30 june 2013
|
|
'Germany aids US spying on Europeans'
Press TV has conducted an interview with Darnell Stephen Summers, Vietnam War veteran from Berlin about the head of the European parliament requesting Washington provide clarity about spying of Europeans as revealed by hunted whistleblower Edward Snowden. |
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?
After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.
It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.
One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.
Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.
Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.
In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.
The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.
A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”
The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”
And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”
In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.
Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.
It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.
“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”
See the Proof: Get the Full Interview by Clicking Here Now.
And this is where Wiedemer explains why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros could be dumping U.S. stocks:
“Companies will be spending more money on borrowing costs than business expansion costs. That means lower profit margins, lower dividends, and less hiring. Plus, more layoffs.”
No investors, let alone billionaires, will want to own stocks with falling profit margins and shrinking dividends. So if that’s why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros are dumping stocks, they have decided to cash out early and leave Main Street investors holding the bag.
But Main Street investors don’t have to see their investment and retirement accounts decimated for the second time in five years.
Wiedemer’s video interview also contains a comprehensive blueprint for economic survival that’s really commanding global attention.
Now viewed over 40 million times, it was initially screened for a relatively small, private audience. But the overwhelming amount of feedback from viewers who felt the interview should be widely publicized came with consequences, as various online networks repeatedly shut it down and affiliates refused to house the content.
“People were sitting up and taking notice, and they begged us to make the interview public so they could easily share it,” said Newsmax Financial Publisher Aaron DeHoog.
“Our real concern,” DeHoog added, “is the effect even if only half of Wiedemer’s predictions come true.
“That’s a scary thought for sure. But we want the average American to be prepared, and that is why we will continue to push this video to as many outlets as we can. We want the word to spread.”
Editor’s Note: For a limited time, Newsmax is showing the Wiedemer interview and supplying viewers with copies of the new, updated Aftershock book including the final, unpublished chapter. Go here to view it now.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?
After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.
It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.
One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.
Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.
Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.
In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.
The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.
A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”
The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”
And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”
In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.
Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.
It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.
“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”
See the Proof: Get the Full Interview by Clicking Here Now.
And this is where Wiedemer explains why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros could be dumping U.S. stocks:
“Companies will be spending more money on borrowing costs than business expansion costs. That means lower profit margins, lower dividends, and less hiring. Plus, more layoffs.”
No investors, let alone billionaires, will want to own stocks with falling profit margins and shrinking dividends. So if that’s why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros are dumping stocks, they have decided to cash out early and leave Main Street investors holding the bag.
But Main Street investors don’t have to see their investment and retirement accounts decimated for the second time in five years.
Wiedemer’s video interview also contains a comprehensive blueprint for economic survival that’s really commanding global attention.
Now viewed over 40 million times, it was initially screened for a relatively small, private audience. But the overwhelming amount of feedback from viewers who felt the interview should be widely publicized came with consequences, as various online networks repeatedly shut it down and affiliates refused to house the content.
“People were sitting up and taking notice, and they begged us to make the interview public so they could easily share it,” said Newsmax Financial Publisher Aaron DeHoog.
“Our real concern,” DeHoog added, “is the effect even if only half of Wiedemer’s predictions come true.
“That’s a scary thought for sure. But we want the average American to be prepared, and that is why we will continue to push this video to as many outlets as we can. We want the word to spread.”
Editor’s Note: For a limited time, Newsmax is showing the Wiedemer interview and supplying viewers with copies of the new, updated Aftershock book including the final, unpublished chapter. Go here to view it now.
29 june 2013
The activities of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower who reported a massive illegal government data gathering program, have perhaps inadvertently revealed how America is truly viewed by the world's nations. Snowden initially sought refuge in Honk Kong after a series of interviews with Britain's Guardian newspaper identified him as the NSA whistleblower who recently revealed details of the NSA's Stasi-like surveillance program.
Predictably, the U.S. directed federal prosecutors to file criminal charges against Snowden, which has now become a matter of course in response to whistleblowers. An all-out international effort was launched to secure his immediate return.
Revelations from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed much of what many nations already suspected about U.S. government activities
Additionally, the U.S. government, through its compliant media affiliates, initiated a full-scale assault on Snowden. The government's strategy appears to be to use the media to vilify Snowden while ignoring his startling revelations of criminal activity at the NSA. Rather than explore the wrongdoing exposed by Snowden, the media has instead focused on superfluous matters like his salary, his light educational resume, his pole dancing girlfriend and his reticence to subject himself to America's repressive system of justice.
The U.S. media has devoted significantly more time to Snowden's "pole dancing girlfriend" than to his stunning revelations of massive government spying The most glaring example of the media doing the government's bidding may have been the David Gregory interview of journalist Glenn Greenwald on June 23rd during which Gregory entertained the idea that Greenwald could be federally prosecuted for reporting on Snowden. The following exchange was highly revealing: "To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?" Gregory asked in the Sunday interview.
"I think it's pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themself a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies," Greenwald shot back. "The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence, David -- the idea that I've aided and abetted him in any way."
Greenwald eviscerated media lapdog David Gregory in a widely seen interview "If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal," Greenwald continued. "And it's precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States."
America's vindictive brand of justice, which results in the world's highest incarceration rate both in number and percentage of its people under lock and key, has been cleverly marketed to its masses as the "fairest system in the world." The pacified domestic population receives what little news it cares to ingest from heavily filtered sources and readily accepts this kind of jingoism. Nevertheless, the actions of other nations involved in the Snowden affair strongly suggest that the true nature of America's justice system has been revealed for the entire world to see. While America continues to posture itself as the model of justice for other nations to follow, conviction in U.S. federal courts is a near statistical certainty. America's obscene and patently illegitimate 99% conviction rate in federal courts may be playing no small part in the decision of other nations to offer sanctuary to Snowden, as his conviction is all but predetermined.
Just as the U.S. has sought to vilify Snowden, they have similarly criticized those nations standing firm against America's extradition efforts. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said during a visit to India that it would be "deeply troubling" if Moscow defied the United States over Snowden, and said the whistleblower "places himself above the law, having betrayed his country." Kerry later made a series of semi-hysterical and utterly baseless comments regarding Snowden. "What I see is an individual who threatened this country and put Americans at risk through the acts that he took. People may die as a consequence of what this man did. It is possible the United States will be attacked because terrorists may now know how to protect themselves in some way or another, that they didn't know before. This is a very dangerous act."
Secretary of State John Kerry belied his statist tendencies, despite a reliably liberal veneer Democratic Senator Charles Schumer also had harsh words for the Russians. "What's infuriating here is Putin of Russia aiding and abetting Snowden's escape. The bottom line is very simple. Allies are supposed to treat each other in decent ways, and Putin always seems almost eager to put a finger in the eye of the United States." Schumer continued with a popular administration talking point, the idea that Snowden's whistleblowing has somehow been de-legitimized by his refusal to subject himself to America's notion of what passes for justice.
"Let's look at Snowden here. You know, some might try to say that he's a great human rights crusader. He is not at all like the great human rights crusaders in the past, the Martin Luther Kings or the Gandhis who did civil disobedience because he- first, he flees the country. A Daniel Ellsberg, when he released the Pentagon Papers because he thought it was the right thing to do, stayed in America and faced the consequences." Schumer went on to call Snowden a "coward."
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer assumed a leading position in the government's smear campaign against Snowden What Schumer and others fail to acknowledge is that America is a very different country than it was in Ellsberg's era. Ellsberg did not face mandatory minimums, draconian sentencing guidelines or rules of criminal procedure heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution. His prosecution ended in a mistrial because of gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering. In today's legal environment, these types of violations have become routine and would almost certainly be seen as "harmless error."
Schumer's assertion also calls into question the acts of others who have battled against and ultimately fled from repressive regimes. Would he similarly label as cowards those who escaped from Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia? The idea that Snowden's claims carry less weight because of his failure to avail himself to a certain conviction and likely life or decades long sentence at the hands of Obama's repressive justice system is laughable.
Fleeing repressive regimes, like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, is now a de-legitimizing factor and constitutes cowardice according to U.S. government apologists
Kerry, Schumer and other American officials commenting on Snowden appeared singularly fixated on what they perceive to be the failure of other nations to assist the U.S. "Mr. Snowden's claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen: China, Russia, Ecuador, as we've seen," said Press Secretary Jay Carney. "His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance internet freedom and free speech."
Carney's statement completely misses the point that the world no longer perceives the U.S. to be the bastion of freedom it claims to be. The idea that a U.S. citizen needs to seek sanctuary in China or Russia from American oppression is a shocking reality. Like sociopathic criminals, administration officials see no fault within themselves or the regime they serve and can only respond by lashing out at any nation with the temerity to defy U.S. hegemony.
