Blockade ‘Eased’ As Gaza Starves More Slowly
By Jonathan Cook   25 June, 2010
Countercurrents.org  (My emphasis and selection EWG)

Nazareth: As Israel this week declared the “easing” of the four-year blockade of Gaza, an official explained the new guiding principle: “Civilian goods for civilian people.” The severe and apparently arbitrary restrictions on foodstuffs entering the enclave – coriander bad, cinnamon good – will finally end, we are told. Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants will have all the coriander they want.

This “adjustment”, as the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu termed it, is aimed solely at damage limitation. With Israel responsible for killing nine civilians aboard a Gaza-bound aid flotilla three weeks ago, the world has finally begun to wonder what purpose the siege serves. Did those nine really need to die to stop coriander, chocolate and children’s toys from reaching Gaza? And, as Israel awaits other flotillas, will more need to be executed to enforce the policy?

Faced with this unwelcome scrutiny, Israel – as well as the United States and the European states that have been complicit in the siege – desperately wants to deflect attention away from demands for the blockade to be lifted entirely. Instead it prefers to argue that the more liberal blockade for Gaza will distinguish effectively between a necessary “security” measures and an unfair “civilian” blockade.

Israel has cast itself as the surgeon who, faced with Siamese twins, is mastering the miraculous operation needed to decouple them. [Well they do steal body parts.]

The result, Mr Netanyahu told his cabinet, would be a “tightening of the security blockade because we have taken away Hamas’ ability to blame Israel for harming the civilian population”. Listen to Israeli officials and it sounds as if thousands of “civilian” items are ready to pour into Gaza. No Qassam rockets for Hamas but soon, if we are to believe them, Gaza’s shops will be as well-stocked as your average Wal-Mart.

Be sure, it won’t happen.  (The centuries old Zionist art of deception?.)

Currently, only a quarter of the number once permitted are able to deliver their cargo, and that is unlikely to change to any significant degree. Moreover, as part of the “security” blockade, the ban is expected to remain on items such as cement and steel desperately needed to build and repair the thousands of homes devastated by Israel’s attack 18 months ago.
In any case, until Gaza’s borders, port and airspace are its own, its factories are rebuilt, and exports are again possible, the hobbled economy has no hope of recovering. For the overwhelming majority of Palestinians in Gaza, mired in poverty, the new list of permissible items – including coriander – will remain nothing more than an aspiration.
But more importantly for Israel, by concentrating our attention on the supposed ending of the “civilian” blockade, Israel hopes we will forget to ask a more pertinent question: what is the purpose of this refashioned “security” blockade?
None of the reasons stands up to minimal scrutiny. Hamas is more powerful than ever; the rocket attacks all but ceased long ago; arms smugglers use the plentiful tunnels under the Egyptian border, not Erez or Karni crossings; and Sgt Shalit would already be home had Israel seriously wanted to trade him for an end to the siege.
The real goal of the blockade was set out in blunt fashion at its inception, in early 2006, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Dov Weisglass, the government’s chief adviser at the time, said it would put Palestinians in Gaza “on a diet, but not make them die of hunger”. Aid agencies can testify to the rampant malnutrition that followed. The ultimate aim, Mr Weisglass admitted, was to punish ordinary Gazans in the hope that they would overthrow Hamas.

Is Mr Weisglass a relic of the pre-Netanyahu era, his blockade-as-diet long ago superseded? Not a bit. Only last month, during a court case against the siege, Mr Netanyahu’s government justified the policy not as a security measure but as “economic warfare” against Gaza. One document even set out the minimum calories – or “red lines”, as they were also referred to – needed by Gazans according to their age and sex.  [Did even the Nazis go this far? IMHO, I think not]
In truth, Israel’s “security” blockade is, in both its old and new incarnations, every bit a “civilian” blockade. It was designed and continues to be “collective punishment” of the people of Gaza for electing the wrong rulers. Helpfully, international law defines the status of Israel’s policy: it is a crime against humanity. [And every concept of civilization and the UN Charter]
Easing the siege so that Gaza starves more slowly may be better than nothing. But breaking 1.5 million Palestinians out of the prison Israel has built for them is the real duty of the international community.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net

A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

 

 

 

Imagine the effect of your article above John if it was allowed to be promulgated in the Main Stream Media as is so much mis-information?

When I was a teenager in 1945, the Jewish Holocaust was only news to me (and IMHO, most Australians) when the war was almost ended.  It was reported in the more dignified media (due to wartime regulations of that time) that the Holocaust had occurred and that the Allies [the US/British Commonwealth/Russians and the Europeans] had known about the concentration camps for some considerable time.

With the normal “if only” ramifications which follow a crime such of that magnitude being ignored and not even used as an added incentive for the ultimate destruction of the Nazi regime, one has to wonder why.

Modern War is the most demonstrative example of brute force the world has ever known.  There is no honor in War – winning or losing – but I remember that, in hind sight the Allies were criticized for NOT bombing the known concentration camps and providing the starving inmates with a quick death.

In retrospect I was horrified with that observation and I am glad that the Allies resisted the temptation because, “hope springs eternal” and some of these innocents were saved and treated who would otherwise have died.

In contrast, the behavior of the Zionist Organizations even during the war with Germany and before, have been guilty of encouraging these Jewish people to be persecuted and even imprisoned simply because they were Jewish and considered as a major part of the “untermenshen” with the other people of eastern Europe. 

And so the Nuremburg trials began and the criminals who apparently masterminded the war to purify the European nations of “lesser peoples” were dealt with under international law.  [What happened to that?]

And it was done without suggesting any responsibility for those crimes to the Zionists who had made arrangements with the Hitler regime to satisfy the ultimate objectives of both the European Nazis - who wanted to rid Europe of the Jews - and the Zionist Jews who wanted to absorb the expelled Jewish citizens from Europe to be welcomed into what was then Palestine.

So now we have an inverse situation where the “Nazis” are the “Zionists” in occupied Palestine, and the new and more permanent HOLOCAUST is against the Palestinians, who had nothing to do with the plight of the Zionist Jews. But what does that matter?

The resolution to these festering cancers is to remove the UN power of veto from the tainted and Jewish controlled US from the Security Council along with all other nations of equal military power. 

The much abused Muslim nations are correct when they claim that the UN Security Council itself denies equal rights to all participating Nations.

We have just seen in Australia the power of the Zionist media which controls, by financial persuasion or threat, most of the governments of the western world.

