The following column is reprinted with permission from Gordon Duff, staff writer and Senior Editor at Veterans Today.
The Tea Party And America’s Return To The “Good Ole Days”
© Gordon Duff
Source: Veterans Today
January 24, 2011
* “Outlaw Governors” Take On America
* “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
In Wisconsin, State Police cars are searching for missing legislators. The fist pounding on the door in the middle of the night, reminders of Germany, 1936.
A state governor is tape recorded taking orders from an Israeli billionaire. Children in state after state are being packed like cordwood into crowded classrooms as schools close. Not just teachers but police and firemen also, await pay cuts, elimination of health insurance and even firing as state governments seem to be declaring war on their own people.
Government services across the Midwest are slated to virtually disappear. Government protections, fire, safety, air, water, workplace and protection from frauds and financial abuses are on the chopping block. The very roots of civilization, even law and order are being sabotaged.
A region the size of France and Germany faces a bizarre hybridization, half fascism, half feudalism, open warfare, rich against poor, powerful preying on the weak.
Is there more to the political battle in the Midwest than just workers’ rights and closing schools and rationing health care? Have the new “extremist” state governors, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, gone too far, combining huge tax breaks to their friends while closing schools, firing teachers and gutting public services? What if the inflammatory measures taken by “reformist” Tea Party governors are, as many now believe, evidence that those who promised to “fix the system” are really tasked with a broader and more destructive agenda, that of bringing America to its knees?
Who would want America’s government weak and compliant, divided, perhaps even under foreign domination yet with her military intact, ready to lash out in response to phony intelligence, imaginary threats or a new 9/11 style false flag attack, one we hear predictions of daily?
Is there evidence that the Tea Party “reformers” are, as is so often the case nowadays, a solution “chosen to fail?”<br/
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
— Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Are those who gravitate toward cynicism and conspiracy simply “situationally aware” and no longer a paranoid fringe? Have things in Washington deteriorated so far that only a handful of elected officials aren’t being bribed, blackmailed or both? Are there that many?
The media has rushed to defend the Koch Brothers, tied to the Israeli lobby AIPAC with its spy scandals and heavy handed agenda of pushing for war on Iran, bagmen and conduits for the Zionist move against the Obama administration, now believed by Israel to be an unenthusiastic “partner.”
Obama may “veto” on demand to save Israel from U.N. sanctions for human rights violations but has not met expectations on Iran. It will take a shipload of cluster bombs to do that, perhaps a bit more.
The “Koch boys” are tasked with closing that deal. America will be broken, this is what is believed. Thousands of Americans in the streets are saying a resounding “NO!”
As juicy a target as Iran may be, isolated, no air force, oil and gas wealth beyond imagination, America may well be easier to take down.
Defending the “Federal reserve franchise,” the gaggle of banks, many Rothschild controlled, that have repeatedly crushed America’s economy since 1913, the illegal and unconstitutional monstrosity that bleeds America dry, that is another task for Israel’s Tea Party commandos.
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan were never the real target of AIPAC with its media arms, the Murdoch/Fox empire and Wikileaks. Drowning America in debt and war is, while Israel drowns in another way, in American cash and defense contracts.
Wikileaks is a sinister part of that empire too. Wikileaks is regrouping, hoping the public will quickly forget their alliances with the media giants and their special “sensitivity” to the needs and desires of Israel’s covert intelligence organization, the Mossad. Julian Assange says “sensitivity.” We say “alliance.”
In today’s world of game theory warfare, where “psy-ops” are “politics as usual,” an American political scene that is increasingly global and increasingly brutal. The “spin doctors” of the 80’s and 90’s have given way to “covert operatives” and “disinformation specialists,” products of the “War on Terror” years who are as quick with a gun or bomb as their predecessors were with briefcases filled with cash.
For years, Americans had been distracted by “boogeyman” terror scares, now appearing more than a bit overly “coincidental.”
Giving The Fox The Henhouse Keys
America is broke, most people know that but don’t understand what it means. One day Americans will wake up and money will be worthless. When this happens — and it is “when” and not “if” — a nuclear apocalypse would be an afterthought.
This will be the morning you wake up and find why the Department of Homeland Security was created.
What most Americans also know is that America is broke because of bank fraud, interest payments on debt caused by huge deficits run up under the Bush administration and the bloated military budget. The two wars, that are still going on and on, paying for them and the interest on 15 trillion dollars in national debt accounts for 99% of the waste.
America didn’t get this far gone by accident. The greatest minds money could buy, insidious, evil, twisted, planned this every step of the way starting with Reagan’s “trickle down” economics.
Without a middle class and a viable industrial economy, America simply doesn’t exist. America is now a nation of extremes, the very rich and the “less than poor,” a former middle class buried in debt and a working class with no jobs, a nation heading for disintegration, a nation posed for even more tyranny, more control and less and less freedom.
Feudalism: Thank The Supreme Court
The last insult, defiling the corpse of America, the Supreme Court granted international corporations (with a U.S. registered agent) unlimited access to buy and sell elected officials. Drug money from Mexico and Afghanistan, profits from defective vaccines, price fixed oil, “bail out” money, has flooded into the political system of America ending the last hope for freedom and progress, over $200 million during the last midterm election alone, enough to swing 100 key races.
It is guaranteed, it is truly written, life in America will all be down hill from now on, phony terror attacks, endless wars, new laws, restrictions, new humiliations. Expect the ultimate tax, runaway prices for everything, food, gas, utilities, tuition, more to pay with money now totally impossible for the average American to get.
Today we are drowning in money. That will end. Ask anyone who lived during the “great depression.” Movies cost 5 cents.
