The U.S. and Israel have made a Joke of the United Nations Security Council

Global Research
Glenn Greenwald
Kourosh Ziabari

Glenn Greenwald is a prominent American journalist, author, lawyer and blogger. His writings and articles have appeared on several newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The American Conservative, The National Interest and In These Times. Greenwald has received different awards including the first Izzy Award for independent journalism in 2009, and the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary.

Until a few months ago, he was a columnist and blogger for Salon.com, but he left his job there and continued cooperating with The Guardian newspaper which he has been contributing to since June 2011.

Greenwald has published four books which include “How Would a Patriot Act?” and “A Tragic Legacy.” A progressive journalist, Glenn Greenwald is an outspoken critic of the U.S. military expeditions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and its war threats against Iran.
He has written extensively on the underground operations taken by Israel and the United States to empower and finance the exiled Iranian terrorist group MKO which has declared as one of its key objectives the overthrowing of Iranian government. With regards to the U.S. Department of State’s decision in taking the name of MKO off the list of foreign terrorist organizations, he says: “[t]his shows that anything the United States government says about terrorism and really the whole concept of terrorism itself should be viewed as nothing more than a ridiculous joke. MKO is a classic group that is a terrorist organization. They have engaged in violence against innocent civilians, they have devoted themselves to overthrow a government using violence and there are credible reports that they are the ones who are working with Israelis and are behind the assassination of civilian scientists in Iran that included the shooting of not only the scientists, but also in two cases their wives.”

I had the opportunity to talk to Glenn Greenwald for an exclusive interview which was originally appeared in Persian on Tasnim News Agency. What follows is the full text of my interview with Glenn Greenwald in which we discussed a variety of topics pertaining to the international political and military developments.

Q: What do you think about President Obama administration’s plans for shaping a new Middle East based on the national interests of the United States and dominating the vast oil reserves of these countries?

 A: A crucial part of the Obama administration’s strategy and the strategies of all the prior administrations in the United States was to basically put into place dictatorships in the Muslim world that would keep the population suppressed and serve the interests of the U.S. government, particularly in the countries with remarkable oil and energy resources. So you see the relationships the United States has with the [Persian] Gulf states such as Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. These are the governments which suppress their population, but serve as loyal allies of the United States and make oil available to the U.S. and the Obama administration continues supporting them.

Q: In the recent months, we have been witness to the continued killing of the pro-democracy protesters and imprisonment of political activists in Bahrain. However, the U.S. government hasn’t taken any practical steps to stop bloodshed and persuade the Al Khalifa regime to stop using force and violence. What’s your idea in this regard?

A: Well, this is a perfect example of what I was describing. The governments which I named and the Bahraini government are unbelievably oppressive. They murder protesters who are demonstrating peacefully, put people in prison and torture them and the Obama administration does nothing about that and continues to strengthen that regime through financing it and even sending it a lot of arms, while the regime is cracking down on the citizens in such a brutal way. The reason the U.S. government supports Bahrain is that the regime allows the U.S. to maintain a very large fleet of naval resources off the coast of Bahrain that can be used to threaten Iran and that generally allows the U.S. government to dominate the [Persian] Gulf region, and so in extreme for the regime in Bahrain, that is basically the puppet and client government of the United States, the U.S. government supports the regime as it murders its own citizens and suppresses of all forms of freedoms. And Bahrain is a perfect example of the strategy the Obama administration has adopted to just dominate the region militarily and help the dictators of the region suppress their populations.

Q: One of the electoral promises of President Obama was to close the Guantanamo bay detention facility within one year after being elected. However, on January 7, 2011, he signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill which placed restrictions on the transferring of detainees to the U.S. or other countries, thus impeding the closure of the underground detention camp. What’s your take on that?

 A: The excuse the Obama administration gave was that the people in the Congress refused to allow Obama to close down Guantanamo. But the truth is that from the beginning, Obama’s plan was to keep the system of Guantanamo in place and transfer the detainees to the U.S. while people from all around the Muslim world still are allowed to remain in prison without charges of any kind and without due processes at any time. But to remove them from Guantanamo and placing them in a new prison inside the United States would only add some sort of a symbolic aspect to it. So it was always the Obama administration’s plan to keep the Guantanamo open. They simply wanted to move it, not to close it. And this Defense Authorization Bill which you ask about was passed in December 2010 and January 2011 is a sort of legislation that empowers the president whoever he wants on accusations of terrorism, without having to charge that person with any crime, without having to in any way offer the person the opportunity to contest the allegations or present compelling evidence, and President Obama has signed a law that actually strengthened this system of indefinite lawless detention.

Q: What’s your perspective on the U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and its violation of Iran’s airspace last year in December 2011 and in the last week? 

 A: The drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have repeatedly killed all sorts of innocent civilians; women, children and innocent men, and the Obama administration simply believes that it has the right to kill anyone it wants anywhere in the world regardless of who dies, and this is the policy that the Obama administration has actually pursued even more aggressively than the Bush administration and the drone attacks have increased significantly under President Obama. He has used drones on six different Muslim countries; Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. I should point out that President Obama has extremely aggressive beliefs that in the name of combating terrorism, he can kill whoever he wants or attack anyone he wants without regard to any nation’s sovereignty. The ironic part about that is that it’s precisely the drone attacks which cause terrorism in the first place.

Israeli Lobbyist Proposing Covert Actions to "Get the U.S. Into War with Iran"

America’s Takeover of the United Nations

Global Research
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Jeffrey Feltman and Ban Ki-Moon

The calls at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran for reforming the United Nations and democratizing the Security Council were not exactly new. These calls for UN reform were embodied by the conference’s dictum of “lasting peace through joint global governance.” These demands have been made over and over again by various countries and groups throughout the years.

Nor was everyone present at the NAM gala in Tehran a friend of Iran or open to the Iranian proposals for reforming the United Nations. The visibly shaken Jeffrey Feltman, who was uncomfortably sitting with Iranian officials in Tehran alongside his new boss Ban Ki-moon, can testify to all this. Feltman is a clear symbol of how contaminated the United Nations has become by the imperialist interests of Washington.

The manipulation of the United Nations for imperialist interests, however, goes back a long way. From its inception, the United Nations was meant to facilitate the global influence of the US after the Second World War. The idea of the United Nations, which gets its name from the military coalition (called the United Nations) of the Allied countries that was formed against Germany and the Axis countries, was based on an agreement drafted by the US and the UK during the Second World War. This agreement, the Atlantic Charter, was written out while the US was officially neutral, but secretly supported the British war effort against Germany and its Axis allies by sending supplies to Britain through Canada. The US would later use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii as a justification for entering the war and getting the other Allies to accept the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter during the war and then at the San Francisco Conference in 1945.