[See the toon above] God bless Australia and may we someday become independent?  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

Israeli Foreign Minister Wants Palestinians Stripped Of
Citizenship And Relocated

By Jonathan Cook  27 June, 2010  (From Countercurrents - emphasis added)
The National

NAZARETH: Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s far-right foreign minister, set out this week what he called a “blueprint for a resolution to the conflict” with the Palestinians that demands most of the country’s large Palestinian minority be stripped of citizenship and relocated outside Israel’s future borders. [Now that is a neat turn of phrase - open ended yet – tut tut]

Mr Lieberman said that Israel faced growing diplomatic pressure for a full withdrawal to the Green Line, the pre-1967 border, and if such a partition were implemented, “the conflict will inevitably pass beyond those borders and into Israel”.  [That would still represent a “win” to the Zionist invaders and murderers]

He accused many of Israel’s 1.3 million Palestinian citizens of acting against Israel while their leaders “actively assist those who want to destroy the Jewish state”.  [Is it “Israeli” or “Jewish” – can’t be both – two different origins]

Mr Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party campaigned in last year’s elections on a platform of “No loyalty, no citizenship” and has proposed a raft of loyalty laws over the past year targeted at the Palestinian minority.  [What a bloody cheek – it is already Palestinian land and the Zionists are illegal by any measure]

Unusually, Mr Lieberman, who is also deputy prime minister, offered his plan in a commentary for the English-language Jerusalem Post daily newspaper, apparently in an attempt to make maximum impact on the international community. [But, did he mention his plan to bomb the Aswan Dam to kill an estimated 80 million Egyptians?]

Mr Lieberman’s revival of his “population transfer” plan – an idea he unveiled six years ago – comes as the Israeli leadership has understood that it is “isolated like never before”, according to Michael Warschawski, an Israeli analyst.

Mr Netanyahu’s government has all but stopped paying lip service to US-sponsored “proximity talks” with the Palestinians after outraging global public opinion with attacks on Gaza 18 months ago and on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla four weeks ago in which nine peace activists were killed.

Israel’s relations with the international community are likely to deteriorate further in late summer when a 10-month partial freeze on settlement expansion in the West Bank expires. Yesterday, Mr Netanyahu refused to answer questions about the freeze, after a vote by his Likud party’s central committee to support renewed settlement building from late September.

Other looming diplomatic headaches for Israel are the return of the Goldstone Report, which suggested Israel committed war crimes in its attack on Gaza, to the United Nations General Assembly in late July, and Turkey’s adoption of the rotating presidency of the Security Council in September.

Mr Warschawski, a founder of the Alternative Information Centre, a joint Israeli-Palestinian advocacy group, said that, faced with these crises, Israel’s political elite had split into two camps.

On the other hand, Tzipi Livni, the head of the centre-right opposition Kadima party, Mr Warschawski said, wanted to damp down the international backlash by engaging in direct negotiations with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas.  [That is the danger.  Mr. Abbas had the peaceful intentions when he backed down on the Palestinian West Bank remaining just that and the Zionists have nothing but contempt for him.  He was NOT the Palestinian President when the Palestinians voted for Hamas and the Jews picked Abbas – shades of Iraq and Afghanistan?]

Mr Lieberman’s commentary came a day after he told Ms Livni that she could join the government only if she accepted “the principle of trading territory and population as the solution to the Palestinian issue, and give up the principle of land for peace”.  Mr Lieberman is reportedly concerned that Mr Netanyahu might seek to bring Ms Livni into a national unity government to placate the US and prop up the legitimacy of his coalition. The Labour Party has threatened to quit the government if Kadima does not join by the end of September, and Ms Livni is reported to want the foreign ministry. [Interesting since Ms Livni is “debited” with being the architect of the murderous Gaza Invasion]

Mr Lieberman’s position is further threatened by a series of corruption investigations.  [Normal for Jewish power brokers?]

However, he also appears keen to take the initiative from both Washington and Ms Livni with his own “peace plan”. An unnamed aide to Mr Lieberman told the Jerusalem Post that, with a vacuum in the diplomatic process, the foreign minister “thinks he can convince the government to adopt the plan”.

This week Uzi Arad, the government’s shadowy national security adviser and a long-time confidant of Mr Netanyahu, made a rare public statement at a meeting of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem to attack Ms Livni for “political adventurism” and believing in the “magic” of a two-state solution.

Apparently reflecting Mr Netanyahu’s own thinking, he said: “The more you market Palestinian legitimacy, the more you bring about a detraction of Israel’s legitimacy in certain circles. [The Palestinians] are accumulating legitimacy, and we are being delegitimised.” [I am still at a loss due to the lack of consistency in just about everything the Zionists say and agree to - as opposed to what they actually finish up doing.  How do you “delegitimize” something that is illegitimate?]

In his commentary, Mr Lieberman said the international community’s peace plan would lead to “the one-and-a-half to half state solution”: “a homogeneous, pure Palestinian state”, from which Jewish settlers were expelled, and “a binational state in Israel”, which included many Palestinian citizens.

Palestinians, in both the territories and inside Israel, he said, could not “continue to incite against Israel, glorify murder, stigmatise Israel in international forums, boycott Israeli goods and mount legal offensives against Israeli officials”. [The Howard/Abbott tactic of accusing your opponents of doing – exactly what you are doing yourself?]

© Copyright of Abu Dhabi Media Company PJSC.  End of quote.

COMMENT:  And so we citizens of the “other world” [non Zionist] should remember that the Zionist invaders of Palestine have lied and murdered their way into the occupation of a sovereign nation under the guises of a) helpless Holocaust survivors - mainly crap, b) welcomed “stateless” people to Palestine, c) intentional invading terrorists mainly from the Russia and Poland and d) the military suppression of an indigenous race of Palestinians.  And this over a period of 60 plus years of ignored oppression and in confirmation of the fact that the Zionists and their fellow-travellers are totally incapable of negotiating anything that they have captured by deceit or by being a “smarter liar” than other races.

God Bless Australia and may we at least learn from the suffering of those who have capitulated to the Jewish World Councils – like the US.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

Good article John and one that tends to explain the very organized and financed policies of the international Jewish Organizations - and there are as many of them as there are stars on the American flag – perhaps more.

Just a side issue to explain my disgust at the behavior of the Zionists.

Like many other Australian families - one of my brothers was financially helped by Jewish money lenders and it took most of us some considerable time to get him out of it.  And yet, in all that time that he was [as the falsely named Richard Tonkin once insulted me) reliant to the evil grip of those Jewish money lenders and their capacity to maintain that domination in their "democracies" - he hated them because he really hated his incompetence to refuse their offers – and then it was too late. A gambler society by exploitation of a weakness?

During my research for truth, begun in my twilight years, I have learned a lot from this forum and perhaps some explanations for my doubts of many years ago. Nevertheless, I am still proud of the fact that I have been a Free Mason for sixty years now and have continued the belief in the honesty and truth of that Brotherhood, as did my Father and all of his brothers before me.

I was therefor shocked John, at the finally exposed behavior of the Zionist invaders of Palestine.  I have no special axe to grind for the Arabs but I rebel when I learn that the Hebrews were only one part of the Semites and distinguished only by their language.

And the facts surfacing that the Jewish World Councils had a hand in the destruction of the Germans in WW I – and that while they were considered allies of the nation they betrayed. 

