Debate the hottest political topics, poll the public opinion, post your own opinion polls and find out what others think!
You can even post your own public opinion polls using our poll builder and find out what others think on the issues that matter to you!
For use throughout this article, please refer to:US Foreign Aid To IsraelUse of the Veto on United Nations Resolutions by the USAFor decades, the United States of America has been involved in the Middle East Conflict between the Palestinians and the Israeli's as has the rest of the world. Its involvement has always been stated as one pursuing an end to the conflict that results in a fair and just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. However, its actions in the last 40-plus years suggests the US is actually, at least in part, to blame for the continuation of the conflict.In the history of the conflict, the US has consistently armed and protected Israel from international scrutiny and action. This policy picked up momentum following the 1967 Six Day War launched by Israel to obtain more land, including the Old City in East Jerusalem from is Arab neighbors. The US may have been a signatory to United Nations Resolution 242, which demands Israel returns to her 1967 borders and give Palestinian refugees the right to return, but it has never acted in a way lending to its actual fulfillment.In the 1970's, President Jimmy Carter staged the first Middle East Peace Talks between Israel and its neighbor Egypt. Following the negotiations, the Camp David Accords were signed into international law. In essence, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for Israel returning to its 1967 borders. This includes Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Sheba Farms and Southern Lebanon, and from the Syrian Golan Heights. Also, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had negotiated for the West Bank and Gaza to be used as the starting point and as the framework for the creation of a Palestinian state. The Israeli settlement project in the West Bank was to come to an end. At this point, it seemed as though US policy was truly intended to resolve the conflict.However, in the 1980's Ronald Reagan, an Evangelical Christian, became President and the majority of the Camp David Accords became obsolete. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and was protected from War Crime tribunals by a veto administered by Reagan at the UN Security Council on numerous occasions. At the same time, Israel began to really move its colonial settlement project in the West Bank and East Jerusalem by building tens of thousands of Jewish Only colonies. Reagan never once even threatened international action against Israel for stealing Palestinian land and making thousands of families homeless. Instead, he doubled US Military support to Israel by increasing it from $500 million to $900 million annually, and he provided Israel with one and half times its typical economic aid by increasing it from $525 million to $725 million. By the end of his Presidency, US Military aid to Israel ballooned to $1.8 billion a year and economic aid ballooned to $1.2 billion a year.Sabra & Shatila Genocide Committed by Sharon and the Christian Phlange (see videos below)In 1988, the Conflict should have come to an end. Yasser Arafat and the PLO accepted the state of Israel and were willing to settle for only the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of Palestine's land. For 24 years now, everyone has known the following is the only rational and possible settlement between the two parties:Israel returns to 1967 bordersPalestine becomes a state on the West Bank and GazaIsrael must recognize the Palestinian Right to Return - exactly how this is enacted must be discussed between Israel and the Palestinian RefugeesIsraeli Settlements within Palestine must come to an end. Some settlements will have to be removed and Israel must exchange land with the Palestinians in proportion to settlements they agree can remainEast Jerusalem becomes a part of the Palestinian StateReagan virtually ignored and obstructed any progress occurring while he remained President, but the next President, George H. Bush, became involved in secret talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. He is the only President to withhold Financial aid to Israel because of its continued construction of settlements. He unequivocally stated: "The United States policy on settlements in the occupied territories is unchanged and is clear: we oppose new settlements in territories beyond the 1967 lines - settlements [are] contrary to the United States policy; and I will continue to reiterate the policy, and try to persuade the government of Israel that it is counterproductive to go forward with additional settlements in these territories. Our objective is to get the parties to the peace table."The US has basically bankrolled Israel's continued colonial project in the West Bank, and thus such a threat actually had an effect. He demanded Israel completely halt all settlement activity to receive financial aid and they did, at least temporarily. In my opinion, only the first President Bush actually tried to do the right thing. He tried to stop the settlements and actually threatened Israel. No other President has ever done that. It was his hands on approach that led to the parties gathering at the negotiations table. He understood the basis of the Occupation was land, not religious or defensive as Israel and its supporters claim. The Palestinians want to live free and equal to the rest of the people of the world on their land, and Israel wants to kick the Palestinians off that land by building more colonies in the West Bank for Jews only and claiming it as part of Israel. President Bush, however, lost his reelection campaign against Bill Clinton.President Clinton continued the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israeli's, but did not confront Israel's colonial expansion. While he was in power, he oversaw the Oslo Peace Process and witnessed the horribly unjust Oslo Accords. It was supposedly the outline for beginning an overarching peace between the two people, but it instead enabled and encouraged the further colonization of Palestine in the West Bank. It divided the regions of the West Bank into A, B, and C zones. Zone A - The PA has complete control over all civilian administration, and its paramilitary police force is in charge of security. 3% of the West Bank was Zone A Zone B - The PA has full civilian authority but it shares security responsibility with Israel. Joint Israel-PA patrols operate here. 23% of the West Bank was Zone B Zone C - Israel has full control.Israel was committed to handing over more parts of Area C to the Palestinians every six months, but in practice this process occurred only irregularly. 