Press Secretary Jay Carney refuses to acknowledge the causes of America's diminished stature among nations
Russian officials claim there is no authority under which to hold Snowden as there is no extradition treaty between them and the U.S. Part of the irony of the situation is that it was the U.S who refused to enter into an extradition treaty with Russia. The issue was raised by the Russians as recently as 2012, but the U.S. feared that Russian dissidents seeking asylum in the U.S. would be subject to the treaty. Now it is an American dissident who is the seeking, and evidently receiving, protection from the Russian government.
America's wrath has also been leveled against Honk Kong and the Chinese government. Media myrmidons seeking to score points with the administration offered wild and irresponsible speculation about Snowden's "relationship" with the Chinese government. Wholly unfounded suggestions were made that Snowden was working with Chinese security services and was possibly a Chinese spy.
China responded to these accusations through its news agencies. The South China Morning Post says documents and statements by Snowden show the NSA hacked major Chinese telecom companies to access text messages and targeted China's Tsinghua University. The official Xinhua news agency says that the U.S. government owes the world an explanation.
"These, along with previous allegations, are clearly troubling signs," said the Xinhua news agency in a commentary following the South China Morning Post report. "They demonstrate that the United States, which has long been trying to play innocent as a victim of cyber attacks, has turned out to be the biggest villain in our age. It (America) owes too an explanation to China and other countries it has allegedly spied on. It has to share with the world the range, extent and intent of its clandestine hacking programs."
China's reference to the U.S. as the "biggest villain of our age" is most telling. This, perhaps better than any other explanation, reveals exactly why so many nations are lining up to defy America's perversion of justice. While the media harps on about other countries "thumbing their nose" at the U.S., they refuse to acknowledge America's shortcomings as a factor. There is very little offered in the way of meaningful reflection as to why the U.S. has grown so unpopular. Instead, all that is reported is America's steady stream of threats, name calling and pathologically hypocritical calls for justice.
Attorney General Eric Holder has greatly expanded the Bush-era domestic spying programs and significantly eroded protections afforded by the U.S. constitution
Perhaps the most bizarre comment came from President Barak Obama. He and Attorney General Eric Holder have arguably done more to destroy constitutional protections afforded to Americans than any of their predecessors, yet told other nations involved with Snowden to make sure that the "rule of law was observed." The problem for Obama is that the world now recognizes his and Holder's flagrant disregard for the law, thus rendering his demands irrelevant. A nation whose idea of justice is self-serving expediency cannot seriously position itself as an arbiter of what is just. As Obama and others within the federal regime seek an all-knowing, omnipotent state possessing total control, a newfound appreciation may be found for those nations displaying the courage to recognize and act upon the American illegitimacy highlighted by the Snowden affair.
Predictably, the U.S. directed federal prosecutors to file criminal charges against Snowden, which has now become a matter of course in response to whistleblowers. An all-out international effort was launched to secure his immediate return.
Revelations from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed much of what many nations already suspected about U.S. government activities
Additionally, the U.S. government, through its compliant media affiliates, initiated a full-scale assault on Snowden. The government's strategy appears to be to use the media to vilify Snowden while ignoring his startling revelations of criminal activity at the NSA. Rather than explore the wrongdoing exposed by Snowden, the media has instead focused on superfluous matters like his salary, his light educational resume, his pole dancing girlfriend and his reticence to subject himself to America's repressive system of justice.
The U.S. media has devoted significantly more time to Snowden's "pole dancing girlfriend" than to his stunning revelations of massive government spying The most glaring example of the media doing the government's bidding may have been the David Gregory interview of journalist Glenn Greenwald on June 23rd during which Gregory entertained the idea that Greenwald could be federally prosecuted for reporting on Snowden. The following exchange was highly revealing: "To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?" Gregory asked in the Sunday interview.
"I think it's pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themself a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies," Greenwald shot back. "The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence, David -- the idea that I've aided and abetted him in any way."
Greenwald eviscerated media lapdog David Gregory in a widely seen interview "If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal," Greenwald continued. "And it's precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States."
America's vindictive brand of justice, which results in the world's highest incarceration rate both in number and percentage of its people under lock and key, has been cleverly marketed to its masses as the "fairest system in the world." The pacified domestic population receives what little news it cares to ingest from heavily filtered sources and readily accepts this kind of jingoism. Nevertheless, the actions of other nations involved in the Snowden affair strongly suggest that the true nature of America's justice system has been revealed for the entire world to see. While America continues to posture itself as the model of justice for other nations to follow, conviction in U.S. federal courts is a near statistical certainty. America's obscene and patently illegitimate 99% conviction rate in federal courts may be playing no small part in the decision of other nations to offer sanctuary to Snowden, as his conviction is all but predetermined.
Just as the U.S. has sought to vilify Snowden, they have similarly criticized those nations standing firm against America's extradition efforts. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said during a visit to India that it would be "deeply troubling" if Moscow defied the United States over Snowden, and said the whistleblower "places himself above the law, having betrayed his country." Kerry later made a series of semi-hysterical and utterly baseless comments regarding Snowden. "What I see is an individual who threatened this country and put Americans at risk through the acts that he took. People may die as a consequence of what this man did. It is possible the United States will be attacked because terrorists may now know how to protect themselves in some way or another, that they didn't know before. This is a very dangerous act."
Secretary of State John Kerry belied his statist tendencies, despite a reliably liberal veneer Democratic Senator Charles Schumer also had harsh words for the Russians. "What's infuriating here is Putin of Russia aiding and abetting Snowden's escape. The bottom line is very simple. Allies are supposed to treat each other in decent ways, and Putin always seems almost eager to put a finger in the eye of the United States." Schumer continued with a popular administration talking point, the idea that Snowden's whistleblowing has somehow been de-legitimized by his refusal to subject himself to America's notion of what passes for justice.
"Let's look at Snowden here. You know, some might try to say that he's a great human rights crusader. He is not at all like the great human rights crusaders in the past, the Martin Luther Kings or the Gandhis who did civil disobedience because he- first, he flees the country. A Daniel Ellsberg, when he released the Pentagon Papers because he thought it was the right thing to do, stayed in America and faced the consequences." Schumer went on to call Snowden a "coward."
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer assumed a leading position in the government's smear campaign against Snowden What Schumer and others fail to acknowledge is that America is a very different country than it was in Ellsberg's era. Ellsberg did not face mandatory minimums, draconian sentencing guidelines or rules of criminal procedure heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution. His prosecution ended in a mistrial because of gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering. In today's legal environment, these types of violations have become routine and would almost certainly be seen as "harmless error."
Schumer's assertion also calls into question the acts of others who have battled against and ultimately fled from repressive regimes. Would he similarly label as cowards those who escaped from Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia? The idea that Snowden's claims carry less weight because of his failure to avail himself to a certain conviction and likely life or decades long sentence at the hands of Obama's repressive justice system is laughable.
Fleeing repressive regimes, like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, is now a de-legitimizing factor and constitutes cowardice according to U.S. government apologists
Kerry, Schumer and other American officials commenting on Snowden appeared singularly fixated on what they perceive to be the failure of other nations to assist the U.S. "Mr. Snowden's claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen: China, Russia, Ecuador, as we've seen," said Press Secretary Jay Carney. "His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance internet freedom and free speech."
Carney's statement completely misses the point that the world no longer perceives the U.S. to be the bastion of freedom it claims to be. The idea that a U.S. citizen needs to seek sanctuary in China or Russia from American oppression is a shocking reality. Like sociopathic criminals, administration officials see no fault within themselves or the regime they serve and can only respond by lashing out at any nation with the temerity to defy U.S. hegemony.
Press Secretary Jay Carney refuses to acknowledge the causes of America's diminished stature among nations
Russian officials claim there is no authority under which to hold Snowden as there is no extradition treaty between them and the U.S. Part of the irony of the situation is that it was the U.S who refused to enter into an extradition treaty with Russia. The issue was raised by the Russians as recently as 2012, but the U.S. feared that Russian dissidents seeking asylum in the U.S. would be subject to the treaty. Now it is an American dissident who is the seeking, and evidently receiving, protection from the Russian government.
America's wrath has also been leveled against Honk Kong and the Chinese government. Media myrmidons seeking to score points with the administration offered wild and irresponsible speculation about Snowden's "relationship" with the Chinese government. Wholly unfounded suggestions were made that Snowden was working with Chinese security services and was possibly a Chinese spy.
China responded to these accusations through its news agencies. The South China Morning Post says documents and statements by Snowden show the NSA hacked major Chinese telecom companies to access text messages and targeted China's Tsinghua University. The official Xinhua news agency says that the U.S. government owes the world an explanation.
"These, along with previous allegations, are clearly troubling signs," said the Xinhua news agency in a commentary following the South China Morning Post report. "They demonstrate that the United States, which has long been trying to play innocent as a victim of cyber attacks, has turned out to be the biggest villain in our age. It (America) owes too an explanation to China and other countries it has allegedly spied on. It has to share with the world the range, extent and intent of its clandestine hacking programs."
