by Andrew Gavin Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
March 12, 2008
This report examines the current war and genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which started in the mid-1990s, placing emphasis on the roles of Western covert operations, corporations and the plundering of resources that has resulted.
War in the Congo
King Leopold’s War for Rubber
C-SPAN March 12, 2008
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
see
Ron Paul on Cavuto: Federal Reserve’s $200 Billion Injection
Don’t Stand For This! (Gravel; Paul) (video)
The Money Masters – How International Bankers Gained Control of America (video)
Paul leaves open door to third-party bid, unlikely to support McCain
Is the Revolution Over or Just Beginning? by Rand Paul
Statement on Gaza Bill By Ron Paul
ABC: Ron Paul To Drop Out + Message from Ron Paul + Paul NOT Dropping Out
.
All of us who went to school thought we were learning, only we did not know that the lesson was obedience, and that the histories we were given were lies, and the exams were behavioural tests, not academic tests.
The devisors of the tests only interest was would we modify our behaviour enough to do them.
They also screened out the resilient amongst us, by making us feel ‘weird’, ‘different’ or ‘disruptive’.
That this was all a consciously crafted process, to mentally subjugate entire nations, to enfeeble young minds so that they are more easliy (mis)led, that they might vote, and enlist when the call came, and die inglorious deaths on a battlefield far away, for the purposes of the wealthy elites comes as no surprise.
Yet when one reads the detailed history of Compulsory State Education, one is shocked by the arrogant cruelty and banal bigotry of those who devised the roots of these systems.
Read it for yourself.
See the truth.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
“The Underground History of (American) Education”
A worthy read.
see
Exterminating Public Schools in America
Nature Works! Logic Bomb #4 (video)
Stop Harm: Logic Bomb #3 (video)
T(ypo)ERRORISM (video) + List of US Bombings since WWII
Coreluminus: We are going to war? (music video; over 18 only)
During the last six years, the U.S. Administration has held nearly 800 alleged terror suspects without trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. 500 of these men have now been released, but their stories – and the stories of those who remain – are largely unknown. Fragments have emerged in books and interviews, and in declassified accounts from the detainees’ lawyers, but until now there has been no comprehensive overview of all their cases.
In The Guantánamo Files, based on a detailed analysis of over 8,000 pages of transcripts released by the Pentagon, Andy Worthington, a London-based historian and journalist, brings to life Guantánamo’s largely anonymous detainees.
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
Update: here’s the transcript.
Stephen Colbert Roasts Bush at Correspondent’s Dinner
Feb 19, 2007 Continue reading
by Cindy Sheehan
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
March 12, 2008
With the unbelievable 5th anniversary of “shock and awe” looming before us like a dark cancer that is out of control, the Buffoon in Chief, George W. Bush, once again tormented the nation with another obscene display of idiocy. This time at the Gridiron Club. Singing to the tune of “Green, Green Grass of Home” he warbles about the major scandals of his administration: Valerie Plame; Katrina; cronyism; Harriet Miers and Brownie; Dick Cheney and the fatal attraction (for our troops and innocent people in the Middle East) that they all have for the Saudi Royal Family, etc.
The worst thing about the performance, besides that anyone would think that almost 8 years of unpunished high crimes and misdemeanors is anywhere near approaching funny, the stellar-in-their-own-minds, Washington “Elite” and some of the press corps were laughing uproariously and gave the traitor wearing a tuxedo and a cowboy hat a standing ovation.
Cameras were banned that night and from what I understand, agreements were made that video would not be shot, but still the song can be heard on YouTube. I get the feeling when these modern day Vampires get together like this, they frequently laugh at the rest of us with their parodies of heartache and devastation and chuckle all the way to the bank when they cash their paychecks drawn on the blood of so many innocent people.
On a par with his other wickedly “hilarious” bit about looking for WMD at the Correspondent’s Dinner in 2004 right before his lies killed my son, Casey, whenever I see George tap-dancing, smirking, snickering, singing, or generally acting very undignified and un-presidential; I just want to scream: “What’s so freaking funny?” I have found many opportunities for laughter and joy over the past four years, but I still lie awake at night mourning my son who wouldn’t be in an early grave if his commander-in-chief was not such an unrepentant murderer.
I am not the only one who has been sent into a lifelong paradigm of grief and longing during the years of BushCo. There are literally millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan whose lives have been torn asunder by Mr. Vaudeville. Thousands of our own citizens in the Gulf States are still displaced from their homes by Katrina and the incompetence of the “Brownie” that George parodies in his song. Many of us have lost our jobs, our homes, our health insurance, our retirement safety net and pine for any semblance of financial security while George just wants to shake the dust of DC off his feet and head back to his pig farm in Crawford and live a life filled with “clearing brush.” I hope he’s been saving his money, because gas has just about tripled since his reign of terror began almost 8 years ago.