74% of the West Bank was Zone C As can be seen in the Map, Israel maintained virtual control of the entire West Bank. The idea the PLO was in any actual control of the West Bank during Clinton's Presidency was a complete facade. By maintaining this control, Israel embarked on a major colonial expansion project and was able to add hundreds of thousands of illegal Jewish-only settlements on land stolen from the Palestinians in the West Bank. The international community attempted to step in on numerous occasions, but Clinton either "persuaded" them to change their minds or administered a US veto at the UN to block international action.The Oslo Accords were a failure and their shelf life was rapidly eroding towards the end of President Clinton's tenure. During his reign, he administered vetoes to block international scrutiny and sanctions against Israel for colonizing Palestine and increased US financial and military aid to Israel. In other words, he gave Israel the money and the means to continue the Conflict and to continue to steal and ethnically cleanse Palestinian land.After Clinton, another Evangelical Christian, George W Bush, became President of the United States. During Bush's administration, the Conflict reached its worst condition since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that occurred from the 1940's through the 1960's. Bush basically allowed Ariel Sharon to do whatever he wanted. Israeli and US policy became one and the same under Bush. The Oslo Accords were completely thrown off the table as Israel reoccupied the small areas of the West Bank it had previously withdrawn from. This caused tensions to be high and following Sharon's visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque with the Israeli army, the second intifada, the Al Aqsa Intifada, was launched by Palestinian's in an attempt to resist the injustice of the Israeli Occupation.It was during Bush's presidency, Israel began plans to construct the Apartheid Wall, which would create cantons of Palestinian reservations enclosed by a wall which reaches 30 feet high. Israel claimed it was building a "Separation" barrier between them and the Palestinians, and had no other intentions. However, the route of the wall and Israel's actions suggests otherwise. The Wall's stated purpose tells us Israel's plan was to racially separate its Jewish citizens from its Arab Palestinian citizens and neighbors. It would keep the Palestinians walled in the world's largest open-air prison, preventing them access to the outside world except for having to go through and being subjected to interrogations to be able to plead with and hope Israel allows you to get out. The Wall's route carves the Palestinian population into Islands separated from each other. It would not follow the line of the pre-1967 borders, but instead it would be placed within the West Bank swallowing half of its territory. On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice - the UN's principal judicial organ - issued an advisory opinion saying the separation barrier was illegal and that construction must stop immediately. The Court also said Israel should make reparations for any damage caused, and that the Assembly and the Security Council should consider what steps to take "to bring to an end the illegal situation" created by the barrier. The US was the only country to vote against the advisory opinion. Next, on July 22, 2004, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted on a resolution demanding Israel comply with the ICJ's advisory opinion. Again, the US voted against the resolution. The General Assembly, however, has no enforcement mechanism and leaves such decisions as sanctions or other actions to be taken against a nation state for the UN Security Council to decide. After passing the matter to the UN Security Council, Bush vetoed the matter allowing Israel to begin to create the map below:As the map clearly indicates, the Apartheid Racist Wall allows Israel to steal half of the land in the West Bank, and President Bush supported this policy. Not only did he support it, but he actually increased US financial and military aid to Israel following the beginning of its construction. Anybody that argues using the term "Apartheid" to describe the wall as unjust, false, or offensive is absolutely clueless as to what Apartheid means. Israel itself calls the wall the "Separation" Barrier. Apartheid is merely a synonym for separation. The word "Apartheid" literally means separation. So Israel, in its own terms, is basically referring to is as the Apartheid Wall.Like presidents before him, President Bush also protected Israel from international scrutiny via pressure or the administration of a US veto. He did so following Israel's reoccupation of the entire West Bank, which in turn allowed Israel to begin constructing the Wall. He also turned a blind eye as Israel was able to build hundreds of thousands of more settlements. Many times, Bush was even willing to use or threaten the use of a US veto in opposition to his European counterparts...none more horrific and inhumane than the veto Bush used in January 2009 just prior to leaving office.The Apartheid WallOn the eve of the 2008 US elections, Israel launched military attacks on the Gaza Strip leading to the death of at least fifteen Palestinians. This would lead to the end of an Israeli-Hamas truce in mid-December, and then Israel launched Operation Cast Lead. The United Nations scrambled to meet and attempt to put an end of the Israeli massacre but the US bullied them in Israel's favor and prevented the Security Council from being able to take action. After abstaining from a UN Security Council Vote on a resolution written by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush would later use a veto to block UN General Assembly Resolution which had passed 142 member states in favor, 4 oppose, and 8 abstentions. Instead of joining the international community in condemning Israel and trying to find a way to put an end to the massacre, Bush sent Israel more weapons resulting in the murders of 1400 Palestinians, including 400 children, in the Gaza Strip in three weeks. Israel's murderous rage ended on the eve prior to President Barack Obama being sworn into office. The Operation seemed to be coordinated to begin on US election day and then end it just prior to the non-Evangelical Christian Democrat, Barrack Obama, took office. President Obama's election brought new hope to the Palestinians and other Arab countries that they finally had a US President that would do the right thing. After all, he said the Palestinians were suffering more than any other people in the world and many other things the Palestinians and Arabs had been waiting decades to hear from a US President. However, Obama has not lived up to expectations and has instead, thus far, continued US policy.Three major events define the current Obama Presidency in relation to the Middle East Conflict. The first occurred on February 18, 2011. The UN Security Council attempted to condemn Israeli plans to expand construction of its colonies, and Obama chose to use the US veto. Once again, actions taken by the US can only be explained as continuing the conflict. There is no other possible outcome from supporting Israel's continued theft of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing of its people. The second major event occurred a few weeks ago when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas presented the Palestinian bid to Statehood at the UN. Obama and the US has actively attempted to derail the Palestinians from seeking statehood via this manner. Obama vows to vote against the UN vote for Palestinian Statehood and use a veto if the matter is directed to the Security Council. The hypocrisy reflected and the depth of the lies told in US and Israeli positions on the Palestinian statehood initiative have reached new highs. On several occasions, people acting on behalf of either Israel and America have said that a state can't be granted by the UN. Really!? How do they sleep with themselves at night after telling such hypocritical and ironic lies? I have one question for them...How did Israel become a state? Exactly! Via the UN! The Palestinians are essentially using the same method as Israel.The third major event took place recently when the US decided to make cuts in Palestinian humanitarian aid. Obama and Congress threatened President Abbas they would do this if he continued his UN bid, and it appears at least Congress has kept its word by passing a veto proof resolution calling for $200 million in aid to be frozen. Surprisingly, the UK Independent article cited above reports the "decision to delay the payments runs counter to the wishes of the Obama administration and reflects Congressional anger at Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's so far unrealised pursuit of Fatah-Hamas