just loves Cheneyspeak and is keen to quote his most disgusting hate and arrogance utterings:

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.”

al Qaeda terrorists? What al Qaeda terrorists? The vast majority the US has locked up down Guantanamo way are innocent of any crime; but, hey, why would Cheney, Smokey and all their warmongering mates let a little thing like ‘innocence’ get in the way of all the fun they have waterboarding them?

Then there’s this piece of arrogance that Smokey quotes:

“The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy.”

Cheney, Smokey and the rest of the neocon gang at ga-ga land couldn’t care less if their so-called policies ‘generated controversy’ or not; they’d just go right ahead and do it anyway.

Cheney’s not ‘winning the debate’; rather, Obama is losing it to him. The vast majority of American detest Cheney and detest the notion of torture, recognising that it flies in the face of all that America is supposed to be and what most Americans believe in.

The neocon loon Smokey Hayes might like to think Cheney’s winning the debate but the reality is the people of America have already heard the debate and made their choice at the last Presidential election. Cheney’s ilk lost the debate and lost the election. The fact that Obama’s going back on the mandate the American people gave him has nothing to do with the criminal Cheney ‘winning the debate’.

But don’t tell Smokey; he’ll wake up to reality just as soon as whatever he’s been puffing on wears off.


Tuesday, May 19, 2009


You have to wonder why they even bothered since it was so clear that the meeting was intended only to be a public relations exercise from the outset.

Obama is only making noises about ‘talks’ with Iran in an effort to keep public opinion on side. The reality is; there’s nothing to actually talk about. The US knows full well there’s no nuclear weapons program to talk about. So do the Israelis. So what’s to talk about?

Obama has paved the way for an Israeli strike when he asked Israel not to surprise the US with an attack ‘out of the blue’. Netanyahu has promised he won’t – he’ll let the US know first. Of course, Netanyahu would have no option but to let the US know first. A surprise unilateral attack against Iran without the US knowing about it would not be at all possible considering all the logistics of such an attack. So, if there is such an attack and Obama says stuff like ‘I didn’t know about it’ or ‘it’s as much a surprise to me as it is to the rest of world’, you’ll know he’s lying. Obama, like his predecessor George W. Bush, refuses to take the option of a strike against Iran over its so-called nuclear weapons program, ‘off the table’. Obama has also said just days ahead of his meeting with Netanyahu with regard to Israel’s stance on Iran, “I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are”.

And what of the ‘Two-state solution’? Obama also knows full well that Netanyahu has always said there will never be a Palestinian state while he has anything to do with it. Yet Obama seems obliged to be nice about it and, for the sake of public opinion, feels obliged to ask Netanyahu about it knowing what the answer will be: ‘More talks’. Obama isn’t demanding a Palestinian state; he’s simply asking Netanyahu nicely if he’ll at least think about it. And, as if to emphasise Obama’s powerlessness in the face of Zionism, at virtually the same time as they’re talking about a Palestinian state, Israel are giving the go ahead to build a brand new settlement in the West Bank.

The status quo hasn’t changed. Netanyahu is just as determined as ever to effect ‘regime change’ in Iran and Obama is just playing with words to placate public opinion while, at the same time, going along with the Zionists ploy. Obama’s ‘talks with Iran’ is as big a play for time as Netanyahu’s ‘talks with the Palestinians’.

A strike against Iran is as likely now as it ever was. And, when it happens, the US, despite all of Obama’s rhetoric, will be there to facilitate it.


Friday, May 15, 2009


There’s been an interesting change in article headline in Ha’aretz today. The original headline for an article dealing with the story of President Obama’s demand that Israel not launch a surprise attack on Iran read thus:

“Israel vows not to surprise U.S. with strike on Iran”.

Later, however, the headline for the same word for word article ominously read:

“Israel: U.S. will know before any Iran strike”.