China's reference to the U.S. as the "biggest villain of our age" is most telling. This, perhaps better than any other explanation, reveals exactly why so many nations are lining up to defy America's perversion of justice. While the media harps on about other countries "thumbing their nose" at the U.S., they refuse to acknowledge America's shortcomings as a factor. There is very little offered in the way of meaningful reflection as to why the U.S. has grown so unpopular. Instead, all that is reported is America's steady stream of threats, name calling and pathologically hypocritical calls for justice.
Attorney General Eric Holder has greatly expanded the Bush-era domestic spying programs and significantly eroded protections afforded by the U.S. constitution
Perhaps the most bizarre comment came from President Barak Obama. He and Attorney General Eric Holder have arguably done more to destroy constitutional protections afforded to Americans than any of their predecessors, yet told other nations involved with Snowden to make sure that the "rule of law was observed." The problem for Obama is that the world now recognizes his and Holder's flagrant disregard for the law, thus rendering his demands irrelevant. A nation whose idea of justice is self-serving expediency cannot seriously position itself as an arbiter of what is just. As Obama and others within the federal regime seek an all-knowing, omnipotent state possessing total control, a newfound appreciation may be found for those nations displaying the courage to recognize and act upon the American illegitimacy highlighted by the Snowden affair.
28 june 2013
The Truthseeker: Obama's arrest, Bush's trial (E18)
|
|
"We'll get Bush in the US" the world's top war crimes prosecutor tells The Truthseeker after Dubya's deputies warn him against travel, lawyers file for Obama's arrest tomorrow when he hits South Africa, huge secret wars in America's name being masked from the folks funding them.
Seek truth from facts with Yousha Tayob of the Muslim Lawyers Association, leading war crimes prosecutor Francis Boyle, Senior Staff Attorney Katherine Gallagher of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights which stopped Bush's first trip after his waterboarding admission, Marjorie Cohn, author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, and former NSA intelligence officer Scott Rickard. |
24 may 2013
Renowned American academic, Noam Chomsky, says US President Barack Obama, his predecessor George W. Bush, along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should face trial for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing turmoil in the Arab state.
“Bush and Blair ought to be up there [at the International Criminal Court]. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq. Obama’s got to be there for the terror war,” Chomsky told Russia Today on Thursday.
In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in a blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found in Iraq.
More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization, Project Censored.
Chomsky, a prominent critic of the US foreign policy, said the invasion of Iraq is a “supreme international crime,” adding that the US and its allies were responsible for bomb attacks across the Arab country.
“The US and British invasion of Iraq was a textbook example of aggression, no questions about it. Which means that we were responsible for all the evil that follows like the bombings. Serious conflict arose, [and] it spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict. That is part of the evil that follows,” Chomsky stated.
He went on to slam Washington for its growing use of killer drones in a number of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, describing it as a “massive terror campaign.”
“A drone strike was a terror weapon; we do not talk about it that way. It is; just imagine you are walking down the street and you do not know whether in five minutes there is going to be an explosion across the street from some place up in the sky that you cannot see,” said Chomsky.
“Somebody will be killed, and whoever is around will be killed, maybe you will be injured if you are there. That is a terror weapon. It terrorizes villages, regions, huge areas. In fact it’s the most massive terror campaign going on by a long shot,” he added.
Washington uses killer drones in several countries, claiming that they target “terrorists.” According to witnesses, however, the attacks have mostly led to massive civilian casualties.
“Bush and Blair ought to be up there [at the International Criminal Court]. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq. Obama’s got to be there for the terror war,” Chomsky told Russia Today on Thursday.
In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in a blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found in Iraq.
More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization, Project Censored.
Chomsky, a prominent critic of the US foreign policy, said the invasion of Iraq is a “supreme international crime,” adding that the US and its allies were responsible for bomb attacks across the Arab country.
“The US and British invasion of Iraq was a textbook example of aggression, no questions about it. Which means that we were responsible for all the evil that follows like the bombings. Serious conflict arose, [and] it spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict. That is part of the evil that follows,” Chomsky stated.
He went on to slam Washington for its growing use of killer drones in a number of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, describing it as a “massive terror campaign.”
“A drone strike was a terror weapon; we do not talk about it that way. It is; just imagine you are walking down the street and you do not know whether in five minutes there is going to be an explosion across the street from some place up in the sky that you cannot see,” said Chomsky.
“Somebody will be killed, and whoever is around will be killed, maybe you will be injured if you are there. That is a terror weapon. It terrorizes villages, regions, huge areas. In fact it’s the most massive terror campaign going on by a long shot,” he added.
Washington uses killer drones in several countries, claiming that they target “terrorists.” According to witnesses, however, the attacks have mostly led to massive civilian casualties.
23 may 2013
House Committee passes legislation seeking to further curb Iran's oil exports, limit Tehran's access to overseas foreign currency reserves. Sen. Graham: This is a chance for US to say, we also have Israel's back
A new push to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions by crippling the country's economy gathered momentum in Congress Wednesday with approval of legislation by the House Foreign Affairs Committee that would impose even tougher economic sanctions against Tehran.
And the Senate resolved that the United States should support Israel if it is forced to take military action to defend itself from an Iranian nuclear threat.
The US and other world powers fear Iran's production and stockpiling of uranium enrichment is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its work is for peaceful purposes.
The House bill seeks to further curb Iran's oil exports, limit Tehran's access to overseas foreign currency reserves, and expand the list of blacklisted Iranian companies. Congress has slapped penalties on Iran four times since June 2010.
The committee's Nuclear Iran Prevention Act seeks to close any loopholes in existing sanctions and increase the pressure on Iran's leaders to give up their nuclear program.
Also on Wednesday, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution stating that, if Israel takes military action against Iran in a legitimate act of self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons threat, the United States should provide military, diplomatic and economic support to Israel.
"This is a chance for the United States Senate to say, we also have Israel's back. And from my point of view, you can't separate the threat that the nuclear program in Iran creates from the United States and Israel," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican sponsor of the resolution with Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat. The measure, passed 99-0, also supports the full implementation of US and international sanctions on Iran and urges the president to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions.
A new push to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions by crippling the country's economy gathered momentum in Congress Wednesday with approval of legislation by the House Foreign Affairs Committee that would impose even tougher economic sanctions against Tehran.
And the Senate resolved that the United States should support Israel if it is forced to take military action to defend itself from an Iranian nuclear threat.
The US and other world powers fear Iran's production and stockpiling of uranium enrichment is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its work is for peaceful purposes.
The House bill seeks to further curb Iran's oil exports, limit Tehran's access to overseas foreign currency reserves, and expand the list of blacklisted Iranian companies. Congress has slapped penalties on Iran four times since June 2010.
The committee's Nuclear Iran Prevention Act seeks to close any loopholes in existing sanctions and increase the pressure on Iran's leaders to give up their nuclear program.
Also on Wednesday, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution stating that, if Israel takes military action against Iran in a legitimate act of self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons threat, the United States should provide military, diplomatic and economic support to Israel.
"This is a chance for the United States Senate to say, we also have Israel's back. And from my point of view, you can't separate the threat that the nuclear program in Iran creates from the United States and Israel," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican sponsor of the resolution with Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat. The measure, passed 99-0, also supports the full implementation of US and international sanctions on Iran and urges the president to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions.
19 may 2013
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle by Wikipedia
If there are possible legal grounds for drone assassinations based on the White Paper, then these are post hoc ergo propter hoc confirmations of a fait accompli. In other words, when questionable acts are committed by the President, can you justify them legally after the fact? The Justice Department's White Paper on "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen" definitively belongs to this classification of legal questions.
Committing a legally questionable act cannot be justified when the legal grounds are ex post facto, or after the fact. Ex post facto legal grounds are an admission that all acts committed before the legal grounds were established lacked any legal basis in law and they can't be justified retroactively. Since the White Paper's purpose is to justify killing Americans who meet certain criteria pertaining to Al-Qa'ida, those acts are ultra vires, or committed without legal authority.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that the White Paper is only a summary of existing laws that authorized the acts in question and therefore the acts were committed intra vires, or with legal authority. To establish whether or not the legal arguments in the White Paper grant this authority to the President, those justifications must be scrutinized, as well as any laws, domestic or international, that are relevant to the case but were overlooked in the White Paper.
The White Paper basically constructs specious arguments based on false assumptions to justify using drones to target possible threats to the security of the United States or a group of Americans.
Most significantly, the paper assumes the legitimacy of the Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF) passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The backbone of its case depends on whether the AUMF validly authorizes the President and his advisers to select targets for assassination regardless of their nationality or their location at the time of the assassination.
AUMF states that "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harboured such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Before analyzing whether or not AUMF is consistent with existing domestic or international law, it is important to recognize that the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" is limited to entities that were directly involved in 9/11. The Act is not a blanket mandate to kill terrorists at any time in the future who may be plotting against the United States but played no role in 9/11.
