There is a certain irony in the fact that those that speak most vehemently against anti-Semitism have, in doing so, become anti-Semites themselves by virtue of grossly abusing the anti-Semite label into irrelevancy by totally misrepresenting the term for political purposes.
There was a time when the anti-Semite label was an important and powerful symbol that recognised the injustices the Jewish people have suffered during their existence. But now the label has been hijacked by the extreme Right of Zionism who have commandeered the term and trivialised it in order to demonise their detractors. Zionists and their neoconservative supporters around the world, and particularly in the US, have misapplied the anti-Semite label by accusing those who dissent against Zionism, its expansionist aims, their insistence of Jewish exclusivity within Israel and what they hope to be Greater Israel, as being ‘anti-Semites’.
Right-wing Israeli politicians and US neoconservatives have been prominent in leading the ‘anti-Semite’ smear campaign. The idea is to induce within public opinion the entirely false and deliberately deceitful notion that to be anti-Zionist is anti-Israel and anti-Jew and, therefore, anti-Semitic.
While there are indeed some anti-Zionists that truly are anti-Semitic, these people are only anti-Zionist because they really are anti-Semitic. As real Jew-haters they are actually anti-anything connected with Jews, including Zionism.
Most anti-Zionists, on the other hand, see Zionism for what it really is; a political ideology. Among anti-Zionists there are many Jewish people as well as non-Jews. Compounding their misuse of the term ‘anti-Semite’, Zionists and neoconservative have pigeon-holed anti-Zionist Jews as ‘self-hating Jews’.
As a result of their extensive abuse of the ‘anti-Semitic’ label for nefarious political purposes, Zionists and neoconservatives have rendered the term all but irrelevant. By using it as a derogatory term directed at people who clearly and quite obviously are not anti-Semites, they have diminished the true meaning of the term to the point that there is no longer any fear whatsoever of being labelled an ‘anti-Semite’ when the term is used in the context of demonising Jews and non-Jews alike that do not go along with Zionist political ideology. Since Zionists and neoconservatives use the term in a catch-all sense whereby they attempt to tar anti-Zionists with same brush as they tar real Jew-haters, all they have succeeded in achieving is destroying the significance and validity of the real meaning of the term. In other words, they have deprived Jews throughout both the Diaspora and Israel of a potent and powerful symbol that recognised the struggle Jews have endured over time.
Is not that abuse in itself an anti-Semitic act?
For a classic example of the Zionist/neoconservative deceit and misuse of the anti-Semite label, see here.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Thursday, February 09, 2012
TIMING THE START OF THE ‘FINAL CONFRONTATION’
After years of observing the events of the Middle East and Israel, if there’s one lesson that’s made itself clear, it is that nothing ever happens quickly there. It always seems to be in slow motion.
The Israeli and Western threat of action against Iran has been no exception.
Ever since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the threat has always existed. Today, however, the threat has moved up several notches and it now seems to be a matter of not ‘if’ action will be taken against Iran but ‘when’. Today, therefore, timing is of the political essence.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, contrary to some commentator’s view that Israel may make a unilateral strike against Iran, the reality is that logistically Israel cannot possibly strike Iran without the full cooperation of the US.
President Obama is hesitant about openly supporting an attack against Iran during this an election year. He is aware that the American people will not support yet another ‘pre-emptive war’ in the Middle East; indeed, he became President on the back of a mandate that he would end the wars that Bush had started against Afghanistan and Iraq.
This has left Obama in a position where he has had to increasingly appear to be a peacemaker rather than a warmonger as the 2012 November polling date gets closer. He has had to tread a fine line between being accused by the pro-Israel lobby of abandoning Israel and of placating the Israeli right-wing by telling them that ‘nothing has been taken off the table’.
From the Israelis point of view, they too are in a precarious position despite wanting to let loose against Iran as soon as possible. As I’ve said, the Israelis can’t move without the support of the US.
On the one hand, the Israelis could wait until the election in November and hope that a more compliant Republican president gets voted in, but on the other hand, if it seems that Obama will hang on the Presidency, then the Israelis may choose to insist that they attack Iran before the election even if Obama privately councils them not to. In that case, Obama, who has always said he will support Israel no matter what, will have little choice but to accept the fait accompli of war and go to war with Israel against Iran after Israel has fired the opening rounds against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Whatever happens, it would be absolutely crucial for Obama to make it appear that the US is a reluctant partner in its war against Iran if he is to stand any chance of re-election. But that is all it is about – appearances. Despite Obama’s apparent reluctance to go to war, everything militarily is now in place for just that.
When push comes to shove, the US will be there with the Israelis once Israel has made the opening move. The US will launch an all-out devastating bombing war against Iran designed to bring about regime change while at the same time Israel will launch an equally devastating attack against Hezbollah and Hamas with the aim of fully occupying south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and destroying their enemies once and for all.
It’s not a matter of ‘if’ anymore; it’s now just a matter of ‘when’.
The Israeli and Western threat of action against Iran has been no exception.
Ever since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the threat has always existed. Today, however, the threat has moved up several notches and it now seems to be a matter of not ‘if’ action will be taken against Iran but ‘when’. Today, therefore, timing is of the political essence.
As I have said repeatedly in the past, contrary to some commentator’s view that Israel may make a unilateral strike against Iran, the reality is that logistically Israel cannot possibly strike Iran without the full cooperation of the US.
President Obama is hesitant about openly supporting an attack against Iran during this an election year. He is aware that the American people will not support yet another ‘pre-emptive war’ in the Middle East; indeed, he became President on the back of a mandate that he would end the wars that Bush had started against Afghanistan and Iraq.
This has left Obama in a position where he has had to increasingly appear to be a peacemaker rather than a warmonger as the 2012 November polling date gets closer. He has had to tread a fine line between being accused by the pro-Israel lobby of abandoning Israel and of placating the Israeli right-wing by telling them that ‘nothing has been taken off the table’.
From the Israelis point of view, they too are in a precarious position despite wanting to let loose against Iran as soon as possible. As I’ve said, the Israelis can’t move without the support of the US.
On the one hand, the Israelis could wait until the election in November and hope that a more compliant Republican president gets voted in, but on the other hand, if it seems that Obama will hang on the Presidency, then the Israelis may choose to insist that they attack Iran before the election even if Obama privately councils them not to. In that case, Obama, who has always said he will support Israel no matter what, will have little choice but to accept the fait accompli of war and go to war with Israel against Iran after Israel has fired the opening rounds against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Whatever happens, it would be absolutely crucial for Obama to make it appear that the US is a reluctant partner in its war against Iran if he is to stand any chance of re-election. But that is all it is about – appearances. Despite Obama’s apparent reluctance to go to war, everything militarily is now in place for just that.
When push comes to shove, the US will be there with the Israelis once Israel has made the opening move. The US will launch an all-out devastating bombing war against Iran designed to bring about regime change while at the same time Israel will launch an equally devastating attack against Hezbollah and Hamas with the aim of fully occupying south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and destroying their enemies once and for all.
It’s not a matter of ‘if’ anymore; it’s now just a matter of ‘when’.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
WARS FOR ISRAEL: A REMINDER OF WHO IS GIVING THE MARCHING ORDERS
As the West prepares to march off to yet another war in the Middle East, we should perhaps remind ourselves of who is giving the West their marching orders.
In February 2003, just weeks before the US and their allies launched their attack on Iraq and her peoples, a delegation of US congressmen, together with the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, a well known pro-Zionist and neoconservative war-hawk, were in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli government then led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Addressing the congressmen, Sharon told them ‘that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq’. Later, Sharon told John Bolton ‘that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq’.
Things didn’t quite work out as planned in Iraq. The Iraqi populace, instead of greeting the coalition forces as ‘liberating armies’ as they marched up the road to Baghdad, chose instead to resist the invaders. The neocons who had insisted on the war and were hoping to get their man Ahmed Chalabi into the Iraqi presidency before the summer holidays, found instead that their simplistic fantasies about the venture being a ‘cakewalk’ were turning into a nightmare that is still being played out today nine years later.
But all this hasn’t dulled the neoconservative’s enthusiasm to belatedly do as Ariel Sharon has demanded. Libya has been taken care of; Syria looks like it’s going to get the same treatment; and the whole shebang will reach a crescendo when the Final Confrontation against Iran occurs at some time in the future – and, judging by the way things are going at the moment, it could be in the very near future.
The point I really want to make here is that all of the events of the last twelve years or so haven’t been a series of unrelated or spontaneous occurrences but, rather, have been part of a grand plan carefully instigated by Israeli Zionists and their supporters in the US and around the world designed to eliminate all of Israel’s enemies who so far have successfully been able to resist the Zionist dream of creating a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.
In February 2003, just weeks before the US and their allies launched their attack on Iraq and her peoples, a delegation of US congressmen, together with the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, a well known pro-Zionist and neoconservative war-hawk, were in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli government then led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Addressing the congressmen, Sharon told them ‘that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq’. Later, Sharon told John Bolton ‘that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq’.
Things didn’t quite work out as planned in Iraq. The Iraqi populace, instead of greeting the coalition forces as ‘liberating armies’ as they marched up the road to Baghdad, chose instead to resist the invaders. The neocons who had insisted on the war and were hoping to get their man Ahmed Chalabi into the Iraqi presidency before the summer holidays, found instead that their simplistic fantasies about the venture being a ‘cakewalk’ were turning into a nightmare that is still being played out today nine years later.
But all this hasn’t dulled the neoconservative’s enthusiasm to belatedly do as Ariel Sharon has demanded. Libya has been taken care of; Syria looks like it’s going to get the same treatment; and the whole shebang will reach a crescendo when the Final Confrontation against Iran occurs at some time in the future – and, judging by the way things are going at the moment, it could be in the very near future.
The point I really want to make here is that all of the events of the last twelve years or so haven’t been a series of unrelated or spontaneous occurrences but, rather, have been part of a grand plan carefully instigated by Israeli Zionists and their supporters in the US and around the world designed to eliminate all of Israel’s enemies who so far have successfully been able to resist the Zionist dream of creating a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
THERE WILL BE NO ISRAELI ATTACK AGAINST IRAN WITHOUT U.S. SUPPORT
Amid concerns of an imminent unilateral Israeli air strike against Iran, it should be made quite clear that, despite the rhetoric, no such attack can be made against Iran without the complete cooperation, connivance and support of the US. Such an attack, therefore, would not be unilaterally launched by Israel and any statements coming from Israel or the US saying otherwise is pure propaganda.
Obama is doing his very best in an election year to make it look as though he is acting the peacemaker. He knows that the American people are not interested in the US instigating yet another war in the Middle East. But behind the propaganda and the rhetoric lies the reality that the US will be supporting a war against Iran every inch of the way once the appropriate circumstances arise and Israel makes its first strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The strike will be the signal for the US to launch a devastating blitzkrieg against Iranian military, governmental and institutional targets right across Iran.
The attack will be not a prelude to an invasion and occupation as in Iraq, but rather to force the Iranian government to capitulate to US and NATO demands for the Iranian government to hand over power to Iranian dissidents approved by the US and their Western allies; in other words it is about regime change – which, of course, it has always ever been about. It has never been about Irans so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
There are many reasons why Israel could not possibly launch a truly unilateral attack against Iran. The main reason is simply one of logistics. Israel operates American aircraft which require spare parts that mostly come from the US. They also require entire engine replacements which come from the US. In the event of launching an attack against Iran, Israel will require massive amounts of military jet fuel which only the US supplies.
Israel will need to overfly at least two countries in order to get to Iran. This will require the clout of the US to establish permissions. Over one or the other of those countries Israel will need to have refuelling aircraft standing by to refuel the strike aircraft since they will be unable to fly the round trip without refuelling.
All this, and much more, means that, at the very least, the US will be very much aware well in advance that Israel is preparing to launch an attack. The US could never say that an Israeli attack was a surprise to them.
The US would also be very much aware that Israel will launch a full-on ‘pre-emptive’ attacks and then invasions against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It’s also likely that Israel will fully occupy the West Bank militarily. (The US is aware of this because they have already supplied all the military diesel fuel required for Israel to launch ground operations.) All this will happen simultaneously while the US is finishing off what the Israelis started in Iran.
Rather than coming as any surprise to the US and announced as a unilateral strike against Iran by Israel, the entire scenario is actually a carefully and thoroughly planned war against all of Israel’s enemies and designed specifically to both create conditions that will lead to the Zionist’s dream of a Greater Israel while at the same time destroying a threat to US hegemony in the Middle East and beyond into Central Asia and South East Asia and China for the long term.