The death of the 4000th soldier KIA in Iraq will probably coincide with the fifth anniversary of the invasion this month. 4000 souls who won’t get a “do-over” or be able to slink off into relative peace and quiet like BushCo. Other troops have been turned into occupiers, torturers and puppy-killers and will have to have some deep therapy to be re-integrated into our society and the Washington Press Corps laugh at George’s antics like they are not also responsible for the mayhem he has unleashed on the world.
George and Dick think that they are getting off scott-free from their crimes against humanity probably because they are confident that the reich-wing, reactionary Supreme Court will support their crimes after Congress approves them.
We need to join the world community and communities like Brattleboro. Vt. in relentlessly pressing for war crimes tribunals against George and Dick, et al. For once, American regimes cannot ride contentedly into the sunset after their terms are up to live in comfort while millions of us suffer. It cannot happen this time. BushCo need to be, if not confined behind bars, confined into small prisons of their own making and be terrified to step outside their cloistered existences lest they be swept into real prisons, housed with the real people that they always condemned in their unbridled arrogance.
By my calculations there are 314 more days of the Bush nightmare left; millions of more people to kill or oppress; at least one more country on their list of impending invasions; and countless more crimes against our constitution to commit. Electing a black man with the middle name of Hussein or a woman with Bush-style foreign policy credentials will not be enough to redeem our standing in the world after 8 years of George. They need to go now. It took New York less than 48 hours to get rid of Gov. Eliot Spitzer for crimes far less egregious than BushCo’s. Unless the 110th Congress wants to go down in infamy as fiddling while George burns the world, then they had better get busy.
I was thinking what would be an appropriate gift for BushCo on the fifth anniversary of their greatest crime against humanity and I researched what would be a socially acceptable fifth anniversary gift for them. Wood is the traditional choice, and being a peace activist who is opposed to the death penalty, an electric chair did not even cross my mind (well—it did for just a second.) The modern gift on the fifth anniversary is “silverware.” I would chip in for silver-plated handcuffs that they can stylishly wear to prison.
Anyone else?
Please go to www.CindyforCongress.org to comment on this blog or others.
Campaigns take money and any donation will be appreciated.
***
Bush sings and laughs it up as AMERICANS come home in a BOX!
[replaced video 6.17.10]
President Bush at the Gridiron Club’s Annual Spring Dinner
15141Rik — March 11, 2008 — President Bush singing at the Gridiron Club’s Annual Spring Dinner on March 8, 2008. Many Republicans in the audience raised cigarette lighters after the performance.
Lyrics:
Yes you’re all gonna miss me, The way you used to quiz me, But soon I’ll touch the brown, brown grass of home.I spent my days clearing brush
I clear my head of all the fuss
But the fuss you made over harriet and brownie
Down the lane I look and here comes Scooter
Finally free of the prosecutorChorus
And then I wait and look around me
At the oval walls that surround me
I realize I was only dreaming
For there’s Condi and Dick, my old compadre,
Talking to me about some oil rich Saudi,
But soon I’ll touch the brown brown grass of home.”Chorus
That old White house is behind me,
I am once again carefree,
Don’t have to worry ’bout a crisis in Pyongyang.
Down the lane I look, Dick Cheney is strolling
With documents he’d been withholding,
It’s good to touch the brown brown grass of home.”Recorded on a Canon Elph digital camera
.
By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
The Bailey Mail
March 12, 2008
2008-03-11 According to an article in Time Magazine online, the threat of war with Iran is becoming more real. It is true that the threat of World War III from U.S. President Bush was a level higher than the rhetoric so far, but Vice President Dick Cheney’s threat of “severe consequences” if Iran stays on its present course, and “we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon” is just a repetition of what they were saying well over a year ago, that they will stop at nothing to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and no option can be taken off the table.
The Time article got me thinking on something that I hadn’t before, I agreed that the hard-line fanatical regime shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, but upon further thought, Iran isn’t at the top of my list of dangerous countries.
We (Britain) gave Israel nuclear weapons, and plenty of them, and we (the West) are dead set against Iran getting them, to the point that the U.S. and Israel consider launching the first ever full blown nuclear attack to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, but let’s compare the two countries.
Neither the current, nor the previous Iranian Regime attacked another country, their only military action was in self-defence of Iraq’s attack. Israel has broken international law multiple times, in fact almost constantly under the current regime, whereas the only violation Iran can be accused of (UN resolutions against the nuclear program) is not actually a violation, they should be entitled to nuclear power as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Israel is not a signatory.
So why is Iran not entitled to a civilian nuclear program? I would rather see Iran with nuclear weapons than a nuclear attack launched to stop them from getting weapons — especially with the real possibility that China and Russia are waiting to pounce on an overstretched U.S. For me the chance of China and Russia supporting Iran is far greater than the chance of Iran using nuclear weapons, and potentially far more catastrophic for the human race.