And their involvement in WW II by declaring war on Germany in 1933 which preceded the infamous deal between Hitler (to move the Jewish people out of Europe) and the Zionists who cultivated the persecution of the loyal but innocent Jewish people of Europe - to force their “escape” to Palestine.

And now – due to the planned and executed policies of the Jewish Zionist organizations - we have their attempt at profiting from yet another war in the Middle East. Which would benefit the US of course.

Each of these manipulations of “democracies” has resulted in a disproportionate power for the contemporarily estimated .22% of the world’s population.

Your figures do not surprise me John except to compare the Jewish corrupted politicians (my opinion) in the UK with those in the US.  In the corruption stakes per capita, the Poms are even outdoing the yanks?

When Hitler learned of the “trade war against Germany” by the Jewish world organizations, he responded in kind by marking the Jewish businesses with the words “Jude”.  What would you expect when a race spread all over the world was felt obligated to the directions of their central control in boycotting all of their world trade with Germany? 

We have now seen the dramatic effect of those sorts of politically biased sanctions on nations which have only been used to weaken them for a planned invasion. Beware Iran?

The unholy US/UK/Zionist alliance to oppress the Arab nations of the Middle East while exploiting them (excepting the Hebrews) must be evident to all of the so-called “free democracies” which, by definition means subject to the dictates of the “powers that be”.

God Bless Australia and, while we have lost the opportunity to prove to the foreign “purchasers” of our resources that we will control our own destiny, the Murdoch Jewish Media is still in the race to crush our independent beliefs.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

I think that the most important conundrum in the next Federal Election is - who runs this country?

As I have stated, I have lived through 19 Australian Prime Ministers and only two have tried to make our nation the "lucky country".  Both Labor - Gough Whitlam in 1975 and Kevin Rudd in 2010. And who destroyed their dream? The foreign owned media who we uneducated people tended to believe?

The specter of unemployment has been used consistently by the foreign owners of our resources and yet, the Rudd government proved by their consideration for the worker's families, that this doesn't have to be.

The Corporation’s party for the Corporations was activated by the biggest extreme conservative basis of misinformation - the Murdoch media.

While this forum considers the disproportionate power of the Jewish organizations in the world, we in Australia, have a brutal and vicious example of the abuse of that power.  Hence, the small faction with the most power is more effective than the large faction with the least power.

For goodness sakes – to execute a Prime Minister of Australia - that was once ours - certainly needed the prosecution of the extreme right of foreign politics while refusing to consider the positive; worker orientated achievements of the Labor Government. 

Perhaps, in early 2010, the Jewish control mechanisms must have decided that Kevin Rudd had so much support from the “untermenshen” that he may well consider the chance of independence?  A Republic?  A nation united by the majority of their people.  That cannot be allowed.

Whatever happens now, we the “sheople” will be unfairly and insultingly influenced by the “powers that be”.

Beware of Julia meeting with Rupert Murdoch as did Abbott before the assassination of Kevin Rudd.

God Bless Australia and how can we remove the constraints of American classed “democracy”.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

 

G-8 'Fully Believes' Israel Will Attack Iran, Says Italy PM

By Yossi Melman  28 June, 2010 (From CounterCurrents - emphasis added)
Haaretz

World leaders "believe absolutely" that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Saturday.

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders north of Toronto.

The leaders of the G-8, which comprises Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Canada and the United States, devoted much of their two-day session to discussion of the contentious nuclear programs unfolding in North Korea and Iran.  [Not the Zionists?]

The leaders issued a statement on Saturday calling on Iran to "respect the rule of law" and to "hold a "transparent dialogue" over its nuclear ambitions.

In their communiqué, the leaders of the world's richest countries said they respected Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program, but noted that such a right must be accompanied by commitment to international law. [And that of course includes the Zionists?]
"We are profoundly concerned by Iran's continued lack of transparency regarding its nuclear activities and its stated intention to continue and expand enriching uranium, including to nearly 20 percent," they said in a communique. [If Iran has not been transparent - who says that they are enriching to 20 percent?]

"Our goal is to persuade Iran's leaders to engage in a transparent dialogue about its nuclear activities and to meet Iran's international obligations," adding that they urged the Islamic Republic "to implement relevant resolutions to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."

Their conclusions followed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration late last week that Tehran was prepared to lay down its conditions to the international community regarding discussion of its nuclear program.

COMMENT:  IF this is true - since it was written by a Zionist Newspaper and even quotes a corrupt Politician – then it is the most hypocritical and destructive bushit since Iraq and Afghanistan.  Do we ask ourselves WHY  murdering Iranians as well, without any proof other than the whining Zionists who have actually been committing the very same crimes that Iran is accused of.  What a crock.  WHY don’t the criminal Americans invade Nth. Korea who is doing “a Jewish act” by NOT denying or confirming?  Because of the Zionists of course.  The Iranians have been following the requirements of the UN in every single respect even signing the non-proliferation treaty while the Zionists have ignored them all – including nuclear weapons!!!

Worse than the Nazis before them the Zionist Jews are thumbing their noses at the entire world by never ever trying to adjust to any international law so, could their desire to crush another Arab nation be a diversion from their consistent abuse of military power? And that most of the world is finally waking up to it?  Some free nations even contemplating sanctions against Zionists for a change?

The Zionists have used their military power without just cause and have “obliquely flaunted” their ability to use Nuclear weapons whenever and against whoever they wish – they only understand Absolute Force and of all the criminals in the world the Zionists deserve to suffer by their own rules plus some.  Perhaps they were responsible for the 9/11 tragedy as well - it certainly helped Bush's war plans.

God Bless Australia and hope we soon free ourselves of association with the world’s worst criminals (after the US).   NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

 

Knowing The Truth Timely

By Fidel Castro 28 June, 2010 [From CounterCurrents – emphasis added]
Cuba.cu

As I was writing every one of my previous Reflections, and a catastrophe was quickly zeroing in on humanity, my major concern was to fulfill the primary duty to inform our people. Obama has committed to attend the quarterfinals match on July 2, if his country’s team makes it to that stage. He supposedly knows better than anyone that the quarterfinals will not be contested because very serious developments will take place before that; or at least he should know. [That prediction could be interesting]

Last Friday, June 25, an international press agency known for the attention to details in its reports, published a statement by the “…Navy Commander of the elite Corps of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution General Ali Fadavi…,” warning “…that if the United States and its allies inspect Iranian ships in international waters ‘they will have their response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.’” [Are the Iranians entitled to defend themselves?]

The information was taken from the local news agency Mehr of Iran.  According to the press dispatch, said news agency reported that “Fadavi added that ‘the Navy of the Revolutionary Guardians currently has hundreds of vessels equipped with missile launchers." [I find myself wanting to cheer.]

The coincidence can be explained by the simple use of a logical reasoning. I was completely unaware of what the Iranian local agency had published.

