Zionist billionaire involved in Iran dealings dies in Tel Aviv
NOVANEWS
Zionist Sami Ofer’s company is currently under investigation for allegedly docking ships under their ownership in Iran.
Haaretz
Sami Ofer, an Israeli businessman whose company has come under fire in recent weeks for alleged dealings with Iran, died late Thursday night of a long battle with unknown illness in his home at the age of 89.
Ofer is survived by his wife, Aviva, two sons Ayal and Idan, eight grandchildren and one great-grandchild.
Ofer will be buried in Tel Aviv’s Trumpeldor cemetery on Sunday at 4 p.m.
The Ofer Brothers Group is currently under investigation for allegedly docking ships under their ownership in Iran after the Israeli company was recently named in a U.S. State Department report for commercial dealings with Iranian shipping interests.
Ofer, one of the richest people in Israel, was a businessman and shipping magnate, who had many dealings with the Israeli government. He ran multiple venues, including the Dead Sea Works, Zim shipping company and oil refineries.
In 2008, Ofer was the main character in journalist Mickey Rosenthal’s documentary “The Shakshuka Method”. The movie claimed that the Ofer family had ties with the Israeli government, and was guilty of corruption.
The Ofer family sued Rosenthal after the release of the film.
On Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed sorrow over Ofer’s death, saying that Ofer had contributed greatly to the Israeli economy.
“He contributed much to the public in the fields of health, culture and art,” Netanyahu said. “Ofer was a Zionist through and through and he did not forget his committment to others when he reached the top.”
Zionist Rahm Emanuel: U.S. does not expect IsraHell to return to 1967 borders
NOVANEWS
Zionist Emanuel, mayor of Chicago and U.S. Zionist puppet Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, says Obama views 1967 borders as starting point for negotiations, not end point, in op-ed for the Washington Post.
Haaretz
U.S. President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff and current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, attempted to assuage Israeli fears that the U.S. administration expects Israel to return to 1967 borders, clarifying that this was never Obama’s policy, in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Friday.
Emanuel was referring to a sentence in Obama’s Middle East policy speech last month, in which Obama said that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected this statement publicly at the time, claiming that 1967 borders are ‘indefensible’.
Many believe that this led to tension between Israel and the U.S., its longtime ally. Both Obama and Netanyahu, however, were hasty to assure the public in joint comments to the press last month that while there remain points of contention, these are “disagreements between friends”.
Obama has not altered the United States’ policy vis-à-vis Israel, Emanuel said in his op-ed, adding that the concept of a loose basis of 1967 borders with land swaps has been the foundation of any serious American attempt at negotiations since former U.S. President Bill Clinton held talks at Camp David in 2000.
Emanuel added that 1967 borders are the starting point and not the end point for negotiations.
“That statement does not mean a return to 1967 borders,” Emanuel said, adding that “no workable solution envisions that. Land swaps offer the flexibility necessary to ensure secure and defensible borders and address the issue of settlements.”
Emanuel continued, saying that Obama clarified this further at the AIPAC conference last month when he said “it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.”
The Chicago mayor reiterated the United States’ commitment to Israel, as well as its pledge to fight efforts that aim to weaken and delegitimize Israel.
“The president I know and worked for is deeply committed to the peace and security of a Jewish state of Israel,” Emanuel wrote, “I have seen him make unprecedented commitments to guarantee the continued qualitative military edge essential to Israel’s security in a dangerous neighborhood.”
The Whore’s Ditty—Republican Romney Slams Obama for “hurting US-Israel ties”
NOVANEWS
Mitt Romney officially announces presidential run, slams Obama for treating Zionist IsraHell with suspicion, distrust; ‘He seems firmly and clearly determined to undermine our longtime friend and ally,’ Republican candidate says
WASHINGTON – Republican Zionist Mitt Romney announced Thursday that he will be running for US president, slamming Barack Obama for undermining America’s relationship with the Zio-Nazi regime.
After officially declaring that he will be seeking the Republican Party’s nomination, Romney slammed Obama for hurting US ties with the Zionist regime.
“He seems firmly and clearly determined to undermine our longtime friend and ally,” he said. “He’s treating Israel the same way so many European countries have: with suspicion, distrust and an assumption that Israel is at fault.”
Romney said Obama has spent his first three years in office apologizing to the world for the United States’ greatness, undercutting IsraHell and borrowing European-style economic policies. He also said Obama’s policy in Afghanistan was wrong.
Libyan Rebels Will Recognise IsraHell, Bernard-Henri Lévy Tells Zio-Nazi Netanyahu
NOVANEWS
Libya’s puppet’s National Transitional Council (NTC) is ready to recognise the Zio-Nazi regime, according to French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who says he has passed the message on to Zio-Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The NTC “will be concerned with justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel” if it takes power, Lévy said after meeting Zio-Nazi Netanyahu Thursday.
