Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 662 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)

Showing comments 662 - 601
Page:

  • 'A better relationship with Iran' is the deal's secret promise, but supporters can't say so
    • Dan Crowther

      All kinds of xenophobia, hatred against groups of others and the gruesome mistreatment of others individually and in groups were common and accepted until recently. Sometimes more or less rational disputes were at the bottom of such abhorrent human behaviour, at other times it was just irrational, and often a mix of both rational and irrational elements were involved. That's human history, not just European or jewish history.

      What's not new is the racism of the zionist movement, it's just copied from wide-spread European racism in the era of colonialism and imperialism of the late 19th century. What's new is the huge amount of power the zionist jewish movement got. I think it happened before in judaism, that quite large streams of the faith followed guys who claimed redemption came now, but never before judaism or a redemption stream of the faith got so much power and got so mainstream as it is with zionism now.

    • Philip

      Three days ago he (Obama) called his opponents on the Iran Deal “the crazies.”

      As I commented here before I do strongly think that saying Obama called his opponents of the Iran deal "the crazies" is a mischaracterisation of what he actually said.

      Bush Sr.’s CIA Briefer Ray McGovern was very clear that the term the crazies is widely known inside US power structures as a reference to the neocons trying to lead the US in endless international confrontations and serial wars of aggression.

      AMY GOODMAN:Now one of the things we are talking about a lot and seeing a lot is that the same people that were there during the Reagan-Bush years and even before, the Wolfowitzes the Rumsfelds, Cheneys were there then. What was George Bush’s view of these people then?

      RAY MCGOVERN: Well, you know it’s really interesting. When we saw these people coming back in town, all of us said who were around in those days said, oh my god, 'the crazies' are back — 'the crazies' — that’s how we referred to these people.

      AMY GOODMAN: Did George Bush refer to them that way?

      RAY MCGOVERN: That’s the way everyone referred to them.

      AMY GOODMAN: Including George Bush?

      RAY MCGOVERN: Well, when Wolfowitz prepared that defense posture statement in 1991, where he elucidated the strategic vision that has now been implemented, Jim Baker, Secretary of State, Brent Scowcroft, security advisor to George Bush, and George Bush said hey, that thing goes right into the circular file. Suppress that thing, get rid of it. Somebody had the presence of mind to leak it and so that was suppressed. But now to see that arise out of the ashes and be implemented. while we start a war against Iraq, I wonder what Bush the first is really thinking. Because these were the same guys that all of us referred to as 'the crazies'.

      Source:

      link to democracynow.org

      In April 2015 Ray McGovern used the term "the crazies" again over there at Consoritum News:

      Would the neocons – widely known as “the crazies” at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?

      The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon “crazies” still exercise huge influence in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the “crazies” are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear confrontation, a “Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.”

      link to consortiumnews.com

      As a BBC journalist claimed in 2004 Colin Powell is also said to have referred to the neocons as the crazies. And Bill Kristol, editor of the neocon flagship The Weekly Standard, immediately after Obama's comment confirmed he felt he was among the people meant with the term the crazies. So, to me it's quite clear that the crazies is a term refering to the adherents of the neocon ideology. I think the term "the extremists" would fit better, because the main problem with the neocons is their Likudist extremism, but the term to use to make many people understand that the neocons are meant is "the crazies."

      And then look what Obama really said:

      “We were doing a little reminiscing and then figuring out how we’re going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems. And then we talked about riding off into the sunset together.”

      He said he and Harry Reid are going to deal with the crazies, ie the neocons, in terms of managing some problems. Some problems is not only a single problem, but a plural. So, what' Obama really said, was he's going to take on the Neocons on a whole series of issues, and Harry Reid helps him doing that.

      And, of course, it's not that hard to figure put, what these international problems are, where Obama is at loggerheads with the neocons. At the forefront of these problems are: Peace in Palestine, the relationship with Iran, and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Yemen.

      And herein lies what's really behind the Iran deal. It's a mischaracterization to say that it is in the cards that Iran and the U.S. can become friends. It's not, both Obama and Khemenei have been clear on that. However, what is in the cards is a working relationship with Iran based on mutual interests. And here Iran is almost everywhere on Obama's side, ie in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, while the neocons are on the opposite side. So, what is in the cards is that Obama and his huys in the US will work together on all the wars in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, working to get an outcome liked by Obama and Iran, and disliked by the neocons. That is a huge, very huge perspective.

      And there is even more US-Iranian collaboration based on mutual interests in the cards, for example bringing down the world heroin production and stamping out the ideological roots of global Wahhabi terrorism, so there is ample space for further US-Iranian cooperation based on mutual interests. And, of course, at the center of all this US-Iranian cooperation may well be the shared interest to put the neocon extremism back in the box, what is precisely why Netanyahu goes all out against the effort by Obama to bring back in Iran.

  • 'NYT' and Chris Matthews are frank about Jewish role in Iran Deal debate
    • Sawah

      How much freedom do talk show hosts (including news shows) have in what they say?

      Internal freedom of speech in US media is close to zero. One tweet your boss doesn't like and you're out. For example, CNN fired Senior Editor of Mideast affairs Octavia Nasr over one single tweet of compassion that read:

      Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah... One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot.

      Source:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      After being 20 years with CNN that was enough for Octavia Nasr being fired immediately.

      So, when Chris Matthews takes on Israel and the lobby and the next day he's still not fired you can be sure that he has to have the permission of his bosses to do that. And it's not too hard to guess why. From the Wikipedia article on Comcast, the company owning MSNBC, which employs Chris Matthew:

      Comcast was among the top backers of Barack Obama's presidential runs, with Comcast vice president David Cohen raising over $2.2 million from 2007 to 2012.

      Source:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      I hope this info helps a bit to understand the story a bit better.

    • Annie

      This seems to become a big story. Looking in Google News and Twitter there seem to be a lot of attention to Obama's use of the term "The crazies"

      link to google.com

      link to twitter.com

      However, the crazies and their media seem trying to spin that Obama meant by the term "the crazies" all the opponents of the Iran deal. While I'm quite sure that the US intel community understands very well that the crazies is a reference to the crazy neocons and Likudniks I wonder whether the general US public understands that. It will be interesting to see whether Obama defends and explains his remarks about the crazies.

    • Today it was unaddressed, but I wonder when the fairy tale of Israel being the US' biggest ally in the Middle East is starting to crack.

      Feehery: It alienates… it puts in danger our biggest ally in the region, which is Israel

      Today it would have been likely too much, but I see the day coming, when a "Feehery" gets a reply from a mainstream journalist like: "How can you say Israel is our biggest ally in the region. The relationship is totally one sided: Israel takes from the US, but doesn't give much to the US. Isreal should be better described as our biggest burden in the region."

      By the way, has anyone noticed this? Bloomberg:

      Obama Says He’s Ready to Take On ‘Crazies’ as Iran Vote Looms

      ... “We were doing a little reminiscing and then figuring out how we’re going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems,” Obama said at a fundraiser for the Nevada State Democratic Party. ... So who are “the crazies?” Obama didn’t say, specifically. A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, didn’t immediately respond to an inquiry. ... One guy who’s pretty sure he’s a crazy: Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, a conservative political magazine. “We ‘crazies’ wear his scorn as a badge of honor,’” Kristol tweeted on Tuesday. Kristol opposes the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

      link to bloomberg.com

      So, though Bloomberg is not that explicit on this, now "the Crazies" is a Presidential term. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who understand who is referenced by this term. How many people don't know this?

      "The Crazies Are Back": Bush Sr.’s CIA Briefer Discusses How Wolfowitz & Allies Falsely Led the U.S. To War

      link to democracynow.org

  • 4,500 killed in Yemen in 150 Days of Saudi-led bombing
    • lysias

      What about a military coup (or a palace coup) in Saudi Arabia? Could that be a way out?

      I doubt that in the current stage of the war a coup could succeed. The Saudi elites are euphoric in supporting this war against Yemen, because it is against, how they see it, "further Persian encroachment on Arab lands" to spread their "Shia misbelief" there. The faction against this war is a very tiny minority in Saudi elites. And in the Saudi wahhabi population the war is quite popular, too. Almost nobody of the Saudi regime and it's supporters can apparently imagine that the Saudis can badly lose this war. If so, only a Iranian and western conspiracy against true Saudi believers could try to steal the the victory.

      Well, that may be one of the motives for the P5+1 doing nothing on this war, too. They may think the Saudis need to fall into their own sword to come to their senses - but the Yemenis pay the price for that gamble.