The United Nations Security Council

The membership of the UN grew from fifty-one to a hundred and fifty-nine members between 1945 and 1985, with most of the new member countries being former colonies. The UN was used as a tool to control most these former Western European and American colonies of the Third World. At first the US and its post-war allies maintained their domination over the newly formed UN and the former colonies through their numbers and then through a Western Bloc monopoly over the structures of the United Nations. Hereto this monopoly includes control over the agencies and permanent veto-wielding chairs of the fifteen-member Security Council of the United Nations.

The Security Council above all has been used by the US as a means of protecting its interests. The purpose of the Security Council veto is to reject any international resolutions and consensuses against the national interests (or more precisely the interests of the ruling elites) of the US and the other major post-World War II powers. Except for the rival Soviet Union, the US originally controlled or heavily influenced the other three permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council. Britain and the US were essentially confederated and had integrated in 1941 with one another through the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter. France, as a declining power like the UK, was heavily dependent on the United States. The Chinese seat was also originally held by the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) which was a US client.

US General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the chief of staff to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of Kuomintang-ruled China before Kai-shek fled to Taiwan after the Communist Party of China took over the mainland. The US even envisioned a role for the Kuomintang in governing the former French colonies of Indo-China. Only in 1971 would Washington lose control over the Chinese seat at the UN Security Council when the People’s Republic of China was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Chinese people by the majority of the UN General Assembly and therefore handed over Taiwan’s permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

While the Soviet Union originally made the most vetoes at the UN Security Council, the situation began to change towards the second half of the Cold War and in the post-Cold War era when the US began to take the lead in making vetoes. Ironically, the US and its allies are saying that the international system is failing now due to the double vetoes of China and Russia preventing foreign intervention in Syria. No similar complaints have been made about the numerous vetoes cast by Washington in support of Israel.

Eventually the UN Security Council went beyond the function of protecting US interests after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It became a tool for projecting US interests globally as Washington began to push for unipolar post-Cold War hegemony. The Chinese and Russian double vetoes signal an end to both Pax Americana and the use of the UN Security Council to project US power.

The Secretariat of the United Nations

Besides the United Nations Security Council, the Secretariat of the United Nations has been predominately under the control of the US and its allies. At first this took place because the US and the Western Bloc had numerical superiority at the United Nations. Thus, the first two secretaries-general of the UN were from the Western European kingdoms of Norway, and Sweden. Prior to this Baron Hubert Gladwyn from the United Kingdom was the acting secretary-general of the UN. Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold would visibly serve US and Western Bloc interests to the point that the Soviets and others would demand he be removed from the UN Secretariat.

As the Western Bloc began to lose its numerical advantage, control over the Secretariat would be maintained through the Security Council. The UN Security Council does this by filtering all the candidates for the top UN post in the Secretariat. Secretaries-general of the UN are appointed by the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the UN Security Council. Thus, the US and other permanent members of the Security Council have vetoes that can eliminate any candidates that would be hostile to their interests.

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s condemnations about the Secretariat of the United Nations, which helped remove nationalist leaders from power across Africa and the Third World, have a resonating truth to them. After a long streak of secretaries-general that were predominately favorable to the Western Bloc, the Non-Aligned Movement would push a NAM candidate into the UN Secretariat. The NAM’s position is the basis for the elevation of Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s to the post of UN secretary-general in 1992.

Bourtos-Ghali was the closest thing to the last independent secretary-general of the United Nations. The world, however, rapidly changed since the end of the Cold War and Washington expected a far greater degree of subservience from the Secretariat of the UN. After the Cold War UN secretaries-general were expected to act as loyal US stewards. This would start with the Ghanaian UN career bureaucrat Kofi Annan.

Kofi Annan: An Enabler of “Responsibility to Protect”

To his credit Annan is a shrewd diplomatic figure that knows how to sit on the fence, but he has cunningly served the US while appearing circumvent. Aside from the public reports about the involvement of Annan and his son Kojo in the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food scandal, the former secretary-general has a history of legitimizing US interventionism and the occupation of other UN members. Career US diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was one of the central figures involved in the balkanization of Yugoslavia, praised Annan as one of the most supportive figures for Washington’s foreign policy in the Balkans. This is why Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside from the secretary-generalship of the UN by Washington’s veto to make way for Annan.

Netanyahu can ‘squeeze’ Obama because media and Congress will take his side if he attacks Iran

MondoWeiss
Philip Weiss

What is the role of the Israeli government in American political life? Well, apparently we must defer to Netanyahu. "To Attack or Not to Attack" is by Zaki Shalom, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University, writing in a journal of the French Institute for International Relations. Breathtaking. Boldface is mine:

We must take into account that the Prime Minister is raising the bar for threats toward Iran, inter alia, because he recognizes that the current US administration is seeking to prevent an Israeli action before the elections at any price. It would probably be no exaggeration to say that the prime minister is going around with the feeling that the political future of President Obama is to some extent, perhaps even a large extent, in the Prime Minister’s hands. An Israeli action at the present time would almost certainly expose the president to serious criticism for his fecklessness, which forced Israel, a close ally of the United States, to act alone. Various segments in the US administration, especially the Congress, will make demands to support Israel.

All this, when the consequences of an Israeli action for the stagnant US economy are liable to be serious. Under these circumstances, it is not inconceivable that the Prime Minister believes that currently, he can “squeeze” from the president far-reaching commitments in Israel’s favor in exchange for Israeli restraint on Iran. This compensation will presumably be mainly in the areas of defense and the economy. Israel, the prime minister can argue, is prepared to take a strategic risk on the Iranian issue, if it knows that the US administration will support it and will be prepared to give it aid that under normal circumstances, it would not be prepared to give...

The Prime Minister can assume that an Israeli attack prior to the November 2012 elections will make it very difficult for the Obama administration to criticize Israel openly. He can assume with near certainty that as soon as the attack begins, members of Congress, the media, Jewish leaders, and Republican Party leaders will issue statements supporting Israel and even demand that the administration back Israel and defend it. The Obama administration cannot ignore such expressions of support in the period leading up to the elections.

Bruce Wolman, who tipped me off to this article, adds:

It's a win-win for Netanyahu. If he is not serious about attacking Iran, he still gets the max from the USA with his blackmailing. If he is serious, he puts Obama in a box such that he has to rescue the IDF. Netanyahu doesn't even have to decide between the two until the day of the election. He can just keep us all guessing. (However, I can't believe our $300B intelligence services don't know whether Israel is serious or not.)

I disagree that Obama has no choice. He could take on Netanyahu and AIPAC and win. Why? The military has his back on this one. But Obama is not such a risk taker. He is a campaign machine, nothing more. If he has an ideology, it is moderate Republican economic values. If he faced Netanyahu head on, a lot of non-Jewish Americans would support him. There is war fatigue in this country and in the military. But the longer he waits, the more trapped Netanyahu has him.