Another reason thrown about by the U.S. administration is Iran’s openly defiant support of “terrorist organisations” talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The U.S. has a long history of supporting some of the most brutal terrorist organisations known to man, under their constantly number one policy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. U.S. support of terror groups and groups opposing the government of the U.S. enemy of the day, have caused thousands of deaths when the brutal terror groups succeed in their U.S. shared aim of overthrowing the government and start murdering hordes of government supporters.
Among the most notable incidences of U.S. terror support is their support of the Contras rebels, which caused a massive scandal when it came to light that the U.S. was selling arms to its so-called enemy Iran and using the money to fund the Contras rebels in their battle against communism in Nicaragua. In that same battle against communism, and under the same President: Ronald Reagan, came the U.S.’ most notable support of terrorist groups. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the next generation of which is now battling U.S. troops in Afghanistan and are called terrorists, but then, because they were aiming their terror at the U.S.’ common enemy; the Soviets, they were hailed as freedom fighters by Reagan, who drowned them in money, hi tech weaponry and had the SAS in for scones and improvised explosive training for the rebels.
U.S. money was also used to build seminaries on the Afghan/Pakistan border, which the U.S. hoped would maintain a constant supply of brainwashed Muslims to bog the Soviets down and eventually beat them. Only problem is their aim worked a little to well, the seminaries are still churning out revved up Jihadi’s but now their heart is set on attacking the U.S. and everyone allied with them; in short the western world.
So, the U.S. is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world, and with the biggest nuclear arsenal, but because Iran supports two groups that are fighting against a U.S. ally, and so are automatically terrorists, then we must launch a nuclear war to stop Iran’s nuclear program on the off-chance they are intending to enrich uranium for weapons purposes.
I learned another interesting fact today, that Iran has one of the most democratic governments in the Islamic world, the people have far more say than those in U.S. allied Saudi Arabia. Lebanon and Iraq have the promise of democracy, but factional rivalries cripple the government’s authority. Iranians have a major say in who runs their country, with the one problem being the vetting of candidates by non-elected clerics.
In closing, if you look at Iran’s record they are not the worst country or government in the world. Even if they do seek nuclear weapons, they know that their using them would result in total obliteration of Iran, I mean wiped off the map, and no chance of any kind of support from Russia and China. For me, the chances of Iran using any nuclear weapon they have are too slim to risk all out nuclear war between the world’s major powers; too slim to risk the end of the human race.
see
The Ant Man Exits: War Crime Accomplice Canned for Insufficient Groveling by Chris Floyd
New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely
‘Fox’ Fallon Fired – And we’re f*cked… By Justin Raimondo
Why Fallon’s Resignation is Frightening (video)
Fears of strike on Iran rise as Admiral Fallon quits by Chris Stephen
6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran by Terry Atlas
Defense Sec Gates Announces Resignation of Admiral Fallon + More on Fallon’s Resignation
Crushing the Ants: The Admiral and the Empire by Chris Floyd
.
by Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
If Admiral William Fallon really was the only man standing between us and a new war with Iran, as Esquire magazine claimed recently — well, he’s gone now.
Top U.S. Commander in Mideast to Retire Early (NYT)
As we noted here the other day, the magazine’s view of Fallon as some kind of secret peacenik was laughable: after all, Fallon, as head of U.S. Central Command, has been directing Bush’s murderous and illegal Terror War actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia for the past year. Multitudes of innocent people have died in the imperial satrapy under his command. And while it’s true that he voiced some disagreement over the timing and tactics of the White House’s bellicose approach to Iran, he also made his true opinion of the possibility of an assault on Iran abundantly clear, telling Esquire: “These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.”
But it seems that a minion’s willingness to commit war crimes to further America’s “full spectrum dominance” of the earth is not enough in eyes of the Dear Leader. There is now an elaborate system of ritual crawling and kowtowing that must be followed to the letter by imperial courtiers. A prime example of this has been the sight of “tough, independent-minded” Attorney General Michael Mukasey constantly twisting himself into circus-freak contortions in order to countenance the Leader’s policies of torture and executive tyranny.
…continued
h/t: Cem Ertür
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
see
Crushing the Ants: The Admiral and the Empire by Chris Floyd
New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely
‘Fox’ Fallon Fired – And we’re f*cked… By Justin Raimondo
Why Fallon’s Resignation is Frightening (video)
Fears of strike on Iran rise as Admiral Fallon quits by Chris Stephen
6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran by Terry Atlas
Defense Sec Gates Announces Resignation of Admiral Fallon + More on Fallon’s Resignation
2008-03-11
Prof. Robert Austin on the moral argument for Kosovo’s declaration of independence
Robert Austin is the Graduate Coordinator for the Center for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto.
