It's a brave new world. Jimmy Carter goes on Al-Jazeera to talk to Riz Khan, and I can watch him on my computer. Here's a reference to Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk:
[I]n the previous 16 years, most of the envoys for the president in the Mid East have been openly and publicly committed to Israel's side. Some of them have been professional lobbyists for Israel. George Mitchell is a different person...
Al-Jazeera quotes another statement by Carter:
"The fact is that very few of
the presidents have been willing to confront Israel's forces in the
United States, politically speaking," Carter said in what appeared to
be a reference to the powerful Israeli lobby.
(Phil Weiss)
Carter rocks but I fear Obama's political fate is going to end up like him.
In American politics, you can't do anything in the Middle East without the approval of Tel Aviv
Carter is echoing CIA agent Robert Baer, who said:
"In American politics, you can't do anything in the Middle East without the approval of Tel Aviv, at least on some level. It's impossible. I mean, I cannot think of a country that is so beholden to a small country like this, even a superpower, in all of history. I can't even think of it.
IPS: And why is that?
RB: Look at New York City. Look at the major newspapers. They have a Zionist agenda. They do. I'm not Jewish. I'm not anything. I don't care about the Israelis. And I'm not anti-Semitic. It's just a fact. I suggested to my publisher writing a book on Israel, and he said forget it. You can't talk about the reality of Israel. The only place you can talk about the reality of Israel is in Israel. They tell you things you will never hear in the United States.
IPS: Like what?
RB: For instance, why are people on Gaza so unhappy? Well, if you had to live in a prison, wouldn't you be unhappy? You would never get that in the New York Times. Look at the New York Times; it's almost an extension of Israel.
Omid Memarian interviews former CIA operative ROBERT BAER
This actually illustrates that Bob Baer has immunity, because, obviously, there is no such thing as an "ex" CIA man, he's a plant.
I have a very interesting little snippet about him here:
link to niqnaq.wordpress.com
Well, in my lifetime I have gone from a general sympathy for Israel, to rein them in please, to just destroy them. And destroy every trace of Israel and zionist in the US.
Reads this and you will see why they must be destroyed just as the nazis were. Israel isn't savable and every zionst strain of it must be wiped out so it can never surface in the world again.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/01/gaza-atrocities.html
Gaza Atrocities
With regret I note the following story sent me by McClatchy News. pl
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/60853.html
Can we make "Zionism=racism denial" a thought crime? That would be poetic justice.
~
Good stuff on Baer, Rowan. Thanks.
Thank you Dan. Chaim Kupferberg is an exceptionally obscure person. I am not at all sure whether he isn't a pseudonym.
Carter is far more nuanced in his comments, than Phil's description.
Dan, I just thought I might add that, no matter how complex and elaborate the false flag terrorist operations may be, they are still useless without compliant mass media.
Dan, I just thought I might add that, no matter how complex and elaborate the false flag terrorist operations may be, they are still useless without compliant mass media.
Agreed.
Hamas officials signal willingness to negotiate
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Senior officials in the Islamic group Hamas are indicating a willingness to negotiate a deal for a long-term truce with Israel as long as the borders of Gaza are opened to the rest of the world.
"We want to be part of the international community," Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad told The Associated Press at the Gaza-Egypt border, where he was coordinating Arab aid shipments. "I think Hamas has no interest now to increase the number of crises in Gaza or to challenge the world."
Hamas is trying hard to flex its muscles in the aftermath of Israel's punishing onslaught in the Gaza Strip, doling out cash, vowing revenge and declaring victory over Zionist aggression. But AP interviews with Hamad and two other Hamas leaders in the war-ravaged territory they rule suggest some of that might be more bluster than reality — and the group may be ready for some serious deal making.
Hamas says it wants international recognition as much as an end to the blockade of Gaza — but it won't get either for free. For Hamas, the price may include allowing Fatah back into Gaza 20 months after it violently ousted them, along with halting its rocket fire and weapons smuggling.
The notion of engaging Hamas is anathema to Israel.
"A dialogue with Hamas as a terror organization would be a strategic mistake, because Israel advocates dialogue with the moderates and displaying toughness against the extremists," Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the Maariv daily this week.
Israel's position is based on the fact that Hamas refuses to recognize its right to exist. However, the three Hamas leaders interviewed said they would accept statehood in just the West Bank and Gaza and would give up their "resistance" against Israel if that were achieved.
"We accept a state in the '67 borders," said Hamad. "We are not talking about the destruction of Israel."