Obama is doing his very best in an election year to make it look as though he is acting the peacemaker. He knows that the American people are not interested in the US instigating yet another war in the Middle East. But behind the propaganda and the rhetoric lies the reality that the US will be supporting a war against Iran every inch of the way once the appropriate circumstances arise and Israel makes its first strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The strike will be the signal for the US to launch a devastating blitzkrieg against Iranian military, governmental and institutional targets right across Iran.
The attack will be not a prelude to an invasion and occupation as in Iraq, but rather to force the Iranian government to capitulate to US and NATO demands for the Iranian government to hand over power to Iranian dissidents approved by the US and their Western allies; in other words it is about regime change – which, of course, it has always ever been about. It has never been about Irans so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
There are many reasons why Israel could not possibly launch a truly unilateral attack against Iran. The main reason is simply one of logistics. Israel operates American aircraft which require spare parts that mostly come from the US. They also require entire engine replacements which come from the US. In the event of launching an attack against Iran, Israel will require massive amounts of military jet fuel which only the US supplies.
Israel will need to overfly at least two countries in order to get to Iran. This will require the clout of the US to establish permissions. Over one or the other of those countries Israel will need to have refuelling aircraft standing by to refuel the strike aircraft since they will be unable to fly the round trip without refuelling.
All this, and much more, means that, at the very least, the US will be very much aware well in advance that Israel is preparing to launch an attack. The US could never say that an Israeli attack was a surprise to them.
The US would also be very much aware that Israel will launch a full-on ‘pre-emptive’ attacks and then invasions against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It’s also likely that Israel will fully occupy the West Bank militarily. (The US is aware of this because they have already supplied all the military diesel fuel required for Israel to launch ground operations.) All this will happen simultaneously while the US is finishing off what the Israelis started in Iran.
Rather than coming as any surprise to the US and announced as a unilateral strike against Iran by Israel, the entire scenario is actually a carefully and thoroughly planned war against all of Israel’s enemies and designed specifically to both create conditions that will lead to the Zionist’s dream of a Greater Israel while at the same time destroying a threat to US hegemony in the Middle East and beyond into Central Asia and South East Asia and China for the long term.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
IT WAS THE U.S. THAT SUGGESTED TO THE ISRAELIS THAT A U.S. SHIP IS ATTACKED IN ORDER TO GET AMERICA ON THE ISRAELIS SIDE IN 1967
In a revealing article in the New York Times magazine yesterday, Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman disclosed that in June 2007 he was given a top secret document by former director of Mossad, Meir Amit, that contained a transcript of a conversation between Amit and the then CIA Tel Aviv chief John Hadden.
According to Bergman, part of the transcript read thus:
Amit: “We are approaching a turning point that is more important for you than it is for us. After all, you people know everything. We are in a grave situation, and I believe we have reached it, because we have not acted yet. . . . Personally, I am sorry that we did not react immediately. It is possible that we may have broken some rules if we had, but the outcome would have been to your benefit. I was in favor of acting. We should have struck before the build-up.”
Hadden: “That would have brought Russia and the United States against you.”
Amit: “You are wrong. . . . We have now reached a new stage, after the expulsion of the U.N. inspectors. You should know that it’s your problem, not ours.”
Hadden: “Help us by giving us a good reason to come in on your side. Get them to fire at something, a ship, for example.”
Amit: “That is not the point.”
Hadden: “If you attack, the United States will land forces to help the attacked state protect itself.”
Amit: “I can’t believe what I am hearing.”
Hadden: “Do not surprise us.”
Amit: “Surprise is one of the secrets of success.”
Hadden: “I don’t know what the significance of American aid is for you.”
Amit: “It isn’t aid for us, it is for yourselves.”
While Hadden didn’t actually suggest that the Israelis themselves attack an American ship, it is clear that he did indicate that it should be Israel that manipulates affairs in such a way as to provide a casus belli for the US to enter the war on Israel’s side.
Bergman’s story is revealing for two reasons; firstly, it provides even more credibility to the story of the USS Liberty affair in which the Israel Air Force deliberately attacked a US warship in order to attract the US into their war against the Egyptians by making it look like the attack was carried out by the Egyptians.
Secondly, it is revealing inasmuch that a senior and well respected Israeli journalist should expose the details of the conversation held back in 1967 as Israel was planning to attack Egypt at a time when today Israel is considering its options with regards to attacking Iran and when the US has a considerable armada of warships close to the Iranian shore in the Persian Gulf and Straights of Hamuz. It begs the question: Is Bergman warning the world that what happened forty-five years ago could happen again today?
Time, as usual, will tell.
According to Bergman, part of the transcript read thus:
Amit: “We are approaching a turning point that is more important for you than it is for us. After all, you people know everything. We are in a grave situation, and I believe we have reached it, because we have not acted yet. . . . Personally, I am sorry that we did not react immediately. It is possible that we may have broken some rules if we had, but the outcome would have been to your benefit. I was in favor of acting. We should have struck before the build-up.”
Hadden: “That would have brought Russia and the United States against you.”
Amit: “You are wrong. . . . We have now reached a new stage, after the expulsion of the U.N. inspectors. You should know that it’s your problem, not ours.”
Hadden: “Help us by giving us a good reason to come in on your side. Get them to fire at something, a ship, for example.”
Amit: “That is not the point.”
Hadden: “If you attack, the United States will land forces to help the attacked state protect itself.”
Amit: “I can’t believe what I am hearing.”
Hadden: “Do not surprise us.”
Amit: “Surprise is one of the secrets of success.”
Hadden: “I don’t know what the significance of American aid is for you.”
Amit: “It isn’t aid for us, it is for yourselves.”
While Hadden didn’t actually suggest that the Israelis themselves attack an American ship, it is clear that he did indicate that it should be Israel that manipulates affairs in such a way as to provide a casus belli for the US to enter the war on Israel’s side.
Bergman’s story is revealing for two reasons; firstly, it provides even more credibility to the story of the USS Liberty affair in which the Israel Air Force deliberately attacked a US warship in order to attract the US into their war against the Egyptians by making it look like the attack was carried out by the Egyptians.
Secondly, it is revealing inasmuch that a senior and well respected Israeli journalist should expose the details of the conversation held back in 1967 as Israel was planning to attack Egypt at a time when today Israel is considering its options with regards to attacking Iran and when the US has a considerable armada of warships close to the Iranian shore in the Persian Gulf and Straights of Hamuz. It begs the question: Is Bergman warning the world that what happened forty-five years ago could happen again today?
Time, as usual, will tell.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
NEOCONSERVATIVES IN COMPLETE DISARRAY OVER FINDING A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
The only thing certain within the neoconservative ranks at the moment is the fact that they don’t seem to think any of the current crop of candidates are really suitable for their particular needs.
The editors of neocon blog National Review Online reckon ‘Mitt is lacklustre, but Newt is risky’.
Jennifer Rubin, herself a neoconservative, writing in the Washington Post is just plain confused and is not sure which way to turn. The only reason I can think of for her feeling the need to write this particular piece was that she is frustrated. Why else would you write something that showed little more than how confused one can be? But Jennifer at the end of her piece resorts to fatalism; ‘whoever wins, wins’.
Indiana State Governor Mitch Daniels has all the charisma of a patch of neatly mown lawn while at the same time having absolutely no idea about Middle Eastern foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, top neocon commentator William Kristol is almost pleading for Daniels to throw his hat into the Republican Presidential race.
But, if Daniels is so lack-lustre in everything neocons are usually looking for in a Republican president, why is Kristol is so intent on getting Daniels in to the race?
Short of Kristol knowing something about Daniels that no other commentator knows about – except, perhaps, the full knowledge that Daniels entering the race just isn’t likely to happen – I can only think that Kristol hopes that some other candidate, the one he and fellow neocon Artur Davis, would really like to see run, Jeb Bush, put his hand up and hop into the race instead.
For all the neocons bluster about domestic politics, one needs to remember that the neoconservatives primary concerns are for the well-being of Israel and their cause of creating a Greater Israel. Their interest in American politics exists primarily and ultimately to serve Israeli interests and the well-being of the state of Israel.
Not unsurprisingly, Gingrich, who has sensed over the last few days that neocon support has been slipping away, has realised this and, desperate for the neocons support, has opted to voice just the hawkish kind of rhetoric the neocons like to hear with regards to Iran but this is unlikely now to be enough to appease the neocons.
As for Ron Paul; the neocons barely venture to mention his name such is their fear of his popularity in both Democrat and Republican ranks.
The coming and passing of the Florida race may well reveal all.
Or not!
It’s easy for commentators – left and right alike – to say there are interesting times ahead as events unfold, but we should all bear in mind what terrible consequences there will be if the wrong choices are made.
The editors of neocon blog National Review Online reckon ‘Mitt is lacklustre, but Newt is risky’.
Jennifer Rubin, herself a neoconservative, writing in the Washington Post is just plain confused and is not sure which way to turn. The only reason I can think of for her feeling the need to write this particular piece was that she is frustrated. Why else would you write something that showed little more than how confused one can be? But Jennifer at the end of her piece resorts to fatalism; ‘whoever wins, wins’.
Indiana State Governor Mitch Daniels has all the charisma of a patch of neatly mown lawn while at the same time having absolutely no idea about Middle Eastern foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, top neocon commentator William Kristol is almost pleading for Daniels to throw his hat into the Republican Presidential race.
But, if Daniels is so lack-lustre in everything neocons are usually looking for in a Republican president, why is Kristol is so intent on getting Daniels in to the race?
Short of Kristol knowing something about Daniels that no other commentator knows about – except, perhaps, the full knowledge that Daniels entering the race just isn’t likely to happen – I can only think that Kristol hopes that some other candidate, the one he and fellow neocon Artur Davis, would really like to see run, Jeb Bush, put his hand up and hop into the race instead.
For all the neocons bluster about domestic politics, one needs to remember that the neoconservatives primary concerns are for the well-being of Israel and their cause of creating a Greater Israel. Their interest in American politics exists primarily and ultimately to serve Israeli interests and the well-being of the state of Israel.
Not unsurprisingly, Gingrich, who has sensed over the last few days that neocon support has been slipping away, has realised this and, desperate for the neocons support, has opted to voice just the hawkish kind of rhetoric the neocons like to hear with regards to Iran but this is unlikely now to be enough to appease the neocons.
As for Ron Paul; the neocons barely venture to mention his name such is their fear of his popularity in both Democrat and Republican ranks.
The coming and passing of the Florida race may well reveal all.
Or not!
It’s easy for commentators – left and right alike – to say there are interesting times ahead as events unfold, but we should all bear in mind what terrible consequences there will be if the wrong choices are made.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
NEOCONS GET DESPERATE: DID NEOCON FABRICATE DOCUMENT TO GET MITCH DANIELS TO RUN FOR REPUBLICAN NOMINATION?
Yesterday I wrote of William Kristol’s ‘exclusive’ article in The Weekly Standard claiming that his office had ‘mysteriously’ received a document that claimed to be a part of the text of the forthcoming Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union Address to be delivered next Tuesday. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is down to deliver the Republican response. In the mysterious document it is claimed that Daniels will announce his intention to enter the Republican race if enough Republicans asked him.
It now seems that this whole story was just a desperate attempt by Kristol to lure Daniels into the fray. While Daniels himself is yet to deny that the document is genuine, his office, according to Indychannel.com, has said that “Kristol's piece does not reflect the speech the governor intends to give Tuesday night”.
In other words, it’s a fabrication – regardless of how nicely Daniels’ office phrases it.
Apart from what is fast being exposed as a deliberate deceit from one of neoconservatism’s most senior and influential commentators, the affair highlights how desperate the neoconservatives have become about the current crop of frontrunners for the Republican candidacy both in terms of their right-wing credentials as well as their moral attributes, and also over the influence that Ron Paul is having on the race.
The deceit is one thing but, importantly, the desperation that has caused such a senior neocon to resort to such deceit indicates at the very least that their hopes for a reliably neocon- friendly Republican president at the next election are fading rapidly.
It now seems that this whole story was just a desperate attempt by Kristol to lure Daniels into the fray. While Daniels himself is yet to deny that the document is genuine, his office, according to Indychannel.com, has said that “Kristol's piece does not reflect the speech the governor intends to give Tuesday night”.
In other words, it’s a fabrication – regardless of how nicely Daniels’ office phrases it.
Apart from what is fast being exposed as a deliberate deceit from one of neoconservatism’s most senior and influential commentators, the affair highlights how desperate the neoconservatives have become about the current crop of frontrunners for the Republican candidacy both in terms of their right-wing credentials as well as their moral attributes, and also over the influence that Ron Paul is having on the race.
