Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 739 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)

Showing comments 739 - 701

  • Hey Jews, listen up, Netanyahu is your leader!
    • Seeing Netanyahu, the self-claimed "leader" of the Jewish world, talking about the Thousand Year Reich at the UN, I can't resist this comment:

      The expression "Netanyahu, the leader of the jewish world" gets a different meaning when instead of the English word "leader" the German translation for "leader" is used.

  • 'Third intifada was launched,' Palestinian law student posted before carrying out fatal attack in Jerusalem
    • Joke of the day: Jordan, the steward of the Muslim holy site, has said that it is mulling recalling its ambassador from Israel.

      As if King Playstation would ever do anything what his Las Vegas masters dislike.

      If it would be for real, Jordan would be shipping weapons and fighters for the liberation of Palestine instead of targetting the resistance in Syria.

  • To condemn, or not to condemn
    • It seems the death of these two settlers is not an isolated incident.

      Al Manar - the Lebanese TV close to Hezbollah - reports today:

      Islamic Jihad: Intifada 3 Has Begun, Harming Al-Aqsa a Red Line

      The Islamic Jihad resistance group has claimed responsibility for sending the 19-year-old Arab martyr who murdered two Israelis and wounded two others in a stabbing attack in Jerusalem's Old City on Saturday night. ...

      "We are at the start of a true intifada," wrote Islamic Jihad in an announcement. "The situation is at the breaking point - this isn't a storm in a teacup. Today (Prime Minister Binyamin) Netanyahu is reaping what he sowed. The Palestinian people have spoken - harming Al-Aqsa is a red line."

      Hamas welcomed the brave attack and called for additional operations. Hamas spokesperson Hussam Bardan called the attack an act of heroism, and said, "we support every attack of this type."

      link to

      Palestinain Islamic Jihad is of course, that's well-known, especially supported by Iran.

    • zaid

      See my responses to you comment above:

      link to

    • Annie

      Thank you for the detail. My comment, though an answer to zaid, it was also a reaction to the article of Avram Meitner, who wrote:

      Yes, these people were colonists: They were participating in the Zionist colonisation of occupied Palestine. But they were also not taking active part in hostilities, and are protected as civilians under international humanitarian law. This is important, because it is the same protection that Palestinian civilians should also enjoy.

      So, IOF officers can now claim a status as civilian and one should not disagree? I doubt.

      And Avram Meitner further wrote:

      The slaughter of Eitan and Naama Henkin is terrorism in the same way that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in Gaza is terrorism. Either oppose both equally, or accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.

      My comment (an exercise of "tit for tat" on how Israel "condemns" Palestinian deaths) shall be seen in light of these words from Avram Meitner, especially "oppose both equally." So I condemned equally, so I do not need to "accept that" I am "led by primitive tribalism rather than principles." Ha!

      And if I did not condemn I am led by "primitive tribalism rather than principles" - and in reality, I have to confess, that's true. I'm clearly biased, always sympathizing with the weak whereever they are. I'm off the opinion that there is a problem in rule-based equality. As Anatole France once said: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

      Whether it's politically clever to not condemn such an incident would be a different question for me. Politically I would advise to show compassion not seen by Israelis in similar cases and to make a difference thereby.

    • If the guy is a member of an enemy force (IDF) taking part in unlawful hostile activity (occupation of foreign territory) he might be a combatant. Furthermore AFAIK nobody knows who killed that IDF officer and the woman next to him, and why, it may well have not been an act of combat, but a simple dispute over other things, and it may well have been done by settlers, since everybody knows what kind of violent folks these settlers are, often they kill just for the fun of killing.

      So, what I would do is not to condemn but to express "deep concern" about the risk of escalation, ask relevant bodies of Palestine to investigate the incident, and condemn the IDF for launching in response to the incident an illegal manhunt in Palestine.

      So, then, if it turns out that it was a Palestinian force who killed that IDF officer, I'ld also ask if there exists a valid ceasefire. Seems the Oslo accords provide one.

      So, if the facts turn out this way I'ld suggest everybody to condemn the breach of the ceasefire by the killing of the IDF officer and the illegel IDF manhunt in Palestine, to deplore the collateral damage next to the killing of the IDF officer, and urge all parties to respect the ceasefire in the future and also urge the illegal occupying power to end the occupation to stop the existence of the conditions for these situations to happen.

      Is this enough condemnation?

  • Netanyahu's 44 seconds of silence at UN are being widely mocked -- 'pathetic,' 'creepy'
    • When Netanyahu would use another time silence making such a face, I would find it a fine idea, if someone would be there who said loudly:

      America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction.They won’t get in our way.

      And somebody else might say:

      We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. It swung American public opinion in our favor.

      Banners put up with these words might also be useful.

      I hope these words aren't anti-semitic?

  • The Obama administration needs to own up to the quagmire in Syria
    • echinococcus

      Yes, the claimed ignorance of Louis - while working for his alleged class enemy - is breathtaking. He doesn't even mind that many of the people organising the fake revolutions he and his alleged class enemies support have admitted in front of the camera what they are doing

    • Donald

      PS: And, btw, yes, I know some serious human rights violations by some former Nusra Front guys who defected to the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor after being routed by ISIS, and the Syrian army has both hands full to do with stopping them with that violations against ISIS fighters, but don't expect to read about this in reports by the UN HR council.

    • Donald

      Sadly, the UN Human Rights Council is, just like AI, HRW and the ICC, a body almost totally under the control of those countries who wage war on Syria, especially by spreading inciting lies. Currently it's led by Saudi Arabia. So, quite logically, Syria doesn't let them into the country.

      The result are lot's of reports, which seem to be done by running around refugee camps in Turkey & Jordan, asking people: "Anyone here to tell us a torture story helping us to get a no-fly-zone on Syria?" And lot's of people tell them then the blue from the sky and they write it in their reports at face value. In 2011/2012 I helped to debunk the nonsense in these reports, but not anymore: they are so obviously baseless and unverifyable propaganda, that I don't think it's worth my time anymore.

      If you don't know people in Syria, to get an idea what's really going on, I would suggest to read reports of more independent reporters like Lizzie Phelan, Eva Bartlett or even Franklin Lamb.

      Though, sometimes, I make still fun with the Zionist PR operative Kenneth Roth, who, among other things, claims Gaza to be in Syria:

      link to

    • lproyect

      If you'ld read my comments above you'ld see that my source for the content of Presidential Study Directive 11 is not Global Research’s Anthony Carlucci, but David Ignatius, who is close to the CIA. See the main link I gave for my assertion here again

      link to

    • a4tech

      Yes, there are elements of real terrorism in Syria. And, together with a bunch of mercenaries paid and equipped by zionist and wahhabi enemies of Syria, they gave themselves hundreds of fancyful names like Free Syrian Army, Islamic Movement of the Freeman of Sham, Army of Conquest, Islamic Front, Victory Front or Islamic State.

      And if you want to have an American analogy, the comparison with peaceful black people in the US is completely wrong, because the black people in the US demand equality instead of racism, they do it not with terrorist means and they are not paid and equipped by enemies of the US. A much better US analogy would be to compare the sectarian "revolution" of the "armed Syrian opposition" with a US "revolution" led by white power groups and the US militia movement demanding an end to the corrupt jewish regime and their black collaborateurs in Washington. And that movement for the rights of "white Christians" against the jewish oppression would then by spearheaded by terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. While they fight for power, refusing any dialogue with the "jewish regime" they would of course not chant "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave" - like the Syrian "revolutionaries" celebrated it, but something like "Blacks to Africa, Jews to the Gallows." Would such a bunch of racist and sectarian terrorists and their followers be able to do a successful "revolution" in the US? Of course not, even if they were gioven lot's of weapons from Russia and China, because the US people would not accept it.

      And that's exactly what happened in Syria to the bunch of foreign backed sectarian terrorists claiming to do a "revolution" while singing "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave." These bunch of terrorists and traitors bet that the US, Israel, Turkey,the Sauds and other leading imperial powers would help them to victory, so that they wouldn't be held responsible for all their crimes and terrorists acts, but they grossly miscalulated, because a clear majority of the Syrian people didn't accept their claimed revolution, which had no other tangible objectives than to deliver the independence of Syria to foreign powers aligned with Israel and to wallow themselves in their sectarianism.

      What do you think, why the so-called Syrian revolution failed? I tell you why: these sectarian terrorists, foreign agents and their fellows calling themselves letter soups like FSA; SNC and so on got plenty of support like money, weapons and media power from the enemies of Syria, who are much more rich and powerful countries than the friends of Syria, but they still failed their task of regime change, because they lacked the support of the Syrian people, becauss they had no worthy ideals, just wanting power betting on foreign backed violence and terrorism.

    • a4tech


      Your ignorance of the government opponents' crimes of terrorism against the Syrian people and their crime of collaborating with imperial war on Syria speak for itself, but these facts won't go away by your ignorance.

      And the justification of these crimes you gave - in your terms: "overrepresentation of certain communities in the powerful positions" - is not only sectarianism in the service of imperialists but also the main reason why your neocon-wahhabi likeminds lose their war on Syria, because a clear majority of the Syrian people rejects this.

      Do you have any idea how miserable you sound?

    • gamal

      "... minority Alawites was put onto power by a foreign force ..."

      This whole discourse of Sunni versus Allawites is sectarian from A to Z. And that's what always was the real colonial plot: to devide the people along sects, races, ethinics etc. Divide and rule.

      The simple fact is that there is no a monolithic bloc "Allawites" versus a monolithic bloc "Sunnis." If one would believe that then the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad (Allawite) is currently at war with his wife (Sunni), his defense minister (Sunni), his foreign minister (Sunni) and so on. Of course, that's gross nonsense, like the whole theory of an Allawite versus Sunni war. The colonialists, their heirs and their stooges try to portray it that way to create more bloodshed, but it's not the truth.

      What is true however is that some prominent members of quite privileged clans in Syria wanted more power, and to achieve this, they aligned with NATO, GCC and Israel and started lot's of bloodshed. Read for example the Wikipedia article on the Atassi family:

      link to

      IThe family was not marginalized, quite the opposite. However, one finds quite a lot of people of that family in leading positions aligned with NATO-GCC countries trying to do bloody regime change in Syria.

    • Btw, just in, Israel continues to fire on Syrian army positions:

      Israel strikes Syria military posts after errant rocket hit its territory 2015-09-28 03:55:24

      JERUSALEM/DAMASCUS, Sept. 27 (Xinhua) -- The Israeli army said Sunday night that it fired artillery into Syria in response to an errant projectile that hit earlier the Golan Heights, in a second such incident in two days.

      Earlier this evening, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported that a rocket landed in an open field in the northern Golan Heights. No injuries or damages were reported.

      The rocket was launched from the war-torn Syria and "was due to the internal fighting in Syria," a military statement said. ...

      link to

    • Annie

      From what I know from people in Syria Syria's policy is good treatment to prisoners and no torture. I'm also told that like in all 3rd world countries the fight against tortue is and was never easy and there are some a**holes working as interrogators who use dirty tricks when they deal with people they don't like, like pushing someone stairs down and then say it was the prisoners own fault. It's hard to go against such behaviour as inquiries, and many political or terror related trials, are generally not public due to fear of revealing valuable intel information for Israel by doing so. Sometimes, tribal and clan structures also prevent an improvement in the situation regarding torture, but generally, the situation is not that bad. If a prisoner dies (except for lawful execution of capital punishment) or is seriously harmed, the responsible offial will be in serious trouble.