I have absolutely no doubt that as soon as the American and Israeli warships are deployed –alongside the rest of the American military vessels positioned off the Iranian coasts-- and they try to inspect the first merchant ship from that country, there will be a massive launching of missiles in both directions. At that moment exactly the terrible war will begin. It’s not possible to estimate how many vessels will be sunk or from what country. [Previously the Zionists have always used their superiority in aircraft and robots to maximize effect and hide their heroes?]

Knowing the truth timely is the most important thing for our people. That is precisely what we expect of our compatriots. But it would be worse to suddenly become aware of extremely gave [sic] events without having heard as much as a news about such possibility. Then there would be confusion and panic, and that would be unworthy of our heroic Cuban people, which was very close to becoming the target of a massive nuclear strike on October 1962, and still did not hesitate for a second in discharging its duty.

Our brave combatants and the military chiefs of our Revolutionary Armed Forces taking part in heroic internationalist missions were close to becoming the victims of nuclear strikes against the Cuban troops deployed close to the Angolan south border from where the South African racist forces --at the time positioned on the Namibian border-- had been expelled after the battle of Cuito Cuanavale.

The Pentagon, with the consent of the President of the United States, supplied the South African racists through Israel with about 14 nuclear bombs, more powerful than those dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as we have indicated in previous Reflections.

I am neither a prophet nor a fortune teller. Nobody told me a word of what was to happen. It has all been the result of what I today describe as a logical reasoning.

Under such circumstances, it will not be possible to talk of capitalism or socialism. A stage will open that will see the management of the available goods and services in this part of the continent. Certainly, every country will continue being ruled by those who head the governments today, some very close to socialism and others euphoric over the opening of the world market to fuels, uranium, copper, lithium, aluminum, iron and other metals being sent to the developed and rich countries today that will suddenly disappear.

An abundance of food exported now to that world market will also disappear abruptly.  In these circumstances, the most basic products needed for life: food, water, fuels, and the resources found in the hemisphere south of the United States will suffice to preserve some of the civilization whose unbridled advance has led humanity into such a disaster.

Nevertheless, there are still some uncertainties. Will the two mightiest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, be able to refrain from using their nuclear weapons against each other?  [Or with the Zionists who caused WW’s I and II preemptively cause a third?]

There is no doubt, however, that from Europe the nuclear weapons of Great Britain and France, allied with the United States and Israel, --the same that enthusiastically imposed the resolution that will inevitably unleash the war, which for the abovementioned reasons will immediately become nuclear-- are threatening the Russian territory even though this country and China have done everything within their capabilities to prevent the conflict.

The economy of the superpower will fall to pieces like a house of cards. The American society is the least prepared to endure a catastrophe like the one the empire has created in the same territory where it started.

We don’t know which will be the effect on the environment of the nuclear weapons that will unavoidably explode in various parts of the world, and that in the least serious variant will happen in abundance.

As for me, to advance a hypothesis would be pure science fiction.

Fidel Castro Ruz
June 27, 2010
2:15 PM

COMMENT: If this is spot on, and the actions of the US and the Zionists may seem to indicate that it could be – one can at least be warned IF you were a member of NATO.  I have the impression that the Zionists have always had it their own way with respect to their wars of choice against the other Semites.

This in no way excuses the arrogant corrupt Senators and Congressmen of the US empire for being obligated to the weakness of greed which makes them vulnerable – even as predicted by the Protocols of Zion.

Some power, and I don’t think it matters a great deal who, must tap the unholy alliance of the US/Zionists on the shoulder and tell them to back off.  With the information pro and con which is available under this forum’s freedom, I would be at least careful of dismissing Castro’s warning – we do so at our peril.

God Bless Australia and may our statesperson’s take a neutral stance if that is possible.  I can’t think of anything worse than for a nation to suffer because of their loyalty which, by definition, will only benefit the object of that loyalty and, only if it succeeds.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

An American academic once told me: "Many people in the Islamic world think America does not believe in human rights, but they are wrong; America believes in human rights indeed, the problem is the American definition of human."

In other words: the American definition of 'human' is not a universal one. This is not purely an American characteristic; every culture faces the challenge of broadening its cultural limits and universalising its moral norms.

But among all human cultures and ideologies, the Israeli case is unique in its double standard.

Criminality wrapped in self-righteousness and aggression immersed in victimhood are a few striking characteristics of the Israeli reality and discourse.

The duality of "Israel's insistent emphasis upon its isolation and uniqueness, its claim to be both victim and hero," as Tony Judt wrote in Haaretz a few years ago, reflects the fragility and self-centeredness of the Israeli personality. This is not, unfortunately, exclusive to Israel's political elite, but rather it extends to their Zionist supporters worldwide, including those, such as novelist Elie Wiesel and philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who portray themselves in humanistic and aesthetic images.

I was profoundly moved by the graphic description of the atrocities committed during the Holocaust in Elie Wiesel's Night, which depicts his and his father's experience of a terrifying process that violates human life and degrades human dignity.

But I was struck by the tone of self-righteousness and self-justification in Wiesel's fictional Dawn, particularly when he writes: "The commandment thou shalt not kill was given from the summit of one of the mountains here in Palestine, and we were the only ones to obey it. But that all over ... in the days and weeks and months to come, you will have only one purpose: to kill those who have made us killers."

The roots of Israeli exceptionalism

Turkey, the US and Empire's Twilight

By CONN HALLINAN (From Counterpunch – selection and emphasis added).

When U.S. forces found themselves beset by a growing insurgency in Iraq following their lighting overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the most obvious parallel that came to mind was Vietnam: an occupying army, far from home, besieged by a shadowy foe. But Patrick Cockburn, ace Middle East reporter for the Independent and CounterPunch, suggested that the escalating chaos was more like the Boer War than the conflict in Southeast Asia.

It was a parallel that went past most Americans, very few of whom know anything about the short, savage turn of the century war between Dutch settlers and the British Empire in South Africa. But the analogy explains a great deal about the growing influence of a country like Turkey, and why Washington, despite its military power and economic clout, can no longer dominate regional and global politics.

Take the current tension in U.S. –Turkish relations around Iran and Israel.

The most common U.S. interpretation of the joint Turkish-Brazilian peace plan for Iran, as well as Ankara’s falling out with Israel over the latter’s assault on the Gaza flotilla, is that Turkey is “looking East.” Rationales run the gamut from rising Islamicism, to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ explanation that the West alienated Turkey when it blocked Ankara from joining the European Union (EU).

While Turkey’s rise does indeed reflect internal developments in that country, its growing influence mirrors the ebb of American power, a consequence of the catastrophic policies Washington has followed in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Davutoglu’s observation about “a new global” order is an implicit critique of a United Nations’ Security Council dominated by the veto power of the “Big Five”: the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China. Increasingly countries like Turkey, Brazil and India are unhappy with the current setup, and either want a place at the table or a reduction of the Council’s power. The latest Iran sanctions passed 12 to 2 to 1 in the Council. They would have failed in the General Assembly.