By cleverly defining the war against terrorism as a non-international armed conflict, and by not characterizing such conflict as war, the paper intends to deflect any charges that the targeting for assassination is in violation of international or domestic law.
The White Paper states that "There is little judicial or authoritative precedent that speaks directly to the question of the geographic scope of a non-international armed conflict in which one of the parties is a transnational, non-state actor and where the principal theatre of operations is not within the territory of the nation that is party to the conflict."
Furthermore, the Paper states that, "Moreover, such an operation would be consistent with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it were conducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's government." These claims are pure double-talk.
For example, when the Chief of State of the totalitarian government of Yemen, which is a close ally of the United States, permits the United States to kill suspected terrorists on its territory, that does not override all the international laws prohibiting such an act. Those laws include the UN Charter, Article 51; the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 3; the Covenant on Civil, Political and Cultural Rights, Article 4, paragraph 2; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The White Paper refuses to call the acts authorized by AUMF, and carried out by drones, assassinations or executions, but refers to them as self-defense. One of the motivations for the absurdity of eschewing the employment of these terms is related to an international law expressly prohibiting executions.
The Economic and Social Council, a founding UN Charter body, introduced a principle of international law in 1989, called the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. The principle states that "Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal and summary executions. Exceptional circumstances, including a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may not be invoked as a justification for such executions. Such executions shall not be carried out under any circumstances."
Self-defense is essential to the legitimacy of the use of drones for killing. But it is highly doubtful that drone strikes are in conformity with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."
Interpretations have in fact extended the rigid requirement of an "armed attack" to pre-emptive or anticipatory self-defense, but only if certain criteria are met. Traditionally, the criteria are based on customary international law--and more specifically, in the context of drone attacks, to the Caroline Case. This case establishes that, for self-defense to be justified, there has to exist "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation and furthermore that any action taken must be proportional."
The White Paper invents an absurd rationale for not complying with the Caroline criteria. According to the White Paper, "The threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associate forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat, making the use of force appropriate.
In this context, imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks on Americans." In simple terms, we are assuming that all terrorists are continually plotting against the United States and therefore we have the right to kill them at any time.
Another argument crucial to justifying the targeting of suspected terrorists with drones is that any attempt to capture the suspect(s) in order to grant them the universal right to due process is not possible.
In the White Paper, due process is practically dismissed by claiming that "The targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United states...where a capture operation would be infeasible." In these circumstances, the "realities" of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens "are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to such a citizen before using lethal force."
In any cases where serious attempts are made to capture suspects before a resort to lethal force, wouldn't the U.S. government have an obligation to inform the public? Wouldn't it also be in the government's interest to do so?
In the case of both Anwar Awlaki and his son, Jeremy Scahill has clearly documented that their whereabouts were well known and that the authorities could have been notified in order to attempt an arrest. In the case of Awlaki's son, Scahill points out that he was living with his grandparents, who are respected members of the community and a long distance from his father. He had run away from their home in order to see his father one more time.
Scahill documents many instances in which large numbers of innocent people were killed or maimed by drone attacks. It is obvious from these cases that the legal principle of proportionality is not a consideration in the identification of targets.
The White Paper is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog. It paints a picture of dangerous terrorists all over the world who are continually planning violent attacks against the United States and who, at the same time, can never be captured and granted their civil and/or legal rights.
The conclusion it reaches, therefore, is the one under which our government now operates: that the only way to protect the United States and its citizens from violent attacks from dangerous terrorists is to identify them and kill them immediately.
If there are possible legal grounds for drone assassinations based on the White Paper, then these are post hoc ergo propter hoc confirmations of a fait accompli. In other words, when questionable acts are committed by the President, can you justify them legally after the fact? The Justice Department's White Paper on "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen" definitively belongs to this classification of legal questions.
Committing a legally questionable act cannot be justified when the legal grounds are ex post facto, or after the fact. Ex post facto legal grounds are an admission that all acts committed before the legal grounds were established lacked any legal basis in law and they can't be justified retroactively. Since the White Paper's purpose is to justify killing Americans who meet certain criteria pertaining to Al-Qa'ida, those acts are ultra vires, or committed without legal authority.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that the White Paper is only a summary of existing laws that authorized the acts in question and therefore the acts were committed intra vires, or with legal authority. To establish whether or not the legal arguments in the White Paper grant this authority to the President, those justifications must be scrutinized, as well as any laws, domestic or international, that are relevant to the case but were overlooked in the White Paper.
The White Paper basically constructs specious arguments based on false assumptions to justify using drones to target possible threats to the security of the United States or a group of Americans.
Most significantly, the paper assumes the legitimacy of the Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF) passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The backbone of its case depends on whether the AUMF validly authorizes the President and his advisers to select targets for assassination regardless of their nationality or their location at the time of the assassination.
AUMF states that "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harboured such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Before analyzing whether or not AUMF is consistent with existing domestic or international law, it is important to recognize that the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" is limited to entities that were directly involved in 9/11. The Act is not a blanket mandate to kill terrorists at any time in the future who may be plotting against the United States but played no role in 9/11.
By cleverly defining the war against terrorism as a non-international armed conflict, and by not characterizing such conflict as war, the paper intends to deflect any charges that the targeting for assassination is in violation of international or domestic law.
The White Paper states that "There is little judicial or authoritative precedent that speaks directly to the question of the geographic scope of a non-international armed conflict in which one of the parties is a transnational, non-state actor and where the principal theatre of operations is not within the territory of the nation that is party to the conflict."
Furthermore, the Paper states that, "Moreover, such an operation would be consistent with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it were conducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's government." These claims are pure double-talk.
For example, when the Chief of State of the totalitarian government of Yemen, which is a close ally of the United States, permits the United States to kill suspected terrorists on its territory, that does not override all the international laws prohibiting such an act. Those laws include the UN Charter, Article 51; the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 3; the Covenant on Civil, Political and Cultural Rights, Article 4, paragraph 2; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The White Paper refuses to call the acts authorized by AUMF, and carried out by drones, assassinations or executions, but refers to them as self-defense. One of the motivations for the absurdity of eschewing the employment of these terms is related to an international law expressly prohibiting executions.
The Economic and Social Council, a founding UN Charter body, introduced a principle of international law in 1989, called the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. The principle states that "Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal and summary executions. Exceptional circumstances, including a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may not be invoked as a justification for such executions. Such executions shall not be carried out under any circumstances."
Self-defense is essential to the legitimacy of the use of drones for killing. But it is highly doubtful that drone strikes are in conformity with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."
Interpretations have in fact extended the rigid requirement of an "armed attack" to pre-emptive or anticipatory self-defense, but only if certain criteria are met. Traditionally, the criteria are based on customary international law--and more specifically, in the context of drone attacks, to the Caroline Case. This case establishes that, for self-defense to be justified, there has to exist "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation and furthermore that any action taken must be proportional."
The White Paper invents an absurd rationale for not complying with the Caroline criteria. According to the White Paper, "The threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associate forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat, making the use of force appropriate.
In this context, imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks on Americans." In simple terms, we are assuming that all terrorists are continually plotting against the United States and therefore we have the right to kill them at any time.
Another argument crucial to justifying the targeting of suspected terrorists with drones is that any attempt to capture the suspect(s) in order to grant them the universal right to due process is not possible.
In the White Paper, due process is practically dismissed by claiming that "The targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United states...where a capture operation would be infeasible." In these circumstances, the "realities" of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens "are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to such a citizen before using lethal force."
In any cases where serious attempts are made to capture suspects before a resort to lethal force, wouldn't the U.S. government have an obligation to inform the public? Wouldn't it also be in the government's interest to do so?
In the case of both Anwar Awlaki and his son, Jeremy Scahill has clearly documented that their whereabouts were well known and that the authorities could have been notified in order to attempt an arrest. In the case of Awlaki's son, Scahill points out that he was living with his grandparents, who are respected members of the community and a long distance from his father. He had run away from their home in order to see his father one more time.
Scahill documents many instances in which large numbers of innocent people were killed or maimed by drone attacks. It is obvious from these cases that the legal principle of proportionality is not a consideration in the identification of targets.
The White Paper is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog. It paints a picture of dangerous terrorists all over the world who are continually planning violent attacks against the United States and who, at the same time, can never be captured and granted their civil and/or legal rights.
The conclusion it reaches, therefore, is the one under which our government now operates: that the only way to protect the United States and its citizens from violent attacks from dangerous terrorists is to identify them and kill them immediately.
17 may 2013
CIA chief John Brennan visits Israel to discuss Syria
John Brennan, director of the US spy agency CIA
The director of the US spy agency CIA has visited the occupied Palestinian territories to discuss the situation in Syria with Israeli officials.
An unnamed Israeli official said John Brennan arrived in Tel Aviv on Thursday and went straight into a meeting with Israeli Minister for Military Affairs Moshe Yaalon.