If Obama had led on this issue, he could have used it to his political advantage. Obama could easily parry the statements of Republican leaders, and he is not going to get the Christian Zionists to vote for him anyhow. Even many Jews do not want us to go to war with Iran. But Obama won't take this risk, because he doesn't want to upset his Jewish donors.

Netanyahu traps him with each passing day because the U.S. administration keeps validating Israel's talking points in an effort to appease the Israeli government. That makes it harder for Obama to reverse the rhetoric and not look opportunistic.

DOJ secretly halts FBI investigation into Israel nuclear spying/funding

Veteran News Now

The US Department of Justice has refused to publicly release a memo that outlines why an Israeli entity caught spying on the U.S. would not be investigated further.

Documentation of Israeli nuclear spying 20 years ago

In 1992 the FBI discovered that the Weizmann Institute of Science of Rehovot in Israel penetrated secure U.S. computer systems at the Yuma Proving Ground with the help of a U.S. computer science student.

Yet on May 18, 1993 the Justice Department Office of Intelligence Policy and Review ordered the Assistant FBI director to terminate their Weizmann Institute counterintelligence investigation.

Department of Justice refuses to release the memo

IRmep fought for public release of the Justice Department termination order via a Mandatory Declassification Review.  Three days ago, on August 21, 2012, the National Security Division claimed it had declassified the memo, but then refused to publicly release it.

Such a tactical move keeps the memo from being publicly reviewed to see what justification (or lack thereof) existed for calling off the Weizmann investigation.  If the memo isn’t classified, it cannot be reviewed for declassification release by the outside Interagency Security Classifications Appeals Panel (ISCAP).

If the entire memo is protected by a number of dubiously applied “privacy” and law enforcement exceptions, the public will never be able to fit the investigation into a larger pattern of suspicious DOJ forbearance into conventional and nuclear arms related smuggling, quashed espionage investigations of AIPAC, (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), clandestine public relations campaigns and Israel lobby attempts to subvert the U.S. electoral process.

Although Mark Bradley–who issued the Justice Department National Security Division MDR decision–asserts it can be appealed to the Department Review Committee , the final decision will likely be made by the DRC’s chairman… Mark Bradley.

THOSE AIPAC TRIPS: LEGAL INDOCTRINATION & BRIBES

MJayRosenburg

As Phil Weiss writes here, the media coverage of the Congressional skinny-dipping incident in the Sea of Galilee is being treated as a big joke, no different than Prince Harry’s naked romp in Las Vegas.

Unfortunately, the AIPAC free trips to Israel are no joke. They are serious business which is why AIPAC devised the exemption from the free travel ban Congress imposed on itself. See this Roll Call story on how AIPAC did it. And also today’s story in the Forward on the implications of these AIPAC junkets.

A few years ago, a Republican Congressman described one of these trips to me. He was newly-elected and happy to get the free trip (although he had been to Israel many times). He told me that the brainwashing was intense, so much so that any Congressman who disagreed with either the AIPAC “minder” or whichever Israeli official was doing the briefing was quickly shushed up. He especially resented that his dissent on the question of the ease of bombing Iran’s reactors was ridiculed, despite his extensive experience in the military.

The creepiest thing he told me was that the Congress people only felt safe expressing their differences with the Israeli/AIPAC position when they were on the bus and whispering among themselves, away from the minder. Publicly, every member of the delegation cheered and applauded the AIPAC line, just as they did back in Washington. He specifically noted that no one wanted AIPAC or Eric Cantor getting on their case.

These trips should be banned. On the contrary, they are proliferating because the AIPAC-drafted exemption had to be broad enough so that it would not appear to apply only to AIPAC. Now the AIPAC-manufactured umbrella is covering other organizations as well. Nice. Corrupting Congress is what AIPAC does best, although, to be fair, doing so is not exactly heavy lifting.

For the record, the Democrats are more effective in getting AIPAC’s dirty work done than the GOP, including most of your favorite “progressives.” The Republicans bloviate but the Democrats get the job done!

AIPAC Wants War on Iran

Stephen Lendman Blog

AIPAC is an unregistered foreign agent. It calls itself "America's Pro-Israeli Lobby." It's represented Israeli interests since 1953. 

Virtually no one in Congress confronts it. Doing so is a career-ender. It has enormous influence over US Middle East policies affecting Israel, including war and peace.

It disseminates disinformation, lies and hate. It viciously attacks opponents. It calls Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability." 

It manufactures threats to promote fear. It wants the Islamic Republic destroyed. It targets other regional states. It wants unchallenged Israeli regional dominance.

James Petras says its sole purpose "is to ensure Israel’s unchallenged military and political power over a huge region from North Africa to the Persian Gulf."

Its annual meeting "is the most outrageous public display of Zionist-Jewish power as it shapes US foreign policy."

It threatens "to drag the US into another major war in the Middle East - this time against Iran." Doing so is lawless, madness, and self-destructive.

Its web site says "While the World Talks, Iran Enriches; More Pressure Needed." A litany of disinformation and lies followed.

Negotiations failed. Iran got more time "to advance its nuclear program and cleanse a suspected nuclear site."

The international community "must dramatically" increase pressure.

Iran "is believed to have carried out experiments on nuclear explosives."

"Satellite images indicate Iran has been working to cleanse (a suspect) site by removing buildings and soil."

Iran's nuclear capabilities have advanced. It fuel stockpile approaches nuclear weapons production capability.

"America must make clear that it will act to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to build a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing."

Contain(ing) a nuclear Iran" is inadequate. US policy must reject any possibility of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. All options must be considered, including "military action."

Economic sanctions must be "accelerated" and "crippling." Washington should do whatever it takes to prevent a nuclear Iran.

AIPAC is a destructive, malevolent, evil force. It's heading Washington for war. Waging one on Iran assures losers, not winners. Israel may self-destruct in the process. Catastrophe will affect the region. America won't escape harm.

War on Iran may go nuclear. Weapons of mass destruction may be used against a nonbelligerent state. The potential economic and human consequences are staggering. At issue is either stopping this madness or be consumed by it. 

Nuclear war leaves no middle ground. General Omar Bradley said the only "way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never starts." It may be closer than most imagine. 

Congressional and administration sentiment reject containment. Preventing an Iranian nuclear capability is prioritized. Doing so heads America closer to war. Timing alone is unknown.

In mid-August, Foreign Policy featured a debate of sorts.David Rothkopf headlined "The Drums of August." He's Foreign Policy's CEO and Editor-at Large. Earlier he served as Kissinger Associates managing director and US Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Policy.

"Israel is not bluffing," he said. The punch line about a boy crying wolf is that "the wolf shows up." Reasons for attacking Iran are "clearly growing more compelling for Israeli leaders."