reconciliation and statehood recognition at the UN." Actually, Obama does not support such actions, however, the resolution to freeze $200 million in aid to the Palestinians is veto proof. If the President were to exercise his veto, Congress has the votes to overturn him. In this case, a veto by the President would actually be counterproductive and a political nightmare for him. I believe the US is to blame for the continuation of the Middle East Conflict. Without US military aid, Israel would not be able to ethnically cleanse the Arabs from Palestine. Israel uses the military aid provided by America to protect its illegal settlement and to enable the farther construction of more Jewish only settlements on Palestinian owned land. It uses US financial aid to pay for the supplies and development of the settlements. Furthermore, when Israel becomes the target of an international probe, America blocks the UN from taking any action. To restate and simplify, the US uses American tax dollars to give Israel both military and financial aid (which Israel is exempt from having to repay the loans). Israel uses its military to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and oppress the Palestinian population in order to develop Jewish only settlements. They also use the military might to forcefully imprison the Palestinians and completely control their lives. After using tanks and bulldozers to clear an area, Israel uses the financial aid the US sends them to pay for the supplies and construction of the new Jewish only settlements that are usually built directly on top and in the spot previous Palestinians lived. The settlement activity is illegal and is repeatedly condemned by the international community, except by the US, of course. American tax payers pay for the military equipment and weapons Israel uses to continue to occupy and oppress the Palestinians. American tax payers and donors paid for the Apartheid Wall. America arms Israel to the teeth. In fact, Israel is considered the world's 10th largest army even though the nation consists of only 6.5 million people. And Israel does not just collect and show off its weapons, she is constantly using them against the civilian population of the Palestinians. When the international community tries to put an end to Israeli War Crimes, America ALWAYS steps in to shield and enable Israel to continue to commit human rights violations against the Palestinians. This is clearly not in the best interest of US security. To put this in perspective, Bush's protection and support of Ariel Sharon from the ICJ, for example, is equivalent to an Arab leader protecting and supporting Osama bin Laden. See The Crimes of Ariel Sharon to farther understand this point. Americans would obviously be pissed at Arabs that protected and supported bin Laden. Likewise can be said about Bush's support and calling Sharon a "Man of Peace" knowing he has murdered tens of thousands of Arabs and Palestinians in cold blood. Arabs are and were rightfully pissed this occurred.If the US did not do these things, I believe the international community would have already resolved this issue. I've provided an outline of the major actions the US has taken towards the conflict in recent history and my opinion. What do you think? Is America to blame for the continuation of the Middle East Conflict?
"The United States policy on settlements in the occupied territories is unchanged and is clear: we oppose new settlements in territories beyond the 1967 lines - settlements [are] contrary to the United States policy; and I will continue to reiterate the policy, and try to persuade the government of Israel that it is counterproductive to go forward with additional settlements in these territories. Our objective is to get the parties to the peace table."
Zone A - The PA has complete control over all civilian administration, and its paramilitary police force is in charge of security. 3% of the West Bank was Zone A Zone B - The PA has full civilian authority but it shares security responsibility with Israel. Joint Israel-PA patrols operate here. 23% of the West Bank was Zone B Zone C - Israel has full control.Israel was committed to handing over more parts of Area C to the Palestinians every six months, but in practice this process occurred only irregularly. 74% of the West Bank was Zone C
Obama Admin Warns of “Fines and Incarceration” if U.S. Citizens Set Sail with Gaza Aid FlotillaA group of U.S. citizens is rejecting the Obama administration’s attempt to thwart their aid mission to the Gaza Strip, which threatens to leave them stranded in Greece. They are set to sail from a Greek port on a U.S.-flagged ship called “The Audacity of Hope,” part of an international humanitarian flotilla carrying aid for Gaza’s 1.5 million Palestinian residents. Flotilla members are taking part despite Israeli threats to intercept their ships. Nine people were killed in an Israeli attack on the first aid flotilla just over a year ago. The Audacity of Hope passengers have called for the U.S. government’s help in ensuring their safe passage. But instead, the Obama administration has told them not to set sail and even warned them they could face punishment back home. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested Israel would have the right to use force to prevent the ships’ passage. The State Department called the flotilla "irresponsible and provocative" and warned that U.S. delegates could face "fines and incarceration.” We play an excerpt from a press conference when State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is repeatedly questioned about the Obama administration’s threat, but refuses to answer whether the U.S. considers the Israeli blockade of Gaza to be legal. [includes rush transcript]AMY GOODMAN: A group of U.S. citizens is defiantly rejecting the Obama administration’s attempt to thwart their aid mission to the Gaza Strip, which threatens to leave them stranded in Greece. Up to 50 Americans are set to sail from a Greek port on a U.S.-flagged ship called The Audacity of Hope, named after President Obama’s bestselling book. The boat is part of an international flotilla carrying aid for Gaza’s one-and-a-half million Palestinian residents. The first two ships of the 10 ships participating in the mission have already left from France.The flotilla members are taking part despite Israeli threats to intercept their ships. Nine people were killed in an Israeli attack on the first flotilla just over a year ago. The Audacity of Hope passengers have called for the U.S. government’s help in ensuring their safe passage. But instead, the Obama administration has told them not to set sail and even warned them they could face punishment back home. Speaking to reporters, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested Israel would have the right to use force to prevent the ships’ passage.SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: Well, we do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza. Just this week, the Israeli government approved a significant commitment to housing in Gaza. There will be construction materials entering Gaza. And we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that, you know, try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.AMY GOODMAN: The State Department followed Clinton’s comments with a statement calling the flotilla, quote, "irresponsible and provocative" and warned that U.S. delegates could face, quote, "fines and incarceration." On Friday, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland was questioned about the Obama administration’s threat. Under repeated questioning, Nuland refused to answer whether the U.S. considers the Israeli blockade of Gaza to be legal.REPORTER 1: Just to make sure, does the U.S. consider that blockade legal?VICTORIA NULAND: I think the main point that we were trying to