Nobody had 5 cents.
The new ploy has a first step, divide and conquer. The tool used, the Tea Party governors, now proven to be employees of the Israeli-American Koch brothers, tasked with orchestrating “the crash.”
“First we break the unions…”
When America’s patriotic resistance, those wanting a new 9/11 investigation and an end to illegal wars, massive debt and draconian rule at home formed the Tea Party, they created the means of their own destruction. As soon as the network publicity machines, starting with Fox, went into gear and the money began to flow, It was all over.
Real funding was not small donations from “grass roots” believers but “Israeli firster” bucks, the billionaire Koch brothers tied to Israeli ultra-nationalist Likudists picking up the bill.
“Them who pays, names the tune to be danced to.”
The Tea Party agenda went from ending constitutional abuses of the Patriot Acts, investigating the 9/11 cover-up and ending massive federal deficits to “samo-samo” Neocon drivel, but with a twist.
Despite the Neocon appearance to the Tea Party, it is something entirely different. There is nothing remotely conservative about feudalism.
Remember, there can be no feudalism without serfs. Being a serf “sucks”… wait and see.
America, at her weakest since the “great depression” has been singled out for destruction, destabilization, “balkanization” and class warfare. America’s Midwest is the target zone, rolling back the clock in state after state, plunging what had been America’s industrial heartland into generations of poverty and decline. We have seen the bank failures. Will breadlines be next?
Are breadlines “socialism?”
No business will stay in, no business will move to a region with closed schools, no reliable police and fire departments, crumbling highways, a region pre-staged for social unrest, outbreaks of crime, a region pre-staged for class warfare. This is no accident, not hardly. Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin are only a beginning.
Wisconsin, from the folks who brought us Gaza…
Who could hate America this much? Who profits from debt, from social unrest, from war, who makes money when Americans are sick, hungry, afraid and oppressed?
Our “Bestest Friend” In The Whole World
Has anyone noticed that the Tea Party didn’t just forget about its beginnings as a 9/11 Truth movement? Did anyone notice that the Tea Party, not the minor “Ron Paul wing” but the “Koch Brothers’ Tea Party,” the real “Tea Party” is totally silent on the following issues:
· The wars can go on forever despite the fact they are bleeding America dry and are morally despicable
· Wiretapping, torture, airport groping, secret prisons, suspended habeas corpus, those “constitution” issues talked about so much, seem to have been forgotten
· The biggest financial ripoffs, oil and pharmaceutical price fixing, military-industrial racketeering, Wall Street… not a word
· If trillions were stolen, yes trillions, not billions, why isn’t anyone talking about arrests? Isn’t stealing illegal anymore?
The number one issue is Obamacare? Say what????
The Case: Divide And Destroy
Their theory is that of the spiral, entropy, debt, depression and discord. Decades of “dumbing down,” inferior schools, degenerate pop culture, propaganda and fear mongering are the tools.
A population that hates, itself, each other, believes in nothing, trusts no one, fears everything, every group ready to enslave the other.
Destroy public education and America is permanently derailed, relegated to third world status, a “Soviet Union” for the 21st century, dumb as hell and armed to the teeth.
The political answer being sold to Americans is one most are very familiar with. The “hate” list is getting out of hand. Topping the list is the old standby, African Americans, the underpinnings of American politics for 150 years. Every discussion of government spending, not counting the 80% stolen by banksters and the military industrial complex, is a “nod and wink” about “them.”
The race hatred from America’s shameful era of slavery is alive and well. The unbridled hatred spewed at President Obama originates from geography every American knows very well. “Red States” are where they hate “black people.” (and Jews)
Sadder still, the greatest social advancement “some” people of color have achieved in recent decades has been brought about by the refocused hated since 9/11, “Islamophobia.” It is though America, as a nation, existed as a macrocosm of an elementary school playground.
Should African Americans feel relief because the media is now relentlessly focused on bashing Muslims, gays and Hispanics?
Now we have added trade unions to the list, another danger to public order, or so we are told by those who want to return to the past:
· Millions of laborers in America lived in actual slavery. Coal miners made $5 a week, lived in hovels rented from mine owners, shopped at the “company store.”
· Milk in the United States was made with chalk. Crackers used axle grease for shortening. Bread was made from sawdust.
We forget how fragile our nation is. Americans live as though things were always as they are. But then, how are they? Between 20 and 30 million homes are vacant, each housed an American family, over 80 million Americans cast adrift.
Where are they now?
Between 2 and 3 million Americans are in prison with another 7 million on parole or probation.
The Soviet gulags were never so full.
No one is asking why.
Over a million Americans serve in the armed forces, some with more deployed time than any military force in our history. Most would leave the service if they didn’t face starvation.
Veterans from Vietnam, Gulf War I (Operation Desert Storm) and Gulf War II share the endless wait for veterans disability processing, some for illnesses and injuries over 40 years old. 3 generations wait, poisoned, vaccinated and irradiated to death.
They were last month’s target, before the move against the trade unions.
They will be targeted again. They are weak, they are vulnerable. They are expendable.
Will the children be next? Of course they will.
Gordon Duff is a U.S. Marine Vietnam veteran and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic officer of U.N. humanitarian groups. He is a widely published expert on military and defense issues.
Israeli army will cash in on Egypt’s upheavals
© Jonathan Cook
Source: Global Research
February 22, 2011
Israel has been indulging in a sustained bout of fear-mongering since the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak was toppled earlier this month. The ostensible aim has been to warn the international community that the lengthy “cold peace” between the two countries is on the verge of collapse.