The deceit is one thing but, importantly, the desperation that has caused such a senior neocon to resort to such deceit indicates at the very least that their hopes for a reliably neocon- friendly Republican president at the next election are fading rapidly.
Friday, January 20, 2012
NEOCONS GET THEIR HOPES UP WITH POSSIBLE LATE ENTRY OF MITCH DANIELS AS REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
According to William Kristol at The Weekly Standard, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels may consider putting his hat in the ring for Republican presidential nomination if he can muster enough support.
Back in the beginning of December last year I wrote that it was clear that the neoconservatives were unhappy with the current crop of candidates. Kristol gave a list of other potential runners that he would prefer to see run and Mitch Daniels figured well on the list but, as I wrote then: “Mitch Daniels? In May, Kristol was wondering if Daniels might run, but by October his hopes were dashed and they are unlikely to be re-awakened”. Now, it seems, Daniel’s might just be reconsidering his options if what Kristol is telling us is true about a ‘leaked’ document that was mysteriously delivered to Kristol’s offices.
Certainly, the current crop of runners have little going for them from the Republicans point of view. Many have already fallen by the wayside and those that remain are either blighted with something unacceptable in their past or, as in the case of Ron Paul, are completely unacceptable to mainstream Republicans yet popular with many on both sides of the political divide who are fed up with America’s endless wars and threats of war and the outrageous amounts of money that have been wasted on them.
Ron Paul, at first dismissed as being just a radical isolationist and libertarian, has become a real threat to the neocons and their agenda for war against Iran, a war that they hope will bring Israel a little closer to their dream of creating a Greater Israel. The neocons might see Mitch Daniels as a possible alternative to bring the running back to their side of table.
Time will tell.
Back in the beginning of December last year I wrote that it was clear that the neoconservatives were unhappy with the current crop of candidates. Kristol gave a list of other potential runners that he would prefer to see run and Mitch Daniels figured well on the list but, as I wrote then: “Mitch Daniels? In May, Kristol was wondering if Daniels might run, but by October his hopes were dashed and they are unlikely to be re-awakened”. Now, it seems, Daniel’s might just be reconsidering his options if what Kristol is telling us is true about a ‘leaked’ document that was mysteriously delivered to Kristol’s offices.
Certainly, the current crop of runners have little going for them from the Republicans point of view. Many have already fallen by the wayside and those that remain are either blighted with something unacceptable in their past or, as in the case of Ron Paul, are completely unacceptable to mainstream Republicans yet popular with many on both sides of the political divide who are fed up with America’s endless wars and threats of war and the outrageous amounts of money that have been wasted on them.
Ron Paul, at first dismissed as being just a radical isolationist and libertarian, has become a real threat to the neocons and their agenda for war against Iran, a war that they hope will bring Israel a little closer to their dream of creating a Greater Israel. The neocons might see Mitch Daniels as a possible alternative to bring the running back to their side of table.
Time will tell.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
ISRAEL RESORTS TO MURDER IN ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE WORLD OF IRAN’S SO-CALLED ‘NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM’
Israel is so desperate to convince the world that any attack it launches against Iran will be because of its ‘nuclear weapons program’ that it has resorted to a program of murdering Iran’s nuclear scientists in order to bring world public opinion on side to support such an attack.
Yesterday, another of Iran’s top nuclear scientists was murdered by Israel’s Mossad via the use of a magnetic bomb attached to the door of the car the scientist, 32 year old Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was travelling in. Roshan is the fifth Iranian scientist since 2007 to be murdered by Israeli terrorists.
Prior to this latest series of murders, (Israel had murdered Egyptian nuclear scientists in the past when Egypt was beginning to develop a nuclear program), Israel and her allies in the West were relying on intense propaganda to convince the West to support an attack against Iran. However, over the last few years, particularly since the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 assessed that Iran had abandoned it’s nuclear weapons program in 2003, the people of the world aren’t quite so convinced that Iran has any ‘nuclear weapons program’. Subsequent reports from both the US’s NIE’s and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while stating that Iran is likely to have a ‘nuclear weapons program’, have not been able to produce any actual hard evidence of such a program. All of the NIE’s and IAEA reports since 2007 to date have been based purely on supposition and reports from dissidents and defectors and highly suspect circumstantial evidence.
Israel’s hope is that it will be able to convince the West to attack Iran because of its ‘nuclear weapons program’. Israel knows full well, however, that simply attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is only likely to delay Iran’s nuclear program – weapon or otherwise – and that the real motive behind such an attack is not so much to destroy Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ but to bring about regime change by destroying Iran’s defence forces and government institutions to the point where the Iranian government is forced to capitulate to Western demands for regime change.
Any attack against Iran will be accompanied by an Israeli attack against Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon – and this, of course, is the real motivation for war against Iran.
Israel will go to any lengths to eventually see the fulfillment of their dream of a Greater Israel, a dream that can only be realised without Hezbollah and Hamas to resist them. And to rid themselves of Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel must eliminate Iran’s support of the two Arab organisations.
Yesterday, another of Iran’s top nuclear scientists was murdered by Israel’s Mossad via the use of a magnetic bomb attached to the door of the car the scientist, 32 year old Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was travelling in. Roshan is the fifth Iranian scientist since 2007 to be murdered by Israeli terrorists.
Prior to this latest series of murders, (Israel had murdered Egyptian nuclear scientists in the past when Egypt was beginning to develop a nuclear program), Israel and her allies in the West were relying on intense propaganda to convince the West to support an attack against Iran. However, over the last few years, particularly since the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 assessed that Iran had abandoned it’s nuclear weapons program in 2003, the people of the world aren’t quite so convinced that Iran has any ‘nuclear weapons program’. Subsequent reports from both the US’s NIE’s and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while stating that Iran is likely to have a ‘nuclear weapons program’, have not been able to produce any actual hard evidence of such a program. All of the NIE’s and IAEA reports since 2007 to date have been based purely on supposition and reports from dissidents and defectors and highly suspect circumstantial evidence.
Israel’s hope is that it will be able to convince the West to attack Iran because of its ‘nuclear weapons program’. Israel knows full well, however, that simply attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is only likely to delay Iran’s nuclear program – weapon or otherwise – and that the real motive behind such an attack is not so much to destroy Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ but to bring about regime change by destroying Iran’s defence forces and government institutions to the point where the Iranian government is forced to capitulate to Western demands for regime change.
Any attack against Iran will be accompanied by an Israeli attack against Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon – and this, of course, is the real motivation for war against Iran.
Israel will go to any lengths to eventually see the fulfillment of their dream of a Greater Israel, a dream that can only be realised without Hezbollah and Hamas to resist them. And to rid themselves of Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel must eliminate Iran’s support of the two Arab organisations.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
NEOCON DEMANDS U.S. ENCOURAGE ISRAEL TO ANNEX WHOLE OF ‘BIBLICAL ISRAEL’ TO CREATE GREATER ISRAEL
In a recent article in National Review Online, Barbara Lerner, an Islamophobic American Zionist and neoconservative writer, has laid it out on the line what the neoconservative goal really is as far as what they want for Israel – and that is nothing less than the annexation by Israel of all of the so-called ‘Biblical Lands’ in order to create a Greater Israel. She writes:
We must end the mindless repetition of enemy propaganda about “occupied land,” and encourage our Israeli allies to annex the whole of Biblical Israel…
Clearly, there are no longer any pretensions about ‘negotiations’ aimed at establishing a ‘Palestinian State’; the Zionists do not want a Palestinian state of any kind. They never have. Endless talk about talks has been aimed at playing for more time while the Zionists and the Israeli right-wing wait for an appropriate moment to find an excuse to launch a war against their enemies Hamas in the Gaza and the West Bank and Hezbollah in south Lebanon; a war so devastating that it will provide Israel with the casus belli to invade and then ultimately annex the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and even south Lebanon up to the Litani River.
Since such a devastating war can only be achieved off the back of a war with Iran who supports both Hamas and Hezbollah, one can now clearly see why the neoconservatives and the Israeli Zionists are so anxious to launch an attack against Iran.
Barbara Lerner has now made it abundantly clear what she and her neoconservative colleagues want – a Greater Israel that exists at the expense of the Palestinian people and their aspirations for a Palestinian State.
We must end the mindless repetition of enemy propaganda about “occupied land,” and encourage our Israeli allies to annex the whole of Biblical Israel…
Clearly, there are no longer any pretensions about ‘negotiations’ aimed at establishing a ‘Palestinian State’; the Zionists do not want a Palestinian state of any kind. They never have. Endless talk about talks has been aimed at playing for more time while the Zionists and the Israeli right-wing wait for an appropriate moment to find an excuse to launch a war against their enemies Hamas in the Gaza and the West Bank and Hezbollah in south Lebanon; a war so devastating that it will provide Israel with the casus belli to invade and then ultimately annex the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and even south Lebanon up to the Litani River.
Since such a devastating war can only be achieved off the back of a war with Iran who supports both Hamas and Hezbollah, one can now clearly see why the neoconservatives and the Israeli Zionists are so anxious to launch an attack against Iran.
Barbara Lerner has now made it abundantly clear what she and her neoconservative colleagues want – a Greater Israel that exists at the expense of the Palestinian people and their aspirations for a Palestinian State.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
SELECTIVE ‘DEMOCRACY’: NEOCONS WANT TO DICTATE TO ARAB NATIONS WHICH TYPE OF ‘DEMOCRACY’ THEY CAN AND CAN’T HAVE
A recent article in Commentary by Jonathan Tobin summed up how arrogant neoconservatives can be when it comes to sticking their noses into the business of other sovereign nations – and, of course, especially Arab nations that are problematic to Israel.
The neoconservative’s greatest fear is that the series of revolutions that last year rolled across North Africa and into the Middle East will bring to power Islamist governments that will not be able to be contained by the US. Never mind that the vast majority of the people of these nations are Muslims and ignoring the fact that elections in Egypt have overwhelmingly favoured theocratic parties and, in particular, the Muslim Brotherhood, the neoconservatives are insisting that the Obama government do not support the interim government that allows the Muslim Brotherhood the opportunity to become a government.
Tobin says that the Obama administration in trying to establish a working relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood is a mistake “not just because it is based on a misperception of the Islamists’ goals regarding democracy and willingness to keep the peace with Israel. It is also a slap in the face of the country’s military government that remains the only obstacle between the Brotherhood and the creation of another Islamic republic”.
For all the neocons talk of ‘democracy’ being allowed to prevail, it seems that a military dictatorship in this case is more preferable – and, indeed, should be supported by the US – if it seems the people are likely to elect a government that is unacceptable to the neoconservatives.
This is not the first time this has happened; as we saw in the 26 January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections when Hamas won government by a handsome majority, the US and Israel, together with their Western allies, simply refused to recognise the elected government. Since they held the purse strings, the Hamas government was unable to function.
Egypt, however, is a different matter. If the Muslim Brotherhood ultimately win government fair and square in the current election series, then the US and their Western allies are going to have a tough time explaining why they can’t support a government that has been democratically elected.
The same is likely to happen in Syria once Assad is gone. The Muslim Brotherhood there is an also very strong and any democratic election held in Syria post-Assad is likely to see an Islamist government formed. And it’s not likely to be any friendlier toward Israel than the current one is. They’ll still be demanding the return of the Golan Heights.
Hypocrisy and arrogance are the values that ‘they’ hate about ‘us’.
Who can blame them?
It’s a good job that the neocons have the likes of Jonathan Tobin on their books to show us how transparent their policies actually are and in which nation their real interests really lay.
The neoconservative’s greatest fear is that the series of revolutions that last year rolled across North Africa and into the Middle East will bring to power Islamist governments that will not be able to be contained by the US. Never mind that the vast majority of the people of these nations are Muslims and ignoring the fact that elections in Egypt have overwhelmingly favoured theocratic parties and, in particular, the Muslim Brotherhood, the neoconservatives are insisting that the Obama government do not support the interim government that allows the Muslim Brotherhood the opportunity to become a government.
Tobin says that the Obama administration in trying to establish a working relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood is a mistake “not just because it is based on a misperception of the Islamists’ goals regarding democracy and willingness to keep the peace with Israel. It is also a slap in the face of the country’s military government that remains the only obstacle between the Brotherhood and the creation of another Islamic republic”.
For all the neocons talk of ‘democracy’ being allowed to prevail, it seems that a military dictatorship in this case is more preferable – and, indeed, should be supported by the US – if it seems the people are likely to elect a government that is unacceptable to the neoconservatives.
