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.

Sunday, November 25, 2012


In an article in National Review Online, the neoconservative Zionist propagandist Charles Krauthammer gave his summation of what he thought the recent confrontation between Hamas and Israel was all about. The Hasbara (propaganda) he uses is unusually very unsophisticated from a commentator who is held in so high esteem by his fellow neocons and Zionists, but is hardly surprising considering how desperate they have become after their failure to realise their war aims and the subsequent rise in stature of Hamas as an entity representing all Palestinians and not just those in the Gaza Strip.

Krauthammer begins his piece by reminding readers that;

Seven years ago, in front of the world, Israel pulled out of Gaza. It dismantled every settlement, withdrew every soldier, evacuated every Jew, leaving nothing and no one behind.

Krauthammer then claims that this left the Gaza Strip as an “independent Palestinian entity”. However, what Krauthammer deliberately ignores is the fact that Hamas does not regard the Gaza Strip as a separate Palestinian entity but rather simply a part of Palestine that has been cut off from the rest of Palestine by Israel while beyond the Gaza Strip lays the rest of Palestine which remains occupied by the Israelis and which Hamas and other Palestinians are continuing to fight for.

Krauthammer goes on to write;

Israel wanted nothing more than to live in peace with this independent Palestinian entity. After all, the world had incessantly demanded that Israel give up land for peace.

And adds;

It gave the land. It got no peace.

First off, of course, the land wasn’t Israel’s to give in the first place and, secondly, the so-called “independent Palestinian entity”, as Krauthammer earlier in his article concedes, was only unilaterally considered as such by the Israelis after the Israelis declared and defined its borders with the Gaza. Hamas had no say whatsoever in where the borders around the Gaza were to be.

After ‘giving the land’ back to them for what the Israelis hoped would be ‘peace’, Krauthammer writes;

The Gaza Palestinians did not reciprocate. They voted in Hamas, who then took over in a military putsch and turned their newly freed Palestine into an armed camp from which to war against Israel. It has been war ever since.

This is pure garbage – not to mention a blatant piece of deceit! Krauthammer is trying to infer that it was the Gazan Palestinians who voted in Hamas when, in fact, it was Palestinians from both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank who voted in Hamas. It was Israel and the US who rejected the legitimacy of Hamas’ win and who then attempted to use Fatah to overthrow Hamas from power in the Gaza Strip. If there was any ‘putsch’ at all, it was the attempt by Fatah with Israeli and US support to usurp the power of Hamas who had one it fairly and squarely in legitimate elections.

Krauthammer goes on to endorse the usual lie about who started the latest round of fighting by saying that Hamas had started it “with a barrage of about 150 rockets into Israel”, when in reality Israel had started it by breaking a truce when they murdered a Hamas leader on the street just as they had broken an earlier truce by assassinating two Palestinians riding a motorbike on 21 October 2012.

It’s good that someone like Krauthammer is reduced to writing such obvious trash if, for no other reason, it deprives the Zionists and their neocon supporters of all credibility.  

Friday, November 23, 2012


In an interview in Cairo with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday 23 November 2012, Hamas’ political leader, Khaled Mashaal, cleverly realigned Hamas’ political position in relation to Palestinian statehood by taking advantage of Hamas’ new-found popularity among the Palestinians of the West Bank following the recent war between Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israel.

Mashaal told Amanpour that, "I accept a Palestinian state according [to] the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital, with the right to return”, adding; "After this state is established, it decides its standing toward Israel". This now puts Hamas more in line with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah policy but with the added advantage of speaking for Palestinians in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

When asked if Hamas would renounce violence, he replied, "We are ready to resort to a peaceful way, purely peaceful way without blood or weapons". He added that such a move would be conditional on the acceptance of Palestinian demands, including; "the elimination of occupation and the (creation of a) Palestinian state and ending the occupation and the wall”.

