On celebrating ethnic cleansing
Marcy Newman, body on the line
This week the zionist entity celebrated 61+ years of ethnic cleansing: stealing palestinian land, murdering and massacring palestinians, lebanese, syrians, egyptians, jordanians, iraqis. 61 years of the zionist entity being recognized by the international community, though its colonial regime is 122 years old this year. barack obama rushed to congratulate this murderous thieving regime as quickly as the united states did it back in 1948, a fact which obama is proud of:
US President Barack Obama on Tuesday congratulated Israel on the 61st anniversary of its founding, according to Israel Radio.
In a statement released by the White House, Obama vowed to advance peace talks in the region and pursue the interests of both Palestinians and Israelis.
Obama reportedly noted that the US was the first country to recognize Israel in 1948.
puppet zionist leader of egypt hosni mubarak quickly followed suit:
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak congratulated Israel on its 61st anniversary of statehood Wednesday. In a letter of greeting sent to President Shimon Peres he wrote, "I am pleased to express my congratulations for Independence Day".
Mubarak added, "At this opportunity I would like to express anew my expectation for the return of the Middle East peace process to a path that will lead to an end to the violence and bloodshed, in a manner that will allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that will exist alongside Israel in peace and security."
mubarak rushing to congratulate the zionist entity–an entity that exists on the blood of his compatriots as well–led me to find an occasion to publish this mahjoob cartoon that al falasteenyia posted last week, which i just love. the arabic reads: "hezbollah and hamas are tools of the iranians."
Click here to read more
Showing posts with label Obama ZIONIST PUPPET. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama ZIONIST PUPPET. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
| |||
 | |||
| |||
By Joharah Baker Today, April 20, the United Nations' global conference on racism opens in Geneva. There will be a few empty seats though, namely those reserved for the United States, Israel, Canada, Italy, Holland, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. The United States, the obvious ringleader of the West has been mulling over whether to attend or not, with many of its sidekicks waiting for their cue. Israel of course, announced it would not attend from day one along with Canada and Italy. At this point, I think everyone has guessed what is going on. The UN conference is the second one of its type, the first being the infamous Durban Conference in 2001 in the South African city during which the US and Israel walked out in protest. No surprises as to why. The pair's feathers got ruffled when a draft resolution midway through the conference likened Zionism to racism. How dare they? I mean, how could the "only democracy in the Middle East" be likened to racism? Let's just disregard the fact that it has maintained an illegal, oppressive military occupation over Palestinian territories for the past 40-some years and has delegated Palestinians there to third class citizens for all practical purposes. Even Palestinians inside Israel are treated as second-class citizens because they, unlike the movement that founded Israel, are not Jewish. Anyway, the last conference was during the Bush – that's George W. Bush – administration, so anything short of a boycott in the name of Israel would have been out of character. Today, the situation in the United States is supposedly different. The world's superpower is led now by Barack Obama, a man who espouses openness, inclusiveness and diversity. This time around, the Obama administration did not immediately announce its boycott of the conference but said it would "reconsider attendance" if the document to be adopted by the conference were revised – i.e. if all references to Israel as a racist state were dropped. The subsequent changes to the document by the conference's preparatory committee fulfilled just that. No references to Israel or the Palestinians were made. This, however, was apparently not enough for Obama, who said "references" in the Durban I conference had not been "negated." The document from the 2001 summit, he said, was unacceptable because "folks expressed antagonism toward Israel in ways that were often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive." It's funny that Obama would use the word hypocritical because this whole situation seems the epitome of hypocrisy. What is so sacred about Israel that not even a pinch of criticism can be thrown its way? Now, not only is the US boycotting the conference, Israel is sending a delegation to Geneva to officially protest the gathering, on of its keynote speakers, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad and any possible criticisms that might be made of Israel as they come up. I find this entire situation extremely frustrating. Not that we have not grown accustomed to the staunch and blind support Israel receives especially from the United States. On the contrary, we have come to expect it. That is, until President Obama was sworn into office. Perhaps against our better judgment, we hoped that finally the United States would have a leader that could make a real change, especially where we were concerned. But like all hopes that have been raised on false pretenses, they come crashing down around us. Perhaps it was wrong to expect too much from Barack Obama, or perhaps he is not all we hoped he would be. The bottom line is that, despite the bending over backwards for Israel – some even accused Arabs and Palestinians who accepted the revised declaration of kowtowing to US and Israeli pressures – the US still opted for the boycott instead of daring any criticism of its best Middle East friend. click here to read more |
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Israel Lobby
For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue to do so?
In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel. The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby.
The question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.