This is not the first time this has happened; as we saw in the 26 January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections when Hamas won government by a handsome majority, the US and Israel, together with their Western allies, simply refused to recognise the elected government. Since they held the purse strings, the Hamas government was unable to function.
Egypt, however, is a different matter. If the Muslim Brotherhood ultimately win government fair and square in the current election series, then the US and their Western allies are going to have a tough time explaining why they can’t support a government that has been democratically elected.
The same is likely to happen in Syria once Assad is gone. The Muslim Brotherhood there is an also very strong and any democratic election held in Syria post-Assad is likely to see an Islamist government formed. And it’s not likely to be any friendlier toward Israel than the current one is. They’ll still be demanding the return of the Golan Heights.
Hypocrisy and arrogance are the values that ‘they’ hate about ‘us’.
Who can blame them?
It’s a good job that the neocons have the likes of Jonathan Tobin on their books to show us how transparent their policies actually are and in which nation their real interests really lay.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
RICK SANTORUM GETS THE NOD AS THE NEOCONS’ MAN
No sooner had Rupert Murdoch anointed Rick Santorum last night as the man he will support for the presidency then William Kristol quickly posted a last minute tid-bit at The Weekly Standard website before heading off to bed saying what a ‘good omen’ it was for him to bump into Santorum in the lobby of the hotel that they both just happen to be staying at.
Neocons don’t do ‘omens’. They carefully plan stuff.
They’ve been hanging out in the wings for weeks waiting and watching how each of the candidates are performing, paying particular attention to their foreign policy attributes. It’s odd, however, that Kristol barely even mentioned Santorum as a possibility when he was rummaging around in an article that clearly demonstrated that they were very disappointed with the then field. As I said in my article at the time, Kristol’s list of possibilities then was Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, but I doubt – apart from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio – that he took any of them seriously.
But now the man with the most influence has come down on the side of Santorum, all we can do now is sit back and watch how all the neocons follow their master’s words.
Neocons don’t do ‘omens’. They carefully plan stuff.
They’ve been hanging out in the wings for weeks waiting and watching how each of the candidates are performing, paying particular attention to their foreign policy attributes. It’s odd, however, that Kristol barely even mentioned Santorum as a possibility when he was rummaging around in an article that clearly demonstrated that they were very disappointed with the then field. As I said in my article at the time, Kristol’s list of possibilities then was Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, but I doubt – apart from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio – that he took any of them seriously.
But now the man with the most influence has come down on the side of Santorum, all we can do now is sit back and watch how all the neocons follow their master’s words.
ANDREW BOLT BECOMES A FULLY-FLEDGED NEOCON – WITH A TRIP TO ISRAEL
After his recent visit to Israel, Andrew Bolt, one of Australia’s most notorious Islamophobic racists, has taken the final step required to become a fully-fledged neoconservative. As Bolt himself says, Israel “makes you seem so neoconservative”. And there’s nothing like a trip to Israel to affirm ones aspiration.
The question now, however, is; who paid for it?
Most neocon journos – particularly those in the pay of Murdoch – usually get their trips bought and paid for by some right-wing Zionist lobby organisation or another; its how they keep control of what’s being said in the media about Israel.
It’ll be interesting to see what Bolt will be up to over the coming month as a result of his ‘elevation’ to the ranks of the fully-fledged neocon. Will he still be working for Murdoch? More than likely – despite last month’s wishful thinking on my part. Will he carry on with his column at the Herald-Sun? It’s hard to tell looking at it just at the moment. He’s clearly taken on a column at the UK Spectator but whether or not it’s going to be a regular column isn’t clear. The Spectator is a British neocon monthly owned by the Barclay brothers who also own the UK Daily Telegraph group of publications.
The Spectator audience is a little more upmarket than the redneck knuckle-dragging morons that usually infest his blog at the Herald-Sun, so who know who he’ll be writing for next year. Whoever it is, though, it’ll be interesting to read how he and his mob are going to justify the up-coming war against Iran.
The question now, however, is; who paid for it?
Most neocon journos – particularly those in the pay of Murdoch – usually get their trips bought and paid for by some right-wing Zionist lobby organisation or another; its how they keep control of what’s being said in the media about Israel.
It’ll be interesting to see what Bolt will be up to over the coming month as a result of his ‘elevation’ to the ranks of the fully-fledged neocon. Will he still be working for Murdoch? More than likely – despite last month’s wishful thinking on my part. Will he carry on with his column at the Herald-Sun? It’s hard to tell looking at it just at the moment. He’s clearly taken on a column at the UK Spectator but whether or not it’s going to be a regular column isn’t clear. The Spectator is a British neocon monthly owned by the Barclay brothers who also own the UK Daily Telegraph group of publications.
The Spectator audience is a little more upmarket than the redneck knuckle-dragging morons that usually infest his blog at the Herald-Sun, so who know who he’ll be writing for next year. Whoever it is, though, it’ll be interesting to read how he and his mob are going to justify the up-coming war against Iran.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
IS CATACLYSMIC WAR AGAINST IRAN ONLY A DISTRACTION TO COVER ISRAEL’S ULTIMATE WAR AIMS?
Any strike on Iran by either the US or Israel or both is likely to be cataclysmic in scale yet for the Zionists of Israel such a war will serve only to distract the people of the West from the real aims of instigating such a horrific war which is to provide both the opportunity and the cover for Israel to realise its ultimate regional endgame of creating a Greater Israel. The Zionist’s dream of a Greater Israel includes occupying, and eventually annexing, south Lebanon up to at least the Litani River and possibly beyond, and also the full occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the eventual deportation of the Palestinians living in these places to the Sinai and Jordan.
Iran is a geographically large country with a well educated and cultured population that has, since the revolution in 1979 that threw out the US-supported Shah, mainly supported its theocratic hierarchy. It does have its own internal problems that are largely over domestic issues. The Iranian people clearly would like to have their government pay more attention to their welfare needs. Unemployment is high; inflation is high; wages could be better; the health system needs improvement; infrastructure needs upgrading, especially with regard to the processing of its own natural resources. For sure there is a demand for a more liberalised legislation that relies less on Sharia law and more on natural justice. But, for all of Iran’s internal short-comings, the Iranian people are essentially united when it comes to supporting its government’s nuclear power ambitions and also the defence of their country against US and Israeli aggression, threatened or otherwise.
The moment that the West thought it might be able to influence and exploit Iran’s internal divisions in order to create an environment that might bring about revolution leading to regime change has now long passed. The disputed elections of June 2009 created violence in the streets which clearly were aggravated by agents provocateurs supported and financed by Israel and the US. However, the rather feeble attempts to create conditions that might lead to some sort of ‘regime change’ favourable to the US and Israel failed miserably.
As a result of these failures, the West, particularly the US and Israel, have returned to the rhetoric and propaganda of ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ that is designed to induce Western public opinion to support a military strike against Iran ostensibly to eliminate the so-called Iranian ‘nuclear threat’. In order to overcome the total lack of any evidence to support the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme, the US and Israel have adopted a ‘pull out all the stops’ propaganda strategy to the point now that they have said it so often, so loudly and so relentlessly that many now take it as read that Iran really does have a nuclear weapons program despite there still being no actual evidence to support the assertion.
The ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme originated as public rhetoric by Israeli Zionists and their neoconservative supporters in the United States soon after the Shah was deposed and the Islamic Revolutionary government took control. It has reached a crescendo today after years of continuous and increasingly relentless propaganda from Israeli Zionists and neoconservatives. The propaganda existed long before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran’s president, but once becoming president, Ahmadinejad’s own rhetoric about Israel has served only to reinforce the twisted propaganda from the Zionists and neoconservatives about Iran being an existential threat to Israel based on Iran’s continued so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
Recently, the Israelis and their neoconservative supporters have changed gear in their propaganda about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’. The call at first was supposedly about finding a diplomatic solution to the perceived problem of a nuclear Iran. Sanctions, as part of finding a ‘diplomatic solution’, are an absolutely necessary step in the path to war against Iran; world public opinion would not support a direct attack against Iran without going via the sanctions route first. UN endorsed sanctions are now in place and, just as the Israelis and the neoconservatives had hoped, they are not having any effect on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As a result, the Israelis and neoconservatives have shifted up a gear and are now demanding quite openly and in unison that the US attack Iran.
Some commentators have suggested that President Obama is hesitant about attacking Iran and that because of this Israel may take it upon themselves to attack unilaterally. The well publicised recent article by Jeffery Goldberg in Atlantic magazine suggests that there is a ‘50/50 chance’ that Israel will do just that. Well known neoconservative and former CIA officer, Reuel Marc Gerecht writing in The Weekly Standard also recently suggested that Israel may launch a unilateral strike against Iran. George Will, writing in the Washington Post has said, after lamenting the lack of action against Iran by the US; “If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned”. Other far-right neoconservatives on the other hand, like Michael Barone writing in National Review Online, are saying that Obama just might instigate an attack against Iran. Meanwhile, another neoconservative, Jonathan S. Tobin, writing in the neoconservative flagship intellectual magazine Commentary this month, goes as far as calling upon and encouraging Obama to “emulate Truman’s example of decisive leadership”, eluding to Truman’s use of nuclear weapons on Japan in an effort to end a war that was as good as already over anyway.
The rhetoric of Israel launching a unilateral strike against Iran is designed not so much to garner public opinion against Iran, but more to promote sympathy for Israel from a US Congress that may be otherwise hesitant to support a US strike against Iran. The idea is to get Congress to push Obama to support an Israel that feels so desperate about their situation that they may take it upon themselves to go it alone despite the risks involved. In the process, the rhetoric also attempts to garner public opinion that supports the notion that Israel is a ‘small embattled nation’ struggling to survive in a hostile region.
Pushing the ‘we might need to strike unilaterally’ propaganda as portrayed by the Israeli Zionists and the neoconservatives, however, does not stand up to close scrutiny and even the most cursory analysis reveals that it is, indeed, nothing more than propaganda.
The reality is; Israel is so reliant on the US that it would be utterly impossible for Israel to strike Iran ’unilaterally’. Israel will need the full support of the US to launch any attack against Iran even if the initial attack is carried out solely using current Israeli air force aircraft and personnel in order for such an attack to appear unilateral. The logistics of obtaining the fuel and ordnance alone that would be required for such a strike will necessitate the full connivance of the US; and the follow-up support of an America apparently coming to Israel’s aid to prevent retaliatory attacks by Iran would require meticulous advance planning and is not something that can be spontaneously set in motion at a moments notice.
The notion that Israel could act ‘unilaterally’ against Iran is one designed purely for propaganda purposes only.
Neither Israel nor the US will be attacking Iran for the exclusive purpose of eliminating Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to destroy its so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’; the US and the neoconservatives have made it quite clear that their aim is to bring about regime change in Iran and nothing less. The idea that either or both will attack in order to destroy Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ will merely be the stated casus belli to justify such an attack.And there are other realities that also need to be considered. Despite the now almost deafening rhetoric of Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’, there is still the not unimportant matter of evidence proving that Iran actually has a ‘nuclear weapons program’. To date not a single skerrick of any hard evidence has been produced to support any of the US or Israeli claims. The UN’s nuclear watchdog organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has not been able to find any evidence and the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 stated quite categorically that Iran had discarded its nuclear weapon program in 2003. While the 2010 NIE (which this year is entitled ‘The Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community’) has suggested that Iran “is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so”, no actual hard evidence was offered to support the idea that Iran actually had a ‘nuclear weapons program’. The 2010 NIE also noted tellingly that: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons”. Surely, if Iran hasn’t yet decided to build nuclear weapons how would it have a nuclear weapons program? And if they ‘do not know’ then what evidence can they possibly have to even assume that Iran has a ‘nuclear weapons program’?
As the threat of UN sanctions against Iran loomed yet again in mid-May, 2010, Turkey, Brazil and Iran came up with a plan that they thought would allay the West’s apprehensions about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’. The plan was actually in response to the West’s demands that Iran send its Low Enriched (LE) uranium to a third country for enrichment to Medium Enriched level (ME) for use in producing isotopes for cancer treatment. The product returned to Iran for use would not then be able to be further enriched to the High Enriched level (HE) required to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran arranged through Turkey and Brazil to send half of its 2400kgs of LE uranium off to France and/or Russia for conversion to ME uranium suitable for producing isotopes.
Not entirely unexpectedly, the US rejected the plan saying that this would still leave Iran with 1200kgs of uranium – enough, once enriched, to build one bomb – which was not acceptable to the US. The irony, of course, is that Iran is now left with enough uranium which, once enriched, is enough to build not just one bomb but two; a point seemingly lost on the US and their allies – or was it?
