Through The Glass Darkly

[otraque]

Who's Afraid of US-Iran Détente?


Why Arab governments fight rapprochement
by Muhammad Sahimi
Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States were broken off by President Jimmy Carter in April 1980, after the American embassy in Tehran was overrun by Iranian students in November 1979 and 53 Americans were taken hostage. The Reagan administration tried to secretly establish working relations with Iran, but that led to the infamous Iran-Contra scandal. President George H. W. Bush was so interested in reestablishing diplomatic relations with Iran that, in his inauguration speech in January 1989, he declared that "good will [on Iran's part] begets good will" on America's part.

After the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988 and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, passed away in June 1989, the Iranian government began to gradually distance itself from his revolutionary policies. Hence, in response to the first President Bush's call, Iran helped the U.S. to free the American hostages in Lebanon and provided support to the U.S.-led coalition forces that expelled Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait in 1991. But Bush lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton, and the Clinton administration quickly let it be known that it was not interested in rapprochement with Iran. In a gesture of willingness to reopen relations with Washington, the government of the pragmatic Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani granted a large contract to Conoco to work on an offshore Iranian oil field in 1995, even though another oil company had won the bidding. Rafsanjani went so far as to declare publicly that "the era of Ayatollah Khomeini is over." But Clinton not only prevented Conoco from doing the work, he also imposed tough sanctions on Iran.

The government of moderate Iranian president Mohammad Khatami was also interested in reestablishing relations with the U.S. Khatami suggested the "dialogue of civilizations" as an opening, but the Clinton administration did not take it seriously until it was too late. At that time, Iranian hardliners were opposed to rapprochement between Tehran and Washington, because Iranian reformists were in power.

Khatami's government did provide crucial help to the U.S. when it attacked Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 by opening Iran's airspace to U.S. aircraft and providing vital intelligence on Taliban forces. The forces of the Northern Alliance that Iran had supported for years against the Taliban were the first to reach Kabul and overthrow the Taliban government. Then, during the United Nations talks on the future of Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001, Iranian representative Mohammad Javad Zarif met daily with the U.S. envoy James Dobbins, who praised Zarif for preventing the conference from collapsing. Iran also pledged the largest investment and aid to Afghanistan after the U.S. Two months later, however, President Bush rewarded Iran by making it a charter member of his "axis of evil."

In May 2003, Khatami's government made a comprehensive proposal to the U.S., offering to negotiate all the important issues, including recognizing Israel within its pre-1967 war borders and cutting off material support to Hamas and Hezbollah. The proposal was rejected. That was, of course, when Bush's "mission accomplished" banner was the toast of Washington.

Contrary to popular belief, the Iranian hardliners are not opposed to reestablishing diplomatic relations with the U.S. They are fully aware that the Iranian people favor rapprochement. Therefore, the hardliners considered reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S. a "grand prize" that Khatami and his reformist camp could not be allowed to receive. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on June 15, 2005, right before Iran's presidential elections, Shirin Ebadi and I predicted [.pdf] that the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would suppress internal dissent but still try to start negotiations with the U.S. That is exactly what has happened. While cracking down hard on opposing voices and committing gross violations of human rights of Iranians, Ahmadinejad has tried to bring the U.S. to the negotiation table. He sent a long letter to President Bush but did not receive any response. Every September he has participated in the gathering of world leaders at the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly, and he has met with many influential American political thinkers. In an unprecedented move, he congratulated Barack Obama upon his election on Nov. 4. The collapse of oil prices, a deteriorating economy, and the UN-mandated sanctions imposed on Iran because of its nuclear program have provided additional impetus for Iranian leaders to seek out better relations with the U.S. President-elect Obama has also said that his administration will be willing to negotiate with Tehran without any preconditions.

Therefore, the conditions seem to be ripe for U.S.-Iran negotiations and rapprochement to begin, provided that Obama's foreign policy team takes the right approach. One would think that such a step would be greeted with a great sigh of relief by the other governments of the Middle East. Not so. Two powerful lobby groups are opposed to any rapprochement between Iran the U.S. One is the well-known Israel lobby. I will discuss Israel's opposition in a separate article, only pausing to point out that it has nothing to do with the "existential threats" Israel claims Iran poses to it.

The second group that opposes détente between the U.S. and Iran consists of the Middle East's Arab governments. Their fears are rooted in their total dependence on the U.S. for the survival of their regimes, the fierce anti-Americanism of their populations, and the historical resentments that Arab governments have had toward Iran. Let me explain.

In the 1960s, the Labor government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson recognized that Britain could no longer afford to act as an imperial power. Thus, he announced in January 1968 that by December 1971 all the British forces to the east of the Suez Canal would be withdrawn, and he began setting up the United Arab Emirates in the southern part of the Persian Gulf as a way of transferring power to the Arab sheiks who had worked closely with Britain. But both the British and U.S. governments were worried about the designs that the Soviet Union had on the Persian Gulf.

Since 1928, successive Iranian governments had declared sovereignty over Bahrain (which currently houses the headquarters of the U.S. 5th Fleet), and so did the shah, a close U.S. ally. At the same time, three strategic islands near the Strait of Hormuz – the Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunb Islands – that historically belonged to Iran were protected by the British Navy and claimed by the emerging UAE, but the shah wanted them back under Iran's sovereignty.

The shah and Britain reached a secret compromise. In return for Iran's acceptance of a UN report in 1970 that indicated that the Bahraini people wanted independence, Iran sent its military to the three islands but agreed to share the Abu Musa Island economically with the UAE. That happened on Nov. 30, 1971, one day before the end of the official presence of British forces east of Suez Canal.

That made Iran the undisputed power in the Persian Gulf, which was also what the Nixon administration wanted. The Nixon doctrine, announced by President Richard M. Nixon in July 1969, had declared that U.S. allies had to take care of the defense of their own regions. Nixon and Henry Kissinger had conceived the idea of supporting local "gendarmes" that would protect U.S. interests around the world, and Iran and the shah were the designated gendarme for the Persian Gulf. Thus, they told the shah that he could purchase any U.S. weapon, and helped him begin Iran's nuclear program.

The shah started throwing around Iran's weight. Iranian forces intervened against a leftist insurgency in Oman. He forced Iraq and Saddam Hussein to accept the Algiers Agreement of 1975 that settled a border dispute on terms favorable to Iran. These events revived the resentment and historical fears that the Arab governments of the Persian Gulf had toward Iran, even though Arabs invaded Iran in the 7th century and converted Iranians to Islam.

The shah also had good relations with Israel, which was helping him with Iran's internal security. Although he never hid his dislike of many Arab governments, his plans for the revival of Iran's power did include close relationships with some of them, whom he played off against other Arab nations, e.g., Egypt and Sudan against Libya and Muammar Gadhafi, who was fiercely opposed to the shah.

Thus, after the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom the shah despised (to the point that the Iranian press was not allowed to print Nasser's picture), passed away in 1970, the shah developed close relations with his successor, Anwar El Sadat. He also provided Jaafar Nimeiri, Sudan's president, a $150 million loan after Nimeiri expelled Soviet advisers and reestablished diplomatic relations with the U.S. in 1971. The shah had close relations with King Hussein of Jordan, and in the mid 1970s he began paying at least lip service to the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories. In a 1976 interview with Mike Wallace of CBS' 60 Minutes, he even complained about the influence of the Israel lobby in the U.S.

These developments were not to Israel's liking. Nor were Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Syria happy with such developments. The shah's weapon purchases from the U.S. and Britain had created a powerful military, and Iran's oil wealth, strategic location, and control of the Persian Gulf had made it indispensable to the U.S. Israel tried to dissociate the shah from the Arab world, but to no avail. The Islamic Revolution of 1979, however, disrupted all of that. In particular, Iran's diplomatic relations with Egypt were severed, and they have never been restored.

The same dynamics drive the present Arab governments' fear of Iran, which is why they are covertly opposed to the U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Iran's strong influence on Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and the Shi'ite groups that are in power in Iraq; the large Shi'ite populations of Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE; and the fact that Saudi Arabia's Shi'ites (who make up about 10 percent of the population) reside in the oil region of the country all worry the Arab nations of the Middle East.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak recently told his ruling party that "the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states." He has also said that "most of the Shi'ites are loyal to Iran, not to the countries they are living in." King Abdullah II of Jordan has warned about a coming "Shi'ite crescent" from Iran to Lebanon. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia accused Iran of trying to convert the Sunnis to Shi'ites.

The Arab governments of the Middle East profess worries about Iran's alleged attempts to spread its Islamic revolution to the entire Middle East. But this fear has no basis in reality. As mentioned above, when it comes to foreign policy, Iranian leaders long ago set aside their ideological fervor. The only exception to this is Israel. In fact, Iran's foreign policy has been very pragmatic for the past two decades. To give an example, in the dispute between Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, Iran has sided with Christian Armenia, not Shi'ite Azerbaijan. Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hamas are meant to give it strategic depth against Israel and the U.S., since its armed forces are relatively weak.

The Arab governments of the Middle East are also supposedly afraid of Iran becoming a nuclear power and threatening them. Again, such fears are baseless. It was the Arab governments that supported Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran, providing him with $50 billion in aid to keep fighting. Even then, Iran threatened almost none of the Middle East's Arab governments. Moreover, Iran has no territorial claims against any nation.

But even if Iran were to develop a small nuclear arsenal – and there is no evidence that it aims to do so – it would only be a deterrent against repeated Israeli and American threats. The aforementioned Arab governments have been buying tens of billions of dollars' worth of American, British, and French weapons, while Iran, under an arms embargo by the West, has had to rely mostly on its own domestic arms industry, which does not produce top-of-the-line weapons.

The fears of Iran expressed by the Middle East's Arab governments are simply smoke screens. The real reason for their fears is threefold.

First, the Arab governments of the Middle East have proven impotent at stopping Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip, which is nothing short of a crime against humanity, or working with Israel on a reasonable solution to its conflict with the Palestinians. On the other hand, thanks to Iran's support of the Palestinians and Hezbollah's victory over Israel in the summer 2006 war, Iran's leadership is very popular among the Arab masses (certainly much more popular than among the Iranian people). So the prospect of Iran negotiating with the U.S. while also supporting the Palestinians frightens unpopular Arab leaders.

Second, Arab leaders are worried that if the U.S. and Iran can begin to resolve their differences, then it will demonstrate to the Arab masses that it is possible to resist U.S. pressure, negotiate with the U.S. from a position of strength, and preserve political independence from the U.S. instead of being totally dependent on the U.S., as most governments in the Middle East are, which has generated deep anger in their populations.

Third, the Arab governments believe that as long as Iran is under strong U.S. pressure, the U.S. will not bother with them. While they say they support U.S.-Iran negotiations, they do not wish such negotiations to resolve the differences between the two nations. They do not want the U.S. to attack Iran, because they will be forced to get involved, but they also do not want normalization of relations between the two nations.

It's not just the Israel lobby that is frightened by the possibility of a thaw between Washington and Tehran.

On the other hand, Iran is ripe for fundamental changes. Its democratic movement will be greatly aided if negotiations do begin and result in a lessening of tension between the two nations. Once the threat of U.S. attacks on Iran is removed, Iran's hardliners will find themselves at a crossroads. They will either have to address the aspirations – economic, political, and social – of the Iranian people, or they will be removed from power one way or another. That will be in the interest of the entire Middle East, including the Arab nations.

[otraque]

From my MySpace site.
i want the COMPLEXITY of Einstein understood and let be known i am 100% certain he would have denounced Israel long ago as they have become everything he feared might happen in his worst nightmares.
*********************************************************
Einstein’s idealism and Zionism


This bit gets to, in few words, Einstein essential aversion to Nationalist Zionism.

<< He appealed to Weizmann to cooperate peacefully with the Arabs and suggested the creation of a secret council of four Jews and four Arabs to reconcile their differing views, an idealistic goal that was never achieved. In 1947, when the United Nations debated the future of Palestine, Einstein argued against the partition plan that would divide the land into two states, Arab and Jewish. As an alternative, he advocated a military-free zone for both peoples.>> (i noted he said ZONE and NOT zones--here we have the One State Solution)

In 1940 and 1946 and 1947 he expressed his aversion to militarized nationalim and bemoaned that a State of Israel could become that which destroyed jews.



But in 1948, after he had denounced fiercely in the extreme Menachim Begin, he nonethelees post fait accompli, recognized Israel.

However just before he died he was working on a speech for Israel's Independence Day.

His opening line was " I speak to you today NOT as an american citizen, not as a jew, but as a Human Being"



i know this much that the speech was setting up a test arguing that Israel will be a moral success or failure based on their treatment of the the arabs.



i can see he was already seeing what Yeshayahu Leibowitz was to state in 1967, when he,Leibowitz, said if the occupation continues, Israel would LOSE its SOUL.

His fear,Leibowitz'es fear, proved to be correct, the Nation of Israel has lost its soul.



It was Yeshayahu Leibowitz that was the first prominent Israeli to use the term "Nazi-Jews", saying certain elements of the jewish people i see as "Nazi-Jews", he said that a long long time ago.

A note, Einstein himself said on reading the Torah and such he was revolted by the religion of Judaism but said a snail can remove itself from its shell, but it still is a snail, so i can remove from myself from Judaism but i am still a jew.


In the days moving to his death(which he knew was imminent) he started to play a recording of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.

A friend asked "Why he was playing that, your are an unbeliever."

Einstein, ever being Einstein, said "I am a devoutly religious unbeliever. I think i will create a new religion"



His very last writing, hours before he died, was an equation. Max

[Ace Hanlon]

He has long been one of the more prominent "good Jews" who refuses to go along with Israel's barbaric campaign of murder and ethnic cleanisng.

[otraque]

i copy and paste "Jewish Terrorism" CG/Ace
Jewish Terrorism

By Ghali Hassan

30 December, 2008
Countercurrents.org


“It is our duty to back the State of Israel”. A common phrase used by major Jewish organisations.

At least 400 Palestinians, mostly women and children, were deliberately murdered and thousands are maimed and wounded when Israeli F-16 warplanes and Apache attack helicopters began premeditated massive aerial bombing attacks on the densely populated and Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip on Saturday 27 December 2008. It was a classic act of Jewish (State) terrorism.

In order to inflict terror and maximum civilian casualties, the Israeli attacks begun during traffic police graduation ceremony and just as thousands of Palestinian school children were coming home from schools. Vital civilian infrastructures, including hospitals, mosques, houses, schools and universities, including women dormitories have been destroyed.

According to an independent eyewitness in Gaza, five innocent girls were killed in their sleep when Israeli helicopter attacked a mosque. “There is no such thing as precision strike in a densely populated Gaza”, said the eyewitness. Let’s be honest, the attacks against 1.5 million Palestinian civilians (mostly refugees), 750,000 of them are children, have nothing to do with “self-defence”. Israel is not “defending itself"; Israel is committing deliberate war crimes in violation of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Convention. The concentration camp has been under two-year-long total blockade. The blockade designed as a collective punishment (not peace) of the 1.5 million Palestinians and had already caused a humanitarian catastrophe before the anticipated Israel’s terror blitz.

