We should be properly up front about the use of the ‘Zionazi’ label; it is strictly a propaganda tool designed and used deliberately to both shame those it refers to and also to emphasise to those who would otherwise be unaware that there is a comparison between the behaviour of the Nazis of the last century and the behaviour of today’s modern Zionists and their supporters.
As part of their propaganda technique, Zionists like to present themselves as being representative of all Jews. In this way they can then justify, at least to themselves, labelling everyone that criticises them as being ‘anti-Semites’. This is done in the hope that those ignorant of the fact that Zionism is actually a political ideology rather than a religion or a race of people will support them simply because they would not want to be labelled anti-Semites.
Hitler had a similar approach in Germany and, later, throughout occupied Europe during the 1920s through to the 1940s. He argued that to be anti-Nazi was to be anti-German. Just as today Zionists accuse their Jewish opponents as being ‘self-haters’ and such like, so Hitler labelled those opposed to him as being traitors to Germany.
Part of Hitler’s Nazi ideology was the notion that Germans as a race of people were somehow superior to all others and that Jews were at the other end of Hitler’s racial spectrum. Today, the Zionists believe that Jews are superior to all those that surround the nation of Israel and that Palestinians in particular are at the other end of Zionism’s racial spectrum. History is littered with examples of Zionism’s racial hatred of Arabs and Palestinians.
Just as Hitler yearned to create a Greater Germany in Europe at the expense of other non-Germanic peoples, so Zionists dream of a Greater Israel which they hope to create at the expense of the Arab and Palestinian peoples. The methods that the Zionists use to expand their ideology and their empire are similar to those methods used by Hitler. There is, of course, no way that Zionists can exterminate the Palestinians as the Nazis attempted to exterminate European Jewry, however, the Zionist have demonstrated their ability behave as the Nazis did in other ways. Just as the Nazis used Ukrainians and Latvians to murder Jews after the Nazis had invaded those countries, so the Zionists, when they invaded Lebanon in 1982, used local Lebanese fascists (Phalangists) to systematically murder Palestinians at the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila.
The Zionists have also successfully ghettoised the Gaza Strip using deprivation as a means of subduing dissent and resistance and have resorted indiscriminate bombing and shooting of the Gazan populace to subdue any attempt by the Palestinians to retaliate with resistance fighters just as the Nazis did in the Warsaw Ghetto. Similarly in the occupied West Bank, the Zionists have used mass arrests, torture and detention without trial against those Palestinians that oppose and resist the Zionists them. Just as the Nazis attempted to move ethnic Germans into occupied lands as part of the Germanisation process of creating a Greater Germany, so the Zionists in the West Bank are creating settlements within the territories they occupy as part of the Zionisation process of creating a Greater Israel.
Remembering the brutality of the Nazis during the Second World War and their attempts to eliminate European Jewry, the label ‘Zionazi’ is not one used without consideration of the immense connotations associated with the word. But it is for that exact reason that when used in the proper context, it is the most appropriate label to use when describing modern Zionism and its ideology.
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.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
MICHAEL LEDEEN: IS HE BECOMING AN EMBARRASSMENT EVEN TO NEOCONSERVATIVES?
It’s good that the neoconservatives have the warmongering frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic Michael Ledeen in their ranks. Despite all the clever sophisticated rhetoric and propaganda that some of those other neoconservative writers and commentators try to feed us, one can always rely on Michael Ledeen to put the nonsense they come up with into its proper perspective.
In his latest piece the entirely delusional Ledeen thinks that there is “a global alliance directed against the United States, running from Moscow to Tehran, Damascus and Caracas”. Indeed, the way Ledeen carries on, one would think that the whole world is against the US.
Well, it probably is; what else can one expect after all that the US did when Bush was in charge. Not only did he alienate the entire Islamic world but also a goodly measure of ordinary Western folk around the planet as well. But to infer that there is some kind of global alliance directed against the US is nothing short of plain paranoid.
It may be that he and his fellow neoconservatives are deluded enough to think that it is they that actually represent all that is American and that because there actually is a global (albeit very loose) alliance ranged against neoconservatism that consists of writers and commentators that oppose neoconservatism but who come from all places on the political spectrum, the neoconservatives, or at least Michael Ledeen, thinks that it is some kind of global conspiracy going on. It’s as if he’s regressed to the bad old days of Reds under the Beds.
If it wasn’t for the fact that some people – people of influence – actually believe what this crackpot writes it would be laughable.
But the world shouldn’t laugh at him – the world should be frightened of men like this. Ledeen had a major hand in getting the Iraq war off the ground, a war that has resulted in the death’s of hundreds of thousand, maybe over a million, Iraqis, and thousands of young Western kidz sent to kill Iraqis have also died.
Ledeen is an embarrassment to neoconservatives because through his lunacy he exposes them for what they really are.
Say ‘No’ to these lunatics in future.
In his latest piece the entirely delusional Ledeen thinks that there is “a global alliance directed against the United States, running from Moscow to Tehran, Damascus and Caracas”. Indeed, the way Ledeen carries on, one would think that the whole world is against the US.
Well, it probably is; what else can one expect after all that the US did when Bush was in charge. Not only did he alienate the entire Islamic world but also a goodly measure of ordinary Western folk around the planet as well. But to infer that there is some kind of global alliance directed against the US is nothing short of plain paranoid.
It may be that he and his fellow neoconservatives are deluded enough to think that it is they that actually represent all that is American and that because there actually is a global (albeit very loose) alliance ranged against neoconservatism that consists of writers and commentators that oppose neoconservatism but who come from all places on the political spectrum, the neoconservatives, or at least Michael Ledeen, thinks that it is some kind of global conspiracy going on. It’s as if he’s regressed to the bad old days of Reds under the Beds.
If it wasn’t for the fact that some people – people of influence – actually believe what this crackpot writes it would be laughable.
But the world shouldn’t laugh at him – the world should be frightened of men like this. Ledeen had a major hand in getting the Iraq war off the ground, a war that has resulted in the death’s of hundreds of thousand, maybe over a million, Iraqis, and thousands of young Western kidz sent to kill Iraqis have also died.
Ledeen is an embarrassment to neoconservatives because through his lunacy he exposes them for what they really are.
Say ‘No’ to these lunatics in future.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
THE DESTRUCTION OF WTC7: THE CLINCHER FOR THOSE THAT AT FIRST BELIEVED THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY.
As we arrive at the eighth anniversary of 9/11 we find that more and more people than ever before are finding themselves, at the very least, having serious doubts about the official version of events as told by the government and its agencies or, alternatively, are now utterly convinced that what happened on 11 September 2001 could not possibly have happened the way the government has told it. And, for many of those that at first believed what the government told them, the reality of having been lied to have been brought home to them, not so much by the science behind the destruction of WTCs 1 & 2, but by the blatant and obviously deliberate demolition of WTC7 on the same day.
The images of the aircraft crashing into the Twin Towers followed by the images of the Towers then collapsing into a massive pile of dust was seared into our collective memories. Most people were so busy trying to cope with the most bizarre sights they had ever seen that being told who was responsible for these terrible events almost as soon as they had happened also became indelibly etched in to our collective memories that for many it became difficult to rationalise what had happened or accept that their may be some other explanation for these events.
Add to this the fact that to believe anything other than the government’s version of events would be to completely and utterly surrender all of our notions of Western values and society. Unable to even contemplate such a life changing idea, most folk instantly put up barriers to prevent all those things that for our entire lives we had believed in from being demolished in the same way as the World Trade Center had been. To believe that our own government would be capable of being involved in any way whatsoever with such a horrendous act against its own people is utterly unpalatable to most people.
Time, however, has brought about change; not just changes in attitudes as the initial shock of what happened begins to fade into history, but changes in beliefs as time, as it inevitably does, brings us new hard evidence.
For most people, the collapse of the Twin Towers is still an event that is difficult perceive as having been caused by anything other than aircraft flying into them. Without being privy to scientific or engineering knowledge or skills, plus the trauma of having to cope with the inconceivable idea that our government could have had anything to with it, the refusal to accept that their maybe an alternative explanation to these events is quite understandably a normal response.
But as time went by, people slowly became aware of the fact that the Twin Towers weren’t the only buildings to come down that day. World Trade Center Building 7 also came down that day and it is the destruction of this building that has convinced so many that there is indeed far more to what happened on that day than the government is saying.
The 47 story building that was WTC7 collapsed at 5.20 in the afternoon of 11 September 2001. The official line is that the building collapsed as a result of a critical structural column on the 13th floor buckled which then triggered a catastrophic structural failure of the entire building which collapsed entirely into its own footprint. The problem with this explanation for the buildings collapse is that the photographic simply does not support it.
The several films showing the collapse of WTC7, films taken from various angles, show quite clearly that the building collapsed completely vertically, evenly and at free fall speed; a phenomenon completely consistent with a classic deliberate and professional building demolition and totally at odds with the theory that the failure of one column could have caused the building to have collapsed in this way.
To clinch it for many people has been the recent release of the latest film of the building collapsing which shows quite clearly explosions at various mid level floors simultaneously blowing out windows in the building the instant before it begins to collapse.
Here’s the clincher.
See for yourselves.
The images of the aircraft crashing into the Twin Towers followed by the images of the Towers then collapsing into a massive pile of dust was seared into our collective memories. Most people were so busy trying to cope with the most bizarre sights they had ever seen that being told who was responsible for these terrible events almost as soon as they had happened also became indelibly etched in to our collective memories that for many it became difficult to rationalise what had happened or accept that their may be some other explanation for these events.