      However, the situation with Maher Arar and a couple of other guys thought to be related to Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhodd was likely different. Syria feared at that time very much to be invaded by the US, and strange as it was, US intel people sent suspects there to be imprisoned and treated badly in the name of gathering info on Al Qaeda, while other Bush administration officials wanted to wage war on Syria. So, in that specific time, treating these prisoners badly was seen by Syria as a means to avert a full scale US attack on Syria on behalf of Israel. Of course, that made all a mockery of the noble goals of fighting against to torture.

      Seymour Hersh had pinned around that time when Maher Arar and some of his acquaintances with Afghanistan experience were held in Syria a long article about US intel coop with Syria, which sheds some light into that dark chapter of history:

      link to

      I know and understand that Maher Arar hates Syria for that experience, and I hope he was not too badly hurt to be able to continue his life.

    • Annie

      The main question is: are these torture reports true at all or are they the usual false-flag-massacre fairy tales spread by Israeli- NATO- and GCC-backed terrorists?

      The so-called opposition group invented virtually thousands of such false-flag-torture-and-massacre fairy tales, often backing it's claims up by videos of people tortured and killed by themselves in most cruel ways. These false reports in the style of the incubator baby lies - a meme CNN and the opposition also used - were a major method of warfare by the foreign backed terrorists in the first years of the war. These stories lack basic logic as the Syrian government had, of course, absolutely no interest in torturing people to make them even more angry as they were.

      One of the first big successes for the terrorists was the false torture story of Hamza Al Khateeb. SANA reported a much more likely story of these events, but many people in the west chose not to listen to SANA:

      link to

      It was a time when Hillary Clinton and the US state department called the world for saving the blogging "gay girl in Damascus" - which was later revealed as a hoax from Tom MacMaster blogging from Scotland.

    • I think this is a huge story: Donald Trump breaks ranks with the Israel lobby on Syria. As per the Washington Post:

      Donald Trump: Let Russia fight the Islamic State in Syria

      Donald Trump accused his Republican presidential rivals on Friday night of wanting to "start World War III over Syria," and suggested that the United States should instead let Russia deal with the problem. ...

      Trump then used a child-like voice to imitate those who have questioned the depth of his global expertise. He switched to a deeply serious voice to imitate his rivals who have provided details: "If I'm president, I will engage the sixth fleet. I will do this, I will do that, I will attack Russia and Syria."

      "This is what they say," Trump said. "They want to start World War III over Syria. Give me a break. You know, Russia wants to get ISIS, right? We want to get ISIS. Russia is in Syria — maybe we should let them do it? Let them do it." ...

      link to

      Of course, that's exactly what Russia, Iran and Syria want, and what the Israel lobby hates. If the US pulls away from Syria, it means the resistance has won, and Israel and the neocons hate. Obama has now cover from the top Republican Presidential contender to drop out, to drop regime change policy on Syria and to let Russia help the Syrian government fight ISIS.

      Remember, the Forward recently reported: Donald Trump's Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans

    • The Pentagon just confirmed, Friday evening, of course, that their newly US-trained anti-ISIS-fighters gave a part of their US-supplied eqipment to Al Qaeda:

      U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave equipment to Nusra - U.S. military

      To me that looks pretty much like that that's "game over" for any further US plans to train and arm more "moderate rebels" in Syria.

    • Tectonic shift continuing:

      German vice chancellor Gabriel calls for end of sanctions against Russia: "one cannot sanction Russia on the one hand and ask for cooperation (on other issues like Syria) on the other hand.

      A better relation with Russia starts with a new German-Russian gaspipeline and ends with removing the sanctions."

      link to

    • Philip Gordon, special assistant to the president and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region from 2013–15, lays out how the White House policy change on Syria may be sold:

      It’s Time to Rethink Syria

    • David

      "If Obama is at war with Netanyahu, why the hell doesn’t he fight?"

      Obama does fight Netanyahu, even very serious, didn't you remark his epic battle against Netanyahu over the Iran deal?

      Obama's fight against Netanyahu is not easy because Netanyahu owns more than half of the US Congress and Netanyahu and the pro-Israel crazies have also lot's of support from the US media, the US public and rich money bags.

    • Annie

      Regarding the deadly stampede near Mecca: At the hajj huge numbers of people, this year about two million, come together on very limited space. It's a tough logistical challenge to ensure there are no stampedes for such an event. Obviously, Saudi Arabia didn't manage this challenge well, once again. The result will likely be that the image of the Saudi king as the self-declared "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" takes a hit in the Muslim world.

      Iranian media also spread the rumor that a motorcade of the king's son, deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, was the reason for crucial roads being blocked, so the crowd got stuck and the deadly stampede occured. I don't give much on such a rumor, because the Iranians dislike the Salmans for their anti-Iranian hatred and anti-Shia sectarianism, but if such a rumor would turn out to be true, the stampede could also lead to serious political consequences in Saudi Arabia.

    • Annie

      Thanks a lot again for taking so much time to read what I wrote.

      My view on geopolitics was sharped a lot by doing the Net News Global site for a couple of years, thereby scanning through literally hundreds of alternative or non-western media items from all over the world each day. The most important what I learned is that the western media is an unbelievable shame, and very often the opposite is true of what the media is trying to tell. But that's not all.The most scary thing is that there exist global situations where media from non-western countries like Russia and Iran go along with false western narratives, and then there is a very scary phenomen I'ld call something like a global media blackout on some topics. The other side of the story of the war against Libya was such a case.

      Currently an almost complete blackout is on what's happening in south western Saudi Arabia close to the Yemen border, only Yemeni, Iranian and Hezbollah media report on that. The Saudi war on Yemen is going on badly from a Saudi point of view, and the Yemeni army - supported by the Houthis - makes inroads in Saudi Arabia. Here for example is the latest report from Yemen's "Houthi TV" Al Masirah, reporting from Saudi Arabia:

      link to

      One doesn't need to understand Arabic to understand that this is a major story, but there is total western media silence on that the Saudi forces are losing battle after battle on the ground inside Saudi Arabia. But this important story is totally suppressed in almost all media.

    • Annie

      "i guess i mean, when you left who is writing for this site now?"

      It's a secret, the writers/editors of nocheinparteibuch don't reveal their name.

    • Annie

      I'm speechless. nocheinparteibuch has no imprint, I guess it's intentional, so all cease & desist letter, injunctions and lawsuits go to the wordpress Bloghoster Automattic. :-)

      At Automattic they seem to know how & have enough resources to deal with such folks, just as they have proven to be able to fight off all DDoS attacks. DDoS attacks seem now quite commonplace to suppress unwanted information, wikileaks had problems with huge DDoS attacks, the Syrian news agency SANA was shot down with DDoS for many weeks and even RT was out sometimes for a couple of hours. Automattic even managed to keep the grep on the State Dept Files for "strictly protect" online:

      link to

    • Annie

      In the sixth and last comment of this series, let me put up two links on who is really ruling Sanaa at the moment. It's a guy called Jalal Al-Rowaishan. Jalal Al-Rowaishan an officer of the Special Security Forces of the Interior Ministry, very well trained and equipped paramilitary forces that were supplied with western military aid for the fight against Al Qaeda. Jalal Al-Rowaishan was named minister of interior by Hadi, and he fights against al Qaeda to this day, while Hadi (and by extension the US) is now with Al Qaeda in Yemen, though the US still kills some Al Qaeda ops with drone strikes in Yemen.

      Here are the names of the de facto ruling council in Sanaa:

      link to

      There are two changes in the list to reality now: AFAIK Dr. Ali Hassan Al-Ahmadi rejected his post in this Supreme Security Committee, while the council leader Maj. Gen. Mahmoud al-Subeihi defected to Hadi in March. He was replaced by Jalal Al-Rowaishan on March 9:

      link to

      So the de facto government in Sanaa is neither dominated by Houthis nor is it forces loyal to Ali Saleh. What it is is a broad military junta, stuffed with lot's of officers of different security branches, many of the trained and equipped by the US in the name of fighting against Al Qaeda. I have a very hard time to believe, that such a council of US-trained officers could be formed without backing by the US. And, what's also fact, is that while that council was already in charge, it coordinated well with US forces in Yemen's Al Anad airbase in the fight against Al Qaeda and other MB/Salafi militias which now described by the UN envoy as President Hadi's forces.

    • Annie

      A big thanks for offering me so mcuh of your time. Regarding Yemen, here are some very important links regarding whom the Saudis fight in Yemen with and against. The first is a Reuters interview from April 1, 2015, with Hadi's foreign minister in Riyad where he admits that the Houthis are only few and lightly armed, and that the real enemy of the Saudis are he armed forces of Yemen - almost all of them - whom he describes as loyal to Saleh, a claim I doubt:

      ... "The main thing now is if Ali Abdullah Saleh forces stop fighting with them, I think they (the Houthis) will start to retreat. Our main problem now is not the Houthis. They are few, they have only light weapons," Abdulla said. ... Although the only forces in Aden still loyal to the Saudi-backed Hadi are from local militias, some parts of the army continue to back him elsewhere including the eastern province of Hadramawt and near Marib, he said.


      link to

      So, basically Hadi's foreign minister in Riyadh confirmed that all the armed forces of Yemen, except "some parts of the army" in "the eastern province of Hadramawt and near Marib" back the "Houthi government" in Sanaa.

      As a leaked email (sent at the beginning of September 2015) from Special Envoy for Yemen of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, to Under Secretary General Jeffrey Feltman (the US neocon once responsible for MEPI I mentioned already above) shows, the situation that Hadi and the Saudis have almost none of Yemen's official military (and paramilitary) on their side, has not changed:

      ... The instability and violence which have plagued Aden following its capture is likely also a source of concern. The mostly pro-independence Hiraak fighters are unwilling to cooperate fully with the GoY in attempts to expand northward. This leaves the coalition dependent on ground troops from Islah, Salafi and AQAP related groups, which UAE is reluctant to support. ...


      link to

      So Hadi (GoY) and the Saudi-GCC coalition are supported on the ground in Yemen by militias from the Southern Separatist movement Hirak, the party of Yemen's Muslim Brotherhood Islah, Wahhabi Salafi militias and Al Qaeda (AQAP). US-trained units of Yemen's army or US-trained Yemen's paramilitary forces of the Interior ministry (Special Security Forces) are not in the list of forces fighting side by side with the Saudis in Yemen, but Al Qaeda is fighting side by side with the Saudis backed by the US. And that's not Houthi or Iranian propaganda, but that's what the UN special envoy says, who was installed according to Saudi wishes after his predecessor left post because the Saudis didn't like him.

    • Annie

      Here's my answer part 4:

      ... and if he (Obama) empowered the Houthis in Yemen why is he now supporting SA killing so many of them? ..

      Of course, on the why I can only speculate. I'm not in his head. However, that Obama empowered the Houthis, is, I think, a hard fact.

      The Houthis are a quite strong militia in north-western Yemen, but they are far not strong enough to be the real power brokers of Yemen. The real power broker are the Yemen armed forces, who are a multitude more in numbers than Houthis and much better equipped.