“The future regime will maintain normal relations with other democratic countries, including Israel.”
Zio-Nazi Netanyahu’s office confirmed the meeting with Lévy but did not comment on the discussion. “The prime minister likes to meet intellectuals,” a spokesperson said.
Lévy, who helped persuade France to be the first country to recognise the NTC, visited the rebel-held Libyan city of Misrata last weekend and went on to Jerusalem this week.
Mohamar Kadhafi’s regime refused to recognise the Zio-Nazi regime of IsraHell, even after Egypt Zionist puppet Anwar Sadat peace treaty with the country in 1979.
Gates Slams Kucinich Over ‘Dangerous’ Call to End Libya War
NOVANEWS
Says ‘Unilateral’ Move to End War Would Hurt the Troops
In a statement issued today by the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates blasted Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D – OH) over his bill which would order President Obama to end the illegal war in Libya.
Gates argued that since the war is now NATO-led and the US is a part of NATO they are obliged to continue fighting the war regardless of Congressional opposition, adding that a move to “unilaterally abandon” the war would have “dangeorus long term consequences.”
Kucinich’s bill points out that President Obama failed to get Congressional approval within 60 days of starting the war and demands a quick end to America’s involvement. The bill has been indefinitely delayed by House Republican leadership over concerns that it would pass if it came to a vote. Kucinich can still force a vote as soon as next week.
Gates’ statement cautioned that a Congressional demand to end the war would “send an unhelpful message of disunity” to the troops involved in fighting it. The statement also said it was important for Congress to have a “legitimate policy debate without needlessly undermining our military operations.”
Are Palestinian children less worthy?
NOVANEWS
Although Palestinian children endure lives of suffering, Obama’s love for their Israeli counterparts knows no limit.
Note–During the first and second intifada, more than 700 Palestinian children were killed, and a further 313 children died in the Israeli shelling of Gaza in December 2008-July 2009
What is it about Jewish and Arab children that privileges the first and spurns the second in the speeches of President Barack Obama, let alone in the Western media more generally? Are Jewish children smarter, prettier, whiter? Are they deserving of sympathy and solidarity, denied to Arab children, because they are innocent and unsullied by the guilt of their parents, themselves often referred to as “the children of Israel”? Or, is it that Arab children are dangerous, threatening, guilty, even dark and ugly, a situation that can only lead to Arabopaedophobia – the Western fear of Arab children?
Innocence and childhood are common themes in Western political discourse, official and unofficial. While it is a truism to state that since the end of European colonialism the US and Europe have been, at the official and unofficial levels, friendly to and supportive of the Zionist colonial project and hostile to Palestinians and Arabs in their resistance to Zionism, the expectation would be that a West that insists rhetorically on the “universalism” of its values would show at least a rhetorical commitment to the equality of Arab and Jewish children as victims of the violence visited on the region by Zionist colonialism and the resistance to it. Yet, the only Western sympathy manifest is to Jewish children as symbols of Zionist and Israeli innocence. This Western sympathy is deployed primarily to denounce Arab guilt, including the guilt of Arab children.
Indeed, the only time Arab children received any sympathy at all in the West was a few years ago when Israeli and US propaganda outlets, official and unofficial alike, mounted a major propaganda campaign to save these children from their barbaric Arab and Palestinian parents, who allegedly trained them to commit violent acts, or who unlovingly placed them in the middle of danger, sacrificing them for their violent political goals. It was not Israel who was to blame for killing Palestinian children, but the children’s own uncaring and cruel parents who placed them in the path of Israeli Jewish bullets, which left Israeli Jews no choice but to kill them. This of course is an old Israeli casuistry used to justify Israel’s carnage of Palestinians. Golda Meir had famously articulated the workings of Israel’s Jewish conscience thus: “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”
In the official discourse of post-World War II US power, Jewish children have been often invoked to illustrate the innocence of Israel, a tradition carried faithfully by Barack Obama’s rhetoric. Refusing to even acknowledge Arab children as victims of Israel, on June 4, 2009, Obama told Arabs in his Cairo speech: “It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.” He reiterated this in his May 19, 2011 “winds of change” speech, declaring: “For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.”
Later that week, in his speech to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on May 22, Obama expressed sympathy with the hardship colonising Jews experience while appropriating the lands of the Palestinians: “I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old [Jewish] boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket.” He averred that the US and Israel, presumably unlike Palestinians or Arabs more generally, “both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence”.