make in the statement was that we’ve got to use the channels that are safe, the channels that are going to guarantee that the aid get where it needs to go, to the people it’s intended for, and to discourage, in strongest terms, any actions on the high seas that could result in a conflict.REPORTER 1: Right, but again, that doesn’t answer the question of the legality or the—whether the U.S. perceives that blockade as legal or not.VICTORIA NULAND: I don’t have anything for you on legality here.REPORTER 1: The people who are putting this together have a rather elaborate website, and they say that—on that, that the U.S. should be protecting the rights of American citizens, protecting their safety abroad. So that is the argument that they’re making. They’re very disappointed and shocked that the State Department would be warning people off. What do you say to that?VICTORIA NULAND: It is in the interest of protecting both Americans and other citizens from around the world who might be thinking about engaging in provocative moves like this that we were putting out these warnings so strongly in the same season where we had this problem last year. We don’t want to see a repeat, and we do believe that those who want to aid Gaza can do so and need to do so in the correct manner.REPORTER 2: Well, just one more on this, yeah. I don’t think you said it, but people at the State Department have said Israel has a right to defend itself against these flotillas. What exactly would it be defending against, though? That’s what’s not clear to me.VICTORIA NULAND: Like all states, Israel has a right of national self-defense. Again, I don’t want to get into where the boat might be and law of the sea and all this kind of stuff. We are simply saying this is the wrong way to get aid to Gaza. The correct way to get aid to Gaza is through the established mechanisms, which are improving, which are open, and which can get aid to the people that it’s intended for.REPORTER 2: But it’s just humanitarian aid, so I don’t see why it would be—Israel would have to defend itself, if it’s just humanitarian aid coming in.VICTORIA NULAND: It’s the matter of all states to provide coastal defense, but I’m—again, I’m not going to get into the law of the sea issues here. We’re simply trying to make the point that we want this done in a way that not only is going to get the aid where it’s intended but is going to ensure that we don’t have dangerous incidents.REPORTER 2: You believe that because there are established—already established means, the Israeli port where things are inspected and the Rafah Crossing, that in this case, being provocative is unnecessary and unwise, because it’s just not needed, there are other ways to do it. Is that—that’s the bottom line?VICTORIA NULAND: That’s certainly the case, and we don’t want—we don’t want further incidents. It’s not in anybody’s interest.REPORTER 3: Is the regular blockade a provocative act?VICTORIA NULAND: I think we’ve gone as far as we’re going to go on this subject.AMY GOODMAN: That was U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland.Obama Admin Warns of “Fines and Incarceration” if U.S. Citizens Set Sail with Gaza Aid FlotillaDemocracynow.org
Listen to the video below (from MorningJoe.com) concerning the discussion of President Obama's actions this week towards the Palestinians and their bid to be officially recognized by the United Nations as a state. In the video, Maen Areikat, the Chief Palestinian Negotiator to the US, argues the purpose of going forward with the UN vote is to create an equal playing field for the Palestinians at the negotiation table with the Israeli's. President Obama has been scrambling around in an attempt to avert this from occurring. The video above, provided by the AP, explains the different acts Obama has taken to undermine the Palestinians. It is also believed Obama will choose to vote against the Palestinians in the security council and could administrate a US veto.Areikat says if America does anything but vote for the Palestinian state at the UN, it will be viewed as a move to derail and prevent the Palestinians from moving forward. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the single most important issue for America in the Middle East. America has historically been viewed as biased and the enabler of the oldest occupation - the Israeli Military Occupation of Palestine - by Arabs and Muslims throughout the world. Osama bin Laden cited the US's involvement in the Conflict as one of the main driving forces behind al Qaeda's motivation.Poll after poll shows America is primarily disliked by the Arab people because of its support of Israel in its oppression of the Palestinians. Throughout the conflict, America has armed the Israeli's to the teeth to fight against a civilian population. The US has also historically exercised a veto for Israel in the UN Security Council to prevent any international condemnation for war crimes and human rights violations Israel commits against the Palestinians. With this in mind, what is Obama thinking? Listen to the videos provided and think about the consequences of his decisions. Is he doing the right thing? Is it in the best interests of America?
We need look no further than the politics of the state of Israel to see what extremist religion can do with power. The Tea Party in the US, which will determine the winner of the presidential Republican nominating process, is ready to show the world that God wants a final say in US political decision-making.The Tea Party has emerged as a carbon copy of ultra right wing Zionist forces in Israel. The Tea Party and right-wing political Zionism share a single-minded religious worldview that religious ideology can, and should, exercise absolute control over its citizens.On June 3-4, at Ralph Reed’s annual Faith and Faithful gathering in Washington, speakers praised God and Israel in equal measure. Only a few weeks had passed since the leader of a foreign nation came to Washington at the request of Congress.That leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, showed Americans how to combine religious ideology with political power. The peoples’ representatives cheered mightily to demonstrate their loyalty to a foreign nation operating under a religious ideology that served the interests of political power.Ralph Reed invited Republican presidential aspirants to speak to his organization of Christian faithful. Sure, they were also there to talk politics. But their politics are inseparable from their ideological devotion to the modern state of Israel.Philip Giradi discovered how closely Reed’s speakers adhered to the script of political power and religion.Support for Israel was on the menu du jour in nearly every speech and for every panel. It dominated the conference. One panel had as its subject “Israel: surrounded yet undaunted in the face of evil.”Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s oddly named Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke for fifteen minutes about Israel, saying “If we want God to bless America, then we have to bless the Jews. God gave that land to his chosen people forever. That issue is settled by God almighty…Michele Bachmann produced a standing ovation when she cited a “shocking display of betrayal of our greatest friend and ally Israel.” She added “I stand with Israel…President Obama…does not speak for us on the issue of Israel.”The Reed gathering was just one of several recent Washington displays of love for Israel.For the rest of the article click Netanyahu Owns the US Congress; Soon We Will Know if He Also Owns Gaza and the UN by James M. Wall
In the video above, George Galloway argues it would be a complete catastrophe for the United States and NATO to go to war with Iran. Listen to Galloway's speech, and then decide Is it a mistake for the US and NATO to go to war with Iran?
