U.S. WON'T SAVE ISRAEL FROM HANGING ITSELF

11 March 2012, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

The 'peace camp' has melted like ice after relying for years on strange mantras such as 'the Americans are opposed to the settlements,' 'the administration will initiate a peace plan,' and of course, 'the Israeli right is irritating our greatest friend in the West.'

By Yitzhak Laor

The two representatives of the region's vassal made a pilgrimage to the American capital to give President Barack Obama the two ends of the rope we're supposed to hang ourselves with - not all of us, not right away, not only us. First President Shimon Peres arrived as the representative of the "peace camp," and was followed immediately by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The "peace camp" has melted like ice after relying for years on strange mantras such as "the Americans are opposed to the settlements," "the administration will initiate a peace plan," and of course, "the Israeli right is irritating our greatest friend in the West." That was a baseless platform that eventually led to the peace camp's demise. You can't spend night and day making vain prophesies and recruiting supporters to the struggle. Peace Now, Meretz and the Labor Party relied on the best-quality hashish of "the Americans will not allow it." But the Americans gave, and how they gave! Dollars and burial stones.

Wars broke out, despite the strongest convictions of their opponents, as if the Americans were opposed, while the Israel Defense Forces, which is not an American army, heaven forbid, tried to be clever and outsmart the Americans. People believed that in the end, after the mass killings (in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip ), there would be a happy end and "the Americans would force a peace agreement on the sides" - because the Americans are a policeman on behalf of Western justice.

Now that the "peace camp" has waned and the people need the simple faith that we're the ones who decide on the agenda, Netanyahu's prestige is rising. According to the new folklore, the prime minister "dictated the Americans' agenda," as if Israel's strength weren't built by the Americans precisely for this necessity - the carrot and the stick of control in the Middle East. The stick is a direct Israeli threat, like the one against Iran. The carrot is "an Israeli withdrawal," "a comprehensive settlement" or "the United States will restrain Israel." The neighborhood thug will not attack because the U.S. will not allow him to.

This is a structure in which different forces act. The United States is a coalition of interests, sometimes even opposing interests, of those who support and those who oppose terrible wars - in the administration, in the economy and in politics. But the U.S. continues to act as it always has acted. Hans Morgenthau's doctrine dictates that they rely on the existing balance of power in regional conflicts.

There's no doubt that the United States has never been interested in the sources of the conflict with the Palestinians, but rather tries to benefit by nurturing it, fanning its flames, paying for it and "conducting negotiations" via the strong side to gain control in the region. There's no better example than the scuttling of the agreed-on solution by the two superpowers after the Yom Kippur War, in favor of a partial agreement that ensured control over the Palestinians and the extension of the settlements.

Within this structure, Israel's permanent role is to fix "an agenda," and the Americans' role is to say that "Israel has the right to defend itself" - and also to say the exact opposite.

Of course, within this structure there's great value in the "moderate camp" because the United States chooses the "moderate camp" from the strong side. That's why the visit by Peres - the statue of the "peace camp" - took place a day before Netanyahu's.
This is the rope Israel is gradually hanging itself with. Those celebrating the victory of Iran Now over Palestine Now know well that this Now - via the destructive power that the U.S. finances and which nurtures the settlements and the army - is designed to turn us into a country where it may be interesting to live but where it's also very bad to live.

Reputed novelist Grossman comes out against U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran

9 March 2012, The Israeli Communist Party המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית‎ (Israel)
info@maki.org.il

In his first public statement on the conflict with Iran, David Grossman, the leading Israeli novelist of the last generation and strongest voice of his country’s moral conscience, told "The Nation" that he opposed an attack on the Islamic republic by Israel or the U.S., saying the likely consequences were more daunting even than those of Iran building nuclear weapons.

“I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I think that if the sanctions do not work, Israel and the whole world, painfully, will have to live with it,” Grossman said, warning that bombing Iran would set in motion “a nightmare that’s hard to describe.” Nonetheless, he said he had “a very bad feeling” that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were going to order an attack, even against America’s wishes. “There is a dynamic to all these warlike declarations,” he said.

David Grossman during a demonstration against settlements in Sheikh Jarrah, Occupied East Jerusalem (Photo: Coteret)

spoke with Larry Derfner by phone from his home outside Jerusalem on Tuesday. The day before, Netanyahu had brought his militant views on Iran to a White House meeting with President Barack Obama, and later delivered a fright-inducing speech to the AIPAC convention, employing Holocaust analogies and vowing that “never again” would the Jewish people entrust their survival to any nation but their own.

“Israel,” said Grossman, “is a deeply traumatized community that finds it very difficult to separate between real dangers and echoes of past traumas, and sometimes I think our prime minister fires himself up in mixing these real dangers with those echoes from the past.”

He said he feared that Netanyahu and Barak would bomb Iran partly out of a perceived strategic need to back up their threats with action, but also because of what he sees as Netanyahu’s sense of historic responsibility to save the “people of eternity.”

“He has this idea that we are the people of eternity, am ha’netzach from the Bible, and our negotiations, as he sees it, are with eternity, with the primal currents of history and mankind, while the United States, with all due respect, is just another superpower like Rome or Athens or Babylon, and we’ve survived them all,” said Grossman. “I’m afraid that this way of thinking might encourage Netanyahu to take the step” of attacking Iran.

Grossman’s son, Uri, was killed in the 2006 Lebanon War two days after the author called publicly for a cease-fire, and while he was writing the last chapters of his greatly acclaimed epic of war and peace, “To the End of the Land.” An impassioned critic of Israeli militarism and treatment of Palestinians, he deplored the overkill of the December 2008-January 2009 war in Gaza, and took part in last year’s weekly protests against the dispossession of Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, getting beaten by Israeli police at one of them.

Citing the large presence of “more secular, educated, realistic” people in Iran, masses of whom protested bravely in 2009 against the regime, Grossman said this face of Iran held out the hope of a future leadership that might be less hostile to Israel – but he warned that this hope would be destroyed, too, in an Israeli attack.

“If Israel bombs Iran,” he said, “I think it will be seen as an arrogant, megalomaniacal, violent nation even by the most sober, moderate Iranians.” Thus, Israel’s hope for peace, or even just quiet, with a future, better Iranian government “would be eradicated for generations,” he maintained.

A Communist Party of Israel leading member praised Grossman declaration: "An attack on Iran will not prevent its further nuclear arming. An attack on Iran will enflame the entire Middle East. A nuclear Iran is indeed a threat to the region, but an attack will lead to an inevitable catastrophe. There's no agreement amongst the Israeli people for an attack that stands against our country's interest!"

Related:
David Grossman speaks out against war Iran

U.S. Arms Persian Gulf Allies For Conflict With Iran

18 november 2011,Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca (Canada)

By Rick Rozoff

Rumors and reports of, speculation over and scenarios for attacks against Iran’s civilian nuclear power facilities and military sites by the United States, Israel or both have flared up periodically over the past several years, especially since early 2005.

However, recent statements by among others the president and defense minister of Israel and a leading candidate for the American presidency in next year’s election – Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Mitt Romney respectively – before and after the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program manifest a more stark and menacing tone that has been heard in a long time. Standing U.S. head of state Barack Obama recently stated, “We are not taking any options off the table.”

The above threats and others of the same tenor have been noted in the capitals of countries around the world.

Last week the Global Times, a publication of the Communist Party of China, featured an unsigned editorial entitled “Winds of war start blowing toward Iran,” which contained these excerpts:

The financial crisis is showing cracks in the Western lifestyle, making people anxious and irritable. History teaches us that war can quickly raise its ugly head at such times. There are always those who think wars can be a catalyst to move past a crisis.”

“While the US and other Western countries are struggling economically, their military power reigns supreme. This contrast is inevitably tempting in their strategic thinking but would have a profoundly negative impact on world peace.”

“Military rhetoric is usually heard from Western mouths. Where will the next war happen? War first exists in the minds of those obsessed with military might. If war is treated as a tool to solve problems, new excuses for it can easily be found.”

“The last few days have seen tensions over Iran take a sharp turn for the worse. Some feel that the US and Israel should combine to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. This is reminiscent of those who encouraged NATO to hit Syria a few weeks ago.” [1]

On November 14 former Cuban president Fidel Castro warned that “a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably unleash a bloody war,” adding that because of the country’s size and comparative military strength “an attack on Iran is not like the previous Israeli military adventures in Iraq and Syria.” In fact, with a population as high as 75-77 million, Iran is larger in that regard than the last four nations attacked by the U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies combined: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Four days earlier Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma Committee for International Affairs, in casting grave doubts on the accuracy and purpose of the recent IAEA report on Iran, said:

“A military operation against Iran could have grave consequences. And Russia should make every effort to control emotions, bring negotiations back into the field of political and expert discussion, and not allow any such action against Iran.” [2]

The following day it was announced that Iran was pursuing full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members are Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (Iran’s fellow observers in the group are India, Pakistan and Mongolia), with the Supreme National Security Council’s Secretary Assistant Ali Bageri stating, “We have already submitted a relevant application.” [3]

Slightly over two years ago the U.S, and Israel held the world’s largest-ever live-fire anti-ballistic missile drills in the second country, Juniper Cobra 10. [4]

Over a thousand U.S. and an equal amount of Israeli troops participated in the war games which included three of the four tiers of rapidly the evolving American global interceptor missile network: The Patriot Advanced Capability-3, Standard Missile-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems.

Early next year Juniper Cobra 12 will be held in Israel with the involvement of over 5,000 U.S. and Israeli troops, the largest joint military exercise ever conducted by the two nations.

Last summer the Jerusalem Post ran a feature with the title “Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year,” which stated:

“Called Juniper Cobra, the exercise will be held in early 2012 and will include the Arrow 2 and Iron Dome as well as America’s THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and the ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The exercise will likely include the actual launching of interceptors from these systems.”