      And the elite forces in Yemen are almost all US trained, and of those they all back the so-called Houthi "revolution", though in reality, the commander of the revolution forces is the interior minister, who presides over the US- and EU-trained Special Security Forces (SSF). The US and EU trained these forces to fight against Al Qaeda. And, in collaboration with the Houthis, they were quite successful in doing that. These SSF are in number about as much as the Yemen army. In Southern Yemen, as they came under pressure from Saudi backed Al Qaeda forces in March, they all fled to the Anad airbase, which was also the base of the US forces. When the Saudis made clear in March they are gonna fly bomb runs to support Hadi's legitimacy (an euphemism for supporting Al Qaeda) the US troops in Yemen pulled out - however, it's clear that the US knows very well what's going on, because the US forces were under combined Saudi-Al-Qaeda-attacks, defending the base together with Yemen army brigades and SSF who are now billed as Houthis. If you want I can look up the brigade numbers. US policy to align Yemen's army and US trained SSF with Houthis in fighting Al Qaeda made perfectly sense, because the Houthis were the only capable group in Yemen who were really opposed to Al Qaeda and all it's surrogates.

      So, now, what do I think why the US currently and publicly backs the Saudi-Al-Qaeda alliance in Yemen, while, of course, in reality Obama does almost nothing for that backing? I think Obama is trying to let the Sauds go into a bloody swamp in Yemen where the don't find an exit alone anymore. When the Saudis are deep enough in that swamp that they are unable to help themselves he'll either ask for lot's of favors from the Saudis, or crush the Saudi regime, whatever him pleases more at that time.

      And, before you may ask, oh, yes, I do think, it's deeply cynical by Obama to do nothing seeing thousands of Yemenis literally slaughtered by Saudi air attacks to get the Zionist-Wahhabi forces at their balls, but I do think that's what'S going on.

    • Annie (answer part 3)

      Regarding the abdication of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani from the throne of Qatar, which happened a few days before Morsi was taken down in Egypt, I basically know two stories.

      Al Manar reported Obama took him down by threatening to impose sanctions on Qatars money for supporting Al Qaeda:

      The decision made by Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani to cede power in Qatar was not a personal decision to be justified by ‘health reasons' suffered by the man who plays serious roles in recent years, whether at the Arab level or at the international level, Lebanese Assafir daily reported Thursday. ... Some of those who have had access to the details of US decision summarized the message delivered by the presidential envoy to Sheikh Hamad as follows: ... “You have one specific choice, either we impose seizure over your money around the world, or you leave your position for one of your sons that we name to be the ruler after you.” ... When the Emir tried to discuss the matter, the special envoy replied:
      “I’m not authorized to negotiate with you, but I've come to inform you about our decision.”

      link to

      The New York Times reported the 61 year old ruler of Qatar suddenly resigned in the middle of a terror war on Syria because he loves to see the youth ruling:

      “He’s been working on this for the past three years,” the official said, adding: “He thinks this is a good time for the younger generation to take over. The emir himself was very young when he came to power 18 years ago, and he wants to continue that.”

      link to

      And in a way, for people with some understanding the NYT may have even ackowledged in the very same article that the US had some trouble with him leading him to step down:

      ... while it is allied with Washington, it has also raised the West’s ire by financing radical Islamist rebels in various arenas. ...

    • Annie

      Now a 2nd comment dealing with "Presidential Study Directive 11" (PSD 11).

      I just tried to google it and it seems to me extreme rightwing outlets flooded Google with obvious anti-muslim garbage regarding Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11."

      So let me introduce two serious links regarding Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" here.

      1st: David Ignatius from March 4, 2011: "Obama's Calculated Gamble" at

      President Obama has been so low-key in his pronouncements about events in Egypt and Libya that it’s easy to miss the extent of the shift in U.S. strategy. .. The roots of the policy shift go back to Obama's first days in office and his feeling that America's relationship with the Arab world was broken. Though Obama seemed to be accommodating the region's authoritarian leaders, in August 2010, he issued Presidential Study Directive 11, asking agencies to prepare for change. This document cited "evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region's regimes" and warned that "the region is entering a critical period of transition." The president asked his advisers to "manage these risks by demonstrating to the people of the Middle East and North Africa the gradual but real prospect of greater political openness and improved governance. ...

      link to

      As you may know David Ignatius is seen by some people as something as the inofficial spokesperson of the CIA. Wikipedia bills David Ignatius as someone who's quite close to the CIA:

      Ignatius's coverage of the CIA has been criticized as being defensive and overly positive. Melvin A. Goodman, a 42-year CIA veteran, Johns Hopkins professor, and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, has called Ignatius "the mainstream media’s apologist for the Central Intelligence Agency," citing as examples Ignatius's criticism of the Obama administration for investigating the CIA's role in the use of torture in interrogations during the Iraq War, and his charitable defense of the agency's motivations for outsourcing such activities to private contractors. Columnist Glenn Greenwald has levied similar criticism against Ignatius.

      I think David Ignatius would be more aptly described as an Israeli hasbara operative with close connections to the CIA and his paper, the Washington Post, as the leading Neocon hasbara outfit in the world. The Washington Post, where David Ignatius' article was first published, and where I read it under that title changed the title after a couple of days. It seems someone complained about the title. Now the Washington Post has the article under the title "Obama’s low-key strategy for the Middle East". You may google it.

      The NY Times also reported about Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" although usually not mentioning it by name, just calling it a report, but obviously meaning the same:

      By MARK LANDLERFEB. 16, 2011

      WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered his advisers last August to produce a secret report on unrest in the Arab world, which concluded that without sweeping political changes, countries from Bahrain to Yemen were ripe for popular revolt, administration officials said Wednesday.

      link to

      Their also exist an official US statement saying more or less that while Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" is secret in detail, it's real, but the rightwing spammers flooded google so I can't find it anymore.

      My point is that Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" dates to August 2010, however the Arab Spring started just in December 2010. How could he have known that allegedly big surprise months before it happened? I think the only plausible answer is that Obama ordered that surprise himself. And when one looks at all the MEPI protagonists name by name and teir roles country by country it becomes very clear that the Arab Spring was prepared with MEPI.

    • Annie

      As I believe that whenever I put more than two links two sources in a comment that leads me to te spam filter let me answer you with a couple of comments backing up what I said with serious sources one topic after the other. I hope you don't mind if I mention in these comments sometimes myself and my own history.

      First of all, I think, Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" is an important key to understand what's called the Arab spring. To understand the significance of Obama's "Presidential Study Directive 11" - which in it's full content is still secret as far as I know - I think it's neccessary to know that George W. Bush's administration created a State Department program called "Middle East Partnership Initiative" - in short MEPI - and what it basically contains.

      Let me quote some phrases from the current Wikipedia Article on "Middle East Partnership Initiative" that you may find interesting:

      The U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) is a U.S. State Department program that supports organizations and individuals in their efforts to promote political, economic, and social reform in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

      ... In 2002, Elizabeth Cheney, known as Liz, and daughter of Vice-President Dick Cheney, was appointed U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs and tasked with supervising MEPI. Cheney explained that under MEPI, the US administration funded programs as diverse as training Arab journalists to revising current teaching methods from rote learning to more child-oriented teaching methods. Additionally, MEPI supported countries seeking to sign Free Trade Agreements with the United States to meet President Bush’s goal to establish a joint Middle East Free Trade zone by 2013.

      ... MEPI is located within the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S. State Department. In addition to its Washington, D.C. headquarters, MEPI has regional offices in the MENA region.

      ... MEPI’s gradual, “bottom-up” public diplomacy approach is a process to create conditions where the pressure for change will come from Arabs themselves. A rapid transition to democracy risks destabilizing autocratic regimes and unintentionally empowering anti-U.S. Islamists who would exploit their position to oppose the existing regime. ...

      If you don't know MEPI, google the Wikipedia Article on "Middle East Partnership Initiative" yourself, I'ld deem it very important to understand what was going on. I could hardly describe better the forces unleashed by the events called the "Arab Spring." Of course, in 2010/2011 the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S. State Department was led by no other than Jeffrey Feltman, a leading neocon operative who is particularly well known in Lebanon. If you don't know him, he's famous, google him, he's now Dep Sec Gen at the UN.

      link to

      After the regime change in Tunisia, billed as a revolution but in reality a US-backed putsch, former Bush operatives took credit. And then came the putsch in Egypt, openly billed as putsch, and with an US aircraft carrier off the Egypt coast to enforce it. However, most people were so euphorized by "Change" - may I say Regime Change - in the arab world that they didn't notice this reality. Gaddafi noticed, btw, and spoke out.

      MEPI has managed to tool many people who wanted for better for the interests of the lobby, many of them "grassroot activists" from the left wing. To see how it worked - and likely recognize some popular names you heard in regard to the so-called arab spring - I suggest a blog article from a strange anonymous German blog called Noch ein Parteibuch "Another Parteibuch" called "How US-led regime change warriors train and misuse bloggers for their dirty games":

      link to

      Personal disclosure: Many people in Germany know me, now editor of Net News Global, as blogger at Mein Parteibuch, who has given up that blog because in Germany it's the way that there exist lawyers who promise their wealthy clients - not without reason - that they are able to take down anything published they don't like, and I had received about two letters from such lawyers per week, some strong zionists, and quite expensive, at least for those who received their letters and lawsuits, so I closed the blog. One of these lawyers, Gravenreuth, who battled me, killed himself when he was exposed as a fraudster winning his lawsuits with lies afterwards, but that didn't help me much. His friend, a leading Mossad op in Berlin, who regularly contacted me to spy on me, of course without telling me his affiliation, closed his shop in Berlin about the same time. But that didn't help me and it helped me neither that I defeated a lawsuit of the current vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel. There came always more and more lawsuits each weak, I guess in English it's called lawfare.

      Somehow some anonymous poeple, whom I tell every judge in the world I don't know much about, first pubished articles on a Malaysian hosted blog that was DDoSed down, and now publish articles in the spirit of Mein Parteibuch at an anonymous WordPress blog called

      So, however, I had some alarm signals more than other bloggers which didn't make such experiences. As I saw the "Arab Spring" unleash, I was first quite happy, that all that activism meant really a difference, and though I saw GWBush operatives had their fingers in regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt, it took some weeks longer before I understood that the Arab Spring was not grassroots, but US policy. It was when I first read about Obama's PSD 11, issued in August 2010.

      And that's for the next comment here.

    • lysias

      Yes, the Brotherhood worked for Israeli interests. It wasn't clear for quite some time how the Brotherhood government in Egypt would play out, but in it's last days it unmasked itself clearly as working for Israeli interests, whether they did it consciously or not.

      The main point here is that the Brotherhood called for a sectarian war Sunni against Shia. Mursi himself in his last days as president of Egypt stood on a stage in a large crowded stadium directly after preacers called for war on Shia, thereby endorsing it. There could not be more benefit to Israel than calling for jihad on Shia. That is exactly what Israel wants: Muslims killing MUslims for sectarian reasons. And all the while looking for Israel to be the power making the winner. To underline his view Morsi also decided to close the embassy of Syria, instead of closing the embasy of Israel.

      And also, the World Muslim League led by Qaradawi, which seemed to act like Mursi's superior, has close relations to Israel's best buddy in the region, the Saudis. Qaradawi also called for war on Shia, thereby pleasing Israel.

