Linda Heard,

THE Americans and the Israelis are acting in concert vis-à-vis Iran. The unmistakable message they are putting out loud and clear is that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is on the cards in the event Tehran doesn’t cave into their demands. Are they bluffing as part of an arm-twisting strategy or are they seriously planning to transform this region into an inferno?

Pundits have been analyzing the probability of a US or Israeli attack on Iran for several years now. Some have even come up with likely dates but most of those have come and gone eroding the analysts’ credibility and dulling fears. There’s been so much chatter on the subject that we may reach the point when a “will they or won’t they?” discussion will turn into nothing more than an academic exercise on the basis it hasn’t happened so, therefore, it probably never will. The danger is Iran and the region could easily be lured into letting down its guard. Certainly, members of the Iranian leadership have indicated they don’t take the threat very seriously even though they are planning for every contingency and threatening to set the Middle East aflame if attacked.

In recent weeks, since the Israelis launched a supposed dry run in the eastern Mediterranean using 100 fighter planes and aerial tankers, the chatter has reached a crescendo. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has vowed, “Iran will not be nuclear”. Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has termed a strike on Iran “unavoidable”.

Retired Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit warned that if Israel doesn’t destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities within a year, Israel would be vulnerable to nuclear incineration. He says that even if Israel doesn’t receive a green light from the US, it should be prepared to go it alone. Shavit believes there is a window of opportunity before the upcoming US election when the deed should be done in case of a win by Barack Obama, who has advocated jaw-jaw before war-war.

ARCH neoconservative and former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton says he believes Israel is poised to strike in November once the ballot has taken place.

Knesset member and retired Maj. Gen. Dani Yotom, who isn’t known for his hawkish views, says sanctions against Iran aren’t working and so “a military operation is needed”. Even the normally moderate Israeli historian Benny Morris recently said, “If the issue is whether Israel or Iran should perish, then Iran should perish”.

Suspicions that an attack might be in the pipeline were heightened after leaks supposedly forced the Israeli prime minister to admit he had secretly met with Aviam Sela, a brilliant military tactician said to be the architect of Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor. It is believed that Sela was asked to give his opinion on the feasibility of similarly putting Iran’s nuclear facilities out of action.

There is no doubt that Israelis genuinely fear a nuclear-armed Iran, which they believe would constitute an existential threat, but why are Israelis being so upfront about their intentions when history tells us they normally strike first and answer questions later?

Given that Iran is not Iraq circa the 1980s as far as airpower, weaponry, technology and sophisticated communications go and in light of the fact Iran’s main nuclear facilities are buried under layers of steel and concrete as much as 100 feet underground, eradicating Tehran’s nuclear capability would be challenging for any military unless it was prepared to unleash nuclear bunker-busters. Moreover, unlike the Osirak surprise strike, an attack on Iran would trigger serious military repercussions that could involve Syria, Hezbollah and pro-Iranian Shiite Iraqi groups. Such a pre-emptive move would probably result in a massive loss of life on all sides and would have a devastating effect on the global economy with oil prices reaching hitherto unimaginable heights.

Further, since neither Israel nor the US are in any position to launch a ground invasion without the complicity of anti-government Iranian surrogates, strikes on Iranian nuclear plants would probably result in Tehran not only reconstructing but setting their sights on developing nuclear weapons even if they’ve no plans to do so now. It’s worth mentioning that the Osirak reactor was for peaceful purposes and it was only after it was hit that Saddam Hussein actively sought a bomb.

According to the New Yorker’s veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in an article titled “Preparing the Battlefield”, President George W. Bush has sanctioned covert operations and requested $400 million designed to destabilize Iran outside the sphere of the US military. These will largely be carried out by Iranian dissidents rather than Americans in the field, he says. But, once again, Iran is not Iraq. It’s a far more cohesive country and although not all of its citizens support the government, most identify themselves as proud Iranians who harbor a historical aversion to neoimperialist plots. There is no doubt that Israel and the US would like the Iranian government to be wiped off the face of the earth along with its nuclear ambitions but both countries are divided on what to do. So far their joint and separate belligerency isn’t working. If their bellicose words and provocative actions are, indeed, a giant bluff they are ineffective. They are simply causing the Iranian leadership to dig its heels in further and assert its right under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Even if this is a coordinated bluff, it could so easily reach the point of no return when to maintain strategic credibility, the players will have to make good on their threats. Certainly, one Iranian commander Brig. Gen. Mir-Faisal Baqerzadeh is taking these to heart already. According to Press TV, he has already got his troops digging more than 320,000 graves within Iran’s bordering provinces to provide any invading force with “the respect they deserve”.

Now here is a interesting letter that a reader wrote to this article today.

War drums

To add to the excellent overview by Linda Heard (July 1), I wish to state the following:

1. Is not Jerusalem sacred to all of Islam? What are the Israelis thinking? I cannot imagine any nation of Islam launching any kind of nuclear strike on Israel for the simple reason that in doing so, Jerusalem would become either destroyed or simply irradiated to the point of making any pilgrimages to it untenable.

2. Iran has become too important to many nations in the region. With its current pipeline projects to supply gas and other cooperative ventures in its neighboring states, Iran has shown itself to be a valuable resource to those neighboring countries. An attack on it would endanger its important role in helping stabilize the nations of the region, a role for which Washington is no doubt jealous.

3. The truth has become transparent. Democracy is spread by subversion! The right of a people to choose its own government and its own form of government is a myth as proven by the election of Hamas in Gaza and the resultant oppression by America and Israel against it. The right of a nation not engaged in aggression to be secure within its borders is a myth. It is shameful for a nation that cries democracy for the world to use terrorists and dissidents to undermine those governments that it is in contention with. In the case with Iran, it is now clear that the only aggressors in the region are the US and Israel.

4. Who are Israel’s real enemies? It is not the Arabs. History has shown that Arabs have historically protected and sheltered their Semitic brethren, the Jews, when they were being persecuted and murdered by the Europeans. While the Arab states are opposed to the illegal creation of Israel and the dispossession of Arab peoples from Palestine, it has been Europe that has shown the greatest hatred toward Jews and even to this date, despite harsh laws criminalizing anti-Semitism such hatred remains. Even in the US many groups exist that hold Jewry in disdain. As the current economic crises deepen within America, this hatred is bound to increase as it becomes obvious who the rich are. Perhaps Israel should be looking westward to see if the dragon is rising out of the sea, as foreseen by John in Revelation, and recognizing just who that dragon is.