Add to this the fact that to believe anything other than the government’s version of events would be to completely and utterly surrender all of our notions of Western values and society. Unable to even contemplate such a life changing idea, most folk instantly put up barriers to prevent all those things that for our entire lives we had believed in from being demolished in the same way as the World Trade Center had been. To believe that our own government would be capable of being involved in any way whatsoever with such a horrendous act against its own people is utterly unpalatable to most people.
Time, however, has brought about change; not just changes in attitudes as the initial shock of what happened begins to fade into history, but changes in beliefs as time, as it inevitably does, brings us new hard evidence.
For most people, the collapse of the Twin Towers is still an event that is difficult perceive as having been caused by anything other than aircraft flying into them. Without being privy to scientific or engineering knowledge or skills, plus the trauma of having to cope with the inconceivable idea that our government could have had anything to with it, the refusal to accept that their maybe an alternative explanation to these events is quite understandably a normal response.
But as time went by, people slowly became aware of the fact that the Twin Towers weren’t the only buildings to come down that day. World Trade Center Building 7 also came down that day and it is the destruction of this building that has convinced so many that there is indeed far more to what happened on that day than the government is saying.
The 47 story building that was WTC7 collapsed at 5.20 in the afternoon of 11 September 2001. The official line is that the building collapsed as a result of a critical structural column on the 13th floor buckled which then triggered a catastrophic structural failure of the entire building which collapsed entirely into its own footprint. The problem with this explanation for the buildings collapse is that the photographic simply does not support it.
The several films showing the collapse of WTC7, films taken from various angles, show quite clearly that the building collapsed completely vertically, evenly and at free fall speed; a phenomenon completely consistent with a classic deliberate and professional building demolition and totally at odds with the theory that the failure of one column could have caused the building to have collapsed in this way.
To clinch it for many people has been the recent release of the latest film of the building collapsing which shows quite clearly explosions at various mid level floors simultaneously blowing out windows in the building the instant before it begins to collapse.
Here’s the clincher.
See for yourselves.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
BRITAIN TO SEND MORE TEENAGERS TO AFGHANISTAN TO KILL MUSLIMS.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday told an audience at the International Institute for Strategic Studies that Britain is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan. Brown made his speech on the same day as 130 more Afghan people were murdered by Western forces that invaded and attempted to occupy Afghanistan in October 2001.
Brown’s announcement came just a day after 19 years-old Gavin Elliot was shot dead in the Babaji district of Helmand Province, Afghanistan. The day before Elliot’s death, 24 years-old Richard Brandon had been killed by an explosion, also in Helmand Province bringing the number of UK young men killed while trying to kill Afghanis to 212.
So far, 1340 young Western soldiers have died in Afghanistan while trying to kill Afghanis. Many of those killed were teenagers. However, during the same nearly eight year period since the West invaded Afghanistan, tens of thousands of Afghanis have been killed and millions have been displaced from their homes.
And all because the US wants to build a gas pipeline across Afghanistan.
One wonders how long it will be before the West finally wakes up the fact that the war against the Afghan people is unwinable and that the Afghan people – Taliban or otherwise – simply don’t want the West in their country.
UPDATE 1
It seems that, of those that have been displaced from their country because of the war, some tried to seek refuge in Australia, one of the countries involved in the invasion and killings that drove them from their home. As they approached Australia their boat blew up and many of them found themselves in the water. As they tried to scramble aboard the Australian Navy vessels sent out to inspect the rickety boat just prior to it blowing up, the Australian crew members kicked and fended the refugees off from the Australian’s vessels.
Not only are they being bombed and killed in their own country but those that are able to survive and escape are then refused rescue from the sea after their boat is destroyed.
No wonder Australia has a reputation for being one of the most racist nations on the planet.
Brown’s announcement came just a day after 19 years-old Gavin Elliot was shot dead in the Babaji district of Helmand Province, Afghanistan. The day before Elliot’s death, 24 years-old Richard Brandon had been killed by an explosion, also in Helmand Province bringing the number of UK young men killed while trying to kill Afghanis to 212.
So far, 1340 young Western soldiers have died in Afghanistan while trying to kill Afghanis. Many of those killed were teenagers. However, during the same nearly eight year period since the West invaded Afghanistan, tens of thousands of Afghanis have been killed and millions have been displaced from their homes.
And all because the US wants to build a gas pipeline across Afghanistan.
One wonders how long it will be before the West finally wakes up the fact that the war against the Afghan people is unwinable and that the Afghan people – Taliban or otherwise – simply don’t want the West in their country.
UPDATE 1
It seems that, of those that have been displaced from their country because of the war, some tried to seek refuge in Australia, one of the countries involved in the invasion and killings that drove them from their home. As they approached Australia their boat blew up and many of them found themselves in the water. As they tried to scramble aboard the Australian Navy vessels sent out to inspect the rickety boat just prior to it blowing up, the Australian crew members kicked and fended the refugees off from the Australian’s vessels.
Not only are they being bombed and killed in their own country but those that are able to survive and escape are then refused rescue from the sea after their boat is destroyed.
No wonder Australia has a reputation for being one of the most racist nations on the planet.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
GORDON BROWN’S CLEVER AFGHANISTAN PLAN
Here’s British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s idea of an ‘Afghanistan plan’: see if we can’t talk the Taliban into killing each other.
That’s a plan??!!
Here’s a better plan: all drive to Bagram airbase, all get on the next airplane, and then all LEAVE. Then, with the billions saved, build a health system that actually works, build more aged care facilities, (we're going to need them soon) and build a better education system – and do it all so everyone at some stage gets to use it for free.
When you get to aged 90 and with no money, you don’t care if it’s called ‘socialism’; you can call it whatever you like. Chances are, when you've got to aged 90, you've forgotten what the word 'socialism' means anyway.
That’s a plan??!!
Here’s a better plan: all drive to Bagram airbase, all get on the next airplane, and then all LEAVE. Then, with the billions saved, build a health system that actually works, build more aged care facilities, (we're going to need them soon) and build a better education system – and do it all so everyone at some stage gets to use it for free.
When you get to aged 90 and with no money, you don’t care if it’s called ‘socialism’; you can call it whatever you like. Chances are, when you've got to aged 90, you've forgotten what the word 'socialism' means anyway.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A DE FACTO PALESTINIAN STATE?
Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salaam Fayad has suggested that a de facto Palestinian state be established within the next two years and that it could be achieved with or without Israeli participation.
This really is fanciful thinking and is just another power grabbing, time wasting proposal by a desperate Palestinian Authority that has no mandate from the Palestinian people and exists only at the whim of the Israelis via the sham that is the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement.
One should be quite clear about the Zionist Israeli stance on the question of Palestinian statehood; as far as the Zionists are concerned, THERE WILL NEVER BE A PALESTINIAN STATE. Never mind all the talk of statehood coming from Netanyahu or from Obama or Abbas or, now, Fayad; THERE WILL NEVER BE A PALESTINIAN STATE while the Zionists have any control over the matter. The only way a de facto state can be created is if the PA declared a unilateral declaration of independence – a move that would be crushed literally within hours by the Israelis leaving the Palestinian people far worse off than even they are now.
The fact is; the Israelis would secretly welcome such an opportunity. It would provide them with the excuse they need to fulfil their long held dream of fully occupying both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip without pussyfooting around with the settlements issue to appease the US. The establishment of a de facto Palestinian state would be seen as direct threat to Israeli security and would provide all the justification the Israelis need to fully occupy and even annex the territories in a move that would be seen as fait accompli if the Palestinians made any unilateral move to establish a de facto state.
The only way that any Palestinian sovereign state can exist is when it has the full support of all of the Palestinian people backed by the full support of all of the peoples of the world. This will only happen after Israel has been isolated by the US and the West who should refuse to support Israel until it fully recognises the right of the Palestinian peoples to live on their own lands without any fear and with full and equal rights with the people they share that land with. Until then there will never be a Palestinian state – de facto or otherwise.
This really is fanciful thinking and is just another power grabbing, time wasting proposal by a desperate Palestinian Authority that has no mandate from the Palestinian people and exists only at the whim of the Israelis via the sham that is the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement.
One should be quite clear about the Zionist Israeli stance on the question of Palestinian statehood; as far as the Zionists are concerned, THERE WILL NEVER BE A PALESTINIAN STATE. Never mind all the talk of statehood coming from Netanyahu or from Obama or Abbas or, now, Fayad; THERE WILL NEVER BE A PALESTINIAN STATE while the Zionists have any control over the matter. The only way a de facto state can be created is if the PA declared a unilateral declaration of independence – a move that would be crushed literally within hours by the Israelis leaving the Palestinian people far worse off than even they are now.
The fact is; the Israelis would secretly welcome such an opportunity. It would provide them with the excuse they need to fulfil their long held dream of fully occupying both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip without pussyfooting around with the settlements issue to appease the US. The establishment of a de facto Palestinian state would be seen as direct threat to Israeli security and would provide all the justification the Israelis need to fully occupy and even annex the territories in a move that would be seen as fait accompli if the Palestinians made any unilateral move to establish a de facto state.
The only way that any Palestinian sovereign state can exist is when it has the full support of all of the Palestinian people backed by the full support of all of the peoples of the world. This will only happen after Israel has been isolated by the US and the West who should refuse to support Israel until it fully recognises the right of the Palestinian peoples to live on their own lands without any fear and with full and equal rights with the people they share that land with. Until then there will never be a Palestinian state – de facto or otherwise.