      The Brotherhood coming out as a force working for Israel's interests was surprising to many, Iran, and many others, including to me. Some others were not so surprised, like the Syrian government, who saw the Brotherhood long as Israeli proxies, and similar goes for Gaddafi's followers or the Houthis. The background is that the Qatari backers of the Brotherhood had always a very close, but hidden connection to the Israel lobby, mainly through the City of London. Some say even, the inofficial, but real seat of Qatar's government is London. Today, I think, Al Jazeera's connection to the Brotherhood and the Israel lobby is quite clear, as lot's of their analysis providers and honored discussion guests were from the Israel lobby in recent years.

      Sisi instead is, despite depending on Saudi money, quite close to Russia, and he has also developed, though unofficially, quite good relations to Syria, I think. Of course, one may say, OK, the Brotherhood is so large that it has several wings, some, as the Syrian wing, are quite close to Israel, but others, as Hamas, quite distanced, really fighting Israel. It's true. But it doesn't change the fact that the wing working for Israeli interests proved the stronger one, in Syria, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Libya, and so on - except in Palestine.

      Turkey though remains to be seen. Where Turkey's Brotherhood wing led by Erdogan really stands we will see in the future, but Erdogan's war on Syria suggests he's also doing Israel's bidding. If he finally leads Turkey out of NATO into SCO that may prove me wrong however.

    • Annie

      What I think what's missing here is the US presidential election 2012. To me it looks like the history of Obama's presidency is quite different. What I think is:

      After Obama failed in 2010 to get a two state solution or even a settlement stop from Netanyahu he unleashed the so-called Arab Spring with his "Presidential Study Directive 11." The Arab spring was prepared by GWB under the MEPI programme, but Obama's calculus was that it will empower the Muslim Brotherhood in large parts of the arab world in a democratic way, and that the Muslim Brotherhood will be as fiercely opposed to Israel as Hamas is, thereby bringing pressure on Israel.

      However, things did not work out as desired, and Obama made cruel mistakes in Libya. Obama likely saw Gaddafi's Libya as an obstacle to empowering MB and jihadi elements opposed to Israel and crushed Gaddafi therefore. However, as it only turned out later, the Muslim Brotherhood was a Qatari proxy working for Israeli interests, as well as Al Qaeda was a Saudi and GCC proxy force, with Hamas being a lonely execption in it's true opposition to Israel.

      As it was understood in 2012 that the Muslim Brotherhood & the jihadis were in the end proxies of Netanyahu it was too late for Obama to stop the war on Syria, because he was in an election cycle and very much dependent on the goodwill of at least some parts of the israel lobby to have a chance to get re-elected.

      After his re-election Obama understood that not the Muslim Brotherhood, but Iran and liberals are the main powers opposed to Israel, and he moved to strengthen them in a systematic manner. Obama did invest huge political capital to rehabilitate Iran with the nuke deal, he helped Sisi, who is in his core a liberal follower of Nasser, to replace Mursi, he pushed the Qatari ruler and Al Qaeda backer from his throne and he empowered the Houthis in Yemen by greenlighting the alliance of US-equipped Yemeni anti-terror forces with them.

      Now, after the Iran deal is completed, Obama works to get Israel and Israel's MB and Al Qaeda stooges defeated in Syria, and then that will be hopefully followed by action to defeat the Saudis in Yemen, and the jihadis in Libya. Meanwhile Obama helped to defeat Israel's stooge Jonathan Goodwill in Nigeria and encouraged Pakistan to join the SCO. Netanyahu tried a distraction, putting a wedge between the US, EU and Russia, by empowering Nazis in Ukraine, but to no avail, Obama & Putin proceed to change the world in a strategic way to the displeasure of Netanyahu and it's stooges.

      Hopefully, Obama also manages to pass the baton to crash Bibi and the Neocons to his successor.

  • Ad targeting Sen. Bennet says Iran wants to nuke the world's children
    • ritzl

      I disagree. The aim of such BS is not directly to win over people. The aim is to make poeple who say stupid things like "the Iran deal endangers US security" look sensible, so people could and would vote for them.

      That's the way this BS works. Oh, yes, I do believe it works. Just see all the commercials for over-prized products - they are so over the top that some find it hard to believe they work, but they do.

  • Which nation spends more on its military: Iran or Israel?
    • MRW

      Not to mention that it was written by Eli Lake, whose heart beats for Israel.

      Yep. I remember the pic of Eli Lake in a Begin shirt:

      link to

    • The budget figures are very misleading, because military budget is not the same as military strength. If military strength would be all about budget the US would have won the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq with ease. What is important is to win over people's hearts and minds, that is to wage war like it was a permanent election campaign. If that succeeded than a few well-trained special forces blending into the population for asymmetric warfare with stunningly simple weapons will defeat the opponent.

      To understand that take a simple look at an Iranian-style weapon in GWB's Iraq war, unit cost about 100 USD:

      link to

      And than have a look for a US-style weapon for the same purpose, unit cost about 500.000 USD:

      link to

      That's comparable weapons for a purpose like controlling a road. The budget ratio in this example is about 1 to 5000. Often enough, the guys with the Iranian-style weapons won the battle in Iraq.

  • 'New Yorker' says anti-Zionism is 'firmly rooted' in British left, and it's anti-Semitic
    • Krauss

      I agree with your point that the Zionist lobby in Australia is stronger than in the UK, and I may add, perhaps even stronger than in the US - so the size of global power seems not to be the reason for the strength of the Zionist lobby.

      I would like to offer a different explanation for the different strength of the Zionist lobby in various western style countries. My impression is that the Zionist lobby was really very strong a couple of years ago, say 15 years ago, in almost all western countries. But when the Zionist lobby got their way with almost all their policy ideas it caused sometimes tremendous suffering for many ordinary people. Britain, like the US, had a really strong Zionist lobby, but then, when Blair and Cheney came to power, and they did everything what the Zionist lobby wanted, especially the war on Iraq, they provoked enourmous suffering for the people and serious blowback for the lobby.

      Therefore now many people in Britain and the US are fundamentally opposed to the Blair and Cheney types and though the Zionist lobby has still a lot of power in Britain and the US, the power of the lobby shrinked. Australia has also participated in war for Israel, but people in Australia do well anyway, largely due to lot's of new resource business with China, and so the backlash for the lobby in Australia wasn't so serious. that theory might also explain why the Zionist lobby has so much power in Canada and France: these countries weren't ruined so much by the extremist policies of the Zionist lobby, so the backlash is less serious.

      Germany, though, seems to be a very special case in terms of the power of the Zionist lobby. I would take the feeling of guilt for the holocaust in Germany, a large part of the population educated in socialist GDR, the German non-participation in the war on Iraq and traditional good German relations with Russia as points that are also very relevant in Germany. So, in the end, I guess, there can be many factors what makes the Zionist lobby in result stronger or weaker in a specific country.

    • Page: 7
  • 80% unemployment for young women, $1000 GDP per capita -- inside the UN's 'Gaza uninhabitable' report
    • Keith

      Yes, I agree that Israel is globalizing it's repression technics to the 1% in globalized markets and thereby feeds global repression on the model of the repression of the Palestinians. However, I think it's not a clever move by the 1% to copy Israeli practice and follow Israeli advice on repression. Israeli oppression is far too heavy-handed to be successful in the long term as the Israeli way of repression usually produces strong blowback.

      Look at Iran: the shah followed all Israeli repression methods and advices, and what is the result? The same is largely valid for Latin America where decades of Israeli-style repression are currently followed by a left wing trend. And then Iraq: see how quickly the Iraqi people turned to Iran for help after being exposed Israeli-style Neocon repressions for some months after the 2003 invasion. All this is last not least blowback from Israeli-style repression on a massive scale.

      A more successful repression model for the 1% would be far less visible and the 99% people would feel more coopted than repressed so went along. Successful repression would more look like Bill Clinton running the empire in the 90s than W., Dick Cheney or Bibi.

    • Keith

      Halper’s main conclusion is disturbing. Israel, he says, is globalising Palestine. After decades of controlling Palestinians under occupation, he notes, Israel is unrivalled in all these spheres. It uses the occupied territories as a giant laboratory for developing and testing new ideas, technology, tactics and weaponry.

      Of course israel is seen by many of the Crazies and like-minded people as the best security model. However, there exists a huge problem with copying israeli wisdom. Jonathan Cook writes in the article quoted above:

      It also has increasingly close ties, says Halper, with regimes that are ostensibly its enemy, such as Saudi Arabia. “The Saudis are funding ISIS [Islamic State], so how does one explain their alliance with Israel? The common denominator is ‘security politics’. No two countries have interests more alike than Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

      Iranian leaders long say that Saudi's strategy of bombing Yemen into submission is copying the Israeli method of bombing Gaza into submission. But is it clever to follow Israeli security wisdom? I doubt it. The key question is: How many friends has Israel made herself with her "security strategy" in Gaza? How many people in Gaza has Israel convinced to do what Israel wants? How has Israel changed her standing in the world with her "applied security strategies" in Gaza and the Westbank? I doubt the answer is positive for Israeli wisdom on security strategies. What Israel created are conditions for blowback on a giant scale.

      And that seems to be just happening with the Saudis following the Israeli model in Yemen, too. The murderous Saudi bombardement is doing hardly more than making mortal enemies of Saudi Arabia out of large chunks of the Yemeni population. Quote NYTimes, Sep 12, 2015:

      Airstrikes Take Toll on Civilians in Yemen War

      ... More than a thousand civilians are believed to have died in the strikes, the toll rising steadily with little international notice or outrage.

      Rather than turning more Yemenis against the Houthis, though, the strikes are crystallizing anger in parts of the country against Saudi Arabia and its partners, including the United States. ...

      Source: link to

      So the Saudi security tactics copied from "security champion" Israel in Yemen are actually self-defeating. Be sure blowback is coming, not only to the Saudis in Yemen.

  • Iranian president issues New Year greetings to Jews
    • yonah fredman

      The imams of Iran do not wish to annihilate Israel. But if the worldwide Palestinian vote results in exiling all but 5% of the Jews from Palestine, that will be all right with the imams.

      I'm happy to see that you obviously read my comment detailing the official position of Ayatollah Khamanei regarding the question of Palestine in the last thread. As nobody replied to my comment I already feared nobdy read it.

      Regarding your assertion that Iran is guilty of the AMIA bombing 1994 and hiding that truth I would like to remind you, that, though US embassy officials instructed the prosecutor Nisman only to follow leads assuming Iran is guilty of that bombing and no other leads, the crime is still unresolved and there are distinct theories on who is guilty of that crime.

      Basically, I see the AMIA bombing as following. The basic political result of the AMIA bombing was that there was no nuclear cooperation between Argentine and Iran. Nuclear cooperation between Argentine and Iran was vehemently opposed by Israel.

      There are basically two theories who is responsible for the bombing:

      1. It was Iran or Hezbollah agents of Iran, because Iran hates Israel and jews.

      2. It was Israel or some local elements linked to Israel, because Israel wanted to blame the bombing on Iran and prevent nuclear cooperation between Argentine and Iran.

      Looking at the possible motives for the crime and the many untruths spread by prosecutor Nisman to prove his US-desired Iran allegation, I tend to see the second theory more plausible than the first one: I believe it's likely that Israel did the AMIA bombing.

