Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

Europe’s Obama cheers ring hollow in the Middle East

July 25, 2008

Here the US leader has much less power. Israel calls the shots, and the reality on the ground is gloomy and anti-peace

What a contrast. In western Europe Obama-mania is in full flood, epitomised by raving crowds in Berlin last night as well as the polls which show the Democratic candidate to be far more popular than John McCain in almost every country. In Israel he is met with apprehension, and in the Palestinian territories there is only the faintest hope that the deadlocked conflict will ever end.

The difference is that Europeans know the American president holds the keys to war or peace. He has enormous influence in dragging European governments after him, as the disastrous Iraq adventure showed. So it is not surprising that many Europeans are crying out for a man in the White House who will be less aggressive, less unilateral, less imperial, and more attuned to the complexities of international policy. Obama seems to be the one.

In the Middle East the US leader has much less power. Israel calls the shots, and what’s happening on the ground is deeply gloomy and anti-peace. The chances of creating a viable Palestinian state have almost vanished as Israeli settlements on the West Bank go on increasing and yet more checkpoints appear.

No wonder that, while they like Obama more than McCain, Palestinians feel little optimism. “Obama might create a different atmosphere,” says Yasser Abed Rabo, the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, stressing the “might”. “Bush polarised things between him and Osama bin Laden. The moderates were the big losers. People in the middle felt crushed,” he argues.

Others expect Obama will take time to focus on the Middle East in spite of his promise this week to be engaged in peace from day one. “He’ll concentrate first on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the economy, which all matter more for Americans,” an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team told me.

His visit to the Israeli border town of Sderot was one-sided, not just because he did not balance it with visits to places where Palestinians are oppressed. Sderot is more than a place under threat of terror. It is a model for how ceasefires are negotiable, and why they are the vital first step towards any serious peace agreement. Yet Obama ignored the point.

Continued . . .

US/IRAN: Scowcroft, Brzezinski Urge Bush to Drop Precondition

July 23, 2008

By Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Jul 22 (IPS) – Two of Washington’s most prominent foreign policy greybeards praised Saturday’s direct participation in multinational talks with Iran by a senior U.S. diplomat but called on the administration of President George W. Bush to drop his demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment programme as a precondition for broader negotiations.

Ret. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under Republican presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the same post under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, urged Bush to go further by offering immediate rewards to Tehran in exchange for such a freeze.

And both men warned that repeated U.S. threats to use military force against Iran were counter-productive and strengthened hard-line forces in the regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said an actual military attack — whether by the U.S. or by Israel — would likely be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region.

“A war with Iran will produce calamities for sure,” said Brzezinski, who pointed, among other things, to its likely impact on the price of oil and the likelihood that it would create yet another front to add to the two wars — Iraq and Afghanstan — in which U.S. military forces are already engaged.

“(Brzezinski’s assessment) may be a little more dire (than mine) but not much,” Scowcroft told IPS in a brief interview after the two men spoke at a briefing sponsored by the Centre for Security and International Studies (CSIS) here. “It would turn the region into a cauldron of conflict, bitterness, and hatred. It would turn Islam against us.”

Both men have been strongly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the decision to invade Iraq — although Brzezinski has been considerably more vocal than Scowcroft, who remains a close friend of Bush’s father. Both leading lights of the so-called “realist” foreign-policy establishment, they are currently collaborating on a book to be published in September.

Their joint appearance at CSIS, which was announced late last week after the administration had confirmed that undersecretary of state for policy, Amb. William Burns, would attend Saturday’s meeting between the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany) and Iran, seemed timed to demonstrate strong bipartisan support for continued and enhanced U.S. engagement.

Continued . . .

WHILE NABLUS IS RAIDED: GORDON BROWN, ANOTHER FALSE PROPHET PRAISES ISRAEL

July 22, 2008
By Khalid Amayreh | Desert Peace, July 21, 2008

As British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was having an audience with Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem, the Israeli occupation army was raping anew the Palestinian town of Nablus, rounding up and humiliating innocent people, violating homes and vandalizing businesses.

On Sunday and early Monday, the so-called Israeli Defense Forces raided the northern city, for the fourth time in less than three weeks, as thousands of CIA-trained Palestinian security personnel were watching from their comfortable headquarters nearby.

The invading forces arrested dozens of innocent people, including a lawmaker named Muna Mansur, the wife of an Islamic political leader who was murdered by a Jewish death squad while sitting in his office in downtown Nablus several years ago.

The detainees, who are likely to be dumped in an Israeli concentration camp for lengthy periods of time, have committed no felony or even misdemeanor. Their only “guilt” seems to be their conscientious opposition to the Nazi-like Israeli occupation of their country.