In reality, the peace treaty signed three decades ago is in no danger for the forseeable future. The Egyptian and Israeli armies have too much of a vested interest in its continuation, whatever political reforms occur in Egypt.
And if the Egyptian political system really does open up, which is still far from sure, the Israeli military may actually be a beneficiary – if for all the wrong reasons.
The main value of the 1979 Camp David treaty to the Israeli leadership has been three decades of calm on Israel’s south-western flank. That, in turn, has freed the army to concentrate on more pressing goals, such as its intermittent forays north to sow sectarian discord in Lebanon, its belligerent posturing towards first Iraq and now Iran in the east, and its campaign to contain and dispossess the Palestinians under its rule.
But since Mubarak’s ousting on February 11, Israeli politicians and generals have warned that democracy for Egypt is bound to empower the country’s Islamists, supposedly bent on Israel’s destruction.
Last week, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, compared a post-Mubarak Egypt with Iran, saying Israel was “preparing for the worst”. Likewise, Gabi Ashkenazi, the departing chief of staff, stated that Israel was braced for the peace treaty’s cancellation as the “moderate camp” weakened.
Officially, Tel Aviv’s concern is that, should the treaty be revoked, Israel will have to redirect much of its martial energy to preparing for potential hostilties with its neighbour, the most populous Arab state. Israel’s anxious declarations about the peace treaty, however, are largely self-serving.
Peace has reigned between Israel and Egypt because it is so strongly in the interests of both militaries. That is not about to change while the Egyptian and Israeli general staffs maintain their pre-eminent roles as the praetorian guards of their countries’ respective political systems.
Today’s close ties between the Israeli and Egyptian armies are a far cry from the earlier era of Gamal Abdel Nasser, who galvanised Arab nationalism in an attempt to defeat Israel, or his successor, Anwar Sadat, who almost led the Arab world to victory against the Israeli army in 1973.
Since the signing of the 1979 agreement, Washington has bought off the hawks on each side with massive military subsidies underwritten by the American taxpayer. The U.S. has been happy to bankroll an accord that strengthens Israel, its useful Middle Eastern ally, and buys the acquiesence of Egypt, the Arab state best placed to resist the current regional order.
The Egyptian army receives $1.3 billion in annual military aid, making it the second largest recipient after Israel, which gets more than twice as much. In addition, military hardware has been lavished on the Israeli army, making it possibly the fourth strongest in the world – an astonishing situation for a country of only seven million.
The munificence has continued despite the U.S. financial crisis, and includes Washington’s effective donation last year to Israel of two dozen of the next-generation F-35 stealth fighter jet as part of its pledge to maintain Israel’s “technological edge” over its rivals in the region.
Three decades of American money thrown at the two armies have made each a key player in their respective economies – as well as encouraging a culture of corruption in the senior ranks.
In Egypt’s case, large sections of the economy are controlled by retired generals, from electrical goods and construction companies to the production of olive oil and medicines. The army is reported to own about a third of the country’s assets.
The Israeli army’s economic stake is less ostentatious but no less significant. Its officers retire in their early forties on full pensions, and then cash in on their “security know-how”. Second careers in arms dealing, military consultancies or sinecures in Israel’s booming homeland security exports are all but guaranteed. Ehud Barak, a former chief of staff and the current defence minister, made millions of dollars from his security consultancy in a few years out of politics, for example.
Corruption, endemic in Israel’s political culture, has rapidly seeped into the military. Some of it is visible, as demonstrated this month with the passing over of a series of candidates for the vacant post of chief of staff because of the skeletons in their closets. Some is not: current investigations into dubious activities by Mr Ashkenazi and his family are subject to heavy reporting restrictions.
Nonetheless, both armies are revered by their countrymen. Even should that change in Egypt over coming months, the army is too strong – thanks to the U.S. – to be effectively challenged by the protesters.
Israeli hawks, however, are right to be concerned – on other grounds – about the “threat” of political reform in Egypt. Although greater democracy will not undermine the peace agreement, it may liberate Egyptians to press for a proper regional peace deal, one that takes account of Palestinian interests as the Camp David accord was supposed to do.
Not least, in a freer Egypt, the army will no longer be in a position to play Robin to Israel’s Batman in Gaza. Its continuing role in the strangulation of the tiny enclave would likely come to an end.
But in such a climate, the Israeli military still has much to gain. As Israeli analyst Aluf Benn has observed, Israel will use the Middle East’s upheavals to highlight to the U.S. that it is Washington’s only reliable ally – the so-called “villa in the jungle”. Its show of anxiety is also designed to remind the U.S. that a jittery Israel is more likely to engage in unpredictable military adventures.
The remedy, of course, is even greater American largesse. And for that reason, if no other, the fear-mongering from Tel Aviv is not about to end.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.
Jonathan Cook is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Ghassan Al-Masri: U.S. veto ‘diplomatic terrorism’
© Ma’an News Agency
February 20, 2011 14:38
NABLUS (Ma’an) — The U.S. veto of a U.N. anti-settlement resolution was “diplomatic terrorism,” former PLO spokesman Ghassan Al-Masri said Sunday.
The U.S. on Friday torpedoed a Palestinian bid for a U.N. resolution condemning Israel’s settlement activity. The other 14 member states of the Security Council voted in favor of the motion.
President Mahmoud Abbas pursued the resolution despite a last-minute personal appeal from U.S. President Barack Obama urging him to abandon the bid.
Al-Masri said both the veto of the resolution and Obama’s attempt to dissuade the Palestinians from pursuing international law were forms of diplomatic terrorism, both of which failed, he added.
The veto revealed the true intentions of U.S. foreign policy, and undermined what remained of Washington’s credibility as a sponsor of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Al-Masri said.
