9 aug 2013
The Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, Gen. Mark A. Welsh
The Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, Gen. Mark A. Welsh has ended his week-long trip to Israel which the White House requested to remain confidential.
Few details have come out of Welsh’s meetings. The news about his secret trip was, however, broken by Walla, an Israeli news agency.
The visit comes ahead of a planned trip to Israel by the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, Martin Dempsey on Monday.
Reports say the main focus of Dempsey’s meetings with Israeli officials will be on Iran, Syria and Egypt.
Over the past months, Israel has conducted several aerial attacks on Syria. The regime in Tel Aviv has also threatened time and again to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities claiming that the country is seeking to make an atomic bomb, an allegation Iran has strongly rejected.
Lyndon LaRouche, an American political activist, recently warned that the continuation of Israel’s attacks on Syria would drag the US into a broader war which will end in a thermonuclear conflict with Russia.
From the beginning of the crisis in Syria, Russia has opposed any foreign military intervention in the conflict and has blocked any Western efforts at the US to adopt harsh measures against the Syrian government.
Reuters reported on Wednesday that Saudi Arabia has offered to buy billions of dollars in arms from Russia to persuade the military giant to stop backing the Syrian government. Moscow has reportedly rebuffed the offer.
The Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, Gen. Mark A. Welsh has ended his week-long trip to Israel which the White House requested to remain confidential.
Few details have come out of Welsh’s meetings. The news about his secret trip was, however, broken by Walla, an Israeli news agency.
The visit comes ahead of a planned trip to Israel by the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, Martin Dempsey on Monday.
Reports say the main focus of Dempsey’s meetings with Israeli officials will be on Iran, Syria and Egypt.
Over the past months, Israel has conducted several aerial attacks on Syria. The regime in Tel Aviv has also threatened time and again to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities claiming that the country is seeking to make an atomic bomb, an allegation Iran has strongly rejected.
Lyndon LaRouche, an American political activist, recently warned that the continuation of Israel’s attacks on Syria would drag the US into a broader war which will end in a thermonuclear conflict with Russia.
From the beginning of the crisis in Syria, Russia has opposed any foreign military intervention in the conflict and has blocked any Western efforts at the US to adopt harsh measures against the Syrian government.
Reuters reported on Wednesday that Saudi Arabia has offered to buy billions of dollars in arms from Russia to persuade the military giant to stop backing the Syrian government. Moscow has reportedly rebuffed the offer.
7 aug 2013
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, this month’s president of the UN Security Council
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, who is presiding over the UN Security Council this month, criticized on Tuesday [August 6] the veto power of the permanent Security Council members and how this power has been used to prevent the adoption of resolutions related to Palestine and Israel’s occupation.
Only the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – China, Russia, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom – wield the veto power that allows them to prevent the adoption of Security Council resolutions.
Fernandez described the veto power as a safeguard during the Cold War era, but was quoted as saying “we can't deal with the problems in this new world with old instruments and old methods."
According to the Global Policy Forum, the United States has been the most frequent user of the veto since 1972, with most vetoes preventing the adoption of resolutions related to Israel and Palestine.
From 2001-2012, the United States used its veto power 11 times, and did so most recently in 2011 when it vetoed a Security Council resolution that condemned Israel’s illegal settlement activity and called on Israel to immediately stop settlement expansion.
The United Nations News Centre reported that that resolution had been supported by the other fourteen members of the Security Council, and that it has also been cosponsored by more than 120 of the United Nations’ member states.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, who is presiding over the UN Security Council this month, criticized on Tuesday [August 6] the veto power of the permanent Security Council members and how this power has been used to prevent the adoption of resolutions related to Palestine and Israel’s occupation.
Only the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – China, Russia, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom – wield the veto power that allows them to prevent the adoption of Security Council resolutions.
Fernandez described the veto power as a safeguard during the Cold War era, but was quoted as saying “we can't deal with the problems in this new world with old instruments and old methods."
According to the Global Policy Forum, the United States has been the most frequent user of the veto since 1972, with most vetoes preventing the adoption of resolutions related to Israel and Palestine.
From 2001-2012, the United States used its veto power 11 times, and did so most recently in 2011 when it vetoed a Security Council resolution that condemned Israel’s illegal settlement activity and called on Israel to immediately stop settlement expansion.
The United Nations News Centre reported that that resolution had been supported by the other fourteen members of the Security Council, and that it has also been cosponsored by more than 120 of the United Nations’ member states.
6 aug 2013
On Sunday the New York Times published a biased article focusing on the 'culture of stone-throwing' in the West Bank’s small farming town of Beit Ommar, just north of Hebron. The author, Jodi Rudoren, traveled to the Beit Ommar to get to the bottom of stone-throwing, which she refers to as ‘a Palestinian hobby’.
Rudoren brushes over the context: Beit Ommar has been occupied by Israeli settlers and military for decades. Generations of Palestinians in Beit Ommar have never known life without the constant violence, humiliation, and dehumanization of the Israeli Occupation Force (IOF). A third of their land is illegally occupied by settlers, who receive incentives from the Israeli government to live there.
Instead of investigating small rocks thrown by youth in relation to the occupation, Rudoren portrays stone-throwing as a deadly hobby of Palestinian youth, which victimizes the innocent Israeli settlers and the helpless IOF officers. Don’t mind that the military officers drive tanks and wield rifles at all times. Rifles, that they shoot at children to counter the rocks they throw. Tanks that they use to transport children as young as 9 years old into prison, in the middle of the night, where they are kept for up to eleven months, which strategically also keeps them out of school. Don’t mind the UN report that the IOF has arrested 7,000 minors between 2002 and 2012 for the terrible crime of throwing rocks. Don’t mind that Defense for Children International, an advocacy group, found that of the Palestinian youths arrested last year, most were blindfolded, beaten and threatened during interrogations until they confessed to throwing stones.
Rudoren meets a local settler near Beit Ommar, who explains the injustice of the situation. “It’s crazy: I’m going to get pizza, and [it’s as if] I’m driving through a war zone.” News flash lady: Occupation is a war tactic and you are on the offence. Later, settlers were ‘forced’ to shoot Palestinians on that very same road. Sounds like the settlers really are getting the short end of the stick.
The article opens with 17 year old Muhammad Abu Hashem being hurled off by the IOF at 4 a.m. on July 8th 2013. She uses the minor, who had been arrested three times previously, as a ‘case study’ for understanding all Palestinian youth. (Rudoren, that’s not the way to conduct anthropological studies.) The author fails to understand stone-throwing as a powerful form of resistance against the occupation, even when 10 year old Abdullah specifically told her he feels good about throwing stones because “they [IOF and settlers] occupy us.” In her own article she writes that locals said “they are provoked by the situation: soldiers stationed at the village entrance, settlers tending trees beyond.” She interpreted these words as follows:
“They throw because there is little else to do in Beit Ommar — no pool or cinema, no music lessons after school, no part-time jobs other than peddling produce along the road. They do it because their brothers and fathers did.” Rudoren got to the bottom of the strange mystery of rock throwing! Palestinian youth throw rocks because they are impoverished, animalistic, violent, and to top it all off, bored!
Rudoren brushes over the context: Beit Ommar has been occupied by Israeli settlers and military for decades. Generations of Palestinians in Beit Ommar have never known life without the constant violence, humiliation, and dehumanization of the Israeli Occupation Force (IOF). A third of their land is illegally occupied by settlers, who receive incentives from the Israeli government to live there.
Instead of investigating small rocks thrown by youth in relation to the occupation, Rudoren portrays stone-throwing as a deadly hobby of Palestinian youth, which victimizes the innocent Israeli settlers and the helpless IOF officers. Don’t mind that the military officers drive tanks and wield rifles at all times. Rifles, that they shoot at children to counter the rocks they throw. Tanks that they use to transport children as young as 9 years old into prison, in the middle of the night, where they are kept for up to eleven months, which strategically also keeps them out of school. Don’t mind the UN report that the IOF has arrested 7,000 minors between 2002 and 2012 for the terrible crime of throwing rocks. Don’t mind that Defense for Children International, an advocacy group, found that of the Palestinian youths arrested last year, most were blindfolded, beaten and threatened during interrogations until they confessed to throwing stones.
Rudoren meets a local settler near Beit Ommar, who explains the injustice of the situation. “It’s crazy: I’m going to get pizza, and [it’s as if] I’m driving through a war zone.” News flash lady: Occupation is a war tactic and you are on the offence. Later, settlers were ‘forced’ to shoot Palestinians on that very same road. Sounds like the settlers really are getting the short end of the stick.