Two weeks ago, the same Jewish forces, acting like the German Gestapo, ransacked the main commercial center of Nablus, raiding commercial malls, beauty salons, a major medical center and numerous other institutions, crushing furniture, smashing equipments and vandalizing public and private property.

These acts of rape passed quietly as the governments of Europe and North America, thoroughly absorbed in their pornographic hypocrisy toward the Palestinian plight, kept silent. After all, the victims are Palestinian, they are Arabs, they are Muslims.

These are the same governments that have been demanding rather shamelessly the prompt and unconditional release of an Israeli combat soldier who was taken prisoner by Palestinian fighters near the Gaza Strip more than two years ago, while utterly ignoring the fate of more than 10,000 Palestinian detainees languishing in Israeli dungeons and detention camps.

This pattern of moral whoredom on the part of European and North American leaders is echoed ad nauseam every time a European or American or Canadian official sets foot on the soil of occupied Palestine, a holy land made unholy by the overwhelming obscenity of Israel’s oppression of a people whose only guilt is its enduring determination to survive and be free.

There, these officials and statesmen utter a few empty words about the “glory of Israeli democracy” before returning home, hoping to have succeeded in impressing the international Zionist cartel which effectively controls the policies, politics and governments of most western countries.

Gordon is no exception. He is just another carbon copy of the typical hypocritical, double-faced, and morally bankrupt western leader who tries to blur his dishonest discourse with diplomatic niceties and nice-sounding statements.

In fact, not only did Gordon keep his mouth shut regarding Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, apparently fearing upsetting his arrogant Zionist hosts, but he also reiterated the same mantra western leaders like to utter whenever they visit Europe’s ugly brat in the Middle East.

Brown, whose country gave birth to ugly Zionist entity, vowed that Britain would “back Israel’s right to exist,” a euphemism for backing Israel’s settlement expansion and territorial aggrandizement at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Indeed, this is how Israel understands such statements from western leaders because if a given western country doesn’t fully support Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinians, then the government of that country must be advocating the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people!!

In short, from the Israeli perspective, Europe and America have two choices vis-à-vis Israel, either they support the liquidation of Palestine and its native people, the Palestinians, or get themselves ready for vociferous Jewish accusations of being Nazis, anti-Semites and “Hamas lovers”!!!

I don’t know why western leaders, such as Gordon, keep talking about Israel’s right to exist while rarely alluding to the Palestinian people’s right to exist. Do they think that Palestinians are unimportant? Do they consider the rights of the “Chosenites” to be superior to and override the rights and lives of the non-Chosenites?

Continued . . .

Iran: The Threat

July 8, 2008

The New York Review of Books, Vol. 55, No. 12, July 17, 2008

By Thomas Powers

At a moment of serious challenge, battered by two wars, ballooning debt, and a faltering economy, the United States appears to have lost its capacity to think clearly. Consider what passes for national discussion on the matter of Iran. The open question is whether the United States should or will attack Iran if it continues to reject American demands to give up uranium enrichment. Ignore for the moment whether the United States has any legal or moral justification for attacking Iran. Set aside the question whether Iran, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed in a speech at West Point, “is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” Focus instead on purely practical questions. By any standards Iran is a tough nut to crack: it is nearly three times the size of Texas, with a population of 70 million and a big income from oil which the world cannot afford to lose. Iran is believed to have the ability to block the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf through which much of the world’s oil must pass on its way to market.

Keep in mind that the rising price of oil already threatens the world’s economy. Iran also has a large army and deep ties to the population of Shiite coreligionists next door in Iraq. The American military already has its hands full with a hard-to-manage war in Iraq, and is proposing to send additional combat brigades to deal with a growing insurgency in Afghanistan. And yet with all these sound reasons for avoiding war with Iran, the United States for five years has repeatedly threatened it with military attack. These threats have lately acquired a new edge.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are the primary authors of these threats, but others join them in proclaiming that “all options” must remain “on the table.” The option they wish to emphasize is the option of military attack. The presidential candidates in the middle of this campaign year agree that Iran is a major security threat to the United States. Senator Hillary Clinton in the last days of April threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran—presumably with nuclear weapons—if it attacked Israel. Senator Barack Obama dismissed Clinton’s threat as “bluster” in the familiar Bush style but agrees that Iran cannot be permitted to build nuclear weapons, and he too insists that a US attack on Iran is one of the options which must remain “on the table.” The presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain, takes a position as unyielding as the President’s: Iran must abandon nuclear enrichment, stop “meddling” in Iraq with support for Shiite militias, and stop its sponsorship of “terrorism” carried out by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Any of these threatening activities, in McCain’s view, might justify a showdown with Iran.

Continued . . .