Turkey has expanded ties with Iran and worked closely with Russia on energy and trade. It has even tried to thaw relations with Armenia. It has mediated between Damascus and Tel Aviv, brokered peace talks between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, and Serbians and Bosnians in the Balkans, and tried to reduce tension in the Caucasus. It has also opened 15 embassies in Africa and two in Latin America.

Its foreign policy is “multi-dimensional ” says Davutoglu, which “means that good relations with Russia are not an alternative to relations with the EU,” an explicit repudiation of the zero-sum game diplomacy that characterized the Cold War.

Turkey’s ascendancy is partly a reflection of a political vacuum in the Middle East. The U.S.’s traditional allies in the region, like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are increasingly isolated, distracted by economic troubles, paranoid about internal opposition, and nervous about Iran.

This growing influence has not been well received by the U.S., particularly the recent deal to enrich Iran’s nuclear fuel. But from the Turks’ point of view, the nuclear compromise was an effort to ratchet down tensions in a volatile neighborhood. Turkey is no more in favor of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons than is the U.S., but as Laciner says, it also doesn’t “want another Iraq.”

Ankara’s falling out with Israel is attributed to the growth of Islam, but while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party does have a streak of Islamicism, Turkey’s anger at Israel is over policy not religion. The current Israeli government has no interest in resolving its dispute with the Palestinians, and leading members of the Netanyahu coalition have threatened war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

A war with any of those countries might go regional, and could even turn nuclear if the Israelis find their conventional weapons are not up to the job of knocking out their opponents.

Turkey has begun working closely with other nations who would also benefit from a reduction in international tension. Ankara’s partnership with Brasilia is no accident. Like Turkey, Brazil’s economy is humming, and Brazil has been key in knitting together Mercosur, the third largest trade organization in the world. It has also played no small part in helping South America to become one of the most peaceful regions in the world.

The U.S., on the other hand, has drawn widespread anger for its support of the Honduran government, expanding its military bases in Colombia, and its increasingly unpopular war on drugs. If much of the world concludes that regional powers like Turkey and Brazil are centers of stability, while the U.S. seems increasingly ham fisted or ineffectual, one can hardly blame them.

The British eventually triumphed in the 1899-1902 Boer War, but what was predicted to be a cakewalk for the most powerful military in the world turned into the longest and most expensive of Britain’s colonial wars. In the end the British won only by herding Boer women and children into concentration camps, where 28,000 of them died of starvation and disease.

All over the colonial world people took notice: a ragtag guerrilla force had fought the mighty British army to a stalemate. The Boer War exposed the underlying weakness of the British Empire, just as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that the era when powerful countries could use force to dominate a region or the globe is over.

“The world is not going to take the diktats of the powers that have run it for the past two or three hundred years,” political scientist Soli Ozel of Bilgi University in Istanbul told the Financial Times.

COMMENT:  It seems to me that Turkey, Russia and Brazil are making every effort to bring the unholy US/Zionist alliance back to reality that war will NOT profit them anymore, nor will it protect the evil that they have spawned in the Middle East.

God Bless Australia and may we direct our influence to the “peacemakers” that are starting to be heard by all.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

It should be perfectly obvious to the entire planet that the war of "wiped off the map" and "threats to our existence" is, and has been from the beginning, the doctrine of the Zionists and not the Iranians.

Not of the Arabs – not of Iraq – not of Afghanistan – and certainly NOT OF IRAN. Yet the Jewish controlled media keeps bleating about “they THINK this” or “a traveling circus advised us” and many other methods of guilt by suggestion - that the Iranians are doing this and that” which by definition means that they do not trust Turkey or Brazil and the peace deal they have achieved so easily with the Iranian government?

Let’s talk about proof.  There is no proof that the Iranians have NOT abided by the UN nuclear regulations, in every case, for all signatures to the Non Proliferation treaty – as the US/Zionists have claimed – except for the Jews themselves of occupied Palestine – they do not even condescend to sign the treaty and they store a large number of nuclear weapons.

Who would any logical person be most wary of?  Who has broken virtually every rule of civilization; every UN resolution; every agreement or contract that they have ever made with anyone?  Including the emasculated United States of America?

Logic dictates that IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANET’S CITIZENS, WHO USES THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR UNLESS -THEY GET THEIR DEMANDS COMPLIED WITH IN EVERY CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY THAT THEY HAVE DONE OR INTEND TO DO, THEN THE WORLD MUST ATTACK THEM BEFORE THEY DECIDE TO ATTACK OTHERS.

Preemptive strikes have now been confirmed and authorized by the US, the UN Security Council and of course, the Zionists of occupied Palestine.

Iran is a sovereign State and only guilty of complying with the regulations that it signed on behalf of its people. Conversely, the Zionist invaders of Palestine do NOT constitute a sovereign State; are illegal murderers by any measure and should at least suffer the threats that they so easily apply to any legal State in the Middle East.

God Bless Australia and remember “On the Beach” nuclear movie.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

We Can’t Afford War

By Amy Goodman  30 June, 2010 (From CounterCurrents - selection and emphasis added)
Truthdig.com

“General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts,” began the MoveOn.org attack ad against Gen. David Petraeus back in 2007, after he had delivered a report to Congress on the status of the war in Iraq. George W. Bush was president, and MoveOn was accusing Petraeus of “cooking the books for the White House.” The campaign asked “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” on a full-page ad in The Washington Post. MoveOn took tremendous heat for the campaign, but stood its ground.

Three years later, Barack Obama is president, Petraeus has become his man in Afghanistan, and MoveOn pulls the critical Web content. Why? Because Bush’s first war, Afghanistan, has become Obama’s war, a quagmire. The U.S. will eventually negotiate its withdrawal from Afghanistan. The only difference between now and then will be the number of dead, on all sides, and the amount of (borrowed) money that will be spent.

Petraeus’ confirmation to become the military commander in Afghanistan was never in question. He replaces Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who resigned shortly after his macho criticisms of his civilian leadership became public in a recent Rolling Stone magazine article.

The statistics for Afghanistan, Obama’s Vietnam, are surging. June, with at least 100 U.S. deaths, is the highest number reported since the invasion in 2001. 2010 is on pace to be the year with the highest U.S. fatalities. Similar fates have befallen soldiers from the other, so-called coalition countries. Petraeus is becoming commander not only of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, but of all forces, as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is run by NATO.

U.S. troops, expected to rise to 98,000 this year, far outnumber those from other nations. Public and political support in many of those countries is waning.

Journalist Michael Hastings, who wrote the Rolling Stone piece, was in Paris with McChrystal to profile him. What didn’t get as much attention was Hastings’ description of why McChrystal was there:

“He’s in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies—to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany’s president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.”

The whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.org, which received international attention after releasing leaked video from a U.S. attack helicopter showing the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad, has just posted a confidential CIA memo detailing possible public relations strategies to counter waning public support for the Afghan War. The agency memo reads: “If domestic politics forces the Dutch to depart, politicians elsewhere might cite a precedent for ‘listening to the voters.’ French and German leaders have over the past two years taken steps to preempt an upsurge of opposition but their vulnerability may be higher now.”

I just returned from Toronto, covering the G-20 summit and the protests. The gathered leaders pledged, among other things, to reduce government deficits by 50 percent by 2013. In the U.S., that means cutting $800 billion, or about 20 percent of the budget. Two Nobel Prize-winning economists have weighed in with grave predictions. Joseph Stiglitz said, “There are many cases where these kinds of austerity measures have led to ... recessions into depressions.” And Paul Krugman wrote: “Who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.”

In order to make the cuts promised, Obama would have to raise taxes and cut social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Or he could cut the war budget. I say “war budget” because it is not to be confused with a defense budget. Cities and states across the country are facing devastating budget crises. Pensions are being wiped out. Foreclosures are continuing at record levels. A true defense budget would shore up our schools, our roads, our towns, our social safety net. The U.S. House of Representatives is under pressure to pass a $33 billion Afghan War supplemental this week.

We can’t afford war.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.  End of Quote.

God Bless Australia. NE OUBLIE.

 

 

We Can’t Afford War

By Amy Goodman

30 June, 2010
Truthdig.com

“General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts,” began the MoveOn.org attack ad against Gen. David Petraeus back in 2007, after he had delivered a report to Congress on the status of the war in Iraq. George W. Bush was president, and MoveOn was accusing Petraeus of “cooking the books for the White House.” The campaign asked “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” on a full-page ad in The Washington Post. MoveOn took tremendous heat for the campaign, but stood its ground.

Three years later, Barack Obama is president, Petraeus has become his man in Afghanistan, and MoveOn pulls the critical Web content. Why? Because Bush’s first war, Afghanistan, has become Obama’s war, a quagmire. The U.S. will eventually negotiate its withdrawal from Afghanistan. The only difference between now and then will be the number of dead, on all sides, and the amount of (borrowed) money that will be spent.

Petraeus’ confirmation to become the military commander in Afghanistan was never in question. He replaces Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who resigned shortly after his macho criticisms of his civilian leadership became public in a recent Rolling Stone magazine article.

The statistics for Afghanistan, Obama’s Vietnam, are surging. June, with at least 100 U.S. deaths, is the highest number reported since the invasion in 2001. 2010 is on pace to be the year with the highest U.S. fatalities. Similar fates have befallen soldiers from the other, so-called coalition countries. Petraeus is becoming commander not only of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, but of all forces, as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is run by NATO.

U.S. troops, expected to rise to 98,000 this year, far outnumber those from other nations. Public and political support in many of those countries is waning.

Journalist Michael Hastings, who wrote the Rolling Stone piece, was in Paris with McChrystal to profile him. What didn’t get as much attention was Hastings’ description of why McChrystal was there:

“He’s in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies—to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany’s president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.”

The whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.org, which received international attention after releasing leaked video from a U.S. attack helicopter showing the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad, has just posted a confidential CIA memo detailing possible public relations strategies to counter waning public support for the Afghan War. The agency memo reads: “If domestic politics forces the Dutch to depart, politicians elsewhere might cite a precedent for ‘listening to the voters.’ French and German leaders have over the past two years taken steps to preempt an upsurge of opposition but their vulnerability may be higher now.”

I just returned from Toronto, covering the G-20 summit and the protests. The gathered leaders pledged, among other things, to reduce government deficits by 50 percent by 2013. In the U.S., that means cutting $800 billion, or about 20 percent of the budget. Two Nobel Prize-winning economists have weighed in with grave predictions. Joseph Stiglitz said, “There are many cases where these kinds of austerity measures have led to ... recessions into depressions.” And Paul Krugman wrote: “Who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.”

In order to make the cuts promised, Obama would have to raise taxes and cut social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Or he could cut the war budget. I say “war budget” because it is not to be confused with a defense budget. Cities and states across the country are facing devastating budget crises. Pensions are being wiped out. Foreclosures are continuing at record levels. A true defense budget would shore up our schools, our roads, our towns, our social safety net. The U.S. House of Representatives is under pressure to pass a $33 billion Afghan War supplemental this week.

We can’t afford war.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

 

 

Dispatches From the Edge Guns of August in the Middle East?

By CONN HALLINAN (From Counter Punch - selection  and emphasis added)

Crazy talk about the Middle East seems to be escalating, backed up by some pretty ominous military deployments. First, the department of scary statements:

First up, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, speaking June 21 at Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv on why Israel should launch a pre-emptive strike at Iran: "I am of the opinion that, since there is an ongoing war, since the threat is permanent, since the intention of the enemy in this case is to annihilate you, the right doctrine is one of presumption and not retaliation."

Second up, Uzi Arad, Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's national security advisor, speaking before the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem June 22 on his belief that the "international community" would support an Israeli strike at Iran" "I don't see anyone who questions the legality of this or the legitimacy."

Third up, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi speaking to reporters at the G-8 meeting in Toronto June 26: "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."

Fourth up, Central Intelligence Director Leon Panetta predicting on ABC's "This Week" program June 27 that Iran could have two nuclear weapons by 2012: "We think they [Iran] have enough low-enriched uranium for two weapons...and while there is continuing debate [within Iran] right now about whether or not they ought to proceed with a bomb...they clearly are developing their nuclear capacity." He went on to say that the U.S. is sharing intelligence with Israelis and that Tel Aviv is "willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically and culturally and politically."

A few points:

1) Iran and Israel are not at war, a fact Shavit seems confused about.

2) Since the recent rounds of sanctions aimed at Iran would have lost in the United Nations General Assembly, it unclear who Arad thinks is the "international community."

3) Berlusconi is a bit of a loose cannon, but he is tight with the Israelis.

4) An Iran that is different "diplomatically and culturally and politically" sounds an awful lot like "regime change." Is that the "room" Panetta is talking about?

And it isn't all talk.

Following up the London Times report that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to fly through Saudi airspace to attack Iran, the Jerusalem Post, the Islam Times and the Iranian news agency Fars report that the Israeli air force has stockpiled equipment in the Saudi desert near Jordan.

According to the Post supplies were unloaded June 18 and 19 outside the Saudi city of Tabuk, and all civilian flights into the area were canceled during the two day period. The Post said that an "anonymous American defense official" claimed that Mossad chief Meir Dagan was the contact man with Saudi Arabia and had briefed Netanyahu on the plans.

The Gulf Daily News reported June 26 that Israel has moved warplanes to Georgia and Azerbaijan, which would greatly shorten the distance Israeli planes would have to fly to attack targets in northern Iran.