5. The only solutions to the dilemmas facing the Middle East must come from the nations of the region, not from outsiders.

The obligation of each nation in the region including Israel is to protect the integrity of the region. This means protecting it against any hegemonic interests that would attempt to dominate the region for whatever excuse. While hatred exists among nations it is time to put aside such feelings. While accepting that major differences do exist and that there are valid reasons for those feelings, what is more important is to find a way so that each can exist without allowing outsiders to impose their might or will upon the region. Be warned the dogs are at the doors; whether you let them into your home is your choice. (Even though the beasts have already entered by the back door!) With all due consideration.

Jerry Copeland, United States published 5 July 2008

The world is certainly no safer than when you took over, Mr. Bush.

By Tariq A. Al-Maeena

President George Bush should be out of office in a matter of months. “The sooner, the better”, mutter those Americans who view his two terms as president of the United States as one laced heavily with wars and aggression overseas, and poverty at home.

While many Americans still believe he only came into office as a result of vote manipulations in Ohio and Florida during the elections, it cannot be denied that his leadership has been bad for America, period!

While there are still a diminishing number of diehards who believe in Bush’s message body and soul, an increasing number of Americans have been turned off by what he has turned America into. This is the impression I gathered in the course of my conversations with Americans from all walks of life. America has become a land where dissenters are seized and imprisoned without due process of the law.

There is wiretapping and forced entries into homes on the faintest of suspicion. Thousands who were brave enough to speak out against their president’s policies are detained.

It has become a land where a “spook” is believed to be found behind every corner, not much unlike the McCarthy era. Anthrax and the poisoning of water reservoirs were tactics used to shepherd a gullible public along those lines.

It is a land where the investigations and the real truth behind the 9-11 disaster still remain shrouded in controversy. The findings of the 9-11 Commission leave a lot of unanswered questions, and the US media’s failure to investigate such claims has destroyed their credibility around the world and among their own people.

Bush can also perhaps be linked to the delay in sending relief and federal support to the victims of the Katrina disaster. The support given was inadequate. Money and resources that could have provided immediate relief to the disaster victims were spent on more glamorous adventures abroad.

And today, while America bleeds under the onslaught of rising prices and home foreclosures, his tenure was not a loss for all. Those connected to the presidency such as Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld have reportedly done remarkably well, and their personal portfolios have shown positives gains.

The trillions of dollars gone to support Bush’s foreign adventures could and should have been spent on the welfare of his people.

The money spent could have averted the current financial crisis many Americans are experiencing. Old age care, improved health coverage and funding for more schools would have been a far more palatable alternative to Americans than dead bodies littering the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush is using the little time left for him in the White House for more warmongering. Iran has become the buzzword of his administration, just as Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were then. He does want to shape the world to his distorted view of democracy and peace, and he does that by waging more wars and creating more mayhem.

Most Americans agree today that their quality of life has suffered. And why not? The cost of maintaining Bush’s overseas adventures has taken away critically needed federal funds from domestic use. And with the cost of his war on the rise, very little relief can be forecast, unless dramatic measures are taken as soon as Bush departs. But with his clone in the shape of John McCain waiting in the shadows, is there any hope for Americans?

“I made a decision to lead,” he once said, “One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?”

The world is certainly no safer than when you took over, Mr. Bush. While he would like to be remembered for doing the right thing, I wonder how many of the homeless and destitutes today would agree with such a rosy picture.

- Tariq A. Al-Maeena is a Saudi socio/political commentator. He works out of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and can be reached at this address.

By Ramzy Baroud

Whether Barack Obama is or, at one point, was a Muslim should be a trivial matter in any society governed by secular, democratic dictates that apply to all, on equal footage, regardless of race, gender or religion. But in a society that is taking a turn toward the right, the matter is anything but inconsequential.

According to estimates, there are anywhere between 1.2 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, 8 million of whom are Americans. But Muslims feel threatened, and for good reason. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Muslim communities have been shamelessly branded as the “enemy” to the point that in mainstream media today, the term “patriot” is juxtaposed with “Muslim” as if the two terms are irreconcilable.

The events of 9/11 have indeed politicized faith like no other past event — in a country where faith is already a powerful player in political affairs. Chris Hedges writes: “Dominionism, born out of a theology known as Christian reconstructionism, seeks to politicize faith. It has, like all fascist movements, a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians.”

Under these unfortunate circumstances, Obama’s faith matters greatly. The presumptive presidential candidate of the Democratic Party is vilified on the question of his faith, often accused of being a “closet Muslim” — thus, supposedly, bearing wicked plans to destroy this country from “within.” His detractors accentuate the claim, knowing fully that they have an audience, large enough to cause the energetic candidate some trouble along the way.

“Summarized, available evidence suggests Obama was born a Muslim to a nonpracticing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian stepfather. At some point, he converted to Christianity,” concludes rightwing columnist Daniel Pipes, known for his ardent anti-Muslim views.

Such commentators seem entirely oblivious to the fact that by digging up the “dirt” of Obama’s past, as a third grader in Indonesia, to “prove” that at one point in his life he was raised a Muslim — thus should be disowned as a candidate of “change” in America — they compromise on the very nature of tolerance that America should be standing for.

They, although indirectly, envision their alternative view of the future of America, as one ruled by a religious fundamentalist intolerant group that would fight anyone who fails to adhere to their skewed ideology and preferred physical appearance. Also, considering how race and vote were intrinsically linked in individual party contests, one can conclude that being black, and a Muslim, are the antithesis of what these narrow-minded bunch stand for.

Obama, of course, is violating the very principles that he tirelessly preaches, by responding to “accusations” of his Muslim heritage as if he was warding off an incurable disease. Such claims are being deemed “smears” and “lies,” and according to a debate on MSNBC, Obama declared that he had been “victimized” by such claims. He has been so tireless and fervent in disproving these “smears” that his very own religious intolerance and racism has been shamelessly disregarded.

