Upcoming Events

  • No upcoming events available
 

ניווט

 

רשת אינדימדיה העולמית

 

Peace

Peace/Anti-war activity

גלנט כדוגמא | קיריל הדר

  


 


רבות כבר נכתב ונאמר על זיוף מסמך גלנט והניסיון הפאתטי מצד תומכיו בכל הנוגע ליצירת המסמך אשר כל ייעודו היה ונשאר קידום יואב גלנט לעבר התפקיד הנחשק – רמטכ"ל מדינת האפרטהייד, הכיבוש, האפליה והגזענות. רמטכ"ל מדינת ישראל.


 


נהוג לחשוב שמא באמת נפלה כאן טעות וכאילו מישהו מסוים שכרגע "במקרה" גם לא נוכח בשטחי מדינת ישראל, הוא שזייף את המסמך. זורקים שמות לאוויר, ההוא זייף ואז מסתבר שזה מישהו אחר. אבל הכלל העיקרי ממשיך להנחות את כולם: העיסוק האובססיבי במסמך גלנט.


 


וכולם ככולם שותפים להתעסקות ההיפותטית במסמך גלנט, כאילו שבאמת יש מישהו במדינה שבאמת קורא כל שטות הנכתבת בנושא העגום והמתיש. כזה הוא האמנם?


 


אי אפשר לפספס את הרצון האדיר מצד הישראלים הציונים, בדבר תמיכה בהמשך כהונתו של גבי אשכנזי בתפקיד הרמטכ"ל. הנה להם, גבר מחוספס וקשוח, כזה הממעיט בראיונות טיפשיים הכוללים ירידה אל העם, שיחות סרק עם הציבור כבמדינות דמוקרטיות. הנה להם, מנהיג אשר מרים את האף מעל סגניו, נוזף בחיילים, ואפילו העניש כמה באופן אישי. ממש הדמות הקלאסית בה חושקים הישראלים. ממש עגל הזהב.


 


בחירת יואב גלנט לתפקיד, גם היא חלילה לא מעוררת בי התפלאות כלשהי, הרי גם הוא כקודמו, היה אחראי ישיר למהלכי צה"ל ברצועת עזה במהלך מבצע עופרת יצוקה 2009. גלנט נתן את ההוראה, וגלנט גם נתן את הפקודות. קדימה גלנט, אתה הרמטכ"ל.


 


ואם לא הבנת את זה גלנט, החברים הקרובים בערוץ 2 כבר הבינו את זה לפניך. פרסום מסמך גלנט ע"י ערוץ 2, היה לא אחר מאשר תמיכת בעקיפין מצד הערוץ, במתמודד הבטחוניסט. הרי ממתי גוף כלשהו, ועוד אחת על כמה וכמה, ערוץ חדשות מוביל במדינת ישראל, מפרסם מסמך אשר מקורו בלתי ידוע או בלתי רשמי?


 


הזלזול באינטליגנציה הציבורית, מצד עורכי חדשות ערוץ 2 ואמנון אברמוביץ בפרט, יכולה להיכנס לספר השיאים של גינס, אם נמדוד אותה בעוצמת הפתאטיות בה היא מצטיירת. הרי ההיסטוריה כבר רשמה את "הצלחתם" של גופים הגדולים מהם, שידעו גם הם להשתמש במתק שפתיים איכותי בהרבה מהם, לצד היותם תקשורת מגויסת לרעיון הלאומני מצד הדיוויזיות השולטות בעם.


 


ההתעסקות התקשורתית הממושכת אינה אלא ספין מכוון שכל תפקידו היה ונישאר טיפוח גלנט בעיני ההמון הנבער, אשר זכה בסיקור ממוקד ומושקע בגלנט, סיקור עליו גופים מהמיזם העסקי היו מוכנים לשלם כסף רב, בהתאם לעסקיהם.


 


כמובן שלחשוב שמא מדובר רק במסמך גלנט יהיה זה נאיבי. מדובר כאן כאמור על עבודה סיזיפית מצד התקשורת הישראלית, התומכת ומקדמת אג'נדות אישיות, במסגרת מה שאמור להיות ניטרלי ואובייקטיבי.


 


בסופו של יום, הנפגעים הם לא אחר מאשר קורבנות שטיפת המוח הממושכת, אשר ביניהם טמונים גם אותם מפרסמים זדוניים. הם אלו אשר יאלצו להתמודד עם מכות כואבות כמו דו"ח גולדסטון, הם אלו אשר יאלצו להתמודד עם חקירות בדבר עצירת משטים הומניטרים, והם אלו גם אשר יעמדו לדין במרוצת הזמן, בגין פשעי מלחמה, לא רק נגד הפלסטינים והאנושות כולה, אלא גם נגד בני עמם במזרח התיכון.