    • The way out with some kind of deal needs pressure, and a lot of it, on Saudi Arabia to stop the bombing and lift the blockade. Neither the US nor the P5+1 is currently willing to mount that pressure on Saudi Arabia for various reasons, the most obvious reason being to bargain doing nothing against the Saudi-led massacre in Yemen for Saudi support for the P5+1-Iran deal.

      The much longer way is for the Yemeni army to mount a successful counter campaign in Saudi Arabia, thereby inflicting enough pain on the Saudis to accept defeat. Yemen's army is currently working hard on this, but it will likely take years before this counter campaign can succeed stopping the Saudi war on Yemen, it may well be that it won't happen before Saudi Arabia breaks apart inself. The Saudi regime has invested so much political capital in that war that it can hardly pull back without a significant loss of face and power internally, and each day it continues the war, it invests more into the war and pulling back from that bloody Yemeni mess becomes harder and harder.

    • Thank you Ben, for this update about the vicious Saudi-led war on Yemen.

      However, one piece of information I find in this article as staggering false as it is in almost all the western mass media reports. Who is fighting whom in Yemen? You wrote:

      ... which pits a US-backed coalition of Middle Eastern nations and forces loyal to President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi against Iran-backed Houthi rebels and fighters loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

      However, the reality on the ground seems to be that the Saudi-led coalition and tribal fighters, armed forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and the islah party, Southern Movement separatists, Al Qaeda and ISIS fight against the Armed Forces of Yemen, the paramilitary forces of Yemen's interior ministry, who are militarily backed by the Houthi militia and other tribal forces and politically backed by the GPC - the party led by Ali Saleh - and Houthi movement.

      While forces loyal to President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi are almost non-existent as non of the forces opposing the government in Sanaa is loyal to "President" Hadi, the Armed Forces of Yemen and the forces of the interior ministry are loyal to the chairman of the Supreme Security Committee, interior minister Jalal Al Rowaishan. The term "fighters loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh" is a smokescreen to mask that the armed and paramilitary forces of Yemen are united and led by the interior minister.

      What is also completely lost in mass media is that many of the armed and paramilitary forces of Yemen were trained and equipped by the US in the name of fighting Al Qaeda, that those forces are still and really fighting against Al Qaeda, while the US switched sides in March and backs now a Saudi-led anti-Sanaa war coalition that consists - among ohers - out of Al Qaeda extremists.

  • Saban says Iran Deal is a done deal, as Netanyahu and Bush play for 2016
    • ritzl

      Add to that bigger money the costs to get favorable mass media coverage, which, as far as I can say, is much higher than classic campaign money, or even nearly unbuyable, eg if your competitor or his best friends own the media. That means to compete you have to found your own mass media - a very expensive task. Though favorable mass media coverage is more important than most other campaign parts, most of the huge task is out of any books, and it's hardly spoken about, because people prefer to adhere to the illusion that mass media is about informing people instead of peddling propaganda.

    • I think Paul W. Kahn got it very wrong here:

      Israel has real enemies and real security worries. They just don’t happen to include Iran, which is far away and unlikely to intervene directly in Israel. Israel’s immediate security concerns are in Gaza and southern Lebanon, where it has repeatedly fought Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran provides millions of dollars of support, including weapons, to Israel’s enemies.

      I don't think Israel has real security worries stemming from Hezbollah and Hamas. The alleged Israeli security worries stemming from Hezbollah and Hamas are as bogus as Israel's alleged worries about possible Iranian nukes.

      There's absolutely no attack in the cards coming from Hezbollah or Hamas. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are very happy if they manage to get enough deterrence for not being attacked by Israel.

      The only real threat Israel faces is that it loses western support, because Israel - at least in it's current form - cannot exist on it's own. What is Israel really worried about in the Iran deal is that Israel loses a means to deflect international attention from the continued occupation and apartheid in Palestine, that after the nuclear deal with Iran Israeli accupation and apartheid will come into the focus of the western public.

      And since Israeli occupation and apartheid are indefensible to the western public, Israel may be forced to give up the occupation of some of the land the Zionist movement robbed throughout history. But Netanyahu wants to rob more land instead of giving up some robbed land, and he's willing to spread any lie and commit any crime to achieve that goal. That's what the whole fuzz is about.

  • Jeffrey Goldberg's melodramatic apology for Chuck Schumer
    • Zionist arguments on display:

      First, Laura Fein, Executive Director of ZOA-NJ, says in an article Obama uses "a classic anti-Jewish slur" to get the Iran deal passed in Congress:

      ... President Obama himself has made false accusations of dual loyalty, and suggestions that the deal’s opponents put Israel’s security before the interests of the U.S. He has called opponents warmongers, and suggested that moneyed interests are using their overwhelming wealth to buy influence, a classic anti-Jewish slur. ...

      And, then, just a couple of lines later, she writes why Sen. Cory Booker should vote against the Iran deal:

      ... Booker has relied heavily on Jewish support for years, so it behooves him to take a stand when it really counts, and will surely benefit him in the long run. ...

      Source: Ad Hominem Advocacy: Obama’s Harm Offensive on Iran
      Jewish Link, 13 August 2015, By Laura Fein, Executive Director, ZOA-NJ

      link to jewishlinknj.com

      I find this chain of arguments used by the ZoA NJ Executive Director quite ironic.

  • President Obama wants us to argue about the special relationship
    • Philip

      President Obama wants us to argue about the special relationship

      Well here at Mondo Weiss and at other place where activists for Palestine we discussed this special relationship over and over again and keep discussing it. I would say:

      President Obama wants the US public to argue about the special relationship.

      If it really happens that the US public argues about the special relationship that would be a tremendous achievement.

  • Celebrating Hiroshima, WSJ columnist insinuates US should nuke Iran
    • Meanwhile, there is some news from Sheldon Adelson's anti-Iran lobby group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). It's not in the Onion, but Newsmaxx:

      Joe Lieberman Named Chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran

      Former Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman has been named chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and advocacy group that opposes the nuclear deal recently negotiated with Iran by the Obama administration.

      Also, the group's president is stepping down because he favors the deal, but will remain on its advisory board.

      "UANI has led the effort to economically isolate the Iranian regime, and its bipartisan and international expertise makes it a highly respected voice on the merits of the Iran agreement," Lieberman said in a press release from the group. "I am honored to assume this new leadership role at this important time." ...

      link to newsmax.com

      Couldn't make it up. Jason Ditz at Antiwar has that story, too:

      Anti-Iran Lobby President Steps Down, Now Supports Iran Deal

      A new press release from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), one of the many Sheldon Adelson-funded lobbying groups trying to kill the Iran nuclear deal, hyped the appointment of former Sen. Joe Lieberman to an unspecified “leadership role” in the group. Lieberman has recently been appointed to key roles at a number of these lobbies.

      Buried within the release, however, is a much more interesting story. UANI’s President Gary Samore, who has served in that role since September 2013, has announced his resignation from the post, because while UANI is lobbying against the deal, Samore supports it. ...

      link to news.antiwar.com

    • There are lessons in this city’s history that could serve us today, when the U.S. military forbids the word victory, the U.S. president doesn’t believe in the exercise of American power, and the U.S. public is consumed with guilt for sins they did not commit.

      So, is it now a respected opinion to say:

      - the U.S. public is consumed with guilt for sins they did not commit, so the U.S. public should for example forget about the holocaust?

      - the U.S. president shall lead the military into the battle until victory when he is fighting with the Israeli head of regime?

      - and taking the good lesson of Hiroshima the US president should nuke a large Israeli city in his fight with that radical regime, for the sake of a quick and decisive American victory?

      Following the argument of respected WSJ columnist Bret Stephens that should be an acceptable plan to come up with and be a respected columnist in a moderate and respected US main stream business paper. Nothing radcial in that opinion, isn't it?

  • Shocker: 'NYT' runs front page press release for AIPAC warning Obama to cool his jets
    • I can't understand why anyone would be shocked that the hasbara outlet famous for hasbara fairy tales from Judy Miller and other similar propagandists is in the business of spreading AIPAC's propaganda as news.

      And, regarding the content of the article: isn't it clear that Obama has to back down if he is having a dispute with Israel and the lobby? Hasn't Obama, like every other US president, had to swear an oath upon entering office? Of course, because without swearing an oath he couldn't enter his office.

      “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Wishes of Israel and the Israeli lobby in the United States.”

      So, since he has sworn an oath, it's clear for the New York Times that Obama has to back down now and the Israeli lobby has every right to demand that from him now.

  • Iran Deal Latest: AIPAC lies and, in a first, Schumer runs from the cameras
    • Robert Henry Eller

      As tempting as that may sound that wouldn't be a clever thing to do in the current circumstances. Money for US arms is in the short term not critical for Israel and, since Congress controls the budget, cutting off the aid is out of Obama's power. If Obama tried Netanyahu would just order his puppets in congress to impeach Obama if he tried that - on the grounds of violation of the US law to guarantee Israel's QME.