A litany of canards followed, including:

Diplomacy isn't working. Sanctions alone aren't enough. Iran's nuclear program is accelerating. It's advancing closer to weapons capability. Tehran threatens to destroy Israel. It "murder(ed) five Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. (It's) hard for Americans to grasp (its) existential threat." 

Failure to confront Iran is "imprudent." He implies might equals right as the bottom red line.

Stephen Walt's view differs. He headlined "Another reason the US shouldn't go to war with Iran," saying:

Washington should avoid war. It's not in America's interest. Diplomacy should be prioritized, not conflict. Policy makers mustn't "get buffaloed into a war by Israel." He urges reengaging Iran directly.

It "makes so much sense," he stresses, even though AIPAC and other hardliners reject it. Together with Netanyahu, they're heading America for war. They're "paint(ing) the United States into a corner."

Why is "simple." Israel can't go it alone. It lacks enough power. It can't sufficiently damage Iran's nuclear facilities without US help. Israel understands. It's pushing Washington into a war it shouldn't wage.

Notions about "closing windows," "red lines," "zones of immunity," and other rhetoric are political ploys to "stifle diplomacy, strengthen sanctions," and pressure Washington to use force. Israel needs America for its "heavy lifting."

Netanyahu/Barak war talk is "bluff, but one can scarcely blame Israel for employing a tactic that keeps working so well. It's our fault we keep falling for it."

Walt's argument falls short. Vital issues too important to ignore weren't discussed. No evidence suggests an Iranian nuclear program. Nations with them don't lob them at each other or non-nuclear states. Aggressive war is lawless.

Iran threatens no one. It urges peace, not war. It wants a nuclear free Middle East. Claiming an alleged nuclear threat is red herring cover for regime change. 

Attacking Iran may go nuclear. Doing so assures mass casualties. Israel will be affected like Iran. So will America, other regional nations, and Western ones.

Anytime war is waged, it's hell. Potential nuclear war is madness and self-destructive. Netanyahu and Barak allegedly set a September 25 deadline. Obama's got until then to commit to military action or Israel will go it alone.

Israel's US ambassador Michael Oren said Israel will attack even if destroying Iran's nuclear facilities entirely isn't possible. "Diplomacy hasn't succeeded," he said.

"We've come to a very critical juncture where important decisions do have to be made." He added it won't be "in the too far distant future."

Oren also raised the bogus issue of an alleged Syrian chemical weapons threat. He suggested dealing with it might have to be prioritized. Earlier, Israel threatened to attack Syrian facilities where chemical weapons are stored. Doing so increases the likelihood of full-scale war.

Israel is spoiling for a fight. Ideally it wants Washington to do its heavy lifting. Either way, it wants regional rivals removed. War is its final solution.

A Final Comment

Last March, Occupy AIPAC said "AIPAC wants war with Iran. We don't!" Its open letter to Congress said "AIPAC is on the warpath - this time with Iran. They say the US should be willing to attack Iran or support an Israeli attack."

"AIPAC pushed our government into the catastrophic war in Iraq by exaggerating Saddam Hussein’s threat and lying about weapons of mass destruction. Now they are repeating history, with AIPAC lobbyists vastly exaggerating Iran’s nuclear threat and eschewing negotiations." 

"AIPAC continues to lobby for policies that prohibit a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians and support violations of international law. AIPAC’s views do not represent the values and interests of the majority of the American people who voted for you, who pay the taxes that fund our government, and whose family members serve in the U.S. military."

"The majority of Americans do not want another war in the Middle East and the US can’t afford a war during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression." 

"The Iraq war left thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. We implore you not to repeat this tragic mistake. Say no to AIPAC, no to war with Iran and yes to diplomacy."

Wars don't solve problems. They create them. War with Syria and/or Iran may cross a line too potentially catastrophic to risk. Priority one is stopping leaders willing to chance it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Is Washington Deaf As Well as Criminal?

Global Research
Paul Craig Roberts

The morons who rule the American sheeple are not only dumb and blind, they are deaf as well. The ears of the american “superpower” only work when the Israeli prime minister, the crazed Netanyahu, speaks. Then Washington hears everything and rushes to comply.

Israel is a tiny insignificant state, created by the careless British and the stupid Americans. It has no power except what its american protector provides. Yet, despite Israel’s insignificance, it rules Washington.

When a resolution introduced by the Israel Lobby is delivered to Congress, it passes unanimously. If Israel wants war, Israel gets its wish. When Israel commits war crimes against Palestinians and Lebanon and is damned by the hundred plus UN resolutions passed against Israel’s criminal actions, the US bails Israel out of trouble with its veto.

The power that tiny Israel exercises over the “worlds’s only superpower” is unique in history. Tens of millions of “christians” bow down to this power, reinforcing it, moved by the exhortations of their “christian” ministers.

Netanyahu lusts for war against Iran. He strikes out against all who oppose his war lust. Recently, he called Israel’s top generals “pussies” for warning against a war with Iran. He regards former Israeli prime ministers and former heads of the Israeli intelligence service as traitors for opposing his determination to attack Iran. He has denounced america’s servile president Obama and america’s top military leader for being “soft on Iran.” The latest poll in Israel shows that a solid majority of the Israelis are opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran. But Netanyahu is uninterested in the opinion of Israeli citizens. He has Washington watching his back, so he is war mad. It is a mystery why Israelis put Netanyahu in public office instead of in an insane asylum.

Netanyahu is not alone. He has the american neoconservatives in his corner. The american neoconservatives are as crazed as Netanyahu. They believe in nuclear war and are itching to nuke some Muslim country and then get on to nuking Russia and China. It is amazing that no more than two or three dozen people have the fate of the entire world in their hands.

The Democratic Party is helpless before them.

The Republican Party is their vehicle.

The Russians, watching Netanyahu push Washington toward dangerous confrontations keep raising their voices about the danger of nuclear war.

On May 17 Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned the West against launching “hasty wars,” which could result “although I do not want to scare anyone” in “the use of a nuclear weapon.”

On November 30 of last year the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia warned of nuclear war with NATO. General Nikolai Makarov said that NATO’s eastward expansion meant that the risk of Russia coming into conflict with NATO had “risen sharply.” General Makarov said, “I do not rule out local and regional armed conflicts developing into a large-scale war, including using nuclear weapons.”

Here is Russian president Medvedev (currently the prime minister) describing the steps toward nuclear war that Russia has taken pushed by the crazed warmongers in Washington wallowing in their insane hubris:

With regard to the american missile bases on Russia’s borders, “I have made the following decisions. First, I am instructing the Defense Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert. Second, protective cover of Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons will be reinforced as a priority measure under the program to develop our air and space defenses. Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads. Fourth, I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile defense system data and guidance systems. These measures will be adequate, effective, and low-cost. Fifth, if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the US missile defense system in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region. Other measures to counter the European missile defense system will be drawn up and implemented as necessary. Furthermore, if the situation continues to develop not to Russia’s favor, we reserve the right to discontinue further disarmament and arms control measures.”