Further, he said it highlighted that Obama was strategically allied with the settlement policies of Israel’s occupation, and demonstrated that the president’s declared support for a two-state solution was false.
The move would increase hostility toward the U.S. on the Arab street, which is rising up for freedom and democracy, Al-Masri said.
The former PLO official appealed to Abbas to reassess his approach to negotiations, and to reconsider the Palestinian people’s demands, which he said called for restructuring the components of national unity within the internationally recognized PLO.
He also called for the PLO to have a greater role in leading the people, and to form more strategic relations within the Arab world.
He also said the PLO should take the lead and seek strategic relations between the Palestinians and the Arab world, as well as taking advantage of the changes sweeping the region.
Obama’s FY 2012 Budget Is A Tool Of Class War
© Paul Craig Roberts
February 17, 2011
Obama’s new budget is a continuation of Wall Street’s class war against the poor and middle class. Wall Street wasn’t through with us when the banksters sold their fraudulent derivatives into our pension funds, wrecked Americans’ job prospects and retirement plans, secured a $700 billion bailout at taxpayers’ expense while foreclosing on the homes of millions of Americans, and loaded up the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet with several trillion dollars of junk financial paper in exchange for newly created money to shore up the banks’ balance sheets. The effect of the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” on inflation, interest rates, and the dollar’s foreign exchange value are yet to hit. When they do, Americans will get a lesson in poverty.
Now the ruling oligarchies have struck again, this time through the federal budget. The U.S. government has a huge military/security budget. It is as large as the budgets of the rest of the world combined. The Pentagon, CIA, and Homeland Security budgets account for the $1.1 trillion federal deficit that the Obama administration forecasts for fiscal year 2012. This massive deficit spending serves only one purpose – the enrichment of the private companies that serve the military/security complex. These companies, along with those on Wall Street, are who elect the U.S. government.
The U.S. has no enemies except those that the U.S. creates by bombing and invading other countries and by overthrowing foreign leaders and installing American puppets in their place.
China does not conduct naval exercises off the California coast, but the U.S. conducts war games in the China Sea off China’s coast. Russia does not mass troops on Europe’s borders, but the U.S. places missiles on Russia’s borders. The U.S. is determined to create as many enemies as possible in order to continue its bleeding of the American population to feed the ravenous military/security complex.
The U.S. government actually spends $56 billion a year, that is, $56,000 million, in order that American air travelers can be porno-scanned and sexually groped so that firms represented by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff can make large profits selling the scanning equipment.
With a perpetual budget deficit driven by the military/security complex’s desire for profits, the real cause of America’s enormous budget deficit is off-limits for discussion.
The U.S. Secretary of War-Mongering, Robert Gates, declared: “We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril.” The military brass warns of cutting any of the billions of aid to Israel and Egypt, two functionaries for its Middle East “policy.”
But what are “our” global security responsibilities? Where did they come from? Why would America be at peril if America stopped bombing and invading other countries and interfering in their internal affairs? The perils America faces are all self-created.
The answer to this question used to be that otherwise we would be murdered in our beds by “the worldwide communist conspiracy.” Today the answer is that we will be murdered in our airplanes, train stations, and shopping centers by “Muslim terrorists” and by a newly created imaginary threat – “domestic extremists,” that is, war protesters and environmentalists.
The U.S. military/security complex is capable of creating any number of false flag events in order to make these threats seem real to a public whose intelligence is limited to TV, shopping mall experiences, and football games.
So Americans are stuck with enormous budget deficits that the Federal Reserve must finance by printing new money, money that sooner or later will destroy the purchasing power of the dollar and its role as world reserve currency. When the dollar goes, American power goes.
For the ruling oligarchies, the question is: how to save their power.
Their answer is: make the people pay.
And that is what their latest puppet, President Obama, is doing.
With the U.S. in the worst recession since the Great Depression, a great recession that John Williams and Gerald Celente, along with myself, have said is deepening, the “Obama budget” takes aim at support programs for the poor and out-of-work. The American elites are transforming themselves into idiots as they seek to replicate in America the conditions that have led to the overthrows of similarly corrupt elites in Tunisia and Egypt and mounting challenges to U.S. puppet governments elsewhere.
All we need is a few million more Americans with nothing to lose in order to bring the disturbances in the Middle East home to America.
With the U.S. military bogged down in wars abroad, an American revolution would have the best chance of success.
American politicians have to fund Israel as the money returns in campaign contributions.
The U.S. government must fund the Egyptian military if there is to be any hope of turning the next Egyptian government into another American puppet that will serve Israel by continuing the blockade of the Palestinians herded into the Gaza ghetto.
These goals are far more important to the American elite than Pell Grants that enable poor Americans to obtain an education, or clean water, or community block grants, or the low income energy assistance program (cut by the amount that U.S. taxpayers are forced to give to Israel).
There are also $7.7 billion of cuts in Medicaid and other health programs over the next five years.
Given the magnitude of the U.S. budget deficit, these sums are a pittance. The cuts will have no effect on U.S. Treasury financing needs. They will put no breaks on the Federal Reserve’s need to print money in order to keep the U.S. government in operation.
These cuts serve one purpose: to further the Republican Party’s myth that America is in economic trouble because of the poor: The poor are shiftless. They won’t work. The only reason unemployment is high is that the poor had rather be on welfare.
A new addition to the welfare myth is that recent middle class college graduates won’t take the jobs offered them, because their parents have too much money, and the kids like living at home without having to do anything. A spoiled generation, they come out of university refusing any job that doesn’t start out as CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The reason that engineering graduates do not get job interviews is that they do not want them.