The Tel Aviv regime has not provided any details about the meeting.
Brennan’s visit comes two days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the crisis in Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
During the meeting, Putin warned against any moves that would further destabilize the situation in Syria and said, “In this crucial period it is especially important to avoid any moves that can shake the situation.”
The Russian president made the comments days after the Israeli military launched airstrikes on two research centers near Damascus following heavy losses inflicted upon al-Qaeda-affiliated groups by the Syrian army.
Turmoil has gripped Syria for over two years, and many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security personnel, have been killed in the foreign-sponsored militancy.
Western powers and their regional allies including the Israeli regime, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are partners in supporting the militant groups in Syria.
The director of the US spy agency CIA has visited the occupied Palestinian territories to discuss the situation in Syria with Israeli officials.
An unnamed Israeli official said John Brennan arrived in Tel Aviv on Thursday and went straight into a meeting with Israeli Minister for Military Affairs Moshe Yaalon.
The Tel Aviv regime has not provided any details about the meeting.
Brennan’s visit comes two days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the crisis in Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
During the meeting, Putin warned against any moves that would further destabilize the situation in Syria and said, “In this crucial period it is especially important to avoid any moves that can shake the situation.”
The Russian president made the comments days after the Israeli military launched airstrikes on two research centers near Damascus following heavy losses inflicted upon al-Qaeda-affiliated groups by the Syrian army.
Turmoil has gripped Syria for over two years, and many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security personnel, have been killed in the foreign-sponsored militancy.
Western powers and their regional allies including the Israeli regime, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are partners in supporting the militant groups in Syria.
21 apr 2013
Hagel: US-Israel arms deal sends 'clear signal' to Iran
A major US arms deal with Israel sends a "very clear signal" to Tehran that military action remains an option to stop it from going nuclear, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters Sunday.
Asked if a multi-billion dollar arms package with Israel was designed to convey a message that a military strike remains an option, he said: "I don't think there's any question that's another very clear signal to Iran."
Hagel was speaking just before his plane touched down in Tel Aviv at the start of a six-day tour of the region focused on plans to sell $10 billion worth of advanced missiles and aircraft to Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in a bid to counter the threat posed by Iran.
The deal will see Israel obtaining anti-radiation missiles designed to take out enemy air defenses, radar for fighter jets, aerial refueling tankers and Osprey V-22 tilt-rotor transport aircraft.
It will also see the sale of US F-16 fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates and sophisticated missiles to Saudi Arabia.
Details were unveiled on the eve of Hagel's departure on a trip which will focus heavily on tensions over Iran's nuclear program and the civil war raging in Syria.
American and Israeli leaders have been at odds over Iran, with President Barack Obama's administration arguing that tough sanctions and diplomacy need to be given more time to work.
But Israel, believed to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, has repeatedly warned that time is running out and has refused to rule out a pre-emptive military strike to prevent Iran from obtaining an atomic weapons capability.
Hagel plans to discuss with his counterparts in the region the final details of the arms deal, and US officials have said it would be months or more for the new weapons and aircraft to be delivered.
Asked if a multi-billion dollar arms package with Israel was designed to convey a message that a military strike remains an option, he said: "I don't think there's any question that's another very clear signal to Iran."
Hagel was speaking just before his plane touched down in Tel Aviv at the start of a six-day tour of the region focused on plans to sell $10 billion worth of advanced missiles and aircraft to Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in a bid to counter the threat posed by Iran.
The deal will see Israel obtaining anti-radiation missiles designed to take out enemy air defenses, radar for fighter jets, aerial refueling tankers and Osprey V-22 tilt-rotor transport aircraft.
It will also see the sale of US F-16 fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates and sophisticated missiles to Saudi Arabia.
Details were unveiled on the eve of Hagel's departure on a trip which will focus heavily on tensions over Iran's nuclear program and the civil war raging in Syria.
American and Israeli leaders have been at odds over Iran, with President Barack Obama's administration arguing that tough sanctions and diplomacy need to be given more time to work.
But Israel, believed to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, has repeatedly warned that time is running out and has refused to rule out a pre-emptive military strike to prevent Iran from obtaining an atomic weapons capability.
Hagel plans to discuss with his counterparts in the region the final details of the arms deal, and US officials have said it would be months or more for the new weapons and aircraft to be delivered.
17 apr 2013
US Senate: Will back Israeli attack on Iran
Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate votes in favor of resolution stipulating that US will support Israel in case it was forced to take military action against Iran.
WASHINGTON — Members of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee have adopted "Senate Resolution 65," according to which the US will support Israel in case it is compelled to take military action and actualize its right to self defense in the face of an Iranian threat.
The resolution stipules that Israel will enjoy Washington's diplomatic, economic and military aid.
According to the resolution, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the US's policy is to halt Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Senate Resolution 65 has successfully gained the support of 70 of the 100 senators. In a statement issued by AIPAC it was noted that “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent a very clear and enormously important message of solidarity with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat—which endangers American, Israeli, and international security.”
President Barack Obama sent his holiday wishes to Israel on its 65th Independence Day, stating: "On this date 65 years ago, the Jewish people realized their dream of the ages – to be masters of their fate in their own sovereign state."
"The strong and prosperous Israel we see today proves Herzl's vision – 'if you will it, it is no dream," the US president added.
WASHINGTON — Members of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee have adopted "Senate Resolution 65," according to which the US will support Israel in case it is compelled to take military action and actualize its right to self defense in the face of an Iranian threat.
The resolution stipules that Israel will enjoy Washington's diplomatic, economic and military aid.
According to the resolution, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the US's policy is to halt Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Senate Resolution 65 has successfully gained the support of 70 of the 100 senators. In a statement issued by AIPAC it was noted that “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent a very clear and enormously important message of solidarity with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat—which endangers American, Israeli, and international security.”
President Barack Obama sent his holiday wishes to Israel on its 65th Independence Day, stating: "On this date 65 years ago, the Jewish people realized their dream of the ages – to be masters of their fate in their own sovereign state."
"The strong and prosperous Israel we see today proves Herzl's vision – 'if you will it, it is no dream," the US president added.
16 apr 2013
Consul General: U.S. is Committed to Support Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza
Palthink for Strategic Studies organized with self financing a video conference meeting with Mr. Michael Alan Ratney, the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem. The session was attended by academics, businessmen, civil society representatives, youth activists, community leaders and human right activists.
Mr. Omar Shaban, director of PalThink, welcomed the guest and audience and raised a group of issues such as Obama's last visit to the region, the U.S. position regarding the two-state solution in light of continued Israeli settlement building, the future of the region after the Arab revolutions, and U.S. policy toward the Gaza Strip.
Mr. Ratney expressed his thanks for the invitation and for the opportunity to address Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, who he recognized live under extremely difficult circumstances.
Mr. Ratney emphasized President Obama's visit, adding that his visit indicates how important this region is to American foreign policy.
The U.S. Consul General asserted that the two-state solution is the only acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace and prosperity alongside Israel.
He also emphasized that U.S. policy towards Israeli settlement building has not changed, noting that settlements are a fundamental issue that must be resolved and adding that President Obama's speech directly addressed this issue.
Mr. Ratney also underscored the continuing U.S. commitment to assist Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. "Our commitment to the economic well-being of Gaza is a central part of U.S. policy," Mr. Ratney added.
Right after the Consul's input, the discussion was open and participants raised various questions and concerns regarding the peace process, settlement building in the West Bank, and the US support to Israel.
The Gaza participants stressed the need for pushing the Mideast peace process, and called upon the US to play larger and more neutral role in advancing peace, putting an end to the Israeli occupation, and pressuring the Israeli government to stop its settlement and land acquisition policies in the West Bank, which, according to the participants, represent the larger obstacle to peace.
One participant also referred to the difficulties facing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip when they need to benefit from the US Consular services. As getting the US visa becomes an impossible mission for people seeking travel to the US because of the restrictions imposed by Israeli authorities on Gazan's freedom of movement through Erez crossing to Jerusalem, and the difficulties associated with heading to the US embassy in Cairo through Rafah crossing. The participant called upon the Consul to help Gazans receive much easier consular services as many students, professionals, and visitors lost opportunities to visit the US during the years of the blockade.
At the end of the discussion, the participants expressed their appreciation to the exchange with US consul general , which some of them described the session as a step that contributes in overcoming the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip.
Mr. Omar Shaban, director of PalThink, welcomed the guest and audience and raised a group of issues such as Obama's last visit to the region, the U.S. position regarding the two-state solution in light of continued Israeli settlement building, the future of the region after the Arab revolutions, and U.S. policy toward the Gaza Strip.
Mr. Ratney expressed his thanks for the invitation and for the opportunity to address Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, who he recognized live under extremely difficult circumstances.
Mr. Ratney emphasized President Obama's visit, adding that his visit indicates how important this region is to American foreign policy.
The U.S. Consul General asserted that the two-state solution is the only acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace and prosperity alongside Israel.