Hamas officials signal willingness to negotiate
Haaretz resembles JPost more and more. This is its closing quote on the US academics who propose a boycott:
"The usual anti-Israel suspects in U.S. universities may sign on to the petition, but it won't amount to much," predicted Mitchell Bard, executive director at the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, which seeks to strengthen the pro-Israel camp at American colleges. "If it becomes a widespread effort, I'm sure some effort will be given to countering it, but it is out of touch with the mood in the country," he said. "Israel has near record high support, [U.S. President Barack] Obama has just taken office with a positive message and the focus will be on moving the peace process forward, not sideshows by anti-Semites and cranks among American pseudo-academics."
Interesting work, Rowan, KSM is surely an interesting part of the larger story. Why don't you turn it into an open letter to Baer?
A couple of points:
Baer may well ride the wave of post 911 public attention, which is both good for the publisher and the author.
Consider the possibility of misunderstanding on the side of a journalist; maybe even a planned one. I had early experiences with how a story can be distorted really early in my life. Journalists work under pressure.
Consider not quite standardized spellings of Arab names, unfamiliar name patterns. Consider some things gain new significance in hindsight. Consider facts mixed up with fiction. Consider a partly failing memory. Consider the blurring of boundaaries between terrorist, informants, under cover agents and the services …
Consider that quite possibly not all terrorism is secret service instigated, surely some is: e.g. Project Gladio.
I have never really looked into it carefully, but the German terrorists had ME connections. In one case the order to assassinate the German president of the Central Jewish Council here in Germany forced the guy to go underground. His mother had been in a concentration camp during the Nazis and killed herself after he was born. At the time he didn't even know she wasn't Jewish.
This surely leads us into a field in which Israel is on visible front line, while the larger worldwide security networks and experts only drew our attention post 911. I remember a web site that I traced in England that suddenly closed "doors" to leave an entrance slot for a couple of days and then shut down for good for the general public. The realization of the worldwide networks in this context set my head spinning. Complex matters.
And as Phil has sometimes noted, obviously there is real terrorism in the post colonial Arab world; e.g. in Algeria. 160.000 people died between 1992 and 2002, that surely is not Western secret services instigated.
You should try to get a hand on these files
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059873.html
Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened
By The Associated Press
Tags: hamas, gaza, israel
Senior Hamas officials are indicating a willingness to negotiate a deal for a long-term truce with Israel as long as the borders of Gaza are opened to the rest of the world.
"We want to be part of the international community," Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad told The Associated Press this week at the Gaza-Egypt border, where he was coordinating Arab aid shipments. "I think Hamas has no interest now to increase the number of crises in Gaza or to challenge the world."
Interesting work, Rowan, KSM is surely an interesting part of the larger story. Why don't you turn it into an open letter to Baer?
because I didn't write it, Leander; Chaim Kupferberg (whoever he is) wrote it, as I hope I clearly state.
re the US academic boycott campaign, please go immediately to
link to usacbi.wordpress.com
/>
and if you are an accredited US academic, please sign up.
Yes, my mistake, I didn't pay attention to the link above. Thanks for opening my eyes. ;)
I don't know what Richard Witty is driving at, but here's a link
to the Carter interview video clip:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200912823298296434.html
In it, inter alia, Carter says he gave a copy of his book to both Obama and Mitchell. He favors the Joint Arab plan, saying it is in accord with official declared USA position (distinguished from what our recent presidents have allowed), as well as being in accord with UN resolutions and International law. He would add to the Arab Plan that
Israel be given an area around Jerusalem sufficient to contain half
the settlers, leaving none deep in the present OCT; in exchange, Israel would have to give the new Palestinian state an equal amount of land. He mentions giving Pals the right of return, but does not elaborate.
Gaza Violence Complicates Mitchell Mission
link to nytimes.com
By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: January 29, 2009
JERUSALEM — A day after President Obama’s special Middle East envoy called for a consolidation of the fragile Gaza cease-fire, the truce came under new strain Thursday when the Israeli military said Palestinians fired a rocket into Israel at dawn and Israel launched an air attack into southern Gaza.
That's a poor summary, Richard, you should google around for more detail before posting.
I also favor the Arab League plan, in similar terms to Carter.
But that is stated as a goal, a laudable approach.
Funnily enough, Richard, DEBKAfile have by far the best account I can find of the renewed firing. One has to remember, though, to read DEBKAfile a rebours.
Obama needs to tell the Israelis in a public address: Get the f…out of the last 22% of land Palestinians have been reduced to by your government, supported by my own past governments.