Romney-esque reflections

MondoWeiss
Dr. Hatim Kanaaneh 

I am struck dumb by the precision and astuteness of Mitt Romney’s observation about the regressive nature of Palestinian culture. Of course, he addressed the subject only tangentially in explaining the obvious: that the difference between the Israeli and Palestinian economies is the result of cultural differences. His formula applies to a wider range of phenomena.

When I first read it, I struggled with the deeper anti-Semitic nuance of the statement. Attributing economic success to Jews on the basis of ingrained cultural traits could well bring ruination on the head of someone like Barack Obama, known for his lack of purity when it comes to race. After all, the man’s mere looks, not to mention his full name, evoke echoes of deep-seated racial intolerance and gut-level sentiments to do with doctrinaire narrow religious beliefs. And now his supporters have come up with a genealogical rumor linking him to the first slave in the USA so as to harp on everyone’s heartstrings and gain their sympathy. None of that is going to wipe away his Islamic and Arab roots, believe me.

Not Romney! To him a spade is a f…ing spade. Palestinians are cultural retards, period. Why else would they refuse the enlightening influence of the only democracy in the Middle East and resist the benign embrace of the most moral army in the world? They insist on keeping their cave dwellings in the South Hebron Hills when right next to them Israelis are building spacious villas and modern high rises. What greater evidence of cultural deprivation do we need?

Or take those Palestinian Bedouins in the Negev: For years the Israelis have afforded them the luxury of enlisting in their armed forces. Yet, despite years of patient and concerted efforts at their modernization through the role models of their Jewish commanders, they still insist on returning to their primitive place of residence in the desert. In the village of El‘araqeeb for example, Israel has extended to them the services of its most efficient demolition crews and equipment on credit for a total of over three-dozen times to no avail. They still go back and rebuild their hovels on the same grounds claiming that their fathers and mothers and their ancestors before them are buried there. It is enough to make one wonder who those barbarians think their dead are! Kabbalistic mystics or Hasidic holy men or what? Whose land is this anyway? Not only no culture but also no shame! No civilized historical perspective whatsoever!

And if that were not enough, take the recent news article by Zafrir Rinat entitled “Ecological Occupation” in Haaretz for example (which I fail to locate for you online!) It opens with the statement that “In the last two years, Jewish settlers in the West Bank have made a concerted PR effort to showcase their commitment to the environment.” So, how do the Palestinians in their ignorance react when such magnanimous neighbors as the NGO Green Now and the municipality of Ariel beseech them to “separate the environment from politics” and invite them to lay their belligerence aside and attend a conference entitled “Environment Without Borders?” As expected, they react by “preferring to hurt their citizens,” as our Minister of Environmental Protection points out. They simply do not participate. Had they attended they would have learned a simple fact or two such as the main conclusion presented at the conference “that Israeli settlement activity … has less of an environmental impact on the Palestinian Authority than the PA has on the environment in general and on Israeli settlements in particular.”

Believe me, it is impossible to help people lacking in culture. Here I am speaking of the same deficient culture that leads to economic poverty that Romney pointed out. Some of us, successful Israelis residing in Israel proper, having put up with the sullying of our Samaria and Judea by the continued presence of so many Palestinians in it, when we try and help some of them escape economic deprivation by hiring them “to dispose of solid or construction waste on public lands,” we get blamed for it even when we go so far as to help them smuggle it across the Green Line. Or on occasion when “The cost of the race to put facts on the ground by Israeli settlement activity was paid by nature,” such as in the prominent case of Ofra where “Currently, the state is trying to authorize a wastewater treatment facility built recently without permits on private Palestinian land,” we wind up having to put up with all the Palestinian whining.

To look at it with Romney’s clear-eyed vision, it is all there in black and white: What do you expect from a culturally deprived invented people in the first place? Why should environmentally aware people like us expect cooperation from the Palestinians? First, you need a culture that values cleanliness. Not the Palestinians, Romney knows.

Dr. Hatim Kanaaneh is a Palestinian doctor who has worked for over 35 years to bring medical care to Palestinians in Galilee, against a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. He is the author of the book A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel.

Cynthia McKinney - We define the system, the system does not define us

Researched, Produced and Directed by Abir Alsayed

A part of Asdekaa Al Arab series
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Asdekaa-Al-Arab-%D8%A3%D8%B5%D8%AF%D9%82%D8%A7%...

Nervousness about Charles Barron Prompts a Flood of National Money for Hakeem Jeffries

Capital New York
Reid Pillifant

Hakeem Jeffries and Charles Barron.

The fear that Charles Barron might actually win next week's primary for a Brooklyn-Queens congressional seat has triggered a flood of contributions from all across the country to his opponent, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries.

Barron, a former Black Panther, has long been known in New York political circles for his racial rhetoric and his professed admiration for international-pariah dictators like Muammar Khadafy and Robert Mugabe, but particularly attention has been focused in the national media in the last couple of weeks on his anti-Israel rhetoric. Among other things, he has compared conditions in Gaza to those in Nazi concentration camps.

On Monday alone, Jeffries raised a combined $37,500 from donors in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Louisiana, Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, Ohio and California. Most of the donations were individual contributions of $1,000; the World Alliance for Israel PAC gave $5,000.
That one-day total is more than Barron had raised for his entire campaign through June 6, not counting Barron's own contributions.

Jeffries has also collected from Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas in recent weeks, adding tens of thousands of dollars to the $375,000 he reported having on hand in early June, and giving the campaign an unexpected surplus to spend down the home stretch.

The increase in donations to Jeffries, who had already put together a broad coalition of institutional supporters, coincided with the endorsement of Barron by the retiring Representative Ed Towns on June 4 and subsequent increase in the seriousness with which the media began treating his prospects ahead of the June 26 primary.

Only a handful of donations from outside the area appear on Jeffries' pre-primary filing, which covered donations from April 1 to June 6.

Barron has been trying to shift the conversation away from his controversial comments and focus on his constituent work, but national Democrats and newspaper editorials have been sounding the alarm, warning of what a Barron candidacy might mean for the party and the Middle East.

The scenario is somewhat reminiscent of one from 2002, when supporters of Israel rallied to defeat Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a primary one observer called "a little Middle East proxy war."


McKinney's opponent out-raised her by nearly two-to-one and, with some crossover help from Republican voters in the state's open primary, McKinney lost by a wide margin. (After the race, McKinney's father attributed the loss to "J-E-W-S" who "bought everybody.)

Pro-Israel donors rallied again in 2006 when, after winning her seat back two years earlier, McKinney found herself in a surprisingly competitive primary against the current congressman, Hank Johnson, who won soundly in the run-off.

I asked Jeffries after an event in Bedford-Stuyvesant last night how he felt about his campaign becoming a national cause.

