Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Президент Сирии: Ближний Восток на пороге новой войны

«Напряженность в турецко-израильских отношениях грозит безопасности на Ближнем Востоке. Вероятность достижения мира в регионе с каждым днем сводится к нулю. Ситуация угрожает началом новых боевых действий». Об этом на пресс-конференции в Мадриде заявил президент Сирии Башар Асад.

Как сообщает SalamNews со ссылкой на Jerusalem Post, сирийский президент подчеркнул, что Турция является неотъемлемой частью мирного процесса на Ближнем Востоке. По словам Асада, напряженность в турецко-израильских отношениях не позволяет официальной Анкаре выступить в качестве гаранта мира в регионе. Кризис между двумя странами отрицательно сказывается на турецких инициативах относительно региона, а этот факт сам по себе плохо отразится на мирном процессе в целом, считает он.

«Турции хорошо знакомы реалии региона. В деле достижения мира и процветания региона ей нет альтернативы», - отметил президент Сирии на совместной пресс-конференции вместе с испанским премьер-министром Хосе Луисом Родригесом Цапатеро.

Башар Асад особо подчеркнул, что главной причиной дестабилизации обстановки на Ближнем Востоке стало израильское нападение на «Флотилию Свободы», везшей гуманитарную помощь населению Газы 31 мая.
http://ansar.ru/world/2010/07/06/5386

Bibi Back at the White House – The Consistency of Israeli Duplicity Comes Ever More Clearly into Focus – by Jeff Gates

With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visiting the White House July 6th, it's time to recall how Tel Aviv deceived Washington throughout the entirety of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

U.S. military leaders will be watching this meeting very closely, as will the veterans community.

For me, confirmation of Israel's strategic duplicity came in a meeting with Harry McPherson who served as counsel and speechwriter for Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ entered the Senate in 1948 with Louisiana Senator Russell Long for whom I served as counsel and speechwriter.

At his law offices in Washington, Harry described his arrival in Tel Aviv the night that the 1967 War began. That war typifies the consistency of this ongoing deceit.

He flew in the night before from Vietnam through Hong Kong. He knew on arrival that something was amiss because the airport lights were off. He checked into his hotel and was awakened early on June 5th by Wally Barbour, the U.S. ambassador to Israel.

A pear-shaped diplomat with a penchant for yellowing Palm Beach suits, Barbour called to tell Harry that the war had just broken out-to which he replied, "But I just come from the war."

Barbour picked him up at the hotel and they hurried to the foreign ministry for a brief meeting before conferring with the Israeli chief of military intelligence. In response to their repeated question, "Did the Egyptians attack?" McPherson and Barbour received only evasive answers. As air raid sirens wailed, McPherson recalls in A Political Education:

Barbour suggested that we might continue the discussion in the underground bunker. The general studied his watch. "No, that won't be necessary. We can stay here." Barbour and I looked at each other. If it wasn't necessary, the Egyptian air force had been destroyed. That could only have happened so quickly if it had been surprised on the ground. We did not need to ask for confirmation, but left at once to cable the news to Washington.

Israel was neither under attack nor under threat of attack as its leadership has since conceded. Air raid sirens were just props in the stagecraft of waging war by way of deception.

The Israel-as-victim storyline was stage-managed by Zionist extremists to make both Israeli citizens and foreign observers believe that the Jewish state was endangered. As with the phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq in March 2003, the facts in June 1967 differed dramatically from the geopolitical narrative.

Under cover of that false attack, Tel Aviv occupied land belonging to its neighbors. The bulk of that property is still held by force 43 years later with the support of the U.S. as its oft-duped ally.

Servicing the Commander-in-Chief

In the lead-up to Israel's Six-Day Land Grab, Johnson was lobbied by U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg. LBJ had moved Goldberg from the Supreme Court to the U.N. so he could be replaced with Abe Fortas, Johnson's personal lawyer. Fortas was a senior operative in a network of Zionists who helped produce the Johnson presidency and shaped its policies.

When Goldberg used heart-rending rhetoric to weave for Johnson a storyline about Israeli vulnerability and the pending victimization of hapless Jews at the hostile hands of an Arab "ring of steel," LBJ waved a Central Intelligence Agency report predicting that Israel could win any war in the region in two weeks.

When Goldberg persisted, Johnson ordered the CIA to revisit their analysis. The agency returned with a revised report concluding that Israel could win any war in the region in one week.

On June 4th, at a Fortas-hosted dinner for Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and New York investment banker John Loeb, Fortas cautioned Johnson that war might soon erupt in the Middle East.

When the president turned to McNamara for his opinion, the Pentagon chief agreed with Johnson that there would be no war. Johnson then confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with McNamara's assessment. Johnson left for the White House at 10:58 p.m.