What all this leads to is an assault on “entitlements”, which means Social Security and Medicare. The elites have programmed, through their control of the media, a large part of the population, especially those who think of themselves as conservatives, to conflate “entitlements” with welfare. America is going to hell not because of foreign wars that serve no American purpose, but because people, who have paid 15% of their payroll all their lives for old age pensions and medical care, want “handouts” in their retirement years. Why do these selfish people think that working Americans should be forced through payroll taxes to pay for the pensions and medical care of the retirees? Why didn’t the retirees consume less and prepare for their own retirement?
The elite’s line, and that of their hired spokespersons in “think tanks” and universities, is that America is in trouble because of its retirees.
Too many Americans have been brainwashed to believe that America is in trouble because of its poor and its retirees. America is not in trouble because it coerces a dwindling number of taxpayers to support the military/security complex’s enormous profits, American puppet governments abroad, and Israel.
The American elite’s solution for America’s problems is not merely to foreclose on the homes of Americans whose jobs were sent offshore, but to add to the numbers of distressed Americans with nothing to lose the sick and the dispossessed retirees, and the university graduates who cannot find jobs that have been sent to China and India.
Of all the countries in the world, none need a revolution as bad as the United States, a country ruled by a handful of selfish oligarchs who have more income and wealth than can be spent in a lifetime.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.
The following article is reprinted with permission from The European Union Times, citing antiwar.com.
Jimmy Carter Sued for $5 Million for Criticism of Israel
Source: EU Times
February 4, 2011
In a move that calls back to the attempt by Texas cattlemen to sue Oprah Winfrey for “defamation of beef,” an Israeli lawyer has filed a class-action lawsuit against former President Jimmy Carter, seeking $5 million in damages because his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” allegedly defamed Israel.
Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner insisted that Carter’s book violated New York State’s Consumer Protection Laws by asserting things, largely that Israel was not inherently reasonable and Syria was not inherently unreasonable, that “even a child” knows is untrue.
The suit went on to condemn Carter, saying he had an “agenda of anti-Israel propaganda” and condemned publisher Simon and Shuster for advertising the book as a work on non-fiction. The legal complaint insists Carter has the right to publish a book “to put forward his virulent anti-Israel bias” but insisted that such a book could only be sold as a work of fiction.
Lawsuits against authors alleging “defamation” of the government or a key ally, though common in some Mideast dictatorships, have never been particulary common nor successful in the United States. Likewise, it does not appear that New York’s Consumer Protection Law explicitly forbids criticism of Israel in a work of non-fiction, though if true this would surely make for an interesting Constitutional challenge to such a law.
Simon and Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg condemned the lawsuit as a “chillling attack on free speech” and promised that the company would oppose it in court. Former President Carter has yet to comment.
The Hamas Charter: Vision, fact and fiction
© Dr. Ahmed Yousef
Source: Ma’an News Agency
January 24, 2011 11:53
The Israeli occupation has never missed an opportunity to brand Hamas a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization. True to the Mossad motto which states “By way of deception, thou shall do war,” it has excelled at taking select articles from the Islamic party’s charter and using them, out of context, to justify its claims.
The Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions.
The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to the crimes against humanity which contravene international law.
Throughout my tenure as an adviser to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in the tenth and eleventh administrations (the unity government), and even after the events of June 2007 when I was assigned as a deputy minister to the Foreign Ministry, journalists and politicians consistently asked the same questions around the charter and the extent to which the government was beholden to it or intent on applying the articles within it.
Despite my consistent clarification that Hamas must be evaluated on its official actions and political positions, it is evident that the Israeli propaganda machine has over a two year period successfully brainwashed those it has targeted. Many observers have become incapable of making an impartial assessment of the significant transformations the movement has undergone; and instead have parroted the Israeli position, adopting the obstinacy of what a local colloquialism notes “is a goat, even if it has wings.”
The reality and the tale
The Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, was born in December 1987 with the first Intifada, or Uprising. Initially, the group mounted demonstrations against Israeli belligerence; and in order to maintain the momentum of the newly created protest culture, the group’s leadership needed a platform to crystallize its views and give the “resistance generation” broad strokes direction on the principles and challenges within which they would operate against the occupation. Those early, revolutionary days represent the context within which the concept of a charter was formed.
That document was a practical response to an oppressive occupation. It reflected the views of one of the movement’s elder leaders; and it was ratified during the unique circumstances of the Uprising in 1988 as a necessary framework for dealing with a relentless occupation. There was little opportunity, at that time, to pore over the minutia of either its religious and political terminology or the broader perspective of international law.
An internal committee reviewed the possibility of amending the charter during the nineties and ratifying it as a binding manifesto; yet the primary concern, that of being seen as following the Fatah route of offering up concessions on a silver platter, led the group’s leadership to shelve such measures.
Instead, new ideas were proposed that reflected the movement’s openness to the international community and its willingness to adopt a more realistic political view. This flexibility was evident in official speeches; and more recently in the election platform put forward by the Change & Reform Party (al-taghyeer wal islah).
Despite the group’s evolution, it is an inescapable fact that the charter represents a milestone in the struggle against an occupation. At any rate, historical statements remain a testament to the past; and the charter, as a document written over two decades ago, retains its authoritative value.
However, it is not a constitution drafted as law; and cannot be construed to demand literal interpretation. In fact, the movement has to a certain degree moved on from its content simply by participating in the political process, accepting a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and publicly declaring a readiness to explore political solutions with the international community.
The claim of an intransigent organization simply does not tally with the reality of a group opening up to its regional environment; and one which participated in a national parliament borne of the Oslo Accords, having won a majority vote through participatory elections in 2006.