The article opens with 17 year old Muhammad Abu Hashem being hurled off by the IOF at 4 a.m. on July 8th 2013. She uses the minor, who had been arrested three times previously, as a ‘case study’ for understanding all Palestinian youth. (Rudoren, that’s not the way to conduct anthropological studies.) The author fails to understand stone-throwing as a powerful form of resistance against the occupation, even when 10 year old Abdullah specifically told her he feels good about throwing stones because “they [IOF and settlers] occupy us.” In her own article she writes that locals said “they are provoked by the situation: soldiers stationed at the village entrance, settlers tending trees beyond.” She interpreted these words as follows:
“They throw because there is little else to do in Beit Ommar — no pool or cinema, no music lessons after school, no part-time jobs other than peddling produce along the road. They do it because their brothers and fathers did.” Rudoren got to the bottom of the strange mystery of rock throwing! Palestinian youth throw rocks because they are impoverished, animalistic, violent, and to top it all off, bored!
5 aug 2013
US embassy in Tel Aviv
Embassy in Tel Aviv, missions in Haifa, Jerusalem not included in State Department list of 19 diplomatic posts that will remain closed until August 10
WASHINGTON - The US embassy in Tel Aviv and missions in Jerusalem and Haifa will resume normal activity on Monday, the State Department said on Monday.
However, US diplomatic posts in 19 cities in the Muslim world will be closed at least through the end of this week due to an "abundance of caution."
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the decision to keep the embassies and consulates closed is "not an indication of a new threat."
She said the continued closures are "merely an indication of our commitment to exercise caution and take appropriate steps to protect our employees, including local employees, and visitors to our facilities."
Diplomatic facilities will remain closed in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, among other countries, through Saturday, Aug. 10. The State Department announcement Sunday added closures of four African sites, in Madagascar, Burundi, Rwanda and Mauritius.
The US has also decided to reopen some posts on Monday, including those in Kabul and Baghdad.
The Obama administration announced Friday that the posts would be closed over the weekend and the State Department announced a global travel alert, warning that al-Qaeda or its allies might target either US government or private American interests.
The weekend closure of nearly two dozen US diplomatic posts resulted from the gravest terrorist threat seen in years, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss said "the chatter" intercepted by US intelligence agencies led the Obama administration to shutter the embassies and consulates and issue a global travel warning to Americans.
"Chatter means conversation among terrorists about the planning that's going on-- very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11," Chambliss told NBC's "Meet the Press."
"This is the most serious threat that I've seen in the last several years," he said.
Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, told ABC's "This Week" that the threat intercepted from "high-level people in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" was about a "major attack."
Yemen is home to al-Qaeda's most dangerous affiliate, blamed for several notable terrorist plots on the United States. They include the foiled Christmas Day 2009 effort to bomb an airliner over Detroit and the explosives-laden parcels intercepted the following year aboard cargo flights.
Rep. Peter King, who leads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence, said the threat included dates but not locations of possible attacks.
"The threat was specific as to how enormous it was going to be and also that certain dates were given," King said on ABC.
In addition, Interpol, the French-based international policy agency, has issued a global security alert in connection with suspected al-Qaeda involvement in several recent prison escapes including those in Iraq, Libya and Pakistan.
The statement said al-Qaeda or its allies might target either US government or private American interests.
Embassy in Tel Aviv, missions in Haifa, Jerusalem not included in State Department list of 19 diplomatic posts that will remain closed until August 10
WASHINGTON - The US embassy in Tel Aviv and missions in Jerusalem and Haifa will resume normal activity on Monday, the State Department said on Monday.
However, US diplomatic posts in 19 cities in the Muslim world will be closed at least through the end of this week due to an "abundance of caution."
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the decision to keep the embassies and consulates closed is "not an indication of a new threat."
She said the continued closures are "merely an indication of our commitment to exercise caution and take appropriate steps to protect our employees, including local employees, and visitors to our facilities."
Diplomatic facilities will remain closed in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, among other countries, through Saturday, Aug. 10. The State Department announcement Sunday added closures of four African sites, in Madagascar, Burundi, Rwanda and Mauritius.
The US has also decided to reopen some posts on Monday, including those in Kabul and Baghdad.
The Obama administration announced Friday that the posts would be closed over the weekend and the State Department announced a global travel alert, warning that al-Qaeda or its allies might target either US government or private American interests.
The weekend closure of nearly two dozen US diplomatic posts resulted from the gravest terrorist threat seen in years, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss said "the chatter" intercepted by US intelligence agencies led the Obama administration to shutter the embassies and consulates and issue a global travel warning to Americans.
"Chatter means conversation among terrorists about the planning that's going on-- very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11," Chambliss told NBC's "Meet the Press."
"This is the most serious threat that I've seen in the last several years," he said.
Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, told ABC's "This Week" that the threat intercepted from "high-level people in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" was about a "major attack."
Yemen is home to al-Qaeda's most dangerous affiliate, blamed for several notable terrorist plots on the United States. They include the foiled Christmas Day 2009 effort to bomb an airliner over Detroit and the explosives-laden parcels intercepted the following year aboard cargo flights.
Rep. Peter King, who leads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence, said the threat included dates but not locations of possible attacks.
"The threat was specific as to how enormous it was going to be and also that certain dates were given," King said on ABC.
In addition, Interpol, the French-based international policy agency, has issued a global security alert in connection with suspected al-Qaeda involvement in several recent prison escapes including those in Iraq, Libya and Pakistan.
The statement said al-Qaeda or its allies might target either US government or private American interests.
4 aug 2013
The Debate - Who is the real threat?
|
How is terrorism defined? This could be the question to ask as the US closes 20 of its diplomatic mission due to alleged terrorist threats.
The native people in some of these countries, such as Pakistan and Yemen may have a different view as to who the main terrorist is. This, as US drones fly at will in their skies and fire upon anyone it deems a terrorist, whether they are civilians or not. This edition of The Debate will examine who the real threat is in the world today. |
Chairman of joint chiefs of staff aims to ease Israel-Iran tensions after PM Netanyahu's combative statements
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, will arrive in Israel on Sunday as the guest of IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz , Yedioth Ahronoth reported. He will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. The parties will discuss the tightening of military cooperation in respect to the Syrian civil war including the issue of US reports attributing strikes in Syria to Israel's Air Force.
Dempsey will also address the issue of a possible Israeli strike in Iran in wake of recent statements on the subject made by Netanyahu in an interview with CBS. "Iran is inching "closer and closer to the bomb," Netanyahu said. "I won't wait until it's too late."
"We'll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does," Netanyahu said referring to the difference in urgency for Washington and Jerusalem.
Addressing the cabinet last month, the prime minister said that "A month has passed since elections were held in Iran, and Iran continues to race toward the development of military nuclear capability."
Iran's Foreign Ministry called Israel a war monger in response.
Washington is worried about a possible Israel strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and tensions between the two nations are starting to build up.
Discussing the rationale behind releasing Palestinian prisoners as part of renewed negotiations with the Palestinians last week, Ya'alon alluded to the broader regional context. "There were many strategic considerations which might be revealed in the future," he said.
Dempsey made a previous trip to Israel last year amid calls to strike Iran. The Americans believe that decision makers in Israel are feeling over-confident after reported successful strikes in Syria.
It is also believed that Israeli officials are convinced that Iran's retaliation capabilities have diminished in light of Syria and Hezbollah weakened positions in the civil war.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, will arrive in Israel on Sunday as the guest of IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz , Yedioth Ahronoth reported. He will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. The parties will discuss the tightening of military cooperation in respect to the Syrian civil war including the issue of US reports attributing strikes in Syria to Israel's Air Force.
Dempsey will also address the issue of a possible Israeli strike in Iran in wake of recent statements on the subject made by Netanyahu in an interview with CBS. "Iran is inching "closer and closer to the bomb," Netanyahu said. "I won't wait until it's too late."
"We'll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does," Netanyahu said referring to the difference in urgency for Washington and Jerusalem.
Addressing the cabinet last month, the prime minister said that "A month has passed since elections were held in Iran, and Iran continues to race toward the development of military nuclear capability."
Iran's Foreign Ministry called Israel a war monger in response.
Washington is worried about a possible Israel strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and tensions between the two nations are starting to build up.
Discussing the rationale behind releasing Palestinian prisoners as part of renewed negotiations with the Palestinians last week, Ya'alon alluded to the broader regional context. "There were many strategic considerations which might be revealed in the future," he said.