Less than six hours later, at 4:30 a.m. on June 5th, National Security Adviser Walt Rostow called LBJ to announce that Israel had attacked Egypt. Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative, was Johnson's guest at the White House that night. Before informing anyone else, LBJ stopped by the blonde beauty's bedroom to tell her, "The war has started."

Not until 7:45 a.m. did Johnson speak with Soviet Premier Aleksi Kosygin who expressed his hope and expectation that the U.S., as Israel's closest ally, would restrain Tel Aviv.

Mathilde Krim was the wife of Arthur Krim, chairman of the Finance Committee for the Democratic Party and president of United Artists. While Johnson was in the Senate, Krim bought land near the LBJ Ranch in Texas where he built "Mathilde's House." When Arthur was away on business, Johnson routinely took Marine One, the presidential helicopter, to visit Mathilde.

An Inside Job

In the war's first few hours, the "victimized" Israelis destroyed the Egyptian Air Force while its aircraft were still on the ground. Walt Rostow sent Johnson a memo describing the success of Tel Aviv's "vulnerable" military as "the first day's turkey shoot." By evening, the Jordanian air force was also largely destroyed.

Johnson also received a memo from Arthur Krim that read, "Many arms shipments are packed and ready to go to Israel, but are being held up. It would be helpful if these could be released." Johnson ordered them released.

By evening of the second day, two-thirds of the Syrian air force had been destroyed. The glee in the State Department Operations Room was palpable, leading Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow to caution, "Gentlemen, gentlemen, do not forget that we are neutral in word, thought and deed."

At the State Department's mid-day press briefing, spokesman Robert McCloskey repeated Rostow's official "neutrality" lie. Zionist advisers surrounded Johnson in the decision-making that lent U.S. support to the 1967 war. "Everyone around me, without exception was pro-Israel," recalls Johnson speechwriter Grace Halsell. She identified more than a dozen close advisers to Johnson, including Walt Rostow, his brother Eugene and Arthur Goldberg.

White House counsels Leo White and Jake Jacobsen were likewise pro-Israel as were two key speechwriters: Richard Goodwin, husband of biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Ben Wattenberg whose parents moved to the U.S. from Palestine. Likewise domestic affairs adviser Larry Levinson and John Roche, an avid Zionist and Johnson's intellectual-in-residence.

The Non-Separation of Powers

In the lead-up to this Israeli aggression, Fortas served as an enabling back channel between the Israeli embassy and the White House. Fortas had known Israeli Ambassador Avraham Harman since the ambassador's arrival in Washington in 1959. During the March 1960 visit to Washngton of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Fortas sponsored a breakfast at his home attended by Harman and Johnson who was then Senate Majority Leader.

Fortas' biographer conceded: "For several weeks before the crisis erupted into war, the Israeli ambassador was ‘in very frequent contact' with Fortas and regularly visited the justice at his chambers or his house." An outspoken Zionist, Fortas also attended a critical White House strategy meeting on the Middle East on May 26th, ten days before the land grab began.

When it came to Israel, Fortas was never neutral. "When they get back from Egypt," a law clerk in his Supreme Court chambers overheard Justice Fortas say, "I'm going to decorate my office with Arab foreskins."

Throughout the six days of carnage that Israel inflicted on its neighbors, Near East experts met daily with Johnson in the Cabinet Room. Fortas attended each meeting. Reflecting on comments by Fortas to Johnson at their June 4th dinner party, John Loeb wrote to Fortas on June 6th: "You were prophetic about the Middle East. Thank the Lord the President has you as a friend and counselor."

In 1968, Johnson failed in his attempt to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Fortas resigned in May 1969 in the wake of a series of scandals. In the summer of 1970, The New York Times reported his registration as a lobbyist for Kuhn, Loeb & Company.

Fortas cemented his relationship with Johnson in 1948 when, in LBJ's first Senate race in Texas, the Washington lawyer finessed the extensive vote fraud apparent in the Democratic primary in which Johnson claimed an 87-vote victory, including 200 votes tallied in alphabetical order.

A Fortas-devised legal strategy led to Johnson's name appearing on the November ballot as the Democratic Party nominee. In a strongly Democratic state, that primary victory assured the ambitious Texan a victory in the general election and a seat in the U.S. Senate. Decades later, those familiar with this political history continued to refer to him as "Landslide Lyndon."

A Strategic Provocation

The Six-Day Slaughter of 1967 pre-staged the geopolitical dynamics for all that has followed-not only in the Middle East but also in the U.S. as Israel's violent taking of land outraged everyone in the region and set American foreign policy on today's ruinous course.

The periodic carnage visited on Palestinians ensures that this strategic provocation remains fresh in the minds of Muslims worldwide. Reactions to these serial provocations, in turn, fuel the plausibility of the latest storyline, The Clash of Civilizations and its corrosive counterpart: the Global War on Terrorism with "Islamo fascism" the essential Evil Doer branding.