 


 


* הכותב הינו יו"ר ארגון סלון דבורה


 


The Israeli Lobby: Declassified Documents Expose Its Influence

 The Israeli Lobby: Declassified Documents Expose Its Influence - by Stephen Lendman

 

James Petras' powerful 2006 book titled, "The Power of Israel in the United States" explained the enormous Jewish Lobby influence on US Middle East policies. Often harming American interests, they're pursued anyway because of its grassroots and high-level control over government, the business community, academia, the clergy and mass media since at least the 1960s. 

 

Intolerant of opposing views, they're suppressed for its own agenda, funded by PR propaganda domestically and overseas, America's top publications paid off to go along, now revealed by a secret document subpoenaed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (FRC) investigation into the American Zionist Council (AZC), AIPAC's parent lobbying arm.

 

"Between 1962 - 1963, the FRC subpoenaed" AZC's internal documents, examining their activities as "registered agents of foreign principals," learning that over $5 million in tax exempt (and perhaps overseas funds) "had been laundered through the Jewish Agency's American Section into the (AZC)."

 

The Agency is a quasi-Israeli government branch, funded to review legislation ahead of its submission to the Knesset under its Covenant Agreement - in violation of IRS regulations regarding tax exempt charitable funds and the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act.

 

No matter. Israel got a pass to act illegally for nearly 50 years, doing it today more aggregiously than ever. In 1962, after being ordered to register as a foreign agent, AZC transferred its responsibilities to AIPAC, "which refuses to register as (an Israeli) foreign agent" and gets away with it.

 

In November/December 1960, news and editorial content covered Israel's new nuclear reactor (for peace, not bombs they said), Arab refugees when the General Assembly was discussing them, the Eichmann case, Israel's aid to African states, and seating the UAR in the Security Council, reports presenting one-sided, pro-Israeli propaganda.

 

"It can be said that the press of the nation, during 1960, has by and large shown sympathy and understanding of Israel's position." Arab views have been largely "counteracted."

 

"The US contingent of 60 Mayors returned from Israel where they attended (an earlier) Conference....While (there), a number of them were interviewed by (US reporters) who sent (pro-Israeli) stories back to their hometown papers; they were also recorded in interviews for local radio stations."

 

Other plans were made to have those attending meet with Jewish and Christian audiences to disseminate friendly Israeli commentaries. In addition, opinion makers are invited to Israel at government expense, paid off to report friendly stories. An Israeli student got a scholarship "to transfer to the Monterey Peninsula College where propaganda carried on by three Arab professors has been most hurtful."

 

Other schools were infiltrated the same way. Further, "We continue to cultivate (pay off) faculty people in many areas and are making progress here....our friends in San Francisco (are trying) to persuade Stanford to drop Fayez Sayeh from the faculty on the grounds that he is a paid propagandist rather than an objective academician." Efforts at other US schools were similar - pressure to fire Arab professors, replacing them with pro-Israeli ones.

 

"Prof. Arnold Toynbee was invited to spend about five months in this country....When (his) accusations first broke in the press, we (enlisted) major non-Zionist groups and evolved a common policy (to): 

 

(1) Discourage all Jewish (organizations) from issuing invitations to Toynbee;

 

(2) Monitor all (his) public appearances and refrain from bringing up the subject of Israel or the Jews unless Toynbee raises the subject in his presentation."

 

Overall, measures were taken to counteract his unfriendly Israeli positions, the same policy used against all critical public figures, strike back to discredit them.

 

Calling the American Council for Judaism (ACJ) "the most effective anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli force on the American scene," efforts were made to give them "much more attention....than in the past."

 

Bribing major US publications and their writers helped do it, including at the Reader's Digest, Atlantic Monthly, Look, Holiday, Parade, Saturday Review, the New York Times Magazine, and various women's and business ones. Today, the entire US major media serve as Israel's PR arm, its mouthpiece, the fruition of efforts begun 50 years ago.

 

Earlier, and of course now, TV shows were also arranged, and "We continue to counteract Arab speakers wherever they appear, by placing our own speakers on the same platforms...." In addition, "Mailings have gone out to public opinion molders dealing with current issues...."

 

In November 1961, the Atlantic Monthly was paid off to run a pro-Israeli "64-page Supplement, (featuring) some of Israel's top names." Earlier in September, the Atlantic ran a "20-page article on "The Arabs of Palestine" which is "one of the best (we've seen done) on the subject." Jack Anderson also did a friendly piece for Parade Publications after returning from Israel.

 

In addition, AZC officials arranged speaking engagements for pro-Israeli figures throughout the country. Their mission - counteract "anti-Israeli propaganda....a careful check of newspapers, bulletins and confidential sources of our own (can) give us reliable information on the movements and itineraries of these propagandists." Community contacts were then alerted to furnish speakers to discredit them.