The not too subtle change in wording is ominous because it simply means that Netanyahu wants to keep his own options open about attacking Iran. While it may seem as though Obama has asked Netanyahu not launch a surprise attack against Iran, the reality is that what Obama was actually saying was ‘don’t do it without telling us first’. By asking Netanyahu not to ‘surprise the US with an attack on Iran’, he wasn’t actually saying ‘don’t attack Iran’.

The fact is Israel couldn’t possibly attack Iran without the US knowing all about it well in advance. Just about all the munitions and military jet fuel needed for the operation would be supplied by the US. Even if the Israelis initiated an attack on Iran via Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from their Dolphin class submarines, the Israelis would need to have prepared their air force with huge amounts of fuel and ordnance to counter the Iranian retaliatory strikes against Israel not to mention to counter the probable rocket attacks from Hezbollah in south Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza.

Obama’s ‘let’s talk to the Iranians about their nuclear weapons program’ rhetoric is just that – rhetoric. Obama knows full well that Iran is no threat to Israel or anyone else. He knows full well that Iran has no ‘nuclear weapons program’.

Obama is playing the world for suckers. He’s trying to present himself as ‘Mister Nice Guy’ for the Western World saying ‘look at me, I’m trying to get the Middle East to talk about peace’ while he knows full well that he and his administration are looking for regime change in Iran – and he knows just the guys to instigate it because, after all his talk of ‘talk’, the US now can’t actually instigate an attack itself.

All Israel needs to do now is create a casus belli.

And the Israelis are expert at that.


Thursday, May 14, 2009


The big question is not ‘if’ Israel will attack Iran – it will sooner or later – but more a question of how it will attack Iran and what will precipitate the attack.

A report today in the ‘Jerusalem Post’ claims that the Israeli Air force have been practicing dog-fights between their F-16s and MiG-29s of a type similar to the 40 or so MiG-29s the Iranian air force operate. The report also stated that the F-16s have been flying under maximum all-up weight conditions with full fuel and armaments simulating long-range mission flying.

However, when one considers the logistics of an Israeli attack on Iran, one is left wondering if the job is even at all possible. The main problem is the route the aircraft will have to take to get to Iran.

The shortest route, of course, is the direct one, but this route, from probably either the Ramet David air base or the Hatzerim air base in Israel to the various targets around Iran is around 1600 kilometres and would involve overflying at least Jordan and Iraq. Since the F-16 aircraft only have a combat radius of around 550 kilometres at best, an out and back sortie to targets over Iran will require around four or five 5 refuels. In itself, this is not a problem; the Israeli air force has a number of in-flight refueller tanker aircraft. The problem is that the refueller aircraft will have to either wait inside hostile airspace over Iran to refuel strike aircraft that have had to attack targets in eastern and maybe north-eastern Iran or wait in international airspace over the Persian Gulf or further east over the Arabian Sea. Either way, they will be vulnerable to Iranian anti-aircraft missiles and/or Iranian fighters. This means that the tanker aircraft will need a fighter escort – hence the dog-fight practice with MiG-29s. The tankers, however, will only be important targets for the Iranians as the Israeli strike force is in-coming rather than when they are leaving when, one assumes, the damage has been done and therefore not worth the Iranians losing aircraft to a withdrawing strike force.

Whether or not Israel would be able to persuade Jordan to allow Israeli strike aircraft to overfly Jordan is questionable. If Israel did decide to go the direct route it may consider it too much of a security risk to ask the Jordanians and may consider it easier to simply do it without their permission and worry about the diplomatic consequences later. Overflying Iraq will be even more of a problem than overflying Jordan. If the Iraqi government have anything to do with it then it simply won’t happen. The US is unlikely to allow it if for no other reason than it will immeasurably set back relations between Iraq and the US with the possibility of triggering a massive backlash against the Iraqi government and US forces.

Given these considerations, it is unlikely that Israel will be able to make a pre-emptive unilateral strike against Iran by the direct route that involves overflying Jordan and Iraq.