Dempsey made a previous trip to Israel last year amid calls to strike Iran. The Americans believe that decision makers in Israel are feeling over-confident after reported successful strikes in Syria.
It is also believed that Israeli officials are convinced that Iran's retaliation capabilities have diminished in light of Syria and Hezbollah weakened positions in the civil war.
3 aug 2013
US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to try to distance himself from comments he made that were seen as endorsing the Egyptian military's overthrow of a civilian ruler.
Washington has struggled to articulate a coherent position on the situation in Egypt, where the army stepped in to depose president Mohammed Morsi following large-scale street protests.
On Thursday, during a visit to Pakistan, Kerry further muddied the waters by telling a television interviewer that Egyptian forces had acted to "restore democracy" in ousting the elected leader.
This infuriated Morsi's supporters in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, and undermined previous US attempts to appear neutral in the dispute while urging both signs not to resort to violence.
On Friday -- against a backdrop of new anti-American rallies in Cairo -- his tone was more measured but his message far from clear. Meeting reporters in London, he said: "Egypt needs to get back to a new normal."
After talks with Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, Kerry said Egypt "needs to begin to restore stability to be able to attract business and good people to work. And that's a high priority."
Kerry added: "And we will work very, very hard, together and with others, in order to bring parties together to find a peaceful resolution that grows the democracy and respects the rights of everybody."
His Emirati counterpart said the international community did not want to see "anybody stopping Egypt from (going) the way it should go, and that's only going to happen by all parties being in an inclusive dialogue."
Police fired tear gas in a Cairo suburb on Friday to disperse protesters demanding Morsi's reinstatement, a security official and an AFP reporter said.
The protesters responded by saying they would march on the Egyptian army headquarters.
The United Arab Emirates has been a strong supporter of Egypt's new military-installed regime. Along with ally Saudi Arabia, it has earmarked $8 billion in aid to the new regime.
The United States also provides aid to the Egyptian military, which with $1.3 billion in the year is second only to the Israeli military in Washington's affections.
In theory, however, US law forbids the administration from subsidizing any military that carries out a coup against a civilian power.
In order to get round this, and to maintain leverage over an army that is now the key player in the Egyptian drama, the White House and State Department have tied themselves in knots to avoid calling the takeover a coup.
But with Egyptian forces now implicated in two mass shootings of Morsi supporters and putsch leader General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi assuming an increasingly prominent role as a national figurehead, this stance is starting to look a little shaky.
The United States was a strong supporter of former Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak for three decades until he was overthrown by a street revolt -- with belated military backing -- two years ago.
Pressure groups like Human Rights First denounced Kerry's statement, seeing in it a continuation of America's historic role in shoring up authoritarian Middle East regimes.
"It is shocking that, in the aftermath of serious violence in Egypt in which scores of supporters of elected, deposed president Mohamed Morsi were killed after having been fired on by Egyptian security forces, Secretary Kerry would use the term 'restoring democracy' to characterize events in Egypt," said Human Rights First's Neil Hicks.
Kerry's obscene lie
By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine
In a strange and alarming statement attributed to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry this week, the high-ranking American official was quoted as saying that the ousting by the Egyptian army of the democratically-elected President Muhammed Mursi last month was aimed at restoring democracy.
"And the military did not take over, to the best of our judgment -- so far. To run the country, there's a civilian government. In effect, they were restoring democracy."
Predictably, the statement drew angry reactions from many quarters. Jihad Haddad, a spokesman for the Muslim Brothers, denounced Kerry's "obscene lie," accusing the American administration of "complicity in the military coup."
Haddad said Kerry didn't know what he was saying.
"Would Secretary Kerry accept Defense Secretary [Chuck] Hagel to step in and remove [US President Barack] Obama if large protests took place in America?
"Would the US army freeze the constitution and dismantle Congress and [the] Senate? Could they install a president that they solely choose in lieu of the legitimate president?"
El-Haddad called Kerry's comments "alarming,” and accused the US administration of treating the coup with excessive obsequiousness.
"The American people should stand against an administration that is corrupting their values in supporting tyranny and dictatorship," he added.
Disregarding truth
The claim that the ousting of an elected president doesn't constitute a military coup is per se an obscene disregard of truth. As to the claim that the coup was effectively restoring democracy to the largest Arab country, it really amounts to committing an act of lewdness with truth.
Besides arresting the democratically-elected President, the first thing the coup makers did was to silence freedom of speech, close down non-conformist TV and media outlets, seal press offices, round up political leaders and dumping them behind bars, without charge or trial.
So, does this sound like trying to restore democracy?
I don't understand how on earth can democracy be restored by crushing it under the treads of tanks?
In truth, the fact that the American Secretary of State did make this incredible statement makes many people raise questions about Kerry's moral judgment if not mental sanity.
Kerry ought to know that the senseless and deliberate murder of hundreds of innocent and peaceful Egyptians is an absolute indictment of the military coup authorities, irrespective of the lies and mendacious black propaganda that keep coming out of Egypt.
Nonetheless, I believe that Kerry is neither intoxicated nor insane or suffering mental senility. He is simply being faithful to the consistently malicious immoral American policy in the Muslim world.
It is a policy that embraces and encourages tyranny and dictatorship at the expense of liberty and true democracy.
Washington knows quite well that any government in the Muslim world that is truly answerable to its masses wouldn't easily budge to American dictates, wouldn't be at America's beck and call, and would be ultimately "harmful" to American interests in our part of the world.
Washington knows that military dictatorships are the best and most effective means of keeping a lid on the masses. In short, a military dictator such as Sisi is a thousand time better and more expedient for Washington's unethical interests than would be a democratically elected leader, e.g. Muhammed Mursi who must be answerable to his people first and foremost, irrespective of Washington's desires.
In every high school in the United States, students learn Patrick Henry's famous quote "give me freedom or give death."
It is really sad that that the Secretary of State of the country that prides itself on having the “Bill of Rights" and the "First Amendment" is openly standing on the side of those who shoot and kill liberty and liberty seekers."
Not only that, he even calls the usurpation of people's will and confiscation of civil liberties acts aimed at restoring democracy!
What an ingenious statesman!
Washington has struggled to articulate a coherent position on the situation in Egypt, where the army stepped in to depose president Mohammed Morsi following large-scale street protests.
On Thursday, during a visit to Pakistan, Kerry further muddied the waters by telling a television interviewer that Egyptian forces had acted to "restore democracy" in ousting the elected leader.
This infuriated Morsi's supporters in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, and undermined previous US attempts to appear neutral in the dispute while urging both signs not to resort to violence.
On Friday -- against a backdrop of new anti-American rallies in Cairo -- his tone was more measured but his message far from clear. Meeting reporters in London, he said: "Egypt needs to get back to a new normal."
After talks with Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, Kerry said Egypt "needs to begin to restore stability to be able to attract business and good people to work. And that's a high priority."
Kerry added: "And we will work very, very hard, together and with others, in order to bring parties together to find a peaceful resolution that grows the democracy and respects the rights of everybody."
His Emirati counterpart said the international community did not want to see "anybody stopping Egypt from (going) the way it should go, and that's only going to happen by all parties being in an inclusive dialogue."
Police fired tear gas in a Cairo suburb on Friday to disperse protesters demanding Morsi's reinstatement, a security official and an AFP reporter said.
The protesters responded by saying they would march on the Egyptian army headquarters.
The United Arab Emirates has been a strong supporter of Egypt's new military-installed regime. Along with ally Saudi Arabia, it has earmarked $8 billion in aid to the new regime.
The United States also provides aid to the Egyptian military, which with $1.3 billion in the year is second only to the Israeli military in Washington's affections.
In theory, however, US law forbids the administration from subsidizing any military that carries out a coup against a civilian power.
In order to get round this, and to maintain leverage over an army that is now the key player in the Egyptian drama, the White House and State Department have tied themselves in knots to avoid calling the takeover a coup.
But with Egyptian forces now implicated in two mass shootings of Morsi supporters and putsch leader General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi assuming an increasingly prominent role as a national figurehead, this stance is starting to look a little shaky.
The United States was a strong supporter of former Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak for three decades until he was overthrown by a street revolt -- with belated military backing -- two years ago.
Pressure groups like Human Rights First denounced Kerry's statement, seeing in it a continuation of America's historic role in shoring up authoritarian Middle East regimes.
"It is shocking that, in the aftermath of serious violence in Egypt in which scores of supporters of elected, deposed president Mohamed Morsi were killed after having been fired on by Egyptian security forces, Secretary Kerry would use the term 'restoring democracy' to characterize events in Egypt," said Human Rights First's Neil Hicks.