Friday, August 21, 2009
IT’S OK FOR THE ZIONISTS TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF BEHAVING LIKE NAZIS BUT WHEN ZIONISTS ARE TOLD THEY BEHAVE LIKE NAZIS..THEY WANT THAT TO BE MADE ILLEGAL
Just a quick one today prompted by an article in ‘The Australian’ newspaper a day or two ago saying that the neoconservative and Zionist dominated European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism (EISCA) are keen to make comparing Nazis with Zionists an offence. You’ll find their report on the matter in their latest paper.
While they want to make the ‘Zionism is Nazism’ analogy illegal, they are more than happy to use Nazi analogies themselves against others. A report in today’s ‘Jerusalem Post’ for example does just that. The headline blares: ‘Sweden’s stance reminiscent of WW2’. The inference is clear.
And, of course, who can forget Netanyahu’s remarks to Bush’s National Security Advisor and neocon Stephen Hadley when Netanyahu told Hadley that ‘Ahmadinejad is a modern Hitler’?
Apparently the Zionists can.
While they want to make the ‘Zionism is Nazism’ analogy illegal, they are more than happy to use Nazi analogies themselves against others. A report in today’s ‘Jerusalem Post’ for example does just that. The headline blares: ‘Sweden’s stance reminiscent of WW2’. The inference is clear.
And, of course, who can forget Netanyahu’s remarks to Bush’s National Security Advisor and neocon Stephen Hadley when Netanyahu told Hadley that ‘Ahmadinejad is a modern Hitler’?
Apparently the Zionists can.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
MURDOCH'S RACIST OBSESSIVES.
Both Tim Blair at Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’, and Andrew Bolt at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’, both Murdoch newspapers, seem to think that the things that define race, particularly Aboriginal race, begins and ends with skin colour, eye colour and facial features.
For Blair and Bolt ancestry has nothing to do with race if you are an Aborigine that doesn’t look Aboriginal. At that point you are a white person and therefore not entitled to any of the benefits that one may be entitled to if one were Aboriginal. Bolt and Blair believe that Aboriginality is only bona fide when measured against the sensory function of sight. In other words, you are only Aboriginal if you meet the perceptions of what they consider an Aboriginal person should look like.
One wonders if there were special entitlements to other races because of their race if the same kind of criteria applied. For example, if there were, say, scholarships being awarded to Jewish students by a Jewish endowment foundation, would the students only be eligible for those scholarships if they looked Jewish? What if they looked like white Europeans as, indeed, many Jews do and the only way of telling if they were Jewish or not is to simply ask them to provide evidence of their Jewish heritage?
If these Aboriginal people that do not look Aboriginal are able to provide evidence of their Aboriginal heritage then who could deny them of their entitlements any more than a Jewish person could be denied of their entitlement just because they didn’t look Jewish?
For Blair and Bolt racism is in the eye of the beholder - both literally and metaphorically.
For Blair and Bolt ancestry has nothing to do with race if you are an Aborigine that doesn’t look Aboriginal. At that point you are a white person and therefore not entitled to any of the benefits that one may be entitled to if one were Aboriginal. Bolt and Blair believe that Aboriginality is only bona fide when measured against the sensory function of sight. In other words, you are only Aboriginal if you meet the perceptions of what they consider an Aboriginal person should look like.
One wonders if there were special entitlements to other races because of their race if the same kind of criteria applied. For example, if there were, say, scholarships being awarded to Jewish students by a Jewish endowment foundation, would the students only be eligible for those scholarships if they looked Jewish? What if they looked like white Europeans as, indeed, many Jews do and the only way of telling if they were Jewish or not is to simply ask them to provide evidence of their Jewish heritage?
If these Aboriginal people that do not look Aboriginal are able to provide evidence of their Aboriginal heritage then who could deny them of their entitlements any more than a Jewish person could be denied of their entitlement just because they didn’t look Jewish?
For Blair and Bolt racism is in the eye of the beholder - both literally and metaphorically.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
DID ISRAEL BACK RECENT ‘CHALLENGE’ TO HAMAS IN THE GAZA STRIP?
The recent fire-fight between Hamas and a hitherto unheard of ‘Islamic’ group calling itself Jund Ansar Allah (Soldiers of the Companions of God) in which the group was wiped out with many being killed or wounded, has raised questions about who was behind the group.
According to a report in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, Hamas has claimed that the group had been armed by Fatah agents in the Gaza. Since Fatah in the Gaza is known to be supported by Israel in their fight against Hamas, it would not be unreasonable to come to the conclusion that Israel is either directly or indirectly responsible for this attempt to bring trouble to Hamas in the Gaza.
While the evidence of collusion between the Jund Ansar Allah group and Mossad via Israel’s proxy in the Gaza, Fatah, is circumstantial, the evidence of Israel’s attempts in the past to introduce false Islamic extremist groups into the Gaza to act as agents’ provocateurs is abundant.
According to a report in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, Hamas has claimed that the group had been armed by Fatah agents in the Gaza. Since Fatah in the Gaza is known to be supported by Israel in their fight against Hamas, it would not be unreasonable to come to the conclusion that Israel is either directly or indirectly responsible for this attempt to bring trouble to Hamas in the Gaza.
While the evidence of collusion between the Jund Ansar Allah group and Mossad via Israel’s proxy in the Gaza, Fatah, is circumstantial, the evidence of Israel’s attempts in the past to introduce false Islamic extremist groups into the Gaza to act as agents’ provocateurs is abundant.
Monday, August 10, 2009
ISRAEL DETERMINED TO PROVOKE SOMEONE IN ORDER TO KICK-START A REGIME CHANGING WAR AGAINST IRAN.
Israel seems determined to provoke its enemies hook or by crook in order to get a war going against Iran. If they’re not continually directly accusing Iran of having a nuclear weapons program – despite the total lack of any evidence to even suggest Iran has any nuclear weapons program – then Israel is accusing Hezbollah of wanting to attack Israelis and Israeli interests outside of Israel warning that, if any Israeli is harmed, Hezbollah will be held responsible. Just to help the provocation along, Israel is also still sending their military jets into sovereign Lebanese airspace. In their latest piece of warmongering chutzpah, Israel is accusing Hezbollah of stockpiling rockets in order to strike Israel. The ploy here is to use this as some sort of casus belli to attack Lebanon in the hope of dragging Iran into the fray – and then, of course, the US.
The irony is, if Hezbollah should get in first and attack Israel using Israel’s stockpiling of fuel and weapons from the US as a casus belli, the West would jump up and down in outrage, yet, if Israel attacks Hezbollah, all we hear about is how Israel is defending itself.
Israel has twice unsuccessfully attempted to invade and occupy Lebanon in order to secure control of the Litani River headwaters for its own use. It has failed in the past but they are determined. They hope that, with enough ‘provocation’, the West will this time turn a blind eye to their invasion and occupation of south Lebanon. And, while they’re at it, they’ll do the same to Hamas in the Gaza using the main event, their attack against Iran, as cover for the complete occupation of the Gaza, the West Bank and south Lebanon.
In order for the West to turn a blind eye to such an Israeli onslaught, Israel will have to ensure that any act of ‘terrorism’ against Israel or Israelis is really horrendous enough to make it worth while.
The world should prepare itself for an outrageous ‘false flag’ act of ‘terrorism’ from ‘Hezbollah’ at any moment.
UPDATE 1
According to a Ha’aretz report Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday said that, if Hezbollah joins the Lebanese government then Israel will hold the Lebanese government for any ‘attack’ against Israel by Hezbollah.
Deputy Israeli Prime Minister Dan Meridor was also quoted as saying; “Hezbollah is a terror organization that has become a semi-army. Basically, it is a branch of Iran on our northern border, with Syria's consent and with Lebanon's consent. This is not a healthy phenomenon”, highlighting the fact that Israel’s real enemy is still Iran and that the emphasised links between Hezbollah and Iran will be all the casus belli that Israel needs to attack Iran.
UPDATE 2
Ha’aretz are reporting that foreign fighters are making their way to the Gaza and that Hamas are sending recruits to Iran for training.
Israel are determined to link both Hezbollah and Hamas intrinsically to each other and to Iran in order to build up their casus belli to attack.
CHECK OUT THE ‘MURDOCH’S PROPAGANDISTS’ BLOG
The irony is, if Hezbollah should get in first and attack Israel using Israel’s stockpiling of fuel and weapons from the US as a casus belli, the West would jump up and down in outrage, yet, if Israel attacks Hezbollah, all we hear about is how Israel is defending itself.
Israel has twice unsuccessfully attempted to invade and occupy Lebanon in order to secure control of the Litani River headwaters for its own use. It has failed in the past but they are determined. They hope that, with enough ‘provocation’, the West will this time turn a blind eye to their invasion and occupation of south Lebanon. And, while they’re at it, they’ll do the same to Hamas in the Gaza using the main event, their attack against Iran, as cover for the complete occupation of the Gaza, the West Bank and south Lebanon.
In order for the West to turn a blind eye to such an Israeli onslaught, Israel will have to ensure that any act of ‘terrorism’ against Israel or Israelis is really horrendous enough to make it worth while.
The world should prepare itself for an outrageous ‘false flag’ act of ‘terrorism’ from ‘Hezbollah’ at any moment.
UPDATE 1
According to a Ha’aretz report Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday said that, if Hezbollah joins the Lebanese government then Israel will hold the Lebanese government for any ‘attack’ against Israel by Hezbollah.