Endorsing Israel’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, he asserted: “We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighbourhood. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.” Aside from borrowing anti-Black American white racism with the use of terms like “tough neighbourhood” – a term first borrowed by Binyamin Netanyahu to refer to the Middle East over a decade ago – wherein Arabs are the “violent blacks” of the Middle East and Jews are the “peaceful white folks”, Obama’s endorsement of the Israeli claim that East Jerusalem is part of the Jewish homeland is the first such official US endorsement of Israel’s illegal occupation of the city.
Nonetheless, Obama’s attention lay elsewhere, in the fear he expresses of Arab children. He first articulated this fear in his May 19 speech: “The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River.” In his speech to AIPAC three days later, Obama reiterated his fear once more, as the first “fact” and threat that Israel, Jews, and the US must face: “Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories.” This is hardly a new fear, as Israelis have annual conferences, and have developed all kinds of political and military strategies, to deal with their fear of Palestinian children, whom Israel’s President Shimon Peres calls a “demographic bomb” that he wants to defuse. Golda Meir herself once revealed in the early seventies that she could not sleep worrying about the number of Palestinian children being conceived every night. If children are the future – except that Arab children are a negation of it – then the crux of the argument is simple: Israel can only have a future with more Jewish children and fewer Arab children.
Murdering Arab children
The story of Arab children, and especially Palestinian ones, is not only tragic in the context of Israeli violence, but one that also remains ignored, deliberately marginalised, and purposely suppressed in the US and Western media – and in Western political discourse. When Zionist terrorists began to attack Palestinian civilians in the 1930s and 1940s, Palestinian children fell victims. The most famous of these attacks include the Zionist blowing up of Palestinian cafes with grenades (such as occurred in Jerusalem on March 17, 1937) and placing electrically timed mines in crowded market places (first used against Palestinians in Haifa on July 6, 1938).
While the violence of the 1930s was the first introduction to the Middle East of such horrific terrorist violence, it is in the 1947-48 Zionist invasion of Palestinian villages and towns that Palestinian children were deliberately not spared. In December 1947, one of the first attacks by the Haganah (the pre-Israel Zionist paramilitary army) first attacks – which would become typical in this period – targeted the Palestinian village of Khisas in the Galilee and killed four Palestinian children. This proved to be a small number compared with the subsequent mass murders awaiting the Palestinians. In the village of Al-Dawayimah, where the Haganah committed a massacre in October 1948, an Israeli army soldier, quoted by Israeli historian Benny Morris, described the scene as such:
The first [wave] of conquerors killed about 80 to 100 [male] Arabs, women, and children. The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead… One commander ordered a sapper to put two old women in a certain house… and to blow up the house with them. The sapper refused… The commander then ordered his men to put in the old women and the evil deed was done. One soldier boasted that he had raped a woman and then shot her. One woman, with a newborn baby in her arms, was employed to clean the courtyard where the soldiers ate. She worked a day or two. In the end they shot her and her baby.
Palestinian children were murdered along with adults in April 1948 in the Deir Yassin massacre, to name the most well known slaughter of 1948. This would continue not only during Israel’s wars against Arabs in 1956, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1982, 1996, 2006, and 2008, when thousands of children fell victim to indiscriminate Israeli bombardment, but also in more outright massacres: in Qibya in 1953 where even the school was not spared Israel’s destruction; in Kafr Kassem in 1956 where the Israeli army massacred 46 unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israel, 23 of whom were children. This trend would continue. In April 1970, during the War of Attrition with Egypt, Israel bombed an Egyptian elementary school in Bahr al-Baqar. Of the 130 school children in attendance, 46 were killed, and over 50 wounded, many of them maimed for life. The school was completely demolished. The first Israeli massacre at Qana in Lebanon in 1996 spared no child or adult, and the second massacre in the same village in 2006 did the same – adults aside, 16 children were killed that year.
The number of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers in the first intifada (1987-1993) was 213, not counting the hundreds of induced miscarriages from tear gas grenades thrown inside closed areas targeting pregnant women, and aside from the number of the injured. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that “23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada”, one third of whom were children under the age of ten years old. In the same period, Palestinian attacks resulted in the death of five Israeli children. In the second intifada (2000-2004), Israeli soldiers killed more than 500 children with at least 10,000 injured, and 2,200 children arrested. The televised murder of the Palestinian child Muhammad al-Durra shook the world – but not Israeli Jews, whose government concocted the most outrageous and criminal of stories to exonerate Israel. In the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008, 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of whom 313 were children.