Mashaal’s statement also dispels a growing notion among the Western right-wing, and particularly among neoconservatives, that the Gaza Strip has become a separate entity from the West Bank; and, it must be said, Hamas had considered the idea of becoming a state in its own right. Mashaal has now made it clear, however, that Hamas regards all Palestinians, no matter where they are, as part of what will one day be a sovereign state of Palestine. The move puts paid to Israel’s ‘divide and rule’ policy in which it attempted to weaken Palestinian solidarity by ‘wedging’ the two groupings. Mashaal has solidly and inexorably linked the Gaza Strip’s future to the West Bank’s in the push to create a Palestinian state for all Palestinian people.

It’s a very clever political move by Hamas and is bound to weaken the grip on power of Mahmoud Abbas who many consider corrupt and well past his use-by date.

One can see why neocon warhawks like Max Boot were so keen for Netanyahu to re-invade the Gaza Strip.


Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said yesterday when defending the governments decision to call a truce and stop the invasion that; “It is still not time to enter Gaza in a very wide operation and conquer it”, leaving no doubt that ‘conquering’ the Gaza Strip is, indeed, the Zionists long term intention.

While it has always been surmised that invasion and occupation, with the goal of eventual annexation of the Gaza Strip, has always been Israel’s ultimate intention, this is possibly the clearest indication yet that any senior Israeli government minister has given confirming that intention.

Since the Israeli military are clearly capable at any time of overrunning the enclave with its well trained and well equipped ground forces including tanks and infantry, one needs to ask: what stopped them this time?

Considering Israeli public opinion would likely have supported an invasion in order to stop the rockets and the bombings, the only reason Israel did not follow through was, not so much that Israel wasn’t ready but, rather, because their major sponsors, the US and their other Western allies, with one eye on their own peoples public opinion, simply couldn’t afford to support such an invasion – at least not just yet. While Americans generally overwhelmingly support Israel, they prefer to see a peace arrived at via a two-state solution to the crisis rather than brute force, invasion and occupation. Britain and Europe are even less enthusiastic in supporting an Israeli invasion.

Even the warmongering Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman concedes that an invasion now would cost Israel dearly in public opinion brownie points but hasn’t given up the idea completely saying that an invasion may take place after the Israeli elections in January 2013.

Time will tell.

Thursday, November 22, 2012


The agreement that came into effect just a few hours is not an accord for peace but merely a ceasefire. It is unlikely to be permanent and further talks are unlikely to yield much for the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Israeli troops amassed at the Gaza Strip’s borders continue their build-up and they remain on alert ready to move a moments notice as Netanyahu warnsof possible additional military action if the cease-fire fails to lead to long-term security”. What Netanyahu’s idea of ‘long-term security’ might be is anyone’s guess. It may well be that all Netanyahu wants is a bit more breathing space to gather his forces, not just to invade the Gaza, but also to consolidate his grip on the West Bank in case the Palestinians there rise in support of the people in the Gaza if and when they are invaded. He might also be considering what the reaction of Hezbollah in Lebanon might be if the crisis escalated into a war between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

One can only hope that the tenuous peace that prevails for now will become something more permanent – but unfortunately, I don’t believe for one moment that that is what Netanyahu has in mind.


Despite the ceasefire agreement specifically saying; “Israel shall stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land sea and air, including incursions and targeting of individuals…”, Israeli drones are still flying over the Gaza Strip.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012


According to a report in Ha’aretz today, Israel are demanding that:

…any cease-fire remain in place for a period of several years. Israel is also demanding an Egyptian commitment to prevent the smuggling of weapons from Sinai into Gaza, and that Hamas or other terror group members be kept 500 meters from the border fence. Israel also wants international assurance that, if necessary, it would be allowed to operate over the border to foil terror attacks.

Israel knows that, not only would these demands be unacceptable to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but that such demands would be impossible to monitor. They would lead to the Gaza being even more isolated than it already is as well as being deprived of defences leaving the enclave effectively devoid of any protection. Furthermore, the Egyptian people are also unlikely to abide by any Israeli demands even if their government did go along with it. Already Egyptian demonstrators are assembling at the Gaza/Egypt border to enter the Gaza Strip in support of the Palestinians.