Kerry's obscene lie
By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine
In a strange and alarming statement attributed to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry this week, the high-ranking American official was quoted as saying that the ousting by the Egyptian army of the democratically-elected President Muhammed Mursi last month was aimed at restoring democracy.
"And the military did not take over, to the best of our judgment -- so far. To run the country, there's a civilian government. In effect, they were restoring democracy."
Predictably, the statement drew angry reactions from many quarters. Jihad Haddad, a spokesman for the Muslim Brothers, denounced Kerry's "obscene lie," accusing the American administration of "complicity in the military coup."
Haddad said Kerry didn't know what he was saying.
"Would Secretary Kerry accept Defense Secretary [Chuck] Hagel to step in and remove [US President Barack] Obama if large protests took place in America?
"Would the US army freeze the constitution and dismantle Congress and [the] Senate? Could they install a president that they solely choose in lieu of the legitimate president?"
El-Haddad called Kerry's comments "alarming,” and accused the US administration of treating the coup with excessive obsequiousness.
"The American people should stand against an administration that is corrupting their values in supporting tyranny and dictatorship," he added.
Disregarding truth
The claim that the ousting of an elected president doesn't constitute a military coup is per se an obscene disregard of truth. As to the claim that the coup was effectively restoring democracy to the largest Arab country, it really amounts to committing an act of lewdness with truth.
Besides arresting the democratically-elected President, the first thing the coup makers did was to silence freedom of speech, close down non-conformist TV and media outlets, seal press offices, round up political leaders and dumping them behind bars, without charge or trial.
So, does this sound like trying to restore democracy?
I don't understand how on earth can democracy be restored by crushing it under the treads of tanks?
In truth, the fact that the American Secretary of State did make this incredible statement makes many people raise questions about Kerry's moral judgment if not mental sanity.
Kerry ought to know that the senseless and deliberate murder of hundreds of innocent and peaceful Egyptians is an absolute indictment of the military coup authorities, irrespective of the lies and mendacious black propaganda that keep coming out of Egypt.
Nonetheless, I believe that Kerry is neither intoxicated nor insane or suffering mental senility. He is simply being faithful to the consistently malicious immoral American policy in the Muslim world.
It is a policy that embraces and encourages tyranny and dictatorship at the expense of liberty and true democracy.
Washington knows quite well that any government in the Muslim world that is truly answerable to its masses wouldn't easily budge to American dictates, wouldn't be at America's beck and call, and would be ultimately "harmful" to American interests in our part of the world.
Washington knows that military dictatorships are the best and most effective means of keeping a lid on the masses. In short, a military dictator such as Sisi is a thousand time better and more expedient for Washington's unethical interests than would be a democratically elected leader, e.g. Muhammed Mursi who must be answerable to his people first and foremost, irrespective of Washington's desires.
In every high school in the United States, students learn Patrick Henry's famous quote "give me freedom or give death."
It is really sad that that the Secretary of State of the country that prides itself on having the “Bill of Rights" and the "First Amendment" is openly standing on the side of those who shoot and kill liberty and liberty seekers."
Not only that, he even calls the usurpation of people's will and confiscation of civil liberties acts aimed at restoring democracy!
What an ingenious statesman!
2 aug 2013
Kerry Says Ensuring “Jewish Homeland” One Of His Goals
Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, received on Thursday evening [August 1, 2013] a phone call from U.S. President, Barack Obama, and discussed the ongoing efforts to ensure smooth resumption of direct peace talks between Tel Aviv and Ramallah.
Palestinian Presidency Spokesperson, Nabil Abu Rodeina, stated that Obama told Abbas he is committed to fully supporting the negotiations, and stressed on the importance to move the process forwards in order to achieve a comprehensive deal.
Abu Rodeina added that Obama reaffirmed the U.S. support to the two-state solution and the importance of achieving a pace agreement in the agreed upon time-frame of six to nine months.
On his part, President Abbas thanked Obama and Secretary of State, John Kerry, for their efforts to ensure a final status Middle East peace agreement.
Israeli sources have reported that Obama also phoned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “commending” him on what was described as the “courage” to resume final status talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Obama told Netanyahu that the United States fully supports all efforts meant at achieving a comprehensive peace agreement.
It is worth mentioning that Palestinian and Israeli negotiators held on Monday their first direct session of peace talks in three years.
The resumption of talks comes amidst unclear agenda loaded with various negative aspects including Israel’s insistence to what it calls its right to build and expand settlements, mainly in major settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank and in occupied East Jerusalem.
On Thursday, the Israeli Knesset passed a bill in the first reading requiring a public referendum on any peace agreement that would require Israel to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories labeling the issue as a referendum on “giving up” what was dubbed as “sovereign territory”.
The Times Of Israel has reported that the approved bill includes all areas in the entire country, such as the occupied Golan Heights, occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank.
In 2010, the Knesset passed a law requiring two-thirds vote or a public referendum on any agreement that requires a withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories.
The new bill comes to enforce the first bill.
The Times Of Israel has reported that the new bill is meant to turn the referendum into a semi-constitutional law in order to prevent the Supreme Court in the country from voiding it as the court can void regular laws.
The bill still needs to survive a review by the House Committee of the Knesset, and also needs to pass two more Knesset readings likely during the winter session. If it passes all readings, it will then be signed into law.
Israel Ynet News has reported that Kerry received phone called from various congressional representatives, mainly pro-Israel lobbyists, asking for assurances of “safeguarding Israel and its interests.”
It added that a congressman, who describes himself as a friend of Israel, spoke to Kerry asking him about the possibility of having the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”, and Kerry responded by telling him the issue is one of his goals, and said “Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people”.
Kerry reportedly said that Israel will get to keep %85 of its settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.
The resumption of the talks and the various reports on a final status agreement in a relatively short time-frame come amidst Israelis rejection to recognize the legitimate internationally guaranteed Palestinian rights such as the Right of Return of the refugees.
Tel Aviv never officially recognized the Palestinian rights, and rejects a full withdrawal from all territories it captured during the June 1967 six-day war.
Israel’s settlements and its illegal Annexation Wall have transformed the Palestinian territories into isolated cantons, separating various villages from their orchards and lands. Settlements are also a direct violation of International Law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, received on Thursday evening [August 1, 2013] a phone call from U.S. President, Barack Obama, and discussed the ongoing efforts to ensure smooth resumption of direct peace talks between Tel Aviv and Ramallah.
Palestinian Presidency Spokesperson, Nabil Abu Rodeina, stated that Obama told Abbas he is committed to fully supporting the negotiations, and stressed on the importance to move the process forwards in order to achieve a comprehensive deal.
Abu Rodeina added that Obama reaffirmed the U.S. support to the two-state solution and the importance of achieving a pace agreement in the agreed upon time-frame of six to nine months.
On his part, President Abbas thanked Obama and Secretary of State, John Kerry, for their efforts to ensure a final status Middle East peace agreement.
Israeli sources have reported that Obama also phoned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “commending” him on what was described as the “courage” to resume final status talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Obama told Netanyahu that the United States fully supports all efforts meant at achieving a comprehensive peace agreement.
It is worth mentioning that Palestinian and Israeli negotiators held on Monday their first direct session of peace talks in three years.
The resumption of talks comes amidst unclear agenda loaded with various negative aspects including Israel’s insistence to what it calls its right to build and expand settlements, mainly in major settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank and in occupied East Jerusalem.
On Thursday, the Israeli Knesset passed a bill in the first reading requiring a public referendum on any peace agreement that would require Israel to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories labeling the issue as a referendum on “giving up” what was dubbed as “sovereign territory”.
The Times Of Israel has reported that the approved bill includes all areas in the entire country, such as the occupied Golan Heights, occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank.
In 2010, the Knesset passed a law requiring two-thirds vote or a public referendum on any agreement that requires a withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories.
The new bill comes to enforce the first bill.
The Times Of Israel has reported that the new bill is meant to turn the referendum into a semi-constitutional law in order to prevent the Supreme Court in the country from voiding it as the court can void regular laws.
The bill still needs to survive a review by the House Committee of the Knesset, and also needs to pass two more Knesset readings likely during the winter session. If it passes all readings, it will then be signed into law.
Israel Ynet News has reported that Kerry received phone called from various congressional representatives, mainly pro-Israel lobbyists, asking for assurances of “safeguarding Israel and its interests.”