The U.S currently has two aircraft carriers-the Truman and the Eisenhower-plus more than a dozen support vessels in the Gulf of Hormuz, the strategic choke point leading into the Gulf of Iran.

The Saudis have vigorously denied the reports they are aiding the Israelis, and Shafeeq Ghabra, president of the American University of Kuwait, says "It would be impossible for the Saudis to allow an Israeli attack on Iran."

Trita Parsi of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington argues that the escalation of rhetoric is dangerous. "When you have that kind of political environment, you are leaving yourself no space to find another solution," she told the Christian Science Monitor. "You may very well end up in a situation where you are propelled to act, even though you understand it is an unwise action, but [do so] for political reasons."

The rhetoric is getting steamy, the weapons are moving into position, and it is beginning to feel like "The Guns of August" in the Middle East.

God Bless Australia and may we have the intelligence to see what is really happening.  NE OUBLIE.

The beginning of the uprising by”    Gus 9 April 2009.  And I quote in part....

 

In many ways we help our weak survive while most other species reject the weakest in the nest. If you find a young bird that can’t fly — still covered with juvenile down — at the foot of a tree, it’s not because it fell off in a strong breeze, but, more likely, it was pushed. Pushed either by a stronger sibling or even pushed by its parents, tired of feeding an offspring that could not really make it in the wider world... It was lucky it was not eaten, like in some bird species, by its stronger brother or sister... On that behavioral score, we’re sometimes very close to nature, but as a whole we are compassionate mostly because as an individual we “may be’ (we are) in the same boat as the weakling. We've learned to protect our own degeneracy by protecting all who suffer from some degeneration of sorts and thus accept that degeneracy is not a problem of survival when the weakest of the weak can survive in our midst...

 

There are many more of your observations with which I could take exception Gus however; my comfort zone is the K.I.S.S. principle and the basic ability to think reason and be logical that I believe are the natural born ability of a human child.

 

Your discourse is sad but very true in most aspects and we as humanity have a price to pay for our war against Mother Nature.  She will change to compensate for the actions of the survivors on this planet – the most destructive of which is humanity and “business as normal”.

 

I have not completely read the findings of Darwin but, (the logic resonates with me) nor have I read the “opinions” of the bible to any worthwhile extent but I cannot come to terms with your overall opinion that to save life that does not productively contribute to the ultimate profitable wealth and power of an unnecessary waster of time and money?

 

The very argument that I consider you are making is simply the asset and the only asset for humanity to survive and prosper - is the Survival of the Fittest?

 

I believe that the human species developed the ability to “change” and adjust to the demands of Mother nature, by the need to survive and prosper – and that happened.  Who is to say that the result of evolution of the Human race has been a success when we are asking the very people involved for their opinion?

 

The Essay (if that is the correct word) referred to in this post seems to me to have a very disappointed and even bitter point of view on humanity.  It seems to say that human compassion to fellowmen is as unprofitable as the Nazi; British; Turkish; and American caused holocausts currently being tut tutted in the societies related to the US/Zionist wars of choice.

 

And Gus, with respect, the countries in this selfish world of ours who have basically depended on Mother Nature to maintain their lives, have never, and never may, proper?  And yet they survive and I feel for them.

 

God Bless Australia and all animals of our world – including ours?  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

Yes, Ernest...

It is a constatation of fact that we try to help our weakest to survive... I see no sadness in that. So please do not be too disappointed (or mad at me) because as I explained in the same blog — philosophy is not dead. Philosophy is the stylistic conundrum that makes us accept and work out the conflicts in the human condition, warts and all, weak and strong, for ourselves individually or in a group. The relative underpinning of philosophy in my book is care. Care for ourself, care for others and care for the environment (social, natural, etc)... Care encompasses compassion and action.

There is often a blur — or conflicts — between our own survival, in which care for ourself is essential (should we wish to live at this point in time) and care for others becomes difficult or impossible in this context. I have seen friends torn apart, having to care for an extremely disabled progeny. I have seen friends who are approaching an age when they are not able to care any further for a very disabled daughter. I have seen friends caring for alzheimer spouses till it breaks them down. Caring can often be a lonely and difficult activity should we have no support such as a good extended family, a social network or a "caring" government that provide specialised care. I know some specialist carers who can only do it for so long, as the work becomes too taxing.

There is also a blur between caring at all cost, such as maintaining a moribund life with pipes and machines and the reality of nature that long ago would have terminated a life. And I know people who would prefer having their life terminated rather than enter a state of debility or dependency, expecially after having had a glorious existence.

My mother's most difficult decision in life was to pull the plug on my dad's body. But for her it was also the most caring and most loving gesture of all. Nothing is ever clear cut.

For example, IVF is a great process that helps otherwise infertile couples to have kids... So far there is no comprehensive statistic in regard to the increase in the need of IVF procedure in the future, due to the use of IVF now. There may be a illusory statistical level that may suddenly go over the cliff say in 50 years time... The lack of fertility can come from "mechanical" or compatibility problems as well as genetics. According to the law of natural selection, the process is probably weakening the species as a whole.

There are plenty of example in which "care" becomes expedient — such as giving oodles of kids pills that are consciousness modifying in order to "keep them quiet" or more "focused"... To me this care is wrong but is pushed by "caring" pharmaceuticals and often valued by caring "busy" parents... Goodness knows what these pills will do in the future to the kids...

Care can be paying attention and having joyful momentous interaction with people — but try to have innocent fun and games with a passing stranger's kids and you will be arrested for molestation...

The cost of health care can become out of reach with doctors fees, specialists dues, new machines, new medicines, more complex treatments... and suddenly the resultant bill gives us a heart attack or sends the government into bankruptcy.

When someone else takes over the right of a person (able or not) to life, that is Nazi, that is Zionism — slavery and ultimately turns into murder. Much "power and wealth" is fuelled by enslaving or cocooning other lives in one form or another, including by debt, and selected killings — under the protective banner of war-on-something else to "care" for us.

Caring for life is not a waste of time...

But for some, it can be a "waste of money". For others, caring becomes a business... as in "we care about your health — take this pill and don't worry about the side effects, even if you go blind... I've seen it.

Caring is precious to me... but trying to define the edges at which we should enact caring is sometimes hard — and should be hard — to define. That is why euthanasia is such a hard basket to legalise, as terminating a life might be the greatest form of caring and yet could be murder...

In June 2009 at a Madrid, Spain conference, Raji Sourani, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) Director made the case, saying:

"Today, the Gaza Strip lies in ruins" months after Israel's offensive, killing about 1,500, injuring over 5,000, and causing vast destruction - "an illegal form of collective punishment" ongoing for over three years under siege. "For too long now, Israel has been allowed to violate international law with impunity....This situation cannot be allowed to prevail....It is for this very reason that universal jurisdiction is so important....(It) offers hope to victims throughout the entire world, in many cases, it is their only hope." It's long past time to hold Israel accountable.