      However, the US president has some other powers where he can hurt Israel. For example, the US president directs foreign policy, he is the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces and he is quite influental on forming the global Zeitgeist. That's the powers the US president can use to confront Israel. As the director of foreign policy a US president can do a lot of things to hit Israel, if he has sufficient public backing. The Iran deal sealed by UN security council vote is just one example of this power. There are more votes possible in the UN security council a US president can use to hit back at Israel. Also, a US president can punish third countries, especially allies, for aligning with Israel, or use incentives to drive other countries away from Israel or even uniting against Israel. Obama did this with Bibi's ally France and seems to be trying that now with Bibi's Saudi allies, too. As Commander in Chief a US president cannot wage war as he likes, for example directly attacking Israel without a congressional mandate would likely lead to his impeachment, but a Commander in Chief and his SecDef have huge influence on who gets what part big money from the Pentagon. Also, the Commander in Chief can choose his officers and use them to sway public opinion. Also, and that's the likely the most devastating power in the case of Israel, the Commander in Chief can greatly influence who will win wars between third parties by granting a party military support or withholding support. So, Obama could try to influence the outcome of the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and so on, all in a way that the outcome is most disliked by Israel - for example by quietly helping Iran to win all these proxy wars driven by Israeli desire for hegemony. There are some hints that in the case of Syria Obama is now doing exactly that - let Iran's ally Assad win and displease Israel by that.

      link to english.farsnews.com

      And then the US president has great influence on forming the zeitgeist. The ability to form the zeitgeist is likely the most potent weapon in the arsenal of a US president. A zeitgeist can destroy very powerful structures and movements. George W. Bush for example formed a global zeitgeist of conflict and totalitarism with speeches like "Either you're with us or with the terrorists." But in forming a zeitgeist a US president could for example also help to form a global zeitgeist which is against apartheid, colonialism and occupation, regardless of race or religion, and when that zeitgeist is established than the US president could single out Israel as colonial occupier and racist apartheid state. Such a zeitgeist could destroy Israel.

  • Defying Obama on Iran deal, Schumer cites Hamas
    • Abierno

      There seems still to be some major misunderstandings from your side.

      TPP, TTIP and TiSA are multilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and explicitely designed to exclude China and maintain US hegemony over the world. The driving global circumstance behind TPP and TTIP is not SCO or BRICS, but the rise of China. SCO and BRICS are entirely different in type from TTIP, TPP and TiSA as they are not FTAs. To understand the drivers behind TPP and TTIP I recommend reading Carnegie March 2015: The Geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP:

      The Geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP

      The principal strategic challenge facing the US today is preserving its global primacy in the face of rising challengers such as China. ...

      link to carnegieendowment.org

      Now it happens that the Chinese deeply dislike to live under a hegemonic tutelage of an imerialist power like the US. So, Chinese looked for some partners who share this dislike for a global US dictatorship and push together for living in a multipolar order where there exist multiple independent power centers without having one country being a world dictator.

      The Chinese reaction to the US attempt to secure US world hegemony with TPP is RCEP, a China-driven FTA currently under negotiation in competition with TPP. It's negotiating hopeful members of the new regional FTA are China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the ten ASEAN states. Like TPP RCEP negotiations are designed to be concluded at the end of this year. With the proposed FTAAP FTA CHina is also already working on a kind of super FTA combining TPP and RCEP in case both FTAs are negotiated successfully, thereby hindering US efforts to keep world hegemony by isolating China with TTIP and TPP.

      BRICS is a loose discussion and policy coordination forum comparable with the G7 founded in reaction to US/EU policy of keepeing emerging economies away from getting international power at international institutions IMF and Worldbank according to their economic strength. As the US and EU use their control over IMF and Worldbank to blackmail emerging economies with withholding services when the US/EU dislikes the governments or projects for political reasons, the BRICS recently set up a complentary multilateral fund and bank to avoid being blackmailed by US/EU hegemony at IMF and Worldbank.

      SCO is a security coordination mechanism set up by China and Russia and some of the small central states in their neighborhood about two decades ago to enhance mutual trust, and defeat terrorism, separatism and (religious) extremism in their countries. Unlike US-dominated NATO or the US defense treaties with Japan and South Korea or the Russian-led CSTO the SCO is not a mutual defense treaty. However, in their common fight against terrorism, separatism and (religious) extremism, SCO member countries came to the conclusion that the US is supporting terrorism, separatism and (religious) extremism to destabilize their countries, so that they took coordinated policy measures to prevent the US from being able to destabilize their countries and their political orders. To further deepen mutual trust and cooperation among SCO member states in the light of continued US policies of supporting terrorism in various parts of the world, China gave finances to an SCO bank for financing economic projects that serve that aim. The chinese investment money of the SCO bank also made membership attractive for Pakistan, a traditional US ally engaged in decades of destabilizing activities in central Asia, for example by supporting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan in the service of the US and Saudi Arabia. The Chinese investment money was a preferable alternative to Saudi and US money, and hence Pakistan formally started the process of joining the SCO now though Pakistan has currently a government with deep ties to US ally Saudi Arabia. Having Pakistan in the SCO made free the way for long time Moscow partner India to join the SCO, too, since India's access to the SCO was blocked before by a fear that India in and Pakistan out would mean SCO to become a front organisation in a new cold war with India and Pakistan being the major front line. Having both Pakistan and India in the SCO allows the SCO now to stomp out terrorism stemming from the historic Afghan-Pakistan and India-Pakistan conflicts by solving these conflicts and denying the US chances to continue to exploit them. If the SCO really manages to stomp out these nasty long-standing conflicts it would be a major achievement for the region.

      Other major money tools China has just created to counter the US efforts to maintain hegemony by isolating China is the Bank AIIB which prevents the US from using their control over the US/Japanese ADB bank to blackmail potential friends of China and additionally China set up a huge infrastructure investment fund (perhaps comparable to the historic Marshall plan) to create new trade ways for China with it's wider neighborhood, called the new Silk Road or Road and Belt Initiative. The US currently has nothing similar like the Chinese Road and Belt Initiative. If all these Chinese-led projects, BRICS, SCO, AIIB, RCEP and Road and Belt are successfully implemented, it will - due to the economic power of the member states, primarily of course China and India - likely guarantee the birth of a multi lateral order in a couple of year, maybe 10 or 20 years or so, and the end of the global US hegemony.

      Regarding the recent Ufa summit, there exist lot's of good reports in media, like in the section "2015 BRICS, SCO Summits in Russia's Ufa" of Sputnik. There was not much new on that summit, it was more like a working meeting to realize all the projects agreed to on earlier and facilitate better cooperation between all member states of SCO and BRICS and CSTO and Eurasian Union. What was reported on quite low levels was the 'Forum of the Heads of the Leading SCO Media Outlets "Towards a Common SCO Information Space"' a couple of weeks after the Ufa summit in Moscow. Here SCO and friends organized to challenge the Zionist-controlled western mass media in a coordinated way.

      link to en.sco-russia.ru

    • Abierno

      The TPP and the TTIP are entirely different entities. These agreements are in response to the BRICS and SCO trade agreements that came out of the recent overlapping meetings in Russia.

      What you say is factual incorrect nonsense. TPP and TTIP are not defensive in reaction to BRICS and SCO, but offensive trade moves by the US. The US started the TPP enlargement process (to include the US and other US allies) to keep China down in 2008, while the first BRICS meeting ever was in 2009. So TPP cannot be a reaction to BRICS. And never mind that neither BRICS nor SCO contain trade agreements at all.

      The other way round the geopolitical argument is much more correct: the closer ties of BRICS and SCO countries are reactions to offensive US policies designed to maintain US hegemony over the world. One part of these offensive US actions to maintain world hegemony are US-led wars like the war on Iraq or Libya, and another part are US-driven trade agreements like TPP, TTIP or TiSA.

    • hophmi

      No. It just ...

      See, this strategy of Zionist hasbara to deflect from the massive crimes of the Zionist Apartheid regime and their wahhabi terror buddies by blaming Iran for the disastrous results of the policy of regular wars of aggression and systematic terror of the zionist-wahhabi axis is bancrupt. Most people in the world can now see through the dishonesty of these hasbara lies.

