"Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, pestilences and earthquakes in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (Matthew 24:8-9).
"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done" (Mark 13:30).
In
December 2007, a wide-ranging constitutional referendum to intensify
Venezuela's move toward socialism and to enable Chávez to serve
indefinitely as president was narrowly defeated. Chávez has clearly
announced his intentions: to continue transforming Venezuela into a
model for socialism in the 21st century. And unlike spurious accusations
in the U.S. that an expansion in healthcare is a step away from
democracy, a very real shift towards socialism is under way in
Venezuela. Major elements of the country's economy are already under
state control.
“The
Venezuelan oligarchy and multinational companies still have a firm grip
over the mass media, private industry and the banking system. They use
their ownership of these key levers in society in order to sabotage the
will of the majority and plot another reactionary coup...” - Grant-Woods, “Venezuelan Revolution in Danger,” 2004
By Kim Myong-chol, An Amercian Warning Originally Published on July 7, 2007
In light of the topic and the many aspects of this topic that I can talk about, I’m going to try and keep this to the point. After evaluating many different aspects of our “terrorist” problem… I thought I might share the fact that I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
THE NORTH KOREAN PROBLEM
Lately, you might have heard about North Korea’s sudden change of heart when it comes to shutting down their nuclear ambitions. They were so hard pressed to make sure this continued. And then out of nowhere, they decide to change their minds. First of all, I’m not buying it.
July 6, 2007, Reuters reported that North Korea has tested at least three short-range missiles over the past month, in what a U.S. expert has said were successful launches of an advanced weapon, adding to regional fears after it tested its first nuclear weapon last year. "In particular, North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile problems are becoming even more serious," the Defense Ministry said in its first annual paper since being upgraded from an agency in January.
And the words “more serious” should be examined by everyone. Just because all of the sudden North Korea says they are going to shut down their nuclear facilities doesn’t mean that Jong Il still isn’t a crazy dictator. It only means that they have a back up plan for their problems. Its zig n’ zag. We think they “zig” when really it’s a “zag.” One of the oldest tricks in the book.
That being said… I think it might be the time to point out some of the words of North Korea. Kim Myong Chol ("Unofficial" spokesman of Kim Jong-Il and North Korea.) said that “war is coming to American soil.”
Some might ask why would Kim Jong-Il be so anxious for such a battle. Ever since the Korean War, North Korea has been extremely bitter with the United States for separating the north and the south. Kim Jong Il wants to bring together North and South Korea under the umbrella of a confederated state.
A North Korean newspaper stated the following in 2005:
“Unlike all the previous wars Korea fought, a next war will be better called the American War or the DPRK-US War because the main theater will be the continental US, with major cities transformed into towering infernos. The DPRK is now the fourth-most powerful nuclear weapons state just after the US, Russia, and China.”
When President George W. Bush agreed on the 2009 transfer of wartime operational control over South Korean forces to the South Korean president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signaled the withdrawal of US troops with combat troops relocated from the front line to bases behind Seoul.
In North Korean words (same NK article):
“The title "the greatest iron-willed, brilliant commander" is reserved for Kim Jong-Il, who has led tiny North Korea to acquire the most coveted membership of the elite nuclear club, braving all the nuclear war threats, sanctions and isolation efforts on the part of the US. It is little short of a miracle that the leader has outmaneuvered and out powered the Bush administration against heavy odds.”
But the article continues: “Revealing are headlines of New York Times articles. One op-ed on February 9, 2005, by Nicholas Kristof, is headlined "Bush Bites His Tongue." The article says:
"There are two words the Bush administration doesn't want you to think about: North Korea. That's because the most dangerous failure of US policy these days is in North Korea. President Bush has been startlingly passive as North Korea has begun churning out nuclear weapons like hot cakes."
The fact is that the nuclear-armed North Korea is a major boon to China and Russia. Nuclear-armed, both Russia and China are friendless in case of war with the United States. The US has nuclear-armed allies, such as the UK, Israel and France. The Americans have a network of military bases around many countries, while both China and Russia have none with the exception of Iran, who will be ready in a matter of months.
The presence of a mighty nuclear weapons state in Korea should be most welcome to Russia and China. China has every reason to welcome a nuclear-armed North Korea, whatever it may say in public. The nuclear deterrence of North Korea is a major factor in reducing US military pressure on China on the question of the independence of Taiwan.
THE CHINA PROBLEM
"There are fears about the lack of transparency concerning China's military strength," a Japanese paper said, echoing similar sentiments expressed by its close regional security partner, Australia, in a paper published the previous day.
"In January this year China used ballistic missile technology to destroy one of its own satellites. There was insufficient explanation from China, sparking concern in Japan and other countries about safety in space as well as the security aspects," the paper said.
What’s important to note here is the roll that China plays and has been playing for sometime now. First of all, China could probably end the United States by the click of a button by simply letting go of all the American money they currently have. If they just let it go, it would probably bust our economic bubble in a matter of weeks. Many people who don’t believe that say “they need us too much.”
I would respond with “like hell they do.” China wants to be a world power. They pretty much are. They have an enormous population problem and, if I need to remind you, they are communists. They deal with the United States because we give them money. Furthermore, they are pretty much in bed with Russia, as established before. They buy so much of their military equipment from Russia… ships, bombs, subs, etc. In fact, they have similar designs in firearms; and I have a theory about that.