In rejecting the plan, (which conveniently left Iran with nearly two and a half tonnes of uranium) the way was immediately left open for the US to continue its pursuit of sanctions against Iran through the UN. It was by now quite clear where the US, Israel and their Western allies were heading with this strategy. If Russia and China vetoed further sanctions, the way would then be clear for the US and Israel to claim that Iran’s ‘pursuit of nuclear weapons’ could not now be stopped which would provide a pretext for either or both to then attack Iran. In order to avoid, or at least delay, war against Iran, Russia and China reluctantly agreed on 9 June 2010 to expand the already existing UN sanctions but not before the US agreed to water the new proposals down. Later, the US in partnership with the European Union, adopted further much stronger sanctions against Iran outside of UN oversight.
These latest sanctions, however, are doing nothing to deter Iran from continuing what it is actually legally entitled to do under international law with regards to uranium enrichment within the terms of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory. It is this lack of deterrence which has now brought on the upsurge in threats from Israel and the neoconservatives. The Israelis and the neoconservatives, continuing to ignore entirely the total lack of any evidence, believe that they have now provided Iran every opportunity to give up their quest for ‘nuclear weapons’ and the only option now is to take military action.
By ignoring the fact that there is no evidence to suggest Iran has a nuclear weapons program and continuing to insist that Iran gives up its lawful peaceful quest for nuclear generated electrical power and to be able to produce isotopes to treat cancer, Israel and the neoconservative have demonstrated that, regardless of anything else Iran might do to allay the West’s fears, the Israelis and the neoconservatives want nothing less than war against Iran.
And now we get down to the reason why war, and only war, is so necessary for the Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters.
Israel knows full well that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. They also know that, even if Iran did manage to obtain a nuclear weapon or two, it would still be utterly impotent. To be sure, two nuclear devices, or even one, detonated in Israel would likely destroy Israel, but if Iran were to commit such a horrendous crime, Iran knows it in turn would be destroyed in retaliation by Israel’s comparatively massive arsenal of nuclear weapons that are undoubtedly dispersed throughout Israel and on board Israel’s submarine fleet.
Despite this, however, the Zionists and neoconservatives, like George Will for example, argue that Iran has some kind of death wish whereby it is willing to ‘martyr’ itself in the cause of destroying Israel. To actually believe that Iran would be willing to sacrifice itself just to get at Israel in this way demonstrates only Zionism’s sense of monumental self-importance – or, more realistically, their desire to portray themselves as the perennial victim where Islam is out to get them no matter the cost.
All of this serves the Zionist purpose. Without war with Iran there would be nothing to distract the world’s attention away from an Israeli attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip. However, the benefit of war with Iran provides a multitude of perceived advantages.
Both the US and Israel have gone to great lengths over the years to emphasise Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ links to Iran portraying them as Iran’s ‘proxies’ on Israel’s doorstep. Building these connections to Iran has been essential to the Zionist’s strategy. From the propaganda point of view, the Zionists use of the word ‘proxy’ in describing Hezbollah and Hamas has been important; for the Zionists and neoconservatives to say that Hezbollah and Hamas are Iran’s ‘proxies’ is to imply that Iran is the main enemy and that Iran had developed Hezbollah and Hamas specifically to provide a means of getting closer to Israel. Presented as proof of this is the supply of arms and finance that flows from Iran.
The reality is somewhat different. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are organisations that resist Israel’s expansionist ambitions and, despite being of two different sects of Islam (Hezbollah is Shiite, as is Iran; while Hamas is Sunni) the two organisations have very common interests inasmuch as both are enemies of expansionist Zionism.
The Zionist dream of a Greater Israel is well known and its history and ideology are well documented. The original idea of a Greater Israel that stretched “from the Nile to the Euphrates” is now truly just a dream. But the Zionists haven’t given up entirely on their dream of a Greater Israel. The Zionists of today firmly believe that the dream of creating a Greater Israel that includes the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and south Lebanon up to the Litani River or even beyond, can be become a feasible reality.
Israel’s past attempts at occupying the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon have failed miserably due to resistance from the Palestinians and the Arabs respectively. Israel’s attempts to spread itself into the West Bank via ever-growing ‘settlements’ have had some success since the 1967 invasion and military occupation but nowhere near as successful as Israel’s invasion, occupation and eventual colonisation of the Golan Heights that occurred at the same time.
Recent attempts by Israel to eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas have failed. The 2006 attacks and invasion of south Lebanon ended in defeat for Israel despite the horrendous loss of lives inflicted on the civilian population by the Israelis. Likewise, the 2008/09 attacks on Hamas in the Gaza which slaughtered over 1300 innocent civilians and all but destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure was also to no avail. Both wars failed to draw in the US and Iran directly and succeeded only in gaining for Israel the condemnation of the world for what many saw as deliberate war crimes committed against civilian populations.
The Zionist leaders of Israel have learnt their lesson; in the future they will not attempt to get what they want while the eyes of the world are upon them. Before attacking Hezbollah and Hamas again the Zionists of Israel need to ensure that the eyes of world are looking elsewhere. They will also need to ensure that their casus belli for attacking Hezbollah and Hamas and invading Lebanon and the Gaza Strip is credible – and what more credible or plausible an excuse could the Israelis have for attacking Hezbollah and Hamas than pre-empting strikes by them in retaliation for Israel having attacked Iran in order to eliminate an ‘existential and imminent nuclear threat’.
While the eyes of the world are watching the turmoil and carnage being wrought on Iran, initiated possibly by Israel and then followed up with the full force of the US, the Israelis will feel free to smash all resistance to them as they attack and then invade Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and launch a full take-over of the West Bank on the grounds that the Palestinians there will launch a full-on third Intafada against the Israelis and the Zionist settlers.
For the war against Iran, the aim will be to bring the government to its knees by use of massive and overwhelming air power against Iran’s governmental and military institutions forcing the Iranians to capitulate and sue for peace at the UN. There is unlikely to be any kind of occupation; only the threat of more force if the government of Iran does not concede to US demands. The major demand will be for a change in government to one that is friendly to the US, Israel and the West; in other words; regime change.
Meanwhile, the Israelis will consolidate their positions in the areas they occupy by ruthlessly liquidating Hezbollah and Hamas during the fighting. The occupation of south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank eventually will give way to annexation, even in the face of opposition from most of the world, and the peoples of those places will be forced out and relocated. The Palestinian people will be forced in to the Sinai or Jordan while the Arabs of south Lebanon will be forced north of the Litani River.
Overall, once the war begins, the US and Israel will be relying on their overwhelming military might, especially their air-power, in order to prevail. The US are far too overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan to be able to invade and occupy such a vast country as Iran and would rely on its air-power to maintain its domination. In Lebanon and the Gaza Strip Israel would rely initially on its air-power and then ground mechanised and infantry forces to launch an invasion and maintain an occupation. The same would apply in the West Bank.
There will be nothing spontaneous or ‘unilateral’ about the coming confrontation; it has been in the planning for decades by the Zionists and their neoconservative supporters. Regime change in Iran will be the war aim for the US while the defeat of Hezbollah and Hamas and the subsequent occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon with a view to eventual annexation will be Israel’s war aims while creating a Greater Israel will be their ultimate goal. In all theatres the war will devastate the civilian populations leading to massive upheavals and deaths.
The war against Iran is likely to be cataclysmic in scale but for the Israelis such a war will serve only to be the catalyst for the creation of the Zionists dream; Greater Israel. The ultimate costs of the final confrontation, however, in the end may very well be more than any side can bear.
This article was first posted on 21 August 2010.
It's as appropriate today as it was then - maybe even more so!
Iran is a geographically large country with a well educated and cultured population that has, since the revolution in 1979 that threw out the US-supported Shah, mainly supported its theocratic hierarchy. It does have its own internal problems that are largely over domestic issues. The Iranian people clearly would like to have their government pay more attention to their welfare needs. Unemployment is high; inflation is high; wages could be better; the health system needs improvement; infrastructure needs upgrading, especially with regard to the processing of its own natural resources. For sure there is a demand for a more liberalised legislation that relies less on Sharia law and more on natural justice. But, for all of Iran’s internal short-comings, the Iranian people are essentially united when it comes to supporting its government’s nuclear power ambitions and also the defence of their country against US and Israeli aggression, threatened or otherwise.
The moment that the West thought it might be able to influence and exploit Iran’s internal divisions in order to create an environment that might bring about revolution leading to regime change has now long passed. The disputed elections of June 2009 created violence in the streets which clearly were aggravated by agents provocateurs supported and financed by Israel and the US. However, the rather feeble attempts to create conditions that might lead to some sort of ‘regime change’ favourable to the US and Israel failed miserably.
As a result of these failures, the West, particularly the US and Israel, have returned to the rhetoric and propaganda of ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ that is designed to induce Western public opinion to support a military strike against Iran ostensibly to eliminate the so-called Iranian ‘nuclear threat’. In order to overcome the total lack of any evidence to support the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme, the US and Israel have adopted a ‘pull out all the stops’ propaganda strategy to the point now that they have said it so often, so loudly and so relentlessly that many now take it as read that Iran really does have a nuclear weapons program despite there still being no actual evidence to support the assertion.
The ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ meme originated as public rhetoric by Israeli Zionists and their neoconservative supporters in the United States soon after the Shah was deposed and the Islamic Revolutionary government took control. It has reached a crescendo today after years of continuous and increasingly relentless propaganda from Israeli Zionists and neoconservatives. The propaganda existed long before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran’s president, but once becoming president, Ahmadinejad’s own rhetoric about Israel has served only to reinforce the twisted propaganda from the Zionists and neoconservatives about Iran being an existential threat to Israel based on Iran’s continued so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
Recently, the Israelis and their neoconservative supporters have changed gear in their propaganda about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’. The call at first was supposedly about finding a diplomatic solution to the perceived problem of a nuclear Iran. Sanctions, as part of finding a ‘diplomatic solution’, are an absolutely necessary step in the path to war against Iran; world public opinion would not support a direct attack against Iran without going via the sanctions route first. UN endorsed sanctions are now in place and, just as the Israelis and the neoconservatives had hoped, they are not having any effect on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As a result, the Israelis and neoconservatives have shifted up a gear and are now demanding quite openly and in unison that the US attack Iran.
Some commentators have suggested that President Obama is hesitant about attacking Iran and that because of this Israel may take it upon themselves to attack unilaterally. The well publicised recent article by Jeffery Goldberg in Atlantic magazine suggests that there is a ‘50/50 chance’ that Israel will do just that. Well known neoconservative and former CIA officer, Reuel Marc Gerecht writing in The Weekly Standard also recently suggested that Israel may launch a unilateral strike against Iran. George Will, writing in the Washington Post has said, after lamenting the lack of action against Iran by the US; “If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned”. Other far-right neoconservatives on the other hand, like Michael Barone writing in National Review Online, are saying that Obama just might instigate an attack against Iran. Meanwhile, another neoconservative, Jonathan S. Tobin, writing in the neoconservative flagship intellectual magazine Commentary this month, goes as far as calling upon and encouraging Obama to “emulate Truman’s example of decisive leadership”, eluding to Truman’s use of nuclear weapons on Japan in an effort to end a war that was as good as already over anyway.
The rhetoric of Israel launching a unilateral strike against Iran is designed not so much to garner public opinion against Iran, but more to promote sympathy for Israel from a US Congress that may be otherwise hesitant to support a US strike against Iran. The idea is to get Congress to push Obama to support an Israel that feels so desperate about their situation that they may take it upon themselves to go it alone despite the risks involved. In the process, the rhetoric also attempts to garner public opinion that supports the notion that Israel is a ‘small embattled nation’ struggling to survive in a hostile region.
Pushing the ‘we might need to strike unilaterally’ propaganda as portrayed by the Israeli Zionists and the neoconservatives, however, does not stand up to close scrutiny and even the most cursory analysis reveals that it is, indeed, nothing more than propaganda.
The reality is; Israel is so reliant on the US that it would be utterly impossible for Israel to strike Iran ’unilaterally’. Israel will need the full support of the US to launch any attack against Iran even if the initial attack is carried out solely using current Israeli air force aircraft and personnel in order for such an attack to appear unilateral. The logistics of obtaining the fuel and ordnance alone that would be required for such a strike will necessitate the full connivance of the US; and the follow-up support of an America apparently coming to Israel’s aid to prevent retaliatory attacks by Iran would require meticulous advance planning and is not something that can be spontaneously set in motion at a moments notice.
The notion that Israel could act ‘unilaterally’ against Iran is one designed purely for propaganda purposes only.