      Just take for example your argument that Iran is evil because Iran supports Hamas. The reality is that the regional Hamas HQ is on the territory of the important US ally state Qatar, just a short drive from the regional HQ of the US Armed Forces, which is also in Qatar, and the most fanatic sponsor of Hamas is the government of NATO member state Turkey. So, if support for Hamas is a criterion for being a friend or foe of the US, Iran's support of Hamas brings it just on par with the major US allies Qatar and Turkey in that regard. And the hasbara argument that Hamas is responsible for Israeli crimes is just as dishonest as it could be. In courts of law the argument of a rapist who says "she provoked me to do the crime" is completely discredited since ages. The world also rejects the notion that the resistance against German Nazis was responsible for Nazi crimes, and rightly so, and there is no reasons why for Israeli crimes another standard shall apply. That Zionists try to invalidate that standard speaks volumes about the low standard of Zionist ethics.

      The other Zionist hasbara points of hatemongering against Iran you made are similarly discredited confessions of ethical bancruptcy which most of the world is fed up with. That's why rapprochement with Iran and the nuke deal are moving forward in the world, regardless of what Bibi and his terror and hasbara buddies try to do against it.

    • Schumer's Iran decision seems not to make him only friends:

      Sen. Schumer’s Iran decision costs Democrats $10 million

      The American liberal activist group and political action committee MoveOn is launching a “Democratic Party donor strike” over Sen. Charles Schumer’s decision to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement.

      As part of the strike, the 8-million-member group will withhold contributions from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and from any Democratic candidate who succeeds in undermining the nuclear accord with Iran.

      “Our goal will be to secure commitments to withhold $10 million in contributions within 72 hours after this campaign launches,” MoveOn political action executive director Ilya Sheyman said in a statement. ...

      Source:

      link to presstv.ir

      Seems like both camps are playing hardball now.

    • JLewisDickerson

      I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that terrorists would be much more likely to use a vehicle that did not attract so much attention.

      I could well imagine that terrorists belonging to the Mossad/AlQaeda groups would use a vehicle expressing their admiration for Iran in big letters to commit a bomb attack. It could make the whole job of the hasbara outlets easier to falsely blame Iran for such a Mossad terror attack.

    • The whole statement of Schomer is based on the assumption that Iran won't build a nuclear weapon in the near future anyway. To me the key words of Schomer's statement are:

      If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon

      To sum up how I read Schomer's position: Iran deal is bad, because Iran won't built a nuclear weapon anyway in the near future, the deal will make Iran to get money for not doing what it is anyway not going to do and that's bad because Iran will likely continue to confront Israel in the region and will be strengthened by the money.

      Had he put it this way, Schomer would have been quite honest. The whole nuclear issue is a big lie peddled by Bibi and his comrades and therefore we don't need a deal to block Iran from making nuclear weapons. However, Schomer was not honest. First, he carefully avoided to say directly that Iran won't build a nuclear weapon anyway. And then, instead of saying the deal is bad because Iran will continue to confront Israel, Schomer said:

      For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.”

      So, has Iran:

      - killed a teen girl on the gay pride parade in Israel?
      - massively sponsored terrorists in Syria to bring down the government?
      - supported takfiri terrorists which committed acts of terror against religious minorities in Lebanon?
      - used it's airforce to bomb Yemen and thereby strenghtening Al Qaeda?
      - invaded Iraq?
      - committed big massacres in Gaza each one or two years?

      According to Schomer, it would seem that this was all done by Iran.

      And here it is where Schomer is most dishonest. It isn't Iran, but Bibi, his wahhabi terrorist buddies and his allies in the US Congress - Schomer being one of them - doing all this blind terror while at the same time calling Iran a "state sponsor of terrorism."

  • Obama ushers in the crisis of the Israel lobby
    • Btw

      @Philip Weiss

      I think this article on Obama speech is a much better characterization of that speech than the last article.

      Well done.

    • Jesus.

      Opposition to Prime Minister Bibi reached circles I hardly ever imagined. Besides CoP president Malcolm Hoenlein, also Israeli President Reuven Rivlin criticized Bibi for his fight against the US president:

      Israeli President Rivlin: Netanyahu's Anti-Iran Drive Isolates Israel
      "I have told him, and I'm telling him again, that struggles, even those that are just, can ultimately come at Israel's expense."
      Reuters

      link to huffingtonpost.com

  • Obama tells Americans it is 'abrogation of my constitutional duty' to defer to Israel on Iran Deal
    • hophmi

      Europeans are not going to give up doing business with the United States to do business with Iran.

      Well, maybe, maybe not. If the US just unilaterally declares next month that it will sanction every EU entity doing business with Iran, watch for SWIFT. If Iran abides by the deal SWIFT is obliged by EU decision to do business with Iran. If the US just unilaterally declares it will breach the JCPOA and do no business with EU and SWIFT anymore, than, since SWIFT is doing the payments, there will be just no EU-US-business anymore.

      Of course, this won't happen. There will be politicking to get a more sensible decision. However, there the US must convince the EU Commission and the member countries to reverse course and sanction Iran. That will be a tough sell for the US. The main EU argument will be that the EU doesn't want the Iran business to be a gift to China.

      And here the whole strategy of rejecting the Iran deal to get something better goes broke. To get over that snag the US must fight and win a trade war against China, so that China abandons Iran. It means to go back to a new cold war. The US can't fight that alone.

      But don't count on Germany's help on this. German politics is VW and VW makes the bulk of it's money in China. Other major German companies have similar structured balance sheets. German state debt is reportedly also sold a lot to China. And the German public is 70 to 20 for the Iran deal and economic relations with Iran.

      So here's what Obama just said on this situation:

      If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived.

      Show that Obama is wrong on this. Btw, I'm not against realizing your idea of disrupting trade between the US and the EU, because I think it will break NATO and I think that would be a great achievement, only comparable in scale to George W. Bush's great achievement of spending a trillion of Dollars to hand over Iraq to Iran.

    • I disagree with the title - and much of the tenor of this MW article.

      Obama tells Americans it is ‘abrogation of my constitutional duty’ to defer to Israel on Iran Deal

      Obama didn't say that. He said:

      I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America's interests and Israel's interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.

      To me that sounds more like Obama says it would be an ‘abrogation of my constitutional duty’ to defer to Netanyahu on the Iran Deal - and he does so because he thinks it's in the best interest of America and Israel to do so.

      And regarding confronting the Israel lobby in that speech head on, I would say it requires a lot of imagination and background knowledge to see it as Obama did this. To me it looks more the other way round. Obama slimed submissive to Israel and the lobby and spread a lot of hatred against Iran in the service of the lobby - but at least he defended the deal. That maybe in the end what counts, but only if, and that's a big if, or a huge bet if you will, he will use the chance of the deal to built on it moving to cooperation with Iran in the future and stop hostility against Iran to please Israel. I do think that the logical course of action is that Obama will do that in the future, because without that the whole effort to get the deal would be pointless, but I don't see it as guaranteed, and in no way I can see it in this speech.

      Stephen Walt put up an interesting article a couple of days ago, which outlines this important point:

      Even the reasonable people in Washington are still talking about containing Tehran -- which is why the United States is about to squander a rare opportunity.

      link to foreignpolicy.com

      The Leverett's said that the deal is a very, very good step in the right direction, however, to have a real effect on reality, (like ending existing Western Asia wars and avoiding new ones) it must be followed by further steps (of rapprochement with Iran).

      I agree with that analysis. I'm willing to bet that some form of of rapprochement with Iran will come after this deal, because the US alliance with the sponsors of Al Qaeda is unsustainable, however in Obama's speech I saw no sign of it. Obama was all occupied declaring his big love for the axis of sponsors of Al Qaeda while showing hostility to Iran.

  • 'I love Obama' 'You're infatuated' (The argument on the left)
    • Rusty Pipes

      .. what they say in Latin America: Why hasn’t there ever been a coup in the US?

      See, not everything "they" say in Latin America makes sense. Of course there has already happened a coup in the US. What else was it that happened on 22/11/1963? Of course that was a bloody coup. That many mass media don't call it a coup can't be an argument, that's the norm for most of Latin American coups, too.

    • Why so black and white? Every US president had laubable accomplishments. Even George W. Bush had, though he was a blindly aggressive war criminal like the world had not seen one for a long time. He, for example, handed over Iraq to Tehran, thereby seriously strenghtening Iran and the resistance against Zionism, and, because he tirelessly worked in the middle east strenghtening Iran, and - besides a half hearted coup attempt he tolerated a left government in Venezuela thereby strenghtening the left in south America and he put a blind eye to the rise of Communist China, thereby facilitating the nearing end of 500 years colonialist rule over the world.

      Now to Obama:

      Yes, I hold him responsible (and I’m to blame too for supporting the Libya intervention).