Deputy Israeli Prime Minister Dan Meridor was also quoted as saying; “Hezbollah is a terror organization that has become a semi-army. Basically, it is a branch of Iran on our northern border, with Syria's consent and with Lebanon's consent. This is not a healthy phenomenon”, highlighting the fact that Israel’s real enemy is still Iran and that the emphasised links between Hezbollah and Iran will be all the casus belli that Israel needs to attack Iran.
UPDATE 2
Ha’aretz are reporting that foreign fighters are making their way to the Gaza and that Hamas are sending recruits to Iran for training.
Israel are determined to link both Hezbollah and Hamas intrinsically to each other and to Iran in order to build up their casus belli to attack.
CHECK OUT THE ‘MURDOCH’S PROPAGANDISTS’ BLOG
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
JUST AS CALLS FOR AUSTRALIA TO PULL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN GET LOUDER, ‘TERRORISTS’ ARE DRAMATICALLY ARRESTED IN MELBOURNE.
The recent spate of allied deaths in Afghanistan, including an Australian last month, has led to increased calls for Australia to withdraw its troops from this un-winnable war. Recent polls have already indicated that Australians generally are not interested in continuing to support the war in Afghanistan but with the upsurge in deaths last month the call to get out has got louder.
Despite public opinion going against him, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd continues to insist that Australia’s ongoing support of the allied effort to kill as many Afghans as possible is somehow in Australia’s interests.
And, just to prove the point, right on cue, Australian police and security services launch a huge raid against Somali and Lebanese ‘terrorists’ in Melbourne who were planning to bomb an Australian army barrack.
Prime Minister Rudd can now stand before the Australian people and say “I told you so”.
While the West bombs Islam, Islam will bomb the West – or at least the West will make it look like Islam wants to bomb the West in order for the West to continue bombing Islam.
Despite public opinion going against him, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd continues to insist that Australia’s ongoing support of the allied effort to kill as many Afghans as possible is somehow in Australia’s interests.
And, just to prove the point, right on cue, Australian police and security services launch a huge raid against Somali and Lebanese ‘terrorists’ in Melbourne who were planning to bomb an Australian army barrack.
Prime Minister Rudd can now stand before the Australian people and say “I told you so”.
While the West bombs Islam, Islam will bomb the West – or at least the West will make it look like Islam wants to bomb the West in order for the West to continue bombing Islam.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
WILL THERE BE A SERIOUS DEMOCRAT CHALLENGER TO OBAMA AT THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS?
Of course, a lot of water can pass under the bridge between now and the 2012 US presidential elections, but, the way things are going at the moment, the American people seem mightily disappointed with the way Obama has performed so far relative to their expectations. By the time the election comes around they might just want to opt for someone else who will give them what they want – and what Obama originally promised.
The Republicans are more than happy to see Obama slump at the polls; they think that this actually reflects support for their cause. What they don’t appreciate is that Americans generally do not want to return to Bush-Cheney style Republicanism which, apart from the alternative Ron Paul offers, is all that Republicans otherwise are offering at the moment.
While incumbent presidents running for re-election for a second term usually have no difficulty in being renominated at their party’s conventions (though Ted Kennedy did give Jimmy Carter a run for his money for the 1980 Democrat nomination by getting around a third of the votes), Obama, if he carry’s on the way he’s going, might just change that ‘incumbent usually gets the nod’ scenario come the nominations for the 2012 election.
Americans expected to elect a president that would end the wars that Bush and his neocons mates started. They also expected the president to turn around the economy and, while most Americans appreciated that turning the economy is a lot easier said than done, they did expect the president to at least be a little more sympathetic toward those caught up in the sub-prime mortgage debacle and who were losing their jobs and homes in droves – and still are despite billions of American taxpayers money having been shovelled to the banks.
Thousands every week are still quietly losing their jobs while loud noises are being made about ‘green shoots’ appearing in the economy. Unfortunately, ‘green shoots’ appearing in the economy simply means that the banks aren’t losing as much as they were six months ago. Your average working class American hasn’t seen many ‘green shoots’ springing up in their backyard – assuming they’re lucky enough to still have a backyard.
Americans are beginning to see through the Obama charm. American kidz, as well as kidz from Europe and Australia, not to mention kidz fighting for the other side as well as civilians, are continuing to die in a totally un-winnable war which has no end in sight. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that the bottom line is real simple; if the West bombs Islam, then Islam is likely to bomb the West. The ‘they are all terrorists’ and ‘they hate our values’ rhetoric is wearing very thin.
Things are no better in the Middle East. Obama mouths a lot of platitudes about stopping settlements in the West Bank and peace between Israel and the Palestinians yet Gaza is still blockaded at horrific cost to the people imprisoned in that ghetto, Iran continues to be threatened despite there being not a shred of evidence to support US and Israeli claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and Israel still deliberately provokes war against Lebanon and the Palestinians. In other words, there is no more peace in the world now than there was when Bush junior was President.
At the 2008 presidential elections the American people gave Obama a massive mandate to reverse all the policies Bush had instigated. Instead of reversing them, he’s kept them going – and he’s done it in a way that seems almost underhand. At least with Bush he didn’t care if the world knew he was an asshole but with Obama it seems like he’s conned the American people.
It’s not too late for Obama to turn himself around and deliver what the American people expected from him but he has a fair bit of work to do if he wants a crack at re-election in 2012.
The Republicans are more than happy to see Obama slump at the polls; they think that this actually reflects support for their cause. What they don’t appreciate is that Americans generally do not want to return to Bush-Cheney style Republicanism which, apart from the alternative Ron Paul offers, is all that Republicans otherwise are offering at the moment.
While incumbent presidents running for re-election for a second term usually have no difficulty in being renominated at their party’s conventions (though Ted Kennedy did give Jimmy Carter a run for his money for the 1980 Democrat nomination by getting around a third of the votes), Obama, if he carry’s on the way he’s going, might just change that ‘incumbent usually gets the nod’ scenario come the nominations for the 2012 election.
Americans expected to elect a president that would end the wars that Bush and his neocons mates started. They also expected the president to turn around the economy and, while most Americans appreciated that turning the economy is a lot easier said than done, they did expect the president to at least be a little more sympathetic toward those caught up in the sub-prime mortgage debacle and who were losing their jobs and homes in droves – and still are despite billions of American taxpayers money having been shovelled to the banks.
Thousands every week are still quietly losing their jobs while loud noises are being made about ‘green shoots’ appearing in the economy. Unfortunately, ‘green shoots’ appearing in the economy simply means that the banks aren’t losing as much as they were six months ago. Your average working class American hasn’t seen many ‘green shoots’ springing up in their backyard – assuming they’re lucky enough to still have a backyard.
Americans are beginning to see through the Obama charm. American kidz, as well as kidz from Europe and Australia, not to mention kidz fighting for the other side as well as civilians, are continuing to die in a totally un-winnable war which has no end in sight. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that the bottom line is real simple; if the West bombs Islam, then Islam is likely to bomb the West. The ‘they are all terrorists’ and ‘they hate our values’ rhetoric is wearing very thin.
Things are no better in the Middle East. Obama mouths a lot of platitudes about stopping settlements in the West Bank and peace between Israel and the Palestinians yet Gaza is still blockaded at horrific cost to the people imprisoned in that ghetto, Iran continues to be threatened despite there being not a shred of evidence to support US and Israeli claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and Israel still deliberately provokes war against Lebanon and the Palestinians. In other words, there is no more peace in the world now than there was when Bush junior was President.
At the 2008 presidential elections the American people gave Obama a massive mandate to reverse all the policies Bush had instigated. Instead of reversing them, he’s kept them going – and he’s done it in a way that seems almost underhand. At least with Bush he didn’t care if the world knew he was an asshole but with Obama it seems like he’s conned the American people.
It’s not too late for Obama to turn himself around and deliver what the American people expected from him but he has a fair bit of work to do if he wants a crack at re-election in 2012.
Friday, July 31, 2009
ISRAELI PROVOCATION OF HAMAS IN THE GAZA AND HEZBOLLAH IN LEBANON INCREASING.
Yesterday’s unprovoked attack by Israeli armoured vehicles firing into the Gaza Strip at Palestinian farmers and their homes near Khan Younis in south Gaza seems to have been a follow on from an earlier incursion by Israeli on Tuesday when Israeli tanks and bulldozers rolled into the Gaza near the Jabaliya refugee camp in the north of the Strip to destroy agricultural plots. Both of these attacks against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip seem to be part of a deliberate program by the Israeli Defence Forces to deliberately provoke Hamas in the Gaza Strip to retaliate against the Israelis just as the Israelis are attempting to provoke Hezbollah in Lebanon by moving tanks up to the border and increasing their overflights in Lebanese airspace.
Israel is clearly attempting once again to use its well known tactic of taking small un-newsworthy but deliberately provocative jabs at its enemies and then, when their enemy retaliates, use that as a casus belli for an all-out attack accusing their enemies of having started it. It is a tactic that Israel has repeated over and over again ever since the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel first got seriously underway.
As I wrote on Wednesday, this provocative activity in the Gaza and at the border of Lebanon isn’t random or spontaneous, they are organised and deliberate. They are designed to provoke retaliation in a well co-ordinated effort to ultimately instigate an attack against Iran.
Israel is clearly attempting once again to use its well known tactic of taking small un-newsworthy but deliberately provocative jabs at its enemies and then, when their enemy retaliates, use that as a casus belli for an all-out attack accusing their enemies of having started it. It is a tactic that Israel has repeated over and over again ever since the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel first got seriously underway.