The Israeli daily added:

“The purpose of the exercise is to create the necessary infrastructure that would enable interoperability between Israeli and American missile defense systems in case the US government decided to deploy these systems here in the event of a conflict with Iran, like it did ahead of the Gulf War in Iraq in 1991.” [5]

Another major Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, ran a story last week under the title “Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history,” which cited Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, stating that the upcoming missile drills will represent the “largest” and “most significant” joint military maneuvers ever held by the U.S. and Israel.

The account added:

“‘Our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper and more intense than ever before,’ said Shapiro, adding that Israel’s military edge was a ‘top priority’ for himself, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. President Barack Obama.” [6]

The intensification of already unprecedented missile interception coordination between two of the world’s main military powers indicates preparation for withstanding potential Iranian retaliation following Israeli, American or joint strikes against Iran.

The deployment of a U.S. Forward-Based X-Band Radar in Israel’s Negev Desert three years ago and this past summer’s first deployment of an Aegis class guided missile warship, USS Monterrey, to the Eastern Mediterranean as part of the U.S.-NATO Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system endorsed at NATO’s summit in Portugal a year ago, which will further entail the stationing of missiles and radar in Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey and other, as yet undisclosed, countries, are further signs of systematic plans for guaranteeing that the U.S. NATO allies and partners (like Israel) are invulnerable to counterattacks. [7]

The withdrawal of American and allied troops from Iraq and the beginning of a drawdown of their counterparts in Afghanistan can also be seen in this context, as removing targets for possible retaliation should a large-scale attack be staged against Iran.

In the last three weeks features have appeared in two of America’s major newspapers, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which reveal another source for prospective attacks against Iran: The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). All are close military allies of and recipients of weapons from the U.S. and are linked with NATO through the eponymous Istanbul Cooperation Initiative launched at the 2004 NATO summit in Turkey. [8] A recent headline in Britain’s Guardian alluded to a “mini-NATO” in the Persian Gulf and Voice of Russia featured an article with the title of “US envisions NATO of the Gulf.”

A New York Times report of October 29 mentioned that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently confirmed the Pentagon currently has 40,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region (excluding Iraq), including 23,000 in Kuwait. The daily stated that new U.S. plans could include the deployment of more combat troops to the latter state and a heightened presence of American warships in the area.

The account further detailed that the Obama administration “is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new ‘security architecture’ for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.” [9]

On November 11 the Wall Street Journal revealed that the White House will provide the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with “thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.” The weapons will “vastly expand the existing capabilities of the country’s air force to target fixed structures, which could include bunkers and tunnels — the kind of installations where Iran is believed to be developing weapons.” [10] Another source mentioned 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles in addition to the other munitions. A news story four days later disclosed that the U.S. Air Force has received “super-heavy bunker buster bombs” from Boeing to be carried by B-2 bombers. The new bunker-busters weigh “13.6 tons and [have] a built-in satellite navigation system, with “experts not[ing] that this type of bomb which is capable of breaking 18-meter-thick concrete walls is a perfect weapon for attacking nuclear facilities in Iran.” [11]

The Wall Street Journal report, echoing that of the New York Times earlier, added:

The Obama administration is trying to build up the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, U.A.E. and Kuwait, as a unified counterweight to Iran.

“In recent months, the U.S. has begun holding a regular strategic dialogue with the GCC bloc. And the Pentagon has been trying to improve intelligence-sharing and military compatibility among the six countries.”

The newspaper reminded its readers of a $67 billion arms deal initiated by the White House with Saudi Arabia in 2010 to supply the second nation with 84 F-15 fighter jets and 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, 72 Black Hawk and 70 Apache Longbow attack helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-2 and other missiles, and warships. The largest bilateral weapons sale in history. Two years ago a Financial Times feature estimated that Washington plans to sell $123 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Defense Department plans to supply Stinger missiles and medium-range air-to-air missiles to Oman.

Citing Pentagon officials, the paper added:

“The U.A.E. has a large fleet of advanced U.S.-made F-16 fighters that could carry the bunker-busters. The U.A.E. currently has several hundred JDAMs [joint direct attack munitions/bunker-busters] in its arsenal, and the 4,900 in the new proposal would represent a massive buildup [of] direct attack munitions.”

“Proponents of the deal point to the U.A.E.’s support for U.S. efforts to isolate Iran, and its critical backing to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization air campaign in Libya. Officials said providing JDAMs and other U.S. weapons systems to the U.A.E. will make it easier for the country to participate in similar missions in the future.” [12]

The role of the UAE and its GCC partners this year in NATO’s war against Libya and in interventions in Bahrain and Yemen and against Syria will be addressed later. [13]

A Russian expert, Professor Sergei Druzhilovsky at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, characterized the intensification of American arms sales to its Gulf clients in the following words:

“Clearly, the aim is to provoke Iran to respond by some inadequate moves, which would enable the Americans to justify subsequent violence and military force. Because no further arming of U.S. allies in the Arab Middle East will make them any stronger. It’s not the strength of its allies, which simply doesn’t exist, but its own military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain and its own fleet in the Persian Gulf that Washington relies upon. So, this is a pure provocation.” [14]

The Wall Street journal article also discussed the integration of the six GCC states into U.S. plans for an international interceptor missile system:

“The U.S. has also sought to build up missile-defense systems across the region, with the goal of building an integrated network to defend against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles from Iran.” [15]

Last year Washington announced the sale of land-based interceptor missiles to Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, mainly of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 model.

With land- and ship-based interceptor missiles in the Persian Gulf, Washington will link the NATO system in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean with that being developed in the Asia-Pacific region with partners Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and, with what of late has been an initiative of U.S. permanent representative to NATO Ivo Daalder, India joining the NATO missile interception system [16] to increasingly surround Iran, Russia and China.

On November 13 Aviation International News reported that Washington is planning to provide Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries to the United Arab Emirates, adding to nine Patriot Advanced Capability-3 units on order. The Pentagon has deployed two THAAD active batteries to date, both in the U.S., so the stationing of the interceptors (96-144 missiles) in the UAE would be the first time they have been deployed overseas.

The news site supplied these details:

“[T]he UAE was the first export customer to be cleared to receive the system. THAAD has completed 12 successful flight tests, nine of which involved target engagements. The latest test, FTT-12, was undertaken on October 5 at the Pacific Missile Test Range at Barking Sands, Hawaii. Two interceptors were launched successfully against two targets in a near-simultaneous engagement.”

“[T]here is significant interest in upgraded Patriot and THAAD systems [in the region]. Kuwait and Qatar have both reported interest in the latter.

“As well as anticipating finalization of the THAAD contract, Lockheed Martin is awaiting the outcome of another UAE decision concerning an air defense battle management system.” [17]

According to Press TV earlier this month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that the NATO missile system, particularly the deployment of an X-Band radar unit in Turkey, “jeopardizes the interests of the country and the entire region.”

This year has seen the emergence of Persian Gulf monarchies grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council as a military adjunct to NATO, as a combat-ready and -proven force ready to collaborate with their Western arms suppliers and allies to intervene and wage war in the Middle East and North Africa.

The United Arab Emirates provided six U.S. F-16 and six French Mirage warplanes for NATO’s Operation Unified Protector and its 26,000 air missions and nearly 10,000 combat flights over Libya. Qatar supplied six Mirage fighter jets and two C-17 military transport planes. News reports at the time remarked that the above represented the first time Gulf Cooperation Council states had joined a NATO combat mission. (Although the UAE has a contingent of troops serving under NATO in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.)

In June Robert Gates, while still U.S. defense secretary, praised the role of the UAE, Jordan ad Morocco in the war against Libya – Jordan and Morocco have since applied for membership in the GCC – stating, “In Libya, the involvement of Jordan, Morocco, the UAE and others in the Middle East have been hugely important.”

The then-Pentagon chief added this significant comment:

“I am not sure we would have moved forward to the UN, even undertaking this enterprise, had it not been for the vote in the Arab League that then paved the way for the UN Security Council resolutions.” [18]

Gates paralleled repeated statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the war citing the Arab League initiative against Libya on February 22 when the organization, then dominated by the GCC as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were in turmoil and Syria soon to join them, condemned and suspended the membership of the North African country, a move recently repeated in relation to Syria.

The GCC’s participation in NATO’s naval blockade and air war against Libya was accompanied by its first armed intervention in a member state, the deployment of 1,500 Saudi and Emirati troops to Bahrain in the middle of March in an operation called Peninsula Shield. [19]

After Libya, Bahrain and Afghanistan, GCC members, severally and collectively, have been prepared for a military conflict closer to home, in the Persian Gulf.

In May Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski announced after meeting with his UAE counterpart that the Gulf state will “become the first Arab country to open an embassy at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,” according to Agence France-Presse.

The following day the Kuwait News Agency quoted a statement from the French Foreign Ministry supporting the initiative:

“The United Arab Emirates has just asked for the accreditation of an ambassador to NATO.

“We fully support this request.

“This is a new step in our relations, which have witnessed an intensity and quality in cooperation between the UAE and the Alliance, notably in the framework of Operation Unified Protector in Libya.”

The Iranian response was, according to Press TV, that “This move by the UAE sets the stage to officially authorize the presence of an uninvited guest in the region.”

The preceding month five NATO warships visited the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait “under the 2004 Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” as an Agence France-Presse dispatch phrased it.

In commenting on the earlier-cited New York Times article on the Persian Gulf, a Voice of Russia commentary stated:

“[W]ith Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participating in the latest NATO-led campaign against Libya, this new ‘security architecture’ will mostly likely expand to carry out a similar function throughout the Middle East.

“[A]s the United States moves towards integrating the six states of the Gulf Co-operation Council into a security alliance that would increase both US and Saudi domination in the region, Iran could very well find itself the next victim of a US-led ‘humanitarian intervention.’” [20]

In addition to the escalation of U.S. military presence in the region, in 2009 French President Nicolas Sarkozy opened a military complex – with a navy base, air base, and training camp – in the United Arab Emirates, his country’s first permanent base in the Persian Gulf. In doing so Paris joined the U.S., Britain, Canada, the Netherlands. Australia and New Zealand in maintaining a military presence in the country. (Canada has since abandoned Camp Mirage in the UAE.)