  • Could Syria's revolution have been different?
    • Danaa

      I share your reading of the situation ... The only questions have to do with what hand are the hawks holding. ... And what can the KSA and israel (together and apart) pull out of the ever-shrinking bag of tricks?

      As I see it the axis of neocon-likudnik-wahhabi hawks have advantages in power in the fields of media and money. What the hawks lack is military power, since US commander in chief Obama seems determined to let the neocon-likudnik-wahhabi hawks lose all the wars where they have their dirty fingers in.

      So what will the neocon-likudnik-wahhabi hawks without much military power do? They bet all their chips on that they will conquer the position of US commander in chief at the election 2016 by using their advantage in mass media control. So long they'll try to drag on the wars, trying to prevent a conflict solution whereever possible and throwing in as many diversions as possible. If the next US president is as committed to crush the neocon-likudnik-wahhabi hawks as Obama is in his second term their bet will have failed and they'll gonna be completely crushed.

      In the meantime the hawks will likely try to use money tools to undermine the resistance. We see that already in the Saudi bid to use of the oil flood weapon to crush Iran and Russia. That failed because the big power behind Iran and Russia is the Communist Party of China. So what we see now is that they try to crush the Chinese economy. We've already seen stock markets and growth crash in China, and if they manage to get an interest hike from the FED they may generate much larger capital outflows from China and other emerging economies. However, a FED interest hike could also cause massive problems in western economies, so it would be a very risky move at this time.

    • piotr

      But what happens next?

      My reading of reports of Russian shipments of new weapons - especially state of the art anti-air-defense SA-22) or even deeper involvement in Syria is that this is done to create a unified position in NATO countries that extending the bombing of ISIS to bombing Syrian government forces is not an option.

      Regarding the "Southern Front" there the spokesman recently declared after heavy losses that their several months long offensive on Daraa ended in failure and their foreign sponsors cut the weapon supply:

      link to

      Now the "Southern Front" favors a "political solution", he further said, but "Assad must go."

      So, as I see it, it may - hopefully - boil down to that at the UN SC session on ministerial level the Russians have called in for September 30 a roadmap for a solution of the international conflict in Syria can be agreed upon.

      The official US position on Syria seems anyway quite close already to the Russian and Iranian position, as the US offically says in the "Joint Statement on the Meeting between President Barack Obama and King Salman bin Abd alAziz Al Saud" that the US wants "to end the suffering of the Syrian people, maintain continuity of civilian and military government institutions, preserve the unity and territorial integrity of Syria, and ensure the emergence of a peaceful, pluralistic and democratic state free of discrimination or sectarianism." The only real difference in public positions seems to be on the future of the person Assad. Syria, Iran and Russia want him to stay President while the US and allies want him to go. How the US can achieve that while at the same time "maintain continuity of civilian and military government institutions" remains everyones guess, but I could imagine that kind of horse trading could do the job, eg the government and the pro-Iranian and pro-Russian orientation of Syria but Assad will go at some agreed upon day in the future after the international terror war on Syria ended.

      Due to the recent refugee influx Germany and the EU will likely go now with any solution that stops the war in Syria. The largest problem to get a deal on Syria currently seem to be the Saudis who want Assad "to go" before any serious international peace negotiations which include Iran start.

      Btw: Egypt's General Sisi is on quite good terms with Russia and the Syrian government, despite the fact that Egypt is financed by lot's of Saudi money.

    • Louis

      It seems to me you are very assertive, but while you are emotional and personal, even insulting, you have a serious problem with getting your facts right - even if they are presented before your eyes.

      See, I quoted part of an article from "Arutz Sheva on 21/3/2011" claiming seven Syrian policemen and four protesters were killed in Daraa as a source backing up my opinion that "the war on Syria was from the very first day an armed struggle."

      Your reply to that was to claim that I cite "the death of 7 Baathist cops in late April when the dictatorship had been murdering peaceful protesters for at least a month." And then, to prove your point, you quoted an assertation from Wikipedia referenced with the very same Arutz Sheva article from 21st of March 2011 that I used.

      After calling me names, now you "hope for (my) sake" a WSJ editorial I quoted should mention something "about Baathist snipers killing 15 protesters peacefully protesting against the dictatorship on March 7th 2011."

      So, you are very emotional to the topic of how the Syrian war started, but obviously you have got a major problem to remember a basic timeline on that - even in your own comments. Look, of course, at the end of April 2011 a lot more people were already killed in Syria, civilians and security forces, for example those who didn't survive an ambush on April 10, 2011 in Baniyas. If you don't know about that ambush, you may find out more here:

      link to

      In the comment section of that article you find more references on more deadly ambushes on Syrian security forces in the first month of the war.

      Btw: Are you this Louis Proyect? If so, if I were in your shoes I'd likely take a time out from asserting facts in public writing.

    • Thank you all for that surprisingly emotional discussion here to the subject of the Syrian war and it's roots. Those who know me and my comments a bit longer know that my primary concern with Israel and the crazies is their contribution to seemingly endless US-driven wars in Western Asia and Northern Africa in the assumed interest of Israel.

      Now that the Iran deal has passed congress the discussion over the most heated of these war theaters, Syria, seems to heat up again, not only here at Mondo Weiss, but also in the mainstream media. The Wall Street Journal, well-known for it's often neocon point of view, has just published a dramatic editorial on Syria, demanding Obama to militarily confront Russia and the Syrian government in Syria. Here is what the WSJ says is at stake there now:

      Putin’s Syria Play

      Obama’s vacuum helps Russia reverse 70 years of U.S. Mideast policy.

      For 70 years American Presidents from both parties have sought to thwart Russian influence in the Middle East. ... Last month the Israeli website Ynet reported that the Kremlin planned to deploy combat aircraft to Syria to help the Assad regime. The Russians are also sending an “expeditionary force” of “advisers, instructors, logistics personnel, technical personnel, members of the aerial protection division, and pilots who will operate the aircraft.” That deployment is now underway. ... So what is the Obama Administration to do? ... The thinking seems to be that the U.S. has a chance to turn a lemon into lemonade by accepting Russia’s intervention as a fait accompli while defeating a common enemy. Now that would be a sight: American F-18 pilots becoming wingmen to Russian MiGs to help a blood-soaked dictator stay in power. ... Russian intervention will not defeat the Islamic State. But it might save the Assad regime, while giving Moscow a new sphere of influence in the Middle East. ... The best option now for the U.S. would be to work with Turkey, Israel and Jordan to establish no-fly zones along their respective borders with Syria, along with protected “no-drive” zones in designated civilian safe havens. ...Russian pilots will not lightly risk a confrontation against superior American firepower and technology. A no-fly zone would also put some teeth into Mr. Obama’s promise to continue to oppose Iran’s regional behavior. Even better would be for the Administration finally to get serious about arming and training a viable Syrian opposition force, but don’t hold your breath. ...

      Source: link to

      I agree with the WSJ editorial that what is at stake now in Syria is a "reverse 70 years of U.S. Mideast policy" and "giving Moscow a new sphere of influence in the Middle East." However, I disagree that this is a bad thing. It's also in line with stated US strategic policy, namely the "pivot to Asia" - that is putting less US forces and less US influence into Western Asia.

      However, for the guys running the apartheid regime in Tel Aviv, having fewer US forces and influence in Western Asia and the void being filled by Russia and Iran seems to be a nightmare. Without the US running their neighborhood they feel very uncomfortable.

      I think that is exactly the reason why Obama is doing this. It's among other reasons, a kind of payback, and now payback time has come for Netanyahu.

    • yonah fredman

      Apparently when it is to your advantage: annie and bandolero you trust the reports of human rights groups, but when it is not to your advantage you trust Arutz Sheva or become an agnostic.

      See, historians and those who seek the truth work with all kinds of sources. What's important is to understand what kind of interest or bias the source has. I quoted Arutz Sheva in my comment because Arutz Sheva is hardly a media outfit with a pro-Assad bias. HRW, which you quoted from NYTimes on Syria, has become the laughing stock as HRW director Ken Roth is so obsessed portraying Syria's president in a bad light that he even used photos from Israeli-bombed Gaza and government-held Aleppo to claim the destruction is the work of the Syrian air force. So HRW obviously does little checks on what assertions it spreads and spreads everything serving it's agenda, and HRWs agenda is to get the US military to bomb Syrian government forces, as Ken Roth has repeatedly clear.

      Your quoting of the New York Times is not very valuable either because the NYTimes has always shown a clear bias pro-Israel and anti-Syrian government, too. However, while the report of the NYTimes is obviously one-sided as it fails to mention arms in the hands of anti-government forces and several killed Syrian policemen, it even has a short quote contradicting your argument:

      President Assad “doesn’t want the bloodshed at all, and I witnessed his directives on not using live bullets whatever the circumstances as he is keen on every citizen,” Ms. Shaaban said. “This doesn’t mean that there are no mistakes or practices which were not unsatisfactory and not up to the required level,” she said.

      So the Syrian government claims President Assad issued a directive of not using live ammo whatever the circumstances. There exists a logical explanation how it's possible that protestors are unarmed and police have orders not to shoot but at the end of the day people got killed, peaceful demonstrators as well as police. Some guys just fire from afar on peaceful people as well as police to stir up the pot. Syrian media and Iranian Press TV reported that this happened in Daraa in this days. Quote Press TV, Mar 23, 2011:

      Five killed in Syria violence

      At least five people have been killed after unknown gunmen opened fire on peaceful demonstrators in the southern Syrian city of Deraa.

      Hundreds of people gathered in the streets outside the Omari Mosque on Wednesday, demanding political reforms when the shooting occurred.

      Witnesses say a doctor who had rushed to the area to help victims of the violence was shot dead by a sniper. A member of Syrian security forces has also been killed.

      Syrian authorities have blamed armed gangs for the deadly attack and said several perpetrators have been arrested.

      Rights activists say at least six people were killed in the violence.

      Meanwhile, local residents say foreign elements have been behind the violence. Syria has been the scene of anti-government protests since last week.

      Source: link to

      So while HRW and the NYTimes fails to report that the Syrian authorities blame snipers for firing on protestors as well as police to spark confrontation, this string of events fits perfectly the logic of the US policy of regime change in Syria by creating protests and blood on te streets as Annie just quoted the US intentions to have been.

      And there was arms smuggling going on over the Syrian border to anti-government forces before the start of the demonstrations, too. SANA for example reported shortly before the troubles in Syria started that security forces intercepted a huge arms smuggling attempt in a lorry with a fridge on the southern border:

      link to

      The New York Times reported that too, at that time, but after arms were in deadly action in Daraa it has forgotten to inform readers that before protests in Syria started, arms smuggling into Syria was going on.

      So, make long short: it's a fairy-tale that the anti-government activity in Syria was peaceful and unarmed in the first days, weeks or months. The truth is that there were some peaceful protests, but there was also armed activity to destabilize Syria going on from day one - just as it was planned in advance by the pro-israel partisans like Cheney and the neocons and their partners in crime. And, as the NYTimes article you cited makes clear by it's failure in objective reporting, their was also a campaign of deception run in leading western media like the NYT to distort and hide the truth.

    • yonah fredman

      Previous to the armed rebellion, those who opposed Assad’s nondemocratic rule took to the streets to protest. In those protests, unarmed protesters were shot and killed by Assad’s soldiers.