Won't happen. But, if Obama does not take advantage of the Gaza massacre to change drastically the one-sided USA policy in the context of the I-P scenario–he's truly a hollow man, no matter the color of his shell.
Funnily enough, Richard, DEBKAfile have by far the best account I can find of the renewed firing. One has to remember, though, to read DEBKAfile a rebours.
"A rebours." I had to look that up. Against the grain, from the 1884 French novelist, Joris-Karl Huysmans. Good stuff (and sounds like a good read). Anyway, I checked DEBKA, and perhaps found an example, though not as illustrative as I would have liked. The following is the last sentence of the piece, which came after 6 paragraphs of blatant pro-Israel, anti-Hamas rhetoric:
"Our military sources stress that the Israeli air strike which killed a Hamas member of the bomb squad in Khan Younis Tuesday night and its bombardment of three Philadelphi Corridor smuggling tunnels early Wednesday were but a foretaste of the reprisals the Israel military has in store for curbing further Hamas aggression."
Two Qassam missiles aimed at Sderot early Thursday shatter ceasefire
Most people I talk to on the Internet refer to DEBKAfile as a Mossad outlet, but I always think of it as an Israeli Army Intelligence outlet.
Obama needs to tell the Palestinians in a public address: 75% of land is now called Jordan. Palestinians have been reduced to by the British government supported by the now Jordanians. Jews are forbidden to live there.
Obama needs to tell the Israeli jews that they should be so lucky to keep any land stolen by them post Nuremberg Trials. That refers to the whole original :Palestine Mandate. And don't look to the USA's stealing of native American land as an excuse, or justification. Otherwise, Israel should just say publicly that the Nuremberg Laws
were just economic victor justice. Goering be praised for his insight.
"285,000 settlers in the territories"?
Jimmy Carter's interviews, Jewish interviewers, writers, assert that to be a fact. And so dominant be Jewish voices, creating facts out of fiction, even Riz Khan said it (he should know better).
George Mitchell his 2001 report, George W. Bush at first endorsed it (2002), The Quartet Road Map endorsed it (2003), no more settlements.
Seems clear, Israel and the lobby, they see Obama, writing on the wall, and they mean to confine this battle, to settlements outside Jerusalem (Israel's vast expansion of its boundaries), to treat the 12 Jerusalem settlements, and all the rest of Israeli confiscated Palestinian land, in occupied Jerusalem, that's "approximately 200,000 settlers in East Jerusalem" (part of the 1967 oPt).
And so, there are more than 450,000 Israel settlers, and on much more confiscated Palestinian land, not 285,000.
The lie is the word "territories," which the whole world (and the International Court of Justice) knows to include all that confiscated land, in and around Jerusalem. But, the liars silently exclude that land. Israel annexed it (rejected by the rest of the world), and so it's not "territories," in their liar lingo, Jewish-speak.
The public doesn't speak that New Speak. It's a simple lie, a willful, malicious, lie. Shame on Diane Rehm (and she's got plenty of company), for lying to her NPR listeners. But every Jew doesn't know everything. May be, she doesn't know it's a lie, she could be unwitting, an innocent agent, broadcasting the liars' lie. May be, she takes what other Jewish people say, as gospel (to mix metaphors). May be, she's willfully blind, she and her producers, finds a Jewish source, who says what she wants to hear, and she doesn't want to know any different.
I've reluctantly come to this view, we must pin yellow stars on Jewish talkers, writers, producers, editors, when the subject concerns Israel and the lobby. It's a bias, a material bias (it's a "Jewish State," get it?). This, until Israel is put in its box, defanged, and resolved to live in peace with its neighbors.
I believe Phil shares this view, rationally, but emotionally it discomforts him, and there is a rational kicker, it can seed generalized anti-Jewish feelings, directed against all Jews, not just the starred subset, the talkers and writers who promote Israel's bad deeds.
Phil might wish honest Jewish liars would just do it voluntarily, disclose their bias, when they're talking and writing. But a big number, maybe most, probably feel they boxed their bias, and all the words they choose, and all the words they reject, it's all the perfect truth, their final product.
I've got a better idea. Let all Jews stand down, from talking about these issues from gate keeping, designating who speaks, who is silenced — stand down, from their powerful perches, their editorial fortresses — until these issues are finally resolved. Let them mingle their voices with the rest of the general public, clamoring for attention, and let non-Jewish voices take over their chairs, for these topics, and let them open the gates, in the traditional way, of honest, non-biased, conscientious, talkers, writers, producers, editors.
But if they don't, then let them pin-on their yellow stars, so we can know their bias, when they dance their dance.