For their part, Hamas is apparently demanding that both the naval and land blockade be lifted, demands that Israel are unlikely to accede to, particularly the naval blockade. This leaves little left to bargain with, so, while I hope that some kind of peace can be agreed to for everyone’s sake, I still fear the reality is that Israel has every intention of invading the Gaza Strip and the talk of peace is just part of Israel’s “Well, we tried but…” propaganda drive to score badly needed points in the worlds public opinion polls. And if, indeed, any truce is agreed, it will likely be very short-lived.


I have over the years suggested a number of scenarios by which Israel might achieve its ultimate endgame objectives of destroying its enemies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and realising the Zionist dream of creating a Greater Israel. All of these suggested scenarios have involved regime change in Iran.

I have suggested that an attack on Iran might include a simultaneous attack against Hezbollah and Hamas on the pretext of preventing either or both from mounting retaliatory attacks against Israel; I have suggested that Israel might find some casus belli to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon in the hope that such a war against Hezbollah might escalate to such an extent that it would provide an opportunity to attack Iran on the basis, perhaps, of preventing Iranian rockets and arms being shipped to Hezbollah. I have also suggested that Israel might use some excuse or another to attack Hamas in the Gaza Strip which might also escalate to include an attack against Iran, again because of Iran’s supply of rockets and arms to Hamas.

Michael Rubin, a warmongering ultra-neocon writing at Commentary magazine, suggests a variation of these themes whereby Hezbollah might decide to open a second front against Israel in support of Hamas in the Gaza during the present crisis and provide yet another opportunity for Israel to attack Iran. Rubin’s argument runs thus:

Experts and defense analysts agree that Iran would respond to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities by proxy, specifically by Hamas and Hezbollah rocketry launched at Israeli towns and cities. Indeed, this is one of the reasons beyond sheer ideological spite that the Iranian leadership has gone to such great lengths to arm both Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Iranian leadership may be coming very close to forcing Israel’s hand. If Hezbollah seeks to open a second front against Israel, then Israel could find itself in a two-front war with terrorist entities. Make no mistake, Israel would achieve its objective of destroying the majority of the longest-range and most lethal missiles supplied to Hamas and Hezbollah by Iran, Syria, and perhaps even North Korea.

This might reduce the costs to Israel of undertaking a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. After all, if Hamas and Hezbollah are temporarily neutered and if the Israeli government concludes that the elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who would have command and control over any Iranian nuclear arsenal would pose an existential threat, then the Israelis may decide that their window of opportunity would never be so favourable as the present. After all, Iran’s air defense is only going to get more sophisticated with time, and its missile program is advancing steadily, and so time is otherwise not on Israel’s side.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Rubin is just fantasizing about war with Iran and the prospect of a Greater Israel at some time in the not too distant future, however, Rubin is more than just a warmongering nutjob Zionist; he is also a very influential extreme right-wing Zionist player who has the ear of both powerful Israelis and American congressmen and administration officials.

To what extent Rubin’s conjecture can be taken any more seriously than any other commentator is unknown, but it would certainly be unwise to ignore it entirely. While Hezbollah are unlikely to be silly enough to open a second front against Israel, there’s no reason why Israel couldn’t find some pretext to attack Hezbollah, afterall it wouldn’t be the first time!   

Sunday, November 18, 2012


There is some speculation that a truce between Israel and Hamas could be negotiated to avert an invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli troops.

While a truce and ceasefire should be hoped for, one needs to consider the realities of the situation from the point of view of Netanyahu.

First, Netanyahu has the blessing of US President Obama to do whatever Netanyahu deems best for Israel – including invade. Second, Netanyahu, as far as the Gaza is concerned, has the full support of his multi-party cabinet, the military and the intelligence community if he decides to invade.