Warning
.
This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.
For more: http://linktv.org/originalseries
“Twin Suicide Attacks Rock Lahore, 24 Killed,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
“Saudis Intercept Zawahiri’s Message,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Homes Transformed Into Car Repair Shops,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Muslim Brotherhood Changes Slogan in Egyptian Elections,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Iran Votes,” IRIB2 TV, Iran
“Efforts to Save Annapolis,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Tunnel Under Al Aqsa Mosque,” Al-Alam TV, Iran
“Animals Demonstrate in Gaza,” Dubai TV, UAE
“Palestinians Stuck at the Iraqi-Syrian Border,” Dubai TV, UAE
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
by William H. White
Global Research, March 12, 2008
OpEdNews.com
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803: Casus Belli
Passage of the third United Nations Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran makes a war between the United States and Iran more likely. The Bush administration has been pressing the United Nations Security Council for months to pass a third set of sanctions against Iran, which the council passed as resolution 1803 on March 3, 2008. As part of this effort, the United States delegation has shown uncharacteristic flexibility regarding various provisions of the draft resolution, as Secretary of State Rice and other administration officials have repeatedly called for swift passage of the resolution.
There is reason to suspect the Bush administration’s push for passage is actually focused on a single item: Provision (11), which calls upon member states to inspection of cargo bound to or from Iran. This is based on two fundamental assessments: 1) the Bush administrations has long planned to attack Iran; and, 2) the rationales for these attacks have shifted from nuclear weapons development to direct responsibility for US casualties in Iraq. And now it is likely a new shift in rationale is underway, claiming hostile actions against US vessels and using Provision (11) to create the pretext.
Provision (11) of Resolution 1803 (2008) reads as follows:
Calls upon all States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, to inspect the cargoes to and from Iran, of aircraft and vessels, at their airports and seaports, owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft or vessel is transporting goods prohibited under this resolution or resolution 1737 (2006) or resolution 1747 (2007);
It is likely that the Bush administration will now move swiftly, within the next few weeks, to use this authority to create a casus belli for attacking Iran. While the resolution limits inspections to air craft and vessels owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line as well as only at air and sea ports, these restrictions represent fine print issues to the Bush administration that it can circumvent or ignore, perhaps by claims that interceptions at sea are only in pursuit of refused authorized inspections at some port or intelligence about the cargo only arose after a vessel left port.
Such claims could then be followed by a much publicized “chase” of the vessel bound for Iran, accompanied by demands the vessel return to a neutral port for inspection and claims the US is exhausting every effort avoid a crisis. This would continue until the vessel approaches Iranian territorial waters, where it would then be boarded with the maximum expectation of a confrontation between US and Iranian naval vessels or aircraft. It is assumed the Bush administration would make these public demands as humiliating as possible for Iran in order to reduce the likelihood Iran would comply.
Prelude to War
Recent encounters involving US and Iranian naval vessels show an evolution toward a much more aggressive and manipulative posture in official Washington’s characterization of these events. The widely reported incident between US and Iranian vessels on January 6, 2008 in the Strait of Hormuz was actually the third such recent encounter. The first two encounters occurred in December 2007, during one of which on December 19, 2007 the USS Whidbey Island fired warning shots toward an approaching Iranian vessel, causing the Iranian vessel to alter course. The first two encounters passed unreported at the time and were largely routine for the area of operations. However, the third encounter on January 6, 2008 was not only characterized as a far more grave “incident” by official Washington, accompanied by reports by official US sources of threats made against the US vessels, based on video and voice transmission “evidence” released by the Pentagon. Examination of the voice transmission recordings indicated the actual segment containing the only threat was of doubtful authenticity; and, a later release of an Iranian video of the same incident indicated the Pentagon had mischaracterized its own video.
The import of this evolution, given passage of Security Council Resolution 1803, is clear: While Iran could avoid future incidents by keeping its patrol vessels clear of US vessels so long as both parties operate with good faith in pursuit of innocent passage, United States intercepting and boarding Iranian vessels provides Iran with little opportunity to avoid incidents the US could exploit to justify military action against Iran, should Bush make the decision to attack Iran, using self-defense as justification to bypass or game Congressional approval.
While the actual course of events is unknown and present many alternative possibilities, circumstances suggest one probable sequence of events:
One or more naval incidents in which US warships halt the passage of Iranian flag vessels near Iranian territorial waters, provoking some response from these or other Iranian vessels;
This in turn permits the US government to characterize these events as hostile acts of war against US enforcement of a Security Council resolution, ordering the US military to react to alleged Iranian actions, promptly escalating from in locus to theater-wide attacks on Iranian naval assets at sea;
These are followed, whether there is a significant Iranian response or not, by operations directed at Iranian naval bases;
The relatively small US attacking forces directed toward the naval bases are defended by a far larger force that conducts wide-ranging attacks on Iran’s air defense systems;
This then creates an event platform from which long planned operations against Iranian industrial and nuclear facilities would be undertaken.