“I’ve been to the same church — the same Christian church — for almost 20 years,” he told a cheering audience last January. “I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible.” One of the many pieces of literature distributed by his campaign in past months featured photos of Obama praying with the words “COMMITTED CHRISTIAN” in large letters across the middle.

It says Obama will be a president “guided by his Christian faith” and includes a quote from him saying, “I believe in the power of prayer,” according to an Associated Press report.

Speaking in a Florida synagogue, Obama tried to assure his Jewish audience that his name “Barack” has the same Semitic roots as the Hebrew name “Baruch.” His supporters contend that the origins of the name are African, not Arabic. Even the clearly Arabic roots of Obama’s name are now explained based on “African” and — as of late — “Semitic” roots. Obama was responding to a member of the audience who exclaimed that he would be more comfortable voting for someone named Barry, not Barack. Instead of lashing out at the man’s bigotry, Obama once again, “fought off rumors” this time reinterpreting his own name.

As for being a Muslim, Obama has spent much time, energy and resources fending off the accusations, even starting FighttheSmears.com to prove — among other things — that he is not a Muslim.

Then on June 16, two Muslim women who attended an Obama event in Detroit were told they couldn’t stand behind the candidate. One was told her head covering was an issue, and another was told that for political reasons they didn’t want Muslims appearing with him on TV, reported National Public Radio.

Of course, this is anything but an identity crisis for the savvy Harvard-educated politician of “change.” Obama must have comprehended, and early on, the implicit limits of tolerance in his country, and has decided to concede to the harbingers of racism and bigotry. Obama should have unapologetically responded to the speculation on his religion in a respectful manner, for example like this:

I would have been honored to be affiliated with the religion of Islam, one that is adhered to by one-fourth of humanity, and is the religion of my ancestors and millions of Americans.

But I am equally honored to be a member of a church, to be a Christian, a religion — like all great religions — that has taught me tolerance, peace and equality, principles that I will continue to cherish as long as I live.

Colbert I. King, The Washington Post

TODAY, I shall commit an act of heresy so offensive to cherished Washington beliefs that revocation of my citizenship in the nation’s capital is quite likely to follow.

Nonetheless, I press on.

My offense? I contend, contrary to accepted Washington doctrine, that should Barack Obama be elected president, he ought not to allow his administration to fall into the clutches of Washington insiders.

This advice is offered for Obama’s own good.

More than 30 years of observation has led me to conclude that Washington insiders are to new administrations what steroids are to baseball. They are easily available, can produce a profound sense of strength and are hard to withdraw from once trouble hits home.

Evan Thomas of Newsweek touched lightly upon this topic in a recent column. But he reached a different conclusion.

Thomas wrote about a Washington party he attended recently with various movers and shakers who strongly believe that a new president “need(s) to hire people who know the town, who are ‘wired’ and get around.” “Someone in my little group did try to wonder what it would be like if a president only hired outsiders, but he was quickly drowned out,” he wrote.

That voice was mine. Today I continue, uninterrupted.

First of all, my thoughts about “Washington insiders” apply to Democrats and Republicans alike. Regardless of their political stripes, Washington insiders share a received wisdom that holds that no new president can make it in this town without them.

Democratic insiders point to Carter administration pratfalls caused by a lack of reliance upon, well, people like themselves. Bill Clinton’s first-year mistakes were chalked up to the naivete of out-of-towners. George W. Bush heard some of the same slams against his team of Texans when he first hit town.

To be fair, and balanced, I acknowledge that insiders have a point when they say political novices don’t know their way around Washington, that they are quite likely to get lost. Nothing like having a guide dog around when the territory is hard to see, the insiders will tell you. Here’s another point in their favor:

Both Democratic and GOP power brokers contribute an impressive amount of time, treasure and talent to their party’s fortunes. They are sincere adherents to their party’s beliefs. Many have served in government, occupying positions of great responsibility. Some of them go back to the administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Insiders also come to the table with experience in the ways of Washington gained through their own mishaps and the mistakes of others. But here’s my problem with putting that crowd in charge. They live by the old rules of Washington politics and, simply stated, they are in it for themselves.

But when the new president hits a rough patch — and they all do — Washington insiders are usually the first to duck and cover, and undergo a conversion from out-front cheerleader to inside backbiter.

They do it in a time-honored Washington way.

Jessica Valenti, The Guardian

It’s official. Americans won’t be inaugurating a woman president next January. From a feminist perspective it’s hard not to feel a bit defeated. Even for those who, like me, preferred Barack Obama, there’s still that chilling feeling that maybe sexism scored a point this campaign season. But even though Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is at an end, the effect it has had on women and politics is reason enough for feminists to chin up.

For perhaps the first time ever there has been a national conversation about women’s political participation — much of it among women. Dana Goldstein at the American Prospect wrote this week: “Over the course of this historic, thrilling, aggressive primary election, we’ve seen more female pundits than ever before writing and speaking about presidential politics … (and) experienced unprecedented interest from male politicos in women’s participation in the electoral process.” Clinton’s run is also sure to have a lasting effect on women considering running for office. Marie Wilson, president and founder The White House Project, noted: “More young women … are motivated because they have seen her persist.”

There’s even a silver lining to be found in the distressing downsides of her candidacy. As someone who spots sexism for a living, I found myself absolutely shocked at the amount of gender-based vitriol directed at Clinton. But while the unrelenting sexism in the media coverage of Clinton’s campaign was a harsh reminder of how pervasive misogyny is in America, we needed that reminder.

I’d like to think the sheer volume of public misogyny jump-started a nationwide dialogue about sexism. Because every time a pundit called Clinton’s voice “grating”, someone at home watching television cringed. When several young men at a campaign stop in New Hampshire thought it would be just hilarious to yell out “Iron my shirt!”, there was public outrage. And when MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked former Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd if he “found it difficult to debate a woman”, he was roundly mocked in the political blogosphere. (Even by Dodd himself, who looked at Matthews curiously before answering: “No, not at all.”)

Though sexist pundits and misogynists-for-fun weren’t held nearly accountable enough, it’s heartening to know that now there can be no denying that yes, Virginia, there is sexism.