This exhibition of atrocity is not simply about regurgitating the history and present of Israel’s murder of Arab children for the past six decades and beyond – a history well-known across the Arab world – but to demonstrate how obscene Obama’s references to Jewish children are when he insists to Arabs that they must show sympathy with Jewish children, without ever enjoining Jews to show sympathy with the far larger number of Arab children killed by Jews. But Obama himself shows no sympathy with Arab children. Had he attempted to mourn the Arab children who fell and fall victim to Israeli violence at the rate of hundreds, if not thousands, of Arab children to one Jewish child, Arabs might have forgiven him this indiscretion.
Alas, Obama has no place in his heart for Arab children, only for Jewish ones. He even manages to infantilise Israeli Jewish soldiers who kill Palestinians, as nothing short of innocent children whose families miss them. In his AIPAC speech, Obama calls on Hamas “to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years”, but not on Israel to release the 6,000 Palestinian political prisoners, who include 300 Palestinian children, languishing in Israel’s dungeons for many more years. Perhaps Obama could have at least mentioned the reports of Israeli soldiers’ torture of detained Palestinian children issued in late 2010 by Israeli human rights groups. In the case of detained Palestinian sixth graders, in addition to being beaten up and deprived of sleep by Israeli soldiers, two thirteen-year old children testified that “the most awful thing that happened, was when the soldiers went to the bathroom, they peed on us and did not use the toilet. One of them videotaped it.” But Obama was not moved by their plight, for they were not Jewish children.
Zionism and Jewish children
Interestingly and unlike Obama, Zionism did not always show similar love towards Jewish children, whom it never flinched from sacrificing for its colonial goals. In the Nazi period, Zionist leaders, for example, protested strongly against granting European Jews refuge in any country other than Palestine. In December 1938, David Ben-Gurion responded to a British offer, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, to take thousands of German Jewish children directly to Britain by saying: “If I knew it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel), then I would opt for the second alternative, for we must weigh not only the life of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.”
In November 1940, the Zionists responded to the British-imposed restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine, long demanded by the Palestinian people, by blowing up a ship with Jewish civilian passengers in Haifa – killing 242 Jews, including scores of children. For Zionism, Jewish children are as expendable as Palestinian and Arab children, unless they serve its colonial goals. In light of this, it becomes clear that it is not simply the Jewishness or Arabness of children that makes them expendable or not, but their insertion into a political project as figures that can advance its goals or constitute obstacles to them.
Israeli girls write messages on a shell at a heavy artillery position near Kiryat Shmona, in northern Israel, next to the Lebanese border, Monday, July 17, 2006 [AP]
Israel’s recruitment of Jewish children in paramilitary organisations, which began in 1948, continues apace, and is perhaps best exemplified in its Gadna [“Youth Battalions”] programme, where young Jewish boys and girls are prepared early for their future military service in the most militarised state on earth. The most outrageous use of Jewish children, however, would be illustrated when the Israeli army invited them to write messages of hate on the missiles about to be launched against Lebanese children during Israel’s July 2006 invasion of Lebanon. Captured by an Associated Press cameraman, the picture of blond Jewish girls near the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona writing messages of death to Lebanese children circulated the globe – though it remains unclear if they ever made their way to Obama’s desk. It is important to note that Obama might have met these same blond girls when he visited Kiryat Shmona a few months earlier, in January 2006. He recalled later that the town resembled an ordinary suburb in the US, where he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children “at joyful play just like my own daughters”.
Teaching children to hate
Given this history, not only are Palestinian children guilty of hating Israeli Jews, but also, Obama insists, they have no reason to hate Jews unless their evil elders indoctrinate them to do so. Binyamin Netanyahu himself, in his speech before Congress last week, reiterated Obama’s condemnation of Palestinians who allegedly “continue to educate their children to hate”. But what about Israeli Jewish children’s hatred of Arabs? A March 2010 poll by Tel Aviv University found that 49.5 per cent of Israeli Jewish high school students believe Palestinian citizens of Israel should not be entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel; 56 per cent believe they should not be eligible for election to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. According to a report in January 2011 in the largest Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, Jewish teachers in Israel stated that anti-Arab racism among Jewish students reached alarming levels, advocating killing Palestinians. The teachers found graffiti written on school walls and even on exam papers stating “Death To Arabs”. According to the report, a student at a school in Tel Aviv told his teacher during class that his dream is to become a soldier so he can exterminate all Arabs; several students in his class applauded in support of him. This, in no small amount, is the direct result of the racist Israeli school curricula with which Jewish children are regularly indoctrinated.
In his speech to Congress, Prime Minister Netanyahu correctly diagnosed the situation on the ground. He declared: “Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state.” It is the establishment of a Jewish settler colony that the Palestinians must accept to ensure a future for Jewish children and terminate a future for Palestinian children. Indeed it is precisely the refusal of Arabs to adopt Arabopedophobia that is the biggest impediment to peace in the region. Obama hopes that a Palestinian bantustan could limit the threat that Palestinian children constitute to the nightmare that is “the Jewish and democratic state”.