Gravest Consequences
Should this or equivalent events occur, the potential for destabilizing US domestic and international consequences of extreme gravity would be substantial, approaching near certainty. This nominally unattractive and reckless gamble for unclear objectives would fit Bush’s pattern of governance, whereby poorly planned and managed military operations are undertaken in pursuit of a mostly secret agenda, justified by a series of ever changing public rationales. Given the risks, it is unlikely war with Iran would be undertaken just for a chance to create conditions in the Middle East that lock in future policy options, as he has in domestic policy with a massive deficit. Instead, given the stakes, Bush would be expected to attack not only his foreign enemies, but at the same time strike at his domestic foes under the cover of the resulting emergency.
The more significant Iran’s response or the more disruptive the economic and political consequences, the more likely it would be combined with or be followed by a formal declaration by Bush of a national emergency, possibly affecting US national elections, resulting in a de facto coup d’état and the most serious destabilization of the United States since the civil war. While these risks would normally result in swift dismissal of such a plan of action, unfortunately such an attack on Iran would be consistent with Bush’s history of striking out at those who impede or criticize him as well as his willingness to take radical actions because of an apparent failure to appreciate the institutional and systemic costs involved.
Backing Away from the Brink
Finally, this is admittedly an extreme assessment. However, given Bush wants to attack Iran and does, these appear to be the likely consequences. To further assess their likelihood, ask the question: If Bush wants to attack Iran, who is to stop him? Not the United States Congress; not the United Nations; not the courts; not pubic opinion, nor the press. The one chance, however slight, of stopping Bush would rest almost entirely with the British government, if Parliament became aware of the plan and renounced it prior to the commencement of hostilities.
While nothing can be done to prevent a completely fabricated incident, clearly Iran would be expected to reduce the threat of attacks upon itself by the following:
While there is some chance of stabilizing the situation early in the sequence of escalating events, this would require the concerted efforts of responsible US, Iranian, and international governing authorities, provided Bush can be persuaded to halt the attacks, the Iranians to limit their response to within their borders, and the rest of the world’s governments and populace to respond with sufficient restraint. But history gives small comfort about such a turn of events involving nations with irresponsible leadership and substantial resources.
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright William H. White, OpEdNews.com, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8308
see
‘Fox’ Fallon Fired – And we’re f*cked… By Justin Raimondo
Why Fallon’s Resignation is Frightening (video)
Fears of strike on Iran rise as Admiral Fallon quits by Chris Stephen
6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran by Terry Atlas
Defense Sec Gates Announces Resignation of Admiral Fallon + More on Fallon’s Resignation
Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg: Bush Likely to Attack Iran, Impeachment a Must By Sari Gelzer
A Pre-election Attack on Iran Remains a Possibility By Leon Hadar
by Jonathan Cook
Global Research, March 12, 2008
If one state is impossible, why is Olmert so afraid of it?
NAZARETH. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s most intractable, much the same can be said of the parallel debate about whether its resolution can best be achieved by a single state embracing the two peoples living there or by a division of the land into two separate states, one for Jews and the other for Palestinans.
The central argument of the two-staters is that the one-state idea is impractical and therefore worthless of consideration. Their rallying cry is that it is at least possible to imagine a consensus emerging behind two states, whereas Israelis will never accept a single state. The one-state crowd are painted as inveterate dreamers and time-wasters.
That is the argument advanced by Israel’s only serious peace group, Gush Shalom. Here is the view of the group‘s indefatiguable leader, Uri Avnery: “After 120 years of conflict, after a fifth generation was born into this conflict on both sides, to move from total war to total peace in a Single Joint State, with a total renunciation of national independence? This is total illusion.”
Given Avnery’s high-profile opposition to a single state, many in the international solidarity groups adopt the same position. They have been joined by an influential American intellectual, the philosopher Michael Neumann, who wrote the no-holds-barred book The Case against Israel. He appears to be waging a campaign to discredit the one-state idea too.
Recently in defence of two states, he wrote: “That Israel would concede a single state is laughable. … There is no chance at all [Israelis] will accept a single state that gives the Palestinians anything remotely like their rights.”
Unlike the one-state solution, according to Neumann and Avnery, the means to realising two states are within our grasp: the removal of the half a million Jewish settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Both believe that, were Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, it would be possible to create two real states. “A two-state solution will, indeed, leave Palestinians with a sovereign state, because that’s what a two-state solution means,” argues Neumann. “It doesn’t mean one state and another non-state, and no Palestinian proponent of a two-state solution will settle for less than sovereignty.”