The Israeli blockade policy in Gaza has effectively destroyed the economy and the living condition of the Palestinians. It had impoverished and starved the whole civilian population of Gaza. While this policy is illegal under International Humanitarian Law and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the U.S. and its European allies have encouraged Israel and Egypt to continue enforcing the blockade. The policy constitutes an indiscriminate collective punishment, a war crime and genocide. As a result, hundreds of innocent civilians have died in what Israeli leaders call “truce” (ceasefire) in which Israel practises violence and acts of terrorism with impunity. Israel broke the ceasefire in order to flex its muscle before Israel’s coming elections and to derail any prospect of peace. It was only after the Jewish State murdered 23 Palestinians that HAMAS fired the ineffective home-made Qassam rocket towards Israeli positions. Israeli Jewish leaders use HAMAS – the only democratically-elected people’s movement in the Arab World – as a pretext to justify terrorising the entire Palestinian population.

It is important to note that Israeli leaders would not have committed such heinous acts of terrorism without the full complicity and backing of the U.S. administration, the European governments, and the dictatorial regime of Egypt and Mahmoud Abbas' thuggery. Palestinian leaders in Gaza have rightly accused the Egyptian brutal dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak and collaborators in the Palestinian Authority of colluding with Israel against the Palestinian in Gaza. Indeed, the treacherous Egyptian regime – propped-up and financed by the U.S. – has been a willing complicit in the Gaza blockade. Just before the massacre took place, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was in Cairo to consult with the dictator of Egypt.

This is not the first time the Jews have committed acts of terrorism in Palestine. Historically, the Palestinian people have suffering under Jewish terrorism for more that sixty years. The Jewish State was founded by heinous aggression and war crimes in 1984. It is just that Jewish terrorism is deliberately covered-up and justified as “self-defence” by Western media. With the exception of a few honourable voices, condemning the subject of Jewish terrorism remains taboo.

Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and international law Professor at Princeton University was recently denied entry into Israel. He was accused of comparing the policies of the Jewish State with that of Nazi Germany. It is ironic, because comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany are very common in Israel itself.

However, Professor Falk chose his words carefully when he described Israel’s policies towards Palestinians as a “crime against humanity” that should be stopped by international action. Falk urged the UN to invoke “the agreed norm of a responsibility to protect a civilian population being collectively punished.” He also called for an International Criminal Court investigation of Israeli military and civilian officials for potential prosecution. “The recent developments [the two-year-old blockade and other war crimes] in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy." Falk was lucky. Other Americans who dared to criticise the Jewish State were destroyed by a single shot of “ant-Semitism” and lost their jobs before they have committed political suicide.

While the parallels between the Jewish State of Israel and Nazi Germany are frightening, they are not surprising. Zionism grew out of German National Socialisms (Nazism). There are few important differences: (1) Unlike Nazi Germany, Israeli war is entirely against defenceless innocent civilians population resisting the illegal occupation of their homeland; (2) Unlike Nazi Germany, in addition to its superb propaganda system, Israel is supported by a global propaganda campaign led by the like of the BBC, CNN, Fox News, the Murdoch Press, and other Western media outlets which works tirelessly to portray Israel as a victim and propagate Israel’s Zionfascist ideology; and (3) Unlike Nazi Germany, Israel – in addition to possessing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons – is unconditionally supported (financially, militarily and politically) by major Western powers, including the U.S. and Britain. In short, Israel is untouchable. Moreover, like Nazi Germany, the Jewish State of Israel is committing war crimes by a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing and extermination of a particular ethnic-religious group of people, the Palestinian people.

As Jean Ziegler, Professor of Sociology at the University of Geneva in Switzerland and a Member of UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee said recently; "Behind the headlines of military conflict and escalating [Israeli] violence, there is a continuing physical, social and psychological destruction of a whole and very ancient [Palestinian] society". The West’s “never again” rhetoric that followed the Second World War seems to be applicable to Jews only. Isn’t it time for the “international Community” to implement its solemn rhetoric?


We know that unlike other peoples, Jews have repeatedly cited the “Jewish holocaust” to gain sympathy and to raise it as a tool to extort money and weapons and political support from Europeans. They have no sympathy for Palestinian victims and Palestinian suffering. Every time Israel commits mass murder of Palestinian women and children, Jews (with a few exceptions) around the world remain silent. In order to deflect attention from Israel’s terror, Israeli Jews and major Jewish organisations have been promoting and “exploiting the wave of Islamophobia [particularly] in the U.S. and Europe, to engage them in this war on the Palestinians, doing their part in suffocating, starving, and weakening the Palestinian people, as Israel caries its mission of destruction”, wrote the late Israeli scholar Tina Reinhart. They are complicit in the Jewish State’s crime against humanity.

A report published in July 2008 by the National and International Relations Department of Palestine in Ramallah revealed that the Israeli military killed 466 Palestinian citizens during military operations carried out in the Palestinian territories during the first half of 2008, including 75 children under the age of 18 and 23 women. At least 200 Palestinians have died as a result of the unjust collective punishment and blockade imposed on Gaza, preventing Palestinians from leaving to receive adequate treatment abroad. “A genocide is taking place in Gaza … an average of eight Palestinians die daily in the Israeli attacks on the Strip. Most of them are children. Hundreds are maimed, wounded and paralyzed”, wrote the Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe.

Furthermore, in the illegally Occupied Territories, Jewish settlers have unleashed new waves of terror attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron. On Thursday, settlers shot at Palestinians, set fire to homes and olive groves, and defaced mosques and graves after Israeli troops evicted a group of settlers from a disputed Palestinian-owned home near a biblical site. Persistent acts of terrorism by Israeli occupation soldiers and illegal Jewish settlers against the Palestinian farmers have destroyed millions of olive trees and farms decimating the livelihoods of Palestinians. “As a Jew, I was ashamed at the scenes of Jews opening fire at innocent Arabs in Hebron. There is no other definition than the term 'pogrom' to describe what I have seen," said the now discredited Israeli PM Ehud Olmert whose government is not only behind the policy of house demolishing but also behind the Jewish settlers’ terror against the Palestinians. In fact the Jewish settles are an effective weapon of the Jewish State to terrorise the Palestinians. The aim is to terrorise the Palestinian and forced them to leave their land.

As Palestinian houses are demolished, the illegal Jewish settlers’ population in the West Bank has grown three times higher than that of the rest of Israel during the past 12 years. An Israeli annual report shows that the illegal Jewish population in the West Bank more than doubled during that time, with a growth of 107 percent. The report also shows that the settler population has surged from 130,000 in 2005 to 270,000 by the end of 2007. Other illegal settlements in the West Bank have witnessed expansion between 50 per cent and 100 per cent of their areas in 1996.

Since 2007, more than 8,000 homes have been built in the West Bank and in the heart of annexed East Jerusalem, the capital of “future” Palestinian state, which is being intensively "Judaised". Jewish extremist settlers are literally taking over Palestinian homes with impunity. A report by the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) described the situation in the Israeli occupied West Bank as “reminiscent, in many and increasing ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa”. The report also revealed that many of the 430 Palestinians killed and 1,150 wounded in the West Bank alone by Israeli soldiers and death squads in 2008 were innocent by standards.

A study published by the Applied Research Institute- Jerusalem (ARIJ) said that the Israeli occupation increased the area of Jewish settlements in the West Bank by 85per cent between 1996 and 2007. The study added that Jewish settlements are the cornerstone of the Israeli policy of Judaizing the occupied Palestinian lands. According to the study the process building the Jewish settlements in various parts of the West Bank and in particular in the Jerusalem district started immediately after the occupation in June 1967 to impose changes on the ground in an attempt to get control of most of the occupied Palestinian lands.

The study concludes that the Israeli occupation seems to have no intention to stop the settlement activity as these settlements doubled since the Oslo accords. This is in addition to the thousands of Dunums of Palestinian lands being confiscated to build the Apartheid Wall and Jewish-only roads to serve the settlements and further isolating Palestinian communities from one another and limiting the expansion of Palestinian towns and villages.

The illegal expropriation of Palestinian lands and the building of Jewish-only settlements have continue thanks to massive injection of fund and investment by wealthy individual Jews and Jewish organisations in the US, Australia and Europe. For example, the Jewish National Fund (JNF), a global corporation, had illegally expropriated most of the land of 372 Palestinian villages, which had been ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces in 1948, to build exclusively Jewish settlements. Like many wealthy Jews, Joseph Gutnick, an Australian wealthy Jew has poured millions into building Jewish settlements on expropriated Palestinian land with Israel’s blessing. Of course, Israel continues to use all kinds of terrorist acts to dispossess the Palestinian people of their lands.

Instead of being sanctioned to stop violating of international law and the Geneva Convention, Israel is being rewarded by the U.S. and Europe with closer economic, academic, trade and defence links and privileges. “All we hear is a hollow laugh coming from behind the Apartheid Wall and the seething and starving prison camps for Palestinians under siege in Gaza and the West Bank”, writes Abe Hayeem of Architects & Planners for Justice in Palestine. On the other hand, Israel remains an extremist, right-wing, nationalistic and corrupt society which have rejected every step to live in peace and coexistence with its neighbours.

The ongoing massacre of innocent Palestinian civilians is not the first Jewish-perpetuated massacre and certainly won’t be the last. Israel follows a Nazi-like racist policy based on physical extermination and ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population.

Like Nazi Germany, Jewish Israel should be condemned, forced to renounce terrorism and end the occupation of Palestinian lands. The deliberate murder of innocent Palestinians is a classic act of Jewish State terrorism. There is no terrorism like the State of Israel terrorism. It remains to be seen if the world community needs a third world war to stop Jewish State terrorism.

Ghali Hassan is an independent writer living in Australia.

[otraque]

i see where even Daniel Barenboim is unliked in Israel, wonder if AIPAC has called him an "anti-semite" yet!!!

<<Conductor Barenboim denounces military action

Conductor Daniel Barenboim says the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved militarily. Barenboim grew up in Israel and formed an orchestra along with the late Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said that brings together young Israeli and Arab musicians. He says there are still far too many people who are convinced that military action is the answer and calls recent developments in the region "terrible events." Three days of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza have killed more than 300 Palestinians. Barenboim is a contentious figure in Israel for championing Palestinians' rights.>>

[Ace Hanlon]

Jewish Terrorism
By Ghali Hassan

http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan301208.htm

The ongoing massacre of innocent Palestinian civilians is not the first Jewish-perpetuated massacre and certainly won’t be the last. Israel follows a Nazi-like racist policy based on physical extermination and ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population

[otraque]

GIDEON LEVY: First of all, I feel horrible as an Israeli when I hear all those reports, when I watch all those horrible pictures. But unlike me, I am afraid that most of the Israelis are quite indifferent. They think that there was a legitimate reason. The attacks on the southern part of Israel was a legitimate reason. Israel has the right to do everything. Unlike them, I think that Israel crossed any line of humanity or morality or even legality. And I think what Israel is doing right now there is horrible and has no justification.

[otraque]

Nir Rosen, one of the best speaks out:

Gaza: the logic of colonial power.
As so often, the term 'terrorism' has proved a rhetorical smokescreen under cover of which the strong crush the weak.


Nir Rosen
guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 December 2008 08.00 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel

I have spent most of the Bush administration's tenure reporting from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and other conflicts. I have been published by most major publications. I have been interviewed by most major networks and I have even testified before the senate foreign relations committee. The Bush administration began its tenure with Palestinians being massacred and it ends with Israel committing one of its largest massacres yet in a 60-year history of occupying Palestinian land. Bush's final visit to the country he chose to occupy ended with an educated secular Shiite Iraqi throwing his shoes at him, expressing the feelings of the entire Arab world save its dictators who have imprudently attached themselves to a hated American regime.

Once again, the Israelis bomb the starving and imprisoned population of Gaza. The world watches the plight of 1.5 million Gazans live on TV and online; the western media largely justify the Israeli action. Even some Arab outlets try to equate the Palestinian resistance with the might of the Israeli military machine. And none of this is a surprise. The Israelis just concluded a round-the-world public relations campaign to gather support for their assault, even gaining the collaboration of Arab states like Egypt.

The international community is directly guilty for this latest massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people? So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not forget. The Palestinians will not forget. "All that you have done to our people is registered in our notebooks," as the poet Mahmoud Darwish said.

I have often been asked by policy analysts, policy-makers and those stuck with implementing those policies for my advice on what I think America should do to promote peace or win hearts and minds in the Muslim world. It too often feels futile, because such a revolution in American policy would be required that only a true revolution in the American government could bring about the needed changes. An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.

Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims' struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose.

Counterinsurgency, now popular again among in the Pentagon, is another way of saying the suppression of national liberation struggles. Terror and intimidation are as essential to it as is winning hearts and minds.

Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.

Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can.

Not long ago, 19-year-old Qassem al-Mughrabi, a Palestinian man from Jerusalem drove his car into a group of soldiers at an intersection. "The terrorist", as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz called him, was shot and killed. In two separate incidents last July, Palestinians from Jerusalem also used vehicles to attack Israelis. The attackers were not part of an organisation. Although those Palestinian men were also killed, senior Israeli officials called for their homes to be demolished. In a separate incident, Haaretz reported that a Palestinian woman blinded an Israeli soldier in one eye when she threw acid n his face. "The terrorist was arrested by security forces," the paper said. An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?

In September, Bush spoke at the United Nations. No cause could justify the deliberate taking of human life, he said. Yet the US has killed thousands of civilians in airstrikes on populated areas. When you drop bombs on populated areas knowing there will be some "collateral" civilian damage, but accepting it as worth it, then it is deliberate. When you impose sanctions, as the US did on Saddam era Iraq, that kill hundreds of thousands, and then say their deaths were worth it, as secretary of state Albright did, then you are deliberately killing people for a political goal. When you seek to "shock and awe", as president Bush did, when he bombed Iraq, you are engaging in terrorism.

Just as the traditional American cowboy film presented white Americans under siege, with Indians as the aggressors, which was the opposite of reality, so, too, have Palestinians become the aggressors and not the victims. Beginning in 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were deliberately cleansed and expelled from their homes, and hundreds of their villages were destroyed, and their land was settled by colonists, who went on to deny their very existence and wage a 60-year war against the remaining natives and the national liberation movements the Palestinians established around the world. Every day, more of Palestine is stolen, more Palestinians are killed. To call oneself an Israeli Zionist is to engage in the dispossession of entire people. It is not that, qua Palestinians, they have the right to use any means necessary, it is because they are weak. The weak have much less power than the strong, and can do much less damage. The Palestinians would not have ever bombed cafes or used home-made missiles if they had tanks and airplanes. It is only in the current context that their actions are justified, and there are obvious limits.

It is impossible to make a universal ethical claim or establish a Kantian principle justifying any act to resist colonialism or domination by overwhelming power. And there are other questions I have trouble answering. Can an Iraqi be justified in attacking the United States? After all, his country was attacked without provocation, and destroyed, with millions of refugees created, hundreds of thousands of dead. And this, after 12 years of bombings and sanctions, which killed many and destroyed the lives of many others.

I could argue that all Americans are benefiting from their country's exploits without having to pay the price, and that, in today's world, the imperial machine is not merely the military but a military-civilian network. And I could also say that Americans elected the Bush administration twice and elected representatives who did nothing to stop the war, and the American people themselves did nothing. From the perspective of an American, or an Israeli, or other powerful aggressors, if you are strong, everything you do is justifiable, and nothing the weak do is legitimate. It's merely a question of what side you choose: the side of the strong or the side of the weak.