Israel has performed with reliable consistency every act required to provoke and sustain extremism in the Muslim world. Only by duplicity has the Zionist state sustained a U.S. alliance whose main effect has been to make America appear guilty by association.

On August 9, 2000 in a White House ceremony, President Bill Clinton presented Johnson paramour Mathilde Krim with the Medal of Freedom. By then this former Irgun terrorist had been rebranded as a high-profile medical researcher and AIDS activist adored and promoted to political prominence by her pro-Israeli supporters in Hollywood.

It's not expected that Israeli-American Rahm Israel Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, will urge that Monica Lewinsky receive the nation's highest civilian honor. It's not yet known what role Emanuel and White House political strategist David Axelrod have played in sustaining our costly "special relationship" with the Jewish state.

As yet another Israeli Prime Minister arrives in Washington with yet another rationalization for continuing this entangled alliance, a nomination is pending for the appointment to our highest court of a third Jewish Zionist for a court with just nine jurists. In time, historians will identify the role played by the Israel lobby (and Emanuel/Axelrod) in the nomination of Elena Kagan.

Based on the consistency of "Bibi" Netanyahu's duplicitous conduct over decades, Barack Obama needs to know when an Israeli Prime Minister is once again deceiving a U.S. president. History suggests a reliable test: are his lips moving?

The End of History

Though the U.S. has been deceived with stunning consistency for more than six decades, a mid-course correction remains possible. If this latest president can concede to himself that his political career is a product of those complicit at this deceit, he may yet emerge as the transformative leader that his supporters once hoped he could be.

If Barack Obama can be honest with himself, he will speak candidly to the American people and explain why this long-running deceit must be brought to a speedy close. If on July 6th he announces support for a one state solution, that will start to unwind this perilous alliance.

Senior military leaders have confirmed the common source undermining U.S. national security. Should the current commander-in-chief fail to act consistent with the known facts, this latest political product of the Chicago Outfit may risk their continued allegiance.

To advance peace, he needs only declare U.S. support for the designation of Jerusalem as an international cultural site under the protection of U.N. troops. To end the multi-decade cycle of provocation/reaction, he needs only reassign 30,000 U.S. troops to Palestine to rebuild a destroyed society, resettle its ousted people on occupied land and secure Israel's nuclear arsenal.

The Zionist experiment was a failure before it began. An overdue end to this apartheid regime can begin July 6th. Or this perilous alliance can continue-at untold cost in blood and treasure.

July 6th could be a defining moment for a president in need of such a moment. That date could also mark the restoration of American values to U.S. foreign policy and grant solace to those moderate and secular Jews long appalled at the conduct of Zionists who in 1948 deceived a U.S. president to recognize as a legitimate state their extremist enclave in the Middle East.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/07/06/bibi-back-at-the-white-house/

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Израиль опубликовал список товаров, запрещенных к ввозу в сектор Газа

В понедельник «Израиль» опубликовал список товаров, запрещенных к ввозу в Сектор Газа. Все, что не вошло в перечень, будет "допускаться в Газу без специального согласования", говорится в сообщении.

Под полный или частичный запрет попали оружие и боеприпасы, товары и технологии «двойного назначения», стройматериалы, которые разрешается ввозить только для проектов, «санкционированных Палестинской национальной администрацией (ПНА), реализуемых и контролируемых международным сообществом», передает ПИЦ.

Пересмотр санкционной политики - результат международного давления, последовавшего за нападением на "Флотилию свободы", - шести иностранных судов, шедших в анклав с грузом гуманитарной помощи. Жертвами варварского сионистского нападения 31 мая стали девятнадцать правозащитников, десятки были ранены, сотни людей оказались за решеткой.

"Израильские" власти объясняют отмену ограничений на ввоз гражданской продукции в Сектор Газа необходимостью реабилитировать режим блокады в глазах мирового сообщества. Параллельно с расширением номенклатуры товаров, допускаемых в анклав, израильская сторона обещает "в разы" увеличить объемы трансграничного товаропотока и довести его к 2011 году до 400 грузовиков в сутки.

В действительности же блокада как была, так и есть, отмечает агентство. А предпринимаемые «Израилем» шаги есть не более чем хорошо спланированная иллюзия действий, направленных на якобы нормализацию жизни в оккупированном палестинском анклаве. Больше всего наблюдателей поражает самоуверенность, с какой наглое инфернальное сионистское образование оопределяет, что разрешено ввозить в Газу, а что нет. Это аналогия британской колониальной политики в отношении своих доминионов. Британский колониализм, слава Богу, рухнул 50 лет назад, а вот еврейский колониализм продолжается и в 21 веке...

Палестинцы продолжают смотреть на небо через тюремную решетку блокады.
http://ansar.ru/world/2010/07/06/5385

The Afghan 'no exit' war

By Ivan Eland

In contrast to World War II and Desert Storm — which had clear goals, even though those of the latter were limited — the war in Afghanistan resembles the Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War.