It added that a congressman, who describes himself as a friend of Israel, spoke to Kerry asking him about the possibility of having the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish State”, and Kerry responded by telling him the issue is one of his goals, and said “Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people”.
Kerry reportedly said that Israel will get to keep %85 of its settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.
The resumption of the talks and the various reports on a final status agreement in a relatively short time-frame come amidst Israelis rejection to recognize the legitimate internationally guaranteed Palestinian rights such as the Right of Return of the refugees.
Tel Aviv never officially recognized the Palestinian rights, and rejects a full withdrawal from all territories it captured during the June 1967 six-day war.
Israel’s settlements and its illegal Annexation Wall have transformed the Palestinian territories into isolated cantons, separating various villages from their orchards and lands. Settlements are also a direct violation of International Law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
1 aug 2013
The United States government continues to claim neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, despite all evidence to the contrary. Israel’s dependency on the US creates a power dynamic in which the United States has a strong grip on Israel. This explains why some Palestinians have demanded the United States as a presence in the negotiations.
The United States’s Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Special Envoy for the Negotiations, Martin Indyk, host the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation talks in Washington. Such sensitive political topics require a non-bias mediator, right? And which nation could be less bias than the United States? Don’t mind that Indyk was recruited as a member of the main pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 1983. Don’t mind that the Israeli Army, which continually assaults and harasses innocent Palestinians, is subsidized by American taxpayers.
The United States government continues to claim neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, despite reality: The state of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israeli Occupation Force’s continued terrorization of Palestinians would not be possible without the unconditional financial, diplomatic, and military support of the United States. Israel’s dependency on the US is not one-sided; it is the US’ only trusted and long-term ally in the Middle East. An ally the US desperately needs for everything from military bases in the region, surveillance of Arab countries, and the so-called “War on Terror.”
The US’s pro-Israel bias is blindingly apparent, but there is more to the story. Israel’s dependency on the US financially, and diplomatically [as the only superpower allied with Israel], creates a power dynamic between the two nations, whereby the United States has a strong grip on Israel. This explains why some Palestinians, despite their knowledge of US bias, have demanded the United States as a presence in the negotiations. Washington, if it is willing to, has the power to pressure the State of Israel into reasonable compromises.
While some Palestinian negotiators have decided to mobilize the US’s hold on Israel by demanding US presence at the negotiations, others are deeply distressed by the PA’s decision to reopen talks with Israel, thereby backtracking on its original intention to join international organizations, including the international criminal court. This is further aggravated by the fact that the agreement to a minimum of nine months of peace negotiations, didn’t come with a commitment to meet Palestine’s minimum requirements, primarily a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders and the termination of settlements. Among the dissatisfied Palestinians is a network of 133 NGOs, which underscored in a press release on Monday that “It is clear to all that the occupation state is persistent in building settlement units, expanding settlements, annexing lands and Judaizing Jerusalem despite its approval to resume the negotiations.”
The United States’s Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Special Envoy for the Negotiations, Martin Indyk, host the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation talks in Washington. Such sensitive political topics require a non-bias mediator, right? And which nation could be less bias than the United States? Don’t mind that Indyk was recruited as a member of the main pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 1983. Don’t mind that the Israeli Army, which continually assaults and harasses innocent Palestinians, is subsidized by American taxpayers.
The United States government continues to claim neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, despite reality: The state of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israeli Occupation Force’s continued terrorization of Palestinians would not be possible without the unconditional financial, diplomatic, and military support of the United States. Israel’s dependency on the US is not one-sided; it is the US’ only trusted and long-term ally in the Middle East. An ally the US desperately needs for everything from military bases in the region, surveillance of Arab countries, and the so-called “War on Terror.”
The US’s pro-Israel bias is blindingly apparent, but there is more to the story. Israel’s dependency on the US financially, and diplomatically [as the only superpower allied with Israel], creates a power dynamic between the two nations, whereby the United States has a strong grip on Israel. This explains why some Palestinians, despite their knowledge of US bias, have demanded the United States as a presence in the negotiations. Washington, if it is willing to, has the power to pressure the State of Israel into reasonable compromises.
While some Palestinian negotiators have decided to mobilize the US’s hold on Israel by demanding US presence at the negotiations, others are deeply distressed by the PA’s decision to reopen talks with Israel, thereby backtracking on its original intention to join international organizations, including the international criminal court. This is further aggravated by the fact that the agreement to a minimum of nine months of peace negotiations, didn’t come with a commitment to meet Palestine’s minimum requirements, primarily a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders and the termination of settlements. Among the dissatisfied Palestinians is a network of 133 NGOs, which underscored in a press release on Monday that “It is clear to all that the occupation state is persistent in building settlement units, expanding settlements, annexing lands and Judaizing Jerusalem despite its approval to resume the negotiations.”
Martin Indyk’s selection by Secretary of State John Kerry as the Special Envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority summoned memories of an appearance I witnessed at J Street’s first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made “aliyah to Washington” during the 1980’s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israel’s favor, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David.
I searched out the video of Indyk’s J Street appearance and confirmed my memories. In a candid address, speaking without notes, Indyk told his audience how as a young man studying in Jerusalem, he wound up volunteering to assist Israel during the 1973 war. He witnessed Israel pushed to the brink by a coordinated Egyptian-Syrian attack designed to recover the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. Nixon and Kissinger’s generous emergency shipment of arms, which enabled Israel to push back the Arab armies, clarified for Indyk the role America should play in the Middle East. It was then that he decided on a career as an inside-the-Beltway operator.
“And that is why I chose to make aliyah to Washington,” Indyk half-jokingly declared. (Why Two States? Why Now? – American Perspective from J Street on Vimeo.)
Here are excerpts of Indyk’s remarks. He began by stating that the only way to guarantee “Israel’s security and well-being” was to work for peace:
I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israel’s survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war.
It was from that point on — as some of you would know I was an Australian in those days — that I became convinced that the US role in helping Israel to achieve peace was absolutely critical and remains today the sine qua non, without which nothing else in the end will become possible. And that is why I chose to make aliyah to Washington [laughter from crowd], and to work to try to understand and work on us diplomacy towards resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indyk’s “aliyah” came in the form of a position at the Israel lobby group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) as a deputy researcher in 1982. Three years later, he and Dennis Ross founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an AIPAC-linked think tank. Ross’s first paper for WINEP, which he published in 1985, demanded the appointment of “a non-Arabist Special Middle East envoy” who would not “feel guilty about our relationship with Israel and our reluctance to force Israeli consensus.”
At the personal recommendation of the Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban, who raised $3.5 million for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, and later paid for the construction of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, Clinton appointed Indyk as US Ambassador to Israel. Ross joined the administration as Special Envoy to the Middle East, precisely the position he had dreamed up in his WINEP position paper. Almost two decades later, Indyk has returned to public life in Ross’s former role.
At J Street, Indyk described Yitzhak Rabin and Clinton’s approach to the peace process as his template for negotiations. He recalled Rabin declaring, “What we need is separation, your people and my people, we need separation, not out of hatred but out of respect.” Indyk explained, “That was Yitzhak Rabin’s vision and his purpose in trying to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians… The challenge of Americans is to return to that process.”
Beyond the absurd logic that defines forced ethnic separation as “respectful,” Rabin was in fact a hard separationist who promised Israelis he would “take Gaza out of Tel Aviv.” After agreeing to the Oslo Accords, Rabin ordered the mass revocation of Palestinian work permits inside Israel, trapping hundreds of thousands inside cities and villages. He inaugurated plans for a barrier separating “Israel proper” from the West Bank, laying the groundwork for the separation wall constructed under the watch of Ariel Sharon, and he presided over the installation of the first sections of fencing around the Gaza Strip. Though few of Rabin’s hagiographers will admit it, his policies of hard separation set the stage for the Second Intifada, driving occupied Palestinians deeper into economic misery and ghettoization.
Speaking before J Street, Indyk placed the blame for the bloodshed of the Second Intifada squarely on Yasser Arafat’s shoulders. He derided the late PA chairman as having “that big shit-eating grin of his” and assailed him for refusing to accept the Clinton Parameters, omitting the fact that Arafat ultimately accepted them with grave reservations and questions:
I remember Shimon Peres saying to me at the time when Arafat had to decide whether to accept the Clinton Parameters, he said, history is a horse that gallops past your window and the true act of a statesman is to jump from the window on to a galloping horse. But of course Arafat let the galloping horse pass by leaving the Israelis and Palestinians mired in misery.