By invading and destroying Hamas and the other fighters in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu will have achieved what many Israelis will discern as a great victory. It will be the first step in recent times of realising the Zionists dream of a Greater Israel. Netanyahu’s aim is not to stop the rockets but to invade and conquer just as the Israelis did in the Golan Heights in 1967. By invading and occupying the Gaza Strip and stopping the rockets from there once and for all Netanyahu will be able to move on with confidence in taking on Hezbollah – but only if he can get the US to attack Iran with the aim of regime change.

From Netanyahu’s point of view, this is his big chance. Unfortunately, I doubt he’ll let the opportunity pass him by.

As usual, I hope I’m wrong!


According to Alana Goodman, a neocon propagandist herself who writes for Commentary magazine, Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren has said when talking about the Israeli bombing of Gaza:

In one case, an Israeli pilot refrained from striking a long-range missile because the pilot noticed children in the vicinity.

This is pure garbage.

I’ve been flying airplanes for over 45 years and I can tell you that when flying at even just a few hundred feet off the ground and at only 200mph it would be impossible to distinguish children from adults.

Oren is simply trying to excuse Israeli war crimes and, at the same time, project what he thinks is Israeli morality.

Oren’s story should be seen for what it is – propaganda nonsense.

Saturday, November 17, 2012


With Israeli troops, tanks and armoured vehicles amassing at the border of the Gaza Strip and with no let up in the tit-for-tat bombardments from both sides, it certainly seems that an invasion is imminent.

Since it was Israel that initiated and provoked the current violence that has led to this situation, it also seems likely that the Israelis had contrived and manipulated events to ensure that it would lead to invasion. In other words, this has been in the planning for some time. The question now is; once the Israelis invade the Gaza Strip, what next?

After Operation Cast Lead in 2008/2009 the Israelis thought that simply indiscriminately killing Palestinians and doing a lot of infrastructure damage in the Strip might be enough to weaken Hamas’ grip on the enclave and stop the rockets, so this time Israel intends to destroy Hamas completely. This will mean a full-on invasion but this time followed by permanent occupation.

During the invasion, Israel will likely take advantage of the turmoil they create by liquidating their enemies while they have the opportunity of using the fog of war to cover their crimes. This will likely be accompanied by mass arrests and possibly even transfers of population.

An invasion could also possibly lead to an exodus of civilians as refugees from the fighting who will pour across the borders into the Sinai.

Bear in mind that Israel’s ultimate endgame is the creation of a Greater Israel; this is just a part of realising that dream.


Given, despite their propaganda to the contrary, that the Israelis instigated this current round of violence by the attempted targeted killings of Palestinian fighters Talat Jarbi and Mohammed Maqawi as they rode their motorbike near Rafah on Sunday 21 October 2012, and have since chosen to escalate the violence by extra-judicially murdering Hamas commander Ahmed al-Jabari, it has become clear that the Israelis have a long term game plan that looks ominous for the people of the Gaza Strip.

Each and every quiet period over the past three months has been broken not by Hamas but by the Israelis. Apart from the incidents mentioned above, there was also the killing of a twelve-year-old Palestinian boy who was playing soccer when he was machine-gunned to death on Thursday 8 November 2012. Taking these and other incidents into consideration, a pattern of deliberate Israeli provocation emerges. On top of this is the latest call up of some 75,000 Israeli reservists which are more than double the call up numbers authorised initially. These troops are now beginning to mass on the borders of the Gaza Strip together with tanks, artillery and other armoured vehicles. The bigger picture that is emerging does not bode well for the Gazan people as a full-on invasion seems imminent.

Some of those reservists called up may also be deployed elsewhere, possibly in or near the West Bank in case Palestinian fighters in the West Bank rise in support of their comrades in the Gaza Strip. Others may be deployed to Israel’s northern borders with south Lebanon in case Hezbollah also react to events.

30,000 troops, the number of reservists that were initially called up, is a force that, with air and artillery support, would easily be able to overwhelm Palestinian fighters in the Gaza Strip in the event of an invasion and occupation by the Israelis.