In the former, the goal changed from defeating the Spanish in a conventional war to subduing Philippine guerrillas in order to imperially conquer the archipelago. In the latter, contrary to popular belief, Lyndon Johnson’s goal was never to win, but to alter the conditions on the battlefield to compel the enemy to negotiate.

In the Spanish-American War, America was able to take out the adversarial regime relatively easy. The hard part came in getting rid of the guerrillas, who were sure they were promised by the McKinley administration that if they helped the Americans get rid of the Spanish, the Philippines would win its independence.

The latter didn’t happen, and it took several years of brutal American counterinsurgency tactics and torture to subdue the local Thomas Jefferson wannabes.

Similarly, in Afghanistan, taking down the Taliban only required 700 U.S. Special Forces and CIA personnel calling in American air strikes to support the ground fighters of the Afghan anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. The hard part has been battling a resurgent Taliban, which uses guerrilla tactics.

In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, proper skepticism of an outright U.S. military victory abounds, leading to an escalation aimed at gaining military advantage for ultimate negotiations with the Taliban.

Yet President Obama has given the escalation only 18 months in which to reach this goal, as well as the equally unrealistic objectives of crippling al-Qaeda and training Afghan security forces to operate on their own.

To get the U.S. military to buy into the 18-month period prior to commencement of withdrawal, Obama had to consent to the escalation of an extra 30,000 troops.

The 18-month timetable to begin withdrawal was the standard naïve liberal dogma that this would jolt the Afghan government into becoming a clean, democratic governing force that could effectively battle the Taliban.

Instead, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has made clear he doesn’t think the United States can win, is trying to cut deals with the Taliban and their patrons in the Pakistani military (also ostensibly an American ally), and has even threatened to join the Taliban if the United States keeps killing Afghan civilians.

Almost as bad, the troop surge to win military advantage for negotiations with the Taliban has been a bust. Marja has not been tamed, and the offensive in Kandahar has been significantly delayed.

But the very premise that the zealous Taliban would negotiate instead of waiting for the Americans, historically with a limited attention span, to leave resembles the same flawed assumptions the United States made about the North Vietnamese during the war in Southeast Asia.

Like the North Vietnamese, the Afghan Taliban want their country back from the foreign occupier and have a longer time horizon than the Americans.

Furthermore, Afghans have been accustomed to continuous war for more than 30 years, hate foreigners, and know that their history indicates that would-be foreign rulers can be out-waited — as they have many times before.

These factors illustrate that U.S. neoconservatives are equally naïve to believe that without the 18-month deadline, the U.S. has a prayer of success in historically unforgiving Afghanistan — however that vague term is defined.

Eighteen months is not long enough to ramp up a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that could win “hearts and minds,” but the aforementioned underlying realities make it unlikely that even an 18-year counterinsurgency strategy would work (the U.S. government has already spent nine years without getting it right).

Finally, the Taliban may be violent and ruthless, but in the eyes of the Pashtun people, the dominant group in Afghanistan, they are the only hope for Pashtuns.

Even though Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, he is regarded among them as a puppet of the United States and rival Uzbek and Tajik groups. Thus is explained the curious support of many Afghans for the brutal Taliban. This major factor is often ignored in overly optimistic forecasts of the potential for U.S. pacification of Afghanistan.

The only solution is to cut the U.S. losses and leave Afghanistan for good. The good news is that removal of U.S. occupation forces from a Muslim land might actually reduce blowback anti-U.S. terrorism around the world.
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/The-Afghan-no-exit-war.html

Monday, July 5, 2010

Protest Prayer in the street, Silwan, Jerusalem 02.07.2010



http://chroniquespalestine.blogspot.com/2010/07/protest-prayer-in-street-silwan.html

Britain more interested in saving Israelis from garden shed rockets than British citizens from Israeli pirates – by Stuart Littlewood

Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg is Britain's deputy prime minister.

A month ago, while reports were coming in that Israeli gunboats had "intercepted" the Free Gaza flotilla 90 miles out to sea and told the humanitarian workers they would be boarded and towed to an Israeli port, I emailed Clegg: "Where is the Royal Navy when it's needed to protect life and limb of the 30-odd British nationals?"

Ministers received advanced warning of Israel's threats to stop the flotilla "by any means". What was needed was firm intervention. Just for a change the British people wanted their government to do them proud on the international stage and protect those brave souls on their peaceful mission to bring relief to Palestinians whose lives have been made a living hell by the bully-boys of the Middle East.

They were, after all, only doing the right thing… doing what the West's cowardly governments wet their pants at the very thought of doing.

Back in December when the parties were warming up for the general election, Clegg wrote in The Guardian:

"…And what has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis.

No doubt the febrile sensitivities of the Middle East have deterred governments, caught between recriminations from both sides. No doubt diplomats have warned that exerting pressure on Israel and Egypt may complicate the peace process.