Neither Israel nor the US will be attacking Iran for the exclusive purpose of eliminating Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to destroy its so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’; the US and the neoconservatives have made it quite clear that their aim is to bring about regime change in Iran and nothing less. The idea that either or both will attack in order to destroy Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ will merely be the stated casus belli to justify such an attack.And there are other realities that also need to be considered. Despite the now almost deafening rhetoric of Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’, there is still the not unimportant matter of evidence proving that Iran actually has a ‘nuclear weapons program’. To date not a single skerrick of any hard evidence has been produced to support any of the US or Israeli claims. The UN’s nuclear watchdog organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has not been able to find any evidence and the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 stated quite categorically that Iran had discarded its nuclear weapon program in 2003. While the 2010 NIE (which this year is entitled ‘The Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community’) has suggested that Iran “is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so”, no actual hard evidence was offered to support the idea that Iran actually had a ‘nuclear weapons program’. The 2010 NIE also noted tellingly that: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons”. Surely, if Iran hasn’t yet decided to build nuclear weapons how would it have a nuclear weapons program? And if they ‘do not know’ then what evidence can they possibly have to even assume that Iran has a ‘nuclear weapons program’?
As the threat of UN sanctions against Iran loomed yet again in mid-May, 2010, Turkey, Brazil and Iran came up with a plan that they thought would allay the West’s apprehensions about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’. The plan was actually in response to the West’s demands that Iran send its Low Enriched (LE) uranium to a third country for enrichment to Medium Enriched level (ME) for use in producing isotopes for cancer treatment. The product returned to Iran for use would not then be able to be further enriched to the High Enriched level (HE) required to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran arranged through Turkey and Brazil to send half of its 2400kgs of LE uranium off to France and/or Russia for conversion to ME uranium suitable for producing isotopes.
Not entirely unexpectedly, the US rejected the plan saying that this would still leave Iran with 1200kgs of uranium – enough, once enriched, to build one bomb – which was not acceptable to the US. The irony, of course, is that Iran is now left with enough uranium which, once enriched, is enough to build not just one bomb but two; a point seemingly lost on the US and their allies – or was it?
In rejecting the plan, (which conveniently left Iran with nearly two and a half tonnes of uranium) the way was immediately left open for the US to continue its pursuit of sanctions against Iran through the UN. It was by now quite clear where the US, Israel and their Western allies were heading with this strategy. If Russia and China vetoed further sanctions, the way would then be clear for the US and Israel to claim that Iran’s ‘pursuit of nuclear weapons’ could not now be stopped which would provide a pretext for either or both to then attack Iran. In order to avoid, or at least delay, war against Iran, Russia and China reluctantly agreed on 9 June 2010 to expand the already existing UN sanctions but not before the US agreed to water the new proposals down. Later, the US in partnership with the European Union, adopted further much stronger sanctions against Iran outside of UN oversight.
These latest sanctions, however, are doing nothing to deter Iran from continuing what it is actually legally entitled to do under international law with regards to uranium enrichment within the terms of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory. It is this lack of deterrence which has now brought on the upsurge in threats from Israel and the neoconservatives. The Israelis and the neoconservatives, continuing to ignore entirely the total lack of any evidence, believe that they have now provided Iran every opportunity to give up their quest for ‘nuclear weapons’ and the only option now is to take military action.
By ignoring the fact that there is no evidence to suggest Iran has a nuclear weapons program and continuing to insist that Iran gives up its lawful peaceful quest for nuclear generated electrical power and to be able to produce isotopes to treat cancer, Israel and the neoconservative have demonstrated that, regardless of anything else Iran might do to allay the West’s fears, the Israelis and the neoconservatives want nothing less than war against Iran.
And now we get down to the reason why war, and only war, is so necessary for the Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters.
Israel knows full well that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. They also know that, even if Iran did manage to obtain a nuclear weapon or two, it would still be utterly impotent. To be sure, two nuclear devices, or even one, detonated in Israel would likely destroy Israel, but if Iran were to commit such a horrendous crime, Iran knows it in turn would be destroyed in retaliation by Israel’s comparatively massive arsenal of nuclear weapons that are undoubtedly dispersed throughout Israel and on board Israel’s submarine fleet.
Despite this, however, the Zionists and neoconservatives, like George Will for example, argue that Iran has some kind of death wish whereby it is willing to ‘martyr’ itself in the cause of destroying Israel. To actually believe that Iran would be willing to sacrifice itself just to get at Israel in this way demonstrates only Zionism’s sense of monumental self-importance – or, more realistically, their desire to portray themselves as the perennial victim where Islam is out to get them no matter the cost.
All of this serves the Zionist purpose. Without war with Iran there would be nothing to distract the world’s attention away from an Israeli attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip. However, the benefit of war with Iran provides a multitude of perceived advantages.
Both the US and Israel have gone to great lengths over the years to emphasise Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ links to Iran portraying them as Iran’s ‘proxies’ on Israel’s doorstep. Building these connections to Iran has been essential to the Zionist’s strategy. From the propaganda point of view, the Zionists use of the word ‘proxy’ in describing Hezbollah and Hamas has been important; for the Zionists and neoconservatives to say that Hezbollah and Hamas are Iran’s ‘proxies’ is to imply that Iran is the main enemy and that Iran had developed Hezbollah and Hamas specifically to provide a means of getting closer to Israel. Presented as proof of this is the supply of arms and finance that flows from Iran.
The reality is somewhat different. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are organisations that resist Israel’s expansionist ambitions and, despite being of two different sects of Islam (Hezbollah is Shiite, as is Iran; while Hamas is Sunni) the two organisations have very common interests inasmuch as both are enemies of expansionist Zionism.
The Zionist dream of a Greater Israel is well known and its history and ideology are well documented. The original idea of a Greater Israel that stretched “from the Nile to the Euphrates” is now truly just a dream. But the Zionists haven’t given up entirely on their dream of a Greater Israel. The Zionists of today firmly believe that the dream of creating a Greater Israel that includes the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and south Lebanon up to the Litani River or even beyond, can be become a feasible reality.
Israel’s past attempts at occupying the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon have failed miserably due to resistance from the Palestinians and the Arabs respectively. Israel’s attempts to spread itself into the West Bank via ever-growing ‘settlements’ have had some success since the 1967 invasion and military occupation but nowhere near as successful as Israel’s invasion, occupation and eventual colonisation of the Golan Heights that occurred at the same time.
Recent attempts by Israel to eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas have failed. The 2006 attacks and invasion of south Lebanon ended in defeat for Israel despite the horrendous loss of lives inflicted on the civilian population by the Israelis. Likewise, the 2008/09 attacks on Hamas in the Gaza which slaughtered over 1300 innocent civilians and all but destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure was also to no avail. Both wars failed to draw in the US and Iran directly and succeeded only in gaining for Israel the condemnation of the world for what many saw as deliberate war crimes committed against civilian populations.
The Zionist leaders of Israel have learnt their lesson; in the future they will not attempt to get what they want while the eyes of the world are upon them. Before attacking Hezbollah and Hamas again the Zionists of Israel need to ensure that the eyes of world are looking elsewhere. They will also need to ensure that their casus belli for attacking Hezbollah and Hamas and invading Lebanon and the Gaza Strip is credible – and what more credible or plausible an excuse could the Israelis have for attacking Hezbollah and Hamas than pre-empting strikes by them in retaliation for Israel having attacked Iran in order to eliminate an ‘existential and imminent nuclear threat’.
While the eyes of the world are watching the turmoil and carnage being wrought on Iran, initiated possibly by Israel and then followed up with the full force of the US, the Israelis will feel free to smash all resistance to them as they attack and then invade Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and launch a full take-over of the West Bank on the grounds that the Palestinians there will launch a full-on third Intafada against the Israelis and the Zionist settlers.
For the war against Iran, the aim will be to bring the government to its knees by use of massive and overwhelming air power against Iran’s governmental and military institutions forcing the Iranians to capitulate and sue for peace at the UN. There is unlikely to be any kind of occupation; only the threat of more force if the government of Iran does not concede to US demands. The major demand will be for a change in government to one that is friendly to the US, Israel and the West; in other words; regime change.
Meanwhile, the Israelis will consolidate their positions in the areas they occupy by ruthlessly liquidating Hezbollah and Hamas during the fighting. The occupation of south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank eventually will give way to annexation, even in the face of opposition from most of the world, and the peoples of those places will be forced out and relocated. The Palestinian people will be forced in to the Sinai or Jordan while the Arabs of south Lebanon will be forced north of the Litani River.
Overall, once the war begins, the US and Israel will be relying on their overwhelming military might, especially their air-power, in order to prevail. The US are far too overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan to be able to invade and occupy such a vast country as Iran and would rely on its air-power to maintain its domination. In Lebanon and the Gaza Strip Israel would rely initially on its air-power and then ground mechanised and infantry forces to launch an invasion and maintain an occupation. The same would apply in the West Bank.
There will be nothing spontaneous or ‘unilateral’ about the coming confrontation; it has been in the planning for decades by the Zionists and their neoconservative supporters. Regime change in Iran will be the war aim for the US while the defeat of Hezbollah and Hamas and the subsequent occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon with a view to eventual annexation will be Israel’s war aims while creating a Greater Israel will be their ultimate goal. In all theatres the war will devastate the civilian populations leading to massive upheavals and deaths.
The war against Iran is likely to be cataclysmic in scale but for the Israelis such a war will serve only to be the catalyst for the creation of the Zionists dream; Greater Israel. The ultimate costs of the final confrontation, however, in the end may very well be more than any side can bear.
This article was first posted on 21 August 2010.
It's as appropriate today as it was then - maybe even more so!
Saturday, December 24, 2011
THE SYRIAN BOMBINGS HAS THE TOUCH OF THE MOSSAD ABOUT IT
Friday’s bombings in Damascus have all the hallmarks of a Mossad false flag bombing operation about it. Here’s why.
According to a New York Times report, the bombing was a suicide car bomb. Meanwhile, the UK’s Daily Telegraph is reporting that the Syrian government has blamed al Qaeda elements among Syria’s anti-Assad rebels for the attacks, while a dissident claiming inside knowledge is blaming the Assad government itself for the bombings saying that the bodies were of dissidents murdered by the security forces then planted prior to the explosions to make it seem as though they were victims of the bombing (a scenario that some will find has a familiar ring to it).
The first problem with the story is that it is reported as being a suicide bombing. Suicide bombings are usually confined to either Islamic fighters wanting to kill people of other ethnic/religious groups as has been seen in Iraq, or Islamic fighters wanting to kill foreign troops on their lands as has been seen with Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis and Islamic fighters in Iraq wanting to kill American and Western troops. Whilst suicide bombings have been used in violence between secular groupings, as in revolution and civic upheaval, such bombings are very rare and have usually been by individual’s intent on revenge killing and are usually of a more personal nature as in, say, revenge for the killing of a relative. With two huge bombs going off simultaneously, as in Syria on Friday, these are well organised and designed for maximum impact.
As for the notion that the Syrian government would bomb its own security headquarters buildings – a small regional or district office, maybe – just to gain a few Brownie points from the Arab League is ludicrous. And since the opposition has denied being responsible on account of it only operating on a defensive basis, this only leaves one other option – Israel’s Mossad – and it’s not as though Israel hasn’t used car bombs before in Damascus.
Next, one needs to ask why Mossad would do such a thing; what’s in for them? How do they gain?
Mossad have always worked in devious ways and, while it is often difficult to figure out why they have done any specific deed, one can count on it having some kind of desired effect, even if sometimes obscure, for the Israeli government who would have given the authority which initiated the action.
In the case of the Syria bombing, the ultimate aim would be to initiate further violence that might cause escalation to a point that Iran and/or its proxy Hezbollah is drawn in to the fray. This would then trigger the confrontation that Israel for years has been searching for.
According to a New York Times report, the bombing was a suicide car bomb. Meanwhile, the UK’s Daily Telegraph is reporting that the Syrian government has blamed al Qaeda elements among Syria’s anti-Assad rebels for the attacks, while a dissident claiming inside knowledge is blaming the Assad government itself for the bombings saying that the bodies were of dissidents murdered by the security forces then planted prior to the explosions to make it seem as though they were victims of the bombing (a scenario that some will find has a familiar ring to it).
The first problem with the story is that it is reported as being a suicide bombing. Suicide bombings are usually confined to either Islamic fighters wanting to kill people of other ethnic/religious groups as has been seen in Iraq, or Islamic fighters wanting to kill foreign troops on their lands as has been seen with Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis and Islamic fighters in Iraq wanting to kill American and Western troops. Whilst suicide bombings have been used in violence between secular groupings, as in revolution and civic upheaval, such bombings are very rare and have usually been by individual’s intent on revenge killing and are usually of a more personal nature as in, say, revenge for the killing of a relative. With two huge bombs going off simultaneously, as in Syria on Friday, these are well organised and designed for maximum impact.