      If one was to believe that story, one had to have an explanation of how seven police died and a party building was torched in the very first protest - alledgedly previous to the armed rebellion. As reported by Arutz Sheva on 21/3/2011:

      Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests
      Continued protests in Syria claim lives of seven police and four protesters, and result in burning a courthouse and Baath Party HQ in Daraa. ...

      Source: link to

      The potential explanation that Arutz Sheva is an Assadist propaganda outlet and therefore distorts truth to match Assad's phantasy world I would not find credible in this regard.

      My explanation to that news is that the war on Syria was from the very first day an armed struggle which was covered up by some peaceful protests for the western media.

    • JLewisDickerson

      Thanks for adding the sources. Though I know many of the historical secret alliances of the west with radical Islam to fight communist "infidels" the role of Darul Islam in the very bloody CIA "Gestapu" coup (Hundreds of thousands of "communist infidels" were slaughtered) in Indonesia was new to me. I think Obama probably knows this part of history well since his step father Lolo Soetoro seems to have been a leading protagonist of the CIA-sponsored massacres there and his mother was there working in CIA-connnected USAID "economic development" efforts under the guidance of the father of Barack Obama's seretary of finance. Intersting that their son Barack Obama now seems to come out in the Syrian replay of that propaganda driven Indonesian massacres on the opposite side of the line, effectively sabotaging that US/Israeli regime change effort in Syria.

      But back to the subject: Syria. Without me being able to give a written source now, I remember that the 70s Brotherhood insurgency there was led by Brotherhood leaders residing in Brussels close to the NATO headquarter, before they moved back to Syria and their elimination happened in Hama 1982 - shortly after Israel and Syria had air fights - in which Syria badly lost - over Lebanon.

    • lproyect

      It is really quite breathtaking to observe Bimbolero’s evasions.

      Bimbolero? Bimbo-lero you call me? Bimbo? And all the while you pretend to be a marxist disgusted with Israeli racism? And at the same time you try to suggest not supporting the Israel lobby's bloody regime change attempts is harming the Palestinian cause?

      I think that your expression - Bimbolero - exposed your true racist point of view as opposed to your claimed Marxist point of view enough to not further bother with your conflating of an US driven violent regime change by the means of supporting terrorism with an official US military campaign.

    • lproyect

      All this blather about Syria and Israel being on a collision course. Don’t any of you people know that Syria intervened against Palestinians in Lebanon? It is scary to see how “anti-imperialists” know so little about Middle East history.

      That's a funny one. What will you try to tell us next to spin your stupid imperial propaganda dressed in a lefty anti-imperialist garb? Will you tell us that the Syrian-Egyptian 1973 war against Israel and Syrian-Israeli air fights over Lebanon were friendly encounters, that Syria is an enemy of Hezbollah and therefore loved by Israel and that Syria is OK with Israel trying to rob the Syrian Golan heights because Syria doesn't like it's national territory anyway?

      Of course, Israel wants regime change in Syria to legitimize the grab on the Golan heights and to weaken the Iran-led axis of resistance and the anti-Zionist resistance in Palestine and Lebanon.

      And Israel is largely on record with that, see eg the former Mossad boss Efraim Halevy in the New York Times on Feb. 7, 2012, quote:

      Iran’s Achilles’ Heel

      ... Ensuring that Iran is evicted from its regional hub in Damascus would cut off Iran’s access to its proxies (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and visibly dent its domestic and international prestige, possibly forcing a hemorrhaging regime in Tehran to suspend its nuclear policies. This would be a safer and more rewarding option than the military one.

      As President Bashar al-Assad’s government falters, Syria is becoming Iran’s Achilles’ heel. Iran has poured a vast array of resources into the country. There are Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps encampments and Iranian weapons and advisers throughout Syria. And Iranian-controlled Hezbollah forces from Lebanon have joined in butchering the Syrians who have risen up against Mr. Assad. Iran is intent on assuring its hold over the country regardless of what happens to Mr. Assad — and Israel and the West must prevent this at all costs.


      At this stage, there is no turning back; Mr. Assad must step down. For Israel, the crucial question is not whether he falls but whether the Iranian presence in Syria will outlive his government. Getting Iran booted out of Syria is essential for Israel’s security. And if Mr. Assad goes, Iranian hegemony over Syria must go with him. Anything less would rob Mr. Assad’s departure of any significance.

      Source: link to

      Facts are stupid things, lproyect, they fly in your face when you are trying to turn them on their head with propaganda.

    • lproyect

      Why do all these people like Seymour Hersh, Charles Glass, David Bromwich, Patrick Cockburn, and the Angry Arab insist on depicting the USA as having the same agenda in Syria as it did in Iraq?

      Because official US policy in regard to Syria is the same as in Iraq: violent "regime change", which is illegal under international law. And the reasons for the policy of regime change in Syria and Iraq are also largely the same: pleasing the apartheid regime of Tel Aviv and it's lobby and fifth column of "crazies" in Washington.

      There exist some differences between US policies regarding Iraq and Syria, though. Regarding Iraq, the US followed, after arming and instigating terrorists to foment regime change in Iraq, a path of regime change by military invasion, where as in regard to Syria US policy follows the dogma that regime change in Syria shall come cheaper in terms of US treasuries and with fewer US bodybags coming home than as what the US spent for regime change in Iraq. Inside the US regime and the opposition there are also some minor differences as what violent tools the US shall employ to have "Assad go" - ie do regime change - in Syria.

      While most US elites agree to support terrorists with a friendly view on the west in Syria, some US elites, Israel's great friend Petraeus for example, also want the US to support terrorists with more unfreindly views of the west like terrorists of the Al Qaeda brand. Some US elites inside the Obama regime, eg Hillary Clinton, and outside the Obama regime also wanted or still want the US to run an aerial bombing campaign against the Syrian military, while others, including Obama himself, think bombing the Syrian army to do regime change in Syria is too risky and too costly in the long term.

      And, yes, in one notation you may be true: there are some signs that Obama himself has silently left the regime change crowd and - though his official policy is still regime change in Syria - he prepares for a change of that stupid and self defeating warmongering policy of regime change in Syria, which he once adopted to please Bibi, the lobby and the crazies.

    • JLewisDickerson

      Regarding the US/Israeli strategy of using Islamists to fight against Moscow-backed infidels, I also find an article in the Turkish Hurriyet newspaper helpful. That strategy was not only applied in Afghanistan, Palestine and regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, but also applied on Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. Remember that Ayatollah Khomeini was flown into Tehran from NATO-country France after the US told France to do so at the G7 conference in Guadaloupe.

      Quote Hurriyet:

      It could be argued as well that apart from the poisoning effects of the Middle East problem, the "Green Belt Strategy," drafted by Zbigniev Brezinski and applied by the Jimmy Carter and Ronal Reagan administrations, played a major role in the development of what Samuel Huntington described as the "Confrontation of Civilizations".

      Though even today many people still firmly believe that the United States brought the end of the Soviet Union greatly by applying the Brezinski’s "Green Belt Strategy," that is to establish a belt of countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran to Turkey, all ruled by political Islam to contain advance of the Soviets, in reality the ultimate product of that strategy was the Islamic revolution in Iran, an end to Soviet occupation in Afghanistan but continued suffering and instability in the impoverished country threatening global peace since then, Pakistan turning into an Islamic republic where civilian politics have become hostage of political Islam and Turkey gradually consolidating what is described as a "moderate Islamic" governance.

      The "Green Belt Strategy" was a social engineering project of Washington that failed to produce desired results, it created a "terrorism factory" in Afghanistan, an instable and nuclear Pakistan, a die-hard Islamist regime in Iran and a Turkey on its way becoming gradually a moderate Islamist alternative to the oppressive Wahhabi Islamist autocratic model.

      This "moderate Islamist" role that the United States has been promoting for Turkey as part of its Wider Middle East Project, of which Recep Tayyip Erdoğan boasts of being co-chairman, is no less than the "Green Belt" social engineering project of Brezinski and is as short sighted.

      Source: link to

      AIPAC/WINEP's Soner Cagaptay also wrote about this strategy in Hurriyet:

      Known as the “Green Belt Theory,” this strategy was devised by the Western intelligence community to immunize these four nations against communism. But the strategy, which worked, has had unintended consequences: Religion has become the moral compass of these societies, long outlasting communism. Today, political Islam has penetrated thefabric of each of the four countries in unique ways: Pakistan is an Islamist republic, Afghanistan had become Talibanized, Iran fell prey to an Islamist revolution and Turkey, though a democracy, is under what is slowly becoming the ever-more permanent rule of the authoritarian and Islamist-inspired Justice and Development Party, or AKP.

      Source: link to

    • RoHa

      The way I recall it, Putin made the deal, and Obama had to go along.

      Certainly, Putin was very engaged and helpful to have Obama not bomb Syria. But at the end, it was Obama who defied the lobby and the crazies and killed the bombing frenzy with his surprising demand for a very special AUMF from Congress to persue the perpetrators of the Ghouta attack, whereever they may be found, by the sole discretion of the US President.

      Some of that history of how bombing Syria was averted in summer 2013 is still not publicly known, and there are also conflicting public accounts on what really happened. I know for example that there were unconfirmed public reports that Obama had already started cruise missiles against Syria, but after Russian missile defense ships in the mediterranian sea intercepted them, Obama got convinced that bombing Syria will lead to a direct war against Russia, likely leading to nothing or even to become a nuclear war. But I don't think that this story is credible.

      As for Kerry's alleged "gaffe" offering Syria to not bomb it if Syria gives away it's chemical weapons, and Putin's following quick offer to do exactly this, I'm convinced that this was no gaffe, but a carefully orchestrated PR manover happening long after Obama and Putin already agreed on the future proceeding with regard to Syria. It's long been revealed - and this I think is a credible account of events - that the US and Russia had already talks on Syria's chemical weapons for quite some time before, and basically all sides, the US, Russia and Syria, had already agreed in principle that for safety reasons it would be best for all if Syria got rid of them and replace them by a Russian security umbrella long before the Ghouta chemical false flag happened.

    • Atlantaiconoclast

      Israel used the same means of power against Syria as usual: it's agents of influence, the lobby and the great pro-Israel influence on mass media in the western world.

      First of all, the US state department which was in the hand of pro-Israel partisans for many years before the war on Syria started, prepared the string of regime changes in the MENA region by training local propagandists and recruiting agents for several years in the frame of it's MEPI programme. Obama than gave the start sign for the regime changes in August 2010 with his Presidential Study Directive 11. David Ignatius confessed to this in the run-up of the war on Libya:

      Obama's Calculated Gamble

      By David Ignatius - March 6, 2011

      ... The roots of the policy shift go back to Obama's first days in office and his feeling that America's relationship with the Arab world was broken. Though Obama seemed to be accommodating the region's authoritarian leaders, in August 2010, he issued Presidential Study Directive 11, asking agencies to prepare for change.

      This document cited "evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region's regimes" and warned that "the region is entering a critical period of transition." The president asked his advisers to "manage these risks by demonstrating to the people of the Middle East and North Africa the gradual but real prospect of greater political openness and improved governance."

      Six months later, street demonstrations were toppling autocratic leaders ...