As I wrote on Wednesday, this provocative activity in the Gaza and at the border of Lebanon isn’t random or spontaneous, they are organised and deliberate. They are designed to provoke retaliation in a well co-ordinated effort to ultimately instigate an attack against Iran.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
ISRAEL UPS THE TEMPO IN ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO KICK START A FIGHT WITH LEBANON.
Despite denials yesterday by the Israeli Chief of Staff, General Gabi Ashkenazi, that all is well on the northern front where Israel’s border meets Lebanon, Israeli tanks and troops are piling up at the border and Israeli Air Force jets are flying more frequent sorties in to Lebanese airspace.
It seems some Israeli armour has moved forward to within a hundred metres of the border in a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction. What is significant in this move is that it was carried out knowing that this time it would not just be Hezbollah that the Israelis would be facing, but regular Lebanese forces who, according to a Lebanese Army spokesperson, ‘are ready to confront any Israeli assaults on Lebanon’ and have moved up tanks to the area to meet the Israeli threat.
This latest move, coupled with the increasingly bellicose propaganda campaign Israel is waging over Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program, could easily escalate into the war the Israelis have been trying desperately to provoke ever since their last unsuccessful attempt to provoke a confrontation with Iran when it attacked and then invaded Lebanon in 2006.
In any future war with Lebanon, Israel has stated that it will regard the Lebanese government and the Lebanese armed forces as much an enemy as Hezbollah who, according to a ‘Jerusalem Post’ report, are now actually training Lebanese army officers. This means that any full scale attack by Israel against Lebanon will include massive air attacks against Lebanese government and utilities infrastructure all over Lebanon starting, as per tradition, with attacks against Lebanon’s airports, airfields and military bases, supplies and communications networks.
The Lebanese air force, which, apart from a handful of very outdated Hawker Hunter aircraft, at the moment consists mainly of helicopters used for both attack work and transport, is, significantly, awaiting delivery of 10 MiG-29 aircraft gifted from Russia which are due to arrive next month. These aircraft, when flown by experienced pilots and appropriately armed, will be a reasonable match when up against Israel’s F-16’s. Israel would certainly be keen not to have to deal with these aircraft, especially if the Lebanese contract experienced Russian pilots to fly them, and so would be anxious to take on Lebanon before these aircraft arrive.
Israel is itching to go and the imminent delivery of the 10 MiG-29’s might just be the trigger they need.
It seems some Israeli armour has moved forward to within a hundred metres of the border in a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction. What is significant in this move is that it was carried out knowing that this time it would not just be Hezbollah that the Israelis would be facing, but regular Lebanese forces who, according to a Lebanese Army spokesperson, ‘are ready to confront any Israeli assaults on Lebanon’ and have moved up tanks to the area to meet the Israeli threat.
This latest move, coupled with the increasingly bellicose propaganda campaign Israel is waging over Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program, could easily escalate into the war the Israelis have been trying desperately to provoke ever since their last unsuccessful attempt to provoke a confrontation with Iran when it attacked and then invaded Lebanon in 2006.
In any future war with Lebanon, Israel has stated that it will regard the Lebanese government and the Lebanese armed forces as much an enemy as Hezbollah who, according to a ‘Jerusalem Post’ report, are now actually training Lebanese army officers. This means that any full scale attack by Israel against Lebanon will include massive air attacks against Lebanese government and utilities infrastructure all over Lebanon starting, as per tradition, with attacks against Lebanon’s airports, airfields and military bases, supplies and communications networks.
The Lebanese air force, which, apart from a handful of very outdated Hawker Hunter aircraft, at the moment consists mainly of helicopters used for both attack work and transport, is, significantly, awaiting delivery of 10 MiG-29 aircraft gifted from Russia which are due to arrive next month. These aircraft, when flown by experienced pilots and appropriately armed, will be a reasonable match when up against Israel’s F-16’s. Israel would certainly be keen not to have to deal with these aircraft, especially if the Lebanese contract experienced Russian pilots to fly them, and so would be anxious to take on Lebanon before these aircraft arrive.
Israel is itching to go and the imminent delivery of the 10 MiG-29’s might just be the trigger they need.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
ISRAEL’S MENACING RHETORIC TOWARD LEBANON AND THREATS TOWARD IRAN ARE INTRINSICALLY LINKED.
The world should not make the mistake of believing that Israel’s menacing rhetoric toward Lebanon is a separate issue from Israel’s threatening attitude toward Iran.
Israel has made it quite clear that in any future conflict with Hezbollah, Israel will regard the Lebanese government as being responsible for Hezbollah’s actions. This means that any attack Israel launches against Hezbollah will now include action against all of Lebanon and Lebanon’s armed forces.
Since Israel now regards Hezbollah as an integral part of the Lebanese government, any future war launched by Israel to destroy Hezbollah will have to involve a full-on invasion – which, of course, is what the Israelis have always wanted to do and have attempted a number of times before. But next time it will different. Next time the Israelis invade Lebanon it will be with overwhelming force and the resulting occupation of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River will likely be permanent.
The one obstacle to Israel’s stance against Hezbollah is Iran. Iran supports Hezbollah with massive amounts of financial aid and military hardware. It is quite clear that Israel’s strategy is to find a casus belli with which to launch an attack against either Lebanon or Iran. If Israel finds, or creates, a cause to attack Lebanon first then it will likely attack Iran soon after based on the notion that Iran is clearly supporting Lebanon by providing Hezbollah with weapons and possibly even men. If, on the other hand, Israel decides to launch a so-called ‘unilateral pre-emptive’ attack against Iran (there will be nothing at all ‘unilateral’ about such an attack; the US will actually be up to their ears in it) then Israel will launch an attack against Lebanon claiming that it would need to prevent retaliatory attacks on Israel by Hezbollah. Either way, when push comes to shove, Israel will want to be killing more than one bird in such a conflict.
Naturally, Israel will also want to take care of Hamas in the Gaza Strip at the same time as it launches any attack against Hezbollah.
Once committed to war, the US will have no alternative but to support Israel and will abandon all pretence about wanting to find a diplomatic way out of its differences with Iran.
Israel’s rhetoric against Hezbollah and Iran are yet again beginning to converge and is becoming heightened. It’s has happened before and such a final confrontation type war has only been avoided in the past because Israel was unable to find a strong enough casus belli to justify it.
While the US is still insisting that a diplomatic solution be found to Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ in order to satisfy US public opinion which would not support an American attack against Iran, the US knows full well that in fact Iran has no such ‘nuclear weapons program’. This can only mean then that the US is keeping the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ card up its sleeve to use when Israel decides its ready to launch its final confrontation with Iran. If all goes to plan, the Israelis hope by the end of it to be in southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and even possibly the West Bank permanently while the US will hope that a short sharp but brutal onslaught will bring about regime change in Iran.
Israel has made it quite clear that in any future conflict with Hezbollah, Israel will regard the Lebanese government as being responsible for Hezbollah’s actions. This means that any attack Israel launches against Hezbollah will now include action against all of Lebanon and Lebanon’s armed forces.
Since Israel now regards Hezbollah as an integral part of the Lebanese government, any future war launched by Israel to destroy Hezbollah will have to involve a full-on invasion – which, of course, is what the Israelis have always wanted to do and have attempted a number of times before. But next time it will different. Next time the Israelis invade Lebanon it will be with overwhelming force and the resulting occupation of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River will likely be permanent.
The one obstacle to Israel’s stance against Hezbollah is Iran. Iran supports Hezbollah with massive amounts of financial aid and military hardware. It is quite clear that Israel’s strategy is to find a casus belli with which to launch an attack against either Lebanon or Iran. If Israel finds, or creates, a cause to attack Lebanon first then it will likely attack Iran soon after based on the notion that Iran is clearly supporting Lebanon by providing Hezbollah with weapons and possibly even men. If, on the other hand, Israel decides to launch a so-called ‘unilateral pre-emptive’ attack against Iran (there will be nothing at all ‘unilateral’ about such an attack; the US will actually be up to their ears in it) then Israel will launch an attack against Lebanon claiming that it would need to prevent retaliatory attacks on Israel by Hezbollah. Either way, when push comes to shove, Israel will want to be killing more than one bird in such a conflict.
Naturally, Israel will also want to take care of Hamas in the Gaza Strip at the same time as it launches any attack against Hezbollah.
Once committed to war, the US will have no alternative but to support Israel and will abandon all pretence about wanting to find a diplomatic way out of its differences with Iran.
Israel’s rhetoric against Hezbollah and Iran are yet again beginning to converge and is becoming heightened. It’s has happened before and such a final confrontation type war has only been avoided in the past because Israel was unable to find a strong enough casus belli to justify it.
While the US is still insisting that a diplomatic solution be found to Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ in order to satisfy US public opinion which would not support an American attack against Iran, the US knows full well that in fact Iran has no such ‘nuclear weapons program’. This can only mean then that the US is keeping the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ card up its sleeve to use when Israel decides its ready to launch its final confrontation with Iran. If all goes to plan, the Israelis hope by the end of it to be in southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and even possibly the West Bank permanently while the US will hope that a short sharp but brutal onslaught will bring about regime change in Iran.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
IS CLINTON REALLY GETTING UP ISRAEL’S NOSE OR IS SHE ACTUALLY PUSHING ISRAEL TO ATTACK IRAN?