Israel and its allies in the west and in Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have managed to corrupt the PLO leadership, to suborn them with the promise of power at the expense of liberty for their people, creating a first – a liberation movement that collaborated with the occupier. Israeli elections are coming up and, as usual, these elections are accompanied by war to bolster the candidates. You cannot be prime minister of Israel without enough Arab blood on your hands. An Israeli general has threatened to set Gaza back decades, just as they threatened to set Lebanon back decades in 2006. As if strangling Gaza and denying its people fuel, power or food had not set it back decades already.

The democratically elected Hamas government was targeted for destruction from the day it won the elections in 2006. The world told the Palestinians that they cannot have democracy, as if the goal was to radicalise them further and as if that would not have a consequence. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas's military forces. This is not true. It is targeting Palestinian police forces and killing them, including some such as the chief of police, Tawfiq Jaber, who was actually a former Fatah official who stayed on in his post after Hamas took control of Gaza. What will happen to a society with no security forces? What do the Israelis expect to happen when forces more radical than Hamas gain power?

A Zionist Israel is not a viable long-term project and Israeli settlements, land expropriation and separation barriers have long since made a two state solution impossible. There can be only one state in historic Palestine. In coming decades, Israelis will be confronted with two options. Will they peacefully transition towards an equal society, where Palestinians are given the same rights, à la post-apartheid South Africa? Or will they continue to view democracy as a threat? If so, one of the peoples will be forced to leave. Colonialism has only worked when most of the natives have been exterminated. But often, as in occupied Algeria, it is the settlers who flee. Eventually, the Palestinians will not be willing to compromise and seek one state for both people. Does the world want to further radicalise them?

Do not be deceived: the persistence of the Palestine problem is the main motive for every anti-American militant in the Arab world and beyond. But now the Bush administration has added Iraq and Afghanistan as additional grievances. America has lost its influence on the Arab masses, even if it can still apply pressure on Arab regimes. But reformists and elites in the Arab world want nothing to do with America.

A failed American administration departs, the promise of a Palestinian state a lie, as more Palestinians are murdered. A new president comes to power, but the people of the Middle East have too much bitter experience of US administrations to have any hope for change. President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden and incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton have not demonstrated that their view of the Middle East is at all different from previous administrations. As the world prepares to celebrate a new year, how long before it is once again made to feel the pain of those whose oppression it either ignores or supports?

[Ace Hanlon]

The Hanukkah Massacre in GAZA:

The Sacrificial Lamb to the Israeli-American-Arab Interests

By Mohamed Khodr

ccun.org, December 30, 2008



“What thou hast done to thyself none else did,
Thou has caused pain to the spirit of the Prophet
Ignorant of the witchery of the Frank (the west),
Behold the mischief hidden in his sleeve!
By his diplomacy all nations prostrate,
Unity of the Arabs crushed to pieces,
As long as they are caught in his vicious trap,
The Arabs shall not enjoy a moment's peace."
--Muhammad Iqbal, famed Pakistani Poet, “The Glory of Iqbal”, by Shakyh Abdul-Hanan Ali Nadwi

“The Arabs are right when they paint America as a great Zionist conspiracy”
--Douglas Rushkoff, New York University and other Schools, “Wrestling with Zion”, Grove Press, 2003
(Author of: Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism”, among many other books)

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices."
-- Edward R. Murrow, the famed CBS Journalist and Anchor


While the Christians celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, Bush the Christian offers one last massacre gift to Israel during Hanukkah, the Jewish festival of lights, where the only Jewish light seen over Gaza is Bush’s green light to dispose of Palestinian civilians and the lights of missiles and rockets fired from the latest American war planes courtesy of the ignorant but complicit American taxpayer.

As of this writing 284 Palestinians have been murdered, over 700 injured (many in critical condition); most are innocent civilians living in the most densely populated area in the world—Gaza. This is the highest one day total of dead and injured by Israel’s terrorism since its founding in 1948. Given Israel’s total siege of Gaza for over 18 months preventing any food, water, medicines, and fuel to enter, the injured are taken to the only hospital in Gaza where the siege ensured that not enough medical supplies are available to save the dying infant, the pregnant mother, or the elderly grandparent.

Bush and Rice after receiving the highest awards and most expensive gifts, including over $350,000 of Jewelry for Condi Rice from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf nations, and Jordan, justify Israel’s slaughter with the usual mantra that Israel has the right to “retaliate and defend itself”. For eight years Bush and Rice have not only defended Israel’s massacres but actually provided military and financial support as it launched military strikes across its borders attacking the Occupied Territories, the 2006 indiscriminate bombing for 34 days of Lebanon including the dropping of 1.5 million cluster bombs three days before the ceasefire, to the bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear facility.

And what did the new and improved “hope and change” President elect Obama say regarding the genocide in Gaza: “NO COMMENT”.

Israel’s slaughter has taught Obama a lesson even before he takes office—don’t mess with Israel or you’ll be burned. He’s shackled by his strong support of Israel during his candidacy and by his Jewish occupied White House. Obama will begin his term fearful of the Israeli lobby and devoid of any chutzpah to alter events in the MidEast, especially in reigning Israel’s wanton power to strike at will, even against Iran, having been castrated by a foreign lobby, much like the dog he seeks for his daughters.

The American-Israeli-Arab alliance became the “axis of evil” to eliminate all Islamic resistance and political parties in the Middle East, all under the pretext of a “war on terror” and the establishment of democracy and liberty in the Middle East, something this evil alliance truly fears lest it leads to the overthrow of Arab tyrannical dictatorships, ends America’s cheap access to oil, and the unification of the entire Arab Muslim world against Israel’s military hegemony in the region.

"Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name."
--Madam Rolande -from the guillotine platform during the French Revolution

Gaza—Oh, Gaza---you bleed, you die, you’re buried in total obscurity from a world that has surrendered you to Israel to do as it wills. Given that America, Israel, and the Arab governments have all declared you an “enemy entity” and all Gaza Palestinians as “enemy combatants” you’re total annihilation is justified in the eyes of this evil axis.

While Israel is the actual murderer, Pro-American tyrannical Arab regimes are the enablers, the second green lighters if you will. In public they issue the usual “condemnations”, “laying the blame and responsibility on Israel”, calling for an urgent Arab summit and demanding a halt to all military actions, calling upon the Security Council to meet knowing very well that both the United Nations and Arab League are American proxies, all the while in private they support Israel’s genocide against Hamas and Hezbollah despite the massacre of thousands of civilians.

During the inhumane strangling siege of Gaza, Egypt closed its borders to either provide supplies to the starving Palestinian children or allow the sick and injured Palestinians to enter Egypt for treatment, meanwhile providing gas to Israel. Not one single Arab government came to the humanitarian rescue of the beleaguered Palestinians, in effect supporting the Israeli-American determination to eliminate Hamas at any cost.

Two days prior to this slaughter Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister and Kadima Party candidate for Prime Minister, visited Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israel’s closest Arab ally, to announce that Israel will launch an offensive to eliminate Hamas. Did Mubarak give his Arab green light to this slaughter? Secondly, Mahmoud Abbas, “President” of the West Bank, visited Bush in the Oval office. Did Abbas, the Israeli American darling, give his approval for this slaughter?

As customary in Israeli elections candidates compete as to who is the greater genocider of Palestinians, who will continue the mass construction of illegal settlements, sabotage any international peace efforts, and lay the groundwork for the eventual expulsion of Palestinians from their occupied land. Given that Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud’s right wing extremist candidate, promises the greater genocide of Palestinians, Livni, his opponent, must project a stronger determination to be the Palestinian Terminator.

Among Livni’s candidate proposals is to expel Israeli Arab citizens from their homes (again) and settle them in the future Palestinian “state”; in effect proposing another ethnic cleansing. (Haaretz 12/11/08)

In the middle is Ehud Barak, the Labor Party Defense Minister, who endured intense political criticism for his “soft” approach to Gaza’s rockets, thus this Hanukkah massacre to bolster his political position. He states that this will be a long and painful military onslaught until Hamas is in effect eliminated from Palestine. To further increase his popularity he promises a massive ground invasion.

This is the same Barak who stated the following when he was Prime Minister during the Second Intafada:

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000

Although Barak, a military hero, did recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian resistance by saying:

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Haaretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

But what about the Arab League of Despots, Tyrants, and Corrupt Traitors of Islam and Arabs?

As usual, the Arab League has called for an immediate summit of Arab leaders to discuss the genocide in Gaza. So far less than half of the leaders have agreed to attend although they may send low level representatives. Arab leaders are more competent in fighting each other than fighting foreign domination or deadly occupations. Where have the trillions of oil dollars gone? Where have the hundreds of billions of dollars of purchased American weapons gone---gathering dust in the Arabian Desert? Such weapons are meant as symbolic deterrents against each other and Iran but are meaningless in any war given that the Arab military forces are just as illiterate, incompetent, lazy and corrupt as their leaders.

But let’s assume that there is an Arab Summit to pacify the Arab street. Here’s what will happen.

Several leaders won’t attend because of their hurt feelings from words spoken by other leaders, because America says so, and because they want to save face due to the consistent abject failure of Arabs to do anything meaningful internally or externally. There are 57 Muslim nations and 50 Muslim Ambassadors in Washington D.C. with only one Israeli Ambassador. Can you guess who has the real power in D.C? Who’s on television defending the genocide, who’s writing op-eds in the major papers, who’s on radio, who’s launching the most aggressive public relations campaign to justify the genocide? Obviously it’s not the 50 Muslim Ambassadors who are totally absent from the American political, social, and media scene. They are true reflections of their leaders in their total incompetence. But wait, you can find them in D.C. at strip clubs, exclusive night clubs, parading with beautiful women, and….well, you get the picture. They are on an “Alcoholic Jihad” while the majority of American Muslims and American Muslim organizations are laying low with their cowardly heads buried in their comfort niches content with launching a “Jihad by Email” in the usual hallmark of reactive actions. Like their brethren natives back home, American Muslims despite their wealth and high education are AWOL, disconnected from the suffering of Muslims around the world fearful of losing their jobs, of being harassed, or worst, ending up on a “list”.

Back to the Arab League:

If they meet, here’s their patented Arab bellicose communiqué:
“We condemn Israel’s aggression, demand the world interferes and stop all military actions, call for the full support of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians based on U.N. Resolutions 242, 338 and a lifting of the siege of Gaza, encourage Obama to adopt the Arab Peace Plan and his direct involvement to resolve the conflict (obviously not their responsibility), demand Israel allow humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, and indirectly criticize Hamas for this Israeli massacre.”

The final part of the Communiqué will read (my interpretation):
“If Israel persists again on killing another thousand Palestinians, the Arab League will call for another Summit to discuss that genocide too.”

Israel was founded by terrorism with support of the British and American “democracies”. It lives by terrorism, and God willing will end by terrorism. A nation that massacres its neighbors and mankind by the sword shall perish by the sword, that according to the Old Testament (Exodus 21:14) and the New Testament (Matthew 26:52).

“Israeli-Zionist society is predicated on a concept of religious/national exclusivity, resting on the distinction between “Jew” and “Non-Jew” that is institutionalized into all the formal state structures and on a concept of democracy as no more than rule by the majority without any protection of the right of minorities. Israel’s approach to conflict resolution is based on the premise that “might makes right”, coupled with a complete disregard for internationally recognized standards of state behavior and, as noted, a particularly cavalier disregard for the principles and resolutions of the United Nations….Indeed---the Machiavellian power machinations of persons, such as Henry Kissinger---who gave Israel carte blanche in the Middle East to assure its effectiveness as a “surrogate power” for American interests---or the craven subservience and political expediency of those members of Congress who have wanted the money and votes domestic pro-Israeli forces could deliver…the common denominator amongst all the American peace efforts is their abysmal failure.”

---Cheryl A. Rubenburg, Associate Professor of International Relations, Florida International University in “Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections”, p. 195

My dear Palestinians, you are alone in this world forsaken even by your own incompetent disunited power hungry leaders whose allegiance is not to you but to foreign interests. They are ignorant and disillusioned in their belief that there is an actual governmental institution that each seeks to dominate. Abu Abbas has thrown his lot with the Israeli-American-Arab alliance that seeks to eliminate the freely elected Hamas in Gaza. While Hamas has shown its total political failure unable to comprehend that “irrational exuberance”, and enthusiasm served with foolish bellicosity is no match for Israel’s 3M domination of the western world’s foreign policy: Money—Media—Military Power.

Although Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement its policies and methods of resistance are utterly stupid and counterproductive. The time, place, and circumstances that allowed other national resistance movements to succeed is totally lacking in Palestine: unity of purpose and collaboration---easy access to financial aid and military weapons from foreign powers---well trained militias and competent charismatic political and military leaders---successful short and long term strategic plans---and most importantly, a savvy knowledge on media manipulation and public relations. These elements are what made the Zionist terrorist groups successful in their theft of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of its people. Neither Fatah, Hamas, or any other Palestinian party or group is blessed with these elements. It’s incredulous that there are multiple Palestinian parties disunited in purpose and often are fighting each other than their occupier.

Hamas, created with Israel’s aid and blessings, has failed its people in providing them with their most basic needs or providing the political and public relation leaders able to articulate and communicate the legitimacy of their cause to the outside world. Hamas, when will you learn that the world lives and dies by the “image” of events? Israel can kill and within seconds have articulate spokespersons on television justifying their actions, yet you’re unable to develop any relations with any worldwide media to present your case. In this, you’re joined by the entire Arab Muslim world.

Stop the madness of the useless rockets that recently killed two Palestinian girls. They do nothing but provide Israel the excuse and the support of the international community to massacre the innocent. The entire world including Mahmoud Abbas and the Arab Muslim world join America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations (the four stooges of the Road Map) in blaming you for Israel’s slaughter even if Israel attacks Gaza preemptively. Fight with intellectual vigor, with intelligence, with a media savvy campaign, develop articulate English speaking spokespersons, utilize the internet, but stop the counterproductive bellicosity and stupid rockets. In today’s world “image” wins western hearts and minds, especially of Americans. You’re facing the most powerful “evil empires” in the world, America and Israel, and you can’t win.

I beg you, for the sake of the four year old Palestinian girl shot through the head by an Israeli sniper, bury her in peace and bury your rockets and pompous words and begin a resistance of non-violence. You’ll pay a heavy price but all independence struggles demand huge sacrifices.

In few Arab and Muslim cities protestors are expressing their anger against America and Israel. I say to them and to all Muslims, first clean your house of the tyrants, hold on to God’s covenant, and patiently develop your economic and military strength and you will ultimately succeed in liberating your lives, lands, and resources from America’s imperialism that uses its military as an instrument to satisfy the selfish unlimited consumption of its people.

“Indeed, Allah will never change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.”
(Quran 13:11)

The massacre of the Palestinians continues unabated with blood, tears, and screams going unseen and unheard by a callous world. The Arab leaders have done their part—most have issued “press releases” to urge a return to the cease fire that Israel broke and indirectly blame Hamas for forcing Israel’s hand, the hand that has never stopped killing and expelling Palestinians since 1948. No Arab leader has publicly appeared to condemn this atrocity.

Israel’s brilliant media strategy is to prevent western journalists from entering Gaza to document the dead and charred bodies lining the streets while allowing free access to the Arab media to further inflame the Arab Muslim world against American policies and interests, perhaps leading to terrorism against Americans and their institution, thereby justifying Israel’s “war of terror upon the innocent”. You see America, these Arabs and Muslims are hate filled terrorists indoctrinated by Islam’s teaching of killing Jews and Christians.