There is something surprisingly naive about arguing that, just because something is called a two-state solution, it will necessarily result in two sovereign states. What are the mimimum requirements for a state to qualify as sovereign, and who decides?
True, the various two-state solutions proposed by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and George Bush, and supported by most of the international community, would fail according to the two-staters’ chief criterion: these divisions are not premised on the removal of all the settlers.
But an alternative two-state solution requiring Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders might still not concede, for example, a Palestinian army – equipped and trained by Iran? – to guard the borders of the West Bank and Gaza. Would that count? And how likely do the campaigners for two real states think it that Israel and the US would grant that kind of sovereignty to a Palestine state?
Importantly, Neumann and Avnery remind us that those with power are the ones who dictate solutions. In which case we can be sure that, when the time is right, Israel and its sponsor, the United States, will impose their own version of the two-state solution and that it will be far from the genuine article advocated by the two-state camp.
But let us return to the main argument: that the creation of two states is inherently more achievable and practical than the establishment of a single state. Strangely, however, from all the available evidence, this is not how it looks to Israel’s current leaders.
Prime minister Ehud Olmert, for example, has expressed in several speeches the fear that, should the Palestinian population under Israeli rule — both in the occupied territories and inside Israel proper — reach the point where it outnumbers the Jewish population, as demographers expect in the next few years, Israel will be compared to apartheid South Africa. In his words, Israel is facing an imminent and powerful “struggle for one-man-one-vote” along the lines of the anti-apartheid movement.
According to Olmert, without evasive action, political logic is drifting inexorably towards the creation of one state in Israel and Palestine. This was his sentiment as he addressed delegates to the recent Herzliya conference:
“Once we were afraid of the possibility that the reality in Israel would force a bi-national state on us. In 1948, the obstinate policy of all the Arabs, the anti-Israel fanaticism and our strength and the leadership of David Ben-Gurion saved us from such a state. For 60 years, we fought with unparalleled courage in order to avoid living in a reality of bi-nationalism, and in order to ensure that Israel exists as a Jewish and democratic state with a solid Jewish majority. We must act to this end and understand that such a [bi-national] reality is being created, and in a very short while it will be beyond our control.”
Olmert’s energies are therefore consumed with finding an alternative political programme that can be sold to the rest of the world. That is the reason he, and Sharon before him, began talking about a Palestinian state. Strangely, however, neither took up the offer of the ideal two-state solution — the kind Avnery and Neumann want — made in 2002. Then Saudi Arabia and the rest Arab world promised Israel peace in return for its withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. They repeated their offer last year. Israel has steadfastly ignored them.
Instead an alternative version of two states — the bogus two-state solution — has become the default position of Israeli politics. It requires only that Israel and the Palestinians appear to divide the land, while in truth the occupation continues and Jewish sovereignty over all of historic Palestine is not only maintained but rubber-stamped by the international community. In other words, the Gazafication of the West Bank.
When Olmert warns that without two states “Israel is finished”, he is thinking primarily about how to stop the emergence of a single state. So, if the real two-state camp is to be believed, Olmert is a dreamer too, because he fears that a one-state solution is not only achievable but dangerously close at hand. Sharon, it seems, suffered from the same delusion, given that demography was the main impulse for his disengaging from Gaza.
Or maybe both of them understood rather better than Neumann and Avnery what is meant by a Jewish state, and what political conditions are incompatible with it.
In fact, the division of the land demanded by the real two-staters, however equitable, would be the very moment when the struggle for Israel to remain a Jewish state would enter its most critical and difficult phase. Which is precisely why Israel has blocked any meaningful division of the land so far and will continue to do so.
In the unimaginable event that the Israel were to divide the land, a Jewish state would not be able to live with the consequences of such a division for long. Eventually, the maintenance of an ethnic Israeli state would (and will) prove unsustainable: environmentally, demographically and ultimately physically. Division of the land simply “fast-forwards” the self-destructiveness inherent in a Jewish state.
Let us examine just a few of the consequences for the Jewish state of a genuine two-state solution.
First, Israel inside its recognised, shrunken borders would face an immediate and very serious water shortage. That is because, in returning the West Bank to the Palestinians, Israel would lose control of the large mountain acquifers that currently supply most of its water, not only to Israel proper but also to the Jewish settlers living illegally in the occupied territories. Israel would no longer be able to steal the water, but would be expected to negotiate for it on the open market.
Given the politics of water in the Middle East that would be no simple matter. However impoverished the new sovereign Palestinian state was, it would lose all legitimacy in the eyes of its own population were it to sell more than a trickle of water to the Israelis.
We can understand why by examining the current water situation. At the moment Israel drains off almost all of the water provided by the rivers and acquifers inside Israel and in the occupied territories for use by its own population, allowing each Palestinian far less than the minimum amount he or she requires each day, according to the World Health Organisation.