 

AZC's Research Bureau also analyzed books and articles on Israel. "When a book is favorable, it is recommended. When (it's not), it is analyzed and distortions are pointed up by providing the factual data required, so that our local Councils will be prepared to react....Further, we (arrange) book presentations (in) community and university libraries...."

 

Written for the AZC, Marc Siegel's play, "A Message from Dimona" was described by The New York Times as a "story of a new city in the Israeli desert," suppressing the reactor's bomb-making purpose, Israel's open secret, well known, but not discussed.

 

"The nuclear reactor story inspired (other) editorial writers, columnists, science writers and cartoonists. Most of (them) accept(ed) the thesis that the reactor was being built for peaceful purposes and not for bombs....Drew Pearson's syndicated column justified Israel's secrecy; (science writer) William Laurence in the New York Times stressed Israel's peaceful intent."

 

In 1945, the same William Laurence led a double life as both Times science writer and shill on the War Department's payroll. Writing press releases for the Manhattan Project, he mislead the public, sold the program, lied about Alamorgordo, NM tests and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki horrors. He also denied what historian/attorney Jonathan M. Weisgall later called the "silent nuclear terror of radioactivity and radiation" - that it condemns exposed people to a slow, painful death, but it benefitted Laurence.

 

He won a Pulitzer Prize for his lying, and got to fly on the plane that bombed Nagasaki, later describing the experience in The Times with religious awe. Today, the entire US major media cheerlead for Israel, even its most unjustifiable, unconscionable, criminal acts. Entirely suppressed is its history of international law violations, including:

 

-- a violence doctrine over peace;

 

-- crimes of war and against humanity;

 

-- excessive force and abuse;

 

-- collective punishment and economic strangulation;

 

-- expanding illegal settlements;

 

-- dispossessions and home demolitions;

 

-- mass arrests and political imprisonments;

 

-- targeted assassinations and torture;

 

-- land theft and crop destruction;

 

-- policies of closure, separation, isolation, checkpoints, ghettoization and curfews;

 

-- denial of the most fundamental human rights and civil liberties; and

 

-- an overall Kafkaesque "matrix of control" designed to crush Palestinians' will to resist.

 

In the old days, journalists were bought off to ignore them. They now do it willingly and reflexively, knowing the consequences otherwise, the Israeli Lobby's power to remove unfriendly voices - from Congress, academia and the media. 

 

Demanded is that Israel be portrayed as peaceful, never aggressive, surrounded, beleaguered, and victimized, acting solely in self-defense. In contrast, Palestinians are called militant terrorist threats to Israeli security, its propaganda machine relentless in pounding that message, the Senate's investigation failing to expose and halt it. 

 

As a result, it's more virulent and pervasive than ever, what no congressional committee will touch, what no major media report will reveal. Israel's power in America suppresses everything unfavorable, willing fourth estate stooges going along, or else. 

 

It's why Project Censored warns about a "truth emergency," the urgency for media reform, and need for a cadre to do what all responsible journalists should - their job, what's sorely absent in America, especially in reports about Israel.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.



Israeli Lobby exposed

Yariv Oppenheimer Akunis / Kiril Hadar

 


It has always seemed strange to most Israelis that the "peace now" organization have gotten permanent exposure and communicative reference. Nobody understood how a seemingly definite leftist organization could be heard frequently in the mainstream of Israeli media. Nobody understood how the Zionist media wasn't afraid of covering peace now, as a definite leftist organization and some would even say it was an extreme leftist organization.


 


Last week, in an interview in the parliamentary channel and channel <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />10, a guy named Yariv Oppenheimer was interviewed. By accident, this guy was the secretary general of peace now. Well dressed in a prestigious suit, "talking to the point", a real serious politician. But don't let the suit deceive you, because it didn't end there.


 


I'd like to note that at the beginning of the interview I thought for a moment that the parliament member of the Likkud, Ofir Akunis, was interviewed, there was an non-ignorable external similarity between them and their voices are also very alike/ A quick blink got me back to track and I recognized that it was Yariv Oppenheimer, the secretary general of peace now.


 


I sat comfortably on the couch, turned up the volume by the remote control, and listened to our "partner on our way", or it seemed to be that way. Rhetorical questions by Nekhama Duek, the experienced interviewer, that were easy to answer from Mr. Oppenheimer's worldview were asked. But with Nekhama Duek, "the big fish" were not late to arrive.


 


The first fish answered to the name "the Golan heights". So Mr. Oppenheimer detailed his opinion about the Israeli occupation on the Golan heights: "There are very nice people there, so we'll have to get to an arrangement with the Syrians". There was not even one clear word about the Israeli necessity to abandon the Golan heights, not one clear word about the necessity of normalization with Syria, one of the key countries in the middle east, and not one clear word about ending the Israeli occupation on the Golan heights.