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton seemingly upset the Zionists of Israel recently when she remarked that the US would protect Israel and other Middle East allies from Iran if Iran becomes nuclear armed. She said the US would be prepared to build a ‘defence umbrella’ that would neutralise Irans attempt to ‘dominate’ if it were to become nuclear armed.
If one was to accept the rhetoric and propaganda that Iran does indeed have a ‘nuclear weapons program’ as Israel and her allies claim, then one wonders what it is that is upsetting the Israelis who would be the beneficiaries of such a defensive measure – and, presumably, at no cost to them. One has to ask then; ‘What’s the problem?’
The problem is; it’s not what the Israeli Zionists want the US to do as far as Iran is concerned. For Israel, the problem is not Iran’s nuclear weapons program – they know full well that Iran doesn’t actually have one and the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ rhetoric is just propaganda to con the world into supporting Israel. What Israel really wants is regime change in Iran so that Israel can deal with Hezbollah and Hamas without Iran supporting them with weapons.
Now, not only does Israel know that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, but so does the US in which case; what exactly is Hilary Clinton talking about?
The problem is that the Obama administration, who would actually like to see ‘regime change’ in Iran as much as Israel would, has painted itself into a bit of a corner. Politically, he can’t just go joining in with Israel in a pre-emptive attack against Iran without good cause. And, for the American people, simply accusing the Iranians of having ‘a nuclear weapons program’ without any proof whatsoever is hardly ‘good cause’, especially since the previous President had already pulled that stunt with Iraq. The only way out of the dilemma for Obama is for Israel to ‘unilaterally’ attack Iran which would then force a fait accompli situation on Obama who would feel he had no alternative but to support Israel by also attacking Iran in order to prevent any Iranian retaliation against Israel.
Any talk of peace with the Palestinians based on settlement withdrawal can be kissed goodbye and, of course, the Israelis would be just hoping that the Palestinians and Hezbollah react to an attack on Iran by launching attacks against Israel so that the Israelis could then fully invade and occupy the Gaza, the west Bank and south Lebanon up to the Litani River. And with such a major escalation, the US will just let them get on with it and the UN would be ignored entirely.
So, is Clinton really getting up Israel’s nose, or is she actually encouraging the Israelis to launch an attack against Iran first so that the US would then have an excuse to join in?
If one was to accept the rhetoric and propaganda that Iran does indeed have a ‘nuclear weapons program’ as Israel and her allies claim, then one wonders what it is that is upsetting the Israelis who would be the beneficiaries of such a defensive measure – and, presumably, at no cost to them. One has to ask then; ‘What’s the problem?’
The problem is; it’s not what the Israeli Zionists want the US to do as far as Iran is concerned. For Israel, the problem is not Iran’s nuclear weapons program – they know full well that Iran doesn’t actually have one and the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ rhetoric is just propaganda to con the world into supporting Israel. What Israel really wants is regime change in Iran so that Israel can deal with Hezbollah and Hamas without Iran supporting them with weapons.
Now, not only does Israel know that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, but so does the US in which case; what exactly is Hilary Clinton talking about?
The problem is that the Obama administration, who would actually like to see ‘regime change’ in Iran as much as Israel would, has painted itself into a bit of a corner. Politically, he can’t just go joining in with Israel in a pre-emptive attack against Iran without good cause. And, for the American people, simply accusing the Iranians of having ‘a nuclear weapons program’ without any proof whatsoever is hardly ‘good cause’, especially since the previous President had already pulled that stunt with Iraq. The only way out of the dilemma for Obama is for Israel to ‘unilaterally’ attack Iran which would then force a fait accompli situation on Obama who would feel he had no alternative but to support Israel by also attacking Iran in order to prevent any Iranian retaliation against Israel.
Any talk of peace with the Palestinians based on settlement withdrawal can be kissed goodbye and, of course, the Israelis would be just hoping that the Palestinians and Hezbollah react to an attack on Iran by launching attacks against Israel so that the Israelis could then fully invade and occupy the Gaza, the west Bank and south Lebanon up to the Litani River. And with such a major escalation, the US will just let them get on with it and the UN would be ignored entirely.
So, is Clinton really getting up Israel’s nose, or is she actually encouraging the Israelis to launch an attack against Iran first so that the US would then have an excuse to join in?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
BEFORE IRAQ WAR THERE WERE MASSIVE PROTESTS, BUT IN RUN UP TO ATTACK IRAN WE DO NOTHING. WHY?
In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, millions of ordinary people – not just lefties, but plain ordinary people of all ages, professions and class, many of whom had never taken part in any protest before – took to the streets in unprecedented numbers both in national capitals and in small country towns around the world to loudly protest the inevitable war.
It didn’t make a blind bit of difference; a western world predominately lead by right-wing governments determined to go to war regardless of what their peoples demanded, refused to listen and went to war anyway.
Western governments learnt their lesson however. In order to avoid a repetition of those massive worldwide rallies, wars in future will not be announced so blatantly. With Iraq, the world watched as the Western powers built up their forces, issued transparent ultimatums and then invaded. The world watched this happen over a long period of time as though it were following a prearranged and well publicised agenda. By August 2002 the world knew invasion was all but inevitable. An anti-war movement rapidly grew with demonstrations taking place on a regular basis around the world.
Despite warnings to the Australian government about the potential for bomb attacks on tourist areas in Bali, the Australian government decided not to issue any special warning to Australian travellers. As a result, on 12 October 2002, just a week after massive anti-war rallies in Europe and around the world, including Australia, two bombs exploded in the night club area of Kuta in Bali and some 202 people were killed including 88 Australians. If then Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer thought that by not warning Australians about the potential threat and the resultant deaths due to that decision would somehow swing Australian public opinion in favour of Australia’s participation in an attack against Iraq, then they were sorely mistaken. The following weekend, and for weeks after right up to the invasion of Iraq, saw some of the biggest rallies ever in Australia and around the world.
This time around, as the Western powers gear up for an attack on Iran, the prospect of great protests and rallies against such a war are remote. The reason for this is simple: The build up for war is not so visible. Whereas in the lead-up to the attack against Iraq the West fed the public a running commentary, albeit based on lies, on why they were about to attack Iraq, in this coming war there is no direct threat of war from the US. This time around the US is playing a different game. With Iran, the US are playing the good cop - bad cop game with Israel playing the bad cop and the US appearing to be conciliatory – but only if Iran is prepared to be.
The problem is; while the Israelis and the US are accusing Iran of exactly the same things they accused Iraq of, no one is actually threatening or planning to invade Iran. The hope this time is to bring about ‘regime change’ without invasion. The casus belli for attack is the single issue of Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program which the Israelis and their Western allies accuse Iran of having despite the total lack of any evidence that Iran has such a program. While there are similarities between the rhetoric used today against Iran and the rhetoric used against Iraq, the main difference is in the perceptions of the threat of war. Whereas everyone just knew that Bush was determined to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein regardless of what Saddam did, the perception this time is of a President Obama who on the surface seems genuinely concerned to avoid attacking Iran and even looks as though he’s trying to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. While this perception prevails, there’s no need for the world to protest the possibility of another war. For some the perception is that Obama will actually prevent Israel from attacking. All of these perceptions have given the world a false though somewhat tenuous sense of security.
Just as the Bali bombings came at a time when public opinion was ranged against a looming war against Iraq, the recent bombings in Indonesia provides an opportunity for the governments of the Western world to remind all that the potential for Islamic violence is still very much alive as Israel ratchets up the rhetoric against Iran.
The reality, however, is far different from the perceptions and the world should take note before it is too late. The US has recently indicated that Israel must do what it needs to do to maintain what it thinks is its own security. This is just another way of saying that if Israel feels the need to attack Iran then the US would not stand in its way.
However, in order to attack Iran, Israel must contrary to the public perception that the US is trying to build, have help in some form or another from the US. Israel cannot possibly attack Iran completely independently of the US. If for nothing else, the huge amounts of military jet fuel needed for such a strike will have to come from the US, and most of the bunker-buster type munitions used will, in all likelihood, come from the US.
If Israel is permitted the use of Saudi airspace as has recently been reported, then the Israelis will not need to get permission from either the Iraqis or the US to use Iraqi airspace; they will only need to over-fly Saudi Arabia. Use of Saudi airspace in order to avoid using Iraqi airspace will be of paramount importance to the US if they are to maintain the perception of remaining ignorant of Israel planning a specific attack against Iran.
The world should ignore the perceptions; they are just as deceitful as the lies Bush told prior to the invasion of Iraq. An attack against Iran is as inevitable as the attack against Iraq was but this time we’ll get little or no warning of it. We’ll just wake up one morning to find that the world will have become an even more dangerous place to live in and the Global Economic Crisis will be the least of our worries.
It didn’t make a blind bit of difference; a western world predominately lead by right-wing governments determined to go to war regardless of what their peoples demanded, refused to listen and went to war anyway.
Western governments learnt their lesson however. In order to avoid a repetition of those massive worldwide rallies, wars in future will not be announced so blatantly. With Iraq, the world watched as the Western powers built up their forces, issued transparent ultimatums and then invaded. The world watched this happen over a long period of time as though it were following a prearranged and well publicised agenda. By August 2002 the world knew invasion was all but inevitable. An anti-war movement rapidly grew with demonstrations taking place on a regular basis around the world.