In a stark warning last month, Israel’s Water Authority reported that overdrilling has polluted with sea water most of the supply from the coastal acquifer — that is the main fresh water source inside Israel’s recognised borders.
Were Palestinians to be allowed a proper water ration from their own mountain acquifer, as well as to build a modern economy, there would not be enough left over to satisfy Israel’s first-world thirst. And that is before we consider the extra demand on water resources from all those Palestinians who choose to realise their right to return, not to their homes in Israel, but to the new sovereign Palestinian state.
In addition, for reasons that we will come to, the sovereign Jewish state would have every reason to continue its Judaisation policies, trying to attact as many Jews from the rest of the world as possible, thereby further straining the region’s water resources.
The environmental unsustainability of both states seeking to absorb large populations would inevitably result in a regional water crisis. In addition, should Israeli Jews, sensing water shortages, start to leave in significant numbers, Israel would have an even more pressing reason to locate water, by fair means or foul.
It can be expected that in a short time Israel, with the fourth most powerful army in the world, would seek to manufacture reasons for war against its weaker neighbours, particularly the Palestinians but possibly also Lebanon, in a bid to steal their water.
Water shortages would, of course, be a problem facing a single state too. But, at least in one state there would be mechanisms in place to reduce such tensions, to manage population growth and economic development, and to divide water resources equitably.
Second, with the labour-intensive occupation at an end, much of the Jewish state’s huge citizen army would become surplus to defence requirements. In addition to the massive social and economic disruptions, the dismantling of the country’s military complex would fundamentally change Israel’s role in the region, damage its relationship with the only global superpower and sever its financial ties to Diaspora Jews.
Israel would no longer have the laboratories of the occupied territories for testing its military hardware, its battlefield strategies and its booming surveillance and crowd control industries. If Israel chose to fight the Palestinians, it would have to do so in a proper war, even if one between very unequal sides. Doutbless the Palestinians, like Hizbullah, would quickly find regional sponsors to arm and train their army or militias.
The experience and reputation Israel has acquired — at least among the US military — in running an occupation and devising new and supposedly sophisticated ways to control the “Arab mind” would rapidly be lost, and with it Israel’s usefulness to the US in managing its own long-term occupation of Iraq.
Also, Israel’s vital strategic alliance with the US in dividing the Arab world, over the issue of the occupation and by signing peace treaties with some states and living in a state of permanent war with others, would start to unravel.
With the waning of Israel’s special relationship with Washington and the influence of its lobby groups, as well as the loss of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, the Jewish Diaspora would begin to lose interest in Israel. Its money and power ebbing away, Israel might eventually slip into Middle Eastern anonymity, another Jordan. In such circumstances it would rapidly see a large exodus of privileged Ashkenazi Jews, many of whom hold second passports.
Third, the Jewish state would not be as Jewish as some might think: currently one in five Israelis is not Jewish but Palestinian. Although in order to realise a real two-state vision all the Jewish settlers would probably need to leave the occupied territories and return to Israel, what would be done with the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship?
These Palestinians have been citizens for six decades and live legally on land that has belonged to their families for many generations. They are also growing in number at a rate faster than the Jewish population, the reason they are popularly referred to in Israel as a “demographic timebomb”.
Were these 1.3 million citizens to be removed from Israel by force under a two-state arrangement, it would be a violation of international law by a democratic state on a scale unprecedented in the modern era, and an act of ethnic cleansing even larger than the 1948 war that established Israel. The question would be: why even bother advocating two states if it has to be achieved on such appalling terms?
Assuming instead that the new Jewish state is supposed to maintain, as Israel currently does, the pretence of being democratic, these citizens would be entitled to continue living on their land and exercising their rights. Inside a Jewish state that had offically ended its conflict with the Palestinians, demands would grow from Palestinian citizens for equal rights and an end to their second-class status.
Most importantly, they would insist on two rights that challenge the very basis of a Jewish state. They would expect the right, backed by international law, to be able to marry Palestinians from outside Israel and bring them to live with them. And they would want a Right of Return for their exiled relatives on a similar basis to the Law of Return for Jews.
Israel’s Jewishness would be at stake, even more so than it is today from its Palestinian minority. It can be assumed that Israel’s leaders would react with great ferocity to protect the state’s Jewishness. Eventually Israel’s democratic pretensions would have to be jettisoned and the full-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinian citizens implemented.
Still, do these arguments against the genuine two-state arrangement win the day for the one-state solution? Would Israel’s leaders not put up an equally vicious fight to protect their ethnic privileges by preventing, as they are doing now, the emergence of a single state?