The UAE has recently reopened negotiations with France for a military surveillance satellite, which “could also be linked to the protracted negotiations to buy 60 Dassault Aviation Rafale multi-role fighter jets, a deal that could be worth up to $10 billion.”

According to a United Press International story of late last month, “On April 24, the emirates launched its fifth communications satellite into orbit, the first to provide secure and independent telecommunications for its armed forces amid a drive by Arab states in the gulf to boost their military capabilities against Iran.

“The Emirates’ Y1A satellite was launched from the European Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana, atop an Ariane 5 rocket.”

Another report by the same agency a month before said that “Dassault Aviation hopes to capitalize on France’s participation with the United Arab Emirates in the air campaign against Moammar Gadhafi’s crumbling regime in Libya to promote the sale of 60 Rafale multi-role jets to the Persian Gulf state.” The story mentioned that “The emirates’ military says it wants missiles capable of reaching targets deep inside Iran,” and offered this description of current UAE air capabilities:

“The United Arab Emirates has built up what is widely viewed as the most formidable air force in the Persian Gulf. It has 184 combat aircraft, including 155 ground-attack fighters, mainly 55 Lockheed F-16E Block 60 Desert Eagles, 25 F-16F Block 60 Eagles and 18 French Dassault Mirage 2000-9DADs and 44 Mirage 2000-9RADs.”

The arming of the GCC by the U.S., France and other NATO powers at an exponential rate is, in addition to providing an economic boon to crisis-ridden Western countries, transparently and exclusively directed against Iran.

The advantages accruing to the U.S. and Israel in having a regional grouping of its neighbors attack Iran in lieu of doing so themselves are sufficiently evident not to warrant being belabored.

Washington is using the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies to act as surrogates for its own interests against Iran as it is with Georgia against Russia [21] and the Philippines vis-a-vis China. (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the North Atlantic Council just returned from Georgia, the second such visit a NATO chief and the bloc’s 28 ambassadors have paid, the first occurring the month after Georgia invaded South Ossetia in August 2008, provoking a five-day war with Russia. Late last month 2,000 U.S. and 1,000 Filipino marines participated in combat drills near the Spratly Islands, which are contested by the Philippines and China.

Even if the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and their GCC partners don’t launch unprovoked strikes against Iranian nuclear and military sites, a provocation staged, say, by the UAE around the oil-rich island of Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf (frequently referred to by U.S. officials as the Arabian Gulf in a direct affront and challenge to Iran), administered by Iran but claimed by the UAE, will be casus belli enough for the GCC and through it the Arab League it controls. From there, as with Libya earlier this year, the U.S. and its NATO allies will take up cudgels on behalf of the “threatened” Arab Gulf states and enter the lists against Iran.

The Obama Doctrine [22], like the Nixon Doctrine of forty years earlier, emphasizes the role of proxies (identified as allies and victims) in doing what the U.S. chooses not to do, not to do alone or to be seen doing alone. It justifies military aggression in the name of decisions reached by organizations it doesn’t belong to, like the Arab League and the African Union in regards to Libya, and settles geopolitical scores with independent-minded rivals under the guise of intervening on behalf of aggrieved and injured third parties. A lesson that Russia has already learned, China is now learning and Iran may be taught next.

Notes


1) Winds of war start blowing toward Iran, Global Times, November 9, 2011

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/683060/Winds-of-war-start-blowing-toward-Iran.aspx

2) ‘Russia can prevent military operation against Iran’, RT, November 10, 2011

http://rt.com/politics/nuclear-military-iran-russia-011

3) Tehran applies for full membership in SCO, Trend News Agency, November 11, 2011
4) Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran, Stop NATO, November 5, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/israel-forging-nato-missile-shield-rehearsing-war-with-iran/

5) Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year, Jerusalem Post, July 26, 2011

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=230974

6) Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history, Ha’aretz, November 11, 2011

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-to-embark-on-largest-jo\int-exercise-in-allies-history-1.393878
7) Israel: Global NATO’s 29th Member, Stop NATO January 17, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/israel-global-natos-29th-member

8) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul, Stop NATO, February 6, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul

9) U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq, New York Times, October 29, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?pagewanted=all

10) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html

11) US Air Forces get super-heavy bunker buster bombs, Itar-Tass, November 15, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/15/60453467.html

12) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html

13) Gulf State Gendarmes: West Backs Holy Alliance For Control Of Arab World And Persian Gulf, Stop NATO, May 25, 2011

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/gulf-state-gendarmes-west-backs-holy-alliance-for-control-of-arab-world-and-persian-gulf

14) Profitable provocation, Voice of Russia, November 11, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/11/60236281.html

15) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html

16) NATO and India to build joint missile defense system? Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html

NATO in India overtures, Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html

India may agree to deploy NATO missile system, Pakistan Observer, September 6, 2011

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=112723

17) THAAD on Target for UAE, Aviation International News, November 13, 2011

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-13/thaad-target-uae

18) World Tribune, June 12, 2011
19) Bahrain: U.S. Backs Saudi Military Intervention, Conflict With Iran, Stop NATO, March 16, 2011

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-u-s-backs-saudi-military-intervention-conflict-with-iran

20) US envisions NATO of the Gulf, Voice of Russia, October 31, 2011

http://rt.com/news/us-military-iraq-iran-171

21) Washington To Rearm Georgia For New Conflicts, Stop NATO, January 14, 2011

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/u-s-to-rearm-georgia-for-new-conflicts

22) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind, Stop NATO, December 10, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

TEL-AVIV PROPOSE UN MARCHE DE DUPES

5 août 2011, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) http://www.france-palestine.org (France)

Hassane Zerrouky - L’Humanité

Si les Palestiniens renoncent à demander «  unilatéralement  » l’adhésion d’un État de Palestine à l’ONU en septembre, Israël est prêt à négocier un accord de paix sur la base des propositions du président Barack Obama, a indiqué une source israélienne.

En mai dernier, l’hôte de la Maison-Blanche s’était prononcé pour un État palestinien basé sur les frontières de 1967 avec des échanges de territoires, provoquant alors la colère du gouvernement de Netanyahou  ! Bref. «  L’objectif ultime, c’est deux États pour deux peuples, Israël en tant qu’État du peuple juif, et l’État de Palestine, patrie du peuple palestinien  », a assuré le premier ministre israélien, cité par le Jerusalem Post de mardi. Il y a dix jours, s’exprimant sur la chaîne Al-Arabiya, Benyamin Netanyahou s’était déjà dit «  prêt à négocier la paix  » avec le président Mahmoud Abbas, assurant que «  tout est sur la table, mais il faut se rendre à la table  ».

Ce semblant de revirement, qui au fond s’apparente à un marché de dupes visant à torpiller l’admission de l’État palestinien à l’ONU, est dû au moins à trois éléments. Le premier, c’est l’appel de Marwan Barghouti à des manifestations de masse en septembre pour soutenir la demande d’adhésion palestinienne (voir l’Humanité du 24 juillet). Le deuxième tient au fait qu’Israël ne semble pas être parvenu à convaincre au moins trente pays pour rassembler «  une majorité morale  » afin de faire échouer la reconnaissance de l’État palestinien par l’ONU. Enfin, troisième élément, et non des moindres, «  l’intifada sociale  » de la jeunesse israélienne n’est sans doute pas étrangère au fait que Benyamin Netanyahou tente, à la faveur d’une reprise des négociations avec les Palestiniens, de freiner la chute de sa cote de popularité en Israël.

Da prisão, líder palestino convoca milhões às ruas

21 julho 2011/Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br (Brasil)

Da prisão israelense de Hadarim – onde cumpre cinco penas de prisão perpétua – o líder palestino Marwan Barghouti pediu ontem que "milhões" saiam às ruas em setembro, em apoio ao pedido de independência palestina, que deve acontecer em setembro, durante a Assembleia Geral da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU).

Crianças palestinas levantam cartaz de Barghouti

Em carta enviada à imprensa, ele incentiva os palestinos nos territórios ocupados por Israel e em outros países a "marchar pacificamente" durante a semana de votação do pedido na Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas.

O plano palestino de pedir que a ONU aceite a Palestina como membro da organização deu início a uma disputa diplomática com Israel, que o considera – apoiado por seu aliado norte-americano – um ato unilateral, contrário aos acordos de paz assinados.

Com a paralisação das negociações de paz desde 2008 e sem sinais de que serão retomadas em breve, os palestinos disseram que pedirão na ONU uma votação em favor de sua independência. A aprovação na Assembleia Geral seria simbólica e teria pouco efeito prático, mas os palestinos acreditam que o endosso internacional representaria uma forte pressão para que Israel saia dos territórios ocupados.

O líder Barghouti manteve a influência que conquistou durante o movimento insurgente mesmo após ter sido preso. É frequentemente apontado em pesquisas como um dos favoritos à Presidência palestina.

No texto, ele diz que a ida à ONU é parte de uma nova estratégia palestina que abrirá as portas para mais manifestações. A ideia é reproduzir o espírito das revoluções árabes e acirrar a pressão sobre Israel com o aval da ONU.

"Vencer a batalha de setembro, que é um passo importante de nossa luta, requer os maiores protestos pacíficos aqui e na diáspora, nos países árabes e muçulmanos e nas capitais internacionais", disse Barghouti.

Líder palestino
Barghouti, de 51 anos, talvez seja o mais conhecido líder palestino detido por Israel – e um dos cerca de 10 mil presos políticos o que conflito já fez. Ele cumpre cinco sentenças de prisão perpétua por sua participação em levantes armados na última década. Seu nome sempre é citado quando se discute o futuro político da presidência palestina.

A mulher de Barghouti, Fadwa, afirmou que o marido ditou a mensagem para seus advogados durante uma visita recente. Ainda não está claro como a convocação de Barghouti vai evoluir, já que as manifestações vão depender da organização de ativistas pró-palestinos.