It would seem that the only way Israel could possibly make a pre-emptive unilateral strike against Iran would be by covertly deploying its submarine fleet – Israel has three Dolphin class submarines – to the Arabian Sea from where it could launch a Tomahawk cruise missile attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The problem here though is that cruise missiles do not have the capacity to do the kind of damage required to completely destroy all of Iran’s facilities, many of which are well protected underground.

However, since Israel is fully aware of the fact that Iran actually has no nuclear weapons program, despite the propaganda and rhetoric claiming they do, it may well be that Israel is willing to go down this route if only to trigger a response from the Iranians that will either drag in the US to a rapidly escalating conflict or, at least, get the US to allow an air strike against Iranian governmental and defence institutions with the hope that the US will join the fight later as the Iranians threaten or initiate retaliation.

The submarine scenario could well be a starter especially considering the logistical problems associated with a direct air strike. It may also turn out that the ‘practice’ dog-fights and all-up weight fully loaded flying is just a feint to get the Iranians to prepare for an aerial assault when really the Israelis are planning a cruise missile attack to be followed up by an aerial assault.

The Israelis do have a number of other alternatives to initiating a strike against the Iranians. While the indirect provocation method, which is where Israel creates a fake or weak casus belli to attack Hezbollah or Hamas in order to drag in Iran, hasn’t worked so far in creating circumstances where Israel could claim being threatened by Iran because of either Hezbollah of Hamas actions, it might be willing to give this method another try. Firstly, it has the advantage of killing several birds during one big confrontation rather than a few little risky wars that may or may not work in Israel’s favour and turning public opinion even further against them. At least with the final confrontation scenario it is fait accompli and, in the end, it is all over and done with one way or the other. It will also guarantee US involvement even though the US may be reluctant; it may well be forced into a position where it has no option but to support Israel in knocking out Iran.

Alternatively, the Israelis may consider trying some kind of false flag operation against either Israel or the US, though more likely against Israel considering the current slight thawing of relations between Iran and the US, which will give Israel casus belli to directly attack.

Whatever way the Israelis find to attack their enemies, the world can be assured that it is only a matter of time and, as usual, the Israelis will play the role of victim in doing so.

For the Zionists, regime change in Iran is essential for their endgame of a Greater Israel. Irans non-existent nuclear weapons program is the ploy; all they need to do now is find a casus belli that suits their propaganda needs or to play the fait accompli card or both.


President Obama has sent a message to Netanyahu telling him not to ‘surprise him’ with a strike against Iran.

The reality is; there is no way the Israelis could ‘surprise’ the US any way. Israel will need massive amounts of military jet fuel stockpiled for such an attack and its aftermath which it gets from the US. Most of the munitions needed for such a strike also comes from the US. There is no way that Israel can fly any missions over Iraq without US permission if the Israelis choose to attack Iran by strike aircraft. Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines also come from the US though Israel may have already stockpiled these.

There are few options left if Israel is determined to strike Iran. Only a false flag attack against Israel or a provoked war against Hezbollah and/or Hamas will now get the US on side for Israel to attack Iran.


Wednesday, May 13, 2009


Michael B. Oren, the American-born and educated, and soon-to-be Israeli ambassador to the US, has a well established history of being a lackey for far-right Zionism and his most recent article, which has appeared in the latest issue of the neoconservative magazine ‘Commentary’, posits him clearly and firmly in the warmongering neocon camp of US and Zionist politics.

Born Michael Bornstein in upstate New York in 1955 and educated in the US, Oren has always been an ardent supporter of Zionism having been an activist in various Zionist Youth organisations while at school in the US and having made his first visit to Israel when he was 15 when he went to work on a Kibbutz. He studied for his degree at Columbia University where he went on to earn a Masters in International Studies in 1978. He then migrated to Israel in 1979 where he stayed for a few years during which time he joined the IDF. After his service with the IDF he returned to the US to complete a PhD in Near East Studies at Princeton University which he received in 1986.