He recognises that the world can no longer claim to support universalism while endorsing Israel’s right to discriminate against non-Jews. In his AIPAC speech, he said as much when he told Israel’s lobby that the entire world, including Asia, Latin America, Europe (and he could have added Africa, which he inexplicably excluded) and the Arab World can no longer tolerate Israel’s institutionalised racism; that America in fact stands alone with Israel today. Clearly, Obama’s love for Jewish children knows no limits. His Arabopaedophobic views, however, are not accidental, but are motivated by his great love for the “children of Israel”, a love that can only be realised through continued hatred and containment of all Arabs, children and adults alike.
Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University. He is author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question (Routledge, 2006).
An Open Letter to the Troops:You’re Not Defending Our Freedoms
NOVANEWS
Dear Troops:
Yesterday — Memorial Day — some people asserted, once again, that you are “defending our freedoms” overseas.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Those people are just repeating tired old mantras. The reality is that you are not defending our freedoms with your actions overseas. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Your actions overseas are placing our freedoms here at home in ever-greater jeopardy.
Consider your occupation of Iraq, a country that, as you know, never attacked the United States, making it the defender in the war and the United States the aggressor. Think about that: Every single person that the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Yet, the countless victims of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have friends and relatives, many of whom have become filled with anger and rage and who now would stop at nothing to retaliate with terrorist attacks against Americans.
Pray tell: How does that constitute defending our freedoms?
It was no different prior to 9/11. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the troops intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities after a Pentagon study showed that this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people.
It worked. For 11 years after that, the troops enforced the cruel and brutal sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See “America’s Peacetime Crimes against Iraq” by Anthony Gregory.) You’ll recall U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.”
By “it” she meant the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. You will recall that he was a dictator who was the U.S. government’s ally and partner during the 1980s, when the United States was furnishing him with those infamous WMDs that U.S. officials later used to excite the American people into supporting your invasion of Iraq.
The truth is that 9/11 furnished U.S. officials with the excuse to do what their sanctions (and the deaths of all those Iraqi children) had failed to accomplish: ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a U.S-approved regime.
That’s what your post-9/11 invasion of Iraq was all about — to achieve the regime change that the pre-9/11 deadly sanctions that killed all those children had failed to achieve.
No, not mushroom clouds, not freedom, not democracy, and certainly not defending our freedoms here at home. Just plain old regime change.
In the process, all that you — the troops — have done with your invasion and occupation of Iraq is produce even more enmity toward the United States by people in the Middle East, especially those Iraqis who have lost loved ones or friends in the process or simply watched their country be destroyed.
In principle, it’s no different with Afghanistan. I’d estimate that 99 percent of the people the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in that country had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Why did you invade Afghanistan or, more precisely, why did President Bush order you to do so?
No, not because the Taliban participated in the 9/11 attacks and, no, not because the Taliban were even aware that the attacks were going to take place.
President Bush ordered the troops to invade Afghanistan — and, of course, kill Afghan citizens in the process — because the Afghan government – the Taliban — refused to comply with his unconditional extradition demand. You will recall that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to an independenttribunal to stand trial upon the receipt of evidence from the United States indicating his complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
Bush responded to the Taliban’s offer by issuing his order to the troops to invade Afghanistan, kill Afghans, and occupy the country. In the process, U.S. officials installed one of the most crooked, corrupt, and dictatorial rulers it could find to govern the country, one who is so incompetent he cannot even hide the manifest fraud by which he has supposedly been elected to office.
In the process of installing and defending the Karzai regime, the troops have killed brides, grooms, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and countrymen, most of whom never attacked the United States on 9/11 or at any other time. They simply became “collateral damage” or “bad guys” for having the audacity to oppose the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign regime. (It should be noted for the record that U.S. officials considered these types of “bad guys,” as well as Osama bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslims, to be “good guys” when they were trying to oust Soviet troops from Afghanistan.)
Was there another way to bring bin Laden to justice? Yes, the criminal-justice route, which was the route used after the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
That’s right. Same target, different date. In fact, the accused terrorists — Ramzi Yousef in 1993 and Osama bin Laden in 2001 — were ultimately located in the same country, Pakistan.
In Yousef’s case, he was arrested some three years after the attack, brought back to the United States, prosecuted, and convicted in federal district court. He’s now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary.
No invasions, no bombings, no occupations, no killing of countless innocent people, no torture, no war on terrorism, and no anger and rage that such actions inevitably would have produced among the victims, their families, and friends.