But surely the consequences of not lifting the blockade are far more grave?"

He certainly talked the talk. Would he walk the walk if given the chance?

Well, he now has the chance, and his reply has just arrived.

"The Government was very clear in its disapproval of the Israeli actions which ended in such heavy and tragic loss of life.

"We have underlined the need for a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation into the events of 31 May. We have made clear that we want to see a process that ensures full accountability and commands the confidence of the international community, including international participation.

"Israel's announcement of an inquiry headed by former Supreme Court judge Yaakov Tirkel is an important step forward. We welcome the appointment of Lord Trimble as an international observer. Clearly it is very important that this is a truly independent inquiry and a thorough investigation that the international community can respect.

"These events have captured the world's attention, but they should not be viewed in isolation. They arose from the unacceptable and unsustainable blockade of Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the United Kingdom and around the world. It has long been the view of the Government that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and called on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation persisting there.

"It is essential that there is unfettered access – not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. The Palestinian economy, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, is an essential part of a viable state of Palestine which we hope will one day exist alongside Israel in peace and security.

"A solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is firmly in the national interests of the UK, as well as those in the region. We want the new generation of Palestinians to grow up in hope, not despair… We want the next generation of Israelis to live free from the fear of rocket fire… Whilst we cannot deliver this for either side ourselves, as friends to both Israelis and Palestinians we will seek to buttress the diplomatic initiative of President Obama's Administration and the proximity talks…"

So no, he won't walk the walk.

It is pointless calling for the blockade to be lifted. You have to smash it… with warships "exercising" nearby. Israel's promise to "ease" it is purely cosmetic. I hear that incoming goods have risen by a miserable 7 or 8% while the block on exports remains. That's all the West's feeble hand-wringing has achieved.

Clegg's choice of words is revealing… "the interception by Israeli forces". It was nothing less than a dead-of-night military assault with guns blazing and a pre-planned execution of civilians on a wanted list. His whole reply might as well have been scripted by Tel Aviv. It probably was, because it turns out to be word for word the same as the communication sent to other complainants by Israel's great friend now doubling as Britain's under-secretary of state in charge of Middle East affairs, Alistair Burt.

Clegg can call for "a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation" until he's blue in the face, but he won't get one. He welcomes the appointment of Trimble to this farce. Why? Trimble is a founding member of a new international "Friends of Israel Initiative".

The context for Israel's crimes on the high seas is, of course, the racist regime's belief that it can act with impunity. It never gets rapped for lawless conduct thanks to the abject failure of the international community – especially Britain, whose mandated responsibility Palestine once was – to enforce international and maritime law and the numerous UN resolutions (not just 1860).

UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (America abstained on Israel's orders, according to Olmert) calls for the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. There is still no sign of Israeli compliance.

Clegg claims that "we" are friends to both Israelis and Palestinians. Bollox. British governments have spent the last 93 years betraying the Palestinian people, and continue to do so while slavishly supporting the Israeli regime in its programme of occupation, oppression, ethnic cleansing and collective punishment. Our last government and now this Coalition won't even acknowledge the Palestinians' right of self-determination or their democratic choice of government. Britain, to its shame, is complicit in those crimes.

To make matters worse, Labour and Conservative leaders are anxious to change our laws of universal jurisdiction to provide a safe haven for Israel's killers while denying visas to Palestinian footballers.

And please, Mr Clegg, spare us this endless nonsense about rockets. At least as many state of the art US-supplied Israeli missiles were launched into Gaza, usually from US-supplied F-16s, as garden-shed whizz-bangs were lobbed into Israel. And Israeli air-strikes and armoured incursions continue on a daily basis. Furthermore, no rockets come out of the West Bank, yet the West Bank continues to be occupied, sealed and under severe movement restrictions. Clearly, this is not about rockets or even about Hamas, which has already agreed to recognise Israel within its pre-1967 borders in accordance with the international community's position.

It's a well-known fact that America is a dishonest broker, so aligning Britain with the puppet Obama's diplomatic "initiative" simply hands Israel even more time to establish irreversible facts on the ground.

But the British public are wising up. They are beginning to know the score. Prime minister Cameron is a self-declared Zionist. Foreign secretary Hague has been a Friend of Israel since the age of 15. Under-secretary of state Burt is not just a Friend of Israel but an OFFICER of the Conservative Friends of Israel organisation.

The Knesset's stooges roost happily in Westminster.

And Cameron has just put his name to a G8 leaders' statement calling for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit but not the freeing of thousands of Palestinians abducted and rotting in Israeli jails.

Burt, in his letter, talks of our pledge of £26.8 million for humanitarian aid and early recovery activities in Gaza. Is that supposed to purge our negligence? The Palestinians wouldn't need £millions of British taxpayers' money year after year if they were left in peace. All this aid simply subsidises and reinforces the Israeli occupation at our (the public's) expense.

