Lars Wiberg (ISM) tal på manifestation i Brunnsparken 22 juli
Tänk dig att en armé bombar sönder Arlanda. Tänk dig att stridsfartyg placeras ut runt Stockholm, Malmö och Göteborg. Alla motorvägar och broar sprängs.
Tänk dig att alla elkraftverk slås ut. El, vatten och avloppssystem upphör att fungera. Ingen mat eller medicin släpps in över gränsen. Regnet av bomber öser ner över bostadshus, kyrkor, affärer så att tio, tjugo, femtio civila dödas om dagen.
Tänk dig att denna armé tar halva regeringen och var fjärde riksdagsledamot som gisslan. Tänk dig dessutom att den sätter i system att varje natt avfyra gigantiska ljudbomber ovanför taken, så att fönstren spräcks, ingen kan sova, barn ständigt kissar på sig.
Så här artar sig livet för de som bor grannar med Israel. Just nu bokstavligen smular Israel sönder Gazaremsan och Libanon. Man säger att man gör det för att stoppa "terrorister". Men ingen av de attacker man hämnas på har utförts mot civila israeler - bara mot soldater.
I gengäld siktar alltså Israel in sig på den civila infrastrukturen, den som tillhandahåller allt det vi tar för givet: rörelsefrihet, el, vatten, import av mat, och så vidare.
Israel förhåller sig till sina grannars människoliv som en vettlöst ursinnig noshörning i en glasbutik - men den skillnaden att Israel har en ansvarig regering. Den är fullt medveten om att den trampar sönder människoliv där den väller in med sin extrema militära övermakt.
Det är just det den är ute efter: att "bomba Libanon 20 år bakåt i tiden", att "se till att ingen i Gaza kan sova", eller som i alla andra uttalanden där israeliska företrädare gör klart att man tänker ta och förstöra så många liv att grannarna till slut ligger i spillror, i skärvor, besegrade.
Inför allt detta gör världen ingenting. Tänk dig att Norge, eller Ryssland, eller Iran skulle invadera Sverige på samma sätt! Vad skulle vi, vår regering, USA och EU säga då? Vad är det som gör att arabiska liv - palestinska och libanesiska - inte räknas, att deras blod är så billigt att det kan flyta i floder utan att världssamfundet ingriper?
Sveriges regering fortsätter med sin ynkligt ryggradslösa politik. Våra företrädare, vår utrikesminister förmår inget annat än att rapa upp vagt kritiska fraser. Men i praktiken samarbetar Sverige intimt med den israeliska aggressionsmakten.
Israel är ett av få länder där Sverige har en militärattaché, särskilt utsänd för att utöka samordningen med den israeliska armén. Sverige importerar varje år stora mängder ammunition från Israel, och pumpar på så sätt in svenska skattepengar i den israeliska militärapparaten. Sverige deltar aktivt i utsvältningen av palestinierna genom att strypa allt bistånd.
Det är hög tid för Sverige att ta av sig sina israeliska stridshandskar, kasta den diplomatiska munsprejen och istället brännmärka den stat som ockuperar, invaderar, dödar utan besinning. Vi kräver att Sverige stoppar allt samarbete med den israeliska armén. Vi kräver att Sverige kallar hem sin militärattaché och avbryter importen av vapen och ammunition från Israel.
Vi kräver att den svenska regeringen kallar hem ambassadören från Tel Aviv, kastar ut alla israeliska diplomater ur Sverige, stänger ambassaden, bryter med staten Israel på alla punkter och inför en fullständig statlig blockad av all handel med Israel tills staten visar elementär respekt för folkrätten. Vi kräver att Sverige verkar för att EU säger upp frihandelsavtalet med Israel och självt visar respekt för palestiniernas demokratiska rättigheter.
Hårdkokta politiker fräser till på ett lysande sätt. Här får Bush
med sitt bockande för sionismen på nöten
VIDEO Pat Buchanan Slam Neocons For Mideast Warmongering
Från den enda kvar av det gamla rakryggiga diplomatiska gardet
"Skam att inte erkänna palestiniernas regering"
Sverker Åström DN debatt 20 juli
För vår egen värdighets skull borde Sveriges regering demonstrera självständighet gentemot EU i konflikten Palestina-Israel. Den svenska regeringen säger sig ständigt prioritera skyddet av mänskliga rättigheter överallt i världen. Där dessa rättigheter just nu totalt negligeras är i de palestinska områdena, liksom i Irak.
Dessutom strider EU:s förbud mot kontakter med Hamas mot en av grundprinciperna i svensk utrikespolitik, nämligen att samtalsvägar alltid ska hållas öppna, vare sig vi i sak är ense eller ej med motparten, skriver tidigare kabinettssekreteraren Sverker Åström.
Hela världens uppmärksamhet är riktad mot Libanon och mot hela Mellersta Östern där folken, alla folken, utsätts för fruktansvärda lidanden. Krisen har djupa rötter i efterkrigstidens historia som alla måste beaktas. En del av förhistorien, som kommit litet i skymundan men som har dagsaktualitet, är tillkomsten av den palestinska Hamasregeringen och omvärldens behandling av denna.
I våras höll palestinierna ett val till sitt parlament.Valet genomfördes i fria och demokratiska former, i själva verket det första val i ett arabland som motsvarade dessa kriterier.Till dem som intygade detta hörde Jimmy Carter och Carl Bildt, inte kända som lättlurade, inte heller som lögnare.
Vad gjorde nu omvärlden inför detta historiska genombrott som man hade anledning att hälsa med jubel? Hur hade man förberett sig?
För dem som följde utvecklingen noga - och dit, kunde man ha hoppats, hörde svenska regeringen och svenska UD - stod det långt före valet klart att den politiska organisationen Hamas skulle kunna få en stark ställning i det nya parlamentet, kanske rentav vinna majoritet. Det fanns alltså tid att tänka sig in i dessa eventualiteter. Förutseende och framförhållning är diplomatiska dygder.
Så kom då valet i Palestina. Hamas segrade och bildade regering. Innan den sagt ett ord om sin politik beslöt världssamfundet, närmast företrädd av den så kallade kvartetten, dels att ställa långtgående politiska krav på den nya regeringen, dels att avbryta betydande delar av biståndet till den palestinska myndigheten.
EU-kommisssionen med stöd av ministerrådet, det vill säga Sverige, inställde budgetunderstödet. Samtidigt beslöt Israel avbryta överföringen av de tull- och skattemedel som tillkommer palestinierna. Resultatet var att 160 000 statsanställda inte fått sina löner utbetalda på snart fem månader och att den palestinska polisen fått allt större svårigheter att upprätthålla ordningen vilket ökar ockupationsmaktens förtryck.
Vi borde ha varit medvetna om att de åtgärder som vi medverkade till skulle driva hundratusentals palestinier till eller över hungerns brant. Det svenska beslutet att delta borde rimligen ha föregåtts av en analys och en diskussion i riksdagens EU-nämnd. Vad sades där? Oppositionen har platser i nämnden. Jamade den bara med?
Så till kraven på den nya demokratiska regeringen (av vilka ett flertal tillfångatagits av Israel och nu hålls som gisslan). EU, alltså även Sverige, krävde att Hamas omedelbart, formellt och reservationslöst skulle erkänna Israel.
Härtill är först att säga att Hamas stadga från 1988 och dess valmanifest från i år inte propagerar för Israels utplåning med våld, till skillnad från den iranske presidentens vilda hotelser. De två dokumenten handlar mest om metoderna att sörja för folkets välfärd, bekämpa arbetslöshet, främja jämställdhet mellan könen och andra inte särskilt revolutionära krav.
I en närmast historiefilosofisk utläggning sägs att Israel någon gång i framtiden kommer att försvinna. Det är ett uttalande som borde kunna tas med viss ro av Israel, en av världens starkaste militärmakter, dessutom reservationslöst stödd av världens genom alla tider starkaste militärmakt USA.
Man bör också minnas att erkännnande av regering eller stat aldrig är en självklarhet eller en skyldighet. Sverige har otaliga gånger uppskjutit erkännande av nya regeringar eller stater i avvaktan på att regeringen eller staten i fråga handlar på ett visst sätt.
Det hindrar inte att vi under mellantiden haft kontakter och överläggningar med vederbörande regering eller stat, vilka så småningom lett fram till erkännande.Så hade kunnat ske även i detta fall om omvärlden, alltså bland andra Sverige, handlat med större klokhet.
I detta fall tillkommer att det här rör sig om ett folk som befinner sig under (illegal) ockupation sedan 40 år och som under denna tid systematiskt födmjukats och trakasserats av den makt som man nu skall tvingas formellt erkänna.
Det rör sig om en ockupationsmakt som inte själv definierat sina gränser och som enligt den nuvararande israeliske premiärministerns plan avser att annektera stora delar av det ockuperade folkets mark.
Är det alldeles självklart från moralisk, juridisk och politisk synpunkt att begära av palestinierna att ge ett omedelbart politiskt erkännande av den stat som plågar dem? Det tycker svenska regeringen till sin skam.
Det kan tilläggas att svenska regeringen ständigt säger sig prioritera skyddet av mänskliga rättigheter överallt i världen. Där dessa rättigheter just nu totalt negligeras är de palestinska områdena, liksom Irak. Sverige håller tyst.
Därtill kommer det ovärdiga och dumma förbudet mot kontakter med Hamas, ett beslut också fattat av EU utan svenska invändningar. Beslutet strider mot en av grundprinciperna i svensk utrikespolitik, vilken är att samtalsvägarna alltid skall hållas öppna, vare sig vi i sak är ense eller ej med motparten. Bortsett från viseringsbekymren, vilka skall behandlas enligt Schengenavtalen, bör vi alltså självklart tala med den demokratiskt valda regeringen Hamas.
Slutligen har EU, alltså Sverige, uttalat kravet på utfästelse av den palestinska regeringen att avstå från allt våld mot ockupationsmakten. Härtill är först att säga att Hamas under en period gjorde sig skyldig till otäcka våldsåtgärder, även inne i Israel, som föranledde EU att placera organisationen på den så kallade terroristlistan.
Men under de senaste två åren har Hamas, tills helt nyligen, iakttagit vapenstillestånd. Det var i själva verket hög tid att stryka Hamas från listan. Under samma tid, alltså vapenstilleståndet, fortsatte Israel att låta sin arme oavlåtligen begå mord på palestinska ledare, s k non judicial killings, mestadels genom anfall från luften.
Vad EU och Sverige nu kräver är att Hamas skall avstå från en folkrättslig rättighet. En ockuperad nation har rätt att göra motstånd, även väpnat motstånd, mot ockupationsmaktens militära installationer. Svenska folket nickade godkännande och fröjdade sig när norska motståndsmän sprängde tyska kanonställningar i luften.
Att Hamas har den rättigheten är självklart. En helt annan sak hur klokt det är att utnyttja den i praktiken. Israels motåtgärder är omedelbara och drastiska.
Kort efter EU:s beslut om kraven på Hamasregeringen började världen inse den mänskliga grymheten och den politiska dårskapen i sin politik. Då sattes alla klutar till för att trots amerikanskt-israeliskt sabotage hjälpa till att få fram åtminstone någon hjälp som kan tillåta det lidande palestinska folket att överleva, lite medicin här, lite livsmedel, vatten och elektricitet där.
Till vår heder skall sägas att Sverige konstruktivt medverkat i detta arbete. Lite patetiskt är det ändå att höra svenska regeringsrepresentanter, som varit med om bojkottbeslutet, nu med krokodiltårar stödja hjälpåtgärderna.
De politiska konsekvenserna av bojkotten har varit katastrofala. Hamas har tvungits vända sig till andra arabiska stater och till Iran med bön om hjälp och därmed gjort sig beroende av dess stater. Dess medlemmar, hela de palestinska folket, har i sin förtvivlan radikaliserats.
Mycket talar för att de våldsdåd som Hamas nu åter har börjat delta i har sin orsak just i de emotionellt-politiska reaktionerna på omvärldens, bl a EU:s, omdömeslösa och provokatoriska politik
Jimmy Carter har beskrivit läget så här: "Att bestraffa oskyldiga är ett brott. Oskyldiga palestinier behandlas nu som djur under förevändning att att de är skyldiga till ett brott som är att ha röstat på medlemmar av Hamas."
Och, viktigast av allt, chansen att utnyttja den folkliga legitimitet som Hamas vann genom valet i syfte att så småningom få i gång en process mot överenskommelse och fred har spelats bort. Det är den utveckling som Sverige genom sin principlösa hållning bär en del av skulden till. Vi har skäl att skämmas.
I stället för en överenskommen lösning får vi nu räkna med ett israeliskt diktat där Israel utan egentlig kontakt med palestinierna bestämmer om gränser, östra Jerusalem, bosättningar, flyktingar, vattentillgångar. Riktlinjerna har redan dragits upp i premiärminister Olmerts nyligen tillkännagivna plan.
Kanske blir det någon autonomi för delar av det palestinska området vilka kan kallas för en stat. Vi bör utgå från att ett sådant israeliskt diktat så småningom skulle accepteras av USA. Och EU som inte har något egentligt inflytande kommer nog med svansen mellan benen att lunka efter. Skall vi tyst delta i denna destruktiva politik?
Det kan naturligvis sägas att en annan politik från Sveriges sida inte gör någon egentlig skillnad. Lilla Sverige har föga inflytande. Ja, men vi kunde ändå, om inte annat för vår värdighets skull, någon gång säga ifrån och försöka göra en insats, särskilt som motivet för vår hela vår säkerhetspolitik, i själva verket det enda officiella skälet, är
att vi just till följd av alliansfriheten besitter ökad handlingsfrihet eller, som vår nye utrikesminister uttryckt det, ökad självständighet. Bakom lyckta dörrar i Bryssel har vi säkert sagt många kloka och modiga ord men utåt har vi ansett oss tvungna till total lojalitet mot varje EU-beslut.
Den politik vi medverkar till i Mellersta Östern ligger ett gott stycke från den tradition som representeras av namnen Hjalmar Branting, Tage Erlander, Östen Unden, Dag Hammarskjöld och Olof Palme.
Man kan fråga sig varför det är så tyst i denna viktiga fråga. Ett skäl är givetvis att inget parti vill ha in utrikespolitiken i valrörelsen. Men någon diskussion, någon opposition kan vi väl tillåta oss. /Sverker Åström
AMY GOODMAN: Today, we're joined in studio once again by Yonatan Shapira. He is a military refuser. Yonatan is a former captain in the Israeli Air Force Reserves.
In 2003 he initiated a group of Israeli Air Force pilots to sign a declaration refusing to participate in aerial attacks on the Palestinian territories. Yonatan is also a co-founder of the group Combatants for Peace. He was with us Friday, and we welcome him back to Democracy Now!
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. On Friday, we had a debate between you and a spokesperson for the Young Meretz, a peace party in Israel around Lebanon. But I wanted to step back today to talk about how you arrived at the conclusions you did, for you, Yonatan, to talk about your personal story. Tell us how you became a soldier in Israel.
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Okay. In Israel, it’s quite obvious that if you are finishing your high school studies, you join the military. I was growing up in a family in military bases.
My father was a squadron commander in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. And my dream was to be a pilot. So, for me it was obvious that I will achieve this dream and I will also contribute to the security of my country.
In history lessons, I didn't learn about the occupation. I learned those beautiful peace and bereavement songs. I learned about the beautiful values, about democracy, peace, justice, equality, freedom, and it took me many years to figure out and to know
that at the same time that I was sitting in the classroom in school, learning all those beautiful values, my country, my military, was occupying and oppressing millions of Palestinians, millions of people that were living without all those beautiful values.
We have so-called democracy for Jewish people or for Palestinians who are living within the 1967 border. But if you live in the Occupied Territories, it's completely apartheid.
AMY GOODMAN: How did you come to this realization?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: You know, it's a long, long process. And during this process, you suffer. You find out things that you do not want to believe. But if I have to point to a few events that really helped me to wake up and to connect all those threads to one understanding
that I must say no publicly, not just going out and not participating in something, but also standing and shouting, “We will not be part of it anymore!” I can refer to two events that happened back in 2002. It was in the middle of the Second Intifada, Al-Aqsa.
The first event I was participating in, I flew a Black Hawk helicopter, and I was called. I was the first helicopter to come to a place where a terror attack took place and many Jewish kids, many Israelis were injured severely, and I flew them with a Black Hawk to a hospital in the center of Israel next to Tel Aviv.
And all the helicopter was full of blood, and the paramedics and doctors tried to work on the patients. And while I was landing in the hospital, I saw underneath a wedding and people were celebrating with the chupa, and the groom --
AMY GOODMAN: This was an Israeli wedding?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: It was an Israeli wedding, and I was completely shocked: how can people be so much disconnected to reality?
AMY GOODMAN: And the kids, how had they been hurt?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: They had been hurt severely by a Palestinian fighter who got in their house and shot all the family. And maybe I will mention something that it's important.
I am very much involved in the giving of support to terror victims in the Israeli side. I was volunteering in an organization named SELAH, which is the Israeli Crisis and Management Center. I saw a lot of suffering of my people.
And what happened a few weeks later after this event when I brought these children to hospital is that the commander of the Air Force and the government decided to assassinate the leader of the Hamas in Gaza Strip, Salah Shahade.
And they ordered a F-16 with a one-ton bomb, that shot -- that dropped this bomb on the house of the Hamas leader in Gaza Strip, killing with him 14 innocent civilians, 14 innocent people, including nine babies.
And although I didn’t drop this bomb and I didn't shoot in my life anyone, but I felt that this, me being part of this system that is causing this harm and this suffering and this killing to innocent people,
it's just the same like being a terrorist in another organization. And those kids who were killed by my fellow pilots and these kids that were killed by this Palestinian fighter are just the same.
And it took me a while to understand that not just these guys down in the wedding were disconnected to reality, but also in the cockpit here inside me was a lot of ignorance, a lot of things that I didn't know.
And then you start to figure out and to learn and to find out all this half-side history lesson that you didn't get. And I realized that in order to change and not just to find a solution for myself, for my soul, for my being able to live with myself, I have to do something publicly.
And I went from one pilot to another, used my connection to the Israeli Air Force military by, you know, people knew my father and I lived in a neighborhood with a lot of pilots, and I found more than a hundred pilots that agreed to cooperate by being silent about that. Just a few of them agreed to sign the petition that I wrote.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, “being silent”?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: It took us about three to four months to recruit all these co-signers on this letter. When you want to do something that will be strong enough, that will shake the Israeli public opinion and the government and the military, you want to find not just one or two pilots who are willing to refuse.
So we found brigadier generals, colonels, Air Force squadron commanders, Apache pilots, F-16, F-15, Cobra, all kind of squadrons from the Israeli Air Force, and all these guys agreed to keep silent while some of us are willing also to put their names on this petition and to refuse publicly.
And as a result of this petition, there was a big uproar in Israel, and all the signers were called to an interview with the commander of the air force, General Halutz, who is now the commander of the Army who is actually leading these criminal attacks on Lebanon.
And in this interview with him, he told me that he's going to discharge me from being a pilot in the Air Force, and I told him that actually I’m willing to be charged by him.
Don't just discharge me, but charge us all in charge of refusing to legal orders, because we are willing to sit in jail if they can show in court that these orders of killing suspects and, by that, killing innocent civilians, is legal. And, of course, they preferred just to let us go, and no one of us was in prison.
And since then, many of us became very active in the anti-occupation movement and in the anti-apartheid movement in Israel. And that's why I’m here today talking to the American people, talking to the Jewish community,
trying to convince them that it's us who have to lead these demonstrations around the world. It's us Jewish people and Israelis and former fighters, former combatants that took part in these wars,
to lead these demonstrations who call for international pressure, who call for sanctions against the Israeli government who is doing these cruel things and brutal things in Lebanon. It will harm us Israelis, it will harm us Jewish people, if you will not wake up now, because it will not continue forever, and someone has to put an end to this.
U.S. Is A Terrorist State
Must Watch -Video Interview with Noam Chomsky
Chomsky: ... Let's take a look at the Middle East, let's take a look at facts. The facts are, for 35 years, there has been a harsh, brutal, military operation. There has not been a political settlement. The reason that there has not been a political settlement is because the United States, unilaterally, has blocked it for 25 years. Just recently, Saudi Arabia produced a highly praised plan for political settlement.
The majority of the American population supports it. The majority of the population also thinks the United States ought to be more active in the Middle East. They don't know that that's a contradiction in terms. The reason that's a contradiction in terms is the following:
In the Saudi Arabia plan is a repetition of a series of proposals, which go back to 1976 when the UN Security Council debated a resolution calling for a settlement, in accord with the Saudi plan, to state settlement on the internationally recognized borders. With arrangements to guarantee the rights of every state in the nation to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders.
That was January 1976. OK, that was actually in accord with official U.S. policy. Except for one thing. It called for a Palestinian State in the territories; Israel wouldn't leave the occupied territories. That was vetoed by the US. It was supported by the Arab states, it was supported by the PLO, supported by Europe.
Solomon: Before they even recognized Israel as a state, though.
Chomsky: This was to exist as a state within secure and recognized borders. Nobody talked about recognizing the new Palestinian state, nobody talked about recognizing Israel. Look, is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years?
Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada…
Solomon: Didn't Barak put that on the table?
Chomsky: No, he did not!
Solomon: He did not?
Chomsky: What was also supported by the majority of the American people, has just been reiterated by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has unilaterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barak put on the table, the population doesn't know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don't tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don't bother checking. The answer is zero.
The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map:
You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.
Solomon: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.
Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.
Solomon: They negotiated that afterwards.
Chomsky: That's not true.
Solomon: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -
Chomsky: They did. That's false.
Solomon: That's false?
Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .
Solomon: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . . .
Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.
Solomon: If you don't talk -
Chomsky: Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.
Solomon: Once they walked out of Camp David,
Chomsky: They didn't walk out of Camp David . . .
Solomon: Both camps . . .
Chomsky: No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.
Solomon: All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do . . .
Chomsky: No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.
Solomon: You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli . . .
Chomsky: No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That's how it ended.
Solomon: OK. The problem that people look at now in the Middle East is they say it's spun out of control because the radicals are on both sides now.
Chomsky: No, there's three sides. You're forgetting the United States. The radicals in the United States who have blocked this proposal for 25 years, continue to block it.
Solomon: How do we get back, now, there's so much distrust?
Chomsky: The first way we get back is by trying the experiment of minimal honesty. If we try that experiment of minimal honesty, we look at our own position and we discover what I just described. That for 25 years, the United States has blocked the political settlement, which is supported by the majority of the American population and by the entire world, except for Israel.
The first thing we do is accept the honesty and look at it. We take a look at Camp David and we see how it's the same. The United States was still demanding a Bantustans style settlement and rejecting the overwhelming international consensus and the position of the American people.
We then discovered the United States immediately moved to enhance terror in the region. So, let's continue. On September 29th, Ehud Barak put a massive military presence outside the Al Aqsa Mosque, very provocative, when people came out of the Mosque, young people started throwing stones, the Israeli army started shooting, half a dozen people were killed, and it escalated.
The next couple of days -- there was no Palestinian fire at this time -- Israel used U.S. helicopters (Israel produces no helicopters) to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people and wounding several dozen.
Clinton reacted to that on October 3, 2000 by making the biggest deal in a decade -- to send Israel new military helicopters which had just been used for the purpose I described and of course would continue to be.
The U.S. press co-operated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they have not published the fact.
It continued when Bush came in. One of his first acts was to send Israel a new shipment of one of the most advanced military helicopters in the arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago with new shipments.
You take a look at the reports, from say Jenin, by British correspondents like Peter Beaumont for the London Observer. He says the worst atrocity was the Apache helicopters buzzing around, destroying and demolishing everything.
Now, this is enhancing terror, and we may easily continue. On December 14th, the Security Council tried to pass a resolution calling for what everyone recognized to be the obvious means for reducing terror, namely sending international monitors. That's a way of reducing terror.
This happened to be in the middle of a quiet period, which lasted for about three weeks. The U.S. vetoed it. 10 days before that, there was a meeting at Geneva of the high-contracting parties of the 4th-Geneva convention, which has unanimously held for 35 years that it applies to Israel.
The meeting condemned the Israeli settlements as illegal, condemned the list of atrocities -- willful destruction of property, murder, trials, torture. What happened in that meeting? I'll tell you what happened in that meeting. The U.S. boycotted it. Therefore, the media refused to publish it.
Therefore, no one here knows that the United States once again enhanced terror by refusing to recognize the applicability of conventions which make virtually everything the United States and Israel are doing there a grave breech of the Geneva convention, which is a war crime.
These conventions were established in 1949 in order to criminalize the atrocities of the Nazis in occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is obligated, as a high-contracting party, to prosecute violations of those conventions.
That means to prosecute its own leadership for the last 25 years. They won't do it unless the population forces them to. And the population won't force them to as long as they don't know it's a fact. And they won't know it's a fact as long as the media and loyal intellectuals keep it secret.
A protracted colonial war. With US support, Israel is hoping to isolate and topple Syria by holding sway over Lebanon
By Tariq Ali
07/20/06 "The Guardian" --- - -In his last interview - after the 1967 six-day war - the historian Isaac Deutscher, whose next-of-kin had died in the Nazi camps and whose surviving relations lived in Israel, said: "To justify or condone Israel's wars against the Arabs is to render Israel a very bad service indeed and harm its own long-term interest."
Comparing Israel to Prussia, he issued a sombre warning: "The Germans have summed up their own experience in the bitter phrase 'Man kann sich totseigen!' 'You can triumph yourself to death'."
In Israel's actions today we can detect many of the elements of hubris: an imperial arrogance, a distortion of reality, an awareness of its military superiority, the self-righteousness with which it wrecks the social infrastructure of weaker states, and a belief in its racial superiority.
The loss of many civilian lives in Gaza and Lebanon matters less than the capture or death of a single Israeli soldier. In this, Israeli actions are validated by the US.
The offensive against Gaza is designed to destroy Hamas for daring to win an election. The "international community" stood by as Gaza suffered collective punishment. Dozens of innocents continue to die. This meant nothing to the G8 leaders. Nothing was done.
Israeli recklessness is always green-lighted by Washington. In this case, their interests coincide. They want to isolate and topple the Syrian regime by securing Lebanon as an Israeli-American protectorate on the Jordanian model. They argue this was the original design of the country.
Contemporary Lebanon, it is true, still remains in large measure the artificial creation of French colonialism it was at the outset - a coastal band of Greater Syria sliced off from its hinterland by Paris to form a regional client dominated by a Maronite minority.
The country's confessional chequerboard has never allowed an accurate census, for fear of revealing that a substantial Muslim - today perhaps even a Shia - majority is denied due representation in the political system. Sectarian tensions, overdetermined by the plight of refugees from Palestine, exploded into civil war in the 1970s,
providing for the entry of Syrian troops, with tacit US approval, and their establishment there - ostensibly as a buffer between the warring factions, and deterrent to an Israeli takeover, on the cards with the invasions of 1978 and 1982 (when Hizbullah did not exist).
The killing of Rafik Hariri provoked vast demonstrations by the middle class, demanding the expulsion of the Syrians, while western organisations arrived to assist the progress of a Cedar Revolution. Backed by threats from Washington and Paris, the momentum was sufficient to force a Syrian withdrawal and produce a weak government in Beirut.
But Lebanon's factions remained spread-eagled. Hizbullah had not disarmed, and Syria has not fallen. Washington had taken a pawn, but the castle had still to be captured. I was in Beirut in May, when the Israeli army entered and killed two "terrorists" from a Palestinian splinter group. The latter responded with rockets.
Israeli warplanes punished Hizbullah by dropping over 50 bombs on its villages and headquarters near the border. The latest Israeli offensive is designed to take the castle. Will it succeed? A protracted colonial war lies ahead, since Hizbullah, like Hamas, has mass support. It cannot be written off as a "terrorist" organisation. The Arab world sees its forces as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation.
There are 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli gulags. That is why Israeli soldiers are captured. Prisoner exchanges have occurred as a result. To blame Syria and Iran for Israel's latest offensive is frivolous. Until the question of Palestine is resolved and Iraq's occupation ended, there will be no peace in the region. A "UN" force to deter Hizbullah, but not Israel, is a nonsensical notion.
Greater Israel: Does it make sense now?
By Abid Ullah Jan
07/19/06 -- -- As Israel pounds Gaza and Lebanon simultaneously, there are no signs of diplomacy to halt the conflict. Bush says, “the best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place.” Canadian prime minister says, “I think Israel's response under the circumstances has been measured.”
Above all, the U.S. vetoed Security Council’s call for a ceasefire. Britain also opposed calling for ceasefire and instead Defense Secretary Des Browne ordered for HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark to “make ready” for operations off Lebanon. And Blair accused Syria and Iran.
One would think that the United Nations' demand for a cease-fire would have been the most logical and humanitarian call these diplomats could have possibly made. The present role by the U.S. and U.K. is by design. Just when it seemed like neoconservatism was ready for a quiet death, the Zionists provided neoconservatives with an opportunity to get the war they've always dreamed of.
Exerting influence on the Bush administration is a breeze - all it has to be persuaded to do is do nothing. That is exactly the script followed in U.K and Ottawa. Meanwhile the commentators can work the airwaves and drum home the message that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is orchestrating all the chaos across the Middle East.
It will only be a matter of time before Washington quietly gives the green light for Israeli jets to go screaming towards Tehran -- at least that's the vision William Kristol, Michael Ledeen and their cohorts believe is almost within their grasp.
The Israeli justifications for the escalation of war make no sense unless looked from a broader perspective. The real aim is total dominance over the Middle East and establishing greater Israel. In the final days, the British Empire paved the way for the creation of a Zionist state. Today, the United States is facilitating the emergence of a Greater Israel at the cost of its empire.
The blame for the current Israeli war falls entirely on Israel's friends, who approve occupation, racism, repression and deployment of inhuman methods in the service Zionists hegemonic designs. Myopic thinking and grand deception on the part of the United States and Israel in the last 13 years have led to the beginning of the present final show down in the Middle East.
For 45 years, 1948-93, Zionists’ strategic vision, brilliant planning, Western technological support, and logistical assistance helped it consolidate a state created without any moral, social, political or legal justification. Created on the basis of terrorism, the Zionist state survived through terror and tyranny.
The first American war on Iraq and the unflinching support of pro-Zionists in the U.S. and Europe made Zionists more confident. They started planning for phase two of the project towards establishing Greater Israel. They rightly concluded they had won round one.
The Zionists started round two with gaining as much legitimacy as possible with the deceptive U.S.-led “peace process.” They were aware of the inconvenient fact that they cannot fool all people all the time. They were prepared for the day that is before our eyes today.
Most Arab countries gave up their goal to liberate occupied Arab territories and fell into the trap of ‘land for peace’ rhetoric. After the first war on Iraq, emotions long held in check, fatigue and hubris, came flooding out in Arab capitals. Deciding that they had had enough of war and could end the war on some face saving terms,
Palestinians and other Arabs went for the deceptions of "the peace process" and "disengagement." None of the promises made to them were kept. They permitted the Zionist state to earn some legitimacy and buy time for amassing more weapons of mass destruction and putting plans in order to materialize phase two of the Zionist plan for establishing greater Israel.
In this mishmash of delusions, appeasement and retreat, Israel rapidly lost the left over fears, came to plan false Flag operation and effectively used the Israel lobby in the United States to a total war and occupation of Iraq. The earlier fear of a United Arab front has been replaced with a disdain that borders on contempt. Despite the cosmetic withdrawal from Gaza strip, Israel’s policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing continued unabated.
For the Phase two of the Zionist totalitarian design, Israel had to build on this foundation of 13 years. It requires that Israel return to the callous, bloody and terrorist work of war and aggression. That means renouncing the deceptive plans of compromise, the fake hopes for good will, the drama of withdrawals.
After more than 120 years of work, Israel is now just one false flag operation away from expanding the war to the remaining hurdles in its way of materializing the dream of a greater Israel.
Three types of visible forces are fully determined to make the Zionist dream of a greater Israel a reality. The forces with unflinching determination are: Zionists, neo-conservatives and Christian radicals.
The neoconservatives have their own Islamophobic agenda. They are looking for a total war on the Muslim world. Israel is just providing them with an excellent opportunity and excuse to bring the United States into the conflict. For example William Kristal writes in Weekly Standard (July 24, 2006):
Why is this Arab-Israeli war different from all other Arab-Israeli wars? Because it's not an Arab-Israeli war. Most of Israel's traditional Arab enemies have checked out of the current conflict. The governments of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are, to say the least, indifferent to the fate of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Palestine Liberation Organization (Fatah) isn't a player.
The prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war is a non-Arab state, Iran, which wasn't involved in any of Israel's previous wars…What's happening in the Middle East, then, isn't just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's happening is an Islamist-Israeli war.
Former CIA man James Woolsey, appeared with John Gibson Today and joining in with the neocon chorus he said the U.S. need to attack Syria. He’s said that we are in World War IV since ‘03 as part of a group calling itself "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism." The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday’s event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.
Former U.S. speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said on July 16 that he believed the United State is “in the early stages of World War III.” Endorsing his statement, the editorial of the Christian magazine Trumpet concluded: “As extreme as it might sound, this observation by Newt Gingrich is the truth.”
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, believe Israeli hegemony in the Middle East represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy about the coming of Jesus. A prophecy, in their view, can be self-fulfilling: it is, however, their Christian duty to expedite it.
For the Christian Zionists, every rocket that flies into Israel and every bridge that is blown up in Lebanon just brings them one step closer to the end of the world. They consider it unchristian to think only of the innocent Arabs and Israelis instead of the Rapture.
Instead of seeing the silver lining in every storm cloud, to Christian Zionists the storm clouds in the Middle East are the silver linings. It is, thus not surprising, to see the U.S. vetoing ceasefire resolution at the Security Council
With the aforementioned background, the fear of the region heading to a greater war is fast turning into reality. Imagine the aftermath of bombing Syria and Iran. Surrounded and squeezed by the United States and its Allies on all sides, frustrated Arab populations would turn on their aging, sell-out rulers in Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.
Oppressive regimes in the Muslim world would succumb to public demand, and the United States would expands its bloody occupation to other Arab states under the same pretext of fighting “Islamists” and preventing them from erecting an “Islamic empire.”
In the phase two of Zionist totalitarian design, extermination of Arabs in large numbers will take place. Peace would break out with the leftover terrorized and pacified Arabs, and trade would blossom, with Israel occupying almost all of the Middle East and its tourists spending millions in Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, and Beirut.
Sounds absurd? No more so, perhaps, after all this talk of the impending world war. There are three well-known and basic causes that have made unprecedented bloodshed in the Middle East inevitable. 1: The incompetent United Nations. 2.
The helplessness of the whole world before the Israeli terrorism under the auspices of the U.S. 3. Muslims’ inability to change their status from divided sitting ducks to a united bloc for defending their rights or, at least, making an effective demand for real independence, justice, and equality.
Furthermore, Israel requested the United States numerous times to attack Syria and Iran. “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”—co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser—portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained that the road to Damascus had first to pass through Baghdad.
That part of the plan has already been completed. The initial report of U.S.-Israeli plans for aggression in 2003 have already turned to reports about possible nuclear attacks on Iran in 2006.
Keeping these realities in mind, it is hardly logical to deny—unless these trends and initiatives are effectively reversed—that an escalation of conflict and unprecedented bloodshed is imminent, and realization of the dream of a Greater Israel—however ephemeral and tyrannical—is now set to take place within a matter of years, not decades.
 Associated Press, July 15, 2005. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886000802&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 Irwin Arieff, Reuters, “US vetoes UN ceasefire call.” URL: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19806745-1702,00.html.
 Al-Jazeera Report, “Lebanon blames US for UN silence.” July 16, 2006. URL: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6C062C97-F8D0-42B9-89A1-1C4D6963D512.htm
 BBC Report: “Two Navy ships bound for Lebanon,” URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5184018.stm.
 Associated Press report, “The fact is there are people in that region, notably Iran and Syria, who do not want this process of democratisation and peace and negotiation to succeed.” Guardian, July 16, 2006. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5954077,00.html
 Israel did not secretly play a key role in the U.S. preparations for a war with Iraq for nothing. John Diamond reported in USA Today (November 04, 2002) that Israel was “quietly helping the United States prepare for a war with Iraq.”
The website, no war for Israel dot com, provides a huge amount of information about the Israeli motivation for pushing the United States into invading and occupying Iraq
 William Kristol, “It’s our war,” Weekly Standard, July 24, 2006.
 Charles Feldman and Stan Wilson, “Ex-CIA Director: US ‘faces World War IV’,” CNN, Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 5:02 PM EST, http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/
 “Gingrich: World War III has begin,” Trumpet magazine, July 17, 2006. http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=article&id=2377
 Ibid. “Gingrich: World War III has begin.”
 See: Donald Wagner, “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance,” The Christian Century, November 4, 1998, pp. 1020-1026. Also: Donald Wagner, “Christian Zionists, Israel and the ‘second coming’,” Information Clearing House, October 09, 2003: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4959.htm.
 See URL: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/rapture5.html.
 Aluf Benn, “Israel to U.S.: Now deal with Syria and Iran,” Ha’aretz, October 7, 2003. See also “Israel Wants U.S. To Attack Syria,” Pravda, April 17, 2003. “U.S. Assures Israel That Syria and Iran Are Next,” News Report, Baluchistan Post, http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=3297.
David Wurmser, chief aide to the then Undersecretary of Defense John Bolton, was already promising Sharon that Syria would be next before even a single shot was fired against Iraq.
As Ha’aretz reported at the time: “U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.”
In February, 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon already demanded action against Syria. At a meeting with a delegation of U.S. congressmen, Sharon handed the Americans their marching orders: “Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq.
‘These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve,’ Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen. Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq ‘but the American action is of vital importance.’”
 The study is available at URL: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm. URL Accessed April 11, 2006.
 “Israel And U.S. Prepare To Attack Iran” … “Goal is forcing capitulation or risking regional war… ‘There could be very, very serious ramifications in the wake of what’s happened with this air strike by the Israelis in Syrian territory.’
Brent Sadler, CNN. ‘It could be a race who presses the button first (to strike Iran) – us or the Americans’. Israeli Mossad Official” MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org – Washington, October 6, 2003. “Israel Weighs Strike To Stop Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program,” World Tribune, September 25, 2003.
 Seymour M. Hersh, “The coming wars: What the Pentagon can now do in secret,” The New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005. Seymour M. Hersh, “The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?,” The New Yorker, April 8-17, 2006.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.