In bin Laden’s case, we instead got a military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, where the troops have killed, maimed, tortured, and hurt countless people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
How in the world have your invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq defended our freedoms here at home? Indeed, how have the assassinations and bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else defended our freedoms?
All these things have accomplished is keeping foreigners angry at us, thereby subjecting us to the constant and ever-growing threat of terrorist retaliation here at home. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. military — that is, you, the troops — have become the biggest terrorist-producing machine in history. Every time you kill some Iraqi or Afghan citizen, even when accidental, ten more offer to take his place out of anger and rage.
That’s the same thing that was happening prior to 9/11. In fact, there were some, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, who were warning prior to 9/11 that unless the U.S. Empire stopped what it was doing to people in the Middle East (including the deadly sanctions on Iraq, the support of Middle East dictators, the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional money and armaments to the Israeli regime), Americans would be increasingly subject to terrorist attacks. On 9/11, we were proven right, unfortunately. (See Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson.)
How does the constant threat of terrorist retaliation arising from your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan make us freer here at home, especially when you — the troops — are responsible for engendering the anger and rage that culminates in such threats, owing to what you are doing to people over there?
Consider also what the U.S. government does to our freedoms here at home as a direct consequence of the terrorist threat that you, the troops, are producing over there. It uses that threat of terrorism to infringe upon our freedoms here at home! You know what I mean — the fondling at the airports, the 10-year-old Patriot Act, the illegal spying on Americans, the indefinite detention, the torture, the kangaroo tribunals, Gitmo, and the entire war on terrorism — all necessary, they tell us, to keep us safe from the terrorists — that is, the people you all are producing with your actions over there.
In other words, if you all weren’t producing an endless stream of terrorists with your invasions, occupations, torture, assassinations, bombings, and Gitmo, the U.S. government — the entity you are working for — would no longer have that
excuse for taking away our freedoms.
This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried an article about American wives who were recently greeting their husbands on their return from Afghanistan. Newlywed Anne Krolicki, 24, commented to her husband on the death of one of her friends’ husband: “It’s a pointless war,” she said.
That lady has her head on straight. She’s has a grip on reality, doesn’t deal in tired old mantras, and speaks the truth. Every U.S. soldier who dies in Iraq and Afghanistan dies for nothing, which was the same thing that some 58,000 men of my generation died for in Vietnam.
Please don’t write me to tell me that you all are good people or that you’re “patriots” for simply following whatever orders you are given. All that is irrelevant. What matters is what you are doing over there. And what you are doing is not defending our freedoms, you are jeopardizing them.
Sincerely,
Jacob G. Hornberger
President
The Future of Freedom Foundation
www.fff.org
House Rejects Bill to Defund NATO Operations in Libya
NOVANEWS
NewsCore
The US House of Representatives narrowly defeated an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill Thursday which would have prevented funds from being used to support US operations in the NATO-led air campaign in Libya.
Offered by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), the amendment, which would have banned funds from being “used in contravention of war powers resolution,” was defeated in a close 213-208 vote. A switch of a mere three votes would have seen the measure pass.
The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the White House to request authority from Congress to engage in any military operations overseas lasting more than 60 days.
Sherman and others argue that President Barack Obama is outside the scope of the War Powers Act and must get a blessing from Congress to continue current operations against Col. Moamar Ghadafi in Libya.
The vote on Sherman’s amendment is separate from another Libya resolution authored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), which is expected to come up on the House floor Friday and which seeks an immediate withdrawal of US forces from the NATO-led campaign in the war-torn country.
Republican leadership has warned that many of its members may support the anti-war congressman’s resolution due to dissatisfaction with the lack of a “clear mission.”
House Republicans were meeting Thursday afternoon to discuss how to vote on the measure which is causing a political headache for the White House.
House Majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) admitted that the situation in Libya made for an odd political alliance.
“It’s counterintuitive to think that we would support Dennis Kucinich,” Cantor said Thursday, according to Roll Call magazine. “I mean, here’s a guy who’s anti-war, anti-military, and we’re going to support him?”
The Pentagon has declared its firm opposition to the Kucinich resolution, calling it “dangerous.”
“Secretary Gates believes that for the United States, once committed to a NATO operation, to unilaterally abandon that mission would have enormous and dangerous long-term consequences,” spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.
Divest from Zionist Companies
NOVANEWS
Dear,
Thank you for signing the petition demanding that TIAA-CREF divest from companies in their portfolio that profit from the Israeli Occupation. I am writing to you now with a campaign update and ways to get active with the campaign this summer.
As our recent campaign update explains: TIAA-CREF would rather censor their investors than let a resolution about Israeli Occupation reach their shareholder ballot. This is our chance to reach a whole new audience of TIAA-CREF investors and ask: “Why is TIAA-CREF Censoring You?”