For the feminist movement itself, the benefits of Clinton’s candidacy may have to be worked for. The election put a brutal spotlight on an undeniable divide between feminists, largely the result of an already-brewing generational tension.

A New York Times opinion piece by Gloria Steinem that claimed sexism was a bigger problem in America than racism, and a widely circulated article by Robin Morgan suggesting young women voting for Obama were “eager to win male approval”, set the stage for a battle that left many disenchanted. After all, why was the only “appropriate” feminist vote one for Clinton? And the assumption that younger women who supported Obama were simply being naive or — even more insulting — voting to please their boyfriends, didn’t exactly sit well.

Feminists of all ages also resented how the mainstream movement seemed to be pitting sexism against racism in their campaign conversations. Latoya Peterson of the popular blog Racialicious.com wrote: “While I can truly understand if some women feel that their gender problems take more prominence than their race problems, other women need to understand that, for some of us, that separation does not happen. Our discrimination is not race neutral. So why should our feminism be?”

Generational divides and concerns that mainstream feminism focuses its energy on white women, above all others, are not new. But now that they’re out in the open being discussed, we have an amazing opportunity to fight for an even-better women’s movement.

Martin Luther King, in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, noted: “We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.

Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

Clinton’s campaign didn’t need to be successful for it to mean something incredibly important for American women. Whether it’s uncovering the ugly boil of American sexism or a battling for a better feminist movement, a new conversation has been started about women and political power. And now that we’re here, with our wounds uncovered, we’re tending to them with an eye towards the future.

Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace.

By Uri Avnery

After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.

It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.

The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world’s capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.

The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.

Why, actually? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?

The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.

Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.

True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.

But in a presidential race?

The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.

Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.

And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!

The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.

And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.

OK he promises to safeguard Israel’s security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)

But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.

No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.

On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.

Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan “Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity”. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.

In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.

Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.

But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.

Sixty five years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)

What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?

The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.

The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were “pilgrims”, the Zionists immigrants called themselves “olim” - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a “promised land”, believing themselves to be God’s chosen people.

Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as “pioneers”, who make the wilderness bloom, a “people without land in a land without people”. Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.

True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.

How is it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.

Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: “Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself.”

I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.

Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.

If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: “No, I can’t!”

-Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Khaled Diab, The Guardian

Barack Obama’s name and his supposed secret Muslim faith have been used by his opponents to smear him. Of course, whether or not Obama is or was a Muslim is, in theory, irrelevant and contravenes the values of the American Constitution.

With such fear mongering, the Democrats have shown real courage and conviction in putting forward a presidential candidate who, in terms of his background, is so atypical. But Obama’s “new kid on the block” profile does pose some intriguing questions, given the massive influence the United States exerts in the Middle East.

If he were to become president, would he manage to transform America’s role in the region and repair the damage wrought by the disastrous Bush years? And is his approach to the region better or worse than that of his defeated Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton?

Arabs, generally disillusioned with US intervention in the Middle East, have taken unusual notice of the primaries — and this interest has been sparked by Obama. However, opinion is crucially divided on the issue. The Illinois senator has gained quite an Arab fan club. “Given a chance, the Arabs and Muslims would vote for candidate Obama. He is the best guy around for the job — not only for the president of the United States but also for the president of the Middle East!” Aijaz Zaka Syed wrote in the Dubai-based Khaleej Times. He has even attracted support from some unusual quarters. Despite the US’ instrumental role in engineering their daily misery, a group of Gazans have used their limited resources to make the case for Obama with American voters. How many voters they will sway is, of course, questionable.

“If Obama is elected president, I am sure that he would order the bombing of some Arab or Muslim country in the first year of his presidency to … prove that he really is not a Muslim after all”

Others are more skeptical. “We, as Palestinians, are not concerned about the elections, we know the US administration’s policy on the Middle East has totally neglected the Palestinian cause for many years,” another Gaza resident said on an al-Jazeera forum. “I believe that the foreign policy of a superpower is fixed in strategy,” one Baghdad resident opined. “Therefore, I believe that the elections results will change nothing regarding the Iraq issue.”

One blogger, the Angry Arab, went so far as to predict: “If Obama is elected president, I am sure that he would order the bombing of some Arab or Muslim country in the first year of his presidency to … prove that he really is not a Muslim after all”

In Israel, Obama’s campaign has, until recently, generally stirred up opposition, particularly in right-wing circles. The popular daily Maariv even ran an offensive cartoon of Obama painting the White House black. Nevertheless, progressive Israelis see in the Democratic candidate an opportunity for change. “Any US president who would push us, either politically or by using the aid package as a bribe, to end the conflict in a peaceful and just way would be good for Israel,” one Israeli commented on the same Al-Jazeera forum.

So, given this divided opinion, how does Obama’s declared Middle Eastern policy actually fare? Well, his positions on Iraq, Iran and the so-called “War on Terror” seem to be more enlightened than George W Bush’s and less Hawkish than Hillary Clinton’s.

An opponent of the Iraq war from the start, he has expressed his belief that “there is no military solution” to the conflict and released plans in September 2007 to end the American presence there. However, he has not made clear what he intends to do about the legal license to plunder given to American corporations in Iraq, such as Executive Order 13303. He also favors opening dialogue with Iran, opposes war and supports “tough sanctions” against Tehran. Ridiculing Bush’s “War on Terror”, he proposed the alternative of focusing attention on the more sensible alternative of empowering the “forces of moderation” by boosting “access to education and health care, trade and investment”.

Despite Obama’s past sympathy with the Palestinians, since the announcement of his candidacy he has been at pains to appear to be as pro-Israel as Clinton. “Obama will soon make the case that he’ll be as strong on Israel as anyone,” Haaretz’s US correspondent Shmuel Rosner accurately forecast back in February 2007. The following month, Obama expressed his “clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel” and “the isolation of Hamas” to AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group. This strikes me as inconsistent with the importance he attaches to dialogue, as expressed in his position toward Iran and Syria. Obama went even further in his first speech after claiming victory against Clinton. He declared, again to AIPAC, that: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” eliciting dismayed reactions from across the Palestinian political spectrum.

Although Israel deserves to live in peace and security, it is this kind of one-sided attitude that has hampered the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and has long discredited America’s claims of being an honest broker.