      I may add some points to Obama's aggressive war of choice on Libya:
      - orchestrating a bloody coup against the left in Honduras
      - aggrevating the suffering of Afghanistan with a bloody surge
      - supporting "Operation Scorched Earth" in Yemen
      - plunging Syria into deadly chaos
      - supporting Israeli massacres in Palestine
      - pushing Ukraine into a civil war

      On other points Obama's record is mixed so far. Take Iran: One time he supported US-Israeli terrorist acts against Iran, but now he pushed through a historic deal with Iran, which may prove successful in the future in hampering Israel's desire for a US-led war on Iran. Take Iraq: He ended the US occupation, but supported a bloody terrorist uprising against the government there, only to reverse course later and support now Iraqs government fighting terrorists in Iraq. Mixed at best are Obama's records also on other countries like Egypt, China and Russia. Than Obama also leads the battle to isolate China, Russia and India with TPP, TiSA and TTIP, thereby trying to spark a new cold war. Or is it an attempt to push China, Russia and India into building a solid alliance thereby ending colonialism? Then it would be laudable I think.

      Besides the Iran deal - the fruits of it are yet to materialize - what else can one count as Obama's accomplishments? Is waging US-led wars by proxy means and therefore more cost effective an accomplishment that counts? Well, maybe opening up to Cuba is. But I suspect it was only done to provide the CIA a better base for a new color revolution attack on Cuba.

  • Sanders risks losing left over unprogressive views of Palestine -- Washington Post
    • I’m not sure what the Post means by a “flare-up,” but remember that Sanders became stiffnecked last summer on the Gaza slaughter, standing by Israel at a town meeting as folks shouted Bullshit.

      I'm quite sure what it means. If Sanders manages to get close to Israel's buddy Clinton in the primaries, Bibi will launch another massacre on Gaza. Sanders will then have an ugly choice: either support Bibis massacre on Gaza and lose his electoral base or to oppose Bibis massacre and lose influential Zionist sponsors - who are likely the reason why he is so stiff-necked when speech comes on Israel's crimes. However his decision will be then, Sanders will be toast then. So he's in Bibi's hand, Bibi can kill Sanders' presidential candidature by massacring a thousand or so Palestinians. I have no doubt Bibi will do that if he thinks it will do his darlings bidding for the US presidency a favor.

      So, WaPo has just shown Bibi a way to kill Sanders' presidential bid at will if he feels disturbed by Sanders.

  • Netanyahu will lobby American Jews on deal, calling on alleged loyalty to Jewish state
    • straightline

      What is not clear to me Bandolero is whether, if another country provides, say, KSA, with advanced armaments, the US would be obliged to supply Israel armaments to counter them. Or is this only about US arms supplies to other states?

      And then this brings to mind the question, “What happens if the other arms supplier has better weapons than the US has?”

      In the eyes of those who made the law the US is the master of the universe and that simply can't happen. However, in real life a lot of Russia's newer weapons are now equal to those of the US, so that remarkable QME law has a funny unintended consequence: when long-standing US allies in the region can't get good weapons from the US due to this law, they turn to Russia. Of course, Syria and Iraq are already buying much equipment in Russia, but that can be blamed on the influence of Tehran.

      However, Egyt for example has announced serious interest in buying Russian air defense systems, a chunk of the newly developed Russian tanks and Russian helicopters. Turkey is about to buy Chinise missile defense systems. Even Jordan is about buying Russian weapons. That can be blamed, at least in part, to the US law on Israel's QME. If one knows that buying and selling weapons is always to be seen also as a way of strenghtening a political-military ties, strenghtening ties of US regional allies with Russia based on arms sales is a side effect of that law, which is very unpleasant for Israel.

      The message hat the QME law sends to all regional governments, from Iraq over Egypt to Jordan, is: if you want weapons equal or better than Israeli weapons you can't get them in the US. It would be against US law. Look for other suppliers.

    • just

      omg

      The US law binding the US president to maintain Israel's QME is - while almost unknown to the general US public - well known in policy circles. Mondo Weiss reported on that law already, too:

      link to mondoweiss.net

      What is new, is that this law now gets some public attention in Zionist media. Bloomberg wirtes that, while Netanyahu is leading opposition in the US congress against the deal, Kerry just managed to bring the GCC states behind the Iran deal:

      link to bloomberg.com

      However, according to Bloomberg, there is a caveeat, the GCC want in exchange more modern weapons from the US to protect themselves against an "Iranian threat," but the US has problems to deliver:

      Still, there are limits to what the U.S. can sell the Arab states because the U.S. is committed by law to ensure that Israel maintains a “qualitative military edge” over other nations in the region. So Israel alone will be taking delivery of Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 Joint Strike Fighters starting next year.

      That the law on Israel's QME often conflicts with US security interests is well-known in Washington. Wikileaks published in cablegate a State Dept cable saying:

      Amos Gilad acknowledged the sometimes difficult position the U.S. finds itself in given its global interests, and conceded that Israel's security focus is so narrow that its QME concerns often clash with broader American security interests in the region.

      Of course, the law regarding Israel's QME exists for no other purpose than guaranteeing that the US president will follow Israel's interests instead of US interests regarding weapon sales when these interests conflict.

      A dispute regarding weapon sales to Saudi Arabia now in the light of the Iran deal may bring with itself some public attention to the law binding the US to maintain Israel's QME, and it may put the GCC and especially the Saudis into a course of conflict with Israel. If Israel will be working to block advanced US weapons deliveries to the GCC and the Saudis, Obama can tell the Saudis to use their lobbying money to help beat back the Israel lobby, so that the Saudis will get the desired weapons.

    • just

      What means obscene? It's the law. The US president is obliged by the law to guarantee the Israel's Qualitative Military Edge. Israel made this law into the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 shortly before Obama became president so he would know where his place is and couldn't mess up with Israel:

      Section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) is amended by adding at the end the following:
      (h)

      Certification requirement relating to Israel’s qualitative military edge
      (1)

      In general

      Any certification relating to a proposed sale or export of defense articles or defense services under this section to any country in the Middle East other than Israel shall include a determination that the sale or export of the defense articles or defense services will not adversely affect Israel’s qualitative military edge over military threats to Israel.
      (2)

      Qualitative military edge defined

      In this subsection, the term qualitative military edge means the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and casualties, through the use of superior military means, possessed in sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that in their technical characteristics are superior in capability to those of such other individual or possible coalition of states or non-state actors.

      link to govtrack.us

      Israel made it very clear that this law is extremely important. So her representatives in 2013 strengthened that law to ensure Israel's QME by introducing legislation to narrow the reporting requirements for the US president in the H.R.1992 - Israel QME Enhancement Act:

      Israel QME Enhancement Act - Directs the President, on a biennial basis, to: (1) carry out an assessment of the extent to which Israel possesses a qualitative military edge over military threats to it, and (2) submit a related report to Congress. (Current law requires an assessment on an ongoing basis and a report every four years.)

      link to congress.gov

      So, it's clear that the US president cannot just do sell weapons as he pleases, but first he needs to get Bibi's permission if he wants to sell weapons to a third country in Western Asia or Northern Africa.So SecDef Carter tried to get that permission and Bibi said "no" - what's no wonder after US president Obama was obstreperous against Israel.

  • Understanding the Partition plan
    • zaid

      Another point most 2 staters forget is the 1948 palestinians. This group will suffer even more than now in Israel.... In short: the Galil will follow the west bank and demand right of self determination. A conflict ends and another conflict begins.

      I agree. That's why I think the proposal of Neturei Karta to solve the middle east problem is the most realistic one:

      link to nkusa.org

      A further plus of that plan is that it has a lot of regional support. And, I think, the longer Bibi is boss in Israel, chances are getting every day better and better that international support for Neturei Karta's solution of the middle east problem grows world wide until the tipping point is reached.

  • Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza's children?
    • just

      “Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a book on how to destroy Israel and outsmart the U.S., arguing that his position is based on “well-established Islamic principles,” The New York Post reported Saturday.

      Amir Taheri claims in the NYPost of August 1, 2015 (Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel):

      While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.

      Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state.

      "New" as in "new book" means almost 4 years ago. "Memri" claimed in it's "review" of the very same book on January 25, 2012:

      On October 1, 2011, alongside the start of a conference in support of the Palestinians in Tehran, the website of the Institute for the Compilation and Publication of Supreme Leader Khamenei's Works announced the publication of a new book, 416 pages long, titled Palestine in the Viewpoint of Leader Khamenei, which features his statements on the issue, on ways to resolve it, and on the heroes of Palestine, its defeats, victories, and future.