Yes, they would and they will. But that misses my point. As long as Israel is an ethnic state, it will be forced to deepen the occupation and intensify its ethnic cleansing policies to prevent the emergence of genuine Palestinian political influence — for the reasons I cite above and for many others I don’t. In truth, both a one-state and a genuine two-state arrangement are impossible given Israel’s determination to remain a Jewish state.
The obstacle to a solution, then, is not about dividing the land but about Zionism itself, the ideology of ethnic supremacism that is the current orthodoxy in Israel. As long as Israel is a Zionist state, its leaders will allow neither one state nor two real states.
The solution, therefore, reduces to the question of how to defeat Zionism. It just so happens that the best way this can be achieved is by confronting the illusions of the two-state dreamers and explaining why Israel is in permanent bad faith about seeking peace.
In other words, if we stopped distracting ourselves with the Holy Grail of the two-state solution, we might channel our energies into something more useful: discrediting Israel as a Jewish state, and the ideology of Zionism that upholds it. Eventually the respectable façade of Zionism might crumble.
Without Zionism, the obstacle to creating either one or two states will finally be removed. And if that is the case, then why not also campaign for the solution that will best bring justice to both Israelis and Palestinians?
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His new book, “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” is published by Pluto Press. His website is http://www.jkcook.net
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Jonathan Cook, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8309
see
The meaning of Gaza’s ‘shoah’: Israel plots another Palestinian exodus by Jonathan Cook
By Justin Raimondo
ICH
03/12/08 “Antiwar”
“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran,” says the March Esquire, “it’ll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.” The piece describes this top military figure as the last obstacle to the Bush administration’s persistent push for war with Iran: “It’s left to” him and him “alone … to argue that, as he told al-Jazeera last fall: ‘This constant drumbeat of conflict … is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working [for].'”
That was Adm. William “Fox” Fallon speaking, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, last of the Vietnam vets in the high command, and, yes, the very same Adm. Fallon who has just submitted his resignation as head of Central Command. What makes this particularly ominous is that, according to former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Patrick Lang, Fallon told him, upon taking over at Centcom, that war with Iran “isn’t going to happen on my watch.” Lang asked him how he thought he could stop it: “‘I have options, you know,’ Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken.”
Do I really need to draw you a picture to get you to imagine what’s coming next? This is as clear a signal as any that the Bush administration intends to go out with a bang – one that will shake not only the Middle East but this country to its very foundations.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
see
Why Fallon’s Resignation is Frightening (video)
Fears of strike on Iran rise as Admiral Fallon quits by Chris Stephen
6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran by Terry Atlas
Defense Sec Gates Announces Resignation of Admiral Fallon + More on Fallon’s Resignation
Crushing the Ants: The Admiral and the Empire by Chris Floyd
Having sex with prostitutes is always a risky proposition for any public official. But when you’ve pissed off some of the richest and most powerful people in the world, paying for sex may be one of the more stupid things you could do. Jezus, Eliot, what the hell were you thinking?
…
Spitzer had to know that people were gunning for him. Put aside Wall Street, he’d made plenty of enemies prosecuting garden-variety criminals. As head of the state’s organized crime task force, he prosecuted two major prostitution rings. He certainly must have realized that prostitution business often has deep ties to mobsters. So by associating with $5,500-an-hour “executive” call-girls who were in bed with wealthy individuals and possibly connected to organized crime, Spitzer put himself in a position where he could be blackmailed or ruined by the very types of people he had pursued.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
see
Spitzer Resigns, Citing Personal Failings
Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes? + The Spitzer Sex Sting: A Few More Questions
Updated: Mar 14, 2008 added 2 videos.
ATTENTION Mike Gravel and Ron Paul supporters!
Write:Steve Grovegrove@youtube.comgrove@google.com
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
A Complaint Against YouTube
This video is addressed to Steve Grove, YouTube’s news and politics editor.
Sen. Mike Gravel and Rep. Ron Paul have been removed from YouTube’s YouChoose ’08 page, located at: http://www.youtube.com/youchoose .
Why is YouTube deciding for the voters which candidates deserve any recognition, and which ones don’t? This is especially strange, as Dr. Paul is the most subscribed candidate on YouTube, and Senator Gravel is far more popular than John McCain.
Not only are Sen. Gravel and Rep. Paul missing, but so is Independent candidate Ralph Nader. YouTube is becoming part of the problem.
Contact Steve Grove:
http://www.youtube.com/citizentube
citizensteve@youtube.com.
YouTube, You’re Causing Grief. Please Act Decently.
http://representativepress.googlepage…
VIDEOS I refer to:
Don’t Stand For This!
(see above video)A Complaint Against YouTube
(see above video)
YouTube YouChoose Mike Gravel Ron Paul Ralph Nader Corporate Censorship Voter Rights Democracy
see
Ron Paul on Cavuto: Federal Reserve’s $200 Billion Injection
Dandelion Salad 