Now that Clegg is in a position to actually kick government ass, I hoped the Liberal Democrats would have a moderating effect on the rabid Conservative Zionists who devote so much of their energies to the service of Israel.

Instead, Nick and his party appear to have fallen in with them.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/07/03/britain-interested-saving-israelis-than-british-citizens/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SabbahsBlog+%28Sabbah+Report%29

Obama, Netanyahu, and Middle East Peace

During his meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu tomorrow, President Obama is expected to “focus on broad topics relating to an ultimate Middle East peace plan, rather than specific issues that continue to vex Israeli-Palestinian relations.” In other words, Obama is expected to talk about the “core issues”—borders, East Jerusalem, and refugees.[1]

Now being the smart man that he is (and I’m actually not being sarcastic here), Obama must realize that Netanyahu has no intention of compromising on these issues. Yes, Netanyahu has proposed granting the Palestinians a “state,” but it turns out that this “state” isn’t really a state at all. Under Netanyahu’s plan, the Palestinians would not be permitted to have an army, and Israel would retrain control of the area’s borders and airspace. Netanyahu has also made it clear that Israel will never relinquish East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and other parts of the West Bank.[2]

Although this non-state might sound reasonable to the likes of Avigdor Lieberman (provided, of course, that Netanyahu also agrees to “transfer” a good number of Israeli Arabs out of Israel), Obama—who, we’ve already established, is a smart man—must realize that it’s not reasonable to the Palestinians. Nor, for that matter, to the rest of the world, which has repeatedly voted in the UN General Assembly that Israel must (1) withdraw from “the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,” (2) acknowledge that the Palestinians have “the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State,” and (3) resolve the refugee crisis in conformity with Resolution 194.[3]

So, assuming that he really wants to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, Obama’s task will be to persuade Netanyahu to do what Netanyahu obviously has no intention of doing. Now how, you might be wondering, how oh how, can Obama accomplish this?

Martin Indyk, who served as US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton years, writes that the president must find a way to “overcome the mistrust” that has “permeated and poisoned their personal relationship and build a partnership for peace.” In order to accomplish this, Indyk writes, “Obama should invite [Netanyahu] alone to Camp David for an afternoon walk in the woods. For his part, since he models himself on Winston Churchill, Netanyahu needs to make a real effort to take Obama into his confidence, much as Churchill wooed Roosevelt in the run-up to America’s entry into World War II.”[4]

Such a touching scene there: Barry and Bibi walking alone in the woods. Perhaps, if time allows, they could even go for a picnic, maybe even find a nice spot on the green and watch the sun set.

Of course, such actions will do absolutely nothing to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. If Obama is really serious about doing this, then he would do well to listen to James Baker, who, in March, suggested how the president could curb Israeli settlement expansion: “I would…stress United States taxpayers are giving Israel roughly $3 billion each year, which amounts to something like $1,000 for every Israeli citizen, at a time when our own economy is in bad shape and a lot of Americans would appreciate that kind of helping hand from their own government. Given that fact, it is not unreasonable to ask the Israeli leadership to respect U.S. policy on settlements.”[5]

Baker, of course, has the right to dole out such advice. In early 1992, he and President Bush I. told Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that they would freeze a $10 billion loan guarantee until Israel halted its settlement construction. “Israeli leaders told us they would just get the money from the U.S. Congress,” Baker recalls. “Our reply was, ‘We’ll see you on Capitol Hill.’” Baker and Bush ended up prevailing, as “[t]he Israeli public rejected Shamir’s ideological hard line” and in the June elections voted in Yitzhak Rabin’s Labor Party, which had “pledged to restore friendly relations with the United States.”[6]

If Obama applied enough pressure, he might be able to bring an end to Netanyahu’s coalition government, which in turn might pave the way for a Kadima-Labor government, which itself might be willing to make a reasonable offer to the Palestinians. Yes, there are a lot of mights there, and I’m not holding my breath. But if Obama really does want to resolve the conflict (and I think he does), and if he really is such a smart man (and we’ve agreed that he is), then perhaps—perhaps—it’s possible.


Notes

[1] Ali Weinberg, “Obama, Netanyahu meeting to avoid specifics, settlements,” First Read from NBC News, 2 July 2010.

[2] “PM’s Speech at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University,” Prime Minister’s Office, 14 June 2009; Barak Ravid and Agencies, “Netanyahu: Israel will never share Jerusalem with Palestinians,” Haaretz, 12 January 2010; Jonathan Lis, “Netanyahu: Israel will never cede Jordan Valley,” Haaretz, 3 February 2010; “Netanyahu: Israel must have West Bank presence after peace deal,” Associated Press, 20 January 2010.

[3] “Responding to Avigdor Lieberman,” 29 June 2010; “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/64/L.23),” United Nations General Assembly, 23 November 2009; “Following Two-Day Debate, General Assembly Adopts Six Draft Resolutions On Question of Palestine, Middle East,” United Nations General Assembly, 2 December 2009.