Although a President Obama is bound to be an improvement on his predecessor, his position on Israel and his support of American military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan mean it would be naïve to believe that he would revolutionize American foreign policy. At best, he is likely to make it more multilateral and less militaristic.

In theory, the American president is the most powerful man in the world, but this does not give him a carte blanche to exploit the full potential of his office, especially if he is an outside candidate. His foreign policy is constrained by public attitudes and opinion shapers, and is beholden to the special interest groups, especially as oil supplies become tighter.

There is a danger that his supporters, both inside and outside America, will expect Obama to turn American foreign policy around. But they are likely to be disappointed, as they were with the unfulfilled potential of John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

7 June 2008

It is probably no great revelation that most Arabs have been backing Barack Obama in the race to the White House. So it was profoundly disappointing that his first statement on foreign affairs since becoming the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate should be a blast of unwavering support for Israel. Such a pledge cannot bring peace to the Middle East. It also raises questions about his campaign promise of “change.”

His insistence that any deal between Palestinians and Israelis must keep Israel as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its undivided capital together with his promise to use force, if necessary, to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is hardly a basis for change. It is a guarantee for keeping things as they are. There can be no peace if all Jerusalem remains in Israeli hands. Without East Jerusalem as the new state’s capital, no Palestinian, no matter how moderate, is going to sign a peace deal. It was illegally seized in 1967 and the whole world, other than the US Congress which passed a law in 1995 describing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, agrees that it does not belong to the Israelis; despite the 1995 law, even the Bush administration goes along with that and has refused to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv.

The pledge sounded like a hawk speaking, not a dove. This was the language of the past, the language that has prevented peace from happening — and it must have been music to the ears of the Israeli hard-liners.

Of course, everyone knows why he said it. The race with John McCain is going to be tough and he wants to keep every lobby on his side, not least the Israeli lobby. Which was why, back in January when most governments were condemning Israel for the Gaza blockade, he was saying he understood why Israel was “forced” to impose the blockade and demanding that the UN Security Council condemn rocket attacks from the territory and that, if it refused, it should not be saying anything about Israel at all.

But the Israeli lobby is already not so much on the side of his campaign as on board. Many of its key figures are Democrats. So he could have said nothing.

Obama has now amended his thoughts. In the face of Palestinian condemnation, he says that the status of East Jerusalem is a matter for them and the Israelis to negotiate. We must view this positively. No US leader in half-a-century has so pointedly regretted any previous pro-Israeli statement. Maybe it is a sign of things to come.

On the other hand, his change of heart about East Jerusalem, welcome though it is, brings him exactly where the Bush administration is. It too says that it is for the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate. So other than on Iraq, where he wants withdrawal, and on Syria, where he supports Israel’s decision to negotiate with it, there is no difference — and the latter can hardly be regarded as a major divergence.

Change, when it comes to the core Middle East issue, seems to be somewhat limited.

My Pledge to Israel

Barack Obama, the US Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, has pledged to safeguard Israel’s security if elected president in November. Obama also described the US bond with Israel as “unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable for ever” and said he spoke as a “true friend” of Israel. Hours after securing his party’s nomination, Obama told the influential annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” Obama drew a standing ovation as he addressed the gathering of one of US politics’ most influential lobbying groups, and said that as president “I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security”. He also said any deal between Israelis and Palestinians should preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and that Hamas should be isolated.

Also Visit : The Three Stooges and Israel

What are the underpinnings of Hilary Clinton’s threat to obliterate Iran?

By Robert Weitzel

“To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it…An evil unchecked is the prelude to genocide.” - Dr. Mordechai: The Ezekiel Option

There are over 70 million human beings living in Iran, 17.5 million of whom are under the age of fifteen. Hillary Clinton vowed to attack Iran and “totally obliterate” the majority of the Persian race in a furnace of primordial fire should the Iranian government attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which they do not now possess or are likely to for some time - if ever.

Hillary’s “final solution” to the Persian problem bests Adolf Hitler by a magnitude of ten. Missing in Clinton’s campaign trail pandering to America’s pro-Israel lobbies and the mushrooming evangelical Christian Zionist movement is the “inconvenient truth” that Israel has the most modern and most deadly army in the Middle East thanks to an annual $3.5 billion in American aid - one third of the U.S. aid budget.

Israel is also a major nuclear power in the region - though it refuses to admit it - with up to 200 nuclear warheads and the inter-continental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them and, according to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, also has an undeclared offensive chemical and biological warfare program. Israel, along with India and Pakistan are the only three nations not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory of the NNPT, by the way.

The most inconvenient truth, however, is that Israel has a 60-year history of attacking - with American-supplied armaments - any Arab country it perceives as a threat, nuclear-armed or slingshot-armed alike. Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in 1981 comes to mind as an example of the former, its shelling of Gaza the latter. Israel can and will “ pre-emptively defend” itself against Iran, the country that a February 2008 International Atomic Energy Agency report concluded has not diverted nuclear material to non-peaceful purposes.

Unfortunately for the 70 million Persians in Hillary’s bombsight, Iran’s biggest liability is its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - but then the U.S. is equally burdened. So the real truth behind Clinton’s “final solution” to the Persian problem or John McCain’s “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” off-key hyperbole is not simply a “David and Goliath” struggle for survival, but is instead a cynical exploitation of the unholy marriage of convenience between fanatical Jewish Zionists who want a Muslim-free Eretz Israel in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecy and bring about the first coming of their Messiah and fanatical Christian Zionists who want the entire Middle East in flames to fulfill New Testament prophecy and bring about the Second Coming of their Messiah. Jewish Zionists need the money and the political clout of the Christian Zionists. Christian Zionists need the Semitism and the chutzpah of the Jewish Zionists. Politicians need the votes that both groups can deliver, which in religion-drenched America is a hefty consignment. According to a 2006 Pew Research Center poll, fully 44 percent of Americans believe that “God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people” and 36 percent believe the “creation of the state of Israel is a step toward the Second Coming of Jesus.”