In the event of being overwhelmed, most fighters would be able to escape to Egypt by either fighting their way out or merging with Palestinian refugees who would likely flood into the Sinai region of Egypt to escape the war.

I hope I’m wrong, but I do not believe that a Hamas promise to halt the rocket launchings into Israel will stop the coming onslaught of the Israelis into the Gaza and the bloodbath that would accompany such an onslaught. The Israelis are intent on invading and occupying the Gaza Strip in order to ultimately annex it to Israel pushing the Palestinians there out into either the Sinai or Jordan.

But the ultimate endgame has yet to play out. Israel still want regime change in Iran and the destruction of Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as complete domination of the West Bank.

Gaza, it seems, is just the first step toward their dream of a Greater Israel that will include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and, if possible, south Lebanon up to the Litani River. It’s also quite clear that the US and the West are going to be doing their best to help the Israelis achieve their goals.  

Friday, November 16, 2012


It has become standard practice for the Israelis in all of their conflicts with their enemies to invoke the myth of the ‘human shield’ whereby they accuse their enemies’ fighters of using civilians as ‘human shields’ against attack. The present war against the Gazan people is no different as the IDF’s tweet infers.

However, the ‘human shield’ notion is nothing more than a propaganda ploy designed not just to demonise Israel’s enemies but also to mitigate Israel’s own war crimes against a civilian population.

In the case of the wars against the people of the Gaza Strip, the Israelis, by accusing Gazan fighters of using the civilians as ‘human shields’ ignore the fact that, one, the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth and fighters are forced to use urban guerrilla tactics to defend themselves which means civilians are around when fighting occurs, and two, the majority of the fighters are actually billeted in their own homes with their families and many are civilians themselves who volunteer to fight when the Gaza is threatened or invaded.

To imagine that Hamas can evacuate civilians from areas that are under aerial and ground attack is pure nonsense; where should they be evacuated to? Alternatively, to expect Gazan fighters to amass on some battlefield where they can be mown down by the Israelis is plainly delusional.

Dropping leaflets over the Gaza warning civilians not to be in places where fighters are does not exonerate the Israelis from the war crime of killing civilians – especially when they are fully aware of the fact that civilians have nowhere to go to avoid Israeli bombings. Knowing that civilians have nowhere to go yet still going ahead and bombing is a not just a crime of killing civilians, but is a deliberate crime of killing civilians.

Finally, of course, there is the hypocrisy of the Israelis accusing anyone of using human shields when they are well known for practicing such crimes themselves as shown here, here and documented here.

Thursday, November 15, 2012


According to the RT Live Update blog it seems the Israelis are planning to shutdown internet access to the Gaza Strip. If this is the case, then clearly the Israelis have further actions planned for the Gaza Strip. This is increasingly likely since, according to the IDF official Twitter account, rocket fire from the Gaza into Israel continued throughout the night keeping some one million Israelis in shelters overnight.

Meanwhile Israeli troops have been massing at the border with Gaza preparing for what may well be a full-on invasion of the Gaza Strip. As dawn breaks on Thursday morning any such invasion will likely be preceded by an intense air assault then artillery barrage as the tanks and troops move in. In another sign of an imminent attack, according to the IDF’s official Twitter account, Israel has dropped leaflets over the Gaza Strip warning civilians to keep clear of Hamas and other militants and their installations. This is reminiscent of a similar sequence of events prior to Operation Cast Lead.

A meeting of the UN Security Council was not able to resolve the crisis other than to plead to the belligerents to cease any further violence. While Arab states asked the UNSC to condemn the Israeli attacks on the Gaza, the US has strongly supported Israel’s military actions.  