      Amir Taheri claims further in the NYPost of August 1, 2015:

      A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

      Seems that Amir Taheri's internet is broken. The original book Amir Taheri writes about - with Khamenei's quotes on Palestine in Farsi - is for free to the world to download here:

      link to book-khamenei.ir

      An official English translation of that book is available for download here:

      link to book-khamenei.ir

      As the book is for download available in English in the whole world, I won't bother to correct the usual hasbara lies Amir Taheri claims and Zionist mass media from Jpost to Hasbaretz repeat regarding the content of the book. Who wants to know what Ali Khamenei thinks about Palestine, and how his thinking evolved over the years, may just read the mentioned book containing some of his major quotes on Palestine.

    • ritzl

      I don't dispute that the primary responsibility for the sectarian, anti-semitic world views often seen in the arab world lies with Israel, and especially the monsterous Israeli claim that Israel commits all her actions and crimes in the name of all the jews in the world.

      However, there is also a great responsibility of those arab regimes, mass media and cultural/religious leaders who lend credence to that preposterous claim of their supposed enemy Israel.

      It doesn't need to be like this that the enemy is perceived "the jews." If it were not repeated so often in the arab world every Palestianian child would laugh about such a stupid claim. The children might say: "You want to tell me that the jews are the enemy of Palestine? So you want to tell me that our jewish PLO brother Ilan Halevi was an enemy of Palestine? Go away, he's a brother in arms standing with Palestine. We know that our enemy is not the jews and the followers of the divine religion of judaism, but Zionism, an evil perversion of humanity."

      It would be as simple as that, and to great benefit for the Palestinian cause. That however, again and again, instead of Israel "the jews" are projected as enemy of Palestine, just like Israel wants it, is without collaboration of arab leaders - especially those geopolitically aligned with the US - unimaginable. To me, it points to a purposeful design, social engeneering in the service of Israel at work.

    • Well.

      Don’t we call Israel the ‘Jewish State’? Don’t we insist that it is the State not just of its Jewish citizens but of all Jews wherever they may live? Don’t Israeli Prime Minister readily talk as if they represent the interests of the Jewish people around the globe? ...
      So, if you were a Palestinian child in Gaza is it really so unreasonable to think that “Jew” and “Israeli” were interchangeable?

      Of course, this is true. The children are innocent and Zionists claiming to represent "the jews" have no ground to damn it being anti-semitic when perpetrators of zionist crimes are identified as "the jews."

      However, I'm off the opinion that there is one angle missing in this story. When children call those who commit the massacres "the jews" they didn't invent that sectarian language, but they got it somewhere: from family, TV and political and cultural leaders. Taking into account that "family" usually gets their language from TV and political and cultural leaders, take out the family here, and look on to mass media and political and cultural leaders.

      Be sure it's not Israeli political and cultural leaders and not Israeli TV where they get that sectarian language from. These Israeli media and leaders spread that sectarian message, but the families of the children talk arabic. So, be sure, it's Arab political and cultural leaders and mass media spreading the sectarian language.

      Now, it's not hard to find it: take Hamas, Egypt brotherhood politicians, clerics, GCC media, and others, many of them use that sectarian language. They cannot claim innocence. Over and over they are being told that sectarian language is disgusting, wrong and harmful to the struggle of Palestinians. What they do amounts to treason, treason against the struggle of Palestine and treason against peace in West Asia and Northern Africa.

      Over and over again, people from Neturei Karta, Jews against Zionism and many more tell them that zionism is not judaism, and that Israel lays a false claim on judaism and Israel is not acting in the name of "the jews." At the PLO, in Iran, Hisbollah, Syria and other independent countries the message was received well, and it is well understood that to win a struggle, the opponents - or enemies in case of war - shall as group be defined as narrow as possible, so as to have as few enemies as possible. So Iran, Hisbollah, Syria and so on teach their people to struggle against zionism and takfirism, not judaism and sunna.

      In most regional countries allied with the US, however, that logic is known, but wilfully ignored. TV, preachers and politicians in these US-aligned countries, GCC, Egypt, Jordan, often speak in sectarian terms, and define opponents as wide as jews, Shia or infidels, and often all of them together. To me it's pretty obvious, that this is a willfully and treasenous strategy in betting on xenophobia to sabotage the liberation of Palestine and the struggle to end colonialism in the arab world, executed by the political leaders of these US-allied countries - who are often also on good terms with Israel. Of course, Israel is on good terms with the anti-semites in the arab world, as almost everywhere, because anti-semitism is the life elixier of Zionism.

      The children of Gaza, interviewed by the BBC, blaming the jews for the Israeli massacres, were duped be these arab traitors, as well as their families where they got this sectarian junk from.

  • Israeli gov't support for violent occupation made today's murder inevitable
    • By the way, it may be that this case will have an international juridical follow-up:

      Mahmoud Abbas orders filing of ICC lawsuit over Israeli killing of infant

      link to presstv.ir

      It seems to me Israel's role here would be to prove that government does everything to prevent such crimes from happening, and further to prove, that justice does not discriminate between Palestinians and Zionists in the occupied territories. As that may prove impossible, I suspect Israel will simply dodge the trial. However, that may come with a pricetag attached, too.

    • I wonder why one word is not used to describe that crime: pogrom.

      From what I read the apt description of what happened here was a Zionist pogrom against Palestinians.

      I'm quite sure if the ethnicitiy of victom and perpetrator were the other way round I would have read that one word over and over all again: pogrom.

  • When a U.S. president demanded inspections of a nuclear facility in the Middle East (and failed)
    • You may want to read "Final Judgement" as pdf:

      link to wikispooks.com

      "Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Hagannah and The Mossad Eliminated Jews" is there as pdf, too:

      link to wikispooks.com

    • Turn on your sarcasm detector, Kris.

      Thanks, RoHa.

      What we have in the case of the Zionist movement and Israel is a pattern of a serial perpetrator of murder, mass murder and terror. This is a well established fact. That pattern started well before the creation of Israel, see eg the murder of Jacob Israël de Haan on 30/6/1924 or the King David Hotel bombing on 22/7/1946. That murderous pattern continued after the creation of Israel, see for the early days for example the murder of Folke Bernadotte on 17/9/1948 and then read "Israel's sacred terrorism" based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary:

      link to msuweb.montclair.edu

      Since the early days of Zionism there are so many proven Zionist and Israeli state sponsored murders that it is hard to keep tracking them all. The murderous pattern of Israeli behaviour continues to the very recent time, think for example of the attampted assassination of Khaled Mashal on 25/9/1997, the car bomb killing Imad Mughniyah on 12/2/2008, the murder of Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman on 1/8/2008 (which was just recently proven by US documents to be an Israeli job), the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh on 19/1/2010 or the recent serial murder of Iranian scientists.

      The murder of Jacob Israël de Haan proves that the Zionist movement targeted also jews. It was not a single case. Naeim Giladi wrote in detail about his role as a Zionist in attacking Iraqi jews on behalf of Israel in his book: Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews. We also know from things like Operation Susannah and the attempt to sink the USS Liberty that Israel also has already attacked US targets in the past.

      Generally I'ld say Israeli murders and terrors fit in two motive categories: either Israel committed state sponsored murders to get rid of anactual or perceived enemy like Khaled Mashal or Imad Mughniyah or someone deemed otherwise harmful to Israeli interests like Folke Bernadotte, or Israel committed acts of terror and murder with the intention of blaming the crime on someone else, ie perpetraiting "false flag operations", like it was the case with attacking Iraqi jews or Operation Susannah. One regular motivation for Israeli false flag ops was to enlist the US in fighting Israel's real or perceived enemies, ie starting US-led wars of aggression in the service of Israel. AIPAC/WINEP operatives publicly talk about using such "options" in the service of starting wars Israel wanted to get started:

      link to youtube.com

      A typical Israeli method to ensure false blame was faking signal intelligence. Victor Ostrovsky wrote about how the Mossad did falsely blame Libya of terror in his time with radio signal boxes placed by the Mossad in Libya for that purpose. In the case of the Ghouta chemical false flag terror attack, Israel simply provided the US with faked signal intelligence, essentially saying to Obama: now you must go to war, because we proved hereby that Syria crossed your chemical red lines.

      So, now comes the funny thing. Despite this whole record of serial Israeli murder, terror and false flag terror targeting likewise enemies and friends, terrorists and innocents, Arabs and Westerners, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Syrians and Americans, and clear motives for Israel to perpetrate the crimes, there still exists a big taboo of talking about and investigating a possible Israeli sponsorship of the JFK murder and 9/11. It's even deemed anti-semitic to speak about this.

    • Who benefits from a big crime like the Kennedy murders or 9/11 is purely accidential and shall in no way be included in a final judgement on who did it. Who says anything else can only be an anti-semite. Just look at Operation Susannah or the USS Liberty to see how these anti-semitic conspiracy terrorists work to delegitimize the single and only jewish state on earth.