 


We're getting to the second fish, named Ehud Barack. So Mr. Oppenheimer detailed his opinion about the quality of the Israeli defense minister's way of action: "A responsible and understanding man". In these exact words, while bluntly ignoring the fact that Ehud Barack was the major executor of the Cust Lead operation in which over 1300 Palestinians including women and children where butchered. Ehud Barack, who was sitting in a coalition with extreme right winged political parties that include nationalist, fascist and extremely religious characters.


 


So we're continuing to the third fish: Hamas. So Mr. Oppenheimer detailed his impertinent opinion about that Palestinian organization: "enemies of peace". We thought that there was an internal consensus in the real leftist camp about the need to immediately begin with direct talks with the military and political leaders of Hamas, as Gideon Levi wrote in his article "When talking to the Hamas" in details because just like Israel negotiated with the Hamas regarding the tape of Gilad Shalit, there is no doubt that talks about the destiny of two peoples must take place. But according to Oppenheimer's words, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, or in another words, the Palestinian people, are nothing but enemies.


 


The fourth and deep fish, is the Goldstone report, and Mr. Oppenheimer's response about it was not different in it's nationalism from his other responses in this interview in it's terrifying contempt in the proper and vindicated report by the judge Richard Goldstone. Apparently, according to Mr. Oppenheimer's point of view, the blood of the murdered Palestinians and its expensive price to the Jewish people in Israel and abroad should not be counted or published.


At the end of the interview, after watching Mr. Oppenheimer's horror show, I understood that maybe my fears at the beginning of the interview about the identity of the talking interviewee, and a momentary confusion that maybe it was the parliament member Ofir Akunis were true? I wish. But the person that "starred" in front of my eyes on the screen was Yariv Oppenheimer, "our Yariv" in person. So maybe Ehud Barack was right when he said "a healthy system should refresh its components" regarding the replacement of Gabby Ashkenazi, the Israeli military general. This was undoubtedly a serious issue to think about regarding Mr. Oppenheimer's continuance of service as the secretary general of peace now.


 


 


 


* The writer is the chairman Deborah Congress


http://www.deborah.bon.co.il/


 


תלונה נגד 'אם תרצו'

 

19.08.2010


סלון דבורה ליועץ המשפטי:


חקור פעילות 'אם תרצו'

 

ארגון השמאל סלון דבורה פנה הבוקר ליועץ המשפטי לממשלה, מר יהודה ויינשטיין,


 

בדבר פעילותה של תנועת הימין הקיצוני 'אם תרצו'

 

 

להלן המכתב שנשלח

 

 

לכבוד

היועץ המשפטי לממשלה

עו"ד יהודה ויינשטיין

 

 

הנדון: שחיתות פנימית בתנועת 'אם תרצו'

 

 

הננו פונים אליך בדבר בקשה לחקירה בהולה 

 

בדבר שימוש בכספי תנועת 'אם תרצו' ע"י מפעיליה - שלא כדין

 

תנועת אם תרצו, הרשומה בתור עמותת "אם תרצו - ציונות או לחדול"

 

קיבלה לידיה תרומות רבות מגופים רבים,

 

הן מישראל והן מחו"ל, ביניהן תרומה בסך 100,000 דולרים שהגיעה מהשדולה הנוצרית "נוצרים מאוחדים למען ישראל" (CUFI)

 

מבדיקת סלון דבורה עולה כי קיים ספק רב בכל הנוגע לאופן השימוש אשר עשתה עמותת 'אם תרצו' בכספים הנ"ל

 

אנו מבקשים לחקור את פעילותם של מפעילי הארגון, בהם מר רונן שובל, וכן ארז תדמור

 

בדבר חקירת ניגוד עניינים בשימוש בכספי עמותה שלא כדין

 

 

 

 

בכבוד רב,

ארגון סלון דבורה לישראל אחרת

 


 


 


 


להלן הידיעה באתר ארגון השמאל סלון דבורה


http://www.debora.bon.co.il


 


שיתוק ההתנגדות הפלסטינית \ קיריל הדר

 


Prospects and Consequences of Attacking Iran

 Prospects and Consequences of Attacking Iran - by Stephen Lendman

 

Hopefully its folly will prevent it. Otherwise, expect severe repercussions, including a considerable counterattack and disruption of regional oil supplies, further impacting a troubled global economy. So why consider it, given the December 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) saying:

 

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; (perhaps it never had one); we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons..." True or not, dozens of nations may consider one, for defense, not offense in a hostile world, America and Israel the main aggressors, threatening humanity with their weapons of mass destruction.