Segundo especialistas, Barghouti vem tendo sua trajetória política comparada a de Nelson Mandela – ativista e ex-presidente da África do Sul. A comparação é surgiu principalmente a partir das declarações do líder baseadas na chamada “resistência pacífica”, como pregava o militante africano. E hoje, mesmo preso, é uma das figuras mais populares da Autoridade Palestina.

Barghouti nasceu em uma aldeia próxima de Ramallah, e se tornou membro do Fatah ainda com 15 anos. Com 18, foi preso pela primeira vez por ter envolvimento com grupos militantes palestinos. Em 1987, atuou como um dos principais líderes da Primeira Intifada, levando os palestinos a protestarem em um levante contra Israel. Em 1996, Barghouti foi eleito para o Conselho Legislativo da Palestina, quando começou sua defesa ativa por um Estado Palestino independente.

Durante a Segunda Intifada, sua popularidade cresceu ainda mais e o líder passou a ser visto como uma das principais forças de combate contra as Forças de Defesa Israelenses. Ao mesmo tempo em que via sua popularidade junto às massas aumentar, o líder palestino exortava ações combativas contra Israel. Em 2001, ele conseguiu se livrar da primeira tentativa de prisão.

Só em abril de 2002, Barghouti foi preso, sob a acusação de assassinato e tentativa de homicídios decorrentes dos movimentos de insurgência popular dos quais participou. Desde que está preso, seus apoiadores – entre eles, autoridades políticas, militantes, membros do parlamento europeu – acreditam que Barghouti é uma espécie de Nelson Mandela palestino, uma vez que é apontado como o líder ideal para reanimar um movimento à deriva e dividido nacionalmente.

Estado palestino
No Brasil, a campanha “Pela Criação do Estado da Palestina Já” está em desenvolvimento e a manifestação é respaldada por cerca de três dezenas de organizações políticas e sociais. A Palestina já é reconhecida política e moralmente por mais de cem países.

A Palestina também foi admitida nas organizações da ONU, com exceção da Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura (Unesco) e da Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS). E o presidente dos Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, em pronunciamento feito em maio deste ano, admitiu a criação do Estado palestino com as fronteiras de 1967.

O ministro da Defesa de Israel, Ehud Barak, comparou a eventual decisão da ONU em favor dos palestinos a um “tsunami”. O novo embaixador de Israel na ONU, Ron Prosor, informou à imprensa israelense que o reconhecimento da Palestina por parte da ONU “levaria à violência e à guerra”.

Em 1947, a Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) criou o Plano de Partilha da Palestina, que resultou na criação do Estado de Israel. Essa iniciativa abriu caminho para uma tragédia cotidiana para o povo palestino. Mais de 500 vilas e comunidades palestinas foram destruídas. Milhares foram presos, torturados e assassinados.

Palestinos foram expulsos de suas casas e de centenas de cidades. Cerca de 4,5 milhões de refugiados palestinos vivem hoje pelo mundo, sendo que a maioria destes se encontra nas fronteiras da Palestina ocupada, e o Estado de Israel segue negando o direito de retorno. (Da Redação, com agências)

Gaza-bound: A mystery worthy of Henning Mankell

29 June 2011, Canadian Boat to Gaza http://www.tahrir.ca (Canada)
Source: Haaretz.com

Swedish author Henning Mankell, who took part in last year's flotilla and is joining the currently planned one, said that the flotilla was not a declaration of war, but a declaration of peace.

By Amira Hass

GREECE - The organizers of the flotilla to Gaza yesterday remained vague about the date it would set sail and its ports of call. The unexpected delays are worrying the organizers although they are trying not to show it.

At a press conference yesterday in Athens, they promised that despite the open and covert pressure by Israel and other governments, about 10 ships - among them two cargo vessels - will set sail this week to Gaza. They also stressed that the departure of a French ship from the port of Corsica on Saturday is proof that there is a limit to the pressure Israel can exert.

The press conference was held before it became known that Israel had decided to backpedal on the Government Press Office's threat Sunday that foreign journalists who took part in the flotilla would not be allowed into Israel for 10 years. The speakers at the press conference called on the free press to prove that it is indeed free and not to be frightened by Israeli threats.

The uncertainty about the date the flotilla will set sail is not detering hundreds of activists, who are already in various locations throughout Greece and are set to board the ships. Dozens of activists attended yesterday's press conference, armed with well-made signs and rhythmic calls that sometimes turned the press conference into a pep rally.

But the organizers of the briefing did not share the various reasons for the delay. A few days ago, the Greek port authority required the Greek-Swedish cargo ship to undergo repairs, soldering work and the addition of equipment that its crew said were completely unnecessary. As for the American ship, an anonymous complaint had been lodged that it was not seaworthy. According to Army Radio, the group behind the complaint is Shurat Hadin, the Israeli Law Center.

Yesterday, a port authority inspection team checked out the American ship. Also yesterday, a surprise "stricter than usual" inspection was made of the Canadian vessel, the Tahrir. According to information that reached the organizers Sunday, a similar inspection is planned for the Italian ship.

Delaying tactics
Prof. Vangelis Pissias, a member of the flotilla's steering committee, told me that the Greek government has not acceded to the call by an extreme right wing Greek political party, LAOS, to prevent the flotilla to Gaza for reasons of "national interest," but it has meanwhile taken various administrative steps to delay it.

Pissias also said the fact that officials in Israel were able to report "the prevention of the departure of six ships anchored in Greece," even before the organizers of the flotilla knew about it, shows Israel's involvement. The surprise and meticulous inspections of the ships a few days after they had already been inspected and vetted as seaworthy, are the "technical" version of an outright prohibition on sailing.

At the press conference Pissias said the Greek government is under pressure not only from the Israeli government but by other governments as well. But Pissias also said that, at the same time, popular pressure is being applied that's making it hard for Greece to give in to Israel.

Dror Feiler, the spokesman for the flotilla and chairman of European Jews for a Just Peace, explained how popular support is expressed: Today and tomorrow, a general strike will be held in Greece against the austerity steps the government intends to adopt at the behest of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. But the port workers' union announced that in solidarity with the flotilla to Gaza, the stevedores who would be loading the flotilla vessels had been exempted from the strike.

Also, in Syntagma Square in Athens, where daily protests are being held against Greek government policies, the protesters - supporters of direct democracy - voted to support the flotilla and to install a giant screen so they could follow the progress of the ships.

Pissias also said that in the end, the Greek government would not be able to break the law and prohibit the ships from departing. That was also the message the government conveyed indirectly - through members of parliament that support the flotilla - to its organizers.

The French representative at the briefing, Thomas Sommer-Houdeville, said the French government had received "advice" (he did not specify from whom ) on how to prevent the departure of the flotilla. Right wing groups in the Jewish community also demonstrated against the flotilla, he said. Nevertheless, on Saturday the flotilla's French ship set sail for Greece (another French ship is already in Greece ). That is proof, Houdeville said, that there is a limit to Israel's ability to apply pressure, and that Israel cannot decide who has the right to sail the Mediterranean.

A French participant in the flotilla told Haaretz that representatives of the flotilla's organizers had met with government officials who "advised" them on how to hamper the ships by various technical means, but that the advice was rejected.

The African-American author Alice Walker said at the press conference that she would sail on the American ship because, when African-Americans were slaves and during the fight for civil rights, they were helped by outside communities. Walker said this was a noble tradition that defined people as human beings. Walker complained that U.S. President Barack Obama had forgotten this tradition when his government opposed the flotilla.

The Swedish author Henning Mankell, who took part in last year's flotilla and is joining the currently planned one, said at the press briefing he imagined there were people in the room who would report directly to the Israeli government and the Shin Bet security service. He said he asked that the report say that the actions of the flotilla was not a declaration of war, but a declaration of peace.

Breaching Gaza's Siege Update

25 June 2011, MWC Media with Conscience http://mwcnews.net (USA)

By Stephen Lendman

Suffocating besieged Gazans, Israel is committing slow-motion genocide. Global activists are determined to stop it and hold Israeli officials accountable for decades of crimes of war and against humanity - unspeakable atrocities financed by criminal co-conspirators in Washington.

In May 2010, Israeli commandos illegally interdicted six Freedom Flotilla ships in international waters, massacring nine activists aboard the Mavi Marmara mother ship.
Nonetheless, global activists are determined to break Gaza's siege, the first step to ending it altogether and freeing nearly 1.7 million people, isolated in the world's largest open-air prison.

They're coming, Freedom Flotilla II, heading to Gaza with vitally needed humanitarian aid. Planning more high seas barbarism and piracy, Israel will again interdict. In preparation, mobilized reserve combatants held drills, focusing on riot-control measures, including brute force and "surprises" if needed.
On June 19, Israeli Admiral Eliezer Marom said:

"The Navy has prevented and will continue to prevent the arrival of the 'hate flotilla' whose only goals are to clash with (Israeli) soldiers, create a media provocation, and delegitimize the State of Israel."

Besides interdiction, imprisonment awaits participants, Israeli authorities saying blockade violators will be arrested and jailed, treated harshly, then deported. All of it, of course, is lawless, including seizure of humanitarian supplies and personal belongings like Flotilla I was pillaged, the way pirates have done it for centuries.

Israel is a rogue terror state. Activists know the risks. They're coming anyway and will keep coming, no matter what Israel plans.

A June 23 "Freedom Flotilla II - Stay Human" press release headlined, "Sailing to Gaza," saying:

Within days, 10 participating ships will sail. Two carry cargo. Hundreds of activists from 20 countries are aboard the others, including politicians, writers, religious figures, journalists, TV crews from major broadcasters, doctors, lawyers, holocaust survivors, artists, and various other distinguished and ordinary committed activists for justice.

On June 18, Turkey's IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation pulled out, yielding to government pressure at a time Israeli and Ankara officials are holding secret rapprochement talks.