Depending on which poll is the most accurate, there are between 105-135 million evangelical and born-again Christians in the United States. Of these Christians, a 2004 International Fellowship of Christians and Jews poll found that 31 percent identified U.S. support for Israel as their “primary consideration” in selecting a presidential candidate, while 64 percent cited it as an “important factor.”

Predictably then, when Hillary Clinton or John McCain threaten to obliterate Iran, or any predominately Muslim country in the Middle East, with nuclear weapons, the primary audience for their saber rattling is not the Muslim “evildoers” but is, instead, the pro-Israel lobby and the Christian Zionist muscle in America who are willing to see the “ultimate evil” committed to further their ideological and eschatological agenda.

Nowhere does “ultimate evil” play a more prominent role than in the End Time machinations of two well-connected Christian Zionists, Tim LaHaye and John Hagee.

Tim LaHaye is best known as the co-author of the blockbuster Left Behind series, which has sold over 60 million copies worldwide. The pulp fiction series takes the Book of Revelation as its inspiration and chronicles the tribulations that will occur between the Rapture of born-again Christians and the Second Coming of Jesus. The blood and viscera of millions of infidels and heretics—unrepentant Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Catholics—are spattered on every page.

Tim LaHaye is least known as the founder and first president of the secretive Council for National Policy. The CNP was formed in 1981 as an umbrella organization to advance an ultra-conservative, right wing Christian agenda. LaHaye’s particular agenda items include replacing U.S. secular law with Old Testament biblical law and a Middle East foreign policy that expedites the Second Coming.

According to the New York Times, the CNP consists of “a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country” who meet “behind closed doors at undisclosed locations…to strategize about how to turn the country to the right.” Though the membership of the CNP is a guarded secret, a list of those known to have been associated with it reads like a who’s who of Christian Zionists and neocon ideologues whose passion is to see the Middle East in flames and in chains.

A short list includes: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, and Oliver North - the guy who sold weapons to Iran using Israel as the middleman.

Do not be blindsided. The CNP is a major player in domestic and foreign policy decisions and the “evil” that results.

John Hagee, televangelist and pastor of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, is the founder of Christian United for Israel. Hagee formed CUFI in 2005 following the publication of his book, The Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, which sports a mushroom cloud on its cover and argues for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West.

Hagee’s theology - and vision of the future - focuses on selected apocalyptic passages from the Old Testament. He believes that a nuclear strike against Iran will cause Arab nations to unite under Russian leadership, as outlined in the Book of Ezekiel, leading to an “inferno [that] will explode across the Middle East, plunging the world toward Armageddon.” Consequently, CUFI exists to set the fires of the Apocalypse and bring about the Rapture and the Second Coming, but it needs Jewish Zionists to strike the match.

Christians United for Israel is the evangelical equivalent of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby courted and placated by every American politician who has national aspirations. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama have each pledged their fealty to AIPAC.

John Hagee is not without his own short list of beltway benefactors. The list includes, but is not limited to: George W. Bush, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Senator Joe Lieberman—who called Hagee an “Ish Elokim,” a man of God—and John McCain who was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement [for president].”

When Christian Zionists with the stature of LaHaye and Hagee shill for fanatical Jewish Zionists who are promoting the ethic cleansing of Eretz Israel for biblical or nationalistic reasons or the pre-emptive “defensive” nuking of Iran, politicians with the stature of Hillary Clinton and John McCain, along with a hefty consignment of the electorate, are their willing dupes. It’s just the politics of religion as usual in America.

But Jewish Zionists need to understand that the difference between Christian Zionists and Muslim suicide bombers is scale, a nuclear warhead versus a backpack bomb, and a willingness to let others do the killing - and the dying - for them.

Jewish Zionists should also keep in mind that Christian Zionists have no intention of being around when the sands of the Middle East are turned to glass in a furnace of primordial fire. They will have been Raptured and out of harm’s way in Paradise. Their Bible tells them so.

- Robert Weitzel is a contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact him at: robertweitzel@mac.com

Jonathan Power, jonatpower@aol.com

LONDON, 12 May 2008 — Once again the CIA and MI6 are publishing dire warnings of the vitality of Al-Qaeda. Once again the Islamic world as a whole is being tarnished by association.

US presidential contender John McCain is saying that America needs a leadership to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: The threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

And the words still ring in our ears from Samuel Huntington’s treatise, “The Clash of Civilizations”, the book that in many ways triggered this paranoia that infects the politicians, the press and the public discourse. “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism, it is Islam”, he wrote.

Few, if any, in the Western leadership seem to make the point that Al-Qaeda is a deviant phenomenon within the Islamic world, just as Hitler was a deviant phenomenon within the Christian world (commentators seems to overlook Hitler’s early speeches calling on Catholic principles). But Islam has a much better record over the ages of dealing with its deviants who take violence to excess. Islamic culture has never been tolerant of Nazism, fascism or communism. Christianity has spawned all three. Buddhism failed to resist Japanese militarism and Confucianism provided hospitable to Maoism. Yes, there was Saddam Hussein but he was an atheistic brute without an ideology.

Of course, there have been many incidents in the long history of Islam when there have been large-scale losses of life. The massacres and starvation of the Armenians in 1915 still stirs the waters of contemporary debate. But Islam has never spawned anything comparable with Hitler’s systematic genocide of the Jews — indeed throughout its history Islam has been protective of the Jews, regarding them as “people of the book” to whom it had a special responsibility. Nor has it settled other parts of the world and systematically obliterated other civilizations as did Christian Spain with the Aztecs and Incas. Nor have Islamic societies created anything equivalent to South Africa’s apartheid or the racist culture of the old American South. Unlike many Christian churches, the mosque has never separated people by race. Even today Americans confess that nowhere is there more segregation in their society than at the Sunday noon hour.

Western memories are highly selective. When at Easter time the Greek peasants of the Peloponnese began to kill all the Muslims in the land there was silence. But fifty years later when there were mass killings of Christians in Bulgaria there was a great outpouring of moral outrage. Delacroix immortalized the massacre in his painting, “Massacre of Chaos”, with Christian women pursued by Turkish lancers and Gladstone wrote a best-selling pamphlet in which he described the Ottomans as leaving “a broad line of blood marking the track behind them, and as far as their domination reached civilization vanished from view”.