 

The NIE also said:

 

"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop (them).

 

Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop (them) than we have been judging since 2005."

 

Expect a new NIE update later this summer, hopefully with similar conclusions, then Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair saying so to Congress before his dismissal, perhaps why he was sacked, a "mistake" his successor, General James Clapper, won't make, but what's coming isn't certain, given influential forces on both sides in America, the same ones arguing them for years. Yet beyond saber-rattling rhetoric and sanctions, the administration's position is unclear.

 

Posturing and Provocations

 

Besides Washington and Israeli rhetoric, the Security Council (on June 9) imposed new sanctions on Iran, followed by America and EU nations adding others, banning transfers of refining, liquefaction, and liquid natural gas technology as well as on trade, finance, Iranian banks, transport, and against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). 

 

In addition, some large western insurers won't cover Iranian shipping, deputy manager of the Iranian company Sea Pars, Mohammad Rounaghi, saying "most ports will refuse them entry if they are not covered for possible damages."

 

Not according to Mohammad Hussein Dajmar, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) saying, "The world has many ports. We will sail to those nations that want to do business with us," among them China, Russia, India, Venezuela, and Brazil, important trading partners.

 

In early May, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference, affirming his nation's compliance, IAEA inspections confirming it, its chief, Yukiya Amano, saying Tehran hasn't diverted nuclear materials for weapons, though he can't "confirm that all nuclear material is in peaceful activities," a contradiction on its face.

 

In contrast, non-signatories Israel, India and Pakistan are nuclear outlaws. In addition, in 1970, when NPT was implemented, (189 nations are now parties), the five acknowledged powers - America, Russia, China, Britain and France - agreed to stringent safeguards for their commercial programs in return for progressively dismantling existing stockpiles. To date, there's little change, America asserting the preemptive right to use them against any perceived threat, a clear NPT violation and danger to global stability.

 

In his January 27 State of the Union address, Obama said:

 

"the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated....as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They....will face growing consequences. That is a promise" - so far, just rhetoric and sanctions, and according to Council for Foreign Relations senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Steven A. Cook, in a June 9, 2009 Foreign Policy op-ed, if Israel(i) (and by inference Washington) leaders were going to strike, they would not be broadcasting it to the world."

 

They're saber-rattling instead, reports saying Washington is stockpiling bunker-buster bombs in Diego Garcia (about 1,000 miles south of India). In addition, Egypt let an Israeli submarine and 11 US warships, including an aircraft carrier, sail through the Suez Canal to the Red Sea. A deliberate provocation ahead of a planned false flag attack? It bears watching as events are fluid, the most recent House Resolution 1553 on July 22: 

 

"Expressing Support for the State of Israel's right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."

 

It was referred to committee, endorsed by nearly one-third of House Republicans, but not by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, or other top Pentagon officials.

 

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that a domestic terrorist attack might be falsely blamed on Iran, and Rep. Ron Paul said he's concerned about "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident....to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." Russian analyst Alexei Vlasov disagrees, saying a "military operation on Iran" is just rumor.

 

The UK-Based Oxford Research Group (ORG)

 

ORG advocates for "non-military resolution of global conflict(s), combin(ing) in-depth political and technical expertise (with) serious analysis, dialogue and change."

 

In July, it published a Paul Rogers Briefing Paper titled, "Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects," concluding that:

 

"military action....should be ruled out as a means of responding to (Iran's) possible nuclear weapons ambitions. The consequences of such an attack would lead to a sustained conflict and regional instability that would....unlikely....prevent (Tehran's) eventual acquisition....and might even encourage it" for self-defense.

 

ORG believes US action is unlikely, but Israel's belligerence has increased, at least rhetorically, given its own voices on both sides, saner ones knowing the folly. Worrisome, however, is the IDF's improved strike capabilities, its "newly developed ability to conduct major attacks" with long-range aircraft, drones and improved tanker aircraft as well as "the probable availability of support facilities in north-east Iraq and Azerbaijan....increas(ing its) potential for action against Iran."

 

Israeli extremists say Iran is a threat, despite no confirming evidence, Tehran calling its commercial program legitimate. So do dozens of other nations, America and Israel included, despite continued rhetorical threats.

 

In February 2006, ORG published a study titled, "Iran, Consequences of a War," analyzing its possible outcomes, assuming that:

 

"any military action by the United States or Israel would have as its function the inflicting of severe damage on Iran's nuclear installations and medium-range missile programmes (sic), while, in the case of the United States, endeavoring to pre-empt any damaging Iranian response."

 

It also assumed no attempted regime change, just an action to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, supportive research, and retaliation capability, knowing Tehran "would have methods of responding....includ(ing) disruption of Gulf oil production and exports, (and by supporting) insurgents in Iraq (and) Southern Lebanon....A military operation against Iran....would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that (it) should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed."