      That is, while the true role of the sole Jewish State is totally different. Israel doesn't do such things like terror, but provides valuable intelligence on significant acts of terror like the valuable intelligence provided by Israeli intelligence proving that the Syrian government perpetrated the Ghouta chemical attack, to which POTUS almost responded by bombing Syria:

      link to dailycaller.com

      But than POTUS decided otherwise and made the Chemical deal with the Syrian government and the Iran deal instead, thereby displeasing Israel. So he thanked Israel for what she does.

  • Iran deal is overwhelmingly supported by American voters -- 54 to 38 percent
    • Here is another interesting US poll:

      Poll: Overwhelming US Majority Says Israel Should Receive No Aid Boost due to US / Iran “Deal”

      link to washingtonsblog.com

    • David

      Yes, I think that is the real story:

      Democrats split 75 to 17 (pro Iran deal)

      To me it looks like Bibi and AIPAC are heading for a major trainwreck likely to result in serious permament damage to the power of the Israeli lobby.

      When Bibi, Israel and AIPAC now go against the deal as they do, they will very likely transform US support for Israel into a partisan political football. That will almost inevitably bring big discussions on long tabooed subjects regarding Israel to public attention in the US like the colonial-style law making it a duty for a US president to guarantee Israels QME. And finally Israel and AIPAC will lose big, because when the Democrats will single out Republicans on following a foreign leader and put up slogan like "When Americans made huge sacrifices fore a revolution against being a British colony, they did it not done to be subjugated by another country some time later - even if it's a good friend like Israel. Vote American, Vote Democrat" the Republicans will have a hard time to maintain their pattern of following Bibi on whatever he does.

      I can already see the lobby crashing before my eye.

    • Feedback from German polls regarding the Iran deal

      YouGov 18/7/2015: Majority of 63% of Germans welcomes Iran deal, while 18% oppose it

      link to faz.net

      Forsa 24/7/2015: Majority of 85% of Germans welcomes improved relations with Iran, 70% want more engagement from German business in Iran

      link to pressebox.de

  • 'If we don't take out Iran,' it will reenact the Holocaust in US and Israel -- Steven Emerson to Times Square rally
  • The global arms race between the US and China is devastating Africa and the Middle East
    • Keith

      The empire is on a rampage, destroying any country not sufficiently subservient to the imperial agenda.

      Yes, that's the core of the problem. And, of course, any ruler doing major business with a competitor of the empire, like China, Russia or Iran, is not considered "sufficiently subservient to the imperial agenda" and their country a candidate for destruction by plots of the empire.

      So, whenever a ruler does major business projects with China, or Russia or Iran, the rulers next logical question for his Chinese business partners is: You made the best commercial offer for our business project, but I know, if I give the project to you, I will be subject of imperial regime change plans and my country will be a candidate for destruction by the empire, so can you sell me some effective weapons to help defend myself and my country against attacks from Washington and it's lackeys?

      That China, in cooperation with Russian partners, has now good answers to this question, is indeed partly a sign of an arms race popping up as a side effect of growing Chinese industrial competitiveness. One may see it the problem as a side effect of a historic competitive power transition from the US to China, usually called the "Asian century." But, at least so far, there is no moral equivalence, but a huge difference between US and Chinese arms exports, the difference between aggressor and defender, because the basic global problem currently is - like you correctly said - that the "empire is on a rampage, destroying any country not sufficiently subservient to the imperial agenda."

    • Donald
      I don't have starry-eyed vision of China’s role. I know the Chinese way of doing business is about making money and often causes a lot of problems for many people.

      However, I nevertheless see a huge difference between Chinese and US business customs, especially in regard to arms sales and involvement in armed conflicts, and that difference isn't reflected in this article here.

      China is doing business with governments, be them good or bad, from building stuff and infrastructure to arms, and often gets natural resources in return. In this way China is quite similar to the classic colonial and imperial powers, from US over France to the Britain. The main difference is not that the US, Britain and France do these things, too. The main difference is that the US and their imperial comrades are also in the business of murdering foreign heads of states, armed separatism and regime changes, often ostensibly for lofty goals like promoting democracy, human rights and good governance, but in reality to overthrow whatever government they dislike, and that US-led behaviour is exactly what destroys countries and what's most devastating for much of Africa, Western Asia and many other countries of the third world. See eg Somalia, Ruanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen for the effects of the US behaviour of trying to do regime changes whereever it pleases the US rulers and their buddies.

      China is not engaged in such armed regime change business, but helps legitimate governments, however odious they may be, to keep their power, and that's a big difference, whatever odious behaviour the Chinese employ otherwise.

    • I think the article is grossly misleading because it suggests a moral equivalence between the crimes of the predatory US empire and it's allies and lackeys in crime, like Britain, France, Israel and the wahhabi regime of the Sauds, and the PR China selling legitimate governments weapons to protect themselves and their people against the wars of aggression and other regime change attempts of the lackeys and vassals of the US empire.

      See Sudan: for more than five decades the US destabilized Sudan to split up the country for getting the oil there. And Israel and it's lobby was first buddy of the US empire there with bloody false propaganda campaigns like "Save Darfur." So, after about half a century that the US sowed terror in Sudan it had success: the country split up. But, when that moment - for which the US and Israel have worked so long - finally came the whole country was not a nice price, but a wreck - both, the rest of old Sudan and the new South Sudan. So the US wasn't interested in owning that burden anymore and Sudan and South Sudan turned to China for help. China did help, both of the Sudanese governments: with investments, with credit and with arms to be able to claim authority over the land the governments are responsible for.Of course, without the authority of government the country would sink even lower, regardless whether the government - which was installed by decades of US terror support in the case of South Sudan- is considered to be a better or a worse one. And now comes Loewenstein and says China supports a bad government. It looks like a joke.

      And elsewhere in Africa it's similar: China built houses in Libya and invested in oil. The US and it's lackeys destroyed the country with war and terror. And Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, one country after another destroyed by the US and it's allies from Israel, NATO and GCC. A similar thing happened in Nigeria, even as Israels lackey Jonathan Goodluck ruled there: thanks to the western and Wahhabi terror support, Biafra - an early version of the completely lying western Save Darfur campaign - is everywhere in Nigeria while China builds a railway for Nigeria. And don't forget Somlia. The US and it's western friends were successful there in disempowering "communist dicator" Siad Barre and the result is: it looks like everywhere where the US had it's fingers in. Elsewhere it's like in Ruanda, where a US proxy war against French proxies killed hundred thousands. And Angola, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, El Salvador and so on and so on. But, of course, Antony, you blame China, as if there was a moral equivalence between doing business with foreign governments like China does and destroying countries like the US does it. You must be kidding.

  • Democrats are 'uncomfortable' with Iran deal because Netanyahu is so 'influential in our country' -- Rep. Ellison
    • In Vienna today the Israel lobby (Stop the Bomb) organized a protest against a conference for business opportunities in Iran. The protest against the Iran business conference was announced days before in all national media, TV and so on. And then, today, only 6 (in words Six!) protesters have shown up to protest against dealing with Iran in Vienna.

      Here is a pic of the protest from the organizer:

      link to facebook.com

      A major Austrian newspapers makes fun of the no show of the mighty Israel lobby, putting the number of 6 anti-Iran-protesters in the headline of their report from the conference:

      link to diepresse.com

      The Israel lobby seems to have huge problems mobilizing significant numbers of protesters.

    • Israel's prestige is likely based on her ability to organize huge rallies in New York.

      The Guardian reports:

      Iran nuclear deal with US sees thousands protest in Times Square

      An estimated 10,000 people, consisting mainly of pro-Israel supporters, chant ‘kill the deal’ and demand Congress vote down proposed nuclear agreement

      ...

      link to theguardian.com

      The only thing a bit irritating with that huge 10,000 strong rally on Times Square is the picture of that rally attached to the Guardian report:

      link to i.guim.co.uk

      To me the pitucure looks more like about 70 anti-deal-protesters, if at all. A video of that protest doesn't show many more anti-deal-protesters neither:

      link to youtube.com

      But anyway, the Guardian reporter and other zionist mass media reporting on this huge event seems to have found about 9930 more of AIPAC's anti-Iran-protestors than I did. Even when factoring in the pro-Iran-deal protesters then the numbers of people showing up for AIPAC seem not have to been close to what was reported. See Pro-deal-protesters, same time, same place:

      link to vosizneias.com

      To me the pics of that anti-Iran-protest on Times Square look like AIPAC & Israel ran out of money so they couldn't even pay enough people to show up on Times Sqare to make a nice pic, but the Zionist media tries to portray the protest a success for Israel.

    • Taking on the open battle against he deal the lobby did a huge mistake.