The vision and the policy
Logic dictates Hamas has demonstrated the flexibility to deal with changing realities while remaining true to its principles; and it as shown an openness to be actively engaged when appropriate. Regardless of the past, our position is crystallized as follows:
1. Historic rights remain inalienable, preserved by each generation; and the resolve shall continue until those rights are restored. The issue is bound only by capacity and the regional balance of power. Our people have never repudiated the fact that Jews and Christians are an integral part of the Palestinian people and its land – the land of all prophets. Yet we reject a situation where one encroaches on the possessions and holy sites of another, supported by external powers and claims of divine promise. This is not only a Hamas refutation; but that of the entire Palestinian population.
2. There is a stark difference between acquiescing to pressure then accepting conditions, hoping for better circumstances for your people, and gaining your rights in a manner that preserves your integrity and protects the sanctity of your lands and holy sites. Attempts to put Hamas on the Fatah path (coaxing then gain successive compromise) would place it in the former camp, which is untenable. The movement’s decision-making process is based on a consultative apparatus, one that is designed to protect the inviolability of the Palestinian cause and the historical rights of its people; and hence we can only consider solutions that reflect the people’s will.
3. Our current conflict with the occupation is a political one. Yet virtually all liberation movements rely on the language of religion to inspire their peoples, given that such discourse offers the greatest clarity and motive to make sacrifices for liberty. For our part, we do not shy away from shedding light on the historical milestones that underscore our struggle against the fundamentalism inherent in Zionism. We do so in a way that will undermine the dream of Eretz Israel; and place us firmly on a path to a just peace.
4. Hamas is a national liberation movement with an Islamic identity; and it recognizes that the conflict sometimes takes on religious form in ways that cannot be ignored. Palestine is a trust that cannot be discharged; and there are rights that have been usurped that must be restored, peacefully or through war. There are no political parties that can simply cede these rights without reverting to a national referendum which would collectively decide on the right course to preserve the greater good of the Palestinian people.
5. The cornerstone of this issue is that Palestinian rights will not dissipate as a result of stonewalling. Whether or not the conflict has a religious dimension, the people’s rights must be restituted either through peaceful settlement or through open conflict for generations to come, awaiting a change in the balance of power that will allow a final, equitable solution to emerge.
6 .Hamas’ view is that this conflict is multi-dimensional: religious, political, legal, ethical and security-related. Yet at its core is the matter of rights that have been abrogated. These must be restored; and the international community has attested to this imperative through numerous declarations, including United Nations Resolution 194 which recognizes the right of Palestinian refugees to return and be compensated for their losses.
7. For our part, we acknowledge that these are sacred lands which were the cradle of three monotheistic messages – Jewish, Christian and Muslim. The followers of these faiths have been on this land for centuries; and therefore their presence on this land, in general, has never, and will not, end.
8. The Palestinian people have never harbored ill will towards the Jewish presence on this land, only for the Zionist aberration that seeks to expropriate it, dominate it, cast out indigenous “gentiles”, and invite mass immigration from across the globe through formal Aliyah (Jewish immigration) programs.
9. The prospect of coexistence among the original inhabitants of this land is possible after those who have been wronged receive restitution. Yet any submission to the status quo, negating the harm that has been done over the past 60 years, is unacceptable under any circumstance.
These, then, are the general principles upon which the Islamists of Palestine operate, regardless of the comments some may have over a charter written at a specific, tumultuous point almost a quarter of a century ago; and when the language of conflict from all parties was open to a wide array of political and religious phraseology.
The pragmatism of Hamas’ current position is self-evident when evaluated without the partiality of propaganda. It is up to the Israelis and the international community to recognize it as such or doom the holy land to further strife until the next generation come of age.
Dr. Ahmed Yousef is the former Senior Political Advisor to Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza Prime Minister.
The Balkanization of Sudan: The Redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa
© Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Source: Global Research
January 16, 2011
Sudan is a diverse nation and a country that represents the plurality of Africa through various tribes, clans, ethnicities, and religious groups. Yet the unity of Sudan is in question, while there is talk of unifying nations and of one day creating a United States of Africa through the African Union.
The limelight is on the January 2011 referendum in South Sudan. The Obama Administration has formally announced that it supports the separation of South Sudan from the rest of Sudan.
The balkanization of Sudan is what is really at stake. For years the leaders and officials of South Sudan have been supported by America and the European Union.
The Politically-Motivated Demonization of Sudan
A major demonization campaign has been underway against Sudan and its government. True, the Sudanese government in Khartoum has had a bad track record in regards to human rights and state corruption, and nothing could justify this.
In regards to Sudan, selective or targeted condemnation has been at work. One should, nonetheless, ask why the Sudanese leadership has been targeted by the U.S. and E.U., while the human rights records of several U.S. sponsored client states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.A.E., and Ethiopia are casually ignored.
Khartoum has been vilified as a autocratic oligarchy guilty of targeted genocide in both Darfour and South Sudan. This deliberate focus on the bloodshed and instability in Darfour and South Sudan is political and motivated by Khartoum’s ties to Chinese oil interests.
Sudan supplies China with a substantial amount of oil. The geo-political rivalry between China and the U.S. for control of African and global energy supplies is the real reason for the chastisement of Sudan and the strong support shown by the U.S., the E.U., and Israeli officials for the seccession of South Sudan.
It is in this context that Chinese interests have been attacked. This includes the October 2006 attack on the Greater Nile Petroleum Company in Defra, Kordofan by the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) militia.