As for the notion that the Syrian government would bomb its own security headquarters buildings – a small regional or district office, maybe – just to gain a few Brownie points from the Arab League is ludicrous. And since the opposition has denied being responsible on account of it only operating on a defensive basis, this only leaves one other option – Israel’s Mossad – and it’s not as though Israel hasn’t used car bombs before in Damascus.
Next, one needs to ask why Mossad would do such a thing; what’s in for them? How do they gain?
Mossad have always worked in devious ways and, while it is often difficult to figure out why they have done any specific deed, one can count on it having some kind of desired effect, even if sometimes obscure, for the Israeli government who would have given the authority which initiated the action.
In the case of the Syria bombing, the ultimate aim would be to initiate further violence that might cause escalation to a point that Iran and/or its proxy Hezbollah is drawn in to the fray. This would then trigger the confrontation that Israel for years has been searching for.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
NEOCON LUNATICS WANT WAR WITH NORTH KOREA RIGHT NOW!
The editors of the neoconservative National Review Online are today demanding that the US:
…should conduct military exercises around the peninsula, we should fly over their nuclear sites with stealth aircraft, and we should demonstrate that we can reach out and touch the regime anytime and anywhere. We should freeze the assets of the Kim family wherever they may be. We should shut down Kim’s criminal enterprises by stepping up our patrols of ships that leave the peninsula. We should give our allies in South Korea all the military capability necessary to defend themselves and strike back at the North should they once again be hit.
The editors naively go on to say:
We should do all this before Beijing and Pyongyang have time to hatch a plan that solidifies the status quo. The status quo is dangerous, far more so than patiently and relentlessly working to bring down the Kim regime. For once, instead of waiting to see if a new dictator is “someone we can work with,” we should show the dictator what it will take to work with us. It should be clear that unless the Kim family gets rid of its nuclear weapons and its organs of repression and crime, we will work to remove it from power.
The world is fortunate that Obama is still President of the US and very unlikely to heed the neocons lunatic advice demanding that world war three start right now before Beijing and Pyongyang have time to ‘hatch a plan that solidifies the status quo’.
Do the warmongering lunatics at neocon headquarters really believe that the Chinese and the North Koreans hadn’t thought about what will happen in the event of Kim Jong-Il’s death?
I have little time for any totalitarian government but I have even less for the lunacy of the neoconservatives who believe they are able to project military power without there being horrific consequences. Have they learnt nothing from their wars against the Vietnamese, Afghan and Iraqi people? The neocons misguided belief that the US is now the world’s only superpower is going to get more Americans and their South Korean allies killed when they realise that they are up against the world’s largest standing fanatical army in North Korea and a Chinese military force that is able to match the US.
America is nowhere near as strong as the neocons like to think they are. War after war since the end of the Second World War seems to have taught them nothing.
…should conduct military exercises around the peninsula, we should fly over their nuclear sites with stealth aircraft, and we should demonstrate that we can reach out and touch the regime anytime and anywhere. We should freeze the assets of the Kim family wherever they may be. We should shut down Kim’s criminal enterprises by stepping up our patrols of ships that leave the peninsula. We should give our allies in South Korea all the military capability necessary to defend themselves and strike back at the North should they once again be hit.
The editors naively go on to say:
We should do all this before Beijing and Pyongyang have time to hatch a plan that solidifies the status quo. The status quo is dangerous, far more so than patiently and relentlessly working to bring down the Kim regime. For once, instead of waiting to see if a new dictator is “someone we can work with,” we should show the dictator what it will take to work with us. It should be clear that unless the Kim family gets rid of its nuclear weapons and its organs of repression and crime, we will work to remove it from power.
The world is fortunate that Obama is still President of the US and very unlikely to heed the neocons lunatic advice demanding that world war three start right now before Beijing and Pyongyang have time to ‘hatch a plan that solidifies the status quo’.
Do the warmongering lunatics at neocon headquarters really believe that the Chinese and the North Koreans hadn’t thought about what will happen in the event of Kim Jong-Il’s death?
I have little time for any totalitarian government but I have even less for the lunacy of the neoconservatives who believe they are able to project military power without there being horrific consequences. Have they learnt nothing from their wars against the Vietnamese, Afghan and Iraqi people? The neocons misguided belief that the US is now the world’s only superpower is going to get more Americans and their South Korean allies killed when they realise that they are up against the world’s largest standing fanatical army in North Korea and a Chinese military force that is able to match the US.
America is nowhere near as strong as the neocons like to think they are. War after war since the end of the Second World War seems to have taught them nothing.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
THE NEOCONS ARE BEGINNING TO WORRY ABOUT RON PAUL
Until now the neoconservatives had all but ignored Ron Paul as a contender for the Republican nomination. They had focussed their attention instead on those potential candidates that were in the mainstream of Republican politics hoping to find one that goes along with neoconservative ideology, particularly with regard to foreign policy relating to Israel and the Middle East.
As yet, the neoconservatives, as I noted over a week ago, don’t seem to have actually settled on anyone that they are entirely happy to give their full support to. All had flaws that the neoconservatives felt did not quite reflect full neoconservative values and the hint was that others better qualified, at least as far as the neocons were concerned, might yet enter the race even at this late stage. Since then, nobody else has stepped forward and the one potential candidate the neoconservatives would definitely not support, Ron Paul, has consistently been up there in the polling as the various debates unfolded and it seems the grass-root rank and file Republicans are increasingly giving Ron Paul the thumbs up. To what extent this will translate into actual votes that count for the nomination still remains to be seen but certainly the support he is getting now is beginning to worry the neoconservatives who today found it necessary to write a lengthy hit piece against Ron Paul portraying him as a maverick libertarian extremist and an outrageous conspiracy theorist. Up until now, the neocons had barely given him a mention believing him to be a rank outsider with no chance of getting up.
Ron Paul’s popularity comes not so much from his extremist libertarian ideology of no government interference in anything – though this has a certain appeal among the middle classes that have managed to hang on to some of their wealth – but, rather, from his anti-war isolationist views. For the neoconservatives, this translates to ‘anti-Israel’ since Ron Paul’s policies include no more US aid – not just to Israel, but to any nation – and also no more wars especially against Middle East nations that are Israel’s enemies.
Since Obama came to be President on the back of a promise to end the wars – which he then promptly reneged on – those that voted for him are reluctant to give him another go. On the other hand, it is only Ron Paul among the Republican contenders that is anti-war; all of the others seem to have been bought off by the Israel lobby who are champing at the bit for war against Iran in order to save Israel from being ‘wiped off the map’. Ron Paul, therefore, has won the hearts of those disillusioned with Obama’s promises, and also of those who like Ron Paul’s libertarian stance.
It’s going to be an interesting New Year which is very likely to disappoint the neocons if it’s going to be left to the current crop of candidates to look after the neoconservative’s interests. While all of them – except Ron Paul – have taken on neoconservative advisors to help out with their campaigns, none of them can really be considered die-hard neoconservatives who will push along the neocon’s agenda.
Ron Paul’s ‘every man for himself’ stance will leave many unenthralled but his anti-war rhetoric is finding a lot of appeal among conservatives fed up with ten years of non-stop wars with more in the offing.
As yet, the neoconservatives, as I noted over a week ago, don’t seem to have actually settled on anyone that they are entirely happy to give their full support to. All had flaws that the neoconservatives felt did not quite reflect full neoconservative values and the hint was that others better qualified, at least as far as the neocons were concerned, might yet enter the race even at this late stage. Since then, nobody else has stepped forward and the one potential candidate the neoconservatives would definitely not support, Ron Paul, has consistently been up there in the polling as the various debates unfolded and it seems the grass-root rank and file Republicans are increasingly giving Ron Paul the thumbs up. To what extent this will translate into actual votes that count for the nomination still remains to be seen but certainly the support he is getting now is beginning to worry the neoconservatives who today found it necessary to write a lengthy hit piece against Ron Paul portraying him as a maverick libertarian extremist and an outrageous conspiracy theorist. Up until now, the neocons had barely given him a mention believing him to be a rank outsider with no chance of getting up.
Ron Paul’s popularity comes not so much from his extremist libertarian ideology of no government interference in anything – though this has a certain appeal among the middle classes that have managed to hang on to some of their wealth – but, rather, from his anti-war isolationist views. For the neoconservatives, this translates to ‘anti-Israel’ since Ron Paul’s policies include no more US aid – not just to Israel, but to any nation – and also no more wars especially against Middle East nations that are Israel’s enemies.
Since Obama came to be President on the back of a promise to end the wars – which he then promptly reneged on – those that voted for him are reluctant to give him another go. On the other hand, it is only Ron Paul among the Republican contenders that is anti-war; all of the others seem to have been bought off by the Israel lobby who are champing at the bit for war against Iran in order to save Israel from being ‘wiped off the map’. Ron Paul, therefore, has won the hearts of those disillusioned with Obama’s promises, and also of those who like Ron Paul’s libertarian stance.
It’s going to be an interesting New Year which is very likely to disappoint the neocons if it’s going to be left to the current crop of candidates to look after the neoconservative’s interests. While all of them – except Ron Paul – have taken on neoconservative advisors to help out with their campaigns, none of them can really be considered die-hard neoconservatives who will push along the neocon’s agenda.
Ron Paul’s ‘every man for himself’ stance will leave many unenthralled but his anti-war rhetoric is finding a lot of appeal among conservatives fed up with ten years of non-stop wars with more in the offing.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
HAS AUSTRALIAN SUPER RACIST, ANDREW BOLT, BEEN SACKED?
The Murdoch ‘journalist’ [sic], Andrew Bolt, a columnist at Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper, left a perplexing post at his column yesterday prior to taking leave. He wrote:
It’s customary to thank your readers at the end of each year. Never have I had more cause to do so than this year. Your support ... well, you can imagine how much and why. I’m extremely grateful.
I am off on holidays with my family. Some thinking will also need to be done about what I’ll do next year. In the meantime, have a wonderful Christmas and new year.
‘Some thinking will also need to be done about what I’ll do next year’?
At worst this simply means he’s going to be spending his holidays dreaming up new ways of peddling his extreme racist fearmongering views. At best, however, it may mean that Murdoch’s new chief lackey in Australia, Kim Williams, who recently took over from retiring News Ltd. Australia CEO John Hartigan, has had enough of forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover Bolt’s legal fees after being found guilty of racial discrimination. This, coupled with Murdoch trying to pull back from the image of right-wing extremist journalism after the News of the World fiasco, which ended in Murdoch closing the newspaper down, may well be the reason why Bolt needs to think about what he’ll be doing next year.
Bolt undoubtedly would have had a contract with News Ltd. And it may well be that Bolt has decided to take an offer that’s too good to refuse, hence him going without a fuss – if, indeed, he is going.
Reading through the comments to his post, some of his adoring rednecked fans and supporters are also wondering if he’ll be back. After all, among the extreme right-wing in Australia, Bolt was a hero. But after the court case and what with Murdoch struggling to convince the government that controls on the press aren’t needed, it may well be that Murdoch and Williams have decided that Bolt is too much of a liability and that he should go gracefully without a fuss and with a handsome golden handshake and a well formulated explanation for his departure. Perhaps he could write books for the Murdoch-owned HarperCollins company to publish.
So, the question is: has Bolt gone from the Herald-Sun for good? Let’s hope so. Time will tell. We can but dream.
It’s customary to thank your readers at the end of each year. Never have I had more cause to do so than this year. Your support ... well, you can imagine how much and why. I’m extremely grateful.
I am off on holidays with my family. Some thinking will also need to be done about what I’ll do next year. In the meantime, have a wonderful Christmas and new year.
‘Some thinking will also need to be done about what I’ll do next year’?
At worst this simply means he’s going to be spending his holidays dreaming up new ways of peddling his extreme racist fearmongering views. At best, however, it may mean that Murdoch’s new chief lackey in Australia, Kim Williams, who recently took over from retiring News Ltd. Australia CEO John Hartigan, has had enough of forking out hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover Bolt’s legal fees after being found guilty of racial discrimination. This, coupled with Murdoch trying to pull back from the image of right-wing extremist journalism after the News of the World fiasco, which ended in Murdoch closing the newspaper down, may well be the reason why Bolt needs to think about what he’ll be doing next year.