"We're going to remain focused on the issues that are relevant to the people in the communities like Bedford-Stuyvesant, like affordable housing, safe streets and a strong economy," he said.

Once she joined ‘Women in Black’ and opposed aid to Israel. And then– she ran for Congress and went to AIPAC

Mondo Weiss
Philip Weiss

The American political tragedy. Kyrsten Sinema is an Arizona state senator with a leftwing back story. She was involved in global justice issues and the Green Party. But now she's running for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Arizona and is up against an establishment candidate, Andrei Cherny, a liberal hawk who is the grandson of Holocaust survivors.

Israel is playing a big part in the race. Sinema has now gone to AIPAC.

In this race, Cherny has unabashedly—his opponents say unfairly—drawn stark distinctions with his key rival, State Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, on the question of Israel and national security in order to position himself to her right.

Here is Sinema's history, per Marc Tracy at Tablet:

Soon after 9/11, at 25 years old, she co-founded Local to Global Justice, a local advocacy group. Its initial mission was to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, but in 2007 it signed a petition calling for an end to U.S. aid to Israel and another in 2008 decrying Israeli “human rights violations against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and against civilians in Lebanon.” Sinema joined Women in Black, a group founded by Israelis during the First Intifada to protest human rights abuses in the territories—a history of which Sinema claimed to be unaware. (That’s pretty hard to believe, since the group was founded in 1988 and is easily located on Google.) Also in 9/11’s aftermath, she helped organize the Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice; its motto was, “military action is an inappropriate response to terrorism.” According to The Hill, this was her position, too. At least as late as 2010, she continued to associate with these groups, speaking, for example, at an antiwar rally several sponsored. She has since severed ties.

...A Sinema spokesman pointed me to an official position paper laying out standard pro-Israel views and insisted that much of Sinema’s awkward past derives from a simple fact: “She was 24 years old, very frustrated with the Democratic Party, [and] thought that the Green Party was more progressive on environmental issues and sustainability.” To which Cherny’s response might be: When I was 24, I was already on-message and certainly wasn’t a Green Party supporter.

Sinema’s spokesman dismissed Cherny’s attacks as spin—the result “of a campaign deciding to try to make Sinema look bad because she had the courage to be outspoken against the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.” He also pointed to Sinema’s position paper on Israel and Iran, which calls for a two-state solution and vigorous sanctions against the Islamic Republic, and mentions a trip she took to Israel in 2009, when she visited Sderot and was moved by the inhabitants living under the threat of rockets. The conservative Washington Free Beacon reported (in one of the instances in which this race has received attention beyond Maricopa County) that she attended this year’s AIPAC Policy Conference.

Rep. Ron Paul angers Israel Lobby

Rehmat's World

David Horowitz calls Ron Paul a
"vicious Anti-Semite"

The GOP presidential hopeful, Rep. Ron Paul, has angered pro-Israel lobby groups once again by challenging the H.R. 4133. On May 9, 2012, he opposed the bill in the House as it’s in the interest of Israel’s military expansionism rather than the interests of the United States in the Middle East.

“This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East. It will implicitly authorize much more US interventionism in the region at the time when we cannot afford the foreign committments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both. I urged my collegues to vote against this bill“.

The H.R. 4133 – ‘United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act ‘- was introduced on May 5, 2012 by three Israel-Firster Jewish lawmakers, Eric Cantor, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Howard Berman and Steny Hoyer. The bill provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the US taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military superiority” over all of its neighbors combined. The bill was passed on May 9 through on a “suspension of the rules,” which means it was not actually voted on and was approved by consent of Congress. The bill is now waiting for the Senate’s approval and blessed by Israel-Firster, President Barack Obama.

On Monday, in order to show Republican party’s holy alligiance to the Zionist entity, Mormon Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-California) proposed an additional $1 billion aid to Israel to upgrade its missile defense against Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran. Israel already receives $3 billion annual US military aid.

“Israel and its partisan hacks in Congress are utterly shameless. At a time when the country is screaming for some measure of restraint in government spending, Israel is the one budget line that only sees increases,” says Philip Giraldi, executive director of Council for the National Interest.

Last year, Ron Paul’s former senior Jewish aide, Eric Dondero , in a statement claimed that Ron Paul is certainly not a Jew-hater (anti-Semite) or racist or even anti-gay, but just “anti-Israel in general“. Paul’s views on Israel are that the Zionist entity has the strongest military in the region and can protect its existence without American help.

In February 2011, Israel’s Jewish propagandist, David Horowitz, called Rep. Ron Paul vicious anti-Semite for Paul’s calling freeze on US aid to Israel ($3 trillion since 1970s). Another Israeli lobbist, head of ADL, Abraham Foxman, is also on record for saying that Ron Paul is the only presidential hopeful who doesn’t take dictation from Israel lobby groups.

Elizabeth Warren Sells Out To AIPAC Already

MJ Rosenberg

Anyone who doubts the iron grip AIPAC has on US politicians should check out Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s position on Israel. It sounds just like every other Senate candidate’s (probably because it almost surely was written by an AIPAC staffer). 

Israel
Since its founding more than 60 years ago, Israel and the United States have been steadfast, trusted, and reliable allies. I unequivocally support the right of a Jewish, democratic state of Israel to exist, safe and secure. I believe that it is a moral imperative to support and defend its existence.

For generations, the United States and Israel have shared a commitment to a stable, secure, and peaceful Middle East. But our alliance runs far deeper: it is a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values. Both our countries have been sustained by our commitment to liberty, pluralism, and the rule of law. These values transcend time, and they are the basis of our unbreakable bond.
As a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success.  I believe Israel must maintain a qualitative military edge and defensible borders. The United States must continue to ensure that Israel can defend itself from terrorist organizations and hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. I also believe firmly that a two-state solution is in the interest of Israel and the United States. Lasting peace, however, requires negotiations between the parties themselves, and although the United States can and should aid in this process, we cannot dictate the terms. Unilateral actions, such as the Palestinians’ membership efforts before the United Nations, are unhelpful, and I would support vetoing a membership application.

Same garbage. Not an iota of difference between this and anything AIPAC or the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs puts out.

And then there is Iran:

Iran

Iran is a significant threat to the United States and our allies.  Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is an active state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have consistently challenged Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.

No need for elaboration. Warren believes very little of this, just like President Obama does not believe his hawkish line on Israel or Al Franken believes his. (I choose Franken not because he is any more in thrall to AIPAC than his fellow Democrats in the Senate — the House Dems are worse — but because one might expect him to be a little more honest)
This is what they do to keep the AIPAC funders happy.
American democracy!

Of the people, by the people, and for AIPAC.