Despite Israeli threats, lies, pressure, blackmail, and governments not supporting their own citizens, preparations are nearly complete to sail.

A June 24 Free Gaza.org press release headlined, "Israel proves that Flotillas work," saying:

Israel's recent authorization of token aid amounts, including construction materials for 1,200 homes and 19 truckloads of medicines, shows pressure works even though not enough. Key is stiffening it until Gazans and all Palestinians are free. It's coming because global millions support it. For now, "Freedom Flotilla 2: Stay Human" sails for Gaza next week. "(O)ur destination is freedom."

Organized by 14 national groups and international coalitions, a US Boat to Gaza is included, named "The Audacity of Hope." Participants call this "an important moment in history." They're defying Israeli US ambassador Michael Oren describing organizers as "radical anti-Israel organizations known also for anti-American activities," and Netanyahu saying the mission is a "provocation." Earlier, he told European ambassadors in Jerusalem, "This flotilla must be stopped." Responding to it, he mounted a PR stunt to pretend Gaza's siege is eased.

Like other global activists, Americans are determined to help, despite Washington's efforts to deter them. On June 14, passengers wrote Obama, saying:

"We are writing to inform you that 50 unarmed Americans will soon be sailing....to Gaza....challeng(ing) Israel's (illegal) blockade (in) friendship (and solidarity) in support of the Palestinian people and their human rights."

Telling Gazans they're not alone, "it will call attention to the morally and legally indefensible collective punishment of a population of civilians....As US citizens, we expect our country and its leaders to help ensure the Flotilla's safe passage (and) demand that the Gaza blockade be lifted. This should begin by notifying the Israeli government in clear and certain terms that it may not physically interfere with" any participating vessel. We "expect no less from our President and your administration."

On June 24, Audacity of Hope participants "expressed profound disappointment" by the State Department's June 22 response, issuing a scandalous "travel advisory," advising Americans against coming by sea or other means. Saying previous attempts were "stopped by Israeli naval vessels and resulted in the injury, death, arrest, and deportation of US citizens," it didn't warn Israel that interdiction won't be tolerated, especially if on board activists are harmed.

Participating in the mission, University of Southern California Professor Hagit Borer said:

"Apparently, the State Department subscribes to the view that Israel's anticipated violence against unarmed protesters is an immutable act of nature. This is a remarkable attitude, coming from a government that provides the Israeli government with billions of dollars in military aid and routinely uses its veto to protect (its) government from censure of its occupation policies by the UN Security Council."

In fact, Washington officials are legally bound to protect US citizens. Nonetheless, they plan nothing to do it, effectively green-lighting Israeli commandos to lawlessly interdict, brutalize, and kill again if if they choose, perhaps with funding, weapons and munitions America supplies for that purpose.

A Final Comment
On June 24, Israel's UN ambassador Ron Prosor said:
"Israel is determined to stop the flotilla. Israel has the right to self-defense. The flotilla has nothing constructive. There is nothing humanitarian in the shipments," calling the mission a "provocation."

In fact, it's bringing vital humanitarian aid Israel lawlessly restricts or blocks entirely for nearly 1.7 million besieged people, ruthlessly persecuted for not being Jewish and electing the wrong government. Abhorrent by any standard, under international law it's illegal but continues because global leaders are complicit for doing nothing to stop it.

In America's Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson endorsed citizen action against destructive government policies. Flotilla participants are acting in the best tradition of his message, challenging Israeli repression for justice.

Breaching Gaza's Siege Update
Israel keeps exerting pressure to block humanitarian efforts to deliver vital to life and other essential aid to besieged Gazans.

Endorsing Israeli lawlessness, the State Department issued a June 22 "Travel Warning - Israel, the West Bank and Gaza," saying in part:

"The Department of State warns US citizens of the risks of traveling to Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and about threats to themselves and to US interests in those locations," adding "avoid all travel to the Gaza Strip."

Access the full statement through the following link:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5511.html

On June 23, Secretary of State Clinton added:

"We do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza. And we think that it's not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."

Defend against whom she didn't explain or that Gazan waters belong to Palestine, not Israel. Moreover, delivering humanitarian aid is essential until Gaza's blockade is ended, a crime against humanity Washington funds and supports.

This week, "Freedom Flotilla II - Stay Human" sails to Gaza. Neither Israel nor Clinton will stop it, but they're trying by blocking its departure or planned interdiction surprises if it comes.

The US Boat to Gaza (The Audacity of Hope) is one of 10 participating ships, now blocked by Greek officials, saying the vessel is unseaworthy, a spurious claim with no validity.

A June 26 US Boat to Gaza press release asked "Greek government officials to clarify whether (their leased boat) is being blocked....because of an anonymous request of a private citizen....or whether (Greece) made a political decision....in response to US and Israeli" pressure.

Specifically they want to know if bailout help is contingent on succumbing to blackmail, besides Greece already surrendering its sovereignty to foreign bankers.
On June 27, a US Boat to Gaza press release responded to reports that an Israeli "Lawfare" group (Shurat HaDin) complaint is delaying the boat's departure.

Israel, Washington, AIPAC, and the Shurat HaDin Law Center (SH) are directly involved. In fact, SH's web site claims it's "bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time," adding on June 19:

"I am happy to report that we have achieved some important victories in the struggle to block the anti-Israel Flotilla from 'smuggling contraband' to the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip."

Specifically, it referred to a French insurance company succumbing to intimidation not to cover a French boat from Marseilles, and the Turkish ship pressured by Ankara to cancel its participation.

On June 15, SH announced a Manhattan federal court lawsuit to "confiscate 14 ships outfitted with funds unlawfully raised in the United States by anti-Israeli groups, including the Free Gaza Movement."

SH, the Obama administration, AIPAC and other Israeli Lobby members clearly support state terrorism in violation of international, US and Israeli law. Nonetheless, America's "Audacity of Hope" is confident it will sail, saying:

SH is notorious for filing "frivolous legal complaints against the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. We reiterate that the boat we are leasing....was surveyed by a professional surveyor and successfully completed its sea trials."

At noon Athens time June 27, a press conference will announce its readiness to sail, but expect continued pressure to stop it - criminal co-conspirators determined to lawlessly suffocate besieged Gazans.

On June 27, a Haaretz editorial headlined, "Let the flotilla go," saying:
Israel equates "flotilla" with terrorism or "a declaration of war," no matter that cargo includes food, medicines, educational materials and other humanitarian aid raised by private donations.

Nonetheless, Israel "seems to be as frightened of the flotilla as one would think it would be of an attack by an armed naval fleet." As a result, it's "preparing to fight an enemy" comprised of unarmed, nonviolent men and women who care enough to risk their safety to deliver vital aid and symbolically oppose Israeli lawlessness.

Thirteen months after the Mavi Marmara massacre, "Israel is showing that it has learned just one lesson: the military lesson....The country is not willing to give up a display of power, thereby no doubt contributing to inflating the flotilla's importance" and Israel as a rogue terror state. "From Israel, we can at least demand that it let the flotilla get through....without once again endangering the country's position in the world."

On June 27, Israel National News said former US Ecuador ambassador Samuel Hart (a 27-year Foreign Service veteran) will participate in the Flotilla mission.

In a 1992 Foreign Affairs Oral History Project for the Association for Diplomatic Studies interview, Hart said:

"I've always felt that Israel has been a little bit of a burr in the saddle in our foreign policy. Here is a small country with no particular interest to us in any real strategic terms, yet it sort of jerks us around because it has not only a very vocal Jewish population, but also supporters of Israel from non-Jewish groups."

He also once wrote an essay calling Israel "an exhausting place to live (because) the tension, anxiety and intensity wear you out."

Now aged 77, he told a Jacksonville, FL newspaper he joined the Flotilla because he "missed" participating in the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement to end segregation. "I see great similarities between this and the civil rights movement," he said. "I am pleased to be part of it."

He also asked, "What did the residents of Gaza do to deserve such punishment? The honest answer is they" elected Hamas in 2006 democratically and now suffer lawlessly.

On June 26, New York Times writer Ethan Bronner headlined, "Avoid Gaza Flotilla, Israel Warns Foreign Journalists," saying:

"Israel threatened Sunday to bar for up to a decade any foreign journalist who boards a flotilla seeking to challenge an Israeli naval blockade of Gaza."
Moreover, Israel's Government Press Office director Oren Helman said their equipment will be impounded and they'll be subjected to "additional sanctions." He sent a warning letter to registered foreign correspondents, stopping short of saying they'll be arrested and jailed.

Perhaps all Flotilla participants will be mistreated, imprisoned, their personal possessions confiscated, then summarily deported the way Flotilla I activists were treated after being attacked, beaten and otherwise abused, besides nine on board massacred in cold blood.

On June 26, Israel's Foreign Press Association responded, saying:

Journalists "covering a legitimate news event should be allowed to do their jobs without threat and intimidation. (Helman's letter) sends a chilling message to the international media and raises serious questions about Israel's commitment to freedom of the press."

Bronner said an unnamed New York Times journalist would participate, joining other international correspondents.

Further updates will follow, highlighting courageous activism against lawless Israeli brutality, complicit with its Washington paymaster/partner.

Palestina: uma carta na manga da Arábia Saudita

21 Junho 2011, Outras Palavras (Brasil)

Por Lawrence Davidson*

no Consortium News Tradução: Rede Vila Vudu

Os sauditas não estão gostando do que têm ouvido do presidente Barak Obama, sobretudo “instruções” que, aos olhos de Riad, parecem extremamente perigosas – como dizer aos sauditas e ao resto dos governantes árabes, que se antecipem aos movimentos de protesto popular e promovam reformas democráticas.

Os sauditas não têm qualquer tradição democrática além do conselho consultivo das tribos. Antes de serem reis e príncipes, são xeques do deserto. Por isso, os conselhos de Obama soam como fala de aliado de muito tempo que, de repente, os aconselhe a render-se. Na tradição beduína, líderes fortes não se rendem sem luta.