Caveats. A fair number of Jewish talkers are not liars (but they still have a bias, and it sometimes shows), but they should still be starred — like Amy Goodman, a righteous Jew — good advertisement, gives Jews a good name. Some Jewish liars sometimes disclose they're Jewish, and even Israeli nationals, like Michael Krasny did (KQED), before he proceeded to abuse Jimmy Carter (last year), promoting Alan Dershowitz's lie, that Jimmy Carter depends materially on Arab money. Long since asked and answered by Jimmy Carter. Some Jewish voices follow my recommendation and don't talk about these issues from their powerful perches.
Details:
285,000: "The number of settlers in the territories as of 2008: 285,800." Peace Now, "Summary of Construction in the West Bank 2008" (January 28 2009), reported (Daniel Luban) (is the lobby infiltrating IPS? like they've done AP?)
450,000: U.N. Doc. A/63/519 (November 5 2008).
"Prosecuting U.S. complicity in Israel settlement confiscations"
Thanks, CJH. I've learned to always check out the links you provide, they usually turn out to be invaluable.
On the question of "yellow stars," I share your sad conclusion, and I think most people who have dealt with this issue for any length of time do too. Anyone today who is not Googling the author's name and "jewish" whenever confronted with a statement about Israel, is I'm afraid hopelessly lost.
You are correct D. Jews always do this. Non-Jews have to get past
their conditioning to not ever consider race, creed, or color. Otherwise they are just tools, basking in a philosophy nobody takes seriously but themselves.
Correction: Michael Krasny
A bad sentence. I do not claim Michael Krasny is a liar, because he confronted Jimmy Carter, with the claim that Jimmy Carter "depends" on Arab money. I've written this without relistening to the interview.
Alan Dershowitz invented that claim, "No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia." (FrontPageMagazine.com, April 30 2007, repeating his earlier claim). And many Jewish voices endlessly repeat that claim, into the present, bloggers, commenters, writers, talkers, most of them anonymous.
I heard a Jewish radio talk show host say, he privately consults Alan Dershowitz, when he intends to interview the likes of Jimmy Carter (guests who depart from the Jewish line, when discussing Israel-Palestine), and if that's what Michael Krasny did, I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't know. May be, Michael Krasny was influenced indirectly, by the echo chamber, Jewish voices repeating Alan Dershowitz.
If Michael Krasny knew of Jimmy Carter's reply to that charge — and he's replied to it several times, with chapter and verse — then Michael Krasny would know the charge has no merit, and yet he put the charge to Jimmy Carter as if it did have merit. I would call that a "lie," wilfully concealing material contrary information.
If Michael Krasny's goal had been to revisit that charge, for the purpose of laying it to rest, as a charge refuted by the evidence, that's a laudable goal, a useful interview topic (to dissuade Jewish voices from repeating it). He would have conversed about it differently, for that purpose, summarizing what Jimmy Carter had already said about it, and then having a chat about it.
Jimmy Carter doesn't need Arab money and so — by definition — he cannot be "dependent" on it.
His pension is $191,300 per year (currently) paid, not by Arab oil money, but by U.S. taxpayers, more precisely, the Chinese government, lender of last resort to the U.S. government, which doesn't have enough tax revenues to pay anybody's salary or pension.
That ain't peanuts. And, he doesn't have to do a lick of work to earn it. Some, in New York City, might scoff at it, but not many, I don't suppose, not most New Yorkers, they wouldn't scoff at it, I'm guessing. And, he doesn't live in New York City anyway, he lives in rural Plains Georgia, and his house is long since bought and paid for, so what's he got to spend it on, that he "depends" upon.
Jimmy Carter has received his pension, continuously, from the clock tick, the moment he stopped being president (January 20 1981, at noon). It wasn't that many dollars to start with (basic pay for the head of an executive department, "Executive Level I") but then — to start with — he didn't need that many dollars, because Reagan-Bush-Bush, they hadn't yet bankrupted and looted the U.S. treasury, exploded the federal debt, budget deficits, balance of trade deficits, inflating living costs in the process.
The government also pays for a fully staffed office, for Jimmy Carter, and pays his telephone bills (local and long distance). Details: "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits" (CRS 98-249 GOV, updated March 18 2008) {71kb.pdf}.
Besides his pension, Jimmy Carter writes books. 26 so far. His book tours, they cost money. I guess that comes off the top, from the book sales he generates. Famously, he signs 800 books an hour, in the bookstores, that's $21,600, for a $27 dollar book. That sales revenue, it's not all his, it's split with the publisher and the seller. I don't know what that split is. Maybe he gets a third:
Only $7,200 an hour. And, to get on the New York Times Bestsellers list, you have to sell a lot more books than you can sign. Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, that was on the list, for 19 consecutive weeks.