During his service with the IDF he saw action as a paratrooper in the 1982 Lebanon war. Later, as a reservist and having returned to Israel after the completion of his research, Oren served as a liaison officer to the US Sixth Fleet during the 1991 Gulf War. During the 2006 Israeli assault on Hezbollah and Lebanon, Oren again served with the IDF Reserves, this time as an army spokesman. And latterly during the onslaught against the Gazan people in December 2008 and January 2009, Oren again was called up as a reservist when he was charged with presenting the Israeli army’s lies in the effort to avoid warcrimes charges being laid against the IDF as he himself explains in an article written as the onslaught got underway.

In his latest piece Oren reflects the thinking of the Netanyahu government and what it has in store for the people of the region. Oren calls his article ‘Seven Existential Threats’. Basically it’s a simple entreaty about ‘Israel the victim’ - again. Oren starts his list of ‘existential threats’ with this: “The preservation of Jerusalem as the political and spiritual capital of the Jewish state is vital to Israel’s existence.” This, of course, is pure nonsense. Jerusalem might well be the spiritual centre of the Jewish religion – as, indeed, it is for Christians, and also an important centre for Muslims as well – but to say that Israel’s existence depends on Jerusalem being the ‘political capital of the Jewish state’ is plain racist arrogance that demonstrates the Zionist contempt for other religions.

Next, Oren lists ‘The Arab Demographic Threat’ as being a threat to the Jewish state of Israel. Here Oren again displays his racism that is so typical of neocon Zionism. He writes: “Israel, the Jewish State, is predicated on a decisive and stable Jewish majority of at least 70 percent. Any lower than that and Israel will have to decide between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. If it chooses democracy, then Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist.” This statement is a very thinly veiled threat that says that there will come a point that Israelis will have to forego democracy in order to maintain its Jewishness.

Oren then goes on to say: “Ideally, the remedy for this dilemma lies in separate states for Jews and Palestinian Arabs”, but then adds, “The basic conditions for such a solution, however, are unrealizable for the foreseeable future. The creation of Palestinian government, even within the parameters of the deal proposed by President Clinton in 2000, would require the removal of at least 100,000 Israelis from their West Bank homes. The evacuation of a mere 8,100 Israelis from Gaza in 2005 required 55,000 IDF troops—the largest Israeli military operation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War—and was profoundly traumatic. And unlike the biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria, which is now called the West Bank, Gaza has never been universally regarded as part of the historical Land of Israel.” Clearly, the Zionists do not have any intention of withdrawing the settlements from the West Bank which they regard as being a part of Israel and nor do they have any intention of allowing a Palestinian state.

Oren then concedes that, without the possibility of a ‘two-state paradigm’, “…international pressure will grow to transform Israel into a binational state”, and that “This would spell the end of the Zionist project.”

Curiously, what’s important here is not so much what Oran says but more what he doesn’t say, and that is; what will the Zionists do about what they consider to be their predicament.

Interestingly, Oren also lists ‘Delegitimisation’ as an existential threat. By ‘Delegitimisation’ he means the world is slowly waking up to the reality of Zionism as a virulent form of racist nationalism on a par with South African apartheid and twentieth century Nazism. He writes: “Most recently, Israel has been depicted as an apartheid state, effectively comparing the Jewish State to South Africa under its former white supremacist regime,” and continues saying, “Many of Israel’s counterterrorism efforts are branded as war crimes, and Israeli generals are indicted by foreign courts.”

Talking of ‘terrorism’, Oren also mentions that resistance to Israeli expansionism is an ‘existential threat’ to Israel. This, of course, is pure Chutzpah that is typical of Zionist propaganda. To them everyone that raises their hand to resist Israeli expansionism is labelled a Jew-hating ‘terrorist’.

Currently, the greatest ‘existential threat’ to Israel according to the Zionists and their neoconservative allies is Iran. The Iranian ‘threat’ is multi-faceted according to Oren. He writes: “The principal sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran is inextricably linked to the terrorist threat. But when the Islamic Republic achieves nuclear weapons-capability—as early as this year, according to Israeli intelligence estimates—the threat will amplify manifold.”