Lobbying for War

AntiWar
Philip Giraldi

Occupy AIPAC demonstratoin against war with Iran

There has been considerable discussion of the meaning, or lack thereof, of the apparent difference of opinion between the United States and Israel over both the desirability and the possible timing of going to war with Iran. Those Americans who still revere the Constitution and the advice of the Founding Fathers should rightly be appalled that a war is even being considered on behalf of a small client state with which the United States has no treaty obliging such intervention. War with Iran would undoubtedly follow the usual pattern, being authorized by the White House without the constitutionally mandated declaration of war by Congress and likely developing out of an evolving situation in which Israel is being given a free pass to initiate the conflict.

That the United States is in such a parlous condition is directly due to the effective work of Israel’s principal lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has just completed its annual convention. Consider what AIPAC and its friends in Congress and the media have accomplished: Understanding that the truth about Iran would not support their case, they have completely skewed the narrative about the threat posed by that country. Iran has no nuclear weapon, has not made a decision to acquire one, and may not even have the technical ability or financial resources to do so even if its government decides to move in that direction. Yet, AIPAC has succeeded in convincing the American public that Iran is already a nuclear power and is somehow a threat to the United States, all despite the fact that Iran, far from being an aggressor,  has been on the receiving end of covert operations run by Washington and Tel Aviv that have killed scores of Iranians. President Barack Obama has unhesitatingly endorsed the AIPAC line, emphasizing in his speech to that organization on March 4 that Iran is a security problem for the United States and the entire world, an elaboration straight out of Israel’s playbook that was noted approvingly by no less than Tom Friedman of The New York Times. Friedman asks “whether he [Obama] is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most.”

AIPAC has also been effective in lining up Capitol Hill in its support. One third of Congress attended the AIPAC conference, and a number of individual legislators have been actively promoting the lobby’s line. Sen. Carl Levin is now calling for a military blockade of Iran, a clear act of war. Thirty-two senators, including Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman, are supporting legislation that will essentially authorize taking military action against Iran because it has the “capability” to create a nuclear weapon, a line that has already been crossed by Tehran as well as by other states in the region, including Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Why pick on Iran? Because that is what Israel wants (Israel, one might add, has, unlike Iran, attacked a number of its neighbors in recent years). Israel also possesses its own secret nuclear arsenal, giving it a combination of political recklessness and potentially cataclysmic military power that apparently causes no heartburn in Congress.

Joe Lieberman, and liberal hero Elizabeth Warren, peddle propaganda on Iran

MondoWeiss
Alex Kane

Danny Ayalon (left), the deputy foreign minister of Israel, with
Senator Joseph Lieberman and Henry Kissinger

Two more examples of the relentless, and successful, misinformation campaign about Iran's nuclear program were seen over the weekend. The principal component of this campaign has been to get people to believe that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is close to obtaining one and poses an imminent threat to Israel and the United States.

The culprits: Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut senator with neoconservative foreign policy views, and progressive darling Elizabeth Warren, who is running for a Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Lieberman's contribution was the more prominent. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Lieberman was asked what he thought about reports that Iran claims to have "reverse-engineered" the US drone they captured last year. His response (emphasis mine):

Look, it was not good for the U.S. when the drone went down in Iran, and not good when the Iranians grabbed it. I don't have confidence at this point that they are really able to make a copy of it. It's a very sophisticated piece of machinery and has served our national security well, including I would guess being used to look all over Iran; particularly, at areas where we have reason to believe that they are working on a nuclear weapon.

The New York Times quoted Lieberman in a piece on Iran's drone claims, but the paper of record didn't bother to question Lieberman's falsehood about Iran "working on a nuclear weapon."

Warren, the liberal hero who swallows the AIPAC line on foreign policy (as Max Blumenthal showed), was also asked about Iran yesterday by the blogger who runs the site "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" (h/t Glenn Greenwald). Here's the blogger's account of the chance encounter with Warren:

Yesterday morning, I was in line outside a Somerville, MA breakfast joint, and who should come around introducing herself to the queued patrons but Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Elizabeth Warren?

When she worked her way to where I was standing, I asked about her hawkish policies toward Iran, which are described thusly on her website...

I asked why her stand is that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, when even the Obama administration admits there is no evidence Iran is building nuclear bombs or has decided it wants to.

Warren said she thinks the data says they are working on nuclear weapons.
I repeated that, no, even the administration says there's no evidence of that.
She said she'd look into it, saying it's important that political statements not to add fuel to the fire

The big lie here, as the blogger above noted, is that Iran already has a nuclear weapon, or is working on one. From Leon Panetta to US intelligence to Israeli intelligence, everyone agrees that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon--nor are they on the cusp of developing one.

The fact that Warren, the subject of a large and favorable profile in The Nation recently, peddles the lie about Iran is more troubling. Lieberman's propaganda is, at this point, expected.

But the last time there was little partisan debate over a war, with the Democratic Party aiding and abetting the push to invade Iraq, the US destroyed a country that still lives with the searing consequences. Warren, who calls for getting out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, should remember that, or be tarred with the brush of having helped push another disastrous war in the Middle East.

Say "No to war on Iran, No to funding Israeli apartheid, and No to AIPAC and the lobbies of the 1%."

Time:               4 p.m.  to 8 p.m,
Date:                 Sunday, April 29, 2012
Location:            Mittleman Jewish Community Center, 6651 SW Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon

See our facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/events/207196606050041/


For more information:  info@auphr.org
Talking points: 10 Reasons Why the Israel Lobby AIPAC is So Dangerous http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/ten-reasons-why-the-israel-lobby-aipac-is-so-dangerous.html

Event Flyer: http://www.pjw.info/occupyaipac.pdf

#44 buses stop right in front of Mittleman: 44-Capital Hwy/Mocks Crest.  Contact Trimet: http://trimet.org   503-244-0111

Signs will be available at the protest!

Call your politicians! Before the event, we ask that people call their state and federal representatives and ask them to "Say no to AIPAC" and not attend this event.  The AIPAC event regularly attracts State Legislators, our members of congress, Oregon mayors, members of Portland's city council, and even the student body presidents of Oregon's universities! See our sample letter and contact information below!  Please let us know of any responses by emailing info@auphr.org

Join a coalition of peace, human rights, and Palestine solidarity organizations for a demonstration outside the annual Oregon fund-raising dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday, April 29. The demonstration will protest AIPAC’s role in promoting a military attack on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities. The protest is also calling for an end to U.S. military aid to the Israeli apartheid government which refuses to halt the construction of illegal settlements and routinely violates the human rights of Palestinians living under Occupation. Israel controls the lives of more than 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but denies them the right to vote or to exercise their right to self-determination.  We will be demonstrating at the start of the event and at the end when the politicians leave stuffed full of food and AIPAC talking points.