Israel, by choosing to assassinate top Hamas military commander, Ahmed al-Jabari, has made it clear that they intend to wage an all-out war against Hamas, a war which could ultimately lead to the invasion and re-occupation of the Gaza Strip. Already, Israel has been busy calling up reservists and moving infantry toward the Gaza Strip while the attacks against the Palestinian people in the Gaza continued through Wednesday evening (14 November 2012). Several civilians have been killed in the Wednesday attacks so far including an eleven-month-old baby and a six-year-old child. Many others have been injured, ten of them critically. These have been in addition to the many other Gazan civilians who have been killed and injured in the recent spate of attacks by Israel leading up to Wednesday’s attack.

The assassination was clearly intended to provoke Hamas to retaliate which, in turn, will provide the Israelis with a casus belli to launch an attack. Hamas has indicated that they will continue to fight as crowds gathered in Gaza calling for retaliation.

Since the Israelis have invested considerable time in planning and carrying out provocative acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in order to incite retaliation, and, considering the general situation of instability in the region immediately surrounding Israel, one needs to question why Israel has chosen to escalate that instability by provoking and attacking Hamas at this time. Is this just part of some other more extensive strategy and, if so, one needs to question what America’s role might be since the US has already given unqualified support to Israel’s actions in the Gaza.

It may well be, since Hamas has strongly suggested that they would not support Iran by launching an attack against Israel if Israel attacked Iran, that Israel has chosen to take on Hamas in the belief that the Gaza would be easy pickings and that other entities would not come to Hamas’ aid in the event of an Israeli attack or invasion and occupation.

Israel always plays its cards close to its chest and their real immediate intentions are not yet clear. However, as events unfold, a clearer picture of what Israeli intentions will emerge. This blog will attempt to update with analysis as events happen. At this stage, though, the picture is looking grim.

Monday, November 12, 2012


Jonathan Tobin writing in the neoconservative Commentary magazine today conceded that Hamas are the real leaders of the independent state of Palestine – not Fatah.

But all is not quite as it seems.

Because Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is about to push for recognition of Palestine as a non-state member at the UN, the Israelis and their neocon supporters have come up with a new Chutzpah arguing that:

Abu Mazen [Abbas] claims he is the sole representative of the Palestinian people, but is not assuming responsibility for the fire from the Gaza.

Its classic divide and rule stuff typical of tactics used by invaders and colonial powers for centuries. The idea here, of course, is to both belittle Abbas’ authority in the West Bank ahead of demanding recognition at the UN, and, at the same time, to use the latest round of violence between the Israelis and fighters in the Gaza Strip, which was started by the IDF, as part of a propaganda campaign that will lead up to a full-on invasion of the Gaza Strip.

Where will it all lead?

Wednesday, November 07, 2012


Before the election the world endured edge of the seat tension as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to ‘unilaterally attack’ Iran. They were always going to be empty threats before the elections as Obama, having everything to lose before the election, avoided dragging the American people into another war for Israel by offering to support Netanyahu. Yet, despite appearing to shun Netanyahu’s request for support, we now know that in reality Obama, by allowing the fuel for war to be sold to Israel two years ago when Netanyahu came close to ordering an  attack, actually supports an attack against Iran. The massive build-up of US and allied forces in the Gulf region are also evidence that Obama is prepared to use force against Iran.

Now the elections are over and Obama is back in the White House. The difference this time, however, is that he is now a nothing-to-lose President who may well allow history to judge him knowing that the electorate will not get another opportunity.

One wonders how long it will be before Netanyahu begins, yet again, to pile up the pressure to attack Iran – and how long will it be before Obama gives Netanyahu the green light. Will it be before or after the Israeli elections in late January 2013?


The UK Daily Telegraph today has been quoting UK Prime Minister David Cameron, when talking about Syrian President Bashir al-Assad and the civil war in Syria, as saying:

I am very frustrated that we can't do more. This is an appalling slaughter that is taking place in our world today - 40,000 lives lost already and you can see, on your television screens, night after night, helicopters, aeroplanes belonging to the Assad regime pounding his own country and murdering his own people.