From now until the CREF Shareholder Meeting in mid-July, we will be doing everything in our power to get that question out into the world—and with it the facts about TIAA-CREF’s investments in Israeli Occupation. This will be a fast-paced and action-oriented time of the campaign. We will do many things to raise We Divest’s profile, including two nationally-coordinated days of on-the-ground actions for you to be a part of in your local areas:
1) Flash Mobs! Week of June 20th.
Creative street theater in front of TIAA-CREF local offices.
2) Take the Vote to TIAA-CREF Action Day. July 19th.
TIAA-CREF has censored their own shareholder vote, but that doesn’t mean we can’t take the vote to them. These actions will look and feel like election parties–we’ll have an anchor event in New York City and groups around the country can set up symbolic “polling places” as well.
Please let us know what actions you can participate in or even help to organize by completing this quick form and we will connect you to other We Divest Campaign supporters and organizers in your area!
Onwards!
.jpg)
Rabbi Alissa Wise
Making the news
NOVANEWS
Dear friends across the UK,
|
The government’s decision onMurdoch’s takeover of BSkyB is imminent. But Vince Cable, who’s opposed this deal from the start, could still derail it by threatening to resign and bring down the coalition if it goes through. Let’s call on Cable to follow his conscience andtake a bold stand for our media and our democracy. Sign the petition now: |
Jeremy Hunt plans to approve Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB takeover in a few days time. But the coalition is weak and divided. With a huge appeal now to Vince Cable – who knows the danger Murdoch poses to our democracy – we could derail the deal.
In return for supporting David Cameron at the general election, Rupert Murdoch expected to own all of BSkyB months ago. He’s angry thatwe forced the government to put the brakes on. The Lib Dems were hammered by voters last month and are now desperately trying to distance themselves from the Tories. So let’s raise a mass outcry to Vince Cable to follow his conscience and threaten to resign unless the government blocks this deal.
Sign the petition calling on Cable to stand up against News Corporation, and for our democracy. We’ll deliver it with a splash to the Business Secretary next week, making media waves that could rock the coalition. With hacking scandals piling up and the deal’s cost rising every day this could be decisive. Sign now, and circulate to everyone you know.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/bkyb_decision_time/?vl
Last year Murdoch filed to take over 100% of the UK’s largest commercial broadcaster, to add to his media empire that includes close to 40% of our newspapers. Since then we’ve signed petitions, funded ads and legal briefings, rallied outside key meetings and sent tens of thousands of submissions to official processes. Last week Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said he was again delaying his decision because his staff are going through “a very large number of responses to the public consultation”.
Meanwhile additional evidence of phone hacking is crushing News Corp’s reputation with politicians and the public. The high court is now reviewing why the police failed to investigate fully. If the court finds that the police were leant on by News Corporation or the government, all hell will break loose. Murdoch’s outrageous tactics were also shown this week as Sky Italy dumped a TV station that has criticised Fox News’ biased coverage in the USA.
A few months ago Vince Cable – who’s more of a conviction politician than almost anyone in the cabinet – said he’d declared war on Rupert Murdoch. Recently he’s found his independent voice again, and the Lib Dems are desperate to show they’re not the Tories’ lapdogs. Let’s urge him to fire off a salvo and give Jeremy Hunt the choice: please Murdoch or save the coalition. Sign and petition and share this email today.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/bkyb_decision_time/?vl
Our media is vital for our democracy and cannot be left to technocrats and politicians alone to safeguard. We’ve already shown how people power can make a huge difference against huge odds – with the costs to Murdoch up by about 30% already. When people raise their voices they can transform principle into practice — and give politicians the backbone to do what’s right. Let’s rise to this moment, and ask Cable to do the same.
With hope and determination,
Alex, Pascal, Giulia, Ben and the whole Avaaz team
Sources:
News Corp closes in on full control of BSkyB
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6cbd9d0-8d53-11e0-bf23-00144feab49a.html
BSkyB buyout delayed amid widespread public concern for media
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bskyb-buyout-delayed-amid-widespread-public-concern-for-media-2286713.html
Phonehacking: Prescott stuns Westminster by winning judicial review
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/culture-media-and-sport/phonehacking-prescott-stuns-westminster-by-winning-judicial-review-$21388937.htm
Senior News of the World executive implicated in Jude Law hacking case http://www.channel4.com/news/senior-now-exec-named-in-jude-law-phone-hacking-case
Doubts over plan to spin off Sky News on stock market
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23953442-doubts-over-plan-to-spin-off-sky-news-on-stock-market.do
Al Gore hits out at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/19/al-gore-rupert-mudoch-news-corp?CMP=twt_gu
“a system to defend Israel from outer space”
NOVANEWS
So Congress just appropriated 235.7 million dollars for the David’s Sling and Arrow 3 missile defense systems, alongside investment for the development of a system to defend “Israel from outer space, against Iranian missiles” (serious). That is tossed into the pot atop $205 million to fund the Iron Dome missile batteries, and $3 billion in regular military aid, most of which gets re-routed to American industry.