In the last couple of weeks, the world has been witnessing increasing military activity between the US and Iran. The US and Israel have already committed several acts of war including terrorist attacks against Iranian scientists, placing an embargo on Iranian banks, and using unmanned spy drones to spy on the Islamic Republic, such as the one captured by the Iranians. As the map shows, the US and NATO have Iran completely surrounded. At the Center for Research on Globalization, the following articles have been produced indicating the authors fear a War with Iran is already underway:Attack Iran? Nuclear Insanity: "We have the Capability to Take the World Down with Us" by Felicity ArbuthnotWAR PLAN IRAN: Dispelling the Lies, Telling the Truth about Western Aggression in the Persian Gulf by Finian Cunningham and Michel ChossudovskyTerror Attacks, U.S.-Israeli War Games Raise the Prospects for War with Iran by Tom BurghardtAfter reviewing these articles and taking into consideration recent events, do you believe the US and NATO are preparing to go to war with Iran?
Is he Right?
In virtually every Republican primary debate, all of the candidates (except Ron Paul) have made clear Islamophobic and anti-Arab statements. The video provided has an example of one of the Republican Primary Debates. Why do the primary candidates use such hateful and ignorant language when discussing Arabs and Muslims? Does using racial slurs towards Arabs and Muslims help Republicans gain conservative voters?
Today, the Israeli's released 477 Palestinian political prisoners in exchange for Galid Shalit, who was captured by Hamas five years ago, in phase one of the prisoner exchange. In Phase 2, Israel is also to release another 550 Palestinian political prisoners in the next two months and has pledged to lift the Gaza Blockade. Shalit was taken as a prisoner of war five years ago by Hamas. He has lived in their captivity for that entire time. Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu says the release of Shalit means he has completed his mission. The Palestinian prisoners released have also been in prison for several years and even decades in some cases. Hamas says 1/2 a million Palestinians are taking to the streets to rally for their released brethren.The sites and sounds from both camps seems joyous at the moment, something rare in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The prisoner swap deal is a sign that Hamas and Israel can work together to resolve issues. Was the Galid Shalit for Jailed Palestinians prisoner Swap a smart move by the parties?
Governor and Republican Presidential nominee, Rick Perry, is a racist and discriminates against the Palestinians in his discussions and dealings with the Middle East Conflict. The question, however, is why?In the attached video above, we hear Perry actually say the following: "The Obama Policy of moral equivalency of giving equal standing to the grievances of Israeli's and Palestinians...is a very dangerous insult." The very fact he says the grievances of one group are superior to another and that they should be given preferential treatment by the US is de facto racism and de facto discrimination. He carries it as far as to call it a "dangerous insult" to say the two humans are equals.In response to the Palestinian decision to seek statehood via the United Nations, Perry calls Obama's Middle East policy "appeasement" for "encouraging such an ominous act in bad faith." He argues Obama's policy is naive, uninformed, arrogant, and dangerous, yet, he never tells us why he believes in such. After listening to these words, I can't help but chuckle because if you describe someone using such terms, you would think all of your statements made it clear these terms do not apply to you. However, Perry clearly has no clue what appeasement truly means. Appeasement refers to diplomatic policies that make concessions to avoid war. What concessions does the US have to make to avoid war? What concessions has the US made recently or ever to the Palestinians? Obama has been going around trying to persuade people into voting against the Palestinian state, not for it. So who exactly is Obama appeasing? The Palestinians? No, Israel? Exactly, because Obama has definitely not acted in a way that favors the Palestinians by any means, and he surely isn't giving them anything in exchange for no war.However, the clear expression of Perry's ignorance and that of his audience comes from his statement that a state can't be founded by the UN. He obviously doesn't know how Israel was founded in 1948, does he? I actually truly doubt it. In listening to him discuss this issue, it is clear he knows absolutely nothing on the factual subject matter. This is an example of American fascism. Perry either knows the truth and is lying because he knows his audience doesn't know the subject or he has received and learned such bad information that he, as a Governor, does not know the basic facts. It is a cycle of falsehoods being repeated so often and so adamantly, they become facts. Perry talks about the Palestinians as terrorists and people accept this because this is hammered and repeated in the media and by our politicians so often that nobody questions it. At the same time, Israel's war and human rights crimes are not discussed or mentioned. Often our media and politicians will go out of their way to defend Israel even when she commits heinous crimes. The American public never gets an accurate portrayal of what is going on. They get the version of the story those in power want them to, and this leads them to blindly support horrific foreign policy decisions made by the US government. And after being labeled and universally accepted as a terrorist, to dare agree or even reach out to the Palestinians is treated as conspiring to commit terrorism. It is by this manner, the Palestinian voice is never heard and US policy makers do as they please while misleading the uninformed public.In the video, Perry is seen openly recognizing Israel as having a right to continue to kick Palestinians out of their homes and land so they can build "Jewish Only" settlements in their place. Only a racist thinks it is okay to kick a person out of their house because they are the wrong ethnicity and that only people of a certain ethnicity may live there. And this is the very definition of discrimination. Perry also supports sanctioning the Palestinian Authority if they go forward with the UN vote. He even believes, the US should threaten to withhold US financial support to the UN if they allow the vote to happen. In other words, he hates the Palestinians so much, he is willing to sacrifice the livelihood of tens of millions of people that depend on UN assistance to survive just so he could put the already 45% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and 80% of those in Gaza living under the international poverty line in an even harder situation. Or, then again, Perry might just be that clueless.Perry says his Christian Evangelical faith guides how he handles the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. He says "I, as a Christian, have a clear directive to support Israel." He continues, that from his "perspective, it’s pretty easy. Both as an American and a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel." Cenk Uyger from The Young Turks explains Perry's religious lust for Israel in the video below. In essence, Perry and the approximately 55 million American Christian Evangelicals believe the land of Palestine must be completely ethnically cleansed of all races of human beings other than the Jewish race. After this happens, Christ will return to Earth. The Jews are then confronted with the decision of either converting to Christianity or burning in hell, and the Evangelicals and the converted Jews live happily ever after. In other words, they want Armageddon to occur.Earlier in June, when the flotilla's filled with humanitarian aid were sailing for Gaza, Perry called on the Justice Department to criminally charge all people involved in delivering aid to the Palestinians via this manner. The following are a few quotes of his surrounding the whole debacle:"As an American citizen and governor of one of its largest states, I write to applaud your recent efforts to warn and discourage those who have supported or plan to support a flotilla intended to interfere with Israel's maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip""More importantly, I write to encourage you to aggressively pursue all available legal remedies to enjoin and prevent these illegal actions, and to prosecute any who may elect to engage in them in spite of your preemptive efforts."Perry addresses the Palestinians as a sub-species. Their ambitions, rights, and dignity are so secondary to others, Perry doesn't even mention or acknowledge they have them. To Perry, as long as they have enough food to stay alive, then they are fine. Who cares that Israel has literally built a wall that encloses them from the entire world. Who cares that one family has their house bulldozed by the Israeli Defense Forces so a Jewish immigrant can build a new home in its place. Who cares if the Palestinian children are suffering from chronic malnutrition. Who cares when Israel kills Palestinians at will. Apartheid is cool and the good idea to those in the Evangelical Christian community. It was supported by their first political leader, Ronald Reagan, in the case of South Africa; so supporting it here is merely a favorite past time.So is Christianity the driving force behind Rick Perry's racism towards the Palestinians?