Iran certainly does support Hamas and Hezbollah in their resistance to Israeli expansionism but to say that Iran is about to achieve ‘nuclear weapons-capability as early as this year’ is blatant scaremongering. Neither Israeli intelligence, nor any other intelligence organisation in the world, have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program let alone being on the brink of ‘nuclear weapons-capability as early as this year’.

Oren also bemoans Israel’s own sovereign powers saying that “A significant percentage of Knesset members, Arabs and Jews, do not recognize the validity of the state they serve. Some actively call for its dissolution. Israel is, quite simply, haemorrhaging sovereignty and so threatening its continued existence as a state.” While he also cynically writes that “Over 100 outposts have been established illegally in the West Bank, and Jewish settler violence perpetrated against Palestinian civilians and Israeli security forces is now regarded as a major threat by the IDF”, Oren goes on to hint at Israel having to “draw its eastern boundaries unilaterally”, that is to say; Israel will simply take chunks of the West Bank that they want for themselves saying: “The new borders should include the maximum number of Jews, of natural and strategic assets, and of Jewish holy places”, which will effectively eliminate any concerns he has about ‘Israeli sovereignty’.

Oren ends his list of what he considers are Israel’s seven ‘existential threats’ with the charge of corruption against ‘major Israeli leaders’. In this regard, Oren displays his own self-righteousness. Corruption virtually built Israel but for Oren, his concerns are not so much about morality, but more about it ‘emboldening Israel’s enemies and sullying Israel’s international reputation’.

Michael Oren is nothing more than a fanatical secular Zionist. If he were nothing more than that then world would have nothing to fear. However, he is about to become Israel’s next ambassador to the US. This gives him much power and, far more importantly since he is also an American with extensive contacts within the American hierarchy and ruling elites, massive influence within the corridors of power in Washington. Armed with the views he has expressed in his ‘Commentary’ article, he clearly is a man on a mission; a mission aimed only at creating the Zionist vision of Greater Israel that excludes any notion of any kind of Palestinian state but does entail a change of regime in Iran and the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Thr world is about to become an even more dangerous place. Oren’s extreme right-wing racist and nationalist views reflect the views of those that now govern Israel.

Peace will not get a chance with the likes of Oren at Israel’s helm. The one-state solution is the only solution.


Tuesday, May 12, 2009


There may have been a time when the two-state solution would have been useful if only as a stepping stone toward the inevitable single-state bi-national solution. However, what with the occupation of most of the West Bank by Israel, the building of the separation wall, Israeli road blocks everywhere throughout all of the West Bank, Israeli settlements springing up weekly, Israelis-only roads traversing and criss-crossing much of the West Bank to connect Israeli settlements, the gradual pushing out of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, the destruction of Palestinian farmlands, the ghettoising, systematic destruction of utilities and general terrorising of the Gaza Strip and its peoples, that time when a two-state solution might just have worked as part of a program where the lands could have become one again for all the peoples to live in has long, long past.

President Barack Obama is just the latest in a very long line of US Presidents that have tried their hand at creating peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. All before him have failed, and, especially in the light of the situation that prevails today in the region, there is absolutely no reason at all to believe that Obama has any more hope of succeeding than any of his predecessors had. In fact, in the prevailing circumstances, Obama is the least likely of all the Presidents to succeed.

Obama, it seems, has now all but given up talking about a ‘two-state solution’ though hasn’t yet given up the idea. The talk now has morphed from a ‘two-state solution’ to a ‘peace plan’ with virtually no mention at all of a Palestinian sovereign state, only demands for ‘the Muslim world to recognise Israel’.

While there seems to be plenty of talk about a peace plan, there seems to be very little substance; certainly no one has yet been able to describe exactly what this ‘peace plan’ is likely to entail.