 

Today, ORG thinks an American attack is less likely, Israel posing a greater threat. Yet with November congressional elections approaching, neocon and other right-wing circles claim Iran is "a much greater threat to US regional and global interests than Iraq ever was." However, in March 2003, it was believed "if we get Iraq right, we won't have to worry about Iran," suggesting a convincing victory would cow Teheran into submission. 

 

Iraq, however, is far from "right," and won't ever be under occupation. Attacking Iran compounds it disastrously, yet right-wing US hardliners and the Israeli Lobby want it. "While the Obama administration seems unlikely at present to consider military action, its rhetoric has certainly become far tougher," so far confined to posturing and sanctions.

 

Israel's Military Posture

 

Besides a nuclear capability of 200 or more warheads, it can deliver them by aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, and possibly submarine-launched cruise missiles. "Israel currently has three German-built Dolphin-class submarines with two more" to be delivered in 2012.

 

In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq's Osiraq reactor, and in September 2007 attacked a suspected (not proved) Syrian nuclear site. Using long-range versions US F-15 and F-16 aircraft (the F-15I Ra'am and F-16I Sufa), some reportedly with conformal fuel tanks for increased range, and backup tanker planes, Iran is within reach.

 

In addition, "Israel has been a leading developer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), used mainly for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR), the Hermit 450" a deployable variant armed with Hellfire missiles with an endurance up to 20 hours. A new UAV, the Eitan, is Israel's largest - "a 4,000 Kg high-altitude drone with a range of over 7,400 km (4,600 miles), an endurance of 36 hours, and a maximum payload of 2,000 kg."

 

Israel has also been involved in various operations in Iraq, especially training Kurdish commandos in the northeast, close to the Iranian border.

 

Besides its considerable military program, America supplies billions of dollars in annual aid, including state-of-the-art weapons and technology. It's acknowledged that Israel needs Washington's consent to attack, unilaterally or collaboratively. Doing so would involve over-flying US-controlled air space, likely via Iraq.

 

Despite being oil and gas rich, Iran wants (and is entitled to) a commercial nuclear capability for electricity - along with 30 other countries as of June 2010, including America, Canada, 15 European nations, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Japan and China, their programs encouraged, not opposed. Iran, alone, incurs hostility because of its suspected (not verified) military ambitions.

 

For years, Israel claimed Tehran is a year or two away from acquiring capability, the CIA waffling in its estimate, director Leon Panetta recently telling ABC News enough uranium is now available for two bombs, and within two years Iran will be able to deliver them. However, others inside the Agency disagree, and kidnapped Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri said Iran has no nuclear weapons program, despite high pressure to get him to say so.

 

At best, "all that can be said is that Iran is slowly developing the technologies and personnel (to) handle a range of nuclear-related systems." If it wants a nuclear arsenal, "three to seven years from now might be an appropriate estimate, the seven-year period being the time required to produce perhaps six usable weapons."

 

However, no evidence shows intent, despite rhetoric suggesting otherwise. In addition, at this time, Iran's fuel cycle is under safeguards. If not, it "would set off a major international alert many months before (it) would be able to convert the material into a weapon," or be able to have shadow facilities for large quantities of fuel through mining, milling, uranium conversion, enrichment, fabrication and weaponization.

 

Iran does have an ongoing ballistic missile program, ranging from short to long-range solid fuel systems. Until recently, its longest was the Shahab-3 able to hit targets up to 1,000 km away, short of reaching Israel. It's also developed a longer-range 1,600 km capability Ghadr-1 missile able to strike the Jewish state, but it's believed few so far have been produced.

 

Ahead may be more powerful solid fuel ballistic missiles, the Sajjil, able to reach targets up to 2,400 km away and carry a similar payload to the Ghadr-1. Tests have been conducted, but no reliable reports confirm deployments. It's estimated five years will be required to produce Sajjils in large numbers, Iran believing it needs a strong defense knowing "regimes to the east (Afghanistan) and west (Iraq) of it were terminated by large-scale (US) military action," Washington and Israel suggesting Tehran may be next.

 

If so, likely targets would be the following:

 

-- uranium enrichment plants, including their scientific and technical staff, especially near Natanz, Iran's main enrichment facility;

 

-- the Esfahan uranium conversion facility;

 

-- nuclear research and development locations in Tehran, near Arak, and the new Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant control systems, not the reactors to prevent regional contamination;

 

-- factories making supportive equipment, especially involved in centrifuge production;

 

-- military bases with missiles capable of striking Israel, including their personnel, research, development and production facilities; and

 

-- physics, engineering, electronics and related university departments, and their staff, with curricula  related to nuclear and missile programs.