The United States, NATO, and Israel repeatedly claim that Iran's nuclear program is designed with the goal of creating nuclear weapons. Such allegations, however, are made without evidence. Ralph Nader says the "International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) that monitor compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran belongs, have entered Iran numerous times and, while remaining suspicious, have not been able to find that country on the direct road to the Bomb." Though the IAEA may be suspicious, they haven't found any evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Iran. US officials constantly misrepresent the IAEA by stating Iran could develop a nuclear weapon in X number of years. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful means, specifically for nuclear energy. It has the right to have nuclear energy, and so far no evidence suggests Iran is planning to use its nuclear program in any other capacity. It is all just speculation, perhaps even made up by the West. What do you think? Is Iran trying to make nuclear weapons?
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas delivered a heart filled speech stating the Palestinian's legitimate claim to be free of imprisonment and apartheid like the other people in the world. He began from the beginning of the Palestinian suffering, Al Nakba, and ended with the present suffering. Listen to the whole video provided above, and then answer: Was the speech effective?.Transcript of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas's speech at the United Nations General Assembly
For 12 weeks, Citizens in Morocco have been gathering on the streets protesting for social and economic reforms. Atop the list of their demands are new elections for the members of Parliament and for King Mohammed to make amendments to the Constitution. Today, June 17,2011, the King responded to the demonstrators with a draft of a new Constitution. The Guardian reports the Constitution gives "greater power to elected politicians but [leaves] him [the King] with a firm grip on security, the army and religious matters." The King claims to have created "a new democratic constitutional charter" that "enshrines a citizen-based monarchy."The following is a summary of the King's proposed amendments (for more details see Al Jazeera)President of the Government: this is the new title of the Prime Minister, which includes the following powers previously held by the King:Appoint government officialsDissolve parliamentPrime Minister is elected from the majority party in the Parliament after electionsThe Reforms Strengthen ParliamentGives the body the power to investigate officials with only 1/5 of its members, instead of a unanimous approvalAlso, they only need the support of 1/2 of the body to begin a censure motion on a ministerThe JudiciaryA Constitutional Court is to be set up and "the draft constitution criminalizes any interference, corruption or influence peddling with regard to the judiciary."A Supreme Council will govern the Judiciary composed of the head of the national human rights council and judges.King's Remaining Powers: "key power-broker in the security, military and religious fields."Head of two key councils:The Council of MinistersThe Supreme Security Council - makes security policyThe King stated in his speech "we encourage a parliamentary authority that is ready to make sure that parliament makes final legislative decisions. This parliament has the ability to question any official in the country."However, the King's announcement has been met with mixed reactions. Here are a few quotes provided by Al Jazeera from Moroccan Citizens:Nabila Ramdani, a writer and analyst on North African issues: "There are bleak socio-economic conditions in Morocco, as well as a lack of fundamental human rights, and he is trying to avoid an expression of the anger we have seen on the streets of many Arab countries""There is also a gap between how the world views Morocco, and the largely dismissed internal problems of illiteracy, corruption, and unemployment."Lahcen Hadad, member of the country's governing coalition"His powers have been reduced significantly in the sense that he is only the supreme leader of the armed forces and the commander of the faithful" "Most of the executive powers and judiciary powers are given to other bodies so that is an important change - the king has accepted to share the power" "I think that if you read the actual constitution and what he has announced now, there were no revolutionary reforms that he is announcing."Rafai Touhami, a 60-year-old outside a Cafe:"It elevates the constitution and lets the king pull back so the people and the government can rule""The king will always be there, though, since the political parties aren't ready to rule"Mbarka Bouaida, a member of parliament from Casablanca"I think it's progressive. Probably we will need another constitution in 10 or 15 years, but we must go through this one first and give time for the political parties to be strengthened""The real value-added of this constitution is that we are institutionalizing the politics."Activists from the Pro-Democracy February 20 MovementElaabadila Chbihna"Before we had an absolute monarch, now we have an absolute monarch that is a pope as well""He just spoke about the good elements in the constitution and then passed over the controversial ones"Hicham Ben Abdallah El Alaoui, the king's cousin and a researcher at Stanford University"This scenario of a mock discussion among the same players as always, and a happy ending seems a foregone conclusion,""Constitutional amendments that are 'good enough' will come out and be approved by referendum and the international community. This will give the regime some credibility for reform so that it can dismiss the demonstrators in the street as 'undemocratic.'"On July 1, 2011 the King's proposals will be put to referendum, has his proposed changes gone far enough?For more reading see:Al Jazeera: Morocco reforms to cut monarch's powersThe Guardian: Morocco's king bows to pressure and allows reformNew York Times: Morocco King Proposes Limited Steps to DemocracyCNN: Moroccan king concedes powers in radical blueprint for change
Nabila Ramdani, a writer and analyst on North African issues: "There are bleak socio-economic conditions in Morocco, as well as a lack of fundamental human rights, and he is trying to avoid an expression of the anger we have seen on the streets of many Arab countries""There is also a gap between how the world views Morocco, and the largely dismissed internal problems of illiteracy, corruption, and unemployment."Lahcen Hadad, member of the country's governing coalition"His powers have been reduced significantly in the sense that he is only the supreme leader of the armed forces and the commander of the faithful" "Most of the executive powers and judiciary powers are given to other bodies so that is an important change - the king has accepted to share the power" "I think that if you read the actual constitution and what he has announced now, there were no revolutionary reforms that he is announcing."Rafai Touhami, a 60-year-old outside a Cafe:"It elevates the constitution and lets the king pull back so the people and the government can rule""The king will always be there, though, since the political parties aren't ready to rule"Mbarka Bouaida, a member of parliament from Casablanca"I think it's progressive. Probably we will need another constitution in 10 or 15 years, but we must go through this one first and give time for the political parties to be strengthened""The real value-added of this constitution is that we are institutionalizing the politics."Activists from the Pro-Democracy February 20 MovementElaabadila Chbihna"Before we had an absolute monarch, now we have an absolute monarch that is a pope as well""He just spoke about the good elements in the constitution and then passed over the controversial ones"Hicham Ben Abdallah El Alaoui, the king's cousin and a researcher at Stanford University"This scenario of a mock discussion among the same players as always, and a happy ending seems a foregone conclusion,""Constitutional amendments that are 'good enough' will come out and be approved by referendum and the international community. This will give the regime some credibility for reform so that it can dismiss the demonstrators in the street as 'undemocratic.'"