Os sauditas já manifestaram, por várias vias, sua decepção com Washington. Uma dessas vias foi enviar tropas para ajudar a monarquia do Bahrain (mais um xeque que se autodenomina rei) e apoiar a reação fascista que o regime impunha com violência contra a maioria xiita.

Os sauditas são sunitas wahhabitas, o ramo mais conservador do islamismo, e pouco se importam com o destino dos xiitas, que consideram heréticos. Os sauditas suspeitam que os xiitas do Bahrain estejam sendo orquestrados pelo Irã (que os sauditas muito temem, como potência xiita emergente na região).

Riad vê o terror no Bahrain como necessário e útil – por mais que muitos, em todo o mundo, inclusive eu, interpretemos como violência injustificável o modo como os sauditas encaminharam a questão do Bahrain.

Uma segunda via pela qual os sauditas já demonstraram o quanto estão frustrados com os discursos de Obama é denunciar a hipocrisia de Washington. Semana passada, o príncipe saudita Turki al-Faisal publicou no Washington Post um importante documento, bem arrazoado, sob o título de “EUA pró-Israel: favoritismo fracassado” [traduzido em português e disponível na Rede CastorPhoto).

Turki foi embaixador saudita nos EUA e no Reino Unido e chefe da inteligência saudita. Embora esteja hoje fora do governo (motivo pelo qual, provavelmente, assina o artigo publicado nos EUA), o que lá se lê pode ser considerado manifestação direta de sentimentos e pensamento do governo saudita. E o que diz Turki?

1. Referindo-se a Obama, no discurso sobre o Oriente Médio, Turki escreve que “[Obama] chamou a atenção de governos árabes para que abraçassem a democracia”, mas, simultaneamente, nada disse na direção de exigir os mesmos direitos de autodeterminação para os palestinos – apesar de o território palestino estar ocupado pela mais forte potência militar da região.”

2. Turki descreve como “deprimente” ver o Congresso dos EUA aplaudir discuros em que se negaram “os direitos humanos mais básicos aos palestinos”. Referia-se a recente visita do primeiro-ministro de Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, ao Capitólio.

3. Vistos em conjunto os dois eventos – negação de direitos básicos aos palestinos e o exortação em favor deles no resto do mundo árabe – compõem, do ponto de vista dos sauditas, indicação clara de que “os planos de paz construídos por EUA e Israel já se revelaram inviáveis e o conflito Israel-Palestinos continuará sem solução à vista, enquanto as políticas dos EUA continuarem a dar prioridade indevida aos interesses de Israel”.

4. Assim sendo, “na ausência de quaisquer negociações produtivas, é chegada a hora de os palestinos deixarem de lado EUA e Israel e buscarem reconhecimento internacional do Estado palestino diretamente na ONU.” Nesse movimento, serão firmemente apoiados pela Arábia Saudita”.

Os sauditas erraram no Bahrain, mas acertaram integralmente na Palestina. E o recado não para aí. Pode-se dizer que Turki de fato “jogou a luva”, em declarado desafio a Obama e aos EUA.

5. “Os políticos norte-americanos não se cansam de repetir que Israel é seu “aliado indispensável”. Logo aprenderão que há outros atores na região que podem ser pelo menos igualmente “indispensáveis”. O jogo de favoritismo em favor de Israel não revela sabedoria, por parte dos EUA, e logo vai aparecer como uma grande loucura.

“Haverá consequências desastrosas para as relações EUA-Arábia Saudita, se os EUA vetarem na ONU o reconhecimento do estado palestino.”

Deve-se considerar que não há qualquer base legal para esse veto, na Assembleia Geral da ONU. Mas o governo Obama pode dificultar muito as coisas, simplesmente torcendo braços e apertando gargantas em número suficiente – entre as nações que dependem de Washington – para conseguir que votem “Não” ao reconhecimento do Estado palestino.

Foi exatamente o que o governo Truman fez em 1948, para conseguir o número de votos necessários para aprovar o reconhecimento do Estado de Israel (por pequena diferença). Será muito triste ironia, se o governo Obama recorrer à mesma tática, para, outra vez, derrotar os palestinos.

6. Turki conclui: “Nós, árabes, muitas vezes dissemos não à paz. E em 1967 pagamos o preço pelas muitas vezes que erramos. Em 2002, o rei Abdullah (na foto, com Barack Obama) ofereceu o que viria a ser chamado de Iniciativa da Paz Árabe (…). Mas, dessa vez, são os israelenses, que dizem não à paz. Espero não estar por perto, quando os israelenses tiverem de pagar o preço pelo erro que estão cometendo.”

Seria temeridade considerar isso um blefe. Turki tem bastante razão ao dizer que há outros parceiros no Oriente Médio que são mais indispensáveis para os EUA, e para o ocidente em geral, que Israel. Por exemplo, qualquer dos grandes produtores de petróleo que há por lá.

Para provar o que dizem, os sauditas nem precisarão repetir o embargo do petróleo de 1973. Basta que reduzam gradual, mas ininterruptamente, o ritmo da produção, e pressionem outros produtores árabes para que façam o mesmo. Se o fizerem, o presidente Obama terá de lutar pela reeleição, em 2012, com o preço da gasolina acima de 5 dólares o galão [equivalentes a cerca de R$ 2,10/litro, representando aumento de 60%, em relação aos preços atuais].

E os preços não cairão apenas por o vencedor ser Mitt Romney – ou qualquer candidato do Partido Republicano. Podem não cair até que os palestinos recebam o direito de conseguir uma paz justa. (…)

O poder de Israel: Contra essa referência muito clara ao poder dos sauditas, temos a mais recente chicanice de Netanyahu, primeiro-ministro de Israel.

Em entrevista coletiva em Roma, Netanyahu, estimulado pelos sorrisos de aprovação de Silvio Berlusconi, disse ao mundo que “o problema não são os ‘assentamentos’ (colônias exclusivas para judeus). A raiz do conflito é que os palestinos recusam-se a reconhecer a existência do estado judeu” [sobre isso, ler Uri Avnery, em português].

Mais tarde, Netanyahu elaborou: “É conflito insanável, porque não se disputa território (…). Até que os palestinos aceitem Israel, não só como país, mas como Estado judeu, é impossível avançar.”

Todos os líderes israelenses parecem ser tomados pelo delírio de inventar ilusões. Aqui, Netanyahu manifesta o mesmo delírio, tentando paralisar todo o processo de paz por efeito de suas palavras. Mas o ato de mágica engana espectadores sem qualquer memória ou perspectiva histórica. E Netanyahu consegue repetir suas bobagens sem história que as confirme, e nem por isso é desmentido.

Mas muitos conhecem os vários fatos que Netanyahu omite. Eis alguns:

1. Em 1993, a Organização de Libertação da Palestina, liderada então por Yasser Arafat, reconheceu formalmente o Estado de Israel. Naquele momento, todos sabiam exatamente o que significava “Estado de Israel”. Ninguém jogava com ases tirados da manga, nem tentava introduzir na definição do Estado termos jamais definidos com clareza, como o adjetivo “judeu”.

O próprio Arafat disse depois ao jornal britânico Guardian que era “claro e óbvio” que Israel era e sempre seria judaica e que o problema dos refugiados teria de ser resolvido de modo que permitisse manter aquele traço judeu.

2. E há também informação vazada nos Palestine Papers (Janeiro, 2011), segundo a qual Mahmoud Abbas (também chamado Abu Mazen) e seus seguidores ofereceram aos israelenses absolutamente tudo que exigiram.

Como escrevi naquela época, Abbas e seus colegas “estavam dispostos a concordar com os bantustões, a ceder praticamente toda Jerusalém, a dar as costas a 99% dos refugiados, a fingir que não viam que a população de Gaza estava sendo massacrada e a servir, como aliados, à ocupação da Cisjordânia pelos exércitos de Israel.

“Ao final daquela ‘negociação’, já praticamente nada restava pelo qual valesse a pena lutar. Como o principal negociador da Autoridade Nacional Palestina, Saeb Erekat, disse aos enviado dos EUA ao Oriente Médio George Mitchell, os palestinos haviam feito tudo, exceto ‘converter-se ao sionismo’. Mesmo assim, os israelenses ignoraram todas as concessões feitas pelos palestinos.”

Ora, pode-se dizer que Netanyahu é homem de visão tão estreita e tão mal informado que não lembra de 1993 nem sabe do que Arafat explicou ao Guardian. Pois ainda assim teria de lembrar da capitulação tão fartamente noticiada nos Palestine Papers. Afinal de conta, aconteceu, em grande parte, sob seus próprios olhos.

E o que dizer da exigência de reconhecer o tal “estado judeu”? A única conclusão a que se pode chegar é que o primeiro-ministro Netanyahu é daqueles comediantes que depende de um “escada”, e que supõe que o resto do mundo, que, para ele, estaria representado no Congresso dos EUA, vive de lhe dar as deixas sem as quais não teria como apresentar seu número.

Contra todas esses delírios, há a realidade: a liderança política em Israel não tem qualquer interesse em fazer a paz. A paz deve ser evitada a todo custo, porque interromperá, necessariamente, o continuado roubo de terra palestina, por israelenses. Por isso, de fato, para Netanyahu, “é impossível avançar” rumo a qualquer paz.

E o vencedor? O que acontecerá se os sauditas decidirem, mesmo, que chegou a hora de aplicar seu imenso poder econômico para ajudar os palestinos? O poder dos comediantes israelenses bastará para competir com os sauditas? Bem, há alguns argumentos a considerar:

1. O poder dos sionistas, fora da Palestina, está confinado a apenas alguns poucos pontos. Não significa que não exista, mas significa que tem base real bem reduzida. O poder do sionismo repousa sobre duas torres gêmeas: a culpa ocidental pelo holocausto e a influência do lobby pró-Israel. Esse último, pelo menos nos EUA, aparece sob a forma de dinheiro pago a políticos e campanhas eleitorais.