The dead Palestinians are martyrs who will enter Paradise, but it is us, the living, who will continue to endure hell on earth at the hands of the Israeli-American-Arab axis of evil with their smart bombs and stupid policies.

“As for those who take the deniers of the truth for their allies in preference to the believers - do they hope to be honored by them when, behold, all honor belongs to God alone? (Quran 4:139)

Our constant hope is that in the end Divine Justice will prevail against the murderous oppressors.

Long live Palestine and its yearning for freedom and independence from the “axis of evil”.

[otraque]

i want to link you to the site where that graphic came from as the site is run by an american jew that immigrated to Israel 23 years ago and lives in Jerusalem.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/toon-of-the-day-the-gaza-ghetto/

brief profile:

Name: Desert Peace
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
From my very first post….

I am originally from the United States. I have been living in Jerusalem, Israel for 23 years and have dedicated all of those years to try and create an atmosphere that will lead to a just and permanent peace in this area. Israelis and Palestinians have more in common that the outsider might see… I will attempt on this blog to show those similarities and show why I am so confident that one day we will live in peace together.
I know it can be done!
About…
Active Peace/Civil Rights Worker.. Aiming to establish a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, while at the same time continue the struggle against racism and for peace throughout the world. Email me at.. [e-mail]

DesertPeace originally started out at Blogspot in October 2005. Because of continual technical difficulties it was moved to WordPress in January of 2008…. all archives were moved as well.
************************************************************
and i copy and paste one of the comments to the "toon"


lucy butler said,
November 27, 2008 at 7:03 pm

i am sorry. i am ashamed. i have been since i can remember, growing up in new york, saying ‘mom, aren’t the israelis doing to the palestinians the same thing that the n–” and getting elbowed and shut up. i shut up — around my mom. i never believed there was a basis for exemption. if warsaw was bad, it was bad. for anyone. as it is with so many other aspects of this sick civilization, i am so angry i just want to scream and scream and scream, running, until i collapse. because evil is stupid. because my people can be so evil - because i am jewish, because i am american, because i am human. i am sorry, and i hope i can be useful, i hope we can overcome this bullshit. let these words be as a petition unto my Creator: may i be as effective in bringing about peace and justice and joy and love as ever i was sorry. may all those who read this be so moved also. because life is a beautiful gift, and i would be thankful.

[otraque]

Gaza Ghetto-a graphic

[Ace Hanlon]

Today I end my support of Israel
by Chilean Jew

Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:07:48 AM PST

Like davidminzer, I'm Jewish and descendant of holocaust survivors. Moreover, I've been a Zionist all of my life. I went to a Zionist school, I was active in Zionist youth groups. I've always been a fervent supporter of Israel as a refuge for Jews around the world who seek a place to exercise their traditions and embrace their identity in peace.

I sang the Israeli anthem in the train rails of Aushwitz-Birkenau and I pledged to fight every day of my life to make sure the savage crimes that had taken place there would never happen again. Every year I pledged: Never Again. Remember and Never forget.

Well, I haven't forgotten. And so to honor that pledge, to honor the memory of my family members who died in those death camps and because "there comes a time when silence is betrayal", today I finally and publicly end my support for the state of Israel.

Chilean Jew's diary :: ::
I do this with great pain in my heart, but nonetheless with the overwhelming conviction that it is the only right thing to do. I was patient: I tolerated the destruction of the Oslo process by refusing to end or slow down the constant and criminal construction of settlements. I held my nose and stood my ground when Barak killed the final status negotiations at Taba 2001. I even remained loyal after Sharon's massacres in the West Bank, the brutal Annexation wall, the illegal "selective assassinations" and Olmert's war crimes in Lebanon.
I had to defend Israel and Israelis with my friends and others who demanded I be consistent with my progressive views and oppose a country that was responsible for horrible crimes against innocent human beings. "Israelis are scared, they are traumatized, you have to understand...", "Israel is responding to attacks on itself, tell me one other country that wouldn't respond when attacked...", I demanded understanding, I pleaded for a fair and comparative analysis.

ENOUGH. I'm done justifying crimes against humanity by a country that claims to be an illuminated western democracy. I'm done defending a country that is unwilling to grant self-determination to a neighboring people because it won't let go of a few settlements and divide a city. I'm done tolerating the slaughtering of innocent kids, the murderous and barbaric occupation of an impoverished people, the utter disregard for human life.
Fuck them.
If they think their daily peace of mind is worth the lives of hundreds of innocent people, Fuck them.
If they think the best way to go right now would be to vote for Natanyahu (who is so far winning in the polls), Fuck them.
If they won't bat an eye before keeping millions without electricity or water, before bombing civilian neighborhoods at exactly the time when kids are leaving schools, before breaking every standard of international law or moral decency, Fuck them.
It's time for every true progressive in this country and around the world to do the only thing that our consciences should allow us to do, the only thing that can keep us consistent with our supposed beliefs that human life is precious and that unnecessary violence is always criminal, barbarous and unacceptable. We must demand that Israel stop violence and immediately put an end to its colonialist military occupation of Palestine.
And until they do so, we must organize and do everything we can to make sure our money is not financing mass murder and oppression.
It is time for the progressive movement to demand immediate Divestment from Israel, just like we divested from other oppressive states like South Africa.
The only reason not to do so is willful hypocrisy.
And I don't know about you, but I'm done being a hypocrite.
Unnecessary murder of innocents is always wrong.
Selfish and unjustifiable occupation is always wrong.
Inaction in the face of massive suffering and injustice is always wrong.
It is thus our responsibility to make sure Obama and the rest of our leaders understand that this time we will be relentless, this time we mean business and this time we will honor our pledges.

NEVER AGAIN!

DIVEST NOW!

Peace
Salaam
Shalom

Update: Thanks for putting this on the Recommended list. Now, if we could only come together as a community and think of different ways to organize a divestment campaign and other ways of putting pressure on the Israeli government, that would be truly amazing. Please read
this great diary where different ways of supporting Gaza's population and organizing against Israeli occupation are presented.
Also, for those who are willing to work to pressure and lobby the American government to do something, please take a a look at this cool group. Toda Raba le culam (Thank to all).

[otraque]

The Royal Family of Saud, about 800 in all, excepting the unknown renegades that exist among them, are the single most evil and parasitic family, as a whole, that exist in the world today.

And it is this family that we, the U.S. Oligarchy, have fed and armed and given sophisticated counciling on torture techniques and brute strategies of repression to keep their populace buried under. i ask when will the majority of americans awaken to the U.S. Foreign Policy is itself evil--probably never.Max

p.s. Mubarak himself is a monster. Another U.S. agent that enables Israel's beastly behavior.

[otraque]

i have opened up a My Space with Blogs: i have just posted this Guardian Article there. Max

[Ace Hanlon]

Saudi Arabia SUPPORTS Israeli massace in Gaza

How low can can people sink!

The Wahhabi-Zionist Alliance
The Saudi-Zionist alliance deepens. Back in 2006, the Saudi royal family endorsed the Israeli war on Lebanon. I looked at Saudi media yesterday, and it is very clear that the Saudi-Hariri media are supporting (implicitly because they fear their own people) the Israeli war on Gaza. If you look at the Hariri rag, Al-Mustaqbal, for example, they only showed pictures of dead Hamas military men, and not one of the civilians killed and injured during the Israeli attack. The mouthpiece of Prince Salman, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat, printed an editorial by its editor in which he blamed the Palestinians for their ordeal. I usually don't link to the Saudi sleaze website, Elaph, but this one will please MEMRI and itis titled: "The Israeli Army Smashes the Agents of Iran in Gaza." All the babies and children killed and children are agents of Iran. Yes.
Posted by As'ad at 7:42 AM

[Ace Hanlon]

We have no words left

Palestinians are at a loss to describe this latest
catastrophe. International civil society must act now

By Ali Abunimah

The Guardian
29 December 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/israel-gaza-attack-palestinian-reaction

"I will play music and celebrate what the Israeli air
force is doing." Those chilling words were spoken on
al-Jazeera on Saturday by Ofer Shmerling, an Israeli civil
defence official in the Sderot area adjacent to the Gaza
Strip. For days Israeli planes have bombed Gaza. Almost
300 Palestinians have been killed and a thousand injured,
the majority civilians, including women and children.
Israel claims most of the dead were Hamas "terrorists". In
fact, the targets were police stations in dense
residential areas, and the dead included many police
officers and other civilians. Under international law,
police officers are civilians, and targeting them is no
less a war crime than aiming at other civilians.

Palestinians are at a loss to describe this new
catastrophe. Is it our 9/11, or is it a taste of the
"bigger shoah" Matan Vilnai, the deputy defence minister,
threatened in February, after the last round of mass
killings?

Israel says it is acting in "retaliation" for rockets
fired with increasing intensity ever since a six-month
truce expired on 19 December. But the bombs dropped on
Gaza are only a variation in Israel's method of killing
Palestinians. In recent months they died mostly silent
deaths, the elderly and sick especially, deprived of food,
cancer treatments and other medicines by an Israeli
blockade that targeted 1.5 million people - mostly
refugees and children - caged into the Gaza Strip. The
orders of Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, to
hold back medicine were just as lethal and illegal as
those to send in the warplanes.

Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, pleaded that Israel
wanted "quiet" - a continuation of the truce - while Hamas
chose "terror", forcing him to act. But what is Israel's
idea of a truce? It is very simple: Palestinians have the
right to remain silent while Israel starves them, kills
them and continues to violently colonise their land.

As John Ging, the head of operations for the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees,
said in November: "The people of Gaza did not benefit;
they did not have any restoration of a dignified existence
... at the UN, our supplies were also restricted during
the period of the ceasefire, to the point where we were
left in a very vulnerable and precarious position and with
a few days of closure we ran out of food."

That is an Israeli truce. Any act of resistance including
the peaceful protests against the apartheid wall in the
West Bank is always met by Israeli bullets and bombs.
There are no rockets launched at Israel from the West
Bank, and yet Israel's extrajudicial killings, land theft,
settler pogroms and kidnappings never stopped for a day
during the truce. The western-backed Palestinian Authority
of Mahmoud Abbas has acceded to all Israel's demands.
Under the proud eye of United States military advisors,
Abbas has assembled "security forces" to fight the
resistance on Israel's behalf. None of that has spared a
single Palestinian in the West Bank from Israel's
relentless colonisation. The Israeli media report that the
attack on Gaza was long planned. If so, the timing in the
final days of the Bush administration may indicate an
Israeli effort to take advantage of a moment when there
might be even less criticism than usual.

Israel is no doubt emboldened by the complicity of the
European Union, which this month voted again to upgrade
its ties with Israel despite condemnation from its own
officials and those of the UN for the "collective
punishment" being visited on Gaza. Tacit Arab regime
support, and the fact that predicted uprisings in the Arab
street never materialised, were also factors.

But there is a qualitative shift with the latest horror:
as much as Arab anger has been directed at Israel, it has
also focused intensely on Arab regimes - especially
Egypt's - seen as colluding with the Israeli attack.
Contempt for these regimes and their leaders is being
expressed more openly than ever. Yet these are the
illegitimate regimes western politicians continue to
insist are their "moderate" allies.

Diplomatic fronts, such as the US-dominated Quartet,
continue to treat occupier and occupied, coloniser and
colonised, first-world high-tech army and near-starving
refugee population, as if they are on the same footing.
Hope is fading that the incoming administration of Barack
Obama is going to make any fundamental change to US
policies that are hopelessly biased towards Israel.

In Europe and the Middle East, the gap between leaders and
led could not be greater when it comes to Israel. Official
complicity and support for Israel contrast with popular
outrage at war crimes carried out against occupied people
and refugees with impunity.

With governments and international institutions failing to
do their jobs, the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions National Committee - representing hundreds of
organisations - has renewed its call on international
civil society to intensify its support for the sanctions
campaign modelled on the successful anti-apartheid
movement.

Now is the time to channel our raw emotions into a
long-term effort to make sure we do not wake up to
"another Gaza" ever again.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and
author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the
Israeli-Palestinian Impasse electronicintifada.net

Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

[otraque]

Obama on Gaza: ‘No Comment’
Posted December 27, 2008

by Justin Raimondo

“There was no immediate comment on the Israeli air strikes on Gaza from Obama, who is vacationing with his family in Hawaii, or his staff.”

This is how our incoming President has reacted to the worst attack on the Palestinian people in 20 years – by not reacting at all.

The Bush White House, of course, has responded as we all know they would: Israel-has-the-right-to-defend itself, let the killing begin, etc., ad nauseum.

And don’t expect much better from the Obama camp. Remember how he scolded the UN for daring to even discuss the Gaza situation?:

“We have to understand why Israel is forced to do this… Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians. The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks… If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.”

With his silence – or, at least, his very delayed reaction – it seems clear that Obama is taking his own advice. Even as Israel takes the possibility of a new page in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict off the agenda, and sabotages all his brave talk about a renewed US diplomatic effort, the great “liberal” hope is apparently tongue-tied. And when he finally speaks, “progressives” should prepare for the worst: after all, this is someone who endorsed the Israeli re-invasion of Lebanon.

The Israeli-Palestinian “peace process”? The Israelis, for their part, are having none of it – and neither is our future President.

[otraque]

Iran, Arab world react to Gaza bombardment
Iran's supreme leader says Muslims should defend the Palestinians; Syria breaks off peace talks; Jordanian lawmakers burn the Israeli flag in parliament.

By Borzou Daragahi
12:30 PM PST, December 28, 2008

REPORTING FROM BEIRUT -- Iran's highest political and religious authority made a provocative religious appeal today to Muslims worldwide, saying "true believers" were "duty-bound to defend" Palestinians suffering under two days of Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip.

But Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's message fell short of a call to arms amid speculation about how Tehran and other allies of Hamas would respond to the ongoing attack on the militant group's facilities in the densely packed coastal enclave. It also did not meet the definition of a fatwa, a religiously binding legal ruling.


"All true believers in the world of Islam and Palestinian fighters are duty-bound to defend the defenseless women and children in Gaza Strip and those giving their lives in carrying out such a divine duty are 'martyrs,' " Khamenei said in a statement, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

In mostly Shiite Muslim southern Beirut, meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, addressing a large crowd by videoconference, likened the offensive to the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and his group's guerrilla forces. Israel's political leaders and military were widely criticized at home after that conflict as having failed to cripple Hezbollah or improve security in northern Israel.

"The same choices are offered, the same battle and hopefully the same result," said Nasrallah, who is a spiritual disciple of Khamenei.


Still, with thousands of United Nations troops in southern Lebanon acting as a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel, his remarks were tempered. He made no commitment to intercede on behalf of Palestinians or Hamas, instead calling on Arabs to take to the streets. But he also stressed that he was not calling for popular uprisings.

The Gaza offensive continued to have consequences throughout the region, with large demonstrations staged across the Arab world. Yemen's official Saba news agency reported that nearly 1 million people turned up in the capital, Sana, for a protest. Television footage of the rally showed a huge crowd stretching deep into the horizon.

A Syrian official said his government was canceling Turkish brokered Middle East peace talks over Damascus' anger about the Gaza offensive. Syria hosts some members of the Hamas leadership and is strategically allied with Iran and Hezbollah.

"The Israeli aggression in Gaza has closed the door on the Syrian-Israeli indirect talks," the official told the Times, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several lawmakers in Jordan, one of the few Arab countries that has a peace treaty and diplomatic relations with Israel, burned the flag of Israel in the parliamentary chamber to the applause of their colleagues in a gesture broadcast repeatedly on Arab news channels.