Almost forgotten today is that it was the Ottomans who gave refuge to the Jews when they were expelled from Iberia, as were fleeing German, French and Czech Protestants, but every cultivated Westerner knows Voltaire’s “Fanaticism or Muhammad the Prophet” or Dante’s portrayal of Muhammad in hell.

Christianity has always been led or dominated by people of European descent. But the leadership of the Muslim world has been much more fragmented — between AD 661 and 750 it was the Arab Umayyad dynasty. Between 750 and 1258 it was the multiethnic Abbasid dynasty. And from 1453 to 1922, the Turkish-dominated Ottoman Empire. In India there was the separate Moguls and in Persia the Safavids. In sub-Saharan Africa there were the Muslim empires of Mali and Songhai.

Despite their relative poverty today, with great teaming cities like Cairo, Dakha and Jakarta, criminal violence is much, much lower than in Christian-influenced societies.

Muslim countries, according to the UN’s annual Human Development report, have the world’s lowest murder and rape rates. In Tehran, the capital of Iran, and according to the CIA the most important single source of terrorism today, you can go out at 11 or 12 p.m. at night and find families with children picnicing in city parks. When my daughters’ friends ask me where can they safely travel alone in an interesting Third World city I say Cairo. Certainly not Catholic Rio or Protestant Cape Town. Not only are murders and muggings comparatively rarer, there is much less prostitution and hard drug use. Neither is there that much AIDS.

The Western debate about Islam is frankly infantile. Even Barack Obama, with his own personal experience to go off, either is ignorant or just scared of going into battle on these issues. I have not read one speech by one Western politician who seriously attempts to educate public opinion. We live in a slough of ignorance.

McCain criticises Carter’s meeting with Hamas, calling it ‘a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader.’ (Photo: Reuters)

By Stuart Littlewood

I don’t know about you, but Hillary Rodham Clinton scares the pants off me.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran,” she ranted when asked what she’d do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Not only that, she’ll “totally obliterate them”… 70 million people.

Jeepers… what kind of lunatic would drag us all into World War 3 to defend a lawless, racist regime like Israel?
I see the Council on Foreign Relations helps keep tabs on the stooge-for-Israel inclinations of each presidential candidate, so how’s Hillary doing? “Clinton co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006,” says the CFR. “She also sponsored a Senate resolution in 2007 calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Was she concerned about the 9,000 Palestinians, including women and children, abducted from their homes and held in Israeli jails? Apparently not.

Since taking office in 2000, Clinton has regularly supported military and financial aid packages to Israel. In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) she spouted the now-compulsory mantra: Hamas should not be recognised “until it renounces violence and terror and recognises Israel’s right to exist.”

She supports Israel’s ‘security wall’ and its declared purpose of preventing terrorist attacks. Does she support the wall’s undeclared purpose - which has nothing to do with security - and the way it bites deep into Palestinian territory?

Barack Obama has said the United States must isolate Hamas. He also co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 and called on the Palestinian leadership to “recognise Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region”. OK, why don’t America and Israel get serious about implementing the dozens of UN resolutions on the subject? He doesn’t say.

He called Carter’s meeting with Hamas leaders “a bad idea”, so what’s his pledge to talk with US adversaries without preconditions worth? If elected, Obama will insist on fully funding military assistance to Israel. Does this mean paying them even more billions of US tax dollars so that they can fire even more high-tech munitions at Gaza, vaporize more women and kids and knock out more infrastructure that Britain and the EU paid for?

John Sidney McCain the Third says he’s “proudly pro-Israel” and argues that there can be no peace process “until the Palestinians recognise Israel, forswear forever the use of violence, recognise their previous agreements…” Has he asked Israel to do the same? No.

He criticises Carter’s meeting with Hamas, calling it “a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader”. And he wants the United States to continue providing Israel with whatever military equipment and technology it needs. If elected McCain would “work to further isolate the enemies of Israel”. Surely his time would be better spent worrying about why half the world hates the US.

McCain even thinks Israel’s military action in Lebanon in 2006 was justified. He’s willing to use military force against Iran if it acquires a nuclear weapon and poses a “real threat” to Israel. Well, we know from past experience what “real threats” boil down to. And guess what: he too co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.

What is this Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act they all so desperately wanted? It doesn’t make nice reading. The idea is to heap misery on any Palestinian government in which Hamas has a hand, ignoring the fact that the resistance movement is democratically elected and shows no sign of running away. The Act demands everything from the Palestinians and nothing from Israel, which can do no wrong in Washington’s eyes but, as everyone outside America knows, is the biggest terror organisation and law-breaker in the region.

Palestinians are perfectly entitled to put up armed resistance against illegal military occupation. Nevertheless the US requires them to end their struggle, get on their knees and publicly kiss their tormentors’ ass. They must re-commit to the Road Map and the two-state solution even though the ‘irreversible facts on the ground’ Israel is hurrying to establish and the impoverished, fragmented leftovers of land the Palestinians will be left with (less than 20% of what was originally theirs) are not a recipe for peace.

The plan is plainly to support Israel’s lust for prime land and strategic resources and end all hope of Palestinian viability and self-determination.

So the three main presidential candidates are singing off the same hymn-sheet and running neck-and-neck for the job of Stooge-in-Chief. Whichever finally makes it into the White House can count on us Brits being equally well prepped, thanks to the Israel lobby’s energetic string-pulling on this side of the Atlantic too.
Israel’s prime minister Olmert says AIPAC is “the greatest supporter and friend that we have in the whole world”. It is certainly busy, claiming that “through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress… AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year… procuring nearly $3 billion in aid critical to Israel’s security.” Lobbyists meet every member of Congress and cover every hearing on Capitol Hill that touches on the US-Israel relationship.

Ariel Sharon is famously quoted as saying: “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” (1) Had he been available for comment today he’d probably be saying the same about the UK where AIPAC’s little brother, Friends of Israel, has succeeded in embedding itself deep inside British politics and at the heart of government. Its stated aim is to promote Israel’s interests in Parliament and sway policy.

Conservative Friends of Israel, for example, claims 80 percent of Conservative MPs and provides a programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers, and delegations to Israel. It also operates a ‘Fast Track’ for parliamentary candidates fighting target marginals at the next election.