      Source: link to

      Regaridng Syria, pro-Israel partisans in the west employed a simple scheme. Whenever the wahhabi terrorists paid for by the Saudi and Qatari GCC friends of Israel committed acts of terrorism, murder, robbery and other violence, the pro Israel media in the west said Syrian government supporters perpretrated the crime, and the crime is just another proof of how evil the Syrian government is so regime change is needed. So, western pro-Israel partisans and GCC-backed wahhabi terrorists enraged the population inside and outside Syria with a string of false flag terror attacks, massacres and other violence. This, including the incitement of sectarianism, was planned years ago by neocons and other pro-Israel partisans in te US government, as US diplomatic cables leaked by CHelsea Manning and published by wikileaks clearly show:

      link to

      In the last big false flag massacre in Syria, the Ghouta chemical terror attack in August 2013 perpetrated by the chemical brigade of Saudi-paid "Islam army" terrorist outfit, however, Israel did more. Here Israel directly participated in the terror attack not only with the lobby and false flag propaganda by western pro-Israeli media, but also by trying to trick the US governemnt with evidence faked by Israeli intelligence and officially provided by israel to the US into believing the the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical terror attack. But chemcial analysis proved it a lie before Israel reached the goal of heaving the US tricked into bombing Syria by chemical sample analysis taken at the site of the Saudi-sponsored chemcial attack. The rest is history: Obama reacted not as desired by Israel, but made a chemcial disarmament deal with Syria and a nuclear deal with Iran. Vice president Biden later said: the problem in Syria is with our allies.

      That all said, I think it's hard to convince the US public on the crimes perpretrated by Israel and the neocons in Syria, because the false Israeli narrative on Syria is too much entrenched. Holding the Israeli-Saudi terror alliance accountable for the 9/11 attack, whcih seemed to have been a model cooperation for the Ghouta attack, seem an easier task. But however, the Obama administration seems to prefer to go a different way and try to make the Saudis an ally in the fight against bigger fish to fry: Bibi and the crazies.

  • 'NYT' misrepresents Iran's prediction about 'Zionist regime' to mean 'Israel'
    • David Gerald Fincham

      Bandolero: you say “a simple UN sanctioned boycott of military sales to Israel will bring the racist Zionist regime over Jerusalem down”. I don’t see any basis on which you can come to such a conclusion.

      The Zionist regime is fully dependent on western supply to maintain it's qualitative military edge (QME). Israel for itself can not produce many weapons, it can't produce no F15/F16, F-22, Apache, and neither many other things like advanced missiles, ammo etc. To maintain a military-industrial complex of the needed size for maintaining the colonial regime Israel is far too small. Israel lacks the needed workforce size, the industry and the economy to do that.

      When there will be UN sanctioned boycott of military sales to Israel the regime can spend it's existing equipment once, if it can do maintanance to keep it working so far, but when it's finished and no more supplies come in then Israel has no qualitative militatry edge anymore. At latest when that point is reached many of the colonialists will run away to where they came from or the US or Germany and no more colonialists will immigrate, because the racist regime attracts people only by the notion that it's stronger and better armed than the native population. The collapse would be a gradual process. The resulting demografics will be the end of the Zionist regime.

      The Israeli nukes cannot save the Zionist regime in such a scenario because it can't throw nukes on East-Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko and so on without destroying itself.

    • David Gerald Fincham

      Over the time of history different regimes came and went in different parts of the world, and Jerusalem and the land surrounding Jerusalem is no exception to this. Kingdoms came and went, and the Soviet Union came and went, too. The current colonial apartheid regime over Jerusalem and the land surrounding Jerusalem is fully dependent on Western European and Northern American support. I do think, when Western Europeans and Northern Americans decide that their support of a racist zionist regime in Western Asia is too expensive for them to maintain, in moral, political, financial or military terms, then that apartheid regime over Jerusalem and the land surrounding Jerusalem will either have to fundamentally change it's character and become an integrated part of it's regional environment, or it will vanish from the pages of history earlier or later.

      The Zionist regime can't build the economy and weapons it needs to maintain it's rule on it's own because it need's to import most of it's military and industrial goods to maintain it's colonial rule. And I see no chance that the bunch of anti-arab racists ruling over Jerusalem will ever become an integrated part of it's regional arab environment, so I think the Zionist regime will vanish from the pages of history rather sooner than later. When the majority of the people in Western Europe and Northern Africa feel it's time to defer the colonial apartheid regime's fifth column in their home countries and to stop supporting racism and endless Zionist wars a simple UN sanctioned boycott of military sales to Israel will bring the racist Zionist regime over Jerusalem down and make place for a government that will make the holy land an integrated part of it's regional arab environment again.

    • James North

      The terms "Israel" and "zionist regime" are used as synonyms by Ayatollah Khamenei.

      Just read his official English twitter channel to see this.

      Why should & how can #Israel be eliminated? Ayatollah Khamenei's answer to 9 key questions. #HandsOffAlAqsa

      9 key questions about the elimination of Israel

      1. Why should the Zionist regime be eliminated? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: During it's 66 years of life so far, the fake Zionist regime has tried to realize its goals by means of infanticide, homicide, violence and iron fist while boasts about it blatantly.

      2. What does elimination of Israel mean in the viewpoint of Imam Khomeini? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: The only means of bringing Israeli crimes to an end is the elimination of this regime. And of course the elimination of Israel does not mean the massacre of the jewish people in this region. The Islamic Republic has proposed a practical & logical mechanism for this to international communities.

      3. What is the proper way of eliminating Israel? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: All the original people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians and Jews wherever they are, whether inside Palestine, in refugee camps in other countries or just anywhere alse, take part in a public and organized referendum. Naturally the Jewish immigrants who have been persuaded into emigration to Palestine do not have the right to take part in this referendum.

      4. What happened to the non-Palestinian emigrants? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: The ensuing government, which comes into power after a referendum among the original Palestinians, once settled will decide whether the non-Palestian emigrants who have immigrated to this country over the past years can continue living in Palestine or should return to their home countries.

      5. How will the proposed referendum succeed? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: This is a fair and logical plan that can be properly understood by global public opinion and can enjoy the supports of the independent nations and governemnts. Certainly we do not expect the usurper Zionists to easily surrender to this proposal and this is where the role of governments, nations and organisation of resistance is shaped and defined.

      6. Until a referendum is held, how should Israel be confronted? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: Up until the day when this homicidal and infanticidal regime is eliminated through a referendum, powerful confrontation and resolute and armed resistance is the cure of this ruinous regime. The only means of confronting a regime which commits crimes beyond one's thought and imagination is a resolute and armed confrontation.

      7. What is the most urgent action to take for militarily confront israel? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: The West Bank should be armed like Gaza and those who are interested in Palestine's destiny should take action to arm the people of the West Bank so that the sorrows and grieves of the Palestinian people will reduce in the light of their powerful hands and the weakness of the Zionist enemy.

      8. What solutions are not acceptable? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: We recommend neither a classical war by the army of Muslim countries nor to throw migrated jews at sea and certainly not an arbitration by UN or other international organizsations.

      9. Why do we oppose compromise proposals? Ayatollah Khamenei's response: That the rockets of Gaza have led to the crimes of Israel is a wrong conclusion. In the west Bank, people's only weapons is stones and there are not many types of weaponry. But this regime massacres and humiliates people there and destroys their houses and farms. The fact that Yasser Arafat was poisoned and killed by Israel while he had the most cooperation with the Zionists proves that in the viewpoint of Israel, "peace" is simply a trick for more crimes and occupation.

      Source: @khamenei_ir 12:44 AM - 9 Nov 2014

      link to

      Of course, this is Khamenei's and Iran's position, but there is ample room for compromise. For exmaple, Iran's position is also to support whatever conflict solution the Palestinian people agress to in a fair referendum, and in this way, Iran also supports the Arab peace initiative of 2002. Also, Hssan Nasrallah is off the opinion, as he has said eg in an interview with Julian Assange on RT, that in all of occupied Palestine (ie Palestine occupied 1948 + Palestine occupied 1967) should be built one democratic state for all the people there, which doesn't mean to send jewish immigrants into Palestine back home as Ali Khamanei's position is close to.

  • 'Did we learn nothing from 1938?': Scenes from the Trump and Cruz anti-Iran deal rally
    • Peter

      Nice report. But how could you miss to mention the appearance of vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin? Unlike the rest of the crowd, she's at least an expert on nuclear energy and the threat of US allies in Korea being exposed to nuclear weapons. As well as she is an expert on Russia, that she's already seen with her own eyes. And, of course, now Sarah Palin is running for the post of United States Secretary of Energy, so as a shadow US Secretary of Energy she'll teach Ernest Moniz nuclear physics. Yes, she can. She's such a nuclear expert.

      By the way, did you see MSNBC reporting an passant on that protest in Wash DC? Quote:

      ... On Capitol Hill yesterday, a bizarre spectacle unfolded, as right-wing activists and speakers gathered to condemn the international nuclear agreement with Iran. Attendees were treated to a parade of strange, angry voices – Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz, and Glenn Beck, among many others – each of whom expressed their ill-informed foreign-policy disgust.

      But while the drama just outside the Capitol building was amazing, the more meaningful drama unfolded inside the building.

      As recently as 24 hours ago, the road ahead was simple and straightforward. After receiving the Iran deal in July, Congress had 60 days to vote on a resolution opposing the policy. Under the plan devised by Republican leaders, the GOP-led House would express its disapproval, followed by another vote in the GOP-led Senate. According to the head counts, the effort would fail; U.S. foreign policy would advance; and Republicans could move on to creating some other crisis.

      As the Washington Post reported overnight, that plan has now been scrapped. ...


      link to

      As I read it today in the morning I had to laugh so hard that I almost lost my coffee cup. I never thought that I would read such words in a major US paper reporting on pro-Israel crowds. LOL.

  • Germany comes face to face with 'a Jew against Zionism'
  • A guide to the worst refugee crisis since WWII
    • JLewisDickerson

      Thanks for the sources for this infamous part of zionist history. I'ld like to add a link to an excerpt from Sefer Min Hametzar by Rabbi Michael Ber Weismandel hosted by Neturei Karta, and there is also a link to the famous 10 questions of Rabbi Weismandel at the bottom of the site which are also related to the Jewish Agency's position to jews fleeing from the holocaust to anywhere else than Palestine:

      link to

      These are the most damning accusations against Zionism I ever heard, though I have no idea how much truth is in these accusations. But I did a bit crosschekcing a while ago and I found it likely to be legit.

    • K Renner

      You use a lot of strong pejorative adjectives. You wrote, quote: chauvinistic and idiotic, evil, moronic...

      You seem to have many grudges against Russia which I find OK because everyone is entitled to his own prejudices. And I also have no problem that you use many strong pejorative adjectives for people like me. However your factual arguments I find strange as they look to me as if you got your historical and political education directly from a neocon hasbara shop or Fox News.

      Just let me take one example. You write: ... blame the victim when it comes to Russia’s evil actions in Afghanistan ...