Distorting the Violence in Sudan
While there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfour and a surge in regional nationalism in South Sudan, the underlying causes of the conflict have been manipulated and distorted.
The underlying causes for the humanitarian crisis in Darfour and the regionalism in South Sudan are intimately related to economic and strategic interests. If anything, lawlessness and economic woes are the real issues, which have been fuelled by outside forces.
Either directly or through proxies in Africa, the U.S., the E.U., and Israel are the main architects behind the fighting and instability in both Darfour and South Sudan. These outside powers have assisted in the training, financing, and arming of the militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese government within Sudan. They lay the blame squarely on Khartoum’s shoulders for any violence while they themselves fuel conflict in order to move in and control the energy resources of Sudan. The division of Sudan into several states is part of this objective. Support of the JEM, the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA), and other militias opposed to the Sudanese government by the U.S., the E.U., and Israel has been geared towards achieving the objective of dividing Sudan.
It is also no coincidence that for years the U.S., Britain, France, and the entire E.U. under the pretext of humanitarianism have been pushing for the deployment of foreign troops in Sudan. They have actively pushed for the deployment of NATO troops in Sudan under the cover of a U.N. peacekeeping mandate.
This is a re-enactment of the same procedures used by the U.S. and E.U. in other regions where countries have either formally or informally been divided and their economies restructured by foreign-installed proxy governments under the presence of foreign troops. This is what happened in the former Yugoslavia (through the creation of several new republics) and in Anglo-American occupied Iraq (through soft balkanization via a calculated form of federalism aimed at establishing a weak and de-centralized state). Foreign troops and a foreign presence have provided the cloud for state dismantlement and the foreign takeover of state infrastructure, resources, and economies.
The Question of Identity in Sudan
While the Sudanese state has been portrayed as being oppressive towards the people in South Sudan, it should be noted that both the referendum and the power sharing structure of the Sudanese government portray something else. The power sharing agreement in Khartoum between Omar Al-Basher, the president of Sudan, includes the SPLM. The leader of the SPLM, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is the First Vice-President of Sudan and the President of South Sudan.
The issue of ethnicity has also been brought to the forefront of the regional or ethno-regional nationalism that has been cultivated in South Sudan. The cleavage in Sudan between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese has been presented to the outside world as the major force for the regional nationalism motivating calls for statehood in South Sudan. Over the years this self-differentiation has been diffused and socialized into the collective psyche of the people of South Sudan.
Yet, the difference between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese are not that great. The Arab identity of so-called Sudanese Arabs is based primarily on their use of the Arabic language. Let us even assume that both Sudanese ethnic identities are totally separate. It is still widely known in Sudan that both groups are very mixed. The other difference between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan is that Islam predominates in the rest of Sudan and not in South Sudan. Both groups are still deeply tied to one another, except for a sense of self-identification, which they are well in their rights to have. Yet, it is these different identities that have been played upon by local leaders and outside powers.
Neglect of the local population of different regions by the elites of Sudan is what the root cause of anxiety or animosity between people in South Sudan and the Khartoum government are really based on and not differences between so-called Arab and so-called African Sudanese.
Regional favouritism has been at work in South Sudan.
The issue is also compounded by social class. The people of South Sudan believe that their economic status and standards of living will improve if they form a new republic. The government in Khartoum and non-Southerner Sudanese have been used as the scapegoats for the economic miseries of the people of South Sudan and their perceptions of relative poverty by the local leadership of South Sudan. In reality, the local officials of South Sudan will not improve the living standards of the people of South Sudan, but maintain a klepocratic status quo. 
The Long-Standing Project to Balkanize Sudan and its links to the Arab World
In reality, the balkanization project in Sudan has been going on since the end of British colonial rule in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan and Egypt were one country during many different periods. Both Egypt and Sudan were also one country in practice until 1956.
Up until the independence of Sudan, there was a strong movement to keep Egypt and Sudan united as a single Arab state, which was struggling against British interests. London, however, fuelled Sudanese regionalism against Egypt in the same manner that regionalism has been at work in South Sudan against the rest of Sudan. The Egyptian government was depicted in the same way as present-day Khartoum. Egyptians were portrayed as exploiting the Sudanese just as how the non-Southern Sudanese have been portrayed as exploiting the South Sudanese.
After the British invasion of Egypt and Sudan, the British also managed to keep their troops stationed in Sudan. Even while working to divide Sudan from Egypt, the British worked to create internal differentations between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan. This was done through the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, from 1899 to 1956, which forced Egypt to share Sudan with Britain after the Mahdist Revolts. Eventually the Egyptian government would come to refuse to recognize the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium as legal. Cairo would continously ask the British to end their illegal military occupation of Sudan and to stop preventing the re-integration of Egypt and Sudan, but the British would refuse.
It would be under the presence of British troops that Sudan would declare itself independent. This is what lead to the emergence of Sudan as a separate Arab and African state from Egypt. Thus, the balkanization process started with the division of Sudan from Egypt.
The Yinon Plan at work in Sudan and the Middle East
The balkanization of Sudan is also tied to the Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem. The strategic objective of the Yinon Plan is to ensure Israeli superority through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states. It is in this context that Israel has been deeply involved in Sudan.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centre piece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. The Atlantic in this context published an article in 2008 by Jeffrey Goldberg called “After Iraq: What Will the Middle East Look Like?”  In the Goldberg article a map of the Middle East was presented that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan and the map of a future Middle East presented by Lieutentant-Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters in the U.S military’s Armed Forces Journal in 2006.