USA Terrified of Arabic Democracies CHOMSKY INTERVIEWInterview with Noam Chomsky: 'The West is Terrified of Arabic Democracies'By Ceyda Nurtsch - June 22, 2011 Noam Chomsky is one of the major intellectuals of our time. The eighty-two-year-old American linguist, philosopher and activist is a severe critic of US foreign and economic policy. Ceyda Nurtsch talked to him about the Arabic spring in its global contextQ: Many people claim that the Arab world is incompatible with democracy. Would you say that the recent developments falsify this thesis?Noam Chomsky: The thesis never had any basis whatsoever. The Arab-Islamic world has a long history of democracy. It's regularly crushed by western force. In 1953 Iran had a parliamentary system, the US and Britain overthrew it. There was a revolution in Iraq in 1958, we don't know where it would have gone, but it could have been democratic. The US basically organized a coup.Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh during a visit in the US in 1951, two years before the CIA's coup d'état that ousted him In internal discussions in 1958, which have since been declassified, President Eisenhower spoke about a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. Not from the governments, but from the people. The National Security Council's top planning body produced a memorandum – you can pick it up on the web now – in which they explained it. They said that the perception in the Arab world is that the United States blocks democracy and development and supports harsh dictators and we do it to get control over their oil. The memorandum said, this perception is more or less accurate and that's basically what we ought to be doing.Q: That means that western democracies prevented the emergence of democracies in the Arab world?Noam Chomsky: I won't run through the details, but yes, it continues that way to the present. There are constant democratic uprisings. They are crushed by the dictators we – mainly the US, Britain, and France – support. So sure, there is no democracy because you crush it all. You could have said the same about Latin America: a long series of dictators, brutal murderers. As long as the US controls the hemisphere, or Europe before it, there is no democracy, because it gets crushed.Q: So you were not surprised at all by the Arab Spring?Noam Chomsky: Well, I didn't really expect it. But there is a long background to it. Let's take Egypt for instance. You'll notice that the young people who organized the demonstrations on January 25th called themselves the April 6th movement. There is a reason for that. April 6th 2008 was supposed to be a major labour action in Egypt at the Mahalla textile complex, the big industrial centre: strikes, support demonstrations around the country and so on. It was all crushed by the dictatorship. Well, in the West we don't pay any attention: as long as dictatorships control people, what do we care!"Efforts to create democracy": On 6 April 2008 Egyptian workers, primarily in the state-run textile industry, striked in response to low wages and rising food costs. Strikes were illegal in Egypt, and the protests were eventually crushed But in Egypt they remember, and that's only one in a long series of militant strike actions. Some of them succeeded. There are some good studies of this. There is one American scholar, Joel Beinen – he is at Stanford – he has done a lot of work on the Egyptian labour movement. And he has recent articles and earlier ones, in which he discusses labour struggles going on for a long time: those are efforts to create democracy.Q: Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, claimed to cause a domino effect of freedom with his policy of the "New Middle East". Is there a relation between the uprisings in the Arab world to the policy of George W. Bush?Noam Chomsky: The main theme of modern post-war history is the domino effect: Cuba, Brazil, Vietnam… Henry Kissinger compared it to a virus that might spread contagion. When he and Nixon were planning the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende in Chile – we have all the internal materials now – Kissinger in particular said, the Chilean virus might affect countries as far as Europe. Actually, he and Brezhnev agreed on that, they were both afraid of democracy and Kissinger said, we have to wipe out this virus. And they did, they crushed it.Today it's similar. Both Bush and Obama are terrified of the Arab spring. And there is a very sensible reason for that. They don't want democracies in the Arab world. If Arab public opinion had any influence on policy, the US and Britain had been tossed out of the Middle East. That's why they are terrified of democracies in the region.Q: The well-known British Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk recently stated that Obama and his policy is irrelevant for the developments in the region…I read the article, it's very good. Robert Fisk is a terrific journalist and he really knows the region well. I think what he means is that the activists in the April 6th movement don't care about the United States. They have totally given up on the US. They know the United States is their enemy. In fact in public opinion in Egypt about 90 per cent think that the US is the worst threat that they face. In that sense the USA is of course not irrelevant. It's just too powerful.Q: Some criticize the Arab intellectuals for being too silent, too passive. What should the role of the Arab intellectual be today?Noam Chomsky: Intellectuals have a special responsibility. We call them intellectuals because they are privileged and not because they are smarter than anyone else. But if you are privileged and you have some status and you can be articulate and so on we call you an intellectual. And it's the same in the Arab world as anywhere else.Link to article
Cenk Uyger, from MSNBC News, recently made the video attached for The Young Turks arguing why a Palestinian State should be supported by all. Listen to the video, and then answer:Should the US Oppose/Support the Palestinian UN bid for Statehood?Social_Bookmarking.net
PressTV has created a new In Focus Documentary named Israel: Another apartheid South Africa?-INfocus-01-16-2012 questioning the status of Israel and the Palestinian Territories as equivalent to the racist South African Apartheid regime overthrown twenty years ago. In a detailed study, PressTV questions and compares several policies that appear to be similar between Israel and South African Apartheid. The documentary has been attached. After watching the video, ask yourself: Is Israel an Apartheid State like South Africa?