      The historical reality is that the evil actions in Afghanistan were committed by the US. Since a couple of years it's no secret anymore what the US did with Afghanistan. The US destroyed Afghanistan by launching a Wahhabi terror war on Afghanistan in the summer 1979. Carter's security czar Brzezinski took pride in it long ago, quote Brzezinski:

      "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

      Source: Counter Punch 15/1/1998: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

      That covert US war using terrorism of the Saudi wahhabi brand of Islam was not confined to delivering weapons to terrorists, but also infect the whole Afghan society with a wahhabi terrorist mind, beginning with small school children. So, while the Soviet Union tried - and failed - to bring values like gender equality to Afghanistan the US financed and printed textbooks for small Afghan school children brainwashing them that they should kill infidels. That's well documented here and in many other local sources, because the US jihadi textbooks were in use for a very long time there:

      By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
      Washington Post, 23 March 2002

      link to

      The higher echolons of US politics have long confessed that the US destroyed Afghanistan by exporting the Saudi Wahhabi brand of terror to Afghanistan. See, here a young female US senator confessing to this abhorrent US crime on video:

      link to

      This US senator knows well what crime the US committed in Afghanistan because her hubby Bill was a leading proponent of that US crime against humanity in Afghanistan.

      And, so to come to the most recent history, it's a very common crime for the US. The Zionist-led USA spreads terrorism of Wahhabi, fascist and Nazi brands to destabilize countries for geopolitical reasons, one after the other, to persue geopolitical imperialistic aims, and then uses Fox news and similar news outlets to blame the US crimes on the victims. With that terrorist tactic of destabilisation or direct wars of aggression the US destroyed Afghanistan, some countries in Latin America, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and quite a bunch of many more countries.

      Yes, I know, K Renner, my arguments doesn't convince you. And I don't think any argument could convince you. But as I said above, Iturbed by that because 'm not disI'm off the opinion that you are entitled to your prejudices and political and historical education by Fox News.

    • ASBizar

      That most refugees in Iran are Afghan and not Syrian doesn't change the fact that the assertation that Iran has taken zero refugees is plain wrong, especially after two sentences before is said that many of the refugees in the world are from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen. And, of course, most Iran-friendly Syrians who need to flee, don't even want to flee to Iran, but prefer Latakia, Tartous or Lebanon instead as their destination. And by the way, as I heard from Syria, many terrorist fighters sent their famliy to Tartous and Latakia, too. It's because one can live in Latakia or Tartous safely for there is no war there, however, naturally, it's overcrowded, exactly for this reason.

    • echinococcus

      “people from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen”

      Exactly the list of US rapes in the last years, except for Ukraine.

      So true.

      Ben Norton

      The Middle East, North Africa, and Western Asia are particularly hard hit. Millions of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen are fleeing violence and war in their countries. ... Human rights organizations warn the Gulf states, Israel, Iran, and Russia—all of which have taken zero refugees—along with the US, Canada, and Europe—which have taken few—are not doing enough to provide refuge to the asylum-seekers.

      Please stop spreading nonsense. Iran is among the countries hosting the most refugees in the world. According to the UNHCR the figure of refugees in Iran for 2015 is 982,120, mostly from Afghanistan, a country first ravaged by US- and Saudi-backed wahhabi terrorists and later by US-led military forces:

      link to

      That's according to the figures of the UNHCR, however Iran's Ministry of Interior says the number of Afghan refugees in Iran is around 3 million. Whatever is the truth, that's quite many refugees in Iran, not zero as you claim.

      And for Russia, the number of refugees in Russia from the Nuland-led regime change and war in Ukraine alone is hundreds of thousands, and there are many more refugees from US-led destabilized states in central Asia in Russia, not zero as you claim:

      link to

      So before you assign equal blame on Iran and Russia with US-led imperialism, please get your facts straight, Ben.

  • The Israel lobby is alive and well-- and split
  • Rights Groups: 80% of Yemenis are in need of humanitarian aid due to US-backed war
    • Yemen's army, Ansarullah and the resistance fight back against the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen, and that more and more effective. When the Saudi-led coalition invaded Yemen, Abdul Malek Al-Houthi said they entered a swamp. Now the swamp pulls the invaders down:

      Yemeni forces kill at least five Bahraini, 16 Saudi and 45 UAE troops in one day.

      link to

      It looks like the Saudi-led coalition just makes some of the nightmarish experiences the US has already made after it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • Debacle for the Israel lobby: Booker jilts Boteach, and Netanyahu sinks AIPAC
    • Oh, that thing is intersting. Chris Wallace blasts Dick Cheney during a live intervoew on Fox news:

      Dick Cheney faces surprise accusation on his own foreign policy


      “You and President Bush, the Bush-Cheney administration, dealt with Iran for eight years,” Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” pointed out in an interview Sunday. And during that time, the host continued, “Iran went from zero known [nuclear] centrifuges in operation to more than 5,000.”

      The Fox News host flashed that data on screen so no one could miss it, and added: “So in fairness, didn’t you leave — the Bush-Cheney administration — leave President Obama with a mess?”

      “Well, I don’t think of it that way,” Cheney countered. “In fact, there was military action that had an impact on the Iranians. It was when we took down Saddam Hussein. There was a period of time when they stopped their program because they were scared that what we did to Saddam, we were going to do to them next.”

      “But the centrifuges went from zero to 5,000,” Wallace pressed.

      “Well, they may well have gone but that happened on Obama’s watch, not on our watch,” Cheney replied.

      “No, no, no,” Wallace said. “By 2009, they were at 5,000.”

      “Right,” said Cheney, who seemed to be losing air from somewhere in his lower back. “But I think we did a lot to deal with the arms control problem in the Middle East.”



      link to

    • Cardin is even on the way of doing more to sabotage the deal than just to vote against it.

      Jewish Press reports that he plans to use his credentials as a ranking Democrat to bail out Netanyahu and the Republicans and introduce new legislation aimed at sabotaging the deal and undermining Obama:

      link to

    • David

      My vote is that 41 oppose, the bill fails, and, shortly thereafter, the Netanyahu coalition falls apart. For what it’s worth.

      I agree. I see that this is in the cards, too. But I like to think further. If Netanyahu falls over this, the next Israeli head of government will likely go along with the Iran deal, to mend ties with the US. That in turn would have an interesting effect for Republican presidential candidates who all promised to rip the deal apart for the sake of Israel. If Israel then goes with the deal, the Republicans would look quite stupid in their opposition to a deal supported by the whole world. And if the Republican stooges of Netanyahu won't change their stance on the deal then, they would look suddenly not only as stooges of a foreign government, but also anti-Israel.

      That scenario can become quite funny, and have lasting consequences, not only for the election 2016, but for the time after the election, too.

  • Pro-Israel Jews have 'inexcusable prejudice' against Obama -- Sandy Berger
    • Philip

      So what Berger, who is Jewish, termed “the domestic Jewish constituency” has “inexcusable prejudice” against Obama. I wonder what that’s about– racism, xenophobia. They want a president they can trust. They trust Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush because they can be bought, or because they’re white?

      If I remember that time correctly, the prejudice is about his second name: Hussein as in Barack Hussein Obama. There were lot's of posters and social media comments around in Israel saying that the name Hussein is proof that Barack Obama is a muslim and therefore an enemy of "the jews." So, Israeli anti-muslem prejudice was and is in play against Obama. Of course, that he's black didn't make the issue better in the views of the Israeli right, quite the opposite.

  • 100 women leaders, scholars, activists sign statement supporting Iran deal
    • And, perfectly fitting to that statement above of women support for the deal, Sen Barbara Mikulski from Maryland said today she will back the deal - bringing the number of votes backing the deal in the senate to 34, enough to uphold Obama's veto if the Replicans move forward with a resolution of disapproval.

  • You'd think Wasserman Schultz would lose DNC job for bucking Obama on Iran Deal
  • Videos: Brave Tamimi women of Nabi Saleh take down Israeli soldier assaulting injured child
    • Annie

      Yeps, the Israeli hasbara sheet "Torygraph" pulled the article. Google and Bing have it still listed under that url, but the thing itself was deleted.

      link to

      However, it looks like that an Iranian website made this copy of the Torygraph article before it was pulled:

      link to

  • Jewish community is Humpty Dumpty-- it won't come back together again, and shouldn't
    • I agree it's a good thing what's happening in the jewish community. When it's successful it's cleaned of the neocon crazies. It's necessary to take on extremists doing great harm to mankind, and when you take on extremists, expect them extreme things to do and cause some troubles, but it's nevertheless necessary.

      One more funny thing from the open letter of the extremist supporters Nita Lowey Lowey, Eliot L. Engel and Steve Israel as quoted in the New York Times:

      "... questioning the credentials of longstanding advocates for Israel; and accusations of dual loyalty are inappropriate.”

      It sounds as if they feel offended that some people suggest they have dual loyality in the meaning of having any other loyality beside oyality to Israel. I find it quite funny to read it that way.

  • Tea Party and ZOA team up with Trump and Cruz to oppose Iran Deal
    • Is it possible to still make suggestions to the organizers?

      I'ld to the Tea Party Patriots they also invite Tea Party big figure Sarah Palin, who may give a speech on how Barack Obama failed to protect "our North Korean allies" from the evil south Korea getting a nuclear weapon.

      And for the cultural program I'ld suggest the ZoA invites John McCain to sing his famous "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tunes of the Beach Boys.

      And, furthermore, I'ld think it would be great if they all could also invite former Saudi Ambassador Bandar Bin Sultan to speak about the dangers of radical Islam.

      And, of course, the finish should be a movie of the Leader Bibi's latest speech to congress where all who appear at the rally shall show how many times they can jump up from their chairs in euphoria.

  • Calling Herzog and liberal Zionism ‘racist,’ Gideon Levy instigates a reckoning
    • DaBakr

      Levy is very much like the 1930s liberal assimilated German Jew who kept insisting that only 10% of Germans are Nazis and that the Jews should remain loyal to the German leadership because surely-as a protected minority-their rights would always be respected.

      After the Nazis took power in Germany, there was only one current in German jewish life that didn't see that as a big problem. Hint: this was not the liberal German Jewish current, which saw Zionism, quoted freely after Felix Goldmann, as having originated from the same poisened source of European racism as German racism.

      Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who joined the Zionist Youth movement in 1917 when he was 15 years old, wrote in 1937 about Hitler's Machtergreifung 33:

      "We all felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference with the Jews, at which - after the riots and atrocities of the revolution had passed - the new status of German Jewry could be considered. The government announced very solemnly that there was no country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany. Solution of the Jewish question? It was our Zionist dream! We never denied the existence of the Jewish question! Dissimilation? It was our own appeal! ... In a statement notable for its pride and dignity, we called for a conference."

      Quoted as in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the age of the Dictators.

      So, I hope that clarifies which current of German judaism was not worried by Nazism, or even happy about Hitler's Machtergreifung, and why.

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

      In this case, it is not true that Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

      Of course, Iran calls for the destruction of Israel. But Iran is equally clear that that shall not mean massacring jews. That's the point missing in western media. See:

      link to

    • 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'.


      link to

      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

      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.


      link to

      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.


      link to

      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

      link to

      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

      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

  • 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

      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

      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

    • 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

      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

      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

    • 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. ...


      link to

      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."

      link to

  • 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

      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


      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

      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

      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:

      Certification requirement relating to Israel’s qualitative military edge

      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.

      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

      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

      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

      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

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

      link to

      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

      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

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

      link to

    • 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

      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

      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

      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

    • 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

      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

  • '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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

  • 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.

      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 739 - 701