He also emphasized that U.S. policy towards Israeli settlement building has not changed, noting that settlements are a fundamental issue that must be resolved and adding that President Obama's speech directly addressed this issue.
Mr. Ratney also underscored the continuing U.S. commitment to assist Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. "Our commitment to the economic well-being of Gaza is a central part of U.S. policy," Mr. Ratney added.
Right after the Consul's input, the discussion was open and participants raised various questions and concerns regarding the peace process, settlement building in the West Bank, and the US support to Israel.
The Gaza participants stressed the need for pushing the Mideast peace process, and called upon the US to play larger and more neutral role in advancing peace, putting an end to the Israeli occupation, and pressuring the Israeli government to stop its settlement and land acquisition policies in the West Bank, which, according to the participants, represent the larger obstacle to peace.
One participant also referred to the difficulties facing Palestinians in the Gaza Strip when they need to benefit from the US Consular services. As getting the US visa becomes an impossible mission for people seeking travel to the US because of the restrictions imposed by Israeli authorities on Gazan's freedom of movement through Erez crossing to Jerusalem, and the difficulties associated with heading to the US embassy in Cairo through Rafah crossing. The participant called upon the Consul to help Gazans receive much easier consular services as many students, professionals, and visitors lost opportunities to visit the US during the years of the blockade.
At the end of the discussion, the participants expressed their appreciation to the exchange with US consul general , which some of them described the session as a step that contributes in overcoming the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip.
8 apr 2013
Delegation of 30 children from Gaza to visit US soon
30 Palestinian children from the Gaza Strip were chosen to visit the US soon to explain the justice of the Palestinian cause, especially the issue of the prisoners. Palestinian ex-detainees, families of prisoners and human rights activists met on Sunday with these children, who were chosen carefully from among 250 others after undergoing a special exam.
These children are committed to participating in a special educational program to teach them about human rights principles and how to defend the Palestinian people's rights before they can fly to the US.
Human rights activist Iyad Naser said there would be two separate flights for these children, where the girls would visit the US first on April 9 and would stay there until 22 of the same month, and the boys would leave on the other day and would stay there for the same period.
The children will convey several messages about the suffering of the Palestinian people, most importantly, Israel's blockade on Gaza and its violations against the prisoners, and will meet with noted US human rights figures.
In another incident, dozens of Palestinian citizens rallied in Rafah area south of Gaza on Sunday morning in solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
The protestors carried banners and chanted slogans urging the World Health Organization to take action to save the lives of patients in Israeli jails.
They also condemned in speeches Israel's human rights violations against the prisoners and its use of handcuffs and shackles to confine the jailed patients to their sickbeds.
These children are committed to participating in a special educational program to teach them about human rights principles and how to defend the Palestinian people's rights before they can fly to the US.
Human rights activist Iyad Naser said there would be two separate flights for these children, where the girls would visit the US first on April 9 and would stay there until 22 of the same month, and the boys would leave on the other day and would stay there for the same period.
The children will convey several messages about the suffering of the Palestinian people, most importantly, Israel's blockade on Gaza and its violations against the prisoners, and will meet with noted US human rights figures.
In another incident, dozens of Palestinian citizens rallied in Rafah area south of Gaza on Sunday morning in solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
The protestors carried banners and chanted slogans urging the World Health Organization to take action to save the lives of patients in Israeli jails.
They also condemned in speeches Israel's human rights violations against the prisoners and its use of handcuffs and shackles to confine the jailed patients to their sickbeds.
31 mar 2013
‘US Army veteran fighting Syrian government worked for CIA’
Eric Harroun and a foreign-backed militant in Syria. (File photo)
The father of a US Army veteran recently arrested by the FBI for joining foreign-backed militants in Syria says his son was serving the CIA and reporting back to the Agency from the country.
Darryl Harroun says his son Eric, who was arrested and charged with conspiracy on Wednesday for fighting with al-Qaeda-linked militants, is extremely patriotic and would not join militants.
Eric Harroun (file photo)
“I know he was doing some work for the CIA over there,” Darryl said. “I know for a fact that he was passing information onto the CIA.”
However, the FBI affidavit mentioned no word of Harroun working for the CIA.
Harroun, 30, was arrested upon arriving at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, after fighting with the notorious al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front in Syria since January.
The detained soldier has confessed to shooting 10 people and using a rocket-propelled grenade while in Syria and being involved in downing a Syrian chopper. He is also charged with plotting to use a weapon of mass destruction outside the US.
Harroun has appeared in a number of videos on the Internet showing him with militants in Syria.
This is while the New York Times said in a report last week that the CIA was cooperating with Turkey and a number of other regional governments to supply arms to militants fighting the government in Syria.
The report comes as the US has repeatedly voiced concern over weapons falling into the hands of al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups.
Al-Nusra was named a terrorist organization by Washington last December, even though it has been fighting with the US-backed so-called Free Syrian Army in its battle against Damascus.
The father of a US Army veteran recently arrested by the FBI for joining foreign-backed militants in Syria says his son was serving the CIA and reporting back to the Agency from the country.
Darryl Harroun says his son Eric, who was arrested and charged with conspiracy on Wednesday for fighting with al-Qaeda-linked militants, is extremely patriotic and would not join militants.
Eric Harroun (file photo)
“I know he was doing some work for the CIA over there,” Darryl said. “I know for a fact that he was passing information onto the CIA.”
However, the FBI affidavit mentioned no word of Harroun working for the CIA.
Harroun, 30, was arrested upon arriving at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, after fighting with the notorious al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front in Syria since January.
The detained soldier has confessed to shooting 10 people and using a rocket-propelled grenade while in Syria and being involved in downing a Syrian chopper. He is also charged with plotting to use a weapon of mass destruction outside the US.
Harroun has appeared in a number of videos on the Internet showing him with militants in Syria.
This is while the New York Times said in a report last week that the CIA was cooperating with Turkey and a number of other regional governments to supply arms to militants fighting the government in Syria.
The report comes as the US has repeatedly voiced concern over weapons falling into the hands of al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups.
Al-Nusra was named a terrorist organization by Washington last December, even though it has been fighting with the US-backed so-called Free Syrian Army in its battle against Damascus.
CIA-Mossad agents assassinate thousands of Iraqi scholars: Report
US Marines in Kuwait ready to enter Iraq on March 20, 2003.
A report reveals that thousands of Iraqi scholars have been assassinated by Israel’s Mossad spy agency in collaboration with CIA agents since the occupation of Iraq.
According to the report published by a British magazine, since 2003 over 5,500 scholars have been killed by CIA-Mossad agents in Iraq.
The report added that Mossad has formed secret terror groups to kill Iraqi scientists, intellectuals, researchers and physicians as well as nuclear and chemical experts.
The report also indicates that Israeli intelligence officials ordered the secret terror groups and sent them to Iraq.
On March 19, 2003, US-led forces invaded Iraq under the pretext of wiping out the stocks of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) belonging to the executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, no such weapons were ever discovered in the country.
Hundreds of thousands of people were killed and Iraq’s infrastructure was destroyed following the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country.
A report reveals that thousands of Iraqi scholars have been assassinated by Israel’s Mossad spy agency in collaboration with CIA agents since the occupation of Iraq.
According to the report published by a British magazine, since 2003 over 5,500 scholars have been killed by CIA-Mossad agents in Iraq.
The report added that Mossad has formed secret terror groups to kill Iraqi scientists, intellectuals, researchers and physicians as well as nuclear and chemical experts.
The report also indicates that Israeli intelligence officials ordered the secret terror groups and sent them to Iraq.
On March 19, 2003, US-led forces invaded Iraq under the pretext of wiping out the stocks of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) belonging to the executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime. However, no such weapons were ever discovered in the country.
Hundreds of thousands of people were killed and Iraq’s infrastructure was destroyed following the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country.
27 mar 2013
Obama, like U.S. presidents before him, demands Palestinian surrender as a precondition for "peace," explains Sherry Wolf.
THE HEAD of the U.S. empire paid a three-day visit to the praetorian guard of the Middle East oil lake that concluded March 22. President Obama's trip to Israel aimed to shore up anxious vassals and reassert U.S. political and military hegemony in a region in the midst of revolutionary turmoil and economic instability.
On both fronts, he appears to have succeeded, for now.
News of President Obama's much-heralded visit has focused on two events: his speech in Jerusalem and the phone call he choreographed between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As is usually the case with acts of diplomacy, Obama's speech and telephone rapprochement were filled with unctuous platitudes to mask the crude reality.
His Jerusalem speech intertwined the Zionist fable of a national liberation movement for Jews that never was with the African American civil rights struggle, using rhetorical flourishes best described as Obamaesque. He said:
As Dr. Martin Luther King said on the day before he was killed--"I may not get there with you. But I want you to know that...we, as a people, will get to the promised land..." And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea--to be a free people in your homeland.