It’s early days into both Obama’s administration and Netanyahu’s Israeli government and, while Obama initially pushed the idea of yet another plan for the two-state solution, he quickly gave up when it became obvious that Netanyahu is not in the slightest bit interested in the Palestinians having their own state under any circumstances. And from the Palestinians standpoint there can be no Palestinian state without, at the very least, the Israelis pulling out all of the settlements, withdrawing entirely from the West Bank and East Jerusalem back to the pre-1967 lines, and allowing the right of return of the refugees. As far as Netanyahu is concerned, none of this is ever going to happen. Obama knows it.; Netanyahu certainly knows it; and just about the entire world knows it – so, one has to ask, what’s left to talk ‘peace’ about?

Netanyahu is biding his time waiting and manoeuvring behind the scenes for an opportunity to strike Zionism’s enemies: Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. At the moment Netanyahu is simply nodding and shaking his head appropriately as Obama says his stuff. Netanyahu knows that he can’t upset Obama too much; Netanyahu will need Obama’s support when the time does come to confront Iran. But, on the other hand, Netanyahu can’t give in to Obama’s demands for a pulling out of the settlements but, rather, to say simply that ‘he’d talk about it’. This is just more time wasting.

Obama and Netanyahu are set to meet in a few days time in Washington. High on Obama’s agenda will be, once again, to get Netanyahu to talk about a two-state solution, and, once again, Netanyahu will say he will consider the possibility of thinking about talking about it but that’s about as far as it will go.

If, per chance, Netanyahu does start to get all positive about the idea of a Palestinian sovereign state, you can then bet your bottom dollar that something terrible is about to happen that will put an end to any such notions.

The two-state solution is even more of a myth today than it has ever been. The world should demand a one-state bi-national solution. It is the ONLY logical solution.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009


Israeli President Shimon Peres yesterday addressed the AIPAC conference where he launched in to what must be considered as being the most hypocritical speech ever given to an AIPAC conference – and there have been many.

Speaking about ‘his Prime Minister’, Benjamin Netanyahu, he told his audience: “He knows history and wants to make history. In our tradition, making history is making peace, and I am sure that peace is his priority."

‘In our tradition, making history is making peace’? In the sixty years of Israeli history there has been nothing but war instigated by the Zionists of Israel against the Palestinian people.

Just to compound his hypocrisy, he continued: "Israel stands with her arms outstretched and her hands held open to peace with all nations, with all Arab states, with all Arab people," and then adds: "To those still holding a clenched fist I have just one word to say: Enough. Enough war. Enough destruction. Enough hatred. Now is the time for change. Israel is prepared today to bring peace closer. Today."

Apart from the blindingly obvious hypocrisy in these words, one has to ask; ‘What peace are you talking about?’

But Peres isn’t alone with this hypocritical nonsense. The word ‘peace’ seems to be a new buzzword among leading Zionist Israeli politicians these last few days as they talk about the ‘peace process with the Palestinians’. Even Israeli foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, on tour around Europe, has been talking about how the current Israeli government ‘could reach peace with the Palestinians’. Lieberman, speaking at a news conference in Rome, Italy, said that the Netanyahu government would reach a “secure and definitive peace with the Palestinians and the Arab nations around them”. Neither Peres nor Lieberman explained how this ‘peace’ was going to be achieved. For the Palestinians there will never be peace while Israel occupy their lands and, since Netanyahu has made it clear that there will never be a Palestinian state and the Likud Party’s entire platform revolves around a Greater Israel that includes the west Bank and the Gaza as well as the Golan Heights and south Lebanon up to the Litani River, one can only assume that the words of the Israeli leaders is pure rhetoric designed to buy more time while an excuse is found to trigger their confrontation with Iran.

Perhaps Peres and Lieberman really do mean there will be peace but only after the Iranian regime has been changed and the Israelis have smashed all Arab and Palestinian resistance to the Israeli Dream of a Greater Israel.