With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and investigative journalist Michael Massing.
Research: William de Bruijn
Director: Marije Meerman
For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue to do so?
In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel. The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby.
The question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.
With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and investigative journalist Michael Massing.
Research: William de Bruijn
Director: Marije Meerman
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Match Made in Tel Aviv
Will Netanyahu and the neocons live happily ever after?
By Leon Hadar
April 07, 2009 "The American Conservative" -- -Imagine that after Boris Yeltsin was elected president of a free post-Communist Russia in 1991, the Poles, residents of a former province of the Soviet empire, elected former Communist boss Edward Gierek as their new head of state. Then suppose that, upon entering office, he called on Moscow to forget about rapprochement with the West and prepare for military confrontation.
Improbable as it seems, some version of this scenario is playing out here. After their humiliating defeat in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, the vanquished neoconservative legions won a major political victory in one of the provinces of the American empire when the parliamentary election in Israel brought to power a veteran neocon activist. He is calling on Washington to forget about changing U.S. policy in the Middle East and prepare for a military confrontation with Iran.
Initially, the neoconservatives envisioned a grander strategy. In November 2008, Americans would elect Norman Podhoretz’s favorite American politician, Rudy Giuliani, as their new president, followed by a vote in Israel in which Norman Podhoretz’s favorite Israeli politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, would be chosen as the Jewish state’s new prime minister.
It would have been like Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire teaming in “Flying Down to Tehran” and dancing cheek to cheek in “Neocon Time.” Not unlike FDR and Churchill uniting their nations in the struggle against Fascism during World War II, Rudy and Bibi would bring their countries together to fight Islamofascism. How about a special commemorative issue of Commentary to celebrate the day the two tied the knot at the White House?
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22366.htm to read more.
Will Netanyahu and the neocons live happily ever after?
By Leon Hadar
April 07, 2009 "The American Conservative" -- -Imagine that after Boris Yeltsin was elected president of a free post-Communist Russia in 1991, the Poles, residents of a former province of the Soviet empire, elected former Communist boss Edward Gierek as their new head of state. Then suppose that, upon entering office, he called on Moscow to forget about rapprochement with the West and prepare for military confrontation.
Improbable as it seems, some version of this scenario is playing out here. After their humiliating defeat in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, the vanquished neoconservative legions won a major political victory in one of the provinces of the American empire when the parliamentary election in Israel brought to power a veteran neocon activist. He is calling on Washington to forget about changing U.S. policy in the Middle East and prepare for a military confrontation with Iran.
Initially, the neoconservatives envisioned a grander strategy. In November 2008, Americans would elect Norman Podhoretz’s favorite American politician, Rudy Giuliani, as their new president, followed by a vote in Israel in which Norman Podhoretz’s favorite Israeli politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, would be chosen as the Jewish state’s new prime minister.
It would have been like Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire teaming in “Flying Down to Tehran” and dancing cheek to cheek in “Neocon Time.” Not unlike FDR and Churchill uniting their nations in the struggle against Fascism during World War II, Rudy and Bibi would bring their countries together to fight Islamofascism. How about a special commemorative issue of Commentary to celebrate the day the two tied the knot at the White House?
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22366.htm to read more.
While the US goes Bankrupt...
US Senate moves to fully fund Israel aid
The US Senate included a measure to restore full funding for foreign aid to the budget it approved late Thursday, increasing chances that the pool of money including assistance for Israel wouldn't be cut.
The $3.5 trillion document passed by the Senate includes a $4 billion boost to the foreign operations appropriation, bringing it up to the $53.8b. sought by President Barack Obama.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-sponsor of the amendment, defended the move as important to advancing moderation in the Middle East.
"The reality is that we are just not doing enough today to invest in the vital components of both diplomacy and development," Kerry said on the Senate floor, referencing his recent trip to Israel, Egypt, Syria and other regional countries. "I saw firsthand the degree to which people we support in many ways are struggling to push back against enormous spending by Iran and other actors who seek to destabilize the region."
The US House of Representatives, however, only approved $48.5b. for international assistance in its version of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget earlier this week, so the differences will have to be addressed in conference between the two committees, negotiations of which are expected to pick up in earnest when Congress returns from its recess later in the month.
The Senate move makes it much more likely Obama's foreign aid request will be fully funded. In the event that it isn't, it is yet to be determined which foreign aid programs would be affected, meaning Israel could still receive the total $2.77b. it is due under a long-term agreement worked out under the Bush administration
Click here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562906554&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to read more.
US Senate moves to fully fund Israel aid
The US Senate included a measure to restore full funding for foreign aid to the budget it approved late Thursday, increasing chances that the pool of money including assistance for Israel wouldn't be cut.