Like every U.S. president since Truman, Obama depicts Israel as an expression of the democratic yearnings of an oppressed people, as opposed to being an imperial manipulation of historical crimes against the Jewish people to justify a colonial-settler state on Palestinian land. Israel is a nation that's come to serve as an outpost for U.S. imperial interests in the region.
No doubt, Obama glimpsed the 25-foot-high, 450-mile-long apartheid wall that has been condemned as illegal in the International Court of Justice. He knows of the growing civil disobedience against Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land and the broadening resistance to the indefinite detention of Palestinians such as Samer Issawi, now on hunger strike more than 245 days.
Even the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is getting greater coverage than ever in the U.S. media, making it almost impossible for Obama to remain unaware of the rising Palestinian civil rights movement that the New York Times' Ben Ehrenreich suggests is a possible "third intifada."
It's quite likely Obama's awareness of all these factors compelled him to reference Palestinian suffering and aspirations in his speech--if only to give a nod toward a crisis he has no intention of resolving. After all, if Obama were intent on actually doing something, then millions of American taxpayer dollars that help finance the expanding illegal Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank would dry up.
Weapons sales and high-tech deals between the U.S. and Israel would be placed on hold. Obama would demand an immediate end to Israel's siege of Gaza, a blockade of goods enforced since 2009. Netanyahu's new hard-right cabinet filled with open racists and opponents of any Palestinian state would have been challenged. Yet none of these actions were even considered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHEN IT comes to Obama in Israel, as at home, it's crucial to follow the money and the weapons, not the words.
Though in all truth, even the words betray a policy of continued full-throated support for Israel. When Obama insists "Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state" as the starting point for negotiations, he is essentially demanding that Palestinians concede ongoing occupation by an ethnocracy and the implicit apartheid regime of laws that comes with it. As with past presidents, Obama calls for Palestinians to embrace their own dispossession as the entry point to "peace talks."
The phone call Obama arranged between Netanyahu and Turkey's Erdogan was an effort to confront the central geostrategic issues hanging over the entire visit. Containing Syria's ongoing revolution and stanching Iran's supposed nuclear weapons development were central to this diplomatic mission.
On the surface, the call was about Netanyahu apologizing to Erdogan for a raid by Israeli commandos on an unarmed Turkish humanitarian flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, that killed nine activists on board the ship in the middle of the night in the Mediterranean Sea in May 2010.
The three-way call established that Israel will pay reparations to the families of the dead and Turkey will cease legal actions against Israel for the cold-blooded murders of the nine.
As the Palestinian member of Israel's Knesset, Hanin Zoabi, who was on the Mavi Marmara, countered: "The issue is not only Marmara; Marmara was the small crime. The big crime was the siege on Gaza."
Whatever words were uttered about easing the years-long blockade of Gaza, little is likely to change on that front so long as Israel controls the flow of goods, resources and people in and out of Gaza. But the real point of the call was for Obama to formally reconcile two of his most important and comparatively stable allies in the region. Containing the two regional powers, Iran and Syria, is far more difficult without unity between Israel and Turkey.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AND OBAMA needs a beefed-up guardian in the Middle East gateway to Asian expansion westward as part of his overarching mission to push back China, too.
It's become clear to both the U.S. and Israeli administrations that their longtime ally in Syria, the dictator Bashar al-Assad, can no longer hang on to power in the face of a popular uprising, which began as a revolutionary upheaval and now appears to have become a civil war that's killed at least 70,000.
Even before Obama landed in Tel Aviv, Israeli and U.S. warmongers were peddling unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria in order to pressure the Obama administration to approve direct U.S. military involvement there. Turkey, Israel and the U.S. had already been working behind the scenes to select a Syrian-born American, information technology executive Ghassan Hitto, to be the first "prime minister of an interim Syrian government" elected by the unrepresentative, Western-backed Syrian National Council.
As for Iran, Israel would prefer a direct hit against Tehran for its supposed development of nuclear weapons, but the U.S. imposition of deadly sanctions on that country will do for now. And diplomacy is quickly jettisoned when the U.S. and Israel collude in illegal targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, as they did in early January 2013.
While some may see hope in Obama's soothing words for Palestinians and other seeking justice in the region, such hopes in Obama are misplaced. The relationship between the U.S. and Israel must remain sacrosanct. They need each other desperately now, as even Muslim Brotherhood allies over the border in Egypt are facing broadening opposition from strikes and protests.
In a dangerous world with shifting alliances, military and economic competition and depression, the U.S. empire needs its loyal Israeli vassal more than ever.
THE HEAD of the U.S. empire paid a three-day visit to the praetorian guard of the Middle East oil lake that concluded March 22. President Obama's trip to Israel aimed to shore up anxious vassals and reassert U.S. political and military hegemony in a region in the midst of revolutionary turmoil and economic instability.
On both fronts, he appears to have succeeded, for now.
News of President Obama's much-heralded visit has focused on two events: his speech in Jerusalem and the phone call he choreographed between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As is usually the case with acts of diplomacy, Obama's speech and telephone rapprochement were filled with unctuous platitudes to mask the crude reality.
His Jerusalem speech intertwined the Zionist fable of a national liberation movement for Jews that never was with the African American civil rights struggle, using rhetorical flourishes best described as Obamaesque. He said:
As Dr. Martin Luther King said on the day before he was killed--"I may not get there with you. But I want you to know that...we, as a people, will get to the promised land..." And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea--to be a free people in your homeland.
Like every U.S. president since Truman, Obama depicts Israel as an expression of the democratic yearnings of an oppressed people, as opposed to being an imperial manipulation of historical crimes against the Jewish people to justify a colonial-settler state on Palestinian land. Israel is a nation that's come to serve as an outpost for U.S. imperial interests in the region.
No doubt, Obama glimpsed the 25-foot-high, 450-mile-long apartheid wall that has been condemned as illegal in the International Court of Justice. He knows of the growing civil disobedience against Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land and the broadening resistance to the indefinite detention of Palestinians such as Samer Issawi, now on hunger strike more than 245 days.
Even the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is getting greater coverage than ever in the U.S. media, making it almost impossible for Obama to remain unaware of the rising Palestinian civil rights movement that the New York Times' Ben Ehrenreich suggests is a possible "third intifada."
It's quite likely Obama's awareness of all these factors compelled him to reference Palestinian suffering and aspirations in his speech--if only to give a nod toward a crisis he has no intention of resolving. After all, if Obama were intent on actually doing something, then millions of American taxpayer dollars that help finance the expanding illegal Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank would dry up.
Weapons sales and high-tech deals between the U.S. and Israel would be placed on hold. Obama would demand an immediate end to Israel's siege of Gaza, a blockade of goods enforced since 2009. Netanyahu's new hard-right cabinet filled with open racists and opponents of any Palestinian state would have been challenged. Yet none of these actions were even considered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHEN IT comes to Obama in Israel, as at home, it's crucial to follow the money and the weapons, not the words.
Though in all truth, even the words betray a policy of continued full-throated support for Israel. When Obama insists "Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state" as the starting point for negotiations, he is essentially demanding that Palestinians concede ongoing occupation by an ethnocracy and the implicit apartheid regime of laws that comes with it. As with past presidents, Obama calls for Palestinians to embrace their own dispossession as the entry point to "peace talks."
The phone call Obama arranged between Netanyahu and Turkey's Erdogan was an effort to confront the central geostrategic issues hanging over the entire visit. Containing Syria's ongoing revolution and stanching Iran's supposed nuclear weapons development were central to this diplomatic mission.
On the surface, the call was about Netanyahu apologizing to Erdogan for a raid by Israeli commandos on an unarmed Turkish humanitarian flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, that killed nine activists on board the ship in the middle of the night in the Mediterranean Sea in May 2010.
The three-way call established that Israel will pay reparations to the families of the dead and Turkey will cease legal actions against Israel for the cold-blooded murders of the nine.
As the Palestinian member of Israel's Knesset, Hanin Zoabi, who was on the Mavi Marmara, countered: "The issue is not only Marmara; Marmara was the small crime. The big crime was the siege on Gaza."
Whatever words were uttered about easing the years-long blockade of Gaza, little is likely to change on that front so long as Israel controls the flow of goods, resources and people in and out of Gaza. But the real point of the call was for Obama to formally reconcile two of his most important and comparatively stable allies in the region. Containing the two regional powers, Iran and Syria, is far more difficult without unity between Israel and Turkey.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AND OBAMA needs a beefed-up guardian in the Middle East gateway to Asian expansion westward as part of his overarching mission to push back China, too.
It's become clear to both the U.S. and Israeli administrations that their longtime ally in Syria, the dictator Bashar al-Assad, can no longer hang on to power in the face of a popular uprising, which began as a revolutionary upheaval and now appears to have become a civil war that's killed at least 70,000.