Despite warnings to the Australian government about the potential for bomb attacks on tourist areas in Bali, the Australian government decided not to issue any special warning to Australian travellers. As a result, on 12 October 2002, just a week after massive anti-war rallies in Europe and around the world, including Australia, two bombs exploded in the night club area of Kuta in Bali and some 202 people were killed including 88 Australians. If then Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer thought that by not warning Australians about the potential threat and the resultant deaths due to that decision would somehow swing Australian public opinion in favour of Australia’s participation in an attack against Iraq, then they were sorely mistaken. The following weekend, and for weeks after right up to the invasion of Iraq, saw some of the biggest rallies ever in Australia and around the world.
This time around, as the Western powers gear up for an attack on Iran, the prospect of great protests and rallies against such a war are remote. The reason for this is simple: The build up for war is not so visible. Whereas in the lead-up to the attack against Iraq the West fed the public a running commentary, albeit based on lies, on why they were about to attack Iraq, in this coming war there is no direct threat of war from the US. This time around the US is playing a different game. With Iran, the US are playing the good cop - bad cop game with Israel playing the bad cop and the US appearing to be conciliatory – but only if Iran is prepared to be.
The problem is; while the Israelis and the US are accusing Iran of exactly the same things they accused Iraq of, no one is actually threatening or planning to invade Iran. The hope this time is to bring about ‘regime change’ without invasion. The casus belli for attack is the single issue of Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program which the Israelis and their Western allies accuse Iran of having despite the total lack of any evidence that Iran has such a program. While there are similarities between the rhetoric used today against Iran and the rhetoric used against Iraq, the main difference is in the perceptions of the threat of war. Whereas everyone just knew that Bush was determined to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein regardless of what Saddam did, the perception this time is of a President Obama who on the surface seems genuinely concerned to avoid attacking Iran and even looks as though he’s trying to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. While this perception prevails, there’s no need for the world to protest the possibility of another war. For some the perception is that Obama will actually prevent Israel from attacking. All of these perceptions have given the world a false though somewhat tenuous sense of security.
Just as the Bali bombings came at a time when public opinion was ranged against a looming war against Iraq, the recent bombings in Indonesia provides an opportunity for the governments of the Western world to remind all that the potential for Islamic violence is still very much alive as Israel ratchets up the rhetoric against Iran.
The reality, however, is far different from the perceptions and the world should take note before it is too late. The US has recently indicated that Israel must do what it needs to do to maintain what it thinks is its own security. This is just another way of saying that if Israel feels the need to attack Iran then the US would not stand in its way.
However, in order to attack Iran, Israel must contrary to the public perception that the US is trying to build, have help in some form or another from the US. Israel cannot possibly attack Iran completely independently of the US. If for nothing else, the huge amounts of military jet fuel needed for such a strike will have to come from the US, and most of the bunker-buster type munitions used will, in all likelihood, come from the US.
If Israel is permitted the use of Saudi airspace as has recently been reported, then the Israelis will not need to get permission from either the Iraqis or the US to use Iraqi airspace; they will only need to over-fly Saudi Arabia. Use of Saudi airspace in order to avoid using Iraqi airspace will be of paramount importance to the US if they are to maintain the perception of remaining ignorant of Israel planning a specific attack against Iran.
The world should ignore the perceptions; they are just as deceitful as the lies Bush told prior to the invasion of Iraq. An attack against Iran is as inevitable as the attack against Iraq was but this time we’ll get little or no warning of it. We’ll just wake up one morning to find that the world will have become an even more dangerous place to live in and the Global Economic Crisis will be the least of our worries.
Monday, July 13, 2009
MONITORING CITIZENS PHONE & EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS EVOLVED BEFORE 9/11 & ENCOURAGED BY CHENEY. NYT COMPLICIT IN COVER-UP.
According to George Tenet’s memoir, ‘At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA’, it was General Mike Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency, who first hinted at the idea of monitoring phone and email communications outside of the powers that were already available. Tenet writes:
“I remember reflecting on testimony Gen. Mike Hayden, the director of NSA, had given to a public hearing of the House Intelligence Committee in 2000. Mike created quite a stir when he said that if Usama bin Ladin had crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, there were provisions of US law that would offer him [Hayden] protections with regard to how the NSA could cover him. Mike would late say that he was using this as a stark hypothetical. On September 12, 2001, it became real.”
Tenet then goes on to say:
“After the 9/11 attacks, using his existing authorities, Hayden implemented a program to monitor communications to and from Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attacks were planned. With regard to the NSA’s policy of minimisation, balancing US privacy and inherent intelligence value, Mike moved from a peacetime to a wartime standard. He briefed me on this and I approved. By early October 2001, Hayden had briefed the full House Intelligence Committee and the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee.”
It was at this point that Cheney asked Tenet “if the NSA could do more”.
Tenet explains:
“Our ability to monitor al-Qa’ida’s planning was limited because of constraints we had imposed on ourselves through the passing of certain US laws in the late 1970s. I called on Mike to relay the vice-presidents enquiry. Mike made it clear that he could do no more within the existing authorities. We went to see the vice-president together. Mike laid out what could be done that would be feasible, prudent, and effective.
Within a week new authorities were granted to allow the NSA to pursue what is now known as the ‘terrorist surveillance program’.” (1)
Clearly it was Dick Cheney who instigated the action required to allow the NSA to conduct illegal wiretapping of phones and email communications and it was Cheney and Hayden who had gone to Cheney to fill him in on the details of what exactly what they wanted to do. According to Tenet, all this happened by November 2001.
It wasn’t until four years later that the world got to learn of what had been going on when The New York Times writers, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, exposed the illegal wiretapping in an explosive article that The New York Times published on 16 December 2005. In it Risen and Lichtblau say that Bush signed off on the order in early 2002 but, from the way Tenet calls it, it seems more likely that Bush signed it off closer to the end of 2001 after pressure from Cheney.
But the story doesn’t end there.
The exposé by Risen and Lichtblau only came about because James Risen was about to launch his book ‘State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration’, in which Risen writes a whole chapter on the illegal wiretapping affair.(2) However, according to Walter Isaacson who reviewed Risen’s book in The New York Times, Risen’s The New York Times article had actually been written about a year before it was eventually published but the Bush administration had asked the NYT not to publish and the NYT had obliged thus making themselves as complicit in the cover up as Bush, Cheney, the NSA and George Tenet of the CIA.
Cheney, Tenet and Hayden between them have a lot to answer to. Not only were their deeds immoral, they were also very illegal.
ENDNOTES
(1) George Tenet, ‘At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA’. (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2007.) p. 237.
(2) James Risen, ‘State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration’. (New York: Free Press, 2006.) Chapter 2. pp. 39-60.
“I remember reflecting on testimony Gen. Mike Hayden, the director of NSA, had given to a public hearing of the House Intelligence Committee in 2000. Mike created quite a stir when he said that if Usama bin Ladin had crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, there were provisions of US law that would offer him [Hayden] protections with regard to how the NSA could cover him. Mike would late say that he was using this as a stark hypothetical. On September 12, 2001, it became real.”
Tenet then goes on to say:
“After the 9/11 attacks, using his existing authorities, Hayden implemented a program to monitor communications to and from Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attacks were planned. With regard to the NSA’s policy of minimisation, balancing US privacy and inherent intelligence value, Mike moved from a peacetime to a wartime standard. He briefed me on this and I approved. By early October 2001, Hayden had briefed the full House Intelligence Committee and the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee.”
It was at this point that Cheney asked Tenet “if the NSA could do more”.
Tenet explains:
“Our ability to monitor al-Qa’ida’s planning was limited because of constraints we had imposed on ourselves through the passing of certain US laws in the late 1970s. I called on Mike to relay the vice-presidents enquiry. Mike made it clear that he could do no more within the existing authorities. We went to see the vice-president together. Mike laid out what could be done that would be feasible, prudent, and effective.
Within a week new authorities were granted to allow the NSA to pursue what is now known as the ‘terrorist surveillance program’.” (1)
Clearly it was Dick Cheney who instigated the action required to allow the NSA to conduct illegal wiretapping of phones and email communications and it was Cheney and Hayden who had gone to Cheney to fill him in on the details of what exactly what they wanted to do. According to Tenet, all this happened by November 2001.
It wasn’t until four years later that the world got to learn of what had been going on when The New York Times writers, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, exposed the illegal wiretapping in an explosive article that The New York Times published on 16 December 2005. In it Risen and Lichtblau say that Bush signed off on the order in early 2002 but, from the way Tenet calls it, it seems more likely that Bush signed it off closer to the end of 2001 after pressure from Cheney.
But the story doesn’t end there.
The exposé by Risen and Lichtblau only came about because James Risen was about to launch his book ‘State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration’, in which Risen writes a whole chapter on the illegal wiretapping affair.(2) However, according to Walter Isaacson who reviewed Risen’s book in The New York Times, Risen’s The New York Times article had actually been written about a year before it was eventually published but the Bush administration had asked the NYT not to publish and the NYT had obliged thus making themselves as complicit in the cover up as Bush, Cheney, the NSA and George Tenet of the CIA.
Cheney, Tenet and Hayden between them have a lot to answer to. Not only were their deeds immoral, they were also very illegal.
ENDNOTES
(1) George Tenet, ‘At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA’. (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2007.) p. 237.
(2) James Risen, ‘State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration’. (New York: Free Press, 2006.) Chapter 2. pp. 39-60.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
THE SETTLEMENTS ISSUE: DON’T THE PALESTINIANS GET A SAY?