The $3.5 trillion document passed by the Senate includes a $4 billion boost to the foreign operations appropriation, bringing it up to the $53.8b. sought by President Barack Obama.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-sponsor of the amendment, defended the move as important to advancing moderation in the Middle East.
"The reality is that we are just not doing enough today to invest in the vital components of both diplomacy and development," Kerry said on the Senate floor, referencing his recent trip to Israel, Egypt, Syria and other regional countries. "I saw firsthand the degree to which people we support in many ways are struggling to push back against enormous spending by Iran and other actors who seek to destabilize the region."
The US House of Representatives, however, only approved $48.5b. for international assistance in its version of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget earlier this week, so the differences will have to be addressed in conference between the two committees, negotiations of which are expected to pick up in earnest when Congress returns from its recess later in the month.
The Senate move makes it much more likely Obama's foreign aid request will be fully funded. In the event that it isn't, it is yet to be determined which foreign aid programs would be affected, meaning Israel could still receive the total $2.77b. it is due under a long-term agreement worked out under the Bush administration
Click here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562906554&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to read more.
It's a Lieberman Government
By Uri Avnery – Israel
April 04, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -On the first day of the new Israeli government, the fog cleared: it's a Lieberman government.
The day started with a celebration at the President’s office. All the members of this bloated government – 30 ministers and 8 deputy ministers – were dressed up in their best finery and posed for a group photo. Binyamin Netanyahu read an uninspired speech, which included the worn-out clichés that are necessary to set the world at ease: the government is committed to peace, it will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, bla-bla-bla.
Avigdor Lieberman hurried from there to the foreign Office, for the ceremonial change of ministers. He, too, made a speech – but it was not a routine speech at all.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” declared the new Foreign Minister. When a diplomat quotes this ancient Roman saying, the world pays no attention to the first part, but only to the second. Coming from the mouth of the already infamous Lieberman, it was a clear threat: the new government is entering upon a path of war, not of peace.
With this sentence, Lieberman negated Netanyahu’s speech and made headlines around the world. He confirmed the worst apprehensions connected with the creation of this government.
Not content with quoting the Romans, he explained specifically why he used this motto. Concessions, he said, do not bring peace, but quite the reverse. The world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six-day war.
Two fallacies in one sentence. Returning occupied territory is not a “concession”. When a thief is compelled to return stolen property, or when a squatter vacates an apartment that does not belong to him, that is not a “concession”. And the admiration for Israel in 1967 came from a world that saw us as a little, valiant country that had stood up to mighty armies out to destroy us. But today’s Israel looks like a brutal Goliath, while the occupied Palestinians are now viewed as a David with his slingshot, fighting for his life.
With this speech, Lieberman succeeded in stirring the world, but even more in humiliating Netanyahu. He exposed the peace declarations of the new Prime Minister as nothing but soap bubbles.
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22353.htm to read more.
By Uri Avnery – Israel
April 04, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -On the first day of the new Israeli government, the fog cleared: it's a Lieberman government.
The day started with a celebration at the President’s office. All the members of this bloated government – 30 ministers and 8 deputy ministers – were dressed up in their best finery and posed for a group photo. Binyamin Netanyahu read an uninspired speech, which included the worn-out clichés that are necessary to set the world at ease: the government is committed to peace, it will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, bla-bla-bla.
Avigdor Lieberman hurried from there to the foreign Office, for the ceremonial change of ministers. He, too, made a speech – but it was not a routine speech at all.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” declared the new Foreign Minister. When a diplomat quotes this ancient Roman saying, the world pays no attention to the first part, but only to the second. Coming from the mouth of the already infamous Lieberman, it was a clear threat: the new government is entering upon a path of war, not of peace.
With this sentence, Lieberman negated Netanyahu’s speech and made headlines around the world. He confirmed the worst apprehensions connected with the creation of this government.
Not content with quoting the Romans, he explained specifically why he used this motto. Concessions, he said, do not bring peace, but quite the reverse. The world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six-day war.
Two fallacies in one sentence. Returning occupied territory is not a “concession”. When a thief is compelled to return stolen property, or when a squatter vacates an apartment that does not belong to him, that is not a “concession”. And the admiration for Israel in 1967 came from a world that saw us as a little, valiant country that had stood up to mighty armies out to destroy us. But today’s Israel looks like a brutal Goliath, while the occupied Palestinians are now viewed as a David with his slingshot, fighting for his life.
With this speech, Lieberman succeeded in stirring the world, but even more in humiliating Netanyahu. He exposed the peace declarations of the new Prime Minister as nothing but soap bubbles.