[4] “A quiet diplomacy on the Mideast peace path,” Washington Post, 2 July 2010.

[5] Akiva Eldar, “James Baker’s Advice for Obama on Forging Middle East Peace,” Haaretz, 23 March 2010.

[6] Ibid.; William L. Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East, 2004, p. 501.
http://donemmerich.blogspot.com/

Въезд в Индонезию для "израильтян" закрыт!..

Правительство Индонезии запретило "гражданам" "Израиля" въезд на большую часть территории государства - исключением является остров Бали.

Решение правительства Индонезии было принято в знак протеста против "израильской" блокады Сектора Газа и в знак солидарности с властями Турции, чьи граждане были убиты "израильскими" эскадронами смерти во время нападения на гуманитарное судно "Мави Мармара", следовавшее к берегам блокадной Газы в составе "Флотилии свободы".
http://www.palestine-info.ru

Египет продолжает удерживать одиннадцать активистов «Исламского Джихада»...

Заместитель генерального секретаря Движения «Исламский Джихад» Зияд Нахала заявил, что Египет по-прежнему удерживает в своих застенках одиннадцать активистов "ИД", несмотря на многочисленные усилия посредников по их освобождению.

Телеканалу «Аль-Кудс» он сказал, что десяткам палестинцев также запрещено возвращаться в Сектор Газа из-за запрета властей Египта. «Теоретически Египет должен быть сторонником Палестины, но нам не понятна политика Каира. Мы могли бы понять нежелание египтян брать на себя бремя Рафаха, но мы не можем понять, почему арестованы палестинцы».

«Исламский Джихад» отказался от условий примирения, выдвинутые Аббасом, бывшим главой палестинской администрации и лидером ФАТХ.
http://www.palestine-info.ru/

Sunday, July 4, 2010

США - Израиль: Кто главный?

Многие люди на Западе, в России и в других регионах восторгаются Израилем, государством, которое было основано всего 60 лет назад и обладает одной из самых мощных армий в мире. В четырех войнах Израиль якобы одержал верх над своими соседями, хотя его население не превышает население небольшого острова. Такие успехи сионистов заставили некоторых людей думать, что Израиль стоит за кулисами мировой политики и даже контролирует США. Поэтому попробуем разобраться, кто кого контролирует и до какой степени.

Близкие отношения с Израилем были секретным направлением американской внешней политики в течение первых 20 – 30 лет существования Израиля. До сих пор США ежегодно выделяют Израилю 3 млрд. долларов военной и экономической помощи. Члены Конгресса от Демократической партии, которые обычно не одобряют американской помощи правительствам, нарушающим права человека, как и республиканцы, которые не одобряют помощи другим государствам вообще, ни разу не попытались возразить против этого.

По сути, все европейские страны вместе с Америкой защищают право Израиля на существование в мире и безопасности. Но только США до конца поддерживают Израиль в различных международных организациях, когда речь заходит о нарушении сионистами международного права.

США проявили интерес к Ближнему Востоку после Второй мировой войны, когда осознали ценность нефти Персидского залива. В 1944 году Государственный департамент описал Аравийский полуостров следующим образом: «Огромный источник стратегической силы и величайшая материальная ценность в мировой истории».

Американцы поняли, что контроль над поставками ближневосточной нефти – это рычаг управления миром. Джордж Кеннан, специалист по Советскому Союзу и архитектор ядерного сдерживания, сказал в 1949 году: «Если США будут контролировать нефть, они смогут наложить вето на действия своих потенциальных соперников Германии и Японии». Осознав потенциал ближневосточной нефти, Америка стала проводить в жизнь политику, направленную на подчинение этого региона.

До Второй мировой войны на Ближнем Востоке ещё господствовала Британия. Именно она и открыла ворота для колонизации Палестины евреями.

В 1906 году британский премьер-министр Генри Баннерман пообещал сионистам создание еврейского государства: «Там живут люди (мусульмане), которые управляют огромными территориями, им принадлежат плодородные земли, в недрах которых скрываются полезные ископаемые. Они контролируют пересечения торговых путей. Их земли – это колыбель человеческих религий и цивилизаций. Эти люди имеют одну религию, один язык, одну историю и одни устремления. Никакие естественные границы не способны разделить их. Если вдруг этот народ объединится в единое государство, то оно будет вершить судьбы мира и отделит Европу от остального мира. Учитывая серьезность этой угрозы, необходимо поместить инородное тело в сердце этого народа, чтобы он не мог подняться с колен, растратив все свои силы в бесконечных войнах. Оно так же может служить плацдармом для достижения Западом его стратегических целей», - заявлял он.