A headline article in the ‘Jerusalem Post’ today blared ‘Emerging settlement deal will let US, Israel claim victory’. The article went on to explain: “According to senior government officials, under this type of solution, Israel would declare a moratorium of a few months on the settlement issue, possibly half a year, while the US would give Israel a green light to complete a still-to-be-determined number of housing units in the settlements that are in advanced stages of construction.”
It seems, however, that the Palestinian people, whose lands these settlements are being built on, don’t actually get a say on the subject. Somehow it’s now the US that decides where and when settlements can be built on Palestinian lands.
The fact is; the issue of settlements in the West Bank has nothing to do with the US. The Palestinian people have not asked the US to negotiate on their behalf, and have certainly not authorised the US to concede any lands whatsoever within the West Bank to the Zionist settlers. For the Palestinian people the issue is simply resolved: Every single settler on Palestinian territory should leave; it’s as simple as that.
The Palestinian people seem to have been completely forgotten in these discussions. It’s as though they weren’t there. It’s almost as though somehow the lands now belonged to the US and that they were now negotiating with Israel over its use.
The reality of the US-Israeli ‘deal’ is that, as usual, everything has been put off until some other time in the future. And then it’ll be just more talks that are likely to go on for years with nothing ever eventually transpiring.
But then, of course, this is just what the Israelis want; more time while they wait for an opportunity to do what they do best and that is to find some casus belli with which to simply take what they want.
This whole charade of ‘settlement talks’ is just another Israeli time-wasting exercise while they wait for the ideal moment to strike at their enemies. Netanyahu and his Zionist government have no intention of ever giving up West Bank settlements, indeed, their intentions are just the opposite; to eventually find a way to overrun, occupy and then eventually annex the entire West Bank to become part of a Greater Israel of the future.
The Israelis hope that ‘Irans nuclear weapons program’ will be the trigger they need to strike at their enemies and realise their dream of a Greater Israel. Meanwhile, what will the rest of the world be doing?
Nothing as usual.
It seems, however, that the Palestinian people, whose lands these settlements are being built on, don’t actually get a say on the subject. Somehow it’s now the US that decides where and when settlements can be built on Palestinian lands.
The fact is; the issue of settlements in the West Bank has nothing to do with the US. The Palestinian people have not asked the US to negotiate on their behalf, and have certainly not authorised the US to concede any lands whatsoever within the West Bank to the Zionist settlers. For the Palestinian people the issue is simply resolved: Every single settler on Palestinian territory should leave; it’s as simple as that.
The Palestinian people seem to have been completely forgotten in these discussions. It’s as though they weren’t there. It’s almost as though somehow the lands now belonged to the US and that they were now negotiating with Israel over its use.
The reality of the US-Israeli ‘deal’ is that, as usual, everything has been put off until some other time in the future. And then it’ll be just more talks that are likely to go on for years with nothing ever eventually transpiring.
But then, of course, this is just what the Israelis want; more time while they wait for an opportunity to do what they do best and that is to find some casus belli with which to simply take what they want.
This whole charade of ‘settlement talks’ is just another Israeli time-wasting exercise while they wait for the ideal moment to strike at their enemies. Netanyahu and his Zionist government have no intention of ever giving up West Bank settlements, indeed, their intentions are just the opposite; to eventually find a way to overrun, occupy and then eventually annex the entire West Bank to become part of a Greater Israel of the future.
The Israelis hope that ‘Irans nuclear weapons program’ will be the trigger they need to strike at their enemies and realise their dream of a Greater Israel. Meanwhile, what will the rest of the world be doing?
Nothing as usual.
Monday, July 06, 2009
THE IRANIAN ‘REVOLUTION’ HAS FAILED SO IT’S BACK TO THE ‘IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS’ RHETORIC TO BOMB THEM INTO ‘REGIME CHANGE’.
With the failure of the Western powers to foment a popular uprising after the 12 June elections in Iran that they hoped would lead to regime change, the West has now had to return to the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ meme in order to pave the way for an attack against Iran in the hope that regime change can be affected that way.
In an interview on Sunday, Vice-President Joe Biden, when asked, “…if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?” responded saying: “Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.”
Biden was then asked: “You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike”, to which he responded, “I'm not going to speculate… on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.”
Yesterday (5 July) ‘Timesonline’ reported that the Saudis had made it clear to Meir Dagan, Israel’s Mossad chief, that they would not object to Israeli overflights if they were on their way to targets in Iran. While a flight to Iran from Israel via Saudi Arabia would be much longer that a direct flight to Iran overflying Jordan and Iraq, a flight via Saudi Arabia would not require permission from any other country; not even the US to fly over Iraq. And if the Israelis can get permission from the Saudis to have support aircraft in the air in Saudi airspace to refuel the Israeli strike aircraft over, say, the Persian Gulf, then an Israeli strike against Iran is feasible.
It’s interesting that the report about the Saudi’s giving clearance for overflights to attack Iran were quickly denied by Netanyahu’s office. Clearly, the Israelis are anxious to bury this information though, one suspects, that it is now too late and the Iranians will now have their spies in Saudi Arabia scanning the skies and radio bands for high flying aircraft heading west to east across Saudi Arabia toward the Persian Gulf.
It may well be that Israel could be keen to take advantage of the unrest that has recently unsettled Iran but now seems to have died down. A strike now, they may feel, might just reignite the embers of insurrection that still glow especially if there was also a strike against Iran’s security forces and it’s military.
Even if Israel did strike against Iran via Saudi skies, Israel would still need to rely on the US for support. The fuel required for the mission would need to be supplied by the US as would most of the munitions. US forces would also need to be on standby ready to prevent any Iranian retaliatory strikes against Israel and the US. Israel would also need to have its troops on standby at home in preparedness for retaliatory attacks from both Hezbollah and Hamas.
For Israel, a Hamas and Hezbollah strike against them would be what they want. It would provide the casus belli for Israel to invade both the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon – perhaps all of Lebanon – knowing that the Iranians would not be in a position to help them. And with Iran out of the equation, Syria would not dare move against Israel.
With the failure of the post-election Iranian revolution, Israel will now resort to its old rhetoric of ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ to try again to get public opinion onside for when they launch their attack against Iran to effect regime change. With the US now clearly not standing in the way and the Saudis prepared to let the US off the hook with regard to being seen by the world as facilitating an Israeli attack by allowing the Israelis to overfly Iraq despite all the talk of pursuing a “diplomatic solution”, everything seems in place for the Israelis to feel free to attack Iran when ever they feel they are ready.
The prospect of a final confrontation between Israel and Iran is now off the back burner and back on to the front burner. The problem is, If and when it happens, it won’t be a simple make or break fight for Israel or Iran; the repercussions will reverberate around the world for years to come.
CHECK OUT THE ‘MURDOCH’S PROPAGANDISTS’ BLOG
In an interview on Sunday, Vice-President Joe Biden, when asked, “…if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?” responded saying: “Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.”
Biden was then asked: “You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike”, to which he responded, “I'm not going to speculate… on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.”
Yesterday (5 July) ‘Timesonline’ reported that the Saudis had made it clear to Meir Dagan, Israel’s Mossad chief, that they would not object to Israeli overflights if they were on their way to targets in Iran. While a flight to Iran from Israel via Saudi Arabia would be much longer that a direct flight to Iran overflying Jordan and Iraq, a flight via Saudi Arabia would not require permission from any other country; not even the US to fly over Iraq. And if the Israelis can get permission from the Saudis to have support aircraft in the air in Saudi airspace to refuel the Israeli strike aircraft over, say, the Persian Gulf, then an Israeli strike against Iran is feasible.
It’s interesting that the report about the Saudi’s giving clearance for overflights to attack Iran were quickly denied by Netanyahu’s office. Clearly, the Israelis are anxious to bury this information though, one suspects, that it is now too late and the Iranians will now have their spies in Saudi Arabia scanning the skies and radio bands for high flying aircraft heading west to east across Saudi Arabia toward the Persian Gulf.
It may well be that Israel could be keen to take advantage of the unrest that has recently unsettled Iran but now seems to have died down. A strike now, they may feel, might just reignite the embers of insurrection that still glow especially if there was also a strike against Iran’s security forces and it’s military.
Even if Israel did strike against Iran via Saudi skies, Israel would still need to rely on the US for support. The fuel required for the mission would need to be supplied by the US as would most of the munitions. US forces would also need to be on standby ready to prevent any Iranian retaliatory strikes against Israel and the US. Israel would also need to have its troops on standby at home in preparedness for retaliatory attacks from both Hezbollah and Hamas.
For Israel, a Hamas and Hezbollah strike against them would be what they want. It would provide the casus belli for Israel to invade both the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon – perhaps all of Lebanon – knowing that the Iranians would not be in a position to help them. And with Iran out of the equation, Syria would not dare move against Israel.
With the failure of the post-election Iranian revolution, Israel will now resort to its old rhetoric of ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ to try again to get public opinion onside for when they launch their attack against Iran to effect regime change. With the US now clearly not standing in the way and the Saudis prepared to let the US off the hook with regard to being seen by the world as facilitating an Israeli attack by allowing the Israelis to overfly Iraq despite all the talk of pursuing a “diplomatic solution”, everything seems in place for the Israelis to feel free to attack Iran when ever they feel they are ready.
The prospect of a final confrontation between Israel and Iran is now off the back burner and back on to the front burner. The problem is, If and when it happens, it won’t be a simple make or break fight for Israel or Iran; the repercussions will reverberate around the world for years to come.
CHECK OUT THE ‘MURDOCH’S PROPAGANDISTS’ BLOG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)