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22353.htm to read more.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Will Israel Be Brought To Book?
The evidence of war crimes in Gaza is a challenge to universal justice: will western-backed perpetrators ever stand trial?
By Seumas Milne
March 23, 2009 "The Guardian" -- - Evidence of the scale of Israel's war crimes in its January onslaught on Gaza is becoming unanswerable. Clancy Chassay's three films investigating allegations against Israeli forces in the Gaza strip, released by the Guardian today, include important new accounts of the flagrant breaches of the laws of war that marked the three-week campaign – now estimated to have left at least 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and 13 Israelis dead.
The films provide compelling testimony of Israel's use of Palestinian teenagers as human shields; the targeting of hospitals, clinics and medical workers, including with phosphorus bombs; and attacks on civilians, including women and children – sometimes waving white flags – from hunter-killer drones whose targeting systems are so powerful they can identify the colour of a person's clothes.
Naturally, the Israeli occupation forces' spokesperson insists to Chassay that they make every effort to avoid killing civilians and denies using human shields or targeting medical workers – while at the same time explaining that medics in war zones "take the risk upon themselves". By banning journalists from entering Gaza during its punitive devastation of the strip, the Israeli government avoided independent investigations of the stream of war crimes accusations while the attack was going on.
But now journalists and human rights organisations are back inside, doing the painstaking work, the question is whether Israel's government and military commanders will be held to account for what they unleashed on the Palestinians of Gaza – or whether, like their US and British sponsors in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can carry out war crimes with impunity.
It's not as if Clancy's reports are unique or uncorroborated by other evidence. Last week, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that a group of Israelis soldiers had admitted intentionally shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian mother and her two children, as well as an elderly Palestinian woman, in Gaza in January. As one explained: "The lives of Palestinians, let's say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way".
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22285.htm to read more.
The evidence of war crimes in Gaza is a challenge to universal justice: will western-backed perpetrators ever stand trial?
By Seumas Milne
March 23, 2009 "The Guardian" -- - Evidence of the scale of Israel's war crimes in its January onslaught on Gaza is becoming unanswerable. Clancy Chassay's three films investigating allegations against Israeli forces in the Gaza strip, released by the Guardian today, include important new accounts of the flagrant breaches of the laws of war that marked the three-week campaign – now estimated to have left at least 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and 13 Israelis dead.
The films provide compelling testimony of Israel's use of Palestinian teenagers as human shields; the targeting of hospitals, clinics and medical workers, including with phosphorus bombs; and attacks on civilians, including women and children – sometimes waving white flags – from hunter-killer drones whose targeting systems are so powerful they can identify the colour of a person's clothes.
Naturally, the Israeli occupation forces' spokesperson insists to Chassay that they make every effort to avoid killing civilians and denies using human shields or targeting medical workers – while at the same time explaining that medics in war zones "take the risk upon themselves". By banning journalists from entering Gaza during its punitive devastation of the strip, the Israeli government avoided independent investigations of the stream of war crimes accusations while the attack was going on.
But now journalists and human rights organisations are back inside, doing the painstaking work, the question is whether Israel's government and military commanders will be held to account for what they unleashed on the Palestinians of Gaza – or whether, like their US and British sponsors in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can carry out war crimes with impunity.
It's not as if Clancy's reports are unique or uncorroborated by other evidence. Last week, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that a group of Israelis soldiers had admitted intentionally shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian mother and her two children, as well as an elderly Palestinian woman, in Gaza in January. As one explained: "The lives of Palestinians, let's say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way".
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22285.htm to read more.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Change the Lobby
By Ramzy Baroud
One cannot emphasize enough the stranglehold Israel's lobbying infrastructure has on US foreign policy. The events of recent weeks undoubtedly attest to this. "The special relationship" that has been historically fostered between the US and Israel in fact, is often a relationship of leverage, manipulation and intimidation, and often leads to the US supporting actions or resolutions that stand at complete odds with the interests of the American people.
The promise of change echoed the world over as people from all corners anticipated the magic moment Obama could actually change the devastating reality in which we live today. But just weeks before his inauguration, Israel unleashed the most barbaric attacks on defenseless Palestinian civilians since 1948. Civil societies expressed outrage and called for Israeli leaders to be tried for war crimes and genocide. Other nations cut diplomatic ties completely with the Jewish state. But the man of change did absolutely nothing. For weeks he was completely silent. Even in his first days in office, Obama made no mention of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. So, what of this change that he promised? What kind of hold does Israel have to silence the President of the United States?
Click here: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14790 to read more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