Egypt has come under fire for its role in sealing off Gaza, with which it shares a border, and allegedly collaborating with Israel, with which it has a peace treaty. Nasrallah accused some Arab leaders of "asking the Israelis to destroy Hamas."

An editorial in Cairo's semi-official Al Ahram daily rejected the allegation.

"Egypt's historic and consistent position regarding the Palestinian question and its determination to defend the rights of the Palestinian people were well expressed in the statement made by the presidency which condemned the Israeli attack on Gaza," the editorial said.

[e-mail]

Special correspondents Ziad Haidar in Damascus and Noha El-Hennawy in Cairo contributed to this report.

[otraque]

An outraged man speaks the truth regards Gaza.

Posted today on utube.

[otraque]

Gaza in Crisis December/2008


This a utube video courtesy of Sonja Karkar of Australia.

i blog later on this.

This video describes in pictures and words the

shocking details of Israels deliberate ravaging of Palestinian life and society in Gaza. Its purpose is to call attention to the plight of a people under siege, which so far has been chillingly ignored by governments and the world media unwilling to call Israel to account for its criminal execution of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their own land. The video was created by Sonja Karkar for Australians for Palestine on 9 December 2008 using images captured by various courageous photographers on the ground in Gaza, and the haunting sounds of Sada (Echo), composed and played on the oud by Ahmad Al-Khatib. See, http://www.australiansforpalestine.com

[otraque]

Exit stage left: Harold Pinter dies XMAS/2008

Harold Pinter, playwright, actor and political activist, dies aged 78

By Arifa Akbar, Arts correspondent
Friday, 26 December 2008


The Nobel Prize speech: 'The truth is elusive, but the search is compulsive'
Harold Pinter: Nobel Prize-winning playwright and poet who dominated British theatre for four decades
Harold Pinter, the son of tailor from London's East End who rose to become one of the nation's greatest playwrights, has died aged 78 after a prolonged battle with cancer.


Directors and actors joined Pinter's friends and wife, Lady Antonia Fraser, yesterday to pay tribute to the Nobel Laureate whose style and literary significance has been compared to James Joyce, Samuel Beckett and Albert Camus. He died on Christmas Eve.

Not only a remarkable playwright with one of the most illustrious careers in contemporary theatre, Pinter's career also encompassed acting, poetry and political activism as a vociferous critic of American and British foreign policy.

Just as remarkable as the body of writing he has left behind was the memory of a man who simply refused to give in. Even after publicly announcing his cancer diagnosis, he continued to write, direct and campaign in spite of his growing physical frailty.

Lady Antonia, herself a distinguished writer, said: "He was a great, and it was a privilege to live with him for over 33 years. He will never be forgotten."

Michael Gambon, the distinguished actor whose breakthrough in the 1970s was hastened by Peter Hall's premiere staging of Pinter's play, Betrayal, at the National Theatre, said he felt privileged to have been his friend for 30 years.

"He was a great, great playwright, and a great lover of actors. He was very supportive when we performed Betrayal. I remember one scene wasn't working well and he'd come to rehearsals every second day. He watched the run-through and said, 'The scene doesn't work because the table's in the wrong position.' He has a real instinct for theatre. It was refreshing to be in his plays. There was two miles of subtext under your feet and his dialogue was brilliant," he said.

Gambon, who is currently starring in Pinter's No Man's Land on the West End stage, said he admired Pinter's spirit in the face of illness. "He came over to Dublin for the opening. It nearly killed him, he was in a terrible state, but he didn't give up. That was three months ago. Then, he came to the Duke of York Theatre for the London opening and he went to the party afterwards and sat there," he added.

Jonathan Heawood, director of Pen, the campaigning international writer's association, said Pinter had been vice-president of the group, and showed his support until the end.

"One of the many memorable things he did for Pen in the early Eighties was when he and Arthur Miller went on a joint mission to Turkey. At that time, he was concerned about the state of writers and journalists' freedoms. They were being tortured. So two of the world's greatest writers got on a plane together and they were met by a young Orhan Pamuk, who would become a fellow Nobel Prize winner. He escorted them in their trip. That spirit continued right till the end.

"He turned out to a demonstration outside the Turkish embassy last year," added Mr Heawood. "Everyone was so surprised to see this figure with a walking stick coming out of a taxi on his own. Right until February this year when he turned up to see a performance by a theatre group from Belarus."

Pinter was born into a Jewish family in the London borough of Hackney. His grandparents had fled persecution in Poland and Odessa. He was attracted to acting from an early age and his political activism was evident when in 1948 he refused, as a conscientious objector, to do National Service.

After two spells in drama school, he began his theatre career as a rep actor, using the stage name David Baron. He joined a touring company in 1951, and it was some years later in 1957 that he wrote his first play, The Room, for Bristol University's drama department.

It was a defining moment for Pinter. His career took off in the late 1950s and Sixties with subsequent plays such as The Caretaker, The Birthday Party and The Homecoming, which were perceived as ground-breaking because they explored the psychological drama and often, the menace, that underlay family and marital relationships.

They were credited for creating a new brand of theatrical silence and pause with which his work became synonymous. Later, this device would become known as "Pinteresque" and be adopted by devotees of his work. As his theatre career flourished, Pinter also branched out into film screenplays, The Servant, The Go-Between and, most famously, The French Lieutenant's Woman.

Two years ago, he was awarded the Nobel Prize – worth 10m Swedish krona (£735,000) – the highest honour afforded to any writer in the world.

"Pinter," said Horace Engdahl, the Nobel Academy's chairman, "restored theatre to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue, where people are at the mercy of each other and pretence crumbles."

He had been garlanded with many previous honours, He was appointed CBE in 1966, the German Shakespeare Prize in 1970, the Austrian State Prize for European Literature in 1973 and the David Cohen British Literature Prize in 1995. He was also awarded a number of honorary degrees.

Aside from being showered by establishment accolades, he was also a radical figure. He refused a knighthood from John Major in 1996, saying he was "unable to accept such an honour from a Conservative government".

His later plays, such as One for the Road, Ashes to Ashes and Party Time, evolved from the personal into the political, their subjects state-sponsored violence, torture and the abuse of power. In recent years, he became a vociferous campaigner, speaking out against human rights abuses, including the occupation of Iraq by Western armies. He joined other artists in sending a letter to Downing Street opposing the 2003 invasion.

Just under six years ago, he was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus. In February 2005, he said: "I think I've stopped writing plays now ... I've written 29 plays. Isn't that enough?"

Aden Gillett, who starred in Betrayal in the West End in 2003, said: "The thing about Pinter's lines is that everything people say rings very true, yet at the same time it's quite surreal. It's that mixture of banality and menace. I remember the read-through and meeting Pinter for the first time. It was an extraordinary moment. He had always been a hero of mine."

In his own words

ON CRITICS "I find critics on the whole a pretty unnecessary bunch of people"

ON CRICKET "I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth – certainly greater than sex, although sex isn't too bad either"

ON HISTORY "The past is what you remember, imagine you remember, convince yourself you remember, or pretend you remember"

ON PAUSES "I made a terrible mistake when I was young, I think, from which I've never really recovered. I wrote the word 'pause' into my first play"

ON HAPPINESS "How can you write a happy play? Drama is about conflict and degrees of perturbation, disarray. I've never been able to write a happy play, but I've been able to enjoy a happy life"

ON THE UNITED STATES

"The crimes of the US throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody talks about them"

ON HIS PLAYS "I have written 29 plays and I think that's really enough"

The works: A 50-year career

The Room, 1957

Pinter's first play, in a genre later called the "comedy of menace", was inspired by the playwright's visit to the Chelsea flat of Quentin Crisp.

The Birthday Party, 1957

Pinter's first full-length play was slaughtered by critics and closed in the West End after its first week.

The Caretaker, 1959

The first to give Pinter substantial commercial success. It draws on Pinter's own experience of living in a house owned by an absentee builder.

The Homecoming, 1964

An American professor of philosophy returns to north London with his wife, only to be cuckolded by his brothers.

The Pumpkin Eater, 1964

Pinter won a Bafta for his screenplay adaptation of the novel of the same name by Penelope Mortimer.

Old Times, 1971

Two characters compete to gain intellectual dominance over a third.

The Go-Between, 1972

Another Bafta followed for Pinter's screenplay in this classy adaptation of the novel by L P Hartley.

Betrayal, 1978

Arguably Pinter's most celebrated work, it is based on his own affair with Joan Bakewell from 1962-69.

The French Lieutenant's Woman, 1981

Adapted from the novel by John Fowles, Pinter wrote the screenplay.

Ashes to Ashes, 1996

This was the best of the later political plays, encompassing the landscape of 20th-century totalitarianism.

Pinteresque: The official definition

Adjective: in the style of the characters, situations, etc, of the plays of Harold Pinter, 20th-century English dramatist, marked especially by halting dialogue, uncertainty of identity and air of menace.

From Chambers English Dictionary

[otraque]

Full Text of Harold Pinter's Nobel Speech where he with decisive force attacks the United States, attacks 50 years of AmericanHistory.
<<The Nobel lecture

Art, truth and politics

In his video-taped Nobel acceptance speech, Harold Pinter excoriated a 'brutal, scornful and ruthless' United States. This is the full text of his address

Thursday December 8, 2005


Harold Pinter delivering his Nobel lecture via video to the Swedish Academy in Stockholm. Photo: Janerik Henriksson/EPA

**************************************************************

In 1958 I wrote the following:
'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?


Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.
I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did.

Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.

The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.'

In each case I had no further information.

In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter.

'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.

I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.

In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends.

'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.

It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort.

So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time.

But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.

Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function.

In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation.

Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour.

Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others.

But as they died, she must die too.

Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.

Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things':

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets! *

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.

Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.

I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.

'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'

A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection - unless you lie - in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.

I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.

Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?


Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

* Extract from "I'm Explaining a Few Things" translated by Nathaniel Tarn, from Pablo Neruda: Selected Poems, published by Jonathan Cape, London 1970. Used by permission of The Random House Group Limited.

© The Nobel Foundation 2005>>







He played his video game night and day.
The MAZE of Death.
But that is the game we all are in, the trick, don't believe it.Get above it all and imagine nothing is what it seems.Kill the machine.otraque

[otraque]

Alfred Russell Wallace(1823-1913)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

[otraque]

MONEY CHANGES EVERYTHING Cindy lets it all out in this performance

[otraque]

16HorsePower, quite worthy cover of Heart and Soul

[otraque]

So do we rejoice that rabid fanatics such as Leeden,Muravchik and Gerecht have been purged, Raimondo says no as it remains basically the same.
Raimondo:

<<It looks like Muravchik & Co. will retreat to the safety of the Hudson Institute, where Scooter Libby has gone to lick his wounds and write his memoirs. The Foundation for the Defense of the Democracies, whose made-in-Israel stamp was detected in an investigative report published in The American Conservative, has already taken in Gerecht, and others will certainly jump into this particular lifeboat. Whatever their fate as individuals, however, the neocons' brand of armed fanaticism will wind up in the same historical dustbin occupied by their intellectual progenitors and rivals, the Marxist-Leninists.

So, can we say, with absolute certitude – and unabashed joy – that the neocons are over, and the War Party is through?

Not by a long shot.

Because what's rising on the left-end of the political spectrum is a new brand of neoconservatism, a "liberal" and even "enlightened" variety of the same old hubris-in-arms that animated the departed warmongers of AEI. You can forget AEI; it doesn't matter that much anymore, now that the Republicans are out of power – but get ready for PPI!

What the heck is PPI? I can hear you asking that question, and the answer is simple: it's the neocons all over again, albeit this time in "liberal" drag.

The Progressive Policy Institute was set up by the Democratic Leadership Council, a "centrist" Scoop Jacksonish group that aims to keep the Democrats on the pro-war straight-and-narrow: it is the War Party's intellectual outpost in the Democratic Party. These "national security Democrats" are just as unabashedly militaristic as their right-wing counterparts over at AEI, the only difference being rhetorical. Thus, PPI's chief theoretician Will Marshall avers, in a 2005 screed hailing "national service and shared sacrifice":

"True patriotism is at odds with the selfish individualism that shapes the Republicans' anti-government ideology. It means accepting obligations to the community to which we all belong and must contribute if we are to enjoy the fruits of membership. In wartime, not everyone can fight, but everyone can find ways to sacrifice for the common cause. Bush has sent U.S. troops into battle, but he hasn't challenged the rest of us to do our part."

Marshall's beef is that the Bush crowd wasn't warlike enough on the home front. Along with Marshall Wittmann, the ex-Trotskyist who went on to become chief public relations flack for the Christian Coalition and is now with PPI, the other Marshall spent the Iraq war years attacking the Bushian foreign policy from the right – it wasn't interventionist enough, and certainly not in a "smart" way.

Now PPI is pushing for NATO expansion, addressing an open letter of "advice" to our new president and declaring openly the war agenda of the left-neocons: "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most successful defense alliance in history," intones Commander Marshall. So it's time to declare victory, throw our hats in the air, and go home – right?

Wrong, wrong, wrong – no government program, and especially not a transnational racket like NATO, is ever going to voluntarily dissolve the bureaucratic, financial, and cultural bonds that bind together the job-holders, the government contractors, and, in this case, the war profiteers. It's far too lucrative a business to give up, and certainly the thought never even crosses Marshall's mind. He bemoans the fact that "the alliance is stumbling badly," and informs President Obama that he "will face no more important task than defining a coherent mission for NATO in the 21st century – a mission that transcends the alliance's origins as a strictly regional pact and reinvents it as a force for global stability," i.e., a fresh rationale for endless meddling. You have to give Marshall credit, however. He thinks big:

"You should seize the opportunity to lead NATO's transformation from a North American-European pact into a global alliance of free nations. By opening its doors to Japan, Australia, India, Chile, and a handful of other stable democracies, NATO would augment both its human and financial resources. What is more, NATO would enhance its political legitimacy to operate on a global stage."

Imagine – we would be pledged to go to war in order to defend Chile. Against whom would we be defending it? Hugo Chavez? Oh, there are plenty of new enemies in our brave new world, according to Marshall's lights.

While Russia merits a "watchful eye," China is seen as the new rising threat: they dare to tout their "market Maoism" as an ideological competitor with Western-style social democracy, and they're getting richer by the hour! While not yet "a direct threat" militarily, China's "stunning economic growth rates, sustained over two decades," are clearly a source of envy and irritation on Marshall's part, as if he despises the market part of what he calls "market Maoism" far more than the Maoist aspect. That's what being a left-neocon is all about. With the new crew in the White House committed to "fair trade," otherwise known as trade protectionism, it looks like we'll be confronting a new set of enemies: our economic competitors in the world marketplace.

If you were the Chinese government, and you read Marshall's missive, realizing that PPI is tremendously influential in Democratic Party circles, the veritable voice of the party establishment, what would you do? I'll tell you what I would do: launch a preemptive strike.

No, I wouldn't mount a military assault, but a much more effective and devastating economic attack – I'd dump my Treasury bonds, sell off my federal agency bonds, and call in all private-sector debt.


The result would be a financial Pearl Harbor: the U.S. economy would sink so far below sea level that we'd wind up alongside Atlantis.

What's scary about this PPI proposal is that its proponents aren't some fringe group, but representative of what passes for the "centrist" wing of the Democratic Party.