The Compelling Case for UC

A recent PCHR publication is titled, "The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction," explaining it in detail with examples, its highlights discussed below.

Though horrific, Cast Lead was just the latest example of decades of Israeli lawlessness - little discussed, unaddressed and unresolved. "Regrettably, this lack of accountability, and the resultant climate of impunity, has been a longstanding feature of Israel's" illegal occupation. "Israel has been allowed to act as a State above the law."

Yet it exists to be enforced. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. However, Palestinians have "limited judicial mechanisms available." According to the 1995 Israel-Palestine Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has no jurisdiction over Israel, including its officials, armed forces members, or other citizens.

Nonetheless, Israel is required to investigate and prosecute its citizens accused of international crimes, a responsibility it's ducked with impunity, a glaring deficiency in its judicial system, exempting war criminals from accountability, in violation of inviolable international standards and principles.

Universal Jurisdiction To Hold Israel Accountable

meanwhile ....

Harvard Management Company, which manages the university's endowment, has divested the fund from all investments it had in Israel companies, during the second quarter of this year. The divested stocks include TEVA, a generic drug manufacturer, that has greatly benefited from Israel's strangulation of several Palestinian pharmaceutical companies, Checkpoint Securities, which provided many of the technologies Israel uses humiliate, screen, and search Palestinians at road blocks, and Cellcom, a wireless communications company that provide communication services to the army, among others.

College-based divestment campaigns have intensified over the past few years, Harvard University included. And while the university made no statement in favor of divesting from Israel on ethical, human rights grounds, it is not unlike the administration to make such a move quietly and preempt having to answer to to immorality of holding such investment and hypocrisy in retaining them while touting the divestment from Apartheid South Africa as beacon of progressive ethic.

Harvard Divests From Israel

elsewhere .....

Arab nations have urged Washington and several other nuclear powers to push for inspections of Israel's nuclear programme, diplomats have told the Associated Press news agency.

In a letter sent ahead of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting scheduled for September, the Arab League also sought support for a resolution that calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The letter sent on August 8 was signed by Amr Moussa, the Arab League chief.

Besides Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, the letter was also sent to foreign ministers of Russia, China, Britain and France - the four other permanent UN Security Council members.

Obama warning

The letter comes one month after Barack Obama, the US president, warned the Arab world not to use the 150-nation IAEA forum to single out Israel.

Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, agreed to work together to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the upcoming IAEA conference.

At the time, Obama suggested that such a move would undermine the possibility of breakthrough talks on a Middle East nuclear-free zone, as proposed by the NPT conference three months ago.

But the Arab League letter says they were not attempting to single out Israel.

"Singling out a state assumes that there are a number of states in the same position and only one state was singled out," the letter says.

Referring to the NPT, the letter says: "The fact is that all the states in the region have acceded to the NPT except Israel."

Nuclear inspection of Israel sought

Myth 1:"This is an age-old conflict based on religion and mutual hatred." This is a conflict about land and human rights, not about religion. Prior to the Zionist movement, Jews were better treated in the Arab world than they were in much of the Christian West. There is nothing inherently incompatible about Jewish, Muslims, and Christians, but with the introduction of the Zionist movement seeking to--and eventually succeeding to--annex Palestine for one segment of the population while excluding and discriminating against the other segments of the population, you saw the emergence of violence. Israel was created and is maintained at the expense of Muslims and Christians in the area, who are denied their land and their human rights simply because they are not Jewish. This ongoing discriminatory system perpetuates the conflict today and until it is addressed we can expect no just or enduring peace.

Myth 2: "The occupation may be ugly, but it's for security" (note the switch from the previous narrative that "there is no occupation"). The majority of the institutions of Israel's occupation simply cannot be justified by security. Israel pays its citizens to move from Israel to the West Bank to live amidst the so-called "enemy"--does that make them safe? Israel has never declared its own borders, rather it expands them onto more and more of someone else's land--does that make Israel safer? Israel denies Palestinians sufficient water from their own water sources--Does that make Israelis safer? Although the narrative of "security" as motivation is accepted without question in mainstream media, it simply doesn't make sense when you look at the situation on the ground. Cutting Palestinians off from their families, schools, hospitals, and livelihoods will never make Israelis safer. If Israel is serious about ending Palestinian violence, it must acknowledge the roots of that violence.

Myth 3: "Israel has no partner for peace." On the contrary, Palestinians have no partner for peace. No Israeli offer has ever come close to fulfilling Palestinian human rights. Camp David II in 2000, often referred to as [former prime minister ] Ehud Barak's "Generous Offer," would have annexed 10% of the West Bank into Israel, including some of most fertile and water rich areas, home to 80,000 Palestinians. The 10% was spread around the West Bank, separating the "future Palestinian state" into an entire nonviable archipelago of isolated cantons, separating Palestinians from their land and each other. Finally, the proposal maintained Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem (and some control by Palestinians under that sovereignty) and ignored the human rights of the Palestinian refugees, who represent the vast majority of the Palestinian population. Offers by Palestinians and the Arab world including significant compromises have been consistently rebuffed by Israel:

In the 1970s, the PLO endorsed a comprehensive peace plan with Israel in exchange for its full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel rejected the offer.

In 2002, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, along with 21 other members of the Arab League, proposed not only peace but normal relations and regional integration with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation and a "just solution" to the issue of refugees. Israel rejected the offer. The Arab Peace Initiative was reiterated in 2007 and again refused.

Hamas has repeatedly offered a 30-year ceasefire with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation. Israel has dismissed this possibility and refused to talk to the elected Palestinian government on grounds that it refuses to renounce violence, recognize previous agreements, and recognize the existence of another people's state in historic Palestine. Interestingly, Israel is guilt of all three of the very things for which it faults Hamas.

Myth 4: "An end to the 1967 occupation would be an end to the injustice." The one is more prevalent in the peace and justice community. While an end to the occupation is a condition for peace, it is only one part of restoring Palestinian human rights. The rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel also need to be addressed. What does it mean to be a citizen of a state that does not represent you, and systematically discriminates against you? (and Mossawa are good sources for information about discrimination of Palestinians inside the Green Line.)

Moreover, the vast majority of Palestinians are families of refugees from 1948, who were forced to leave their homes in order to create a Jewish majority in a land where most people were Christian and Muslim. Still today, I, as a Jewish American, could go and live on land that was stolen from Palestinians and is now reserved exclusively for Jews. Meanwhile, a Palestinian born on that same land is forbidden simply because of his or her ethnic and religious background. An end to the occupation and a return to the 1967 borders solves the immediate problem of many (but not all) of the 4 million Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but it does not address the primary grievance of the vast majority of Palestinians, namely that they have been exiled from Palestine and can't go back because they are not Jews. Their right to come home and live at peace with their neighbors is reaffirmed year after year in the United Nations; it is not debatable, it's a right that belongs to all refugees, no matter what color their skin is.

An Up-close Look At The Israeli Occupation Of Palestine