 

Overall, the likely strategy would be to destroy Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities and prevent attempts to resuscitate them. The "end result would be an attack with a very broad effect," causing widespread casualties, including in Tehran.

 

If Israel attacks, it might first strike Hezbollah in Lebanon to prevent its retaliatory response. "There have been reliable reports that the (IDF has) developed comprehensive plans for....an all-out assault on the party's arsenals, command centres, commercial assets and strongholds throughout the country." Hezbollah may, in fact, expect one preemptively and is prepared to respond.

 

On July 22, the Jerusalem Post reported a planned IDF drill as part of extensive preparations for possible war with Hezbollah and Syria, the army preparing missile attacks on main roads and bases as well as infantry and armored force invasions, anticipating south Lebanon the main battleground, Hezbollah's stronghold with command centers and weapons depots.

 

If attacked, Iran will also respond, including by withdrawing from NPT under Article X provisions based on "extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty (that) have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." In addition, prioritizing nuclear weapons development to deter future attacks would be likely, including in below-ground secret facilities, reportedly under construction.

 

Other actions, over time, might include the following:

 

-- missile attacks against Israeli and US forces in Iraq;

 

-- Straits of Hormuz blockage to disrupt oil shipments, causing a sharp rise in prices, "potentially catastrophic" on a weak global economy;

 

-- attacks on western Gulf oil production, processing and transportation facilities - essentially soft targets despite greater security; and

 

-- support for Iraq and Afghanistan resistance fighters.

 

The Iranian public and Arab street would be supportive, perceiving Israel as a US client state, and Washington a regional menace.

 

"Perhaps the most important aspect of an Israel(i) attack (is) that it would almost certainly be the beginning of a long-term process of regular air strikes to further prevent the development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems," Israel and Washington believing once initiated, "it could not easily stop." Over time, Iran would respond accordingly, embroiling the entire region in conflict with catastrophic longer-term consequences.

 

At the same time, expect the unexpected, perhaps involving Lebanon, Syria, and regional state responses, depending on a protracted conflict's instability - not preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; in fact,  likely encouraging it.

 

These "dangerous consequences (clearly) militate against military action," leaving two alternative paths:

 

-- more robust diplomacy for peace and the prospect of a nuclear-free Middle East; and/or

 

-- accept an eventual nuclearized Iran, using it to start "a process of balanced regional denuclearisation," knowing the risks - an unwilling Israel and the possibility it will encourage regional proliferation, a certainty if Israel and/or Washington attacks Iran.

 

The catastrophic consequences of doing so makes avoiding it essential. The alternative is unthinkable.

 

A Final Comment

 

Author/political critic Webster Tarpley sees the worst in his July 21 article titled, "Obama Is Preparing to Bomb Iran," saying we approached this abyss in summer 2007, escaped, and now face it again, quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski's remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 2007 saying:

 

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination....is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the (Islamic) world....at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision....involves Iraqi failure to meet benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for (it); then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

 

His lengthy article makes the case for war, concluding that "aggressive forces inside the United States think they have a much freer hand" than earlier, the Brzezinski cooler head faction losing ground to extremist neocons, strengthened by the possibility of General David Petraeus elected president in 2012.

 

He also believes the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), when released, will be "fixed around the desired war policy," coming likely during "the dark of the moon," perhaps an October 7 surprise. His advice - it's time for "persons of good will (to) get active, (otherwise) radioactive."

 

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail, avoiding a regional or possible world war, perhaps to divert attention from the deepening economic depression.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.



doing so will inflame the entire region

עד האינתיפאדה השלישית; כותב: קיריל הדר

ללא צל של ספק, הישראלים באמת ובתמים רצו להיפרד מהפלסטינים והיו מוכנים לוותר על אדמה טריטוריאלית בשל כך. אבל הדבר כמובן לא היה מתוך רצון לשלום ויציבות מזרח תיכונית, כי אם למען הפסקת ההתנגדות האלימה הפלסטינית.

אוקטובר 2000. תחילתה של אינתיפאדה ערבית. תחילתה של ההוצאה לפועל של רצון לסיום הגזענות, האפליה, והקיפוח, נגד האוכלוסייה הערבית פלסטינית. פיגועי תופת במכוניות, במסעדות, ובמקומות הומי אדם בכלל. לא נשיאת דרשות ולא נאומים שבלונים ממנהיג ערבי כזה או אחר. התנגדות, בכוח. ורצוי עם כמה שיותר דם ציוני.

להציל את ארגון השמאל

ארגון שמאל ישראלי בסכנת סגירה


ביכולתכם לעצור זאת !


ליחצו על הקישור הבא לפרטים


קישור


צו השעה לחשבון ופתרון | קיריל הדר

 

 

מה לא אמרו לנו שם בימין, מה לא הבטיחו לנו - הכל מהכל בכדי שנאמין בצדקת דרכם (העדר דרכם) במטרה להשקיט את קולותינו. אפילו האשימו אותנו החוצפנים בהאשמות חריפות ביותר בכנותינו "בוגדים", "שונאי ישראל", ושלל הגיגים נבערים מבית היוצר של הציונות הדתית ושותפיהם.


חלקינו אפילו האמינו, אולי אנו באמת בוגדים? אולי אנו באמת שונאי ישראל? ואפילו זזו ימינה והחלו לדקלם אמירות נבערות כגון "חמאס אויב השלום" (יריב אופנהיימר בריאיון טלוויזיוני) ואף חצו את הקו והצביעו למפלגות ימין קיצוני שמעולם לא חשבו להצביע להן קודם לכן. "מהפך", היה אומר האיש מרשות השידור, על הידרדרות החברה הישראלית בגישתם להוויה המזרח תיכונית.


אז מה קיבלנו עם עלייתם של כוחות הימין הקיצוני? משרד החוץ. מה שהיה סמל הגאווה של מדינת ישראל במשך למעלה מ60 שנה, עבר את אשר עבר, ידע את תקופות השפל הנוראיות ביותר של מדינת ישראל, החל מגירוש ערביי 48', ממשיך במלחמה כוללת ב67', וסופר משם אין ספור מבצעים ומלחמות הזויות ונוראיות, כאשר בתוכן נטבחים נשים ילדים וטף כהרף עין. והעולם שתק. הסכסוך נישאר, אבל העולם לפחות שתק, ולא נקט מאומה נגד מדינת ישראל.


כיום, עם השתלטות הימין הקיצוני על כל מוסדות השלטון, וכלה במוסדות הרבנות ההסברה והשגרירות, אפשר לגלות באופן ברור וחד משמעי, מדינת ישראל לא באמת שינתה דפוס פעולותה, הרי בואו נודה, האפרטהייד היה קיים הרבה לפני ממשלת ביבי-ברק-ליברמן-ישי, המחסומים והגדרות עמדו על קנם עוד הרבה לפנישמישהו בכלל העלה בדעתו שאנשים אלו ינהיגו את מדינת ישראל.


אך משהו אחר השתנה, מהפכה של ממש. התודעה הישראלית, גישתה, מחשבותיה והגיגיה, דרכיה ושיטותיה - הן שהשתנו. תחושת ההתבדלות הישראלית, הבועה הפנים ישראלית, תמיכת התקשורת המגויסת שהפכה להיות סממן ימני אף יותר מממשלת ישראל עצמה. ואזרחיה האימפוטנתים התומכים בהשמדת אוכלוסיית עזה בכל עת ובכל שעה. התומכים בתקיפת הכור האיראני יחד עם אזרחיו, בכל עת ובכל שעה. התומכים בהפגזת משטי השלום ההומניטריים, בכל עת ובכל שעה. והממשלה? תומכת ומעודדת ולעיתים רבות אף מאגפת מימין את ההמון הנבער הישראלי. שגריר טורקיה על כיסא קטן, לעזאזל מובארק, פאק-יו רם עמנואל, לשרוף את עזה, והעם עם הגולן.


הפגנות ענק באופן יומי מתרחשות נגד ישראל, בכל מקום ופינה בעולם. שגרירים עוזבים את ישראל, משרדי חוץ נסגרים כלא היו, חרמות על סחורה ישראלית, חיסול כל בריתות אסטרטגיות קיימות, ואפילו דיונים של ממש בדבר חוקיות הכור בדימונה, והדה לגיטימציה חוגגת. מי היה מאמין? ימים שחורים של ממש, ימי ריסוק וחיסול ישראל, השמדת ישראל מול עינינו. והכל נעשה, כך הם מזכירים לנו, באהבת ישראל.


זהו צו השעה בה הציבור היהודי נדרש לחשבון נפש, שכלול מחודש נטול אינטרסים לאומנים, בדבר ניקיון הכפיים של הרעיון הציוני המודרני. יש חובה מוסרית ולאומית, לשכלול פיתרון אמיתי, כזה אשר יאפשר הובלת שלום אמת במזרח התיכון, ייצוב מערכת תקינה, נטולת חרחור מלחמות, ונקייה מסמלים והגדרות מדיניות, אשר חותרים מתחת לקיומו של שקט איזורי במחוזותינו.


 


* הכותב הינו יו"ר ארגון סלון דבורה


Rachel Corrie's Speech When She Was 10

 

Random Image

 Media România
 

שלב תכנים

שלב תוכן Features

שלב תוכן Newswire

 

חיפוש