Os sionistas também têm poder sobre a mídia, mas é hoje poder bem menos amplo do que já foi. Não se sabe exatamente o quanto esse poder midiático conseguiria influir, em circunstâncias em que houvesse, ativados, consideráveis contrapesos econômicos e financeiros.

2. O poder da Arábia Saudita, por sua vez, é realmente internacional-global e é poder com bases econômicas bem reais. Se o preço dos combustíveis disparar, por ativa manipulação pelos sauditas e outros produtores árabes de petróleo, não há o que os sionistas possam fazer para revidar.

E, agora? O que farão os norte-americanos e os europeus? Invadir a Arábia Saudita, o Kuwait, o Bahrain, o Qatar et allii? São ideias que ocorrem a roteiristas de romances e filmes de espionagem e só serão promovidas por terroristas limítrofes, tipo John Bolton. Na vida real, nunca aconteceu.

Não. O novo tipo de confrontação não pode ser vencido pelos sionistas. É interessante observar que praticamente nada disso aparece discutido na mídia norte-americana. Provavelmente, os sionistas e seus cúmplices creem que, se fecharem os olhos e ouvidos e fingirem que a Arábia Saudita não disse o que disse, a Arábia Saudita sumirá para sempre. Talvez estejam contando com energia fusion, ainda em setembro desse ano! Ou, vai-se ver, decidiram que o príncipe Turki al-Faisal blefou, pelo Washington Post.

Pessoalmente, entendo que pode ter chegado a vez da Arábia Saudita. Talvez os sauditas possam impor uma paz justa entre Washington e Telavive. Ninguém espere notícias pela mídia, mas, para ajudar os palestinos, estou disposto a pagar o preço que os sauditas resolverem cobrar, para encher o tanque!

*Lawrence Davidson é professor de História na West Chester University na Pennsylvania. É autor de Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National InterestAmerica’s Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; e Islamic Fundamentalism.

Netanyahu's tidings of destruction

Indeed, the right wing considers recognition of the reality created in 1949 to be the chief enemy of Zionism. The dynamic of a conquering nationalism can never recognize that any situation created at any given time is final.

10 June 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

By Zeev Sternhell

Of all the tasks that the Israeli right has set for itself, the most important is expunging the foundational status of the War of Independence. For if a war that killed 1 percent of the population and gave rise to the State of Israel was nothing but one more in a long line of wars through which the land has been conquered again and again, from Zionism's early days until today, the two primary results of that war - the concept of citizenship and the new state's borders - truly have no special status.

By contrast, if we see the establishment of the state as a watershed event in Jewish national history - both because it engendered a new political and legal concept in the history of Zionism, that of citizenship, and because geopolitical borders were assigned to the new entity for the first time - then the enterprise of conquering the land has ended. And that, in the eyes of the right wing, is the real existential danger.

Indeed, the right wing considers recognition of the reality created in 1949 to be the chief enemy of Zionism. According to its worldview, Zionism must be a movement in a constant state of formation and creation, one that relies on the Jews' ability to impose their will on their surroundings. The dynamic of a conquering nationalism can never recognize that any situation created at any given time is final.

This, naturally, leads to the view that there's nothing sacred about the Green Line and that settling the land conquered in 1967 is no less legitimate than settling the Galilee or the Negev. That's the view Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apparently forgot to expound on in Washington. But it's reasonable to assume that U.S. President Barack Obama is aware of what most members of the U.S. Congress either don't know or don't want to know, whether for electoral reasons or for reasons of convenience.

Members of Congress apparently haven't heard that Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who wants to be the leader of the entire Israeli right, has already asserted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved, and could therefore continue for another 100 years. Netanyahu's national security adviser, for his part, has asserted that the 1967 borders are unacceptable because they leave too many Jews outside Israel. But neither of them is perpetuating Netanyahu's big lie: that these borders are indefensible.

Unfortunately for the ruling right, the parameters of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal were set many years ago, and they have been etched deeply into the Israeli and international consciousness. The current French initiative is just an expression of the European consensus, if not the global one. This means that Israel has only two options: willingly accept the finality of the situation as it was the day after the state's establishment, or reach the same point only after being forcibly dragged to it, while becoming a pariah and an object of revulsion along the way.

But the question of borders is only one aspect of the failure to recognize the War of Independence as a fundamental turning point; it also has a civic angle. The anti-democratic legislation that the Knesset has enacted over the past year, which targets basic civic equality and which borders on racism even if it is not actually racist, is a way of declaring that the essence of the state is that it belongs to Jews alone. At bottom, this view stems from seeing Jews as the sole owners of the Land of Israel.

This means the state doesn't exist to guarantee democracy, equality, human rights or even a decent life to all; it exists to guarantee Jewish rule over the Land of Israel and to make sure no additional political entity is established here. Everything is deemed permissible to reach that end, and no price is considered too high. That's essentially what former Mossad chief Meir Dagan was warning us about as well. And for that reason, no previous government has ever posed as great a danger to the public as Netanyahu's government does.

Gaza: A View From the Ground -- A South African Perspective

8 June 2011, Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca (Canada)

By Prof. Patrick Bond*

Here in Palestine, disgust expressed by civil society reformers about Barack Obama's May 19 policy speech on the Middle East and North Africa confirms that political reconciliation between Washington and fast-rising Arab democrats is impossible.

Amidst many examples, consider the longstanding U.S. tradition of blind, self-destructive support for Israel, which Obama has just amplified. Recognizing a so-called ‘Jewish state’ as a matter of U.S. policy, he introduced a new twist that denies foundational democratic rights for 1.4 million Palestinians living within Israel. For a Harvard-trained constitutional lawyer to sink so low on behalf of Zionist discrimination is shocking. For although Obama mentioned the “1967 lines” as the basis for two states and thereby appeared to annoy arch-Zionist leader Benjamin Netanyahu, this minimalist United Nations position was amended with a huge caveat: ‘with land swaps.’

Obama thus implicitly endorses illegal Israeli settlements (with their half-million reactionary residents) that pock the West Bank, confirming its status as a Bantustan for 2.5 million people, far more fragmented than even the old South African homelands. Another 1.6 million suffer in the isolated Gaza Strip.

(Map of Israel)

Obama also claimed, “America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator,” stretching credulity.

The Arab Spring Gets In The Way
“He was with the dictators until the very last minute,” rebuts Ramallah-based liberation activist Omar Barghouti, regarding both Tunisia's Ben-Ali and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. “He's missed the point of the Arab Spring. It's not just about the street vendor, it is about social justice. The pillage of the resources of the region by the U.S. has to come to an end.”

Resource extraction and Israeli empowerment explain Obama's recent flirtation with unreformable Libyan and Syrian tyrannies, as well as ongoing U.S. sponsorship of brutal regimes in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. So it was impossible for the U.S. president to avoid a subtle confession: “There will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long-term vision of the region.”
“There will be times”? That's the understatement of the year, considering “short-term interests” reflect the corrupted character of corporate-purchased U.S. politicians. (Obama needs to raise $1-billion to finance his re-election campaign next year.) Pursuit of such narrow interests gets Washington into perpetual trouble, including bolstering Israeli aggression, becoming dependent upon oil from despotic regimes, and dogmatically imposing free-market ideology on behalf of U.S.-dominated multinational capital.

I am witnessing the results firsthand in Gaza and the West Bank, and was lucky to even get here, for last Tuesday, the day after I arrived at the main regional airport in TelAviv (with my white skin, multiple passports and non-Muslim surname), my friend Na'eem Jeenah also tried to enter Israel en route to Palestine with South African papers. For four hours the Israeli border police detained Jeenah, a Johannesburg leader of the Palestine Solidarity Committee. Intervention by concerned SA diplomats couldn't appease immigration officials, who forced him to board a flight to Istanbul where he waited for another day before returning home.

Apartheid – Israeli Style
South Africans who get through immigration invariably confirm conditions here that deserve the label ‘Israeli apartheid.’ Last month, Judge Richard Goldstone's reputation-wrecking reversal on the UN Goldstone report, regarding the Israeli army's intentional killing of Gaza civilians during the January 2009 “Operation Cast Lead” invasion, cannot disguise 1400 dead, of which no more than half were Hamas-aligned officials.

That massacre was, according to Israeli journalist Amira Hass, a chance for the army to practice high-tech urban warfare against a caged populace, replete with white phosphorous, combat robots, drones and other terror weapons.

Just as I crossed Gaza's northern Erez border post last Friday, Israeli Defense Force soldiers fired on unarmed marchers who are Palestine's unique contribution to the Arab Spring, leaving two wounded. The Sunday before, tens of thousands of these brave people, especially refugees, mobilized using FaceBook and walked to several 1967 lines, resulting in fifteen murders by trigger-happy Israeli soldiers.

Along with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions non-violent struggle against Israeli power, this Satyagraha-style movement, adopting strategies and tactics pioneered in Durban, South Africa by Mahatma Gandhi a century ago, must strike fear in the hearts of Tel Aviv securocrats. No longer can they portray their enemies as rocket-launching Islamic fundamentalists who worship Osama bin Laden.

What I also learned from Palestinian civil society activists is that the pillaging of this region by the West is being planned by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, following similar support to dictators last year – though with unintended consequences! – in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.

Evidence includes two documents presented by the IMF and World Bank to an April 13 Brussels donor conference, spelling out Palestine's wretched economic fate in technocratic terms. The IMF insists on lower civil service wages, electricity privatization, subsidy cuts and a higher retirement age. The World Bank advocates a free-trade regime which will demolish the tiny manufacturing base.

In his speech last Thursday, Obama endorsed an IMF/Bank document on the regional economy to be tabled at this week's G8 meeting of industrial powers in France. Although Washington promised $1-billion in debt relief, it comes with conditions such as “supporting financial stability, supporting financial modernization and developing a framework for trade and investment relations with the EU and the USA.”