Some Oregon political leaders have regularly attended AIPAC’s annual fundraiser in past years. This year the protesters are asking Oregon's leaders to represent their constituencies' opposition to another unjust war in the Middle East by boycotting AIPAC's gala. Among the groups protesting are Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights (AUPHR), Friends of Sabeel - North America (FOSNA), Jewish Voice for Peace - Portland (JVP), Lutherans for Justice in the Holy Land (LJHL), Occupy Portland, Palestine Action Group--Corvallis Oregon, Peace and Justice Works - Iraq Affinity Group,  and Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights (SUPER).

Retired Gens to Obama: No War of Choice With Iran

The Truth Seeker

 The Washington Post advert. Click to enlarge

Several former high-ranking military, intelligence and State Department officials took out an ad in the Washington Post today urging President Obama to stand fast against political and lobbying pressure to attack Iran over claims it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The letter, signed by five retired generals, two senior intelligence analysts and a senior State Department official, is accompanied by a photo and quotes from other current military and defense officials warning against such an attack.

“There is a national reflex on the conservative part [of the] political spectrum to reach for the military option first and others second,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, commander of the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, when he developed and oversaw the training of the Iraqi military and security forces.

President Obama and others in the administration believe they can stop Iran from pursing a nuclear weapon through economic sanctions.

“We feel the need to give the president and those who endorse this approach as much space as possible to let … the economic efforts guide Iranian behavior,” said Eaton, who is a senior advisor with the National Security Network.

The advertisement, which carries the headline “Mr. President: Say No to a War of Choice with Iran,” is sponsored by the National Iranian American Council, a non-partisan, non-profit organization headquartered in Washington.

Though NIAC does not support the Iranian government it favors diplomacy over war in dealing with it, according to its website.

“NIAC opposes a U.S.-Iran war because it would be detrimental to U.S. national interest and likely prolong the reign of the current Iranian government,” the group states.

Signing the letter with Eaton are retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr., chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, former CentCom commander and now on the board of the Middle East Policy Council; retired Army Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, a retired combat arms officer who taught National Security Strategy and Decision-making at the National Defense University; retired Army Maj. Gen. Rudolph Ostovich III, former vice director of the Joint Staff; Thomas Fingar, former deputy director of National Intelligence for analysis; Paul Pillar, former CIA national intelligence officer for Near East and South Asia; and retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Eaton said the aim of the letter is to rally support from among “validators … of a rational, pragmatic foreign policy,” which is what Obama represents.

“We’re sending a message to the President of the United States that we support you’re approach, to Congress that we support the President, and to Israel and other validators for a pragmatic foreign policy to say, let’s exercise prudence instead of ramping up the war” option.

“Unless we or an ally is attacked, war should be the option of last resort,” the writers state in their letter. “Our brave servicemen and women expect you to exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful options before you send them into harm’s way.”

While the writers back the idea of keeping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, they say diplomacy is still a possible means of doing that.

“Military action at this stage is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous – for the United States and for Israel,” they conclude. “We urge you to resist the pressure of a war of choice with Iran.”

What role does AIPAC play in US elections?

Al Jazeera

Republican candidates have been making their pitch to the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US.

The American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US, is holding its biggest annual conference yet with around 13,000 delegates in Washington.
For all those bidding to become the next US president, it has become an essential campaign stop. The group has strong ties to the religious right and evangelical voters. And it is a very influential force in Washington politics.

Demonstrators from the occupy movement held a small protest outside the event urging no war on Iran and no US tax dollars for Israel.

On Sunday, Barack Obama, the US president, took to the stage and told the audience that Israel had never had a better friend in the White House. But he did not support Israeli military action against Iran's nuclear facilities - at least not yet.

"If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, he'd be impeached. Former President Ronald Reagan's confrontations with Israel were harsh and personal, yet Republican conservatives revere him and the Jews remember him as a great friend."
- Chemi Shalev, an Israeli journalist and political analyst
Three of the four Republican candidates bidding to unseat the US president addressed the conference on the biggest day of the nomination battle so far - 'Super Tuesday'.

Rick Santorum flew in especially for the event before heading back to Ohio, while Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich appeared via satellite link.

A number of Republicans have sought to attack the US president over his administration's relationship with Israel. And the Republican presidential candidates have all tried to paint Obama as an undependable partner for Israel who is weak on Iran.

Mitt Romney said: "We've heard a lot of words from the administration. Its clear message has been to warn Israel to consider the costs of military action against Iran. I don't believe we should be issuing public warnings."

And Newt Gingrich said: "If an Israeli prime minister decides that he has to avoid the threat of a second holocaust through pre-emptive measures that I would require no advance notice to understand why I would support the right of Israel to survive in a dangerous world."

So what role do pro-Israel lobby groups, and AIPAC in particular, play in the US election and why are they courted by those competing to be the next US president? How do Barack Obama's dealings with Israel compare with those of his predecessors, including Republicans?

To discuss these issues presenter Anand Naidoo is joined by: John Mearsheimer, the co-author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy; Larry Greenfield from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; and Hillary Mann Leverett, a former White House and US state department official.


"It's critically important for any US contender for the presidency to go to AIPAC, to interact with the Israel lobby in a favourable way, because it enables that candidate to show that that candidate is strong, that the candidate believes in US exceptionalism, US preeminence in the world, that the US is still very much the indispensable nation in the world; the US has decisive influence in the Middle East and the US is not going to let that influence go as manifesting any kind of threat - real or perceived - against Israel. It allows a candidate to really demonstrate that and that's in addition to all of the tactical things here in the US in terms of getting votes, financing ...."
Hillary Mann Leverett, former White House official

District Court Refuses to Dismiss Claim That IRS Ties Tax-Exempt Status to Agreement With Administration's Israel Policy

TaxProf

Following up on my previous posts (links below): the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has refused to dismiss Z Street's claim that the IRS unconstitutionally tied its application for tax-exempt status to whether the group's positions on Israel are "contradictory to those of the Administration." Instead, the court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  Z Street v. Shulman, No. 10-4307 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2012):

The Complaint states, inter alia, “Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks a Declaration that Defendant’s substance and application of the Israel Special Policy to any application for tax-exempt status constitutes discrimination among viewpoints and a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”  The Court shares Plaintiff’s view that this is a case about constitutionally valid process, and finds that 26 U.S.C. § 7428 is the statute which establishes Plaintiff’s right to challenge the IRS’s 501(c) classification process. ... 26 U.S.C. § 7428 reads, in pertinent part: “upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, the United States Tax Court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, or the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia may make a declaration with respect to such initial qualification or continuing qualification.”

Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:

• NY Times: Charitable Deduction Subsidizes Israeli Settlements, Contrary to U.S. Policy (July 7, 2010)
• Lawsuit: IRS Using Bob Jones University to Deny Tax-Exempt Status to Pro-Israel Charity (Aug. 26, 2010)
• Is Failure to Support Obama Administration's Foreign Policy Grounds to Deny Charity's Tax-Exempt Status? (Nov. 24, 2010)