Even David’s Sling is developed by Raytheon, an American company, and Rafael, an Israeli company. Israel is a mecca for high-technology production, which is what military investment is meant to augment. No shock that it occurs with and in Israel when 55 percent of Israel’s exports are in high-technology, 71 Israeli companies are listed on the NASDAQ, and Intel has 6,000 jobs over there. Nice investment opportunities, clearly, which get subsidized by the US government, and brokered and lubricated by the lobby, which represents the 20 percent of American “warm Jews” – short-hand for the Jewish upper-class and the liberal opinion-makers and managerial class who know who butters their bread and gives them the illusion of power.
Now, here’s when the labyrinthine conspiracies get interesting. The Ofer Brothers Group has allowed subsidiary companies to dock at Iranian ports and recently sold a tanker to Iran through one of its subsidiaries, which has prompted the US State Department to impose sanctions against the company. On the one hand, the Israeli government is attempting to get the US to remove the sanctions. On the other, a former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, thinks it’s much ado about very little. And in any event, reports Haaretz, “a discussion by the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee on the Ofer Brothers’ dealings with Iran was halted after 15 minutes because of warnings from the defense establishment that they might damage the State of Israel.”
The same State of Israel which has been pushing the US, through its domestic lobbying tentacle, AIPAC, to attack Iran for reasons of national security? What is going on here? Same thing that’s always going on. The rich are getting richer, even while they’re preparing their escapes: 100,000 Israelis hold German passports, with 7,000 more procuring them every year. Gideon Levy comments, “The foreign passport has become an insurance policy against a rainy day. It turns out there are more and more Israelis who are thinking that day may eventually come,” a day which they hasten every time they leave it to the radicals to join the non-violent protests in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that are one of the more promising routes to avoid regional disaster.
But then Levy oddly comments: “If we had a leadership worthy of the name, one that instead of sowing anxieties did something to reduce them, and instead of terrifying us instilled hopes in us, then the lines at the German Embassy would have become shorter long ago.” Who does he think is voting for the governments that create a climate of fear so as to continue Israeli militarized accumulation? Who does he think are the constituencies of the “peace” parties that are miraculously never able to make peace? The same people sitting in the top 10 percent of Israeli society, the same ones procuring the passports to leave when the monster they’ve created sets off regional conflagration.
Technorati Tags: AIPAC, Israel, Palestine, Zionism
Related posts:
-
J Street, from outer space J Street sends me their regular cracked-out strategies for achieving…
-
yalla Grant Smith you need to reconfigure that analysis So the incorrigible and tenaciously ignorant Grant Smith/Idrees Ahmad duo…
-
what ruling class split on Israel? Amir Oren reports: According to Ross, for all the importance…
-
The Banality of Anti-Israel Lobby Doctrine This is a guest post from David Green. My own…
-
shalom Israel we’re gonna put something much nicer there when it’s all over Israel’s leadership is astoundingly stupid. Marinated in racism, the leaders…
A. Loewenstein Online Newsletter
| NOVANEWS |
-
Growing numbers of Israelis want second passport
-
Murdoch logic; backers of war should receive a peace prize
-
This is what “mainstream” US backing for Israel looks like
Growing numbers of Israelis want second passportPosted: 02 Jun 2011 10:48 AM PDTBecause, writes Gideon Levy in Haaretz, the Zionist state is becoming an increasingly intolerant place where Jewish extremism is the mainstream:
Passports? If the Palestinian people already had one real passport, maybe the Israelis wouldn’t need two. If Israel were to try at long last to be accepted in its region, with all that entails, then maybe the region would open to it by means of a single, blue and white passport. If Israel were also to take the advice of its friends in the world, especially in the countries of Europe, then perhaps we wouldn’t need their passports.
|
Murdoch logic; backers of war should receive a peace prizePosted: 02 Jun 2011Noam Chomsky has won the 2011 Sydney Peace Prize over his legendary support for human rights and challenging power it all its forms. That makes him an enemy of a Murdoch empire that spends its entire time wanting to be intimate with government and business. The poor dears can’t understand why a man who opposes war is so feted. Why can’t war-mongers be given equal public billing? |
This is what “mainstream” US backing for Israel looks likePosted: 02 Jun 2011 |