John McCain may have lost the election, but his dotty neoconnish agenda lingers on in the form of this proposal, which resembles nothing so much as McCain's idea that the U.S. should organize a "Concert of Democracies," as a new instrument of intervention worldwide. In a piece for The American Conservative, I predicted that we would see this idea come up if Obama won the White House:

"If NATO as an instrument of the new Cold War isn't working as the War Party hoped, then the Concert of Democracies is Plan B, one that will have appeal beyond the offices of the American Enterprise Institute and the Weekly Standard. Neoconservative internationalists, such as Robert Kagan, are reaching out to liberal internationalists, such as Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution: the two recently authored an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for the establishment of such a league to fulfill 'the responsibility to protect.' Daalder is an influential advisor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, while Kagan, Newsweek noted, is 'McCain's foreign policy guru.'"

Get ready for a new rationale for a massive military buildup. PPI calls for at least 100,000 more troops to beef up our ability to intervene anywhere and everywhere, and it demands more money for the "defense" budget. As the incoming administration takes the reins of power, watch for the "national security Democrats" to extend their talons. With the mad Keynesian professors at the helm in Washington, looking eagerly about for "projects" to lavish ever-depreciating dollars on, preparations for war with China, or some newly-declared "rogue dictator" (Putin?), will no doubt be factored into their "stimulus package."

When people are poor and getting poorer, it's fairly easy to convince them that the evil "foreigners" are to blame – for stealing "our" markets and selling quality consumer goods to "our" people at prices that Americans can actually afford. Economic nationalism will be the War Party's new battle-flag. As a great libertarian economist once put it, "if goods don't cross border, then armies soon will."

Look for the return of the "Yellow Peril" and the revival of a half-forgotten "progressive" tradition of left-wing anti-Chinese and anti-Japanese feeling. On the West coast, starting in the 19th century, the labor unions agitated against the importation of "coolie" labor, and anti-Japanese sentiment was also rife. This anti-Asian movement found political expression in the Asiatic Exclusion League and the Workingman's Party. The movement had enough clout in 1906 to pressure the San Francisco-based California state Board of Education to exclude students of Japanese descent from public schools white children attended.

We hear echoes of this in Rachel Maddow's rants against that Republican congressman from a southern state who has a Toyota factory in his district, which Rachel referred to as if it were an invading army instead of a source of income for thousands of Americans. How dare he oppose the bailout of our sclerotic auto industry, which long ago deserved to go belly-up! What I want to know is where-oh-where do these people learn economics?

In short, it's going to get increasingly ugly out there, as the Democrats take control and this kind of talk becomes more commonplace. Call it bread-and-butter imperialism – the War Party's appeal to the common working man. Full employment through global interventionism – yeah, that's the ticket!

The names change, the rhetoric undergoes a subtle shift in tone, but from AEI to PPI is not a long road to travel. Those who are hoping for "change" – the mindless slogan relentlessly pushed by the Obama-ites until it becomes a mantra devoid of meaning – are in for a shock. What we'll see in the foreign policy realm is more of the same, including a fresh crop of neocons with considerable influence among key policymakers. As a new year dawns, it's the same old same old.>>

[otraque]

21% Say They Have More Credit Card Debt Than A Year Ago
Rasmussenreports.com – Tue Dec 23, 10:40 am ET

Twenty-one percent (21%) of American adults say they are carrying more credit card debt than a year ago, and 11% say their credit limit on one or more cards has been reduced in the past 12 months.

One-third of Americans (33%) say they have less credit card debt than a year ago, and 43% say their debt level is about the same, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Three percent (3%) are not sure.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of Americans also say their credit limit has not been reduced on one or more cards in the past year. Seven percent (7%) aren't sure.

The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures the economic confidence of consumers on a daily basis, stabilized just above its all-time low on Monday. Two-thirds of adults (67%) plan on spending less on gifts this holiday season.

The Los Angeles Times, citing unnamed consumer groups, says Americans now have 1.2 billion credit cards and nearly $1 trillion in credit card debt, four times the level of 1990. Federal regulators last week announced new rules for credit card companies, including limits on interest rate increases and late fees, but they don't take effect until July 2010.

Twenty five percent (25%) of adults say they don't have a credit card, including fifty three percent (53%) of those who earn less than $20,000 per year. But nine percent (9%) of those in that low-income category also say they have more than four credit cards.

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say they have had the limit increased on one or more credit cards within the past year, while 47% say that has not been the case for them. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

Just over half (51%) say they carry a balance on their credit cards, with nearly as many (49%) saying they pay off the cards in full every month.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls).

Nineteen percent (19%) of men and 23% of women say they are carrying more credit card debt this year than last. Thirty-one percent (31%) of men and 34% of women say they have less credit card debt now.

Twenty-one percent (21%) of whites have more credit debt than a year ago, while 31% have less and 45% about the same. Among African-Americans, 16% claim more debt, 53% less and 30% roughly the same amount as a year ago.

A slightly higher percentage of blacks (14%) say their credit limit has been reduced, compared to whites (10%). Eighty-three percent (83%) of whites and 76% of blacks say their limit has not been reduced.

Forty-one percent (41%) of African-Americans had their credit limit increased in the past 12 months, along with 45% of whites. Nearly half of women (47%) also had their credit limits raised on one or more cards, compared to 37% of men.

Married Americans were closely divided on the question of whether their credit limits had been increased, while non-marrieds by nine points were more likely not to have been increased.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of men and 47% of women say they pay off their cards in full each month, as do 49% of whites and 38% of African-Americans. Among all income groups, those earning over $75,000 per year (57%) are most likely to pay their cards in full each month.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of investors pay off their credit card debt each month, compared to 36% of non-investors. Fifty-one percent (51%) of unmarried adults do the same versus 48% of those who are married.

Thirty-four percent (34%) of adults say they have one or two credit cards, while 22% say they own three or four. Sixteen percent (16%) have more than four cards. Women have more cards than men.

Fifty percent (50%) of blacks do not own a card, compared to only 21% of whites. Meanwhile, seventeen percent (17%) of whites have more than four cards, compared to only 3% of blacks.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports December 18-19, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

[otraque]

deleted

[otraque]

Fleckenstein:A recession the Fed can't easily fix
This slowdown wasn't caused the usual way, so the usual remedy -- flooding the economy with cash -- isn't a quick solution. But that won't stop Washington from trying.

By Bill Fleckenstein 12/22/2008
MSN Money
For more than a month now, I have not wanted to be short stocks.

To begin with, I've felt it was too dangerous due to all the volatility. Second, I've understood how the market could trade higher for a while -- as folks' belief in the power of massive fiscal stimuli to contain our economic problems, combined with additional massive monetary stimuli, could lead them to conclude that perhaps we've seen the worst.

The third factor that (perversely) helps some people maintain a bullish outlook: The recession is now a year old. Conventional wisdom has it that by the time the National Bureau of Economic Research finally decides that we've been in recession -- as it announced Dec. 11 -- the slowdown is almost over.

That's because in the past, for the most part, recessions have been of the 12- to 18-month variety. By the time bureau identified them, and, given the market's tendency to discount events six months to a year down the road, we were near the end. So investors have come to associate the bureau's recession proclamations with the market lows.

Why this recession is different
Most of the recessions in this country over the past 50 years were caused by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to battle inflation. The two most recent recessions, though, were created not by Fed tightening but as a consequence of its reckless easy-money policies followed by the exhaustion of, first, the tech-stock bubble and, later, the housing bubble.



Thus, this is not a recession that can be easily stopped by the Fed simply relaxing monetary policy, as might have occurred in the old days. (Of course, the Fed hasn't just relaxed policy -- it has moved the monetary equivalent of heaven and earth.)

I have been predicting for a few years that the bursting of the housing bubble, in combination with the unwinding of the epic credit binge, was going to lead to extreme carnage on the downside, as consumers and financial institutions would both be impaired. That is where we are today.

Now the Fed has done what it's done and will promise to do more. At last week's meeting of the its Open Market Committee, the Fed essentially said it might as well hold future meetings at Strategic Air Command headquarters outside Omaha, Neb., so as to be closer to the B-52s it will need to deliver money to the country posthaste.

For any doubters out there, please note the last paragraph of the committee's communiqué: "The Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities . . . and it stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant. . . . The committee is also evaluating the potential benefits of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities."

In other words, the Fed went for it, corroborating the view that many of us have held for some time: that when push came to shove, the central bank would let nothing stand in the way of printing any amount of money and monetizing anything required to fend off the ill effects of the collapsing bubble.


There's an unwritten sequel to this story: The Fed will be exceedingly slow to remove that liquidity. Thus, whenever the economy stabilizes, at whatever level, the rate of inflation seen shortly thereafter will be quite substantial, I would guess.

I'm sure the new administration will create equally gargantuan stimulus programs. But in my opinion, we're still going to have a brutal recession, and it will be longer and deeper than most people believe.

The current rally will end soon
I expect that the rally now under way in fits and starts will not last all that long into 2009 and that it will set up a rather attractive short-selling opportunity. Those who are overexposed to equities might want to think about using the strength to lighten up, if my thought process makes sense to you.

My working hypothesis, although just a guess at this point, is that sometime around the coronation of Barack Obama might be as good a juncture as any for the market to flip over, if it actually does rally into the third week of January. Of course, that guesswork will be subject to change.

Lastly, from now until Jan. 3, I invite folks to a holiday "open house" at my Web site, where you can peruse past daily columns and Q&As. A complimentary username/password -- free/free -- will be established by Monday to give readers access to the site.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/a-recession-the-fed-cant-easily-fix.aspx?page=1

[otraque]

i am ordering that book right now!

Here is one page from it(From Chapter, "The Conspiracy of Silence"--and it mentions Blue Hill. i live very very close to Blue Hill.
i have walked, in ponderment, where Godel walked, in ponderment, i like that, somehow:) Max

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465092942/ref=sib_fs_top?ie=UTF8&p=S00C&checkSum=h09z59%2FkAt24dhdi04WX9xQ1zTIfysSJQPbEn4mDH3E%3D#reader-link

[otraque]

i can say AMEN to that with a profound confidence---to be honest, with certainty.Max

p.s. This is up your alley much more than me, as i am now just getting into real pondering of this, and that is time itself is a part of space, not space and time.
i am reading now how Einstein would take long walks at Princeton in friendly debate with Kurt Godel about space and time, with Godel metaphysical counter argument, time is a part of space.
It seems Godel views have been derided and cast aside, for one he defies Hawkings dogmatic view of the Forward Arrow of time, that Time only moves forwards it has no existence otherwise.

<<Yourgrau argues rightly that the Gödel Universes, where it is possible to travel into the future and arrive in the past, mean that time, as ordinarily understood, doesn't exist.


Gödel would conclude that the space-time structure in such a world was clearly a space, not a time, and therefore that t, the temporal component of space-time, was in fact another spatial dimension -- not time as we understand it in ordinary experience. [p.115]>>


Palle Yourgrau,
A World Without Time,
The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein
Basic Books, 2005

[crusader4truth]

trully a hoax....this is not what there IS. one only needs to think for oneself with clarity-

[otraque]

C4T, i am presently feeling quite joyous:) Why?

i ran this google search < matrix 2008 "elemental mass" "virtual reality " -reeves -morpheus>

There were ONLY 10 returns by Google.

One is ME.

i also did a separate search on My Space, and i was the ONLY return.
This is restricted to english, natch.

But, as you know some of what i never speak publicly, i feel pleased because it confirms what i innately feel, i am ahead of the pack.

Mind you i will have been on this case for 49 years come sometime in August 2009.
Keep the faith:) Max

Peace, Max

[otraque]

The Bubble of Empire
It's been popped …
by Justin Raimondo
12/19/2008
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13924


The idea that the United States is the global hegemon, that we have first dibs on the title of world policemen – indeed, our entire post-WWII foreign policy – is nothing but a delusion. That is one of the chief lessons of the recent economic downturn, one that, unfortunately, the incoming administration has yet to face up to – and the pundits (ensconced as they are in the culture of hubris) have yet to realize.

Delusions die hard. This poor woman – faced with the dire prospect of having to sell the Palm Beach cottage, and, omigod, lay off Yolanda, the thrice weekly cleaning lady – is just beginning to wake up, albeit with great reluctance. Along with these people, she will live in a world of reduced expectations. Our rulers, however, show every sign of inflexibility in the face of the need to change.

For decades, we' e been living inside a bubble, here at the epicenter of the imperial metropolis, protected from the dire fate of the rest of the world's peoples – who live in poverty, tyranny, and worse – by the productive and political capital amassed by our intrepid ancestors, who built the world's most successful (and freest) constitutional republic, and, because of that were able to create an enormous amount of wealth. Both are gone, now, and yet we are still acting as if they're intact, like an amputee who feels pain in an arm that no longer is attached to his shoulder.

For example, the New York Times reports that President-elect Barack Obama is already backpedaling on his pledge to get our troops out of Iraq in sixteen months – yet how does he imagine we'll have the means to keep them there even that long? The Times tells us that "the officials made clear that the withdrawal of all combat forces under the generals' recommendations would not come until some time after May 2010, Mr. Obama's target." But by that time the Chinese will have long since stopped lending us the money to pay for it all.

President Obama is pledged to launch an Afghan "surge" that will dwarf our continuing efforts in Iraq – but how will we pay for it? He and his surrogates pontificate on the need to "reconstruct" Afghanistan, when he'll be hard-pressed to reconstruct the economy in the wake of a devastating deflation.

Our present military budget is more than all the other nations on earth combined, an inconceivable sum that drains the very lifeblood out of our economy. Weapons are not capital assets. The productive energy used to produce them is captured and frozen in time, until the weapon is either used, or junked as outdated: in either case it vanishes. Ever since the end of the second great crusade on behalf of "democracy," and the beginning of the cold war, we've literally been incinerating a good percentage of the national income on the altar of the war god. How long can we keep this up?

America is like a formerly grand billionaire, living on a palatial estate that could be foreclosed any day now, blithely carrying on in the same old extravagant way in order to keep up appearances. Foreclosure day is coming, however, and when our friends and former allies show up on the courthouse steps with their insultingly low bids, you can bet the smell of schadenfreude will be thick in the air.

Deflation is the great enemy of the moment, and "reflation" is the catchphrase of the day, the magical incantation that will set us on the path to recapturing our former glory. Yet the words themselves contain key clues to unlocking the mystery of our predicament: inflation, after all, projects the image of something stretched almost beyond its natural limits, while deflation implies a return to normalcy.

Normalcy, however, is the last thing our leaders want: a crisis is so much more exciting. As Rahm Emanuel, the new regime's chief enforcer put it: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

The bravado of the doomed makes for some good lines, to be sure, a rich source for a compendium of Famous Last Words. The problem for Emanuel, and indeed for the American political class of whichever party, is that the rising economic crisis roiling world markets gives every indication of having the potential to waste them. Blinded by hubris, however, our leaders are sleepwalking over a cliff, and the fall is likely to be long and terrifying.

How long after we hit bottom, in a decade or so, the country will begin to recover is anyone's guess, but I can tell you this: the delusions of this ruling class will endure to the very end. The inhabitants of Washington, D.C., are incapable of realizing that the bubble of Empire has really popped, or can ever pop. They are like drug addicts who have imbibed so much of their poison of choice that their physiology has been permanently altered: they're always and forever high.