Go ahead and snigger, but absurd as this sounds in the wake of the recent U.S.-centred world financial meltdown, Obama's gift is actually an “attempted bribe of the Egyptian democratic revolution,” says Barghouti. In any case there is another $33-billion of Mubarak's “Odious Debt” yet to be cancelled, and reparations to be paid.

Concludes Barghouti, “If anything, the U.S. has played a very negative role. The best thing Obama can do for the region is leave it alone. We've seen U.S. democracy-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, so no thank you.” •

Patrick Bond is based at the UKZN Centre for Civil Society, Durban, South Africa, and traveled to Palestine courtesy of TIDA-Gaza and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. His full report on the dangers of neoliberal influence in Palestine is available on the palestine.rosalux.org website.

Americans Are Joining Flotilla to Protest Israeli Blockade

1 June 2011, Jewish Voice for Peace http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Source: The New York Times

By Laurie Goodstein

When an international flotilla sails for Gaza this month to challenge Israel’s naval blockade of the Palestinian territory, among the boats will be an American ship with 34 passengers, including the writer Alice Walker and an 86-year-old whose parents died in the Holocaust.

A year ago, nine people in a flotilla of six boats were killed when Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish boat in international waters off the coast of Gaza. The Israelis said their commandos were attacked and struck back in self-defense, but the Turks blamed the Israelis for using live ammunition. The raid soured relations between Israel and Turkey and intensified pressure on Israel to end the naval blockade.

Organizers said the new flotilla, scheduled to leave in late June from a port they would not identify, had at least 1,000 passengers on about 10 boats. One boat will carry Spaniards, another Canadians, another Swiss and another Irish.

The Americans have named their boat “The Audacity of Hope,” lifting the title of a book by President Obama to make a point, said Leslie Cagan, a political organizer who is the coordinator of the American boat.

“We’re sending a message to our own government that we think it could play a much more positive role in not only ending the siege of Gaza, but also ending the whole occupation” of Palestinian land, she said. “The phrase does capture what we believe, which is that it is possible to make change in a positive way, and that’s a very hopeful stance.”

After Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, Israel imposed an embargo on the area, with Egypt’s help, essentially trapping the population in an effort to enforce security and to squeeze the militant group. Although Israel has maintained the sea blockade, it loosened the land blockade after the international condemnation that followed the raid on the Turkish boat. And last week, Egypt officially reopened the Rafah border crossing, allowing more people to pass between Egypt and Gaza.

Noam Katz, minister for public diplomacy at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said in an interview, “We see this flotilla as a political statement in order to support Hamas in Gaza. Hamas is a terror organization that took control of Gaza and its people and is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. We have a blockade, and we are going to enforce this blockade.”

The American passengers say they support the Palestinian people, not Hamas. They liken their strategy to that of the Freedom Riders, who 50 years ago rode buses to the American South to challenge segregation.

Gabriel Schivone, a student at the University of Arizona who is joining the flotilla, said, “It’s in the tradition of Dr. King’s direct-action principles, to create a situation so tension-packed that it forces the world to look and see what’s happening to the Palestinians.”

To explain why she was joining the flotilla, Hedy Epstein, the 86-year-old, said, “The American Jewish community and Israel both say that they speak for all Jews. They don’t speak for me. They don’t speak for the Jews in this country who are going to be on the U.S. boat, and the many others standing behind us.”

The American boat is owned by a Greek company and registered in Delaware, Ms. Cagan said. It will carry letters from Americans to Palestinians, not aid. About a quarter of the passengers are Jewish. Among the crew is a former captain in the Israeli Air Force who refused to fly missions in Gaza.

A UN SECRETARY GENERAL VS FREEDOM FLOTILLA 2

2 june 2011, Al Jazira

Humanitarian ships to sail to Gaza again, despite current UN disapproval and a previous attempt that turned deadly.

Richard Falk*

It is expected that at the end of June, Freedom Flotilla 2 will set sail for Gaza, carrying various forms of humanitarian aid, including medical, school, and construction materials. This second flotilla will consist of 15 ships - including the Mavi Marmara from the first flotilla - sailing from Istanbul, but also vessels departing from several European countries, and carrying as many as 1,500 humanitarian activists as passengers. If these plans are carried out, as seems likely, it means that the second flotilla is about double the size of the first that was so violently intercepted by Israeli commandos in international waters on May 31, 2010, resulting in nine deaths on the Turkish lead ship.

Since that shocking incident of a year ago, the Arab Spring has changed the regional atmosphere, but it has not ended the unlawful blockade of Gaza, or the suffering inflicted on the Gazan population over the four-year period of coerced confinement. Such imprisonment of an occupied people has been punctuated by periodic violence, including the sustained all-out Israeli attack for three weeks at the end of 2008, during which even women, children, and the disabled were not allowed to leave the deadly killing fields of Gaza.

It is an extraordinary narrative of Israeli cruelty and deafening international silence. The silence was broken only by the brave civil society initiatives in recent years that brought both the symbolic relief of empathy and human solidarity, as well as the token amounts of substantive assistance in the form of much needed food and medicine. It is true that the new Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing a few days ago, allowing several hundred Gazans to leave or return to Gaza on a daily basis, but Rafah is not currently equipped to handle goods, and is available only to people, and so the blockade of imports and exports continues in force, and may even be intensified as Israel vents its anger over the Fatah/Hamas unity agreement.

Secretary General: No Flotilla
As the Greek coordinator of Freedom Flotilla 2, Vangelis Pisias has expressed the motivation of this new effort to break the blockade: "We will not allow Israel to set up open prisons and concentration camps." Connecting this Gazan ordeal to the wider regional struggles, Pisias added, "Palestine is in our heart and could be the symbol of a new era in the region."

A highly credible assessment of the Israeli 2010 attack on Freedom Flotilla 1 by a fact finding mission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the Israelis had violated international law in several respects: by using excessive force, by wrongfully attacking humanitarian vessels in international waters, and by an unacceptable claim to be enforcing a blockade that was itself unlawful. Such views have been widely endorsed by a variety of respected sources throughout the international community, although the panel appointed by the UN Secretary General to evaluate the same incident has not yet made public its report, and apparently its conclusions will be unacceptably muted by the need to accommodate its Israeli member.

In light of these surrounding circumstances, including the failure of Israel to live up to its announced promise after the attack in 2010 to lift the blockade, it shocks our moral and legal sensibilities that the UN Secretary General should be using the authority of his office to persuade member governments to do their best to prevent ships from joining Freedom Flotilla 2. Ban Ki-moon shamelessly does not even balance such a call, purportedly to prevent the recurrence of violence, by at least sending an equivalent message to Israel insisting that the blockade end and that no force be used in relation to humanitarian initiatives of the sort being planned.

Instead of protecting those who would act on behalf of unlawful Palestinian victimisation, the UN Secretary General disgraces the office by taking a one-sided stand in support of one of the most flagrant and long lasting instances of injustice that has been allowed to persist in the world. True, his spokesperson tries to soften the impact of such a message by vacuously stating that "the situation in the Gaza Strip must be changed, and Israel must conduct real measures to end the siege." We must ask why were these thoughts not express by the Secretary General himself and directly to Israel? Public relations is part of his job, but it is not a cover for crassly taking the wrong side in the controversy over whether or not Freedom Flotilla 2 is a legitimate humanitarian initiative freely undertaken by civil society without the slightest credible threat to Israeli security.

Appropriately, and not unexpectedly, the Turkish Government refuses to bow to such abusive pressures even when backed by the UN at its highest level. Ahmet Davutoglu, the widely respected Turkish foreign minister, has said repeatedly in recent weeks when asked about Freedom Flotilla 2, that no democratic government should claim the authority to exercise control over the initiatives of civil society, as represented by NGOs. Davutoglu has been quoted as saying, "[N]obody should expect from Turkey... to forget that nine civilians were killed last year [...] Therefore we are sending a clear message to all those concerned. The same tragedy should not be repeated again." Underscoring the unresolved essential issue he asked rhetorically, "[D]o we think that one member state is beyond international law?" Noting that Israel has still not offered an apology to Turkey or compensation to the families of those killed, Davutoglu makes clear that until such reasonable preconditions are met, Israel cannot be accepted "to be a partner in the region".

Liberating Palestine: Arab Spring's second stage
We should not overlook that further in the background of this sordid effort to interfere with Freedom Flotilla 2 is the geopolitical muscle of the United States that blindly (and dumbly) backs Israel no matter how outrageous or criminal its behaviour. And undoubtedly, this geopolitical pressure helps explain this attempted interference with a courageous and needed humanitarian initiative that should have been affirmed by the UN rather than condemned. It needs to be kept in mind that despite the near universal verbal objections of world leaders, including even Ban Ki-moon, to the Israeli blockade, no meaningful action has been yet taken by either governments or the UN in the face of Israel's undisguised refusal to respect the requirements of belligerent occupation of Gaza as set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the First Additional Protocol appended thereto in 1977.

Liberating Palestine from occupation and refugee regimes should be a core, unifying priority of this second stage of the Arab Spring. Nothing could do more to manifest the external as well as the internal turn to democracy, constitutional governance, and human rights than displays of solidarity by new and newly reformist leaders in Arab countries with this unendurably long Palestinian struggle for justice and sustainable peace. It would also offer the world a contrast with the subservience to Israel recently on display in Washington, highlighted by inviting Binyamin Netanyahu to address an adoring US Congress, a rarity in the country's treatment of foreign leaders paralleling the pandering speech given by president Obama to AIPAC, the Israeli lobbying organisation. It is unprecedented in the history of diplomacy that a leading sovereign state would so jeopardise its interests and abandon its values so as to avoid offending a small allied partner. It is in the American interest, as well as in the interest of the peoples of the Arab world, particularly the Palestinians, to unravel this mystery, and if not, to move the resolution of the conflict from Washington to the more geopolitically trustworthy auspices of Brazil, Turkey, Nordic countries, and even possibly Russia or China.

*Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).

He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.