Indyk is back at the center of heavily ballyhooed negotiations that seem doomed from the start. Is he preparing to blame the Palestinians again?
I searched out the video of Indyk’s J Street appearance and confirmed my memories. In a candid address, speaking without notes, Indyk told his audience how as a young man studying in Jerusalem, he wound up volunteering to assist Israel during the 1973 war. He witnessed Israel pushed to the brink by a coordinated Egyptian-Syrian attack designed to recover the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. Nixon and Kissinger’s generous emergency shipment of arms, which enabled Israel to push back the Arab armies, clarified for Indyk the role America should play in the Middle East. It was then that he decided on a career as an inside-the-Beltway operator.
“And that is why I chose to make aliyah to Washington,” Indyk half-jokingly declared. (Why Two States? Why Now? – American Perspective from J Street on Vimeo.)
Here are excerpts of Indyk’s remarks. He began by stating that the only way to guarantee “Israel’s security and well-being” was to work for peace:
I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out, I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israel’s survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war.
It was from that point on — as some of you would know I was an Australian in those days — that I became convinced that the US role in helping Israel to achieve peace was absolutely critical and remains today the sine qua non, without which nothing else in the end will become possible. And that is why I chose to make aliyah to Washington [laughter from crowd], and to work to try to understand and work on us diplomacy towards resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indyk’s “aliyah” came in the form of a position at the Israel lobby group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) as a deputy researcher in 1982. Three years later, he and Dennis Ross founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an AIPAC-linked think tank. Ross’s first paper for WINEP, which he published in 1985, demanded the appointment of “a non-Arabist Special Middle East envoy” who would not “feel guilty about our relationship with Israel and our reluctance to force Israeli consensus.”
At the personal recommendation of the Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban, who raised $3.5 million for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, and later paid for the construction of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, Clinton appointed Indyk as US Ambassador to Israel. Ross joined the administration as Special Envoy to the Middle East, precisely the position he had dreamed up in his WINEP position paper. Almost two decades later, Indyk has returned to public life in Ross’s former role.
At J Street, Indyk described Yitzhak Rabin and Clinton’s approach to the peace process as his template for negotiations. He recalled Rabin declaring, “What we need is separation, your people and my people, we need separation, not out of hatred but out of respect.” Indyk explained, “That was Yitzhak Rabin’s vision and his purpose in trying to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians… The challenge of Americans is to return to that process.”
Beyond the absurd logic that defines forced ethnic separation as “respectful,” Rabin was in fact a hard separationist who promised Israelis he would “take Gaza out of Tel Aviv.” After agreeing to the Oslo Accords, Rabin ordered the mass revocation of Palestinian work permits inside Israel, trapping hundreds of thousands inside cities and villages. He inaugurated plans for a barrier separating “Israel proper” from the West Bank, laying the groundwork for the separation wall constructed under the watch of Ariel Sharon, and he presided over the installation of the first sections of fencing around the Gaza Strip. Though few of Rabin’s hagiographers will admit it, his policies of hard separation set the stage for the Second Intifada, driving occupied Palestinians deeper into economic misery and ghettoization.
Speaking before J Street, Indyk placed the blame for the bloodshed of the Second Intifada squarely on Yasser Arafat’s shoulders. He derided the late PA chairman as having “that big shit-eating grin of his” and assailed him for refusing to accept the Clinton Parameters, omitting the fact that Arafat ultimately accepted them with grave reservations and questions:
I remember Shimon Peres saying to me at the time when Arafat had to decide whether to accept the Clinton Parameters, he said, history is a horse that gallops past your window and the true act of a statesman is to jump from the window on to a galloping horse. But of course Arafat let the galloping horse pass by leaving the Israelis and Palestinians mired in misery.
Indyk is back at the center of heavily ballyhooed negotiations that seem doomed from the start. Is he preparing to blame the Palestinians again?
31 july 2013
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) (L) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (R) confer at the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington March 5, 2013.
US Senator Lindsey Graham has expressed the Obama administration’s concerns over the fallout of the latest turmoil in Egypt for the Israeli regime.
“If Egypt goes and Israel is surrounded by more and more radical regimes ... we’ll regret not doing everything possible to keep Egypt on track as a stable society,” he said on Tuesday signaling Washington’s interference in Egypt’s internal affairs.
The hawkish Republican made the remarks after President Barack Obama asked him and Senator John McCain to travel to Egypt next week.
Egypt has been gripped by deadly violence since the military ousted Mohamed Morsi, the country’s first democratically-elected president, on July 3.
“The president asked Sen. McCain and myself to go to Egypt next week, so we’re trying to find a way to get there,” Graham told reporters.
“So we can go over and reinforce in a bipartisan fashion the message that we have to move to civilian control, that the military is going to have to, you know, allow the country to have new elections and move toward an inclusive, democratic approach,” he added.
The Obama administration has refused to suspend its annual 1.5 billion dollars aid to Egypt despite condemning the bloody violence in the country.
Under US law, financial assistance to any country whose elected head of state is deposed in a military coup is prohibited. The White House has shied away from calling Morsi’s ouster a military coup.
However, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul has introduced a measure that would end US aid to Egypt. The Senate was set to vote on the measure on Wednesday.
“We tell other countries to follow the rule of law, yet our own administration fails to do so. Sending money to Egypt under their current military coups is illegal,” Paul said in a statement. “Instead of illegally sending that money overseas, we are better off spending that money at home.”
Senator Graham said a vote now could send the wrong signal.
“If you cut off aid, that’s a destabilizing event,” Graham said, while a vote for aid would “give people the impression everything’s fine.”
US Senator Lindsey Graham has expressed the Obama administration’s concerns over the fallout of the latest turmoil in Egypt for the Israeli regime.
“If Egypt goes and Israel is surrounded by more and more radical regimes ... we’ll regret not doing everything possible to keep Egypt on track as a stable society,” he said on Tuesday signaling Washington’s interference in Egypt’s internal affairs.
The hawkish Republican made the remarks after President Barack Obama asked him and Senator John McCain to travel to Egypt next week.
Egypt has been gripped by deadly violence since the military ousted Mohamed Morsi, the country’s first democratically-elected president, on July 3.
“The president asked Sen. McCain and myself to go to Egypt next week, so we’re trying to find a way to get there,” Graham told reporters.
“So we can go over and reinforce in a bipartisan fashion the message that we have to move to civilian control, that the military is going to have to, you know, allow the country to have new elections and move toward an inclusive, democratic approach,” he added.
The Obama administration has refused to suspend its annual 1.5 billion dollars aid to Egypt despite condemning the bloody violence in the country.
Under US law, financial assistance to any country whose elected head of state is deposed in a military coup is prohibited. The White House has shied away from calling Morsi’s ouster a military coup.
However, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul has introduced a measure that would end US aid to Egypt. The Senate was set to vote on the measure on Wednesday.
“We tell other countries to follow the rule of law, yet our own administration fails to do so. Sending money to Egypt under their current military coups is illegal,” Paul said in a statement. “Instead of illegally sending that money overseas, we are better off spending that money at home.”
Senator Graham said a vote now could send the wrong signal.
“If you cut off aid, that’s a destabilizing event,” Graham said, while a vote for aid would “give people the impression everything’s fine.”
26 july 2013
Former commander of the US Central Command James Mattis
Former commander of the US Central Command James Mattis has said that he ‘paid a military security price every day’ over the American support for the Israeli regime.
On Thursday, the Times of Israel quoted Mattis as saying last week, “I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom (Central Command) because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel.”
The retired US commander made the comments at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado in response to a question regarding the talks between the Tel Aviv regime and the Palestinian Authority.
Mattis further slammed the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, stating that the situation in Israel is “unsustainable.”
The chances for an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians “are starting to ebb” due to the settlement activities, Mattis said.
On Thursday, Israeli Energy and Water Minister Silvan Shalom said the talks may begin in Washington next week.
The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas has rejected a proposal by US Secretary of State John Kerry for the resumption of the talks, saying it “considers the Palestinian Authority’s return to negotiations with the occupation to be at odds with the national consensus.”
The Palestinian-Israeli talks were halted in September 2010 over disagreements on Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank.
The Palestinian Authority had previously demanded that Israel cease all settlement activities before talks can be resumed. The Tel Aviv regime has refused to do so.
Former commander of the US Central Command James Mattis has said that he ‘paid a military security price every day’ over the American support for the Israeli regime.
On Thursday, the Times of Israel quoted Mattis as saying last week, “I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom (Central Command) because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel.”