For sixty-some years we've been high on the delusion of our God-given omnipotence and inherent goodness, convinced we can and should right every wrong, police every border (but our own), and fulfill our alleged destiny as the Promethean light-bearer of the world. This is mental and moral inflation, which was certainly encouraged by the monetary phenomenon: these absurdly inflated goals were financed by imaginary wealth, a good proportion of which has already disappeared.

The task of reflation, which the incoming government has set for itself, involves much more than merely printing lots of paper money, and spending it like crazy: it means maintaining the inflationary mindset, the inflated goals, the inflated rhetoric, and, most of all, the inflated military budget that supposedly ensures our role as the world's last and only superpower. As the Obama crowd searches for ways in which to reflate the economy, the "stimulus" of military spending is bound to play a major role.

For a long time, people have been asking "what does America make anymore?" The old core industries – steel, cars, consumer goods – have long since decayed, and the vaunted "service" sector is undergoing a massive contraction. What's left?

Well, we do make one thing in large quantities, that no other country makes, and that is decisions about the fate of the rest of the world. Due to our military power, our self-appointed role as the world's policeman has carved us out a specialized niche in the international division of labor. The great problem with this evolutionary path is that it can only end in one of two ways: the international extension of the American nation-state until it covers the globe, or extinction. Having preemptively taken up the responsibilities and costs of a world hegemon, yet without the authority to enjoy all the prerogatives of a real World State, including global taxation, this path can only end in bankruptcy.

As indeed it has.

[otraque]

G&Roses-Civil War
i like this one best--Argentina 5stars but 182k views

3mil+ views 5star rated

[otraque]

Black Sabbath "War Pigs"
first music set to video graphics, 2nd live performance, 1978.
both 5star rated over a million views

[otraque]

Muntadar al-Zeidi: Hero, Martyr, Symbol of Resistance
Reach for your shoes…
by Justin Raimondo
The shoe-throwing Iraqi journalist, who is, by now, probably half beaten to death for the "crime" of paying back – in very small measure – George W. Bush for his crimes against the Iraqi people, is a folk hero to millions. And his admirers aren't all Iraqis or other Arabs, not by a long shot.

The shoe-wielding Iraqi television reporter, one Muntadar al-Zeidi, managed to sum up, in a single gesture, how much of the world feels about the 43rd president of the United States – including Americans.

Remember waaaay back when we were supposedly going to be greeted with showers of rose petals and high fives by the "liberated" peoples of Iraq? Mr. al-Zeidi seems to have definitively put that one to rest for all time.

What gets me, however, is the neocons' response to this instance of life-imitating-art: typical is the always clueless Ralph Peters, a military "expert" who blames the failure in Iraq on bad execution of a flawless policy and avers al-Zeidi's act, just proves the War Party was right all along:

"When an Arab heel aimed those shoes at our president, it showed the world the extent to which Bush loosened the laces of Middle Eastern tyranny. If an Arab journalist had thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein or one of his guests, the tosser would've been beaten, then tortured, then killed. Today's Iraqi government is considering whether the man should be charged under the state's democratically validated Constitution."

The charge against al-Zeidi is "aggression against a president," a provision in the Iraqi "legal code" (and I use the term loosely) that makes it a crime to attempt to murder either an Iraqi or a foreign head of state, punishable by 15 years in prison.

Yet the worst that could have happened to Bush was nothing more than a black eye. It would be laughable to try this as a case of attempted murder. Yet the very idea that Iraq is a place where the rule of law exists is nothing but a very bad joke.

"Aggression against a president?" The real "aggression" here was launched by the chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth when he invaded a country that had never attacked us and posed no threat to our territory or legitimate interests. No word yet on whether al-Zeidi is claiming self-defense, but it makes sense to me. After suffering over 1 million dead and wounded and countless others rendered homeless, perhaps the Iraqi people can be forgiven for making al-Zeidi an instant folk hero. No Iraqi jury will ever convict him.

What is worrying, however, is the smugness that accompanied the reporting on this incident. Over at MSNBC, they kept showing the video in a continuous loop of shoe-throwing, with Bush rather artfully and athletically dodging the leathery missiles. We're all supposed to be laughing at our hapless president, whose poll numbers are edging into minus territory – but I wonder…

What I'm wondering is where President Obama's poll numbers will be, four years after launching his own war of "liberation" – in Afghanistan, a far harder nut to crack than relatively soft-centered Iraq. How many Afghans (or Pakistanis) will dream of having their al-Zeidi moment with the 44th president – and with what justification?

Don't we ever learn anything?

Do we have to keep repeating the same pattern of intervention-and-blowback, like Sisyphus rolling that stone up the mountain, with the same inevitable and costly results?

The next time some pompous politician, earnest policy wonk, or just your average, everyday agent of a foreign power suggests invading and occupying a nation purportedly just waiting to be "liberated," we should all reach for our shoes and – like Mr. al-Zeidi – take careful aim…

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

I have to comment on Rachel Maddow's reaction to the shoe-throwing incident, in part because it is so telling when it comes to "liberal" attitudes toward authority and also because I agree with her so much of the time, at least when it comes to foreign affairs.

While taking the opportunity to laugh at Bush, Rachel was clearly horrified by the incident, which she described, I believe, as "scary." The unspoken question: what was this guy even doing at a news conference so close to the president of the United States? Why, you can bet that the ultra-competent, control-freak Obama-ites won't make that kind of mistake!

Beneath that, there is, of course, the liberal reverence for the office and its holder, who, after all, embodies the power and majesty of the federal government, our federal government, and who must therefore be honored and respected… no matter what he does. With the liberal-left now about to take the reins of that government, a whole new outward attitude toward authority reasserts itself. Their days in opposition over, it's amazing how quickly the rad-libs have reverted to form, which, in this context, means absolute reverence for the U.S. government and all its works.

The difficulty, for them, is that this very same government, which they're counting on to save the economy and implement a new era of good-n-plenty here on the home front, is bombing and killing an increasing number of Afghans – particularly members of wedding parties, for some reason – a practice that is sure to inspire the al-Zeidis of the future.

"This is a farewell kiss," al-Zeidi cried out, as he hurled his footwear at the presidential noggin, "you dog!" What struck a nerve, throughout the world, not just the Middle East, was the sight of an ordinary person who somehow got to express his opinion of the most powerful human being on the planet in a way that not only garnered attention, but also underscored the sense of powerlessness and frustration felt by Americans and Iraqis when it comes to this seemingly endless occupation.

The American people voted – twice! – to end it, to bring this disgraceful chapter in our history to a rapid close, yet we're still there. Already, the appointees around our president-elect are making noises about how that "residual" force will be quite a hefty one, while Obama's determination to escalate the war in Afghanistan – and even extend it into Pakistan – seems undiminished.

It's going to be a rocky time for those "antiwar" Obama fans – up until now knee-jerk defenders of their candidate's every twitch and maneuver – who suddenly find themselves defending a war far more costly, more damaging, and more futile than was ever waged by George W. Bush. It's going to be interesting reading the Democratic blogs and listening to good ol' Rachel on MSNBC (I go make dinner when it's time for Keith Olbermann) in the years to come. Will Rachel sell out? Will Arianna Huffington turn out to be the craven lickspittle she's given every indication of being so far? Will DailyKos defend Obama's war crimes?

See, that's what's so interesting about the blogosphere and the new information age that's expanded the concept of media and relegated the "mainstream" to the status of a minor rivulet: in this age of instantaneous communication, where reactions are rapid-fire and one's principles are continuously tested, the wheat is rapidly separated from the chaff.

~ Justin Raimondo

[otraque]

America's Second Great Depression Has Started
Economics / Economic Depression
Dec 04, 2008 - 05:04 AM
By: Money_and_Markets


Martin Wiess writes: On this first weekday after Thanksgiving, it's time to take a moment, look at the changes swirling all around us and think about the tasks we must achieve together in the weeks ahead.

After more than six decades of growth, America is sinking into its Second Great Depression of modern times. The place is every home, business, and community.

The time is now.

America's Second Great Depression is not a typical 20th century recession that happens to strike a bit harder or linger somewhat longer. Nor is it merely a fictional scenario conjured up by economists with a murky crystal ball.

America's Second Great Depression is the probable consequence of a great housing bust, a massive mortgage meltdown and the biggest financial crisis in history.

It promises to bring the worst wave of bankruptcies, job losses and wealth destruction any citizen under 90 has ever experienced.

It challenges the smartest minds in Washington, defies the deepest pockets on Wall Street and threatens to rip through our life with the force of a Cat-5 hurricane. And yet, among all those making the decisions that could forever change our future, no one has personal experience with a similar episode.

I don't either. I was born in 1946, just as we were leaving the final vestiges of America's First Great Depression behind. I've studied that historic period with books, charts and numbers, but that's not the same thing. I've lived in Brazil and Japan during tough times, but that, too, was different.

What brings me closer to a visceral understanding of this crisis is the half century I shared with my father, J. Irving Weiss, one of the few economists who not only advised investors during the First Great Depression, but actually predicted it.

Dad was so proud of that unusual feat, he began telling me stories about it when I was just five years old. Vicariously, I lived through the Roaring Twenties, the Crash of ‘29, the massive bank failures of the 1930s, and the many years of human suffering that ensued. Through Dad's teachings, I felt as though I was there with him when investors lost fortunes, when we hit rock bottom in 1933, when we eventually recovered and brand new fortunes were made. Dad was not only a loving father, but also my mentor, partner and best friend.

I wish he could be here today to write to you directly and help you get through these tough times personally. But as soon as I was old enough, I helped him write his investment reports; and in 1971, soon after I founded Weiss Research, he helped me write mine. Although he's gone, I can feel his vibrant energy and calming spirit beside me; and from time to time, I will let him speak to you posthumously here in Money and Markets.

Think of this message you get from me each Monday as co-authored by the two of us. He will tell you about his experiences and analysis during America's First Great Depression; I will tell you what it means for America's Second Great Depression and what you can do about it . A lot has changed since then. What hasn't changed is my family's passionate desire to help you through it.

This entire effort is the culmination of eighty-four years of research, beginning when Dad first went to Wall Street in 1924 to learn everything he could about money.

Five years later, when the great crash struck, he did not own any stocks. His parents were recent immigrants from Eastern Europe with barely enough to keep food on the table. He had to save everything he earned, bring it home and give it to his mother. He knew how real estate had collapsed in Florida, and he saw how America's farms were in disarray. He didn't want to gamble his hard-earned savings on another bubble.

After the crash, the stock market rallied for almost six months, and nearly everyone on Wall Street thought the crisis was over. But Dad persuaded his clients and friends to sell everything, get the heck out of the market, and pile up as much cash as they could. He was so convinced the market would fall again, he even borrowed $500 from his mother to sell short — to take a crack at profiting from the market's decline.

Sure enough, the Crash of ‘29 was just the opening act of the great bear market. All told, from its peak in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrials Average fell 89%. Compared to the Dow's peak in 2007, that would be tantamount to a plunge of more than 12,600 points — to a low of approximately 1500. Dad explains it this way:

“In the 1930s, at each step down the slippery slope of the market's decline, Washington would periodically announce some new initiative to turn things around. President Hoover would give a new pep talk promising ‘prosperity around the corner.' And often, the Dow staged dramatic rallies — up 30% on the first round, 48% on the second, 23% on the third, and more. Each time, I sought to use the rallies as selling opportunities. I persuaded more of my clients to get rid of their stocks and pile up cash. I even told them to take their money out of shaky banks.

“On the surface, it might have appeared that just sitting out the crisis got you nowhere. Actually, though, it was a great strategy for building wealth. Prices were falling — on homes, on automobiles, on almost everything. So the more prices fell, the more your money was worth. Just by saving money, stashing the cash, keeping your job and going about your daily life, you were building wealth. You didn't have to know about investing. All you needed to figure out was how to protect yourself from the bad times. Then, when we hit rock bottom — that was the time to start buying real estate, stocks or bonds.

“The end of the entire decline came with two events: The inauguration of our new president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the national banking holiday he declared on his third day in office. But after three years of panics and crashes, most people greeted those events with dread. They thought it would be the beginning of another, even steeper slide. Some people even said it was the final chapter of capitalism itself. As it turned out, that was precisely the right time to pick up some of the greatest bargains of the century and make a lot of money.”

Helping people make money was Dad's profession, but his passion in life went far beyond money; he was a man of deep empathy and feeling for his fellow man. When others suffered, he suffered along side them. He gave them jobs, bought them meals and offered an abundance of free advice.

Most of all, he did not want to see America go through another depression ever again. His vision for accomplishing that goal, however, was different from that of most economists in the post-Depression era. Their strategy was to yank the economy out of nearly every slump and slumber, forever seeking to keep the economy growing, always bailing out major institutions that failed. His philosophy was moderation in both directions. “The only way to avoid the pain of a great bust,” he wrote, “is to refrain from the excesses of a great boom.”

I agree, and in the coming weeks, I'll explain why. Plus, I'll show you how you can use a similarly moderate approach to secure your own future.

A better future was also something Dad sought to secure for the country as a whole, in his own personal way. In 1955, for example, a Florida junk dealer sought to take over one of America's largest cash-rich companies to force it to borrow money and grow more quickly. In response, Dad mobilized like-minded executives from all over the country and, in one of the greatest corporate battles of that era, successfully blocked the takeover. Similarly, in 1959, when the U.S. federal deficit seemed to be growing out of control, he formed the Sound Dollar Committee, organized a grassroots movement of an estimated 11 million citizens, and helped President Eisenhower give America its last truly balanced budget.

Today, I am Chairman of the Sound Dollar Committee; and separately, I am the cofounder of the Financial Publishers Association, representing over 14 million investors. My primary goal, like Dad's, is to do my small part to help head off the avoidable consequences of another depression.

Right now, our country's finances have deteriorated too far to balance the federal budget anytime soon. But it's not too late to avoid some major financial blunders that could seriously weaken our country for the rest of the century. Even in the worst-case scenario, it is certainly not too late for you to protect your savings, boost your income and grow your wealth.

How long could the depression last? How much further can home prices fall? How far down will the stock market go? Will it be as bad as the 1930s? At this juncture, you can count on your fingers the number of serious analysts who believe that's even a remote possibility. And yet, stranger things have already happened, including the largest bank and insurance company collapses of all time. Before he passed away, Dad expressed it this way:

“Most Americans — especially the youngsters who manage billions of dollars on Wall Street — have no concept of the power and speed of a great stock market crash. They've never lived through one. So it's hard for them to visualize it. In 1929, people were jumping out of windows and one-time wealthy people were selling apples on street corners. The shock waves reached into almost every office and every home in the country and in the world. Next time, it could be just as bad, or even worse.”

Trouble is, there are no historical precedents for what's happening in this era. Any forecasts I make today , no matter how well researched, are not nearly as valuable as the awareness you will have of current events as they unfold in real time. So rather than pick a number for the bottom in the Dow or guess the low price of an average home, my primary purpose is to help give you the understanding you need to make some major decisions right now and then adjust them as the crisis unfolds.

Your immediate task, which may seem hard, is actually very simple — get your money to safety.

Your second task, which may seem easy, could actually be more difficult — wait patiently.

But it's the last step that will be the most rewarding — when real estate, stocks and bonds are near a true bottom, reinvest in America and greatly improve your life for years to come.