Cameron was in Saudi Arabia, an Arab nation whose rulers are renowned for abusing the human rights of its own people, when he made his remarks about Syria’s president. And what was Cameron doing in Saudi Arabia? He was trying to sell to the dictators Typhoon strike aircraft. These same dictators wouldn’t think twice about using the aircraft against any uprising by its own people.

Tuesday, November 06, 2012


In August 2010 I wrote about Israel’s massive military fuel purchase from the US commenting that it was an extraordinary amount of fuel and that, by virtue of the fact that it included huge quantities of JP-8 military jet fuel, the entire order must have been military purposes. I also noted that the order included large amounts of both diesel and gasoline. I surmised then that this order may be for preparations for war against Iran – hence the need for the jet fuel – and that, since Israel could not possibly launch a ground offensive against Iran, the large amounts of diesel and gasoline must be intended for an offensive closer to home like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Recent revelations about Netanyahu’s order in 2010 to the military to plan for a strike against Iran, tends to support my theory that, indeed, the fuel purchase was for such an attack against Israel’s enemies.

What’s interesting about this is, firstly, that the Obama administration acceded to the supply of large amounts of military fuel to Israel and, therefore, knew of Netanyahu’s plans to strike Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas meaning that Obama was complicit in such a plan. But, far more importantly, if Obama knew of Netanyahu’s plans and agreed to sell Israel the fuel, Obama must also have conceded to having US forces on standby at the very least or, more likely, have been complicit in planning on being a part of the attack. Since the plan seems to have been that it would be Israel that would be seen by the world as initiating the attack while America ‘has Israel’s back’, the launching of any attack would actually be up to Netanyahu. As it turns out, domestic influences from senior Israelis seem to have put a hold on their plans.

The fuel, of course, hasn’t been wasted; it’s still there waiting to be used. That is to say, those vast quantities of various fuel types are still available for use as the original stocks are cycled over when new stocks arrive.

In the final analysis this all means that we now know that Obama is in favour of an attack against Iran and that the only reason Obama has held off this last eighteen months from supporting Netanyahu is because of the Presidential elections. After the election, no matter who wins, the fuel is still there and military action is still ‘on the table’.

Time, as usual, will tell.

Thursday, November 01, 2012


Neocon writer Clifford May had an amusing piece up on National Review Online’s temporary site today. I say ‘amusing’ because I find the whole idea of Americans fancying themselves as being ‘exceptional’ quite laughable – especially when one reads the reasons why Americans think of themselves as exceptional.

The somewhat delusional Clifford May reckons some of the reasons America is exceptional is because:

The ideas on which this nation is based were revolutionary in the 18th century — and still are today. All men are created equal? Governments derive their powers only from the consent of the governed? We are endowed by our Creator with rights and freedoms that no one can take away? China is nowhere close to embracing such principles. Nor is most of the Middle East, the “Arab Spring” notwithstanding. Latin America and Africa have a long way to go. And in Europe, I fear, the commitment to individual liberty has been weakening.

Well, the theory sounds really good – but then so did the theory of communism and socialism. It’s just that in reality none of them actually work properly.

While the idea that ‘all men are created equal’ is laudable, the reality in America was that, far from being equal, native Americans, African Americans and various other ethnic and cultural groups, including Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, et al, for a very long time were treated very much as inferior, indeed, to this day, many still are.

As for the notion that ‘governments derive their powers only from the consent of the governed’; what a joke! In America, governments, like governments the world over, derive their power through corruption, big business, nepotism, elitist networking, lies and good ol’ fashioned propaganda which includes the pretence of practicing ‘democracy’.

Then there’s this business about ‘our Creator endowing us with rights and freedoms that no one can take away’ – unless, of course, your ideology strays too far away from that of the concept of American Exceptionalism in which case you can, at the whim of any official, be arrested as a ‘terrorist’, sent to foreign prisons, tortured, tried in secret (assuming you actually get as far as having a ‘trial’), or you could be extra-judicially executed without trial. So much for ‘rights and freedoms’.

China is nowhere close to embracing such principles?

Nor is America!