В своих интересах Британия способствовала образованию Израиля в самом сердце мусульманского мира. Однако из-за ослабления Британии после Второй мировой войны США стали доминировать в этом регионе. США хотели видеть Израиль в рамках четко определенных и безопасных границ, в то время как евреи мечтали о Великом Израиле. Это первое различие между позициями США и Израиля. Израиль с самого начала отказался очерчивать свои границы. Это говорит о том, что Израиль не всегда соглашался с США и в некоторых вопросах имеет противоположные интересы.

С появлением сионистского движения евреи поставили своей целью достижение экономической и политической гегемонии на Ближнем Востоке. Америка отвергает идею замещения своего влияния в ближневосточных делах на еврейское и не хочет делить власть ни с какой другой страной.

Америка готова защищать Израиль и обеспечивать евреям высокий уровень жизни в их государстве. Однако она не намерена уступать Израилю часть своего влияния.

Политика США направлена на изоляцию Израиля, ограничение его экспансии и уменьшение его роли в урегулировании арабо-израильского конфликта. Америка заинтересована в создании Палестинского государства, которое служило бы инструментом сдерживания. Она планирует организовать это при помощи международных гарантий и развертывания международного миротворческого контингента на границах Израиля с его арабскими соседями – Иорданией, Сирией, Египтом и будущим Палестинским государством. Кроме того, Америка стремится к установлению международного контроля над Иерусалимом. По мнению Вашингтона, это снизит напряженность в городе и через институты ООН утвердит в нем господство Соединенных Штатов.

Американо-израильские отношения сложились именно таким образом по ряду причин:

1) Многие американцы, особенно либералы, испытывают «теплые чувства» к Израилю. Прежде всего, это свойственно управленцам, воспитанным после Второй мировой войны, которые занимают должности в правительстве и руководят СМИ. Они чувствуют солидарность с еврейским народом, его «исторической борьбой, присущей ему демократичностью, высоким уровнем жизни и образом угнетенного меньшинства, которое жило в диаспоре сотни лет».

2) Христианское правое крыло в США, которое включает в себя десятки миллионов американцев и является главной базой поддержки для Республиканской партии, использует все свои огромные политические и информационные возможности для поддержки Израиля и произраильских лидеров. Поскольку многие из этих людей сильно привержены христианству, они считают собрание евреев на Святой Земле преддверием второго пришествия Христа. А война между израильтянами и палестинцами видится им как продолжение войны израильтян с филистимлянами, в результате которой по предопределению Бога Святая Земля должна была достаться евреям.

3) Центристские и консервативные еврейские организации используют значительные лоббистские и финансовые ресурсы еврейской диаспоры, а также гражданское давление на СМИ, для поддержки израильского правительства. Задачей произраильского лобби является создание атмосферы, отвечающей интересам Израиля, и запугивание тех, кто добивается смягчения американской политики, включая растущее число прогрессивных евреев.

4) Военная промышленность тратит в 5 раз больше денег на предвыборные кампании и услуги лоббистов, чем Американо-израильский комитет по общественным связям и все другие произраильские группы вместе взятые. Военная индустрия получает большую долю от поставок оружия Израилю и другим ближневосточным союзникам США. Члену Конгресса намного проще оспорить 60-миллионную сделку о поставках оружия в Индонезию, чем 2 миллиардную сделку о поставках оружия в Израиль, особенно потому, что во многих избирательных округах находятся заводы по производству этой военной техники.

Израиль построил успешное государство и мобилизовал большие ресурсы для достижения его стратегических целей. Однако невозможно себе представить, чтобы Израиль добился своего сегодняшнего положения без помощи западных стран. Но Израилю не удалось добиться своей конечной цели и создать государство, границы которого охватывали бы все земли, которые, по мнению евреев, были обещаны им Богом. И этого не произошло потому, что такой сценарий противоречит интересам США.

Америка определила границы между Израилем и Палестинским государством. Партия «Ликуд», которая почти всю историю Израиля была у власти, попыталась в одностороннем порядке расширить границы через строительство новых поселений и начала изгонять мусульман. Однако для окончательного решения этого вопроса Израилю необходима помощь США. С этой целью Израиль организовал лоббирование своих интересов в государственных структурах Америки и мировых СМИ. Создание «Великого Израиля» осложняется из-за позиции Партии труда, которая считает необходимым пожертвовать территориями и установить постоянные границы. По их мнению, безопасность стоит того.

Израиль не контролирует Америку полностью, но он все же оказывает значительное влияние на ее политику. США же господствуют на Ближнем Востоке. США имеют решающее слово во многих ближневосточных делах, часто Америка и Израиль проводят одинаковую политику, однако это не означает, что США пожертвуют своими интересами ради Израиля. Поддержка Вашингтоном израильского правительства, равно как и поддержка других союзных правительств по всему миру, продиктована не соображениями безопасности или сильной моральной преданностью этой стране. Политика США в любом уголке планеты определяется их стратегическими интересами.

Источник:

Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907
http://www.islamnews.ru/news-24903.html