The retired US commander made the comments at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado in response to a question regarding the talks between the Tel Aviv regime and the Palestinian Authority.
Mattis further slammed the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, stating that the situation in Israel is “unsustainable.”
The chances for an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians “are starting to ebb” due to the settlement activities, Mattis said.
On Thursday, Israeli Energy and Water Minister Silvan Shalom said the talks may begin in Washington next week.
The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas has rejected a proposal by US Secretary of State John Kerry for the resumption of the talks, saying it “considers the Palestinian Authority’s return to negotiations with the occupation to be at odds with the national consensus.”
The Palestinian-Israeli talks were halted in September 2010 over disagreements on Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank.
The Palestinian Authority had previously demanded that Israel cease all settlement activities before talks can be resumed. The Tel Aviv regime has refused to do so.
25 july 2013
|
Press TV has conducted an interview with David Duke, a former member of the House of Representatives from Louisiana. |
By Daoud Kuttab
The city of Jerusalem has many diplomatic missions that have the official title of consulate general. These include the US, most Western European and Scandinavian countries, as well as Turkey.
These diplomatic missions report directly to their capitals and they are not accountable officially to their counterparts from their country's diplomatic missions in Israel and, more recently, in Ramallah.
This practice has been going on since the Turkish rule in Palestine and the region in the 19th century.
After the creation of Israel in 1948 these missions continued to operate mostly in East Jerusalem (some, like the Americans, owned property in West Jerusalem) and they have continued to work after the June 1967 occupation.
While these missions mostly served the Palestinian community politically, culturally and consular wise, the only difference after 1967 was that these missions widened their (mostly consular) services to all the population of Jerusalem. The US consulate in East Jerusalem continued to provide consular and cultural services while the building owned by the Americans in West Jerusalem's Agron Street became the residence of the US consul-general and later housed caravans that provided space for USAID officials working in the Palestinian areas.
American citizens who lived in the Greater Jerusalem area as well as the rest of the West Bank (both Israelis and Palestinians) were restricted to the Nablus Road consulate in East Jerusalem for their consular affairs.
Despite numerous calls by congress to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the executive branch in Washington was able to apply the waiver provided in the congressional law to insist on maintaining the status quo.
As long as the status of Jerusalem was among the final status agenda items, the US refused to determine who the holy city belongs to.
US diplomatic officials, therefore, refrained to specify a country of birth when it came to anyone who was born in Jerusalem, whether of a Jewish-Israeli background or a Palestinian-Arab background.
The politically correct US mission in Jerusalem refused to assign the country of birth to those born in Jerusalem as either Israel or Palestine. Instead they came up with a clever diplomatic side step. Under country of birth, American consular officials put "Jerusalem".
For some time this diplomatic compromise worked, until theUS congress passed a law and a patriotic Israeli-American couple wanted to have their child's birth listed as Jerusalem, Israel.
US officials refused, saying this was in the executive branch's decision-making power as it, and not the legislative branch, decides foreign policy.
The angry Israeli-American suggested that Americans be given the choice of listing their country of birth as either Jerusalem or Israel.
Again the US State Department and White House refused, feeling that this choice can't be given to a Palestinian whose country of birth can't be legally stated as Palestine and, therefore, listing only Israelis born in Jerusalem as being born in Israel would clearly discriminate against Palestinians.
Every passport officer in the world would know (if the idea had been approved) that if they see someone listed as being born in Jerusalem they are in fact ethnically Palestinian.
The US State Department refused the request and the case was brought to the US court of appeals.
The US court of appeals for the District of Columbia, which reviewed the case of Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky filed by his parents against the US secretary of state, ruled on July 23 that "Jerusalem-born Americans, whether supporters of Israel or supporters of Palestine, may not use their passports to make a political statement". It also reaffirmed that the executive branch and not the legislative branch of the US government decides such issues.
The pro-Israel lobby, which has a greater stranglehold over congress than the White House (especially a second term president), will undoubtedly be unhappy with this ruling.
The timing of this decision is crucial as the issue of Jerusalem will surely be a major topic of discussion if the expected negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians are launched in the coming weeks and months.
The wisdom of the US court to keep out of a volatile conflict such as the Palestinian-Israeli one, and an even more sensitive issue of Jerusalem, is welcomed.
The city of Jerusalem has many diplomatic missions that have the official title of consulate general. These include the US, most Western European and Scandinavian countries, as well as Turkey.
These diplomatic missions report directly to their capitals and they are not accountable officially to their counterparts from their country's diplomatic missions in Israel and, more recently, in Ramallah.
This practice has been going on since the Turkish rule in Palestine and the region in the 19th century.
After the creation of Israel in 1948 these missions continued to operate mostly in East Jerusalem (some, like the Americans, owned property in West Jerusalem) and they have continued to work after the June 1967 occupation.
While these missions mostly served the Palestinian community politically, culturally and consular wise, the only difference after 1967 was that these missions widened their (mostly consular) services to all the population of Jerusalem. The US consulate in East Jerusalem continued to provide consular and cultural services while the building owned by the Americans in West Jerusalem's Agron Street became the residence of the US consul-general and later housed caravans that provided space for USAID officials working in the Palestinian areas.
American citizens who lived in the Greater Jerusalem area as well as the rest of the West Bank (both Israelis and Palestinians) were restricted to the Nablus Road consulate in East Jerusalem for their consular affairs.
Despite numerous calls by congress to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the executive branch in Washington was able to apply the waiver provided in the congressional law to insist on maintaining the status quo.
As long as the status of Jerusalem was among the final status agenda items, the US refused to determine who the holy city belongs to.
US diplomatic officials, therefore, refrained to specify a country of birth when it came to anyone who was born in Jerusalem, whether of a Jewish-Israeli background or a Palestinian-Arab background.
The politically correct US mission in Jerusalem refused to assign the country of birth to those born in Jerusalem as either Israel or Palestine. Instead they came up with a clever diplomatic side step. Under country of birth, American consular officials put "Jerusalem".
For some time this diplomatic compromise worked, until theUS congress passed a law and a patriotic Israeli-American couple wanted to have their child's birth listed as Jerusalem, Israel.
US officials refused, saying this was in the executive branch's decision-making power as it, and not the legislative branch, decides foreign policy.
The angry Israeli-American suggested that Americans be given the choice of listing their country of birth as either Jerusalem or Israel.
Again the US State Department and White House refused, feeling that this choice can't be given to a Palestinian whose country of birth can't be legally stated as Palestine and, therefore, listing only Israelis born in Jerusalem as being born in Israel would clearly discriminate against Palestinians.
Every passport officer in the world would know (if the idea had been approved) that if they see someone listed as being born in Jerusalem they are in fact ethnically Palestinian.
The US State Department refused the request and the case was brought to the US court of appeals.
The US court of appeals for the District of Columbia, which reviewed the case of Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky filed by his parents against the US secretary of state, ruled on July 23 that "Jerusalem-born Americans, whether supporters of Israel or supporters of Palestine, may not use their passports to make a political statement". It also reaffirmed that the executive branch and not the legislative branch of the US government decides such issues.
The pro-Israel lobby, which has a greater stranglehold over congress than the White House (especially a second term president), will undoubtedly be unhappy with this ruling.
The timing of this decision is crucial as the issue of Jerusalem will surely be a major topic of discussion if the expected negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians are launched in the coming weeks and months.
The wisdom of the US court to keep out of a volatile conflict such as the Palestinian-Israeli one, and an even more sensitive issue of Jerusalem, is welcomed.
21 july 2013
The general delegation of the PLO to the United States on Sunday expressed its condolences for the death of American journalist Helen Thomas, who passed away on Saturday.
"Helen Thomas will be remembered for her courage to ask tough questions to Presidents and political officials," the statement read.
"A staunch advocate for the rights of Palestinians, Thomas expressed an unrelenting commitment to advancing the Palestinian quest for justice and statehood. She was a true friend to the Palestinian people."
From her front row seat in the White House press room, Thomas was a formidable, sharp-tongued inquisitor of every US president she covered.
She was such a fixture, she had the unique privilege of a front row seat with her own name on it.
Thomas' passing triggered a torrent of tributes, including one from Obama.
"Helen was a true pioneer, opening doors and breaking down barriers for generations of women in journalism," he said in a statement.
"What made Helen the 'Dean of the White House Press Corps' was not just the length of her tenure, but her fierce belief that our democracy works best when we ask tough questions and hold our leaders to account."
Thomas began covering the White House for United Press International in the early 1960s, one of only a few women in a male-dominated Washington press corps.