Over the next few weeks, I will show you how. I will give you the warning signs to watch out for while things are still falling; I will describe the kinds of conditions that are likely to prevail when we're near a bottom; and I will provide step-by-step instructions on precisely what to do.

Surviving the crisis on Wall Street and Main Street is not rocket science. You don't have to forecast the future. You don't even need investing experience. All you need is the courage to get out of its way and the patience to stay out of its way for the duration.

The simple secret is to throw out your prejudices, start with a clean slate and then follow your own common sense. Right now, that means taking a cold, hard look at the events swirling around you and recognizing that your money could be in grave danger.

It means accepting the reality that the value of your home, your 401k, and even some of your supposedly “safe” investments CAN fall a lot further. And most important, it requires the realization that you have the power to stop the bloodletting.

There's no law, rule or ethic that requires you to sit quietly and accept financial punishment passively. You have every right — and every mechanism — to get your money to safety without remorse.

I have warned about this crisis repeatedly. I have nagged, cajoled and shouted this message from the rooftops. But it gives me no pleasure to see my dire warnings come true. I have dreaded this day as often as I have predicted it. I prayed it would not come to pass. But now that it's here, I have a new prayer:

That you are, or soon will be, out of danger and ready for the worst …

That the worst will strike swiftly and end swiftly …

That, once we hit bottom, no matter how ugly the future may appear, you, me and many others will have the fortitude to reinvest, help get our country back on its feet, and move on to better times.

Just promise me one thing: No matter how dark this tunnel may seem, never forget it is not the end of the world. Our country has been through worse before, and we survived. We will survive this crisis too.

You hold your future in your hands. At this landmark turning point in our history, it's the choices you make today that will determine your fate — and the destiny of everyone that depends on you — for decades to come. Your decisions now could make the difference between a successful career or a lifetime of struggle … retiring in dignity or becoming a ward of the state … enjoying wealth and health or risking poverty-stricken illness.

Whatever your choices may be, do not procrastinate. And whenever you take action, don't do so in haste. Your response to the current crisis — or any new crisis that may ensue — should be both prompt and planned; both bold and prudent. I write to you each week to help you make that possible.

Here are your tasks in a nutshell:

Your first and most urgent priority is to survive the depression, while building the biggest pile of CASH you can. Whether it's a molehill of pennies that you pinch from daily sacrifices or a mountain of dollars you squeeze out of asset sales, the more cash you can accumulate now, the better.

Your second priority is to make sure your cash is in the safest place possible. That may not be the nearest bank or the biggest insurance company. Short-term Treasury securities, despite their low yield, must be the primary vehicle.

Third, for the duration of this crisis, plus any new ones that may strike, your best friend and companion will be patience.

Don't yield to the temptation of so-called “bargains” and “big discounts” from peak prices. Many of those peak prices were a fiction from a bygone era that may never be seen again in my lifetime or yours.

Don't jump in too soon. You can afford to wait. Indeed, just by waiting patiently, you can build wealth tremendously.

Fourth, I recognize that not everyone is able to follow all my instructions to the letter.

You may have real estate you cannot sell or a pension fund beyond you cannot control.

You may have bonds that have no market or a business that continues to provide income.

All could be assets that you must keep; and yet, at the same time, all are assets that could be vulnerable to big losses in a continuing decline.

To untie that knotty dilemma, you may need a hedge — a protective shield that can help offset your losses. Alternatively, if you are a risk-taker, those same hedges can be turned into pure profit opportunities during a market decline. I hope you have already read and acted on the guide to hedging I sent you a while ago. If not, the latest rally in the market gives you a great time to start. ( Click here to download the pdf file.)

Last, the big pay-off will come when we hit rock bottom and it's time to buy the greatest bargains of the century. So recognizing the bottom can unlock the opportunity to boost your income, allowing you to buy some of the best assets in the world for a pittance and stake out the high ground for yourself, your children and generations to come. I will do my utmost to alert you when the time comes.

Just remember that nothing is predetermined. Right now, the tsunami of crisis seems unstoppable. But in the foreseeable future, there will also come a singular moment in time when the worst of the storm has passed and the tides of history have ebbed, opening a window for you, me and our leaders to choose our own destiny. Before then, let's have a serious discussion about what the best — and worst — choices may be.

Good luck and God bless!

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7610.html

[otraque]

First Palestina "Esta en mi Corazon"

Now let's here from Jon Voight, utra-neo-con ultra-fanatic Zionist explain that God gave all this land to the Jews and no one else has a right to it.

Holocaust was the evil of the European World , Palestine had no blood on its hands.
But Europe gave the desparate jews a "scapegoat" of their own to whip and destroy for the heinous crime that was committed by Europe--they gave them Palestine, and to run roughshod over the Palestinian People.

Why did the United States and England when the the Hitlerian beast asked the U.S, England and other countries to take the jews , saying it would alleviate their STORAGE PROBLEM, why did these countries say "No!!" when they knew what their saying no meant
i have a memory, i lived back in the 40s and early 50s , and i can tell you anti-semitism was still rampant in the U.S.

As for God gave Israel to the jews, like God is a real-estate agent????????????? Max

[otraque]

classic post on CFZ thread SI<<from Horgad at 12/4/2008 1:51:24 PM

The attraction of moving to a new country is not that the politics are not screwed up but rather as an outsider you can remain ignorant, disinterested, and unattached for at least a few years. As soon as you start caring, it is time to move again.

Caring and not being able to do anything about it is what really sucks. So stop caring about Canada, move there, and enjoy the cold beer and full nude strip joints for a few years. Once you start feeling like a Canadian move somewhere else. IMHO>>

[otraque]

Duane Eddy "Cannonball" 1996( was first released in 1958, then with the legendary Lee Hazelwood playing Sax and doing weird production tricks like recording in a concrete Silo for reverb:)

And the original 45rpm , it was only 1:54.

Again the legendary Lee Hazlewood ,one of kind, has much to do with the sound.

"Just a little tribute(Slideshow) to one of the greatest artists ever. Lee's style was something special, something unique, something not to often happens in music and it will be missed.

*featuring his most underrated song "For one Moment"*

R.I.P. Lee Hazlewood
July 1929 - August 2007"

[otraque]

Via J.P./ Bomb Iran(A major RightWing Newspaper a Bomb them to Hell proponent, and it appears it represents the majority view of Israelis also: how neat? Not! Max) :IDF preparing options for strike at Iran without US assent
By YAAKOV KATZ

Dec 4, 2008 0:40 | Updated Dec 4, 2008 9:04


The IDF is drawing up options for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that do not include coordination with the United States, The Jerusalem Post has learned.



While its preference is to coordinate with the US, defense officials have said Israel is preparing a wide range of options for such an operation.

"It is always better to coordinate," one top Defense Ministry official explained last week. "But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination."

Israeli officials have said it would be difficult, but not impossible, to launch a strike against Iran without receiving codes from the US Air Force, which controls Iraqi airspace. Israel also asked for the codes in 1991 during the First Gulf War, but the US refused.

"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a top Israeli official said.

Several news reports have claimed recently that US President George W. Bush has refused to give Israel a green light for an attack on Iranian facilities. One such report, published in September in Britain's Guardian newspaper, claimed that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert requested a green light to attack Iran in May but was refused by Bush.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUICK VOTE
IDF preparing options for strike at Iran without US assent:
Bad idea 21.6%
Israel must do whatever is necessary:78.4%


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::




In September, a Defense News article on an early warning radar system the US recently sent to Israel quoted a US government source who said the X-band deployment and other bilateral alliance-bolstering activities send parallel messages: "First, we want to put Iran on notice that we're bolstering our capabilities throughout the region, and especially in Israel. But just as important, we're telling the Israelis, 'Calm down, behave. We're doing all we can to stand by your side and strengthen defenses, because at this time, we don't want you rushing into the military option.'"

The "US European Command (EUCOM) has deployed to Israel a high-powered X-band radar and the supporting people and equipment needed for coordinated defense against Iranian missile attack, marking the first permanent US military presence on Israeli soil," Defense News wrote. The radar will shave several precious minutes off Israel's reaction time to an Iranian missile launch.

In a related article at about the same time, TIME magazine raised the possibility that through the deployment of the radar, America wants to keep an eye on Israeli airspace, so that the US is not surprised if and when the IAF is sent to bomb Iran, a scenario Washington wants to avoid.

The US army sent 120 EUCOM personnel to Israel's Nevatim Air Base southeast of Beersheba to man the new radar.

Last week, Iran's nuclear chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh revealed that the country was operating more than 5,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and would continue to install centrifuges and enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel for the country's future nuclear power plants.

"At this point, more than 5,000 centrifuges are operating in Natanz," said Aghazadeh, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. This represents a significant increase from the 4,000 Iran had said were up and running in August at the plant.

The Islamic republic has said it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that will ultimately involve 54,000 centrifuges.

Israeli officials said last week that the drop in oil prices and the continued sanctions on Iran were having an effect, although they had yet to stop Teheran's nuclear program. The officials said that while Iran was making technological advancements, it would not have the necessary amount of highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb until late 2009.

"There is still time and there is no need to rush into an operation right now," another Israeli official said. "The regime there is already falling apart and will likely no longer be in power 10 years from now."

The IAF was preparing for a wide range of options, OC Air Force Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan recently said, adding that all it would take to launch an operation was a decision by the political echelon.

"The air force is a very robust and flexible force," he told Der Spiegel. "We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us."

On Monday, Teheran dismissed the possibility of an Israeli strike, saying it didn't take Israel seriously.

"We think that regional and international developments and the complicated situation faced by Israel itself will not allow it to launch military strikes against other countries," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters in Teheran, according to the Press TV Web site. "Israel makes threats to promote its psychological and media warfare," he said.

[otraque]

92 nations sign cluster-bomb ban; US,Russia, Israel don't
By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer Doug Mellgren, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 31 mins ago
An Afghan teenager who lost both legs in a cluster bomb explosion helped persuade his country to change its stance and join nearly 100 nations in signing a treaty Wednesday banning the disputed weapons.

Afghanistan was initially reluctant to join the pact — which the United States and Russia have refused to support — but agreed to after lobbying by victims maimed by cluster munitions, including 17-year-old Soraj Ghulan Habib. The teen, who uses a wheelchair, met with his country's ambassador to Norway, Jawed Ludin, at a two-day signing conference in Oslo.

"I explained to the ambassador my situation, and that the people of Afghanistan wanted a ban," Habib, who said he was crippled by a cluster bomb seven years ago, told The Associated Press.

Speaking through an interpreter, Habib said the ambassador called Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who agreed to change his stance on the treaty.

"Today is a historic day," Habib declared.

Afghanistan's reversal even surprised the activists who are urging countries to join the pact against cluster munitions, which have been widely criticized for maiming and killing civilians.

"It is just so huge, to get this turnaround. Afghanistan was under a lot of pressure from the United States," said Thomas Nash, coordinator of The Cluster Bomb Coalition. "If Afghanistan can withstand the pressure, so can others."

Australian activist Daniel Barty said the Afghan ambassador appeared to start changing his mind after meeting Habib at a reception Tuesday.

The U.S., Russia and other countries refusing to sign the treaty say cluster bombs have legitimate military uses, such as repelling advancing troop columns.

Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles, which scatter them over vast areas. Some fail to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years until they are disturbed, often by children attracted by their small size and bright colors.

The group Handicap International says 98 percent of cluster-bomb victims are civilians, and 27 percent are children.

Organizers hoped that more than 100 of the 125 countries represented will have signed by the end of the conference on Thursday. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said 92 countries did so on Wednesday.

The treaty must be ratified by 30 countries before it takes effect.

His country, which began the drive to ban cluster bombs 18 months ago, was the first to sign, followed by Laos and Lebanon, both hard-hit by the weapons.

Britain, formerly a major stockpiler of cluster munitions, also signed the treaty, which Foreign Secretary David Miliband said showed that a NATO country can defend itself without cluster weapons.

Miliband said he would urge President-elect Barack Obama's administration to reconsider the U.S. stance.

The Bush administration says a comprehensive ban would hurt world security.

"Although we share the humanitarian concerns of states signing the (accord), we will not be joining them," the U.S. State Department said in a statement. "Such a general ban on cluster munitions will put the lives of our military men and women, and those of our coalition partners, at risk."

In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said his government had decided not to join the treaty, and instead believes the issue of cluster bomb use should be addressed through the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons.

The anti-cluster bomb campaign gathered momentum after Israel's monthlong war against Hezbollah in 2006, when it scattered up to 4 million bomblets across Lebanon, according to U.N. figures.

"In southern Lebanon, for more than two years, children and the elderly have been victimized (by cluster munitions)," Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Saloukh said.

Activists hoped the treaty would pressure non-signers into shelving the weapons, as many did with land mines after a 1997 treaty banning them.

"The cluster bomb treaty will save countless lives by stigmatizing a weapon that kills civilians even after the fighting ends," said Steve Goose, arms director of Human Rights Watch.

____

Associated Press writer Shawna Ohm in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

[otraque]

LC/Manhattan 870k views 5stars.

[otraque]

Nick Cave The Ship Song

5stars 317k views

[otraque]

a very unusual and excellent Nature Boy from Moulin Rouge soundtrack, this from the DVD, not the CD.

[otraque]

IN A GADA DA VIDA--video version in 2 parts--all 17mins LOL!
Part 1

Part 2

[otraque]

SUICIDE:DreamBabyDream and then Springsteen DreamBabyDream
Another from this incredibly influential electronic duo
This song was performed by Springsteen as an encore on his solo tour
How many albums did Rev and Vega release. Just one! but its impact on future music was massive, just listen to today's Massive Attack to hear the huge influence that started with Rev and Vega in 1977.
SUICIDE/DreamBabyDream

Springsteen/DremBabyDream/6+mins, as he used to close performances on his "Dust and Devils" tour

Suicide itself had performances as long 10-minutes on live.

[otraque]

Suicide/GhostRider/1977

Early classic by this incredibly influential electronic duo.(Rev/Vega)

311k views(i estimate 10 people were in the audience when he had this taped)

More intense 5min version

93k views

[otraque]

Israel Turns Back Gaza Aid Boat
Posted December 1, 2008

A Libyan cargo vessel weighed down with 3,000 tonnes of food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods, was barred from entering the Gaza Strip yesterday by the Israeli navy. Palestinian officials say they expect the vessel to attempt to reach the Gaza Strip again.

Andy David, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, defended to move, saying Israel’s policy on the naval blockade was “very clear,” He said Israeli naval ships approached the aid boat and ordered it via radio to turn back, adding “Anyone wishing to transfer humanitarian aid into Gaza is welcome to do it in coordination with Israel and through the regular crossings.”

Yet this has not been the case in recent days, after an Israeli raid on the strip earlier this month sparked an exchange of strikes and a full closure on the strip. Since then, Israel has only occasionally allowed small amounts of humanitarian aid across the border, and has expressed public outrage at the suggestions of UN officials that refusing to allow food (and officially barring the importation of shoes) into a small region inhabited by 1.5 million people was a “direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law.”

Israeli officials condemned concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “utterly shortsighted” and have insisted that their refusal to allow basic humanitarian aid into the strip is entirely the fault of the Hamas government. The crossings were expected to open briefly last Thursday (coincidentally Thanksgiving in the United States), but the government decided against it after a rocket landed in an empty field in southern Israel, doing no damage and causing no injuries. Since then no aid has been permitted to enter Gaza by land or, as witnessed today, by sea.