According to senior Conservatives Israel is “a force for good in the world… In the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression - Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.
Are they mad? We’re talking here about a ruthless ethnocracy with racist policies, an apartheid agenda, advanced skills in state-terrorism and contempt for the UN Charter and international law.

Nevertheless MPs of all parties, and ministers, are basking in Israel’s hospitality, absorbing the propaganda and allowing themselves to be persuaded to push the interest of this foreign military power sometimes at the expense of our own. Such conduct is at odds with the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity – “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

Efforts are being made to have the influence of the Israel lobby investigated, but the people’s watchdog - the Committee on Standards in Public Life - is itself infiltrated and refuses to act.

This week former Serb officers went on trial at The Hague for ethnic cleansing. They face life sentences for murder, persecution, forced deportations and inhuman acts during the 1991-95 Balkan wars. Many people feel it’s time Israelis faced charges for similar crimes during the 60 years of occupation and catastrophe they have inflicted on the Holy Land. The list includes

• torture
• collective punishment
• targeted assassinations
• house demolitions
• wholesale slaughter
• use of indiscriminate and prohibited weapons against civilians
• land theft
• engineering humanitarian disasters
• creating medical and public health crises
• the wanton destruction of key infrastructure and public & private property
• restrictions on movement and trade
• illegal detention
• suppression of education
• denial of basic human rights
• denial of the right of refugees to return
• illegal settlements
• violation of every convention and code of conduct.

Speaking of the Holy Land, are the three stooges aware that Christian communities under Israeli occupation are being oppressed and crushed along with their Muslim neighbours?

It was heartening to read in The Guardian this week a letter signed by more than 100 prominent Jews saying they cannot celebrate the 60th birthday of a state “founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land… and that even now engages in ethnic cleansing.” They’ll celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East.

So there you have it. Hillary/Barack/John the Third, you would do well to steer a different course in the Arab-Israel conflict. Quit stooging, kick AIPAC into touch, back off and re-think US foreign policy.

How much support do you think you’d get for annihilating 70 million Iranians?

-Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation.

The concept of America as an honest broker in the Israel-Palestine conflict is obsolete. The US was never an honest broker but it doesn’t even bother pretending any more. Dick Cheney recently told the Israeli premier, the US commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable and warned the Palestinians that violence against Israel would kill their hopes of a state. And while it’s true that the current administration will shortly be emptying their desks, the three presidential hopefuls sound as though they’re singing from the Bush administration’s hymn sheet.

Democratic front-runner Barack Obama had this to say on peace in the Middle East: “That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel — our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point”.

His rival Hillary Clinton, who backs a US Embassy in Jerusalem, has said she would cut off aid to Palestinians should they unilaterally declare an independent state, while Republican nominee John McCain has characterized Israel’s enemies as “evil”.

I could list the candidates’ regular junkets to Tel Aviv and pilgrimages to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) but I won’t bore you. You get the point. Everybody with half a brain gets the point. So, in this case, why are Palestinian leaders relying on the good offices of the US to get them a state?

To give this premise context, say, you had a business partner who embezzled your company and left you with nothing but debts. Would you hire his lawyer, who also happened to be his best buddy, to represent you in court? Of course not! And neither would you enlist your mother-in-law to save your crumbling marriage if you had any sense.

Yet this is exactly what the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is doing. It seems that on Washington’s instructions he manipulated a breach with Hamas — as we know from leaked State Department memos — and he’s now asking Washington to become more proactive as a broker. And, let’s face it: They’ve had little success at the job throughout the past decades. Any firm with their record of failure would surely have been sacked an age ago.

Even if by some miracle the Annapolis meet actually produced the required goods in the long run, a US-brokered Palestinian state would consist of nothing more than crumbs from Israel’s table, which I fear the beleaguered Palestinian leadership would be pressured to accept as a better than nothing option.

Where does all this leave the Palestinian people? Precisely nowhere!

When they fight back, which as an occupied people is their right under international law, they are labeled terrorist. When they organize peaceful demonstrations nobody takes any notice. When they invoke a slew of UN resolutions passed in their favor, all they get are yawns from the international community in return. Israel has killed thousands, imprisoned tens of thousands and is incarcerating 1.5 million Palestinians in the world’s largest open-air jail Gaza yet, as far as Washington is concerned, Israel remains the victim/hero.

If there is ever to be a viable Palestinian state, a new paradigm is needed. Instead of one powerful so-called “honest broker”, each side in the conflict should have its own powerful advocate.

The idea that Israelis and Palestinians should negotiate one-on-one, as George W. Bush has suggested on more than one occasion, won’t work in this case simply because one side has military clout and the other hasn’t. This is akin to a deer negotiating with a leopard over the menu of the day when, of course, the deer will end up as lunch.

So who might be up for the job of Palestinian advocate?

Forget the EU for a start. Its major players talk a good talk but when push comes to shove, they’ll fall in behind the US. China has got the muscle and the independence but the Middle East is traditionally outside its geopolitical sphere of influence. Looks hopeless doesn’t it. But wait, there is one candidate itching for the job. Russia. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been canvassing regional support for his country’s potential role as mediator during his visit, last week, to Israel, Syria and the West Bank. Russia has called for an end to Israel’s settlement expansion and also offered to host a peace conference later this year to reinforce Annapolis.

Naturally, Israel is less than enthusiastic. Mahmoud Abbas, on the other hand, has publicly welcomed Russia’s involvement. Provided Moscow is seriously committed to finding a solution rather than posturing for effect, President Abbas should consider the following.

First, he should patch up relations with Hamas in the spirit of last week’s Yemeni-brokered reconciliation agreement. A divided Palestine is a weak Palestine.

Second, he should refuse to negotiate directly with Israel or to show up for smiley photo-ops with visiting American politicians.

Third, as with most disputes, he should simply tell the other side, “Talk to my lawyer”.

If Russia is willing to take on the job, then it should be supported and offered incentives by every single member of the Arab League as well as sympathetic OIC members.

Whatever happens, the Palestinians must quit putting their faith in duplicitous Uncle Sam and seek a new plan with a new partner, one that would have their interests rather than those of their enemy’s at heart.