Even before Obama landed in Tel Aviv, Israeli and U.S. warmongers were peddling unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria in order to pressure the Obama administration to approve direct U.S. military involvement there. Turkey, Israel and the U.S. had already been working behind the scenes to select a Syrian-born American, information technology executive Ghassan Hitto, to be the first "prime minister of an interim Syrian government" elected by the unrepresentative, Western-backed Syrian National Council.
As for Iran, Israel would prefer a direct hit against Tehran for its supposed development of nuclear weapons, but the U.S. imposition of deadly sanctions on that country will do for now. And diplomacy is quickly jettisoned when the U.S. and Israel collude in illegal targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, as they did in early January 2013.
While some may see hope in Obama's soothing words for Palestinians and other seeking justice in the region, such hopes in Obama are misplaced. The relationship between the U.S. and Israel must remain sacrosanct. They need each other desperately now, as even Muslim Brotherhood allies over the border in Egypt are facing broadening opposition from strikes and protests.
In a dangerous world with shifting alliances, military and economic competition and depression, the U.S. empire needs its loyal Israeli vassal more than ever.
24 mar 2013
Martyrs' families: Obama's visit added insult to injury
A number of martyrs' families expressed their anger and dissatisfaction at Obama's visit to the region, saying that it his visit added insult to their already painful injury.
Umm Rafiq Aqnebi, who sacrificed her son and house defending the Palestinian land and dignity, expressed her dissatisfaction towards the PA officials' warm reception of the US president "who contributed to the killing of the Palestinian people through his support of the Israeli entity."
Our children and brothers are killed by American weapons and decision, so does Obama deserve such a warm reception? Um Rafiq asked.
The martyr Abdullah Qawasmi's wife, Um Ayman, said that Obama's visit came to liquidate what remains of the Palestinian cause, stressing that the US continued to support the Israeli occupation since the establishment of the entity.
Um Ayman expressed her surprise at the warm reception the US president received from the PA officials, saying that they forgot about the Palestinian martyrs' blood and sacrifices. Obama's visit aimed to give support to the occupation and settlement, she added.
The mother of the two martyrs Jihad and Tariq Dofash, Um Jihad, considered Obama's visit as part of a conspiracy against the Palestinian martyrs' blood, stressing that the blood of her two sons will not go in vain.
I do not know what the PA officials expect from Obama who confirmed his continued support to the Israeli entity as a strategic ally? She asked, stressing that all of them are part of the plot on the Palestinian people.
Sheikh Abu Iyad, father of martyr Iyad Abu Hadid, confirmed that Obama's visit came in continuation of the old plot on the Palestinian people, saying that some Palestinian officials are part of this plot.
Obama's visit will bring nothing new, to the contrary it will reinforce Israeli occupation and settlement over our land, he explained.
Abu Iyad concluded by saying that the warm reception afforded to Obama is an unforgivable crime carried out by the PA officials who forgot about the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people under American full support.
Umm Rafiq Aqnebi, who sacrificed her son and house defending the Palestinian land and dignity, expressed her dissatisfaction towards the PA officials' warm reception of the US president "who contributed to the killing of the Palestinian people through his support of the Israeli entity."
Our children and brothers are killed by American weapons and decision, so does Obama deserve such a warm reception? Um Rafiq asked.
The martyr Abdullah Qawasmi's wife, Um Ayman, said that Obama's visit came to liquidate what remains of the Palestinian cause, stressing that the US continued to support the Israeli occupation since the establishment of the entity.
Um Ayman expressed her surprise at the warm reception the US president received from the PA officials, saying that they forgot about the Palestinian martyrs' blood and sacrifices. Obama's visit aimed to give support to the occupation and settlement, she added.
The mother of the two martyrs Jihad and Tariq Dofash, Um Jihad, considered Obama's visit as part of a conspiracy against the Palestinian martyrs' blood, stressing that the blood of her two sons will not go in vain.
I do not know what the PA officials expect from Obama who confirmed his continued support to the Israeli entity as a strategic ally? She asked, stressing that all of them are part of the plot on the Palestinian people.
Sheikh Abu Iyad, father of martyr Iyad Abu Hadid, confirmed that Obama's visit came in continuation of the old plot on the Palestinian people, saying that some Palestinian officials are part of this plot.
Obama's visit will bring nothing new, to the contrary it will reinforce Israeli occupation and settlement over our land, he explained.
Abu Iyad concluded by saying that the warm reception afforded to Obama is an unforgivable crime carried out by the PA officials who forgot about the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people under American full support.
23 mar 2013
Report: Obama asked Abbas not to take Israel to ICC
Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper says during Ramallah talks US president urged PA leader to refrain from hauling Israel before court in The Hague for any reason; Abbas threatens to turn to court immediately should Jewish state start building in E1 zone.
US President Barack Obama asked Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to refrain from taking Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for any reason, the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Saturday.
The newspaper quoted a Palestinian official as saying that during their meeting in Ramallah on Thursday Abbas told Obama he would wait two months before talking any measures against Israeli settlement construction, but stressed he would turn to the ICC immediately should the Jewish begin building in the E1 zone between Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumim.
Other officials told Asharq Al-Awsat that during Obama's talks with Jordan's King Abdullah on Friday, US representatives suggested holding a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Amman in early May, with the participation of American and Jordanian mediators. The report said Jordan welcomed the initiative and that US Secretary of State John Kerry would continue to advance it.
Obama, Asharq Al-Awsat reported, told King Abdullah that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in favor of gradually resuming the peace negotiations without discussing Jerusalem or the Palestinian refugees. The Jordanians called for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on a permanent agreement, the report said.
Meanwhile, a senior Palestinian official was quoted by the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat that Abbas told Obama Israel was building 24 new homes a day in the West Bank.
Mohammed Ishtayeh, a member of Fatah's Central Committee, said the Palestinian president asked that Obama call on Israel to declare what its borders are before any negotiations are launched. "The Israeli government must stop settlement construction and stop giving the settlers incentives," Ishtayeh said.
During a joint press conference with Abbas on Thursday, Obama said he was not giving up on the stalled peace process in the Mideast, but argued that continued Israeli settlement building in West Bank is not helping the cause.
"We do not consider continued settlement activity to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace," he said. "So I don't think there's any confusion as to what our position is."
However, the US president suggested that the Palestinians should not make a settlement construction freeze a precondition for resuming peace negotiations with Israel.
"The United States is deeply committed to the creation of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine," Obama said at the press conference. "The Palestinian people deserve an end to occupation and the daily indignities that come with it."
The American leader added that "misery" in the region persists "because Hamas refuses to renounce violence, because Hamas cares more about enforcing its own rigid dogmas than allowing Palestinians to live freely, because too often it focuses on tearing Israel down than building Palestine up."
In his opening remarks, Abbas emphasized that the Palestinian Authority believed a peace deal could still be reached. "We believe that peace is necessary and inevitable. We also believe that it is possible," Abbas said.
US President Barack Obama asked Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to refrain from taking Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for any reason, the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Saturday.
The newspaper quoted a Palestinian official as saying that during their meeting in Ramallah on Thursday Abbas told Obama he would wait two months before talking any measures against Israeli settlement construction, but stressed he would turn to the ICC immediately should the Jewish begin building in the E1 zone between Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumim.
Other officials told Asharq Al-Awsat that during Obama's talks with Jordan's King Abdullah on Friday, US representatives suggested holding a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Amman in early May, with the participation of American and Jordanian mediators. The report said Jordan welcomed the initiative and that US Secretary of State John Kerry would continue to advance it.
Obama, Asharq Al-Awsat reported, told King Abdullah that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in favor of gradually resuming the peace negotiations without discussing Jerusalem or the Palestinian refugees. The Jordanians called for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on a permanent agreement, the report said.
Meanwhile, a senior Palestinian official was quoted by the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat that Abbas told Obama Israel was building 24 new homes a day in the West Bank.
Mohammed Ishtayeh, a member of Fatah's Central Committee, said the Palestinian president asked that Obama call on Israel to declare what its borders are before any negotiations are launched. "The Israeli government must stop settlement construction and stop giving the settlers incentives," Ishtayeh said.
During a joint press conference with Abbas on Thursday, Obama said he was not giving up on the stalled peace process in the Mideast, but argued that continued Israeli settlement building in West Bank is not helping the cause.
"We do not consider continued settlement activity to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace," he said. "So I don't think there's any confusion as to what our position is."
However, the US president suggested that the Palestinians should not make a settlement construction freeze a precondition for resuming peace negotiations with Israel.
"The United States is deeply committed to the creation of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine," Obama said at the press conference. "The Palestinian people deserve an end to occupation and the daily indignities that come with it."
The American leader added that "misery" in the region persists "because Hamas refuses to renounce violence, because Hamas cares more about enforcing its own rigid dogmas than allowing Palestinians to live freely, because too often it focuses on tearing Israel down than building Palestine up."
In his opening remarks, Abbas emphasized that the Palestinian Authority believed a peace deal could still be reached. "We believe that peace is necessary and inevitable. We also believe that it is possible," Abbas said.