Bolt undoubtedly would have had a contract with News Ltd. And it may well be that Bolt has decided to take an offer that’s too good to refuse, hence him going without a fuss – if, indeed, he is going.
Reading through the comments to his post, some of his adoring rednecked fans and supporters are also wondering if he’ll be back. After all, among the extreme right-wing in Australia, Bolt was a hero. But after the court case and what with Murdoch struggling to convince the government that controls on the press aren’t needed, it may well be that Murdoch and Williams have decided that Bolt is too much of a liability and that he should go gracefully without a fuss and with a handsome golden handshake and a well formulated explanation for his departure. Perhaps he could write books for the Murdoch-owned HarperCollins company to publish.
So, the question is: has Bolt gone from the Herald-Sun for good? Let’s hope so. Time will tell. We can but dream.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
SO WHO IS THE NEOCON’S MAN FOR THE NOMINATION?
Over the past few months the neocons haven’t really shown a great deal of enthusiasm for any of the candidates running so far for the Republican ticket for the 2012 Presidential election. Michelle Bachmann simply faded away; Mitt Romney turned out to be wishy-washy on climate change; as for Herman Cain, well let’s face it, his race was over the moment someone mumbled something about ‘sex’. Rick Perry’s race was over when he mumbled ‘Oops’; and, while Newt Gingrich is now top of the charts, he just doesn’t have the support of the neocons who regard him increasingly as a ‘flip-flop’ man who is happy to nod and shake his head in any way any given audience wants him to at the time. And Ron Paul, of course, is loathed by the neocons for his isolationist stance.
William Kristol, one of neoconservatisms most influential pundits, penned a piece in the Weekly Standard earlier this week which, reading between the lines, seemed to despair at the motley crew who are currently vying for the top job. He offers up a list of other vaguely possible contenders who haven’t put their hands up – yet. His list includes Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush – in that order.
Mike Huckabee? But why? He didn’t get to the top of the pile in 2008, so why would Kristol think he might get up this time? The answer is; Kristol doesn’t. Huckabee’s name’s there just to make up the numbers.
Same with Sarah Palin. Even if she did step in at this late stage, one wonders if she’d get any serious support from the neocons after her last bungling blustering efforts last time.
Paul Ryan? Ryan is one potential candidate that the neocons would support – if he were to put himself up. This, though, is unlikely and Kristol knows it. Back in January of this year Kristol was promoting a Ryan for President push with Marco Rubio as vice-President runner. But by August Ryan was suggesting Kristol should find someone else to fantasise about.
Chris Christie? A month later Kristol was pleading for Christie to step up. One couldn’t blame Christie if he felt a bit miffed about being asked by Kristol only after Ryan had declined Kristol’s advances. No one likes being second fiddle.
Mitch Daniels? In May, Kristol was wondering if Daniels might run, but by October his hopes were dashed and they are unlikely to be re-awakened.
Marco Rubio? As already mentioned, Kristol had Rubio behind Ryan on a president/vice-president ticket so why would Rubio now be enthralled by Kristol’s suggestion?
Jeb Bush? When one reads out a list there is a psychological advantage of being the last name on the list; you’re invariably the first one to be remembered and therefore shoved into prominence. Was that Kristol’s intention?
So soon after the detested George W. Bush, Jeb, his brother, would be a hard one to sell to the American people. Fortunately for the American people, however, Jeb Bush ruled himself out of the 2012 race much earlier on but if it seems that those that are currently in the race aren’t going to do the trick for the neocons, then just maybe Jeb Bush might reconsider even at this late date. Certainly, there are a lot on the right in the republican movement who are hoping just that.
Jeb Bush is a far more articulate and more sophisticated person than his brother George will ever be and would superficially have far more appeal. But that doesn’t mean to say that Jeb would be a better President; it just means that he’d be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people more successfully than his brother George did - or not. Jeb Bush became a neoconservative long before his older brother became one and was a signatory to the June 1997 Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles.
If ever Jeb Bush did become president the world could look forward to a very dark future as it feeds on the ideas and ideology of neoconservatives eager to finish what they started when Jeb’s brother was President.
Let's hope Kristol doesn't get his wish. The world will not be a better place.
William Kristol, one of neoconservatisms most influential pundits, penned a piece in the Weekly Standard earlier this week which, reading between the lines, seemed to despair at the motley crew who are currently vying for the top job. He offers up a list of other vaguely possible contenders who haven’t put their hands up – yet. His list includes Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush – in that order.
Mike Huckabee? But why? He didn’t get to the top of the pile in 2008, so why would Kristol think he might get up this time? The answer is; Kristol doesn’t. Huckabee’s name’s there just to make up the numbers.
Same with Sarah Palin. Even if she did step in at this late stage, one wonders if she’d get any serious support from the neocons after her last bungling blustering efforts last time.
Paul Ryan? Ryan is one potential candidate that the neocons would support – if he were to put himself up. This, though, is unlikely and Kristol knows it. Back in January of this year Kristol was promoting a Ryan for President push with Marco Rubio as vice-President runner. But by August Ryan was suggesting Kristol should find someone else to fantasise about.
Chris Christie? A month later Kristol was pleading for Christie to step up. One couldn’t blame Christie if he felt a bit miffed about being asked by Kristol only after Ryan had declined Kristol’s advances. No one likes being second fiddle.
Mitch Daniels? In May, Kristol was wondering if Daniels might run, but by October his hopes were dashed and they are unlikely to be re-awakened.
Marco Rubio? As already mentioned, Kristol had Rubio behind Ryan on a president/vice-president ticket so why would Rubio now be enthralled by Kristol’s suggestion?
Jeb Bush? When one reads out a list there is a psychological advantage of being the last name on the list; you’re invariably the first one to be remembered and therefore shoved into prominence. Was that Kristol’s intention?
So soon after the detested George W. Bush, Jeb, his brother, would be a hard one to sell to the American people. Fortunately for the American people, however, Jeb Bush ruled himself out of the 2012 race much earlier on but if it seems that those that are currently in the race aren’t going to do the trick for the neocons, then just maybe Jeb Bush might reconsider even at this late date. Certainly, there are a lot on the right in the republican movement who are hoping just that.
Jeb Bush is a far more articulate and more sophisticated person than his brother George will ever be and would superficially have far more appeal. But that doesn’t mean to say that Jeb would be a better President; it just means that he’d be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people more successfully than his brother George did - or not. Jeb Bush became a neoconservative long before his older brother became one and was a signatory to the June 1997 Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles.
If ever Jeb Bush did become president the world could look forward to a very dark future as it feeds on the ideas and ideology of neoconservatives eager to finish what they started when Jeb’s brother was President.
Let's hope Kristol doesn't get his wish. The world will not be a better place.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
ON THE MIS-USE OF THE ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’ LABEL BY ZIONISTS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS
There was a time, back in the last century and before, when the phrase ‘anti-Semitism’ simply meant a hatred of Jewish peoples for no reason other than they were Jews. This unfounded hatred built up over centuries and culminated in the tragedy that occurred during the Second World War when Nazis, their sympathisers and fellow travellers, together with other Jew-haters throughout Europe, jumped on Hitler’s bandwagon of anti-Semitism in an attempt to wipe out European Jewry.
At the end of the war when the full extent of the attempted extermination of European Jewry became known, the world was horrified. But, despite the defeat of Nazism, the punishment of many of those responsible, and the universal condemnation of what had happened, a latent anti-Semitism lingered on into the post-war period not just among the peoples of the nations that carried out and assisted in the atrocities, but even among some peoples that were part of the nations that were Allies who eventually defeated Nazism and brought an end to the war and the atrocities that went with it. White-supremacist neo-Nazi groups flourished during the post-war years and the ‘anti-Semite’ label became synonymous with both those who had hated Jews and those that continued to do so.
To this day, there are still anti-Semites, mostly white-supremacists and neo-Nazis, who continue to hate Jews for no reason other than they are Jews.
However, there has evolved from this an opportunity for some to abuse the anti-Semitic label for nefarious propaganda purposes other than to identify true anti-Semites. It’s rather unfortunate that those that are now misusing the term are themselves Jewish.
Zionists, intent on creating a Greater Israel at the expense of the Arab people by building and farming on their lands, are now attempting to use the ‘anti-Semite’ label against anyone who condemns Israeli Zionists and their supporters for their actions against the Palestinian people as the Zionists attempt to create their Greater Israel. Zionists and their supporters, particularly neoconservatives, are especially adept at mis-using the term as part of their propaganda to demonise their critics and enemies.
The method they use is simple: Instead of identifying specific criticism against Zionism and addressing that criticism, Zionists and their neoconservative supporters simply condemn the criticism – any criticism – as being anti-Semitic, and those that are doing the criticising as being anti-Semitic ‘jew-haters’. In some cases, even other Jews that criticise Zionism are being labelled ‘anti-Semites’ though more often the term ‘self-hating Jew’ is used.
The objective of such mis-labelling by Zionists and their supporters is transparent; it is to paint those that criticise Zionism as the same kind of evil anti-Semites that attempted to destroy European Jewry during the last century. Fortunately, such propaganda devices are indeed transparent and, for the most part, such mis-use of the label has been exposed and dismissed simply as abusive propaganda by right-wing Zionist extremists and their neoconservative supporters.
But while it is easy for most to dismiss the mis-use of the ‘anti-Semite’ label as outrageous propaganda by extremists, it does have an extremely unfortunate side-effect inasmuch that its mis-use devalues the true meaning and use of the label. If the ‘anti-Semite’ label is bandied around inappropriately too often in the way it has been then there will come a time when its true and proper use will become ignored – until, once again, it is too late.
The ‘anti-Semite’ label was once a powerful tool that could be used against those that attempted to resurrect the age-old hatreds that were, and still are, levelled against Jews just because they are Jews. However, Zionists and neocons that abuse the ‘anti-Semite’ label for purely political and propaganda purposes diminish the memory of those that perished at the hands of those that really were anti-Semites.
At the end of the war when the full extent of the attempted extermination of European Jewry became known, the world was horrified. But, despite the defeat of Nazism, the punishment of many of those responsible, and the universal condemnation of what had happened, a latent anti-Semitism lingered on into the post-war period not just among the peoples of the nations that carried out and assisted in the atrocities, but even among some peoples that were part of the nations that were Allies who eventually defeated Nazism and brought an end to the war and the atrocities that went with it. White-supremacist neo-Nazi groups flourished during the post-war years and the ‘anti-Semite’ label became synonymous with both those who had hated Jews and those that continued to do so.
To this day, there are still anti-Semites, mostly white-supremacists and neo-Nazis, who continue to hate Jews for no reason other than they are Jews.
However, there has evolved from this an opportunity for some to abuse the anti-Semitic label for nefarious propaganda purposes other than to identify true anti-Semites. It’s rather unfortunate that those that are now misusing the term are themselves Jewish.
Zionists, intent on creating a Greater Israel at the expense of the Arab people by building and farming on their lands, are now attempting to use the ‘anti-Semite’ label against anyone who condemns Israeli Zionists and their supporters for their actions against the Palestinian people as the Zionists attempt to create their Greater Israel. Zionists and their supporters, particularly neoconservatives, are especially adept at mis-using the term as part of their propaganda to demonise their critics and enemies.
The method they use is simple: Instead of identifying specific criticism against Zionism and addressing that criticism, Zionists and their neoconservative supporters simply condemn the criticism – any criticism – as being anti-Semitic, and those that are doing the criticising as being anti-Semitic ‘jew-haters’. In some cases, even other Jews that criticise Zionism are being labelled ‘anti-Semites’ though more often the term ‘self-hating Jew’ is used.
The objective of such mis-labelling by Zionists and their supporters is transparent; it is to paint those that criticise Zionism as the same kind of evil anti-Semites that attempted to destroy European Jewry during the last century. Fortunately, such propaganda devices are indeed transparent and, for the most part, such mis-use of the label has been exposed and dismissed simply as abusive propaganda by right-wing Zionist extremists and their neoconservative supporters.
But while it is easy for most to dismiss the mis-use of the ‘anti-Semite’ label as outrageous propaganda by extremists, it does have an extremely unfortunate side-effect inasmuch that its mis-use devalues the true meaning and use of the label. If the ‘anti-Semite’ label is bandied around inappropriately too often in the way it has been then there will come a time when its true and proper use will become ignored – until, once again, it is too late.
The ‘anti-Semite’ label was once a powerful tool that could be used against those that attempted to resurrect the age-old hatreds that were, and still are, levelled against Jews just because they are Jews. However, Zionists and neocons that abuse the ‘anti-Semite’ label for purely political and propaganda purposes diminish the memory of those that perished at the hands of those that really were anti-Semites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)