Monday, May 04, 2009


Back in June 2007, Max Boot, a neocon writing in ‘The Weekly Standard’ said: “[Kevin] Rudd [now Australia’s Prime Minister] is conservative for a Laborite, a nerdy former diplomat and management consultant in boxy spectacles who speaks Chinese fluently and goes to church regularly (he was brought up Catholic but now attends Anglican services). He has few ties to the unions which have traditionally been a dominant force mooring his party to the left. He is seen as a safe pair of hands to continue steering Australia ahead – a Tony Blair to Howard's Margaret Thatcher.” After the November election that saw the demise of John Howard and the election of Kevin Rudd’s government, the neocons could only have been happier if Howard had been re-elected. Shortly after the election Rudd announced that Australia’s defence expansion program initiated by the Howard government will be retained. The neocons were ecstatic.

Last October, 2008, I was talking with a senior defence assistant secretary for international policy. We talked broadly about China and Pakistan; two nations that he felt were likely to be problematic to Australia, with Pakistan likely to be a problem sooner rather than later, with China becoming a long term potential problem. We then got on to chatting about Australia’s likely purchase of the Super Hornet aircraft and he was telling me what a wonderful aircraft he thought it was to have while Australia waited for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to come on line. I told him bluntly that it, the Super Hornet, was a useless aircraft compared with some of the aircraft that the Chinese are now operating. He seemed surprised and asked which aircraft I would recommend if I were a policy wonk in the defence department. I suggested the Sukhoi Su30 and preferably the Su30MKI version as supplied to India which is rated arguably as the world’s best, and certainly the worlds most manoeuvrable, military aircraft. The Chinese have the Su30MKK version. It’s not quite up to par with the Indian version but it certainly will out-fly both the Super Hornet and the JSF. The Chinese have over 130 of them. The Indonesian air force also operates the Su30MKK version but only have around five of them.

On 1 May, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced his government’s intention of going ahead with both the so-called Super Hornet to replace the aging F/A18 Hornets and F111s the Royal Australian Air Force currently operate, and one hundred of the F35 JSFs for the future. Since Rudd made it quite clear that this aircraft upgrade, together with the other militarisation upgrades announced, mainly naval including the construction of twelve new missile-capable submarines and a massive increase in surface warships, was to ensure Australia’s defence capabilities against the possibility of an increasingly aggressive and resource hungry China, Rudd should not be too surprised to learn that China is likely to review its own arsenal of military hardware to keep well ahead of any regional threat.

A day later the Rudd government announced, almost as if it were a completely unrelated piece of policy, that it would be considering setting up Boot Camp-style programs for youth unemployed.

Australia has recently had difficulties in attracting recruits for its current defence forces so one might be forgiven for assuming that the Boot Camp program might be seen as a gateway to solving the recruitment problem. It’s not too many steps away from conscription.

Of course, all this militarisation is some way off into the future but, nonetheless, one does need to ask why and why now.

Far from being a threat to Australia, China has been a major customer and trading partner to Australia for some years now, and it has been a partnership that has been mutually beneficial to both nations. It’s difficult to see how China can be a threat to Australia. If China wants our resources then all it has to do is buy it just as it has been doing. Why would China want to go to all the effort of mounting an invasion of Australia to get what it wants when all it has to do is email the order through to BHP-Billiton or the Western Mining Corporation or whoever? What’s the problem?

The problem, one fancy’s, is not so much China – that’s just a feint to keep them at arms length but also to act as a smoke screen to cover Australian conservatives much greater and long-standing paranoid fear, Indonesia.

Suggesting that China may be a problem for Australia in the future is actually something the Chinese will get over. They’re merely interested, as they always have been, in simply doing business. However, white Australia has had a long history of fearing its northern neighbours though never for any good reason.

So, is this really what it’s all about?

Kevin Rudd sees US hegemonic power generally declining. Its glory days are gone and what we see now is the last throes of a has-been power on its last legs. Despite its military power, it has proved itself incapable over the last sixty years of decisively winning any of its major wars. Iraq, after over six years of war has been an utter disaster and Afghanistan, after nearly eight years of war, looks like being lost completely to a rag-tag ever-growing army of tenacious insurgents. Rudd does not see the US as being capable of coming to Australia’s aid in the future despite all the treaties and obligations that forced Australia, against its peoples will, coming to the aid of the US when it called.