Jimmy Carter says, "I have never received one cent personally, either from Mideast contributors or from the Carter Center." As for the Carter Center, he cites proof, published, audited, financial statements, from day one (1981), and IRS forms 990, posted from 1999 on the internet, the Carter Center website.
Obviously then, absent startling new evidence, the truth is the exact opposite of what Alan Dershowitz claims:
Nobody can claim Jimmy Carter is "dependent on Arab oil money."
Except for liars — malicious lairs (they know it's not true) and reckless liars (they don't care if it's true or not, and they don't trouble themselves to inquire about it). And the produce of liars, their debris, the deceived, willfully blind, misinformed, mistaken.
The echo chamber — mainstream media Jewish voices, the rabbi network, the Jewish weekly newspapers, and Jews with no names (anonymous bloggers and commenters) — they cry out, "No! Alan Dershowitz says it's so. And we're entitled to repeat it. We're not malicious or reckless liars. He's a famous professor, at a famous law school. We're entitled to rely on what he says. We don't know any different. We don't have to investigate behind Alan Dershowitz, to check his sources, to make sure he knows what he's talking about. If anybody's a malicious or reckless liar, it's Alan Dershowitz, not us. We're just an echo chamber, we repeat what we hear, we're innocent agents."
Which brings us to the Carter Center. Jimmy Carter does not "depend" on money from the Carter Center, because he receives none. But he values the Carter Center and so, does the Carter Center "depend" on Arab oil money.
Jimmy Carter says no, and he cites the same proof, the audited, published, financial statements, from 1981, and IRS forms. This proof shows donations from Arab sources but — the material fact omitted by Alan Dershowitz and his ilk — a small percentage of total donations, 2.7%, Jimmy Carter says.
As with Jimmy Carter (Alan Dershowitz, his headline claim), so too, no reasonable, honest, person can reasonably say it about the Carter Center either, that the Carter Center is "dependent" on Arab oil money. Nobody is "dependent" on 2.7% of their revenues/assets. They're glad to have them, but they're not "dependent" on them.
That's an average, so in a particular year the percentage will be higher, or lower, but the burden is on Alan Dershowitz to show the details, and he hasn't done it, that the percentage is so high, that "dependent" is an accurate description, for a particular year.
Jimmy Carter detailed, the Arab donations and percentages, to the Carter Center, at his Brandeis speech (January 23 2007). He gave more details at his Town Hall, at Emory University (February 22 2007), I think it was (audio, no transcript), and on a few other occasions too, but I have to go and find it. Here's what he said at Brandeis (Q&A number 7):
"I was prepared for this question about finances because it's very important. I didn't mention that one of the epithets that concerned me in the past was accepting bribes.
I had my staff go down the detailed records of The Carter Center since 1981. Every contribution that we have received has been publicized in the Annual Reports. Our income and expenditures every year is thoroughly audited by internationally recognized auditing firms.
Of the total amount of contributions that we have received from all the Mideast Arab nations combined, the amount has been 2.7 percent. Of that amount, 71 percent of their contributions have gone for health programs in Africa, 21 percent have gone for our Carter Center's endowment, 5 percent went for our original construction of The Carter Center buildings, and 3 percent have gone for elections, economic development, and so forth. Part of that money that helped us with the cost of elections in Palestine came from some of those donors.
We have never had a Mideast donor who wanted to be anonymous. All of them have been publicized.
I might add that I have never received one cent personally, either from Mideast contributors or from The Carter Center. This is the (Carter Center's) 25th year. I've always worked without any salary whatsoever.
When I do receive an award, for instance from Sheik Zayed of the United Arab Emirates, one of those names. That was, I believe, a $200,000 award because we had the outstanding environmental achievement of the year. The reason was that we had initiated a system of farming in 15 nations in Africa that ended the slash and burn technique that they had used in the past, and the $200,000 award was given, awarded to me. I gave the check to The Carter Center.
When I received the Nobel Peace Prize, I didn't keep a penny of it, because a lot of it was for the Carter Center's work. I gave it to The Carter Center, a little bit to my wife's additional program down at Georgia Southwestern College on Caregiving. I received a $100,000 award from the Rotary International Organization and another $100,000 from the Lions International. All that money went to The Carter Center.
So, I've received no benefit at all personally from those sources, and I never will."