It is also no coincidence that aside from a divided Iraq a divided Sudan was shown on the map. Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were also presented as divided nations too. Of importance to East Africa in the map, illustrated by Holly Lindem for Goldberg’s article, Eriteria is occupied by Ethiopia, which is a U.S. and Israeli ally, and Somalia is divided into Somaliland, Puntland, and a smaller Somalia.
In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. This has been achieved through the soft balkanization of federalism in Iraq, which has allowed the Kurdistan Regional Government to negotiate with foreign oil corporations on its own. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which is discussed in the Yinon Plan.
In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exasparate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. The division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means of balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan is to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze.
In this regard, the Hariri Assasination and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) have been playing out to the favour of Israel in creating internal divisions within Lebanon and fuelling politically-motivated sectarianism. This is why Tel Aviv has been very vocal about the STL and very supportive of it. In a clear sign of the politized nature of the STL and its ties to geo-politics, the U.S. and Britain have also given the STL millions of dollars.
The Links between the Attacks on the Egyptian Copts and the South Sudan Referendum
From Iraq to Egypt, Christians in the Middle East have been under attack, while tensions between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims are being fuelled. The attack on a Coptic Church in Alexandria on January 1, 2011 or the subsequent Coptic protests and riots should not be looked at in isolation.  Nor should the subsequent fury of Coptic Christians expressed towards Muslims and the Egyptian government. These attacks on Christians are tied to the broader geo-political goals of the U.S., Britain, Israel, and NATO in the Middle East and Arab World.
The Yinon Plan stipulates that if Egypt were divided that Sudan and Libya would also be balkanized and weakened. In this context, there is a link between Sudan and Egypt. According to the Yinon Plan, the Copts or Christians of Egypt, which are a large minority in Egypt, are the key to the balkanization of the Arab states in North Africa. Thus, the Yinon Plan states that the creation of a Coptic state in Upper Egypt (South Egypt) and Christian-Muslim tensions within Egyptian are vital steps to balkanizing Sudan and North Africa.
The attacks on Christians in the Middle East are part of intelligence operations intended to divide the Middle East and North Africa. The timing of the mounting attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt and the build-up to the referendum in South Sudan are no coincidence. The events in Sudan and Egypt are linked to one another and are part of the project to balkanize the Arab World and the Middle East. They must also be studied in conjunction with the Yinon Plan and with the events in Lebanon and Iraq, as well as in relation to the efforts to create a Shiite-Sunni divide.
The Outside Connections of the SPLM, SSLA, and Militias in Darfour
As in the case of Sudan, outside interference or intervention has been used to justify the oppression of domestic opposition. Despite its corruption, Khartoum has been under siege for refusing to merely be a proxy.
Sudan is justified in suspecting foreign troops and accusing the U.S., Britain, and Israel of eroding the national solidarity of Sudan. For example, Israel has sent arms to the opposition groups and separatist movements in Sudan. This was done through Ethiopia for years until Eritrea became independent from Ethiopia, which made Ethiopia lose its Red Sea coast, and bad relations developed between the Ethiopians and Eritreans. Afterwards Israeli weapons entered South Sudan from Kenya. From South Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which is the political arm of the SSLA, would transfer weapons to the militias in Darfur. The governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF), have also been working closely with the U.S., Britain, and Israel in East Africa.
The extent of Israeli influence with Sudanese opposition and separatist groups is significant. The SPLM has strong ties with Israel and its members and supporters regularly visit Israel. It is due to this that Khartoum capitulated and removed the Sudanese passport restriction on visiting Israel in late-2009 to satisfy the SPLM.  Salva Kiir Mayardit has also said that South Sudan will recognize Israel when it separates from Sudan.
The Sudan Tribune reported on March 5, 2008 that separatist groups in Darfur and Southern Sudan had offices in Israel:
[Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] supporters in Israel announced establishment of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement office in Israel, a press release said today.
“After consultation with the leadership of SPLM in Juba, the supporters of SPLM in Israel have decided to establish the office of SPLM in Israel.” Said [sic.] a statement received by email from Tel Aviv signed by the SLMP secretariat in Israel.
The statement said that SPLM office would promote the policies and the vision of the SPLM in the region. It further added that in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement the SPLM has the right to open in any country including Israel. It also indicated that there are around 400 SPLM supporters in Israel. Darfur rebel leader Abdel Wahid al-Nur said last week he opened an office in Tel Aviv. 
The Hijacking of the 2011 Referendum in South Sudan
What happened to the dreams of a united Africa or a united Arab World? Pan-Arabism, a movement to unit all Arabic-speaking peoples, has taken heavy losses as has African unity. The Arab World and Africa have consistenly been balkanized.
Secession and balkanization in East Africa and the Arab World are on the U.S., Israeli, and NATO drawing board.
The SSLA insurgency has been covertly supported by the U.S., Britain, and Israel since the 1980s. The formation of a new state in the Sudan is not intended to serve the interests of the people of South Sudan. It has been part of a broader geo-strategic agenda aimed at controlling North Africa and the Middle East.
The resulting process of “democratization” leading up to the January 2011 referendum serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil companies and the rivalry against China. This comes at the cost of the detriment of true national sovereignty in South Sudan.
 A kleptocracy is a government or/and state that works to protect, extend, deepen, continue, and entrench the wealth of the ruling class.
 Jeffrey Goldberg, “After Iraq: What Will The Middle East Look Like?” The Atlantic, January/February 2008.
 William Maclean, “Copts on global Christmas alert after Egypt bombing”, Reuters, January 5, 2011.
 “Sudan removes Israel travel ban from new passport”, Sudan Tribune, October 3, 2009:
 “Sudan’s SPLM reportedly opens an office in Israel – statement”, Sudan Tribune, March 5, 2008:
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).