Australia has claimed vast off-shore mainly gas resources in the Timor Sea. While the resources are actually located closer to East Timor than they are to Australia, Australia lays claim to it because it is regarded as being on Australia’s continental shelf under the sea. (The story of how Alexander Downer bullied East Timor into signing over the gas rights to Australia is a story on is own.)

Rudd is not actually a neocon – well, not yet he isn’t; but then nor was Tony Blair when he became Prime Minister of Great Britain, but look where he ended up. The American neocons like Rudd because he is pro-America even if he doesn’t see America as being of much use in the future, but also Rudd is pro-Israel and the military force that Rudd is proposing may one day be useful to the Israelis if the Islamic nations start getting a bit too uppity over Israel’s Middle Eastern ambitions.

The necessity of having such a heavily armed Australia is doubtful. The money to be spent could be far more usefully spent on other utilities that a rapidly aging chunk of the Australian population will need over the next twenty-five years – about the same period that Rudd wants to militarise Australia’s ‘defence’ forces.
And, pondering just one other thought that explains why I’ve written ‘defence’ in inverted commas; most of the new military stuff that Rudd wants to get for Australia is hardly ‘defensive’ but actually ‘offensive’ indicating that Rudd may be toying with the notion of pre-emption or even unilateral pre-emption. And that really is neoconservative ideology in play.


Friday, May 01, 2009


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America’s pro-Zionist Israeli lobby group, will meet from Sunday 3 May through to 5 May to determine the Obama administration’s foreign policy for the coming year. America’s foreign policy chief for the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will be speaking to the conference via satellite. Netanyahu will be flying in to Washington to meet with Obama on 18 May to discuss the outcome of the AIPAC conference .

While Netanyahu has made it quite clear that there will never be a sovereign Palestinian state, he and President Obama are likely to be at loggerheads over Obama’s demand that Netanyahu at least keep up an appearance that Israel is willing to talk about peace – even if it doesn’t involve actually talking about statehood for the Palestinians.

Besides the Palestinian question, heading up discussions is likely to be Israel’s perennial Iran ‘problem’. Israel, who like to tell the world that Iran is a problem because it is seeking nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of bombing Israel out of existence, actually has a problem with Iran only inasmuch that Iran is now the only country of any influence that stands between Israel and its realisation of their expansionist dreams of a Greater Israel that includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and south Lebanon up to the Litani River.

While discussions that are in full view of the world between Obama and his Middle East policy chief Netanyahu, are likely to be cordial and result in outcomes that are likely to seem mutually agreeable, behind the scenes Netanyahu will be sounding out Obama on the likelihood of US support if Israel made a preemptive unilateral strike against Iran and or Iran’s allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

President Obama needs to tread a careful path. On the one hand he needs to show both his fellow Americans and the peoples of the world that he is a President that can bring America back from the dark inglorious days of the George W. Bush administration and he can only do this by seemingly being tough with Israeli demands and giving the appearance of not being so hardline on Iran. On the other hand, however, Obama cannot upset the Israeli lobby too much and has already demonstrated his support for Israel when he did nothing to stop the Israeli carnage in the Gaza in December and January using President-elect protocols as an excuse for saying nothing while hundreds died.

In public, Obama is unlikely to give any succour to the Israelis with regard to attacking Iran with a view to regime change. Netanyahu’s only option therefore, will be to manipulate a casus belli which will result in Israel appearing to have no option other than to attack Iran and then having done so, hope that Obama will see as fait accompli the necessity to support Israel against Iran albeit with the appearance of such support being given reluctantly.

The future of America’s Middle East foreign policy is likely to be determined at this upcoming AIPAC conference.

Frightening, isn’t it.