The daughter of Lebanese immigrants, she had a strong interest in the Middle East and was a fierce defender of Palestinian rights.
"The General Delegation of the PLO to the United States joins the rest of the Palestinian community all over the world in offering its condolences to the family and friends of Helen Thomas, with whom we share a great loss today," the PLO statement said.
"Helen Thomas will be remembered for her courage to ask tough questions to Presidents and political officials," the statement read.
"A staunch advocate for the rights of Palestinians, Thomas expressed an unrelenting commitment to advancing the Palestinian quest for justice and statehood. She was a true friend to the Palestinian people."
From her front row seat in the White House press room, Thomas was a formidable, sharp-tongued inquisitor of every US president she covered.
She was such a fixture, she had the unique privilege of a front row seat with her own name on it.
Thomas' passing triggered a torrent of tributes, including one from Obama.
"Helen was a true pioneer, opening doors and breaking down barriers for generations of women in journalism," he said in a statement.
"What made Helen the 'Dean of the White House Press Corps' was not just the length of her tenure, but her fierce belief that our democracy works best when we ask tough questions and hold our leaders to account."
Thomas began covering the White House for United Press International in the early 1960s, one of only a few women in a male-dominated Washington press corps.
The daughter of Lebanese immigrants, she had a strong interest in the Middle East and was a fierce defender of Palestinian rights.
"The General Delegation of the PLO to the United States joins the rest of the Palestinian community all over the world in offering its condolences to the family and friends of Helen Thomas, with whom we share a great loss today," the PLO statement said.
20 july 2013
Helen Thomas, a pioneer for women in journalism and an irrepressible White House correspondent, has died. She was 92. A friend, Muriel Dobbin, says Thomas died at her apartment in Washington on Saturday morning. Dobbin says Thomas has been ill for a long time, had been in and out of the hospital, and had come home Thursday.
Thomas made her name as a bulldog for United Press International in the great wire-service rivalries of old. She used her seat in the front row of history to grill nine presidents — often to their discomfort and was not shy about sharing her opinions.
She was persistent to the point of badgering; one White House press secretary described her questioning as “torture” — and he was one of her fans.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thomas made her name as a bulldog for United Press International in the great wire-service rivalries of old. She used her seat in the front row of history to grill nine presidents — often to their discomfort and was not shy about sharing her opinions.
She was persistent to the point of badgering; one White House press secretary described her questioning as “torture” — and he was one of her fans.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
18 july 2013
Israel and work tirelessly to defend it,” she said.
Power also promised to fight to help Israel obtain a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council. Israel, which has never sat on the Security Council, wants to be admitted as a representative of the Western European group of countries.
"The Security Council seat is one that has eluded Israel, despite its many contributions across the years, and I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense, as well as playing defense on the legitimation of Israel, and we'll make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli public servants in the UN system."
Speaking before Foreign Relations Committee, Power also expressed support for increasing pressure on Iran and maintaining the option of military force to deter its development of a nuclear weapons program.
"Israel—not Iran, not Sudan, not North Korea—is the one country with a fixed place on the Human Rights Council's agenda. Israel's legitimacy should be beyond dispute, and its security must be beyond doubt," Power said in her testimony.
During a 2002 discussion at the University of California-Berkeley about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Power recommended that the US divest its support from Israel's military and devote billions to "a mammoth protection force” in order to create a "meaningful military presence" in Israel.
"Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import,” Power said at the time, in an oblique reference to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. During the nomination hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) pressed her on these comments. Power responded by saying they were part of "a long, rambling and remarkably incoherent response to a hypothetical question that I should never have answered."
"There is no shortcut" to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she told the committee. "Unilateral Palestinian statehood measures just won’t work." Power said the US needs to "deter" such unilateral efforts.
Power also addressed the civil war in Syria, saying "We see the failure of the UN Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria - a disgrace that history will judge harshly."
Power, 42, a human-rights advocate and former journalist, took a leave from Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy to work as a foreign policy adviser in Obama’s Senate office. She joined his 2008 presidential campaign and served on his National Security Council until earlier this year.
Obama's UN pick vows push for Israeli seat on Security Council
US President Barack Obama's UN nominee has vowed to fiercely back Israel and fight to help the regime win a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Samantha Power made the pledge at her Wednesday confirmation hearing in the Senate. She is widely expected to replace US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.
“The United States has no greater friend in the world than … Israel. We share security interests, we share core values, and we have a special relationship with Israel,” Power told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The longtime Obama confidante and the White House official even went on to attack the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council for supporting Palestinian people and condemning Israeli violations of their rights.
“And just as I have done as President Obama's UN adviser at the White House, I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to defend it,” she said.
Power promised to support Israel’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, where Tel Aviv - due to its poor relations with Middle Eastern countries - wants to be admitted as a representative of the Western Europe.
“I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense, as well as playing defense on the legitimation of Israel, and we'll make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli public servants in the UN system,” she said.
She also pledged to oppose any efforts by the Palestinians to seek greater recognition in world bodies.
On November 29, 2012, Palestinians won a UN General Assembly vote, which earned the status of non-member observer state for Palestine at the world body.
“We need to deter the Palestinians in any way we can,” Power stressed.
The 42-year-old's remarks at the hearing are expected to have distanced her from previous unflattering comments about Tel Aviv, and many expect her to be easily confirmed by the Senate.
On one occasion, Power had confirmed "major human-rights abuses" against the Palestinians in 2002, and acknowledged that a US policy shift away from the support of Israel could mean angering the pro-Israel lobby.
Power also promised to fight to help Israel obtain a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council. Israel, which has never sat on the Security Council, wants to be admitted as a representative of the Western European group of countries.
"The Security Council seat is one that has eluded Israel, despite its many contributions across the years, and I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense, as well as playing defense on the legitimation of Israel, and we'll make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli public servants in the UN system."
Speaking before Foreign Relations Committee, Power also expressed support for increasing pressure on Iran and maintaining the option of military force to deter its development of a nuclear weapons program.
"Israel—not Iran, not Sudan, not North Korea—is the one country with a fixed place on the Human Rights Council's agenda. Israel's legitimacy should be beyond dispute, and its security must be beyond doubt," Power said in her testimony.
During a 2002 discussion at the University of California-Berkeley about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Power recommended that the US divest its support from Israel's military and devote billions to "a mammoth protection force” in order to create a "meaningful military presence" in Israel.
"Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import,” Power said at the time, in an oblique reference to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. During the nomination hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) pressed her on these comments. Power responded by saying they were part of "a long, rambling and remarkably incoherent response to a hypothetical question that I should never have answered."
"There is no shortcut" to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she told the committee. "Unilateral Palestinian statehood measures just won’t work." Power said the US needs to "deter" such unilateral efforts.
Power also addressed the civil war in Syria, saying "We see the failure of the UN Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria - a disgrace that history will judge harshly."
Power, 42, a human-rights advocate and former journalist, took a leave from Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy to work as a foreign policy adviser in Obama’s Senate office. She joined his 2008 presidential campaign and served on his National Security Council until earlier this year.
Obama's UN pick vows push for Israeli seat on Security Council
US President Barack Obama's UN nominee has vowed to fiercely back Israel and fight to help the regime win a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Samantha Power made the pledge at her Wednesday confirmation hearing in the Senate. She is widely expected to replace US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.
“The United States has no greater friend in the world than … Israel. We share security interests, we share core values, and we have a special relationship with Israel,” Power told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The longtime Obama confidante and the White House official even went on to attack the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council for supporting Palestinian people and condemning Israeli violations of their rights.
“And just as I have done as President Obama's UN adviser at the White House, I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to defend it,” she said.
Power promised to support Israel’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, where Tel Aviv - due to its poor relations with Middle Eastern countries - wants to be admitted as a representative of the Western Europe.
“I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense, as well as playing defense on the legitimation of Israel, and we'll make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli public servants in the UN system,” she said.
She also pledged to oppose any efforts by the Palestinians to seek greater recognition in world bodies.
On November 29, 2012, Palestinians won a UN General Assembly vote, which earned the status of non-member observer state for Palestine at the world body.
“We need to deter the Palestinians in any way we can,” Power stressed.
The 42-year-old's remarks at the hearing are expected to have distanced her from previous unflattering comments about Tel Aviv, and many expect her to be easily confirmed by the Senate.
On one occasion, Power had confirmed "major human-rights abuses" against the Palestinians in 2002, and acknowledged that a US policy shift away from the support of Israel could mean angering the pro-Israel lobby.