Dear Archbishop Williams,Greetings from Jerusalem!Last week at Sabeel, we had the privilege of having the Anglican Consultative Council delegation headed by Archbishop Michael Jackson. We seized the opportunity to convey to them our response to your interview on the BBC regarding your concern about the dwindling presence of Arab Christians of the Middle East. The concern is genuine and sincere, unfortunately, your words were negatively received by our people; and we have been asked by our friends - locally and internationally - to make a public response.1. As Palestinian Christians, we perceive ourselves as an integral part of the Palestinian people. We might be a very small religious community nowadays but due to our long rootedness in our land, we do not refer to ourselves as a minority. Moreover, as Palestinians, whether Christian or Muslim, we equally live under the oppression of the illegal Israeli occupation of our country. As Palestinians - Christians and Muslims - we share the same hopes and aspirations and we struggle for freedom and human dignity together.2. Although as Palestinian Christians, we appreciate the fact that you raised the issue of the vulnerability of the Christian presence in the Middle East -- a subject that is dear to our hearts and of great concern to us – you singled out the extremist Islamists as a threat to Christian presence, but neglected to mention two other extremists groups, namely, Jewish extremists represented by the religious and racist settlers on the West Bank that are encouraged directly by the present extreme rightwing Israeli government, and Christian extremists represented by the Western Christian Zionists that support Israel blindly and unconditionally. With candor the last two groups of extremists, i.e. Jewish and Western Christian Zionists are a greater threat to us than the extremist Islamists. In fact, these extremists have more military power and clout to uproot all Palestinian presence both Christian and Muslim from our homeland.3. In 2006, Sabeel conducted a survey of the Christians in Israel and Palestine with the help of Bethlehem University. The survey clearly indicated that the primary causes for the emigration of Christians from the West Bank are both political and economic conditions. “Those who are leaving…because of the bad economic and political situation represent 87.3% of the total respondents” (p.34). Only 8% of the respondents attributed emigration to religious extremism.4. As you are well aware, if Muslims are leaving Hebron, it is largely due to the violence of the Jewish religious settlers that has made the life of Palestinian Hebronites miserable and intolerable.5. The area of Bethlehem, Beit Jala, and Beit Sahour has sufficient space for Palestinians to live in; but most of their land (largely Christian) has been confiscated by Israeli settlement expansion including the settlements of Gilo and Har Homa.6. The separation Wall has broken up families and closed businesses. It has devoured land and torn communities apart. And with the checkpoints and permit system it has greatly restricted people’s movement especially to Jerusalem their Holy City. The Wall is a big “push factor” for Palestinians out of Palestine.We are saddened that a great opportunity was missed by not revealing the oppressive consequences of the Israeli occupation on the Palestinian people, both Muslim, and Christian.If the church - local and international - does not raise the prophetic voice, who will stand for justice and truth?In the absence of the prophetic, and as the rightwing Israeli government continues to spurn all international efforts for a just peace, we implore you to champion the cause of the oppressed Palestinians. The desperate situation needs the courage and clarity of an Amos, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”Respectfully yours,Naim Ateek Director Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center JerusalemFor Original Article see Naim Ateek Letter to Archbishop Rowan WilliamsDate: 23 June 2011
Israel has recently announced the construction of 1100 more settlements in East Jerusalem. According to Voice of America: U.S., European and Palestinian leaders have condemned Israel's plan to construct 1,100 new housing units in east Jerusalem, a move that could raise already heightened tensions after last week's Palestinian bid to seek United Nations membership.U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday called Israel's decision “counter-productive” to reviving stalled Mideast peace talks. She said both sides should avoid provocative actions that undermine trust, particularly in Jerusalem.EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Israel's decision to move ahead with new settlement construction in the city's contested Gilo neighborhood “threatens the viability” of a two-state solution and “should be reversed.”British Foreign Secretary William Hague noted that settlement expansion is “illegal under international law, corrodes trust and undermines the basic principle of land for peace.”Palestinians oppose Israeli building on land they want as part of a future state. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Israel's decision amounts to “1,100 no's to the resumption of peace talks.”But is condemning enough? Should the United States and its European allies threaten sanctions if Israel builds the settlements? This act by Israel is clearly one to increase tensions following President Mamhood Abbas' recent speech at the UN. If President Obama is serious in resolving the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, what action would he take?
U.S., European and Palestinian leaders have condemned Israel's plan to construct 1,100 new housing units in east Jerusalem, a move that could raise already heightened tensions after last week's Palestinian bid to seek United Nations membership.U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday called Israel's decision “counter-productive” to reviving stalled Mideast peace talks. She said both sides should avoid provocative actions that undermine trust, particularly in Jerusalem.EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Israel's decision to move ahead with new settlement construction in the city's contested Gilo neighborhood “threatens the viability” of a two-state solution and “should be reversed.”British Foreign Secretary William Hague noted that settlement expansion is “illegal under international law, corrodes trust and undermines the basic principle of land for peace.”Palestinians oppose Israeli building on land they want as part of a future state. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Israel's decision amounts to “1,100 no's to the resumption of peace talks.”
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