      “A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”

      (Steven Rosen, who was then the director of foreign-policy issues at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)

      I'm convinced that now that the lobby is open in the sun and everyone can see it, it's going to die.

  • Nine reasons Obama is going to win on Iran. The first: Netanyahu
    • Has anyone read Slate recently? I usually avoid zionist hasbara outfits where I can, but this article in Slate caught my attention. Quote:

      Why Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Neocons Hate the Iran Deal

      Hint: It has nothing to do with the deal.
      By Fred Kaplan

      ... What Netanyahu and King Salman want Obama to do is to wage war against Iran—or, more to the point, to fight their wars against Iran for them. That is why they so virulently oppose U.S. diplomacy with Iran—because the more we talk with Iran’s leaders, the less likely we are to go to war with them. Their view is the opposite of Winston Churchill’s: They believe to war-war is better than to jaw-jaw. ... Netanyahu is sure to lobby against this deal on Capitol Hill in the coming weeks, just as he lobbied against the negotiations in his dreadful but politically potent speech before Congress in March. Republicans—keen to cheer the Israeli prime minister and to pummel their own president—probably won’t realize that they’re being played as pawns in someone else’s game. ...

      I bet the US public is not keen to be used as proxy for other nations fighting their stupid and selfish wars, even if they are allies and best friends. I think if that will become a main discussion narrative in the US during the next months AIPAC and their pawns may be finished soon.

  • Kristol frets that he walked into Obama's 'trap,' and Rubio says he'll demand Iran recognize 'Israel's right to exist'
    • What I find interesting is that it so long for Netanyahu's guys to figure out that the Iran bill in Congress meant a defeat for them in the agreed form.

      I have said that four days ago, very explitcitely here in a comment on Mondo Weiss, directly after news of the deal on the bill was going around:

      I think it’s a pretty good victory for Obama. Here’s why.

      Obama and the P5+1 can now go on and terminating the deal. I expect the deal have the following parameters: Iran is committing to some overviews and limitations of it’s nuclear programm, while P5+1 commits to drop all UNSC and unilateral sanctions regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. In the negotiated contract there will be something like a clause, like when US Congress blocks lifting of US sanctions, other P5+1 will go ahead anyway and regard US secondary sanctions as sanctions against them and fight back, while Iran has fewer nuclear commitments to fulfill, if congress blocks US sanction relief. ...

      link to mondoweiss.net

      Why did the Israel lobby and the neocons needed so much time to fgure this out? It sounds to me that they had to wait for an order what to do, but Netanyahu was somewhere partying and generating more empty bottles that his wife can return to receive some money from that, and as long as Bibi was partying, the neocons were on hold.

  • Obama got Senate to reject 'two of Netanyahu's demands' on Iran (but the 'NYT' won't touch that angle)
    • I think it's a pretty good victory for Obama. Here's why.

      Obama and the P5+1 can now go on and terminating the deal. I expect the deal have the following parameters: Iran is committing to some overviews and limitations of it's nuclear programm, while P5+1 commits to drop all UNSC and unilateral sanctions regarding Iran's nuclear programme. In the negotiated contract there will be something like a clause, like when US Congress blocks lifting of US sanctions, other P5+1 will go ahead anyway and regard US secondary sanctions as sanctions against them and fight back, while Iran has fewer nuclear commitments to fulfill, if congress blocks US sanction relief.

      For Iran, US sanctions don't matter much, if UNSC sanctions are lifted and EU & China won't accept US secondary sanctions on Iran anymore. For ordinary Iranians it means they need to fly Airbus only instead of being able to choose between Airbus and Boeing, and similar, they go drive French & German cars, and no GM & Ford. For Iran's oil & gas business it means, EU, Russia & China will help develop it without US. So what?

      So, when the deal is concluded, US congress will be in a weak position: not lifting US sanctions would simply mean the US economy can't get market shares in Iran, while Iran has fewer nuclear commitments to fulfill, and is not hurt much at all by US unilateral sanctions. EU, China & Russia will be happy to provide everything what the US economy would have hoped to sell to Iran. And, of course, Iran would have to sell it's oil for Euros instead of Dollars, so sorry.

      That may well be the situation when the US congress gets the deal to review US sanctions relief regarding Iran.

  • Gunter Grass became 'persona non grata' for 2012 poem exposing Israeli nuclear hypocrisy
    • Philip

      The main achievement of Günter Grass with his poem was not exposing the Israeli nuclear hypocrisy, but exposing the German guilt mechanism.

      That's what the lobby and Netanyahu made so angry. The Nuclear hypocrisy was axpoed by Mordachai Vanunu before. But what Grass did, was that he exposed that it is immoral for Germans, though rightly blamed for crimes against jews, to support Israeli crimes against world peace.

    • RIP

      It's likely that there is this one one poem, what's outstanstanding, what is the one real historic achievement of Günter Grass. As a baby boomer blessed with the gift of late birth I could never stand anything Günter Grass wrote, Nobel Prize here, or there.

      But I remember quite well that early in 2012 I had someone questioning me on Israel and Germany on my blog. He was especially interested in topics of guilt and the Israel lobby, and very afraid of bad information that could get him into bad waters.

      I have no idea who that was, but I told it him all. From BDS for apartheid, over Stephen Walt's book on the Israel lobby up to the German guilt komplex as I knew it from Jews from Neturei Karta, who where in Germany for Quds day, I told the commenting guy all I knew as best as I could. And a couple of months later: Boom! The poem Grass has published met all the most important topics I had in that discussion with that anonymous comment writer.

      I have still no idea whether my dialogue partner was Grass or not, but it struck me.

      However, whatever the truth is. That one poem was the one masterpiece of work what makes you a real hero and a historical significant person in the global struggle for justice. Thank You.

      Rest in Peace, Günter Grass.

  • Does Schumer have any idea how angry his constituents will be if he torpedoes his president on Iran?
    • Meanwhile in Israel:

      Netanyahu told cabinet: Our biggest fear is that Iran will honor nuclear deal

      Netanyahu expressed concern that Iranian compliance with the agreement will lull the world into complacency over the bomb threat, according to officials.

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a recent meeting of the inner cabinet that if a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and the six world powers is indeed signed by the June 30 deadline, the greatest concern is that Tehran will fully implement it without violations, two senior Israeli officials said.

      link to haaretz.com

  • Yarmouk-based NGO chronicles week of ISIS attacks on the Palestinian refugee camp in Syria
    • Oh, what tragic and sad bloody irony.

      From Al Akhbar, January 13, 2014: Yarmouk – A Palestinian Responsibility

      The camp’s most prominent group is Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis Brigades (Brigades in the Environs of Jerusalem), formed by members of Hamas, including a bodyguard of Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Meshaal. Hamas claims the group leaders are no longer within its organizational structure, but still refuses to condemn their actions. Some of these militants provided assistance to armed groups outside the camp and even outside Damascus countryside.

      So, Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis Brigades is essentially Hamas, which teamed up with Israel & Al Qaeda and betrayed the Syrian government after the Zionist-sponsored war on Syria started in 2011. And now this:

      It was then realized that Nusra had allowed ISIS into the camp, giving them access via streets they had been controlling previously. The two have now joined forces against Aknaf Beit Al Maqdis and other volunteer Palestinian fighters.

      Al Qaeda betrayed Hamas. How could they? And then this:

      Aknaf Beit Al Maqdis, along with those who had volunteered that day (in total about 500 fighters), waited for reinforcements to arrive from other armed opposition groups. These fighters came from Babilla and Beit Sahem.

      So, the brutal "siege" of the Syrian army on Yarmouk camp claimed by Hamas & Co seems not to be the truth. Even hundreds of fighters can access the Yarmouk camp from other terrorist infested areas near Damascus.

      Meanwhile the Syrian government does it's best to help the civilians leave the terrorist infested Yarmouk camp. SANA reports (SANA, 05/04/2015: Thousands of residents flee terrorism-torn Yarmouk Camp):

      Up to 2000 people have fled in the past two days, who were moved to government-run makeshift centers in the al-Tadamun and al-Zahira neighborhoods.

      Time for Hamas to stop their sectarian-driven struggle against Syria.

  • Now Obama needs to 'compensate' Netanyahu -- NYT pipes Israeli propaganda (Update)
    • Annie
      Thanks a lot for your reference to Taxis great blog article. Yes, it looks like big "change" is underway, and this time the cards are not stacked in Israels favour anymore.

      Nick
      As I'm pessimistic that the Saud's are able to deliver the policy changes demanded from them to get that whole chaos stopped, I expect the House of Saud to be removed from power, and, possibly, "their" country, Saudi Arabia, being split up, perhaps not formally, but de facto, into two or three.

Showing comments 662 - 601
Page: