6 jan 2012
Hebrew Radio: Large scale US-Israeli joint manoeuvres
NAZARETH, (PIC)-- Israeli military sources said that the US and Israel are preparing for joint military manoeuvres that will be the largest in the history of the two countries.
The Hebrew radio on Friday morning quoted the sources as saying that Israeli and the United States will soon conduct a large scale joint military exercise in protection against rockets, pointing out that this exercise was planned a long time ago under the name “Austere Challenge 12”
The sources did not say when the exercise is expected to take place, but media sources expected it will take place during the Spring.
5000 Israeli occupation soldiers and US soldiers are expected to participate in the exercise during which the scenario of facing ballistic missiles will be acted.
http://fwd4.me/0jm4
Hebrew Radio: Large scale US-Israeli joint manoeuvres
NAZARETH, (PIC)-- Israeli military sources said that the US and Israel are preparing for joint military manoeuvres that will be the largest in the history of the two countries.
The Hebrew radio on Friday morning quoted the sources as saying that Israeli and the United States will soon conduct a large scale joint military exercise in protection against rockets, pointing out that this exercise was planned a long time ago under the name “Austere Challenge 12”
The sources did not say when the exercise is expected to take place, but media sources expected it will take place during the Spring.
5000 Israeli occupation soldiers and US soldiers are expected to participate in the exercise during which the scenario of facing ballistic missiles will be acted.
http://fwd4.me/0jm4
- Video: US marines urinate on dead Afghans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TMq3m_Oli4
KABUL (Reuters) -- A video showing what appear to be American forces in Afghanistan urinating on dead Taliban fighters could set back efforts to broker peace talks just as the Obama administration is launching a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy.
The video, which was posted on YouTube and other websites, shows four men in camouflage Marine combat uniforms urinating on three corpses. One of them jokes: "Have a nice day, buddy." Another makes a lewd joke.
It is likely to stir up already strong anti-US sentiment in Afghanistan after a decade of a war that has seen other cases of abuse, and that could complicate efforts to promote reconciliation as foreign troops gradually withdraw.
The administration of US President Barack Obama, seeing a glimmer of hope in its effort to broker talks, is launching a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy with an immediate goal of sealing agreement for Taliban insurgents to open a political office in the Gulf state of Qatar.
Marc Grossman, Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, begins a diplomatic blitz this weekend that includes talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul and top officials in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The video will not help his efforts to build confidence among the warring parties.
"Such action will leave a very, very bad impact on peace efforts," said Arsala Rahmani, the top negotiator from Karzai's High Peace Council.
"Looking at such action, the Taliban can easily recruit young people and tell them that their country has been attacked by Christians and Jews and they must defend it," he said in the first comments from a high-ranking Afghan.
The US Marine Corps has said it will investigate. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan described the acts depicted in the video as "highly reprehensible" and "disgusting".
"The behavior depicted in this video is reprehensible and is not in keeping with the values of US Armed Forces," ISAF spokesman Lieutneant Colonel Jimmie Cummings said.
"Illegal, against humanity"
News of the footage had yet to reach the streets of Kabul on Thursday but Afghans who were told about what the tape appears to show were horrified.
"According to Islam and international law it's against humanity and it's illegal," said Sayed Abdul Samad, an elderly man with a long white beard and a white turban.
Anti-American feeling has boiled over, or been whipped up, into violence several times in Afghanistan in recent years. Protests over reports of the desecration of the Muslim holy book have twice sparked deadly riots.
"They've committed a crime. We don't want them in our country," said Feda Mohammad, a middle-aged man in jeans, a jacket and a woolen hat, when told about the tape. "We don't like foreigners in our country and they have to leave."
Like several other city residents, Qaisullah, a 44-year-old shop keeper near the capital's Shah-e-dushamshera mosque, called for the soldiers in the video to be punished.
"The government has to discuss with the US government the prosecution of those soldiers so in future nobody will be able to make fun of Afghans," he said.
"I haven't seen the video but I'd say it will harm our country and peace talks. It starts just with footage on TV but will end up with demonstrations around the country and maybe the world," Qaisullah said.
Karzai's office declined immediate comment and Taliban spokesmen were not available for comment.
In the United States, two military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the video appeared to be authentic but Reuters could not verify it or its source independently.
The US military has been prosecuting soldiers from the Army's 5th Stryker Brigade on charges of murdering unarmed Afghan civilians while deployed in Kandahar province in 2010.
At the Pentagon, Captain John Kirby said the defense department was "deeply troubled" by the video.
Almost a year of behind-the-scenes efforts by U.S. negotiators appear to be bearing initial fruit as the Taliban comes close to taking steps toward what US officials hope might become authentic talks on Afghanistan's political future.
In Kabul, Grossman will seek approval from Karzai -- whose support for a US effort he fears will sideline his government has wavered -- to move ahead with a series of good-faith measures seen as an essential precursor to negotiations that could give the Taliban a shared role in governing Afghanistan.
The goal is to move the talks beyond mostly logistical discussions of mutual "confidence-building measures".
"We are trying to get from conversations about confidence-building measures to negotiations between Afghans and the Taliban," said a senior administration official in Washington who declined to be identified.
The diplomatic initiative includes a possible transfer of Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay prison.
A breakthrough would mark a milestone for the Obama administration, struggling to secure a modicum of stability in Afghanistan as it presses ahead with its gradual extrication from a long and costly war.
The United States and its allies aim to withdraw combat troops by the end of 2014.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=452011
Officer: Marine unit suspected in video identified
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The US Marines have identified the unit whose forces are suspected of being behind a video appearing to show them urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban in Afghanistan, a Marine officer told Reuters on Thursday.
The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Marines in question were believed to be from the 3rd Battallion, 2nd Marines, which is based out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=452138
9 feb 2012, 12:51 , Respect -
Maria 15 jan 2012
Israel 'disappointed' with Obama on Iran
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- A senior Israeli official voiced disappointment in the Obama administration on Sunday, saying "election-year considerations" lay behind its caution over tough Iran sanctions sought by US legislators.
While Washington has been talking tougher about Iran's nuclear work and threat to block oil export routes out of the Gulf if hit with harsher sanctions, new US measures adopted on Dec. 31 gave President Barack Obama leeway on the scope of penalties on the Iranian central bank and oil exports.
Moshe Yaalon, Israel's vice prime minister, contrasted the administration's posture to that of France and Britain, which he said "are taking a very firm stand and understand sanctions must be imposed immediately."
"In the United States, the Senate passed a resolution, by a majority of 100-to-one, to impose these sanctions, and in the US administration there is hesitation for fear of oil prices rising this year, out of election-year considerations," Yaalon told Israel Radio.
"In that regard, this is certainly a disappointment, for now."
The Democratic president says he is determined to deny Tehran -- which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful needs only -- the means to develop an atom bomb. His aides cast their sanctions strategy as a bid to work collaboratively with foreign powers and win over states that import Iranian oil without triggering price-boosting shocks to energy markets.
Mixed messages
The remarks by Yaalon, a member of Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party, appeared to jar with praise Defense Minister Ehud Barak offered last month for what he described as Obama's resolve against Iran.
Running for re-election in the face of Republicans who hold sway over big pro-Israel constituencies, Obama has sought to burnish his credentials as a friend of Israel despite having frosty relations with Netanyahu.
In a phone conversation with the prime minister Thursday, Obama "reiterated his unshakable commitment to Israel's security," the White House said. Both sides said the leaders' discussion dealt with Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
Reputed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, Israel sees the makings of a mortal threat in Iran's uranium enrichment and missile projects, and has threatened to resort to force if it deems diplomatic isolation of its foe a dead end.
The prospect of Israel worsening regional instability with a unilateral strike has stirred worry in war-weary Washington.
Obama's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey, was due to make his first visit to Israel on Thursday.
Israeli media predicted Dempsey would seek to persuade his hosts not to "surprise" the United States on Iran. The US embassy had no immediate information about the visit's agenda.
Yaalon, himself a former top armed forces commander, said Israel should not "leap forward" to attack Iran.
"But Israel has to be ready to defend itself," he said. "Let's hope we do not arrive at that moment."
Netanyahu sounded sanguine last week about the efficacy of big-power pressure on Iran, telling an Australian newspaper: "For the first time I see Iran wobble ... under the sanctions that have been adopted and especially under the threat of strong sanctions on their central bank."
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=452666
Iran warns of consequences if Gulf backs oil sanctions
By Ramin Mostafavi
TEHRAN (Reuters) -- Iran warned Gulf Arab states on Sunday they would suffer consequences if they raised oil output to replace Iranian crude facing an international ban.
In signs of Tehran's deepening isolation over its refusal to halt nuclear activity that could yield atomic bombs, China's premier was in Saudi Arabia probing for greater access to its huge oil and gas reserves and Britain voiced confidence a once hesitant European Union would soon ban oil imports from Iran.
Major importers of Iranian oil were long loath to embargo the lifeblood of Iran's economy because of fears this would send oil prices rocketing at a time -- amidst debt and deficit crises and high unemployment -- when they could least afford it.
But strong momentum for oil sanctions has been created by a UN watchdog report saying Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb.
A new US law signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve would freeze out of the US financial system any institution dealing with Iran's central bank -- which processes its oil revenues.
If fully applied, the law would make it impossible for most countries to buy Iranian oil. Washington is offering waivers to countries to let them keep buying Iranian oil for now, but demanding they gradually cut their imports back.
Leaders from some of the Asian countries that buy the most Iranian oil have begun touring the Middle East to secure alternative supply lines from Arab states. European buyers suggest they will also lean more heavily on Arab oil producers should an EU ban come into effect.
Feeling increasingly encircled, Iran's hardline Islamic clerical elite has lashed back by threatening to block the main Middle East oil shipping route. Since the New Year, Tehran also began to enrich uranium in an underground bunker and sentenced an Iranian-American citizen to death on espionage charges.
Tensions in the Gulf have caused occasional spikes in oil prices in recent weeks. The sanctions are also having a real impact on Iran's domestic economy, causing prices of imported staples to soar and the rial currency to tumble.
Iran holds a parliamentary election in March, its first since a presidential vote in 2009 led to eight months of street protests. Those demonstrations were put down by force, but since then the "Arab Spring" has shown the vulnerability of states in the region to public anger fueled by economic hardship.
Not friendly
Iranian OPEC Governor Mohammad Ali Khatibi said Tehran would regard as an unfriendly act any move by neighboring Gulf Arab oil exporters to make up for Iranian crude.
"If (they) give the green light to replacing Iran's oil these countries would be the main culprits for whatever happens in the region - including the Strait of Hormuz," Khatibi told the Sharq daily newspaper, referring to the narrow sea channel through which a third of the world's oil tanker traffic passes.
"Our Arab neighbor countries should not cooperate with these (US and European) adventurers... These measures will not be perceived as friendly," he said.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said on Saturday the world's No. 1 oil exporter -- the only one in OPEC with significant unused capacity -- was ready and able to meet any increase in demand. He made no direct reference to sanctions on Iran.
Iran's navy commander Habibollah Sayyari said Tehran could exert control over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, whose warships patrol the region, says it will not tolerate any attempt to disrupt shipping through the strait.
Military experts say Iran could not challenge the huge US-led fleet that guards the strait for long, but its threats raise the risk of miscalculation that could flare into a clash.
Oil prices were down at the end of last week as anticipation of downgrades by Standard & Poor's of several indebted euro zone economies countered the buoyant effect of anxiety about Iranian threats to shipping. But the standoff over Iran pointed to continued support for higher prices, brokers and analysts said.
Iran's foreign ministry said on Sunday it had received a letter from Washington about the Strait of Hormuz and there was no decision yet on whether to reply. A ministry spokesman did not divulge the contents of the letter.
Tehran had said on Saturday it had written to Washington with evidence the CIA was involved in the assassination of a nuclear scientist, blown up by a bomb attached to his car last week, the latest of several such killings.
Western countries suspect Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons capability. Iran says it is only interested in nuclear technology for peaceful purposes such as generating electricity.
China seeks option in Gulf
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was pressing Saudi Arabia to open its oil and gas wealth to more Chinese investment, Chinese media said on Sunday. China has been Iran's biggest oil buyer.
Although Beijing opposes further international sanctions on Iran, it has already cut its purchases of Iranian oil by more than half for the first two months of this year.
"China and Saudi Arabia are both in important stages of development and there are broad prospects for enhancing cooperation," Wen told Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Nayef on Saturday, according to Xinhua news agency.
Michal Meidan, an analyst with London's Eurasia Group, said: "Beijing is concerned with the potential response to bellicose Iranian statements and the spike in oil prices that would ensue from greater turmoil in Syria and Iran."
Wen was also scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, two other big OPEC exporters across the Gulf from Iran.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Sunday he was "confident" the 27-member European Union would impose resounding sanctions on Iran's oil industry and possibly other sectors at an EU foreign ministers meeting on Jan. 23.
After protracted reluctance to act arising from the dependence of some debt-ridden EU economies on Iranian oil, member states have agreed in principle to ban it and have been working on details of how this will be implemented.
Last year EU countries collectively bought about a fifth of Iranian exports, roughly on par with China.
Any EU-wide prohibition of Iranian oil would probably take effect gradually. "Grace periods" on existing contracts of one to 12 months have been proposed to allow importers to find other suppliers before implementing an embargo.
Hague said: "Our sanctions are part of trying to get Iran to change course and to enter negotiations and we should not be deterred from implementing those. We will continue to intensify our own sanctions and those of the European Union."
Defiance
Some analysts say Iran's leadership, which has thrived on defiance of the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, is more likely to dig in rather than back off in response to sanctions aimed at stopping a nuclear program many Iranians regard as a matter of national sovereignty and modernisation.
A year after the collapse of the last big power talks with Iran, its deepening nuclear defiance has raised concern of war if harsher sanctions do not change its course.
Israel, reputed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, sees Iran's nuclear and missile projects as a mortal threat which it will resort to force as a last resort to stop.
The risk of Israel triggering Middle East upheaval with a unilateral strike has the war-weary United States worried.
US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey is to make his first visit to Israel on Thursday. Israeli media say he will try to persuade his hosts not to "surprise" Washington on Iran.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=452707
Joint US-Israel military exercise postponed
JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- The United States and Israel have postponed a joint military exercise due to be held in the coming weeks until later in the year, an Israeli security source told Reuters on Sunday.
"I can confirm the exercise has been postponed, probably to the end of 2012," said the source, who declined to be named.
The air-defense drill, named "Austere Challenge 12", is expected to be the largest-ever exercise between the two allies, who regularly hold joint military manoeuvres.
Israeli media reports originally said it was canceled due to budgetary constraints, but some pundits speculated that the real reason was to avoid further raising tensions with Iran, although when asked, the source ruled this out.
"It's for a host of reasons, mainly logistical, but not the reason you cited (tensions with Iran). Israel and the US are expected to be putting out a joint statement soon," the source said.
Israel sees the makings of a mortal threat in Iran's uranium enrichment and missile projects, and the Israel's leaders have not ruled out the use of military force to stop it.
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
Tensions between Washington and Tehran have risen in recent weeks after US President Barack Obama signed a bill on New Year's Eve that, if fully implemented, would make it impossible for most countries to pay for Iranian oil.
Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil shipping lane, if sanctions prevent it from exporting oil. The United States has said it will not tolerate such a move.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=452762
9 feb 2012, 13:19 , Respect -
Maria 20 jan 2012
Newspaper Editor: Israel Should Consider Assassinating Obama
Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, a weekly newspaper serving Atlanta's Jewish community, devoted his January 13, 2012 column to the thorny problem of the U.S. and Israel's diverging views on the threat posed by Iran. Basically Israel has three options, he wrote: Strike Hezbollah and Hamas, strike Iran, or "order a hit" on Barack Obama. Either way, problem solved!
Here's how Adler laid out "option three" in his list of scenarios facing Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu (the column, which was forwarded to us by a tipster, isn't online, but you can read a copy here):
Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?
Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives...Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?
You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.
It's hard to tell whether or not Adler is just some crank. But the Atlanta Jewish Times, which he purchased in 2009, appears to be a real community newspaper. It was founded in 1925 and, according to Wikipedia, claims a circulation of 3,500 and staff of five. To judge from its web site, it's a going concern.
A nervous Adler told me over the phone that he wasn't advocating Obama's assassination by Mossad agents. "Of course not," he said.
But do you think Israel should consider it an option? "No."
But do you believe that Israel is in fact considering the option in its most inner circles? "No. Actually, no. I was hoping to make clear that it's unspeakable—god forbid this would ever happen. I take it you're quoting me?"
Yes. "Oh, boy."
When I asked Adler why, if he didn't advocate assassination and didn't believe Israel was actually considering it, he wrote a column saying he believed that the option was "on the table," he asked for a minute to compose himself and call me back. He did a few moments later, and said, "I wrote it to see what kind of reaction I was going to get from readers."
And what was the reaction? "We've gotten a lot of calls and emails."
Nothing from the Secret Service, though. Yet.
UPDATE: Adler has told JTA that he "regrets" the column and plans to publish an apology. Oh, and the Secret Service says it will "make all appropriate, investigative follow-up in regard to this matter," according to ABC News.
http://fwd4.me/0kcU
Publisher Regrets Suggesting That Israel Assassinate Obama
The publisher of a Jewish newspaper who suggested in a column that Israel assassinate President Obama says he didn’t mean for his idea to be taken seriously and that he was just trying to get his readers to react.
Andrew Adler, the publisher, wrote in the Jan. 13 edition of the Atlanta Jewish Times that Israeli agents could “take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel” to protect itself (other options he listed were attacking Hezbollah and Hamas, and destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities).
Adler doesn’t put his own columns online, but Gawker uploaded a copy of it today. Adler told ABC News that he has been getting a flurry of calls – from readers, reporters and rabbis – and that he regrets ever writing it. His column next week, he said, will be an apology. The paper has between 3,000 and 4,000 subscribers.
“I’m not advocating anything,” Adler said, calling himself an “idiot” who put his “pen in my mouth.”
“Do I regret writing what I did? Very much so,” he said.
Adler was unambiguous in his column, which was presented as a hypothetical situation from the perspective of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s facing potentially disastrous conflicts with the Arab world. He said his piece has gotten more reaction than anything he has written since the 1970s.
“Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence,” he wrote. “Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”
A Secret Service spokesman, Max Milien, said Adler could be interviewed as part of an investigation, although he wouldn’t say whether an investigation was formally opened.
“We are aware of this matter, and we will make all appropriate, investigative follow-up in regard to this matter,” Milien said.
Adler said the Secret Service hasn’t contacted him. But a few rabbis have called Adler to say, “you’re a meshugenah,” the Yiddish word for “nuts.”
http://fwd4.me/0kca
Atlanta Jewish Times owner apologizes for Obama assassination scenario
Andrew Adler
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times apologized for an opinion column in which he counted President Obama's assassination as among Israel's options in heading off a nuclear Iran.
"I very much regret it, I wish I hadn't made reference to it at all," Andrew Adler told JTA on Friday.
He said he would publish an apology in his next edition, and that reaction from readers had been overwhelmingly negative.
Fox News reported late Friday on its website that the Secret Service was investigating the column. In his interview with JTA, Adler said he had not been approached by the Secret Service.
In a Jan. 13 column, Adler, who is also the paper's publisher, outlined what he said were three possible responses by Israel to Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon: A preemptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that he said would be emboldened by a nuclear Iran; a direct strike on Iran; and "three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies."
He continued: "Yes, you read 'three' correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?"
Gawker, the gossip and media news website, first reported on the column Friday.
Ophir Aviran, the Israeli consul-general in Atlanta, condemned the column "in the strongest possible terms."
In response to a JTA request for comment, Aviran said in an email that he was "appalled at this deranged and morally repugnant assertion."
The Anti-Defamation League condemned Adler's column as "outrageous."
"An apology cannot possibly repair the damage," said the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, in a statement.
Foxman added: "Mr. Adler’s lack of judgment as a publisher, editor and columnist raises serious questions as to whether he’s fit to run a newspaper."
http://fwd4.me/0kcZ
9 feb 2012, 13:19 , Respect -
Maria 21 jan 2012
Atlanta Jewish Times owner says sorry for Obama 'hit' column
Andrew Adler says he deeply regrets writing a column suggesting Mossad agents should consider 'a hit' on the president if he fails to support Israel.
The owner of a Jewish newspaper in Atlanta has said he deeply regrets writing a column suggesting that Israel consider "a hit" on Barack Obama if he stands in the way of the Jewish state defending itself.
Andrew Adler told the Guardian he wrote the column in the weekly Atlanta Jewish Times "to get a reaction" from the paper's readers.
"The headline for the column was: 'What would you do?' That's what I wanted to see," he said. "It's got like a Dr Phil reaction: what were you thinking? I feel really bad it did that."
The column, first brought to light by Gawker, asks readers to imagine that they are the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, confronting the threat posed by Hezbollah and Iran's nuclear programme while also under pressure from a US president with an "Alice in Wonderland" belief in diplomacy over force.
Adler lays out what he says are the three options available to Netanyahu: attack Hezbollah and Hamas; defy the US – which is willing to let "Israel take a lethal bullet" – by striking against Iran's nuclear facilities; or a third option.
"Three, give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice-president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies," Adler wrote in a column that appeared in print by not online.
"Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?"
Adler went on to ask: "How far would you go to save a nation comprised of 7 million lives – Jews, Christians and Arabs alike? You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table."
Adler said he understood why readers might interpret his writing as suggesting that Israel is seriously considering assassinating the US president but that is not what he meant.
"No, no, no. It's unfathomable, unthinkable," he said, adding: "I'm definitely pro-Israel to the max."
Adler said he intends to repudiate the column in the next edition of the paper.
"I've put my pen in my mouth," he said. "I'm writing a retraction to the column."
The Atlanta Jewish Times was founded in 1925 as the Southern Israelite. Adler bought the paper three years ago. It has a circulation of several thousand copies a week.
http://fwd4.me/0kcT
9 feb 2012, 13:19 , Respect -
Maria 22 jan 2012
US newspaper owner writes op-ed proposing Israel assassinate Obama
The editor and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, has come under fire, and on Friday issued an apology, for an op-ed in which he surmised that the Israeli Prime Minister should “order a hit” on US President Barack Obama in order to preserve the Jewish state.
In the article, published over a week ago, Adler laid out three possible scenarios for the Israeli Prime Minister to follow, the third being the assassination of Obama by Israeli Mossad agents based in the US. The other two options, according to Adler, would be for Israel to launch an all-out assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza or to attack Iran. He argues that these are the only ways for Israel to preserve its existence in the face of the threat he claims is posed by the Iranian state.
The online news and opinion site Gawker.com scanned the print article and posted it on their website, along with a conversation their reporter had with Adler regarding his article, in which Adler ‘nervously’ stated that he did not mean to imply that Israel should assassinate the US President.
Contrary to his conversation with Gawker.com, Adler’s article states clearly that Netanyahu’s ‘third option’ is to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”
He continues, “Yes, you read ‘three’ correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?”
On Friday, after dozens of commentators criticized the article, Adler told reporters with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) that he plans to publish an apology in the next issue of his newspaper, after his article received negative responses from readers.
In response to claims that the US Secret Service was investigating the call for Obama’s assassination, Adler told the JTA that he had not been contacted by the Secret Service, and was not aware of any investigation.
http://www.imemc.org/article/62879
9 feb 2012, 13:20 , Respect -
Maria 23 jan 2012
Dempsey pledges to support Israel in fighting smuggling to Gaza
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey has pledged to support Israeli efforts to foil smuggling from the Egyptian Sinai peninsula to Gaza Strip.
The Israeli TV 10 channel said that Dempsey had described the smuggling process as very worrisome.
It said that Dempsey agreed with Israeli army officials on boosting security and intelligence cooperation to fight this phenomenon and to adopt all necessary measures in this regard.
The TV quoted the officials as expressing satisfaction at results of the visit, describing the results as “constructive”.
It pointed out that the American guest reviewed with the Israeli officials developments in the Middle East, and focused on the Lebanese Hizbullah party, Hamas, and Palestinian factions.
http://fwd4.me/0kft
9 feb 2012, 13:20 , Respect -
Maria 25 jan 2012
Israeli Sources: Relationship between Israel, United States Deteriorating
Joe Biden
On Monday, at the time that the Israeli issue escalated in the American presidency elections, Atlanta Jewish American newspaper caused a storm in politics and media that ended up in courts. The newspaper editor, Andrew Adler, published an article about the possibility of assassinating the US president Barack Obama, as a compromise to solve the Israeli-American differences about Iran's nuclear weapons and how this issue should be confronted.
Adler wrote that there are three possible ways to confront this issue: "Israel should either attack Iran, or attack Hamas and Hizbollah leaderships, or order the Israeli General Security Service "Mossad" to assassinate Obama," he also said, "If the President's deputy, Joe Biden, becomes the president of the US, then he would take a policy that helps and supports Israel to destroy its enemies."
According to the Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahranot, this article annoyed the Jewish organizations in the US, because it may lead to dangerous reactions against Jews and Israel. Many Israelis are talking about unprecedented deterioration in relations between Israel and America.
It has been mentioned that these organizations attacked the newspaper and considered its editor's article, that has been published, "aggressive and crazy". Adler wrote another article apologizing, saying that it was far-fetched, and he apologized. He also said that he loves Obama as a person and that he considers himself one of his supporters.
The Israeli subject is an important issue in the current American elections, because all the candidates, even Obama, need the Israeli fund, and the Israeli sponsors generously donate. The Jewish Majority support the Democratic Party. This Party has published a new video, in Washington, that was made by Obama's team, entitled "The United States and Israel" responding to the republican competitors' statements attacking Obama saying that he denies Israel and punishes the Israeli prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
They attack Obama's policy for being weak towards Iran, and that Israel led Iran to produce the nuclear weapons within a year. The Military expert, Ron Bin Yeshay, said "Though there is an agreement between Israel and the US on preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons, they still have differences about the validity of the military option," he continued, "Israel's continuous pressure on the US to take steps towards Iran, affected the relationship between the American government and Netanyahu's government."
Yeshay also said, "the Israeli-American relationship is deteriorating, and escalated to confrontations, due to the differences of interests between the two parties", he also said that the last difference is a part of a continuous crisis; the lack of trust between Obama and Netanyahu is what led to these differences.
http://fwd4.me/0ko8
9 feb 2012, 13:20 , Respect -
Maria 27 jan 2012
Group Denounces Showing Anti-Muslim Film to New York Police Trainees
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XUub1no1qw&list=TLs3Ogy6JwilF6Yu1QoXrL3TZ5qwuOLxAQ
WASHINGTON, (WAFA) – The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a Washington-based civil rights organization, Thursday denounced showing a film depicting American Muslims as terrorists to New York Police Department (NYPD) trainees, according to a statement.
As a result, it called on New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and his deputy Paul Browne to “immediately resign.”
The film, the “Third Jihad,” described by ADC as “a blatantly bigoted and hate-filled film vilifying the American-Muslim community,” was shown to NYPD cadets getting training in antiterrorism.
It portrays Muslims as engaged in a “1400 year war” to “infiltrate and dominate America,” and includes “inflammatory imagery, including people who appear to be Muslim engaging in acts of terrorism, car bombs exploding, executed children, and repeated images of an Islamic flag flying over the White House,” said ADC.
ADC said Kelly and Browne recently admitted to taking part in the filming and production of the 72-minute feature film, produced by Clarion Fund, a nonprofit company founded by Raphael Shore, former founder of the Orthodox Israeli Jewish group Aish HaTorah and who earlier produced a similar movie called “Obsession,” also depicting Muslims conspiring against the US.
“Commissioner Kelly and his deputy had recently lied to community members by denying any involvement in the film,” said ADC. “The decision to take part in the film, as well as show the film to nearly 1,500 NYPD cadets, raises serious concerns about Kelly’s ability to serve and protect minority groups in New York City,” it said.
ADC accused Kelly of engaging the NYPD in programs “that have no regards for civil rights and liberties.”
It said that “practices such as data mapping of the American-Muslim community in New York, extensive and unwarranted surveillance programs, partnership with the CIA, already raised doubts about Kelly’s policing methods. Involvement with “Third Jihad” sends a clear message that the NYPD’s dealings with New York’s diverse Muslim communities are based on bigotry and blanket suspicion.”
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=18831
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmGSMPMtqI4
Analysis: US urges UN reform while abusing power
By Ramzy Baroud
The country that has long been known to abuse its powers and privileges in the United Nations is now leading a campaign to reform the same organization.
While UN reforms are welcomed, if not demanded, by many of its member states, there is little reason to believe the recent US crusade is actually genuine. Rather, it seems a clear attempt to stifle any semblance of democracy in the world’s leading international institution.
Most American politicians actually despise the UN. While the Security Council is directed or tamed by the US veto (often to shield the US and its close ally Israel from any criticism), other UN bodies are not as easily intimidated.
When the UN education and science agency, UNESCO, accepted Palestine’s bid for full membership last October, following a democratic vote by its members, the US could do little do stall the process. Still, it immediately cut funding to the agency (about 20 percent of its total budget).
The move was devoid of any humanitarian considerations. The UNESCO provides vital services to underprivileged communities all over the world, including the United States.
Yet, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, insisted on sugarcoating what was an entirely injudicious political act. “Today's vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as member is regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive just and lasting peace in the Middle East," said Nuland.
The fact is, there has been much sabre-rattling in the US Congress targeting the UN. The campaign, led by Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, is threatening the UN with all sorts of punishment if the organization does not cease its criticism of Israel and tighten the noose around Iran.
Naturally, the UN is not meeting the expectations of Ros-Lehtinen and her peers. It happens to be a body that represents the interests of all its member states. Some US politicians, however, see the world through the distorted logic of former president George W. Bush: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
The late British author and humanitarian doctor Theodore MacDonald showed that the US actually has a love-hate relationship with the UN. In his final book, Preserving the United Nations; Our Best Hope for Mediating Human Rights, MacDonald reveals a strange reality: that the US and its allies labor to undermine the UN, while also using it to further their own military, political and economic objectives.
As expected, successive US governments had mastered the art of political manipulation at the UN. When successfully co-opted to accommodate US military designs, the UN suddenly becomes true to its mission -- per Washington’s account, of course.
However, when US pressures failed to yield a unified front against Iraq in late 2002, President Bush asked in his first address to the United Nations, on September 12, 2002: “Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”
The Bush years were rife with such ultimatums -- to the UN and the whole world. However, a similar attitude continues to define the administration of Barack Obama. The US latest assault on the UN is now happening under the guise of reforms, but no reforms are possible without first creating the needed polarization aimed at pushing for an American agenda.
Joe Torsella, the US Deputy Ambassador for Management and Reform of the United Nation, spoke of the latest US efforts at reining in the 47-nation Geneva-based Human Rights Council. “The US will work to forge a new coalition at the UN in New York, a kind of 'credibility caucus' to promote truly competitive elections, rigorous application of membership criteria, and other reforms aimed at keeping the worst offenders on the sidelines,” he said.
UNHRC is an outspoken critic of human rights violations. As of late, the organization has been particularity vocal regarding the rights violations underway in Syria. It is also very critical of Israel and its one-sided wars and human rights violations in Gaza and the rest of the occupied territories. For years, the US has conspired to undercut, intimidate and silence this criticism.
The Reuters report on the US latest push for the supposed reforms states: “Council members include China, Russia and other countries where rights groups say abuses are commonplace.” To offset the seeming inconsistency -- between UNHRC mission and its members’ records -- the US, according to Torsella, wants to “hold Human Rights Council members to the same standard of truly free and fair elections that the UN promotes around the world, and insist on the highest standards of integrity for the Council and all its members.”
Viewed without context, it is a noble endeavor indeed. However, it becomes a tainted statement when one considers that the US status at the UN has been achieved through the least democratic of all means: a disproportionate political power (the veto) and money (used for arm-twisting).
Attempting to curb and contain the UN, as opposed to punishing and boycotting the international body, is basically what sets Democrats apart from Republicans. Unlike Republicans, “the other side of the debate (mostly Democrats) believes that achieving these reforms requires strong American leadership -- and strong leadership is demonstrated by paying dues on time and in full. You can call this side ‘constructive engagement,’” wrote Mark Leon Goldberg in the UN Dispatch.
Practically, both approaches are aimed at achieving similar outcomes: realizing US policies, rewarding allies and punishing foes -- even at the expense of the noble mission once championed by the UN over 65 years ago.
While the latest push for "reforms" is being hailed by Washington’s media cheerleaders, no honest commentator could possibly believe the US campaign against UNESCO, UNHRC and the UN as a whole represents a genuine democratic endeavor.
In fact, the truly urgent reforms required right now are ones that aim at correcting what MacDonald described in his book as the UN’s "foundational defects."
MacDonald counseled for immediate addressing of the "issue of permanent membership and the use of the veto." He also recommended the granting of greater power to the General Assembly and eliminating the “imposed use of the US dollar” in mediating UN transitional affairs. MacDonald’s guidelines for reforms are comprehensive, and rely on the concept of equality, guided by humanitarian and moral urgency.
The same can hardly be said of Washington’s latest UN intrigues and shady politics.
Ramzy Baroud is an internationally syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=455748
9 feb 2012, 13:21 , Respect -
Maria 28 jan 2012
Republicans woo Jewish voters by campaigning against Palestinians
WASHINGTON, (PIC)-- For Republican candidates seeking Jewish vote in the 2012 US presidential election, it is an open season to launch scathing attacks on the Palestinians and to show the Zionist side of their faces.
These candidates have been competing with one another in a cannibalistic way for months to take the most hard line position against the occupied people of Palestine.
In a TV talk show on Thursday, one of these candidates Mitt Romney, the most likely to represent his party in the election, said US president Barack Obama sacrificed Israel by his policies, while his party's mate Newt Gingrich reiterated his racist slurs against the Palestinians and labeled them as an invented people.
Romney claimed that the presence of Hamas (a resistance movement founded in 1987 during the first intifada) and its supporters among the Palestinian leaders was the reason behind the absence of peace between the Palestinian and Israelis.
During a debate aired by US TV channels, Romney also said the [occupied] Palestinians teach their school children how to kill Jews, while the Hamas-Fatah speeches deny the Jewish people their right to statehood and call for destroying Israel.
He added that the Israelis would be happy to have a two-state solution, but the Palestinians reject this solution and want to eliminate the state of Israel.
In a related context, Spiegel Online, the online version of the German newspaper Der Spiegel, published a recent article describing the Republican candidates as a "club of liars, demagogues and ignoramuses."
"The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates has shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The grand old party is ruining the entire country's reputation," the article stated.
"Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they have been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world," it added.
http://fwd4.me/0kyc
9 feb 2012, 13:21 , Respect -
Maria 22 jan 2011
US newspaper owner writes op-ed proposing Israel assassinate Obama
The editor and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, has come under fire, and on Friday issued an apology, for an op-ed in which he surmised that the Israeli Prime Minister should “order a hit” on US President Barack Obama in order to preserve the Jewish state.
In the article, published over a week ago, Adler laid out three possible scenarios for the Israeli Prime Minister to follow, the third being the assassination of Obama by Israeli Mossad agents based in the US. The other two options, according to Adler, would be for Israel to launch an all-out assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza or to attack Iran. He argues that these are the only ways for Israel to preserve its existence in the face of the threat he claims is posed by the Iranian state.
The online news and opinion site Gawker.com scanned the print article and posted it on their website, along with a conversation their reporter had with Adler regarding his article, in which Adler ‘nervously’ stated that he did not mean to imply that Israel should assassinate the US President.
Contrary to his conversation with Gawker.com, Adler’s article states clearly that Netanyahu’s ‘third option’ is to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”
He continues, “Yes, you read ‘three’ correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?”
On Friday, after dozens of commentators criticized the article, Adler told reporters with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) that he plans to publish an apology in the next issue of his newspaper, after his article received negative responses from readers.
In response to claims that the US Secret Service was investigating the call for Obama’s assassination, Adler told the JTA that he had not been contacted by the Secret Service, and was not aware of any investigation.
http://www.imemc.org/article/62879
Will Israel Assassinate Obama?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IheJ2Rohz1c
9 feb 2012, 13:21 , Respect -
Maria 6 febr 2012
What Is Our Number One Priority?
In an interview broadcast during NBC's Super Bowl pregame show on Sunday, President Obama made a couple of statements that were disturbing, even if politically unsurprising. In a portion of the interview about the danger of Israel touching off a war with Iran, the president said, “My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel.”
Wait a minute—shouldn't the security of the United States be the number one priority of the president of the United States? Rather than merely sharing the top spot on the priority list with some foreign country's security? This comment was part of an unscripted interview, and perhaps the language of a prepared speech would have come out differently. But the president said what he said.
Elsewhere in the same interview, Mr. Obama said that in dealing with Israel regarding the issue of Iran, “We are going to make sure that we work in lockstep.” If working in lockstep means that Israel defers to U.S. interests and preferences, that would be fine for the United States. But of course the deference nearly always works the other way around. For a glaring recent example involving President Obama, recall how he caved to Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the continued Israeli construction of settlements in occupied territories. So this statement is disturbing as well.
Any national political leader in the United States should be expected to give clear, consistent, overwhelming priority to U.S. interests—never equating, much less subordinating, them to the interests of any foreign state. Relationships with foreign governments can be useful in advancing U.S. interests, but they are always means, not ends. I have discussed this principle before.
Suffice it to note that the policies of the current government of the foreign state in question are not only not to be equated with U.S. interests but are seriously damaging those interests, whether through risking war with Iran, undermining efforts short of war to resolve differences with Iran, or associating the United States with a highly salient and unjust occupation.
Even with an alternative government that was less destructive (to Israel's own interests, let alone to those of the United States), the interests of the United States should not be equated with the interests of this foreign state any more than to those of Denmark, Thailand, Argentina or any other foreign country, no matter what fondness individual citizens may feel toward those or other places.
The president's statements before the Super Bowl are mild compared to the efforts of most of his Republican opponents to outdo each other in subordinating themselves to the wishes of the Israeli government.
One of the best indications of what is shaping the environment in which these candidates operate comes from the lips of Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who is Newt Gingrich's biggest bankroller and is likely to open his wallet to Mitt Romney's campaign once Romney nails down the nomination.
Speaking to an Israeli group in 2010, Adelson said that when he did military service as a young man it was "unfortunately" in a U.S. uniform rather than an Israeli one. He said he hoped his son would become a sniper for the Israel Defense Forces. Adelson concluded, “All we [meaning Adelson and his Israeli wife, who did serve in the IDF] care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart.”
Speaking as someone who feels fortunate and proud to have worn a U.S. uniform when performing military service, I find it deeply distressing that such sentiments are playing such a large role in determining U.S. policies and perhaps the U.S. presidency.
http://fwd4.me/0rxy
Leon Panetta says: U.S. Government Proud of 1 Million Iraqi Deaths
They only don't mention it in the mainstream ''media''...but WELL OVER one million Iraqi died, tortured, killing civilians, breaking every law. READ:
More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.
It has been ignored by mainstream media, even the wire services. But this is hardly surprising. A main motivation for constructing the web counter was to keep the "Lancet study" alive. The "Lancet study," you'll recall, was a study published last fall in the British medical journal The Lancet, which estimated that more than 600,000 Iraqis had had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006.
The media largely buried the Lancet study when it was published - and have largely ignored the question of the overall death toll from the U.S. invasion - so it's little surprise that they have ignored our attempt to shine a light on this question.
The Lancet study is the only existing study that uses the method accepted all over the world for estimating deaths due to large-scale violent conflict: a cluster survey. Its principal deficit for understanding the current situation is that the survey it was based on is now a year old, so that when people want to invoke the Lancet study to describe the death toll, they are likely to say, "a year ago the death toll was over 600,000" - leaving out what has happened since. Since the Lancet study is "old news," it's progressively easier to ignore it over time. It was this problem that gave us the idea of constructing an ongoing, rough update.
The tally of deaths reported in the Western media by Iraq Body Count, although it gives an inaccurate picture of the overall death toll, does have the advantage that it is regularly updated. So while the Iraq Body Count tally, by itself, doesn't help us understand the overall death toll, it does give us some information about the trend over time, because one can compare, for example, the Iraq Body Count tally today with the Iraq Body Count tally from July 2006.
Thus, we constructed our ongoing online estimate - for which we provide the code so you can include it on your own web page - by extrapolating from the Lancet estimate using the trend provided by Iraq Body Count.
Our extrapolation assumes that Iraq Body Count is capturing a fixed proportion of the true level of deaths over time. This is a conservative assumption, because it is likely that Iraq Body Count is capturing a smaller share of the true death toll over time, as reporting from Iraq becomes progressively more difficult. By assuming that Iraq Body Count captures a constant share, we will tend to underestimate the true death toll.
Note that the number we focus on is the Lancet estimate of excess deaths due to violence. Thus, we understate the death toll by ignoring, say, increased deaths due to cholera which could be attributed, at least in part, to the destruction resulting from the U.S. invasion and occupation.
Note further that a straight-line extrapolation from the Lancet study - ignoring any increase in the death rate in the last year from the average between March, 2003 and July, 2006 - an average that includes the first year of the occupation, when by all accounts the death rate was lower - would still result in more than 750,000 excess deaths due to violence.
Increasingly, the U.S. occupation is described as a passive onlooker to the violence. This is deeply misleading for two reasons. First, the civil war - or civil wars - that have been unleashed in Iraq was a predictable - and predicted - result of the U.S. invasion.
Everything is predicted if one searches enough, but in this case, for example, James Baker gave the threat of unleashing a civil war as a key reason why the U.S. didn't go to Baghdad in 1991, so it's absurd to treat this as an unforeseeable consequence. Second, the picture is being obscured by underreporting in the U.S. of deaths from U.S. air strikes, raids, and shooting at checkpoints.
Why does this matter? Obviously, we have a responsibility to understand the world as best we can, and nowhere is this responsibility greater than in trying to understand the consequences of the actions of our government. But the question is particularly urgent, because there is a major effort underway to rehabilitate the war politically, by cherry-picking - and misinterpreting - current developments. The surge is working, we are told: it must be given more time. If the scale of the overall death toll from the U.S. invasion becomes part of the debate, this sleight-of-hand will be much harder to maintain.
9 feb 2012, 13:22 , Respect -
Maria 7 febr 2012
Obama Says U.S. and Israel March As One
In his pre-Super Bowl interview on Sunday night, President Obama went farther than ever before in stating his view that U.S. and Israeli interests are identical. Obama even topped Vice President Joe Biden who has repeatedly said that there must be "no daylight, no daylight" between U.S. and Israeli policies.
Obama's statement was more disturbing because he was not speaking in the abstract but rather about the possibility of war with Iran. Obama said, "My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel."
I'll repeat that: "My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States. But also, the security of Israel."
That is a remarkable statement, so much so that I'll leave it to someone with more impressive credentials than my own to challenge it. Dr. Paul R. Pillar is a 28-year veteran of the CIA who, before his retirement, became chief of analysis at the agency's Counterterrorist Center. He now teaches at Georgetown and writes for The National Interest. He also served in Vietnam between 1971 and 1973.
Here is his reaction to the president's statement. It appeared in The National Interest:
Wait a minute -- shouldn't the security of the United States be the number one priority of the president of the United States? Rather than merely sharing the top spot on the priority list with some foreign country's security?
He continues:
Any national political leader in the United States should be expected to give clear, consistent, overwhelming priority to U.S. interests -- never equating, much less subordinating, them to the interests of any foreign state. Relationships with foreign governments can be useful in advancing U.S. interests, but they are always means, not ends....
Suffice it to note that the policies of the current government of the foreign state in question are not only not to be equated with U.S. interests but are seriously damaging those interests, whether through risking war with Iran, undermining efforts short of war to resolve differences with Iran, or associating the United States with a highly salient and unjust occupation.
Even with an alternative government that was less destructive (to Israel's own interests, let alone to those of the United States), the interests of the United States should not be equated with the interests of this foreign state any more than to those of Denmark, Thailand, Argentina, or any other foreign country, no matter what fondness individual citizens may feel toward those or other places.
Pillar goes on to mention the statements of the various Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) whose pledges to Israel are even more self-abnegating from an American point of view. He reserves special scorn for Newt Gingrich's top fundraiser (expected to soon move over to the Romney campaign), Sheldon Adelson, in which he said that he regretted serving in the U.S. military and not Israel's. But Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have all made clear that, to them, Israel is not a foreign country but an adjunct of the United States (perhaps near Florida).
The good news about these statements from the president and his opponents, if there is any, is that it is unlikely any of them are sincere.
I certainly do not believe that Obama, in any way, puts Israel's interests on par with that of the United States. Not even close. Frankly, I don't think the Republicans do either.
The ugly part is that these candidates believe that making such statements is necessary to please donors (and perhaps some voters). Where would they get that idea?
They get it from the various organizations (led by AIPAC) that constitute Binyamin Netanyahu's lobby in America and by members of the House and Senate who are its cutouts. (Check out AIPAC's website).
That is why Obama caved on the issue of Israeli settlements (going so far as to veto a United Nation resolution condemning them that consisted of the long-held U.S. position on settlements).
That is why we pulled out the stops to prevent the United Nations from recognizing a Palestinian state in land Israel occupies in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
That is why Obama insists that war with Iran remains "on the table" while unconditional negotiations with the Iranian regime have never even been contemplated.
And that is why it is quite possible that the United States could find itself at war with Iran either directly or because we are led by Israel into a joint military assault.
In the same article Pillar also noted that in the same interview, Obama said that in dealing with Israel on Iran, "We are going to make sure we work in lockstep." He commented:
If working in lockstep means that Israel defers to U.S. interests and preferences, that would be fine for the United States. But of course the deference nearly always works the other way around.
After all, it is America that is the superpower while Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world.
It should be said that the Israeli people (most of whom oppose war with Iran) do not not benefit from the supine position in which our politicians approach their right-wing government. As for the two Iran hawks running Israel's foreign policy, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, they can hardly be blamed if they view these statements as proof that the United State will not oppose anything they do between now and November. Additionally, they know that AIPAC has Congress well taken care of.
In short, Israel is freer to get us and itself into a war with Iran that will cost God knows how many lives and shock the world economy into deeper recession than it's in now. Knowing Netanyahu and Barak, it will be hard for them to resist this temptation when they see that they will get little or no resistance from Washington.
Om March 4, some 10,000 delegates from around the country will travel to Washington for AIPAC's annual conference. The president and some 350-400 members of Congress will be in attendance. (Candidates from both parties will raise huge sums of money in special side rooms deemed independent of AIPAC so that the organization can continue to claim that it does not fund candidates).
And the message the politicians will hear is that AIPAC is ready for war. If past is prologue, every reference to diplomacy by speakers from the president on down will be met by silence. Every reference to war will be met by standing ovations,
The government officials and candidates will go home happy to have pleased some key donors. The Israeli government officials will go home believing that America will back absolutely anything it chooses to do. As for the American people, they will barely know that any of this is happening.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
http://fwd4.me/0rxx
PLO Delegation to US Dismayed at New York Police Spying on Palestinians
WASHINGTON, (WAFA) - The General Delegation Of the PLO to the US is dismayed at the recent New York police document that called for spying on the Palestinian community, Tuesday said a statement by PLO office in Washington.
According to the statement, the Associated Press obtained a secret document from the New York Police Department (NYPD), calling for increased surveillance of the Muslim community and their mosques.
In particular, the document singled out the Palestinian community. “The Palestinian community, although not Shi’a, should also be assessed due to presence of Hamas members and sympathizers and the group’s relationship with the Iranian government,” the document said.
The targeting of law-abiding American citizens and the transgression of their civil rights through racial profiling is very troubling to say the least. Had this act of surveillance targeted another religious or ethnic minority in the US, it would not have been tolerated.
The Palestinian community has equal rights to religious freedom and privacy, and these rights must be respected and not transgressed.
PLO Delegation to US urges the officials in New York City to stop illegitimate acts of surveillance against Palestinians, and to hold accountable all those responsible for recommending the spying orders, the statement concluded.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=18925 14 feb 2012, 14:28 , Respect -
Maria 13 febr 2012
Army Officer’s Leaked Report Rips Afghan War Success Story
by Gareth Porter
IPS — An analysis by Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, which the U.S. Army has not approved for public release but has leaked to Rolling Stone magazine, provides the most authoritative refutation thus far of the official military narrative of success in the Afghanistan War since the troop surge began in early 2010.
In the 84-page unclassified report, Davis, who returned last fall after his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, attacks the credibility of claims by senior military leaders that the U.S.-NATO war strategy has succeeded in weakening the Taliban insurgent forces and in building Afghan security forces capable of taking primary responsibility for security in the future.
The report, which Davis had submitted to the Army in January for clearance to make it public, was posted on the website of Rolling Stone magazine by journalist Michael Hastings Friday. In a blog for the magazine, Hastings reported that “officials familiar with the situation” had said the Pentagon was “refusing” to release the report, but that it had been making the rounds within the U.S. government, including the White House.
Hastings wrote that he had obtained it from a U.S. government official.
Contacted by IPS Friday, Davis would not comment on the publication of the report or its contents.
Writing that he is “no Wikileaks guy Part II”, Davis reveals no classified information in the report. But he has given a classified version of the report, which cites and quotes from dozens of classified documents, to several members of the House and Senate, including both Democrats and Republicans.
“If the public had access to the classified reports,” Davis writes, “they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is true behind the scenes.”
Davis is in a unique position to assess the real situation on the ground in Afghanistan. As a staff officer of the “Rapid Equipping Force”, he traveled more than 9,000 miles to every area where U.S. troop presence was significant and had conversations with more than 250 U.S. soldiers, from privates to division commanders.
The report takes aim at the March 2011 Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, then the top commander in Afghanistan, and the Defence Department’s April 2011 Report to Congress as either “misleading, significantly skewed or completely inaccurate”.
Davis attacks the claim in both the Petraeus testimony and the DOD report that U.S. and NATO forces had “arrested the insurgents’ momentum” and “reversed it in a number of important areas”.
That claim is belied, Davis argues, by the fact that the number of insurgent attacks, the number of IEDs found and detonated and the number of U.S. troops killed and wounded have all continued to mount since 2009, the last year before the addition of 30,000 U.S. troops and 10,000 NATO troops.
Davis notes that Petraeus and other senior officials of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the U.S.-NATO command in Afghanistan, have boasted of having killed and captured thousands of insurgent leaders and rank and file soldiers, cut insurgent supply routes and found large numbers of weapons caches as well as depriving the insurgents of their main bases of operation since spring 2010.
If these claims were accurate measures of success, Davis writes, after the Taliban had been driven out of their strongholds, “there ought to have been a reduction in violence not a continual, unbroken string of increases.”
In fact, Davis writes, Taliban attacks “continued to rise at almost the same rate it had risen since 2005 all the way through the summer of 2011´´ and remained “well above 2009 levels in the second half of 2011´´ even though it leveled off or dropped slightly in some places.
Davis notes that total attacks, total number of IEDs and total U.S. casualties in 2011 were 82 percent, 113 percent and 164 percent higher, respectively, than the figures for 2009, the last year before the surge of 30,000 troops. The annual number of U.S. dead and wounded increased from 1,764 in 2009 to 4,662 in 2011.
The veteran Army officer quotes Congressional testimony by Adm. Mike Mullen December 2, 2009 as citing a lesser increase in Taliban attacks in 2009 of 60 percent over the 2008 level as a rationale for a significant increase in U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan, implying that the war was being lost.
Davis leaves no doubt about his overall assessment that the U.S. war effort has failed. “Even a cursory observation of key classified reports and metrics,” Davis concludes, “leads overwhelmingly to the conclusion that over the past two years, despite the surge of 30,000 American Soldiers, the insurgent force has gained strength….”
Davis is also scathing in his assessment of the Afghan army and police who have been described as constantly improving and on their way to taking responsibility for fighting the insurgents.
“What I saw first-hand, in virtually every circumstance,” writes Davis, “was a barely functioning organization – often cooperating with the insurgent enemy….”
Both in his longer report and in an article for Armed Forces Journal published online February 5, Davis recounts his experience at an Afghan National Police station in Kunar province in January 2011. Arriving two hours after a Taliban attack on the station, Davis asked the police captain whether he had sent out patrols to find the insurgents.
After the question had been conveyed by the interpreter, Davis recalls, “The captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.”
“No! We don’t go after them,” he quotes the captain as saying. “That would be dangerous!”
According to Davis, U.S. troops who work with Afghan policemen in that province say they “rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints”, allowing the Taliban to “literally run free”.
Describing the overall situation, Davis writes, “(I)n a number of high profile mission opportunities over the past 11 months the ANA (Afghan National Army) and ANP (Afghan National Police) have numerous times run from the battle, run from rumors, or made secret deals with the Taliban.”
The draft posted online notes after that statement that the classified version of the paper has been “redacted”, indicating that Davis provides further details about those “secret deals” in the classified version.
The Army dissenter calls on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to “conduct a bi-partisan investigation into the various charges of deception or dishonesty in this report….” He urges that such a hearing include testimony not only from senior military officials but from mid- and senior-level intelligence analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.
Both Senate and House Armed Services Committees have exhibited little or no interest in probing behind the official claims of success in Afghanistan. That passive role reflects what many political observers, including some members of Congress, see as cozy relationships among most committee members, military leaders, Pentagon officials and major military contractors.
It remains to be seen whether Davis’s success in raising the issue of misleading claims of success in a front-page New York Times story February 6 and in subsequent television appearances will bring pressure on those committees from other members to hold hearings on whether senior military officials are telling the truth about the situation in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military leadership in Afghanistan is brushing off Davis’s critique as having no importance. During a briefing in which he claimed continued steady progress in Afghanistan, Army Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, deputy commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, dismissed the Davis report as “one person’s view of this”.
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006. Read other articles by Gareth.
This article was posted on Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 8:00am and is filed under Afghanistan, Military/Militarism.
http://fwd4.me/0txa 15 feb 2012, 18:58 , Respect -
Maria 15 febr 2012
FBI Training Courses Full of Anti-Muslim Material, Group Discovers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiR7nrAox_4
WASHINGTON, (WAFA) – More than 700 documents and 300 presentations of material used by the United States Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBI) in its training courses included anti-Muslim information, the Washington-based American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) said in a press release published Wednesday.
It said that after a team of experts had reviewed more than 160,000 pages of documents related to FBI training material, more than 700 documents and 300 presentations have been deemed unusable by the Bureau and pulled from training curriculum.
This material was deemed to include factual errors, was in poor taste, considered stereotypical or lacked precision, said ADC.
FBI Director Robert Mueller informed members of the Arab and Muslim-American community and interfaith organizations in the US in a recent meeting he had with them of the decision to pull this material out.
The meeting was called for following reports of police and FBI trainees getting exposed to strong anti-Arab and anti-Muslim material.
“The conversation with Director Mueller centered on material used by the agency that depicts falsehoods and negative connotations of the Muslim American community,” said ADC.
“Mueller informed the participants that the FBI took the review of the training material very seriously, and he pursued the matter with urgency to ensure that this does not occur again in the future,” it said.
Abed Ayoub, ADC Legal Director, stated, “The steps taken by the FBI in addressing this serious matter are certainly welcomed. It is our hope that the Bureau continues to engage with stakeholders in addressing all issues of concern, and continues to work towards resolving these concerns.”
The meeting discussed other issues of concern to the Muslim American community including surveillance of mosques, said the statement.
ADC welcomed what it said were the changes proposed by the FBI to the training modules, describing them as a “first step in ensuring that such a mistake does not occur again in the future.”
http://fwd4.me/0uP0
Anderson Cooper Exposes 'Ex-Terrorist' Walid Shoebat as Fraud (CAIR)
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJN00dBhZVk
Anderson Cooper Exposes 'Ex-Terrorist' Walid Shoebat as Fraud (CAIR) part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Tzz51VYXg
Video: Anderson Cooper Exposes 'Ex-Terrorist' Walid Shoebat as Fraud (CAIR)
ISRAELI RESPONCE
CNN Gets it wrong AGAIN, and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikS6WSOuDWo
Walid Shoebat - What Muslims Don't Know About 'Islam'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkCI0bTMbGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TqPK5oYZBk -
Maria 23 febr 2012
2013 Budget: 'Difficult Cuts' for Americans, Jackpot for Israel
By Josh Ruebner
Speaking before students at Northern Virginia Community College on February 13, President Obama unveiled his 2013 budget request, in which he proposed "some difficult cuts that, frankly, I wouldn’t normally make if they weren't absolutely necessary. But they are." These budget cuts are unavoidable, the President argued, because "the truth is we're going to have to make some tough choices in order to put this country back on a more sustainable fiscal path."
In a sad commentary on the misplaced priorities of the Obama Administration, however, these "tough choices" will affect the delivery of basic services to U.S. citizens while the Israeli military hits the jackpot at taxpayer expense.
As part of its budget request, the White House released a 205-page document detailing the cuts, consolidations, and savings the Obama Administration is proposing.
These proposed cuts include $5 million to the USDA to analyze food-borne pathogens, potentially making the U.S. food supply even less safe than it already is after 30 people died last year after eating listeria-infected cantaloupe;
a $359 million cut to the EPA to provide grants to states for water infrastructure projects when an estimated 1.7 million Americans shockingly lack access to basic water and sanitation services according to the Water Infrastructure Network;
and a whopping $360 billion cut over ten years in Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs even though the World Health Organization rates the U.S. health system as only 37th globally in health care performance.
Given these "difficult cuts" to the budget, it is easy to agree with Israeli journalist Ran Dagoni, who wrote last year in the Israeli business newspaper Globes, that "the time has come to bid goodbye to the military aid that the US extends to Israel, that generous package..that enables the Israeli taxpayer to share the cost of procuring equipment for the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] with the US taxpayer."
After all, Israel – the 28th wealthiest country in the world in 2011, with a per capita gross domestic product greater than Korea and Saudi Arabia according to the International Monetary Fund – hardly needs U.S. charity more than we need safe food, clean water, and health care.
Yet, instead of reducing or even just freezing levels of U.S. military aid to Israel, President Obama wants to provide Israel with $3.1 billion of U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons next year, an increase from $3.075 billion in 2012, making the State Department’s claim that this budget request "maintains last year's record funding levels" for Israel both immodest and inaccurate.
By comparison, of the nine other Near Eastern countries receiving U.S. military aid, the budget request for eight of them is unchanged from last year’s budget while the request for Tunisia declined.
Were Israel using these weapons for legitimate purposes and to further U.S. foreign policy objectives, then perhaps a persuasive case could be constructed for why the United States does not need to make any budgetary "tough choices" when it comes to Israel.
However, Israel misuses U.S. weapons, in violation of U.S. laws, to commit grave and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians in furtherance of its 44-year military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip and its illegal colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
From 2000 to 2009, the United States provided Israel with more than $24 billion of military aid and delivered more than 670 million weapons, rounds of ammunition, and related military equipment. During that same period, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, Israel killed at least 2,969 Palestinians "who did not take part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces (not including the objects of targeted killings)."
Israel often kills Palestinians with these same U.S. weapons provided at taxpayer expense. Such was likely the case last December when an Israeli soldier fired a high-velocity tear gas canister at 28-year-old Mustafa Tamimi, a resident of the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, who was protesting against Israeli settlers seizing land on which his village's natural spring is located.
The canister, fired from an Israeli armored vehicle, struck the activist in the face. He died the next day from his wounds. Strong evidence exists that the tear gas canister that killed Mustafa was made by Combined Systems, Inc. of Jamestown, Pennsylvania and likely could have been one of more than 595,000 tear gas canisters and other "riot control" equipment, valued at more than $20.5 million, which were funded by U.S. taxpayers and given to the Israeli military between 2000 and 2009.
Not only does U.S. military aid to Israel make U.S. taxpayers complicit in Israel’s human rights abuses of Palestinians; it also acts as a disincentive for Israel to work in tandem with the Obama Administration to achieve stated U.S. foreign policy goals of freezing Israeli settlement expansion, ending Israeli military occupation, and establishing a Palestinian state and a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The United States cannot afford the moral and economic costs of providing ever-increasing amounts of U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel. In this era of "tough choices" for the budget, here is a clear-cut example of a subsidy that should be ended.
- Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and a former Analyst in Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service. This article was contributed to PalestineChronicle.com.
http://fwd4.me/0vAS
AIPAC '11 - Part 1 - with President Obama on TAPED WITH RABBI DOUG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2pMauquJo4
AIPAC '11 - Part 2 - with Benjamin Netanyahu on TAPED WITH RABBI DOUG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDwVadQ_hmw