If you were a nation aligned with another… and you were eventually going to invade some other country together… wouldn’t it make sense to have almost identical weapons? I mean, if a soldier from one nation fell and a soldier from the other nation had to acquire his supplies… wouldn’t it make sense that the supplies would fit soldier two’s gear and equipment? Just a thought.
Furthermore, China isn’t exactly an ally of the United States. You might recall the fact that several times over the last 10 years, China has been buying military and intelligence secrets from double ops. In 2003, the Asia Times commented on the belief that China and the United States are in some sort of secret Cold War.
And as I stated earlier… Taiwan is an ally of the United States. US policy toward Taiwan is a serious concern for China. From Washington's standpoint, how to enable Taiwan to defend itself against growing Chinese military coercion remains a critical component of overall US strategy in East Asia. That strategy envisages strong alliance relationships, forward US military presence, and forestalling the rise of any major power that may challenge vital US interests. Within this broader context, the ability and resolve to help Taiwan defend itself not only fulfills key US obligations and commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act, but also demonstrates the resolve and credibility of the United States stance on China “acquiring” Taiwan back for its own.
THE RUSSIAN PROBLEM
Russia and United States have had a sketchy relationship for years. Russia only recently became a “democratic” nation and its current leader—President Putin—is a former KGB operative. KGB agents, just about the most communist outlaws to grace this planet. Personally, I don’t trust them; and in light of their extreme opposition to a European shield, and their gracious help in building nuclear facilities in Iran, the line is pretty clear where they fall concerning US interests. Additionally, it should also be noted that Russia has strong alliances with China, Venezuela and Cuba.
So now we have established a Russian/China/North Korean alliance of some sort. But we are forgetting a couple of heavy hitters here.
THE IRANIAN PROBLEM
Iran has been saying for some time now that they would love to see the end of the United States as well as Israel, a close ally to the US. Furthermore, Iran has stated that “soon the world will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime.”
These statements are hard to ignore considering the advancing programs of Iran’s nuclear ambitions that is only aided (if not started) by the Russians. But why would Russia help the Iranians… well I would answer for the same reason why China turns its head to North Koreas little endeavor. It will ease pressure off of them while they develop intercontinental ballistic missiles against treaties already set in place… but I digress.
Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. I personally find that hard to believe considering the fact that they undermine American forces everyday by training and supplying insurgents, and hold weekly rallies where the primary message is “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
Iran has stated that the war is coming and their nation is acting accordingly. Men, women and children are preparing for the US invasion. And so they should, because they only continue to advance their nuclear ambitions while the United States is doing everything it can to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the world. Iran is a severe issue no matter which way you cut the butter. This is totally recognized if you listen to the words of their leaders that are defiant in the face of UN sanctions and things of the sort. I could go on about Iran for days…
But then the issue becomes the alliances with Iran. It’s obvious that Russia has their's, but what about those alliances that hit a little closer to home?
THE VENEZUELA PROBLEM
Chavez has campaigned energetically to raise Venezuela's profile and counter what he calls US hegemony. He has already visited Iran and Belarus, which are sharply at odds with the United States; and he has formed “Anti-American” pacts with Iran, saying that the two oil rich nations could destroy the United States. This is something to consider being that Venezuela has already made alliances with North Korea.
Venezuela and North Korea are seeking stronger diplomatic ties as they move ahead with a plan to open embassies in Caracas and Pyongyang, the vice president of North Korea's parliament said (according to the Associated Press). Deputy Foreign Minister William Izarra received Yang Hyong Sop in Caracas and discussed the possibility of energy cooperation between Venezuela, the world's fifth largest oil exporter, and North Korea. "Opening embassies in our countries will create the possibility of further strengthening our relations," said Hyong Sop, according to a statement released by Venezuela's foreign ministry.
Since taking office in 1999, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has reached out to establish ties with African and Asian countries while relations with the United States have grown tense. Chavez, a self-proclaimed "revolutionary" with close ties to Cuban leader Fidel Castro, says his government is establishing what he calls "21st-century Socialism" in this South American country.
So now we have established ties between Iran and Venezuela. Now we need to look at the next connection.
THE CUBA PROBLEM
Cuba is roughly 95 miles away from the United States. Cuba, being a very outspoken anti-American country, has strong ties with Venezuela. The main problem here is that Cuba could potentially be a staging point for ANY anti-American regime. Enough said.
THE TOTAL PICTURE
So let’s break this down.
North Korea is very anti-American and has ties with Venezuela, Iran, China and, by way of China, Russia.
Iran is backed and supported by North Korea and Venezuela, and gets its nuclear “help” from Russia. Additionally, Iran (through North Korea and Russia) would have support from China.
China and the United States are having more and more problems everyday.
Russia and United States are having more and more problems everyday.
Russia develops a new intercontinental ballistic missile against treaty (and in secret); then announces to the world that they have a missile that can defeat ANY shield; then states that they want to “re-negotiate” the treaty and that if we don’t want to come to the table, they are just going to walk away from the whole thing.
Then after Bush states that he wants to build a shield over Europe to protect our allies from Iran, Russia all of the sudden has a huge problem with it. Find that fishy?
It's obvious that the US and Iran don't get along, and that the US and North Korea don't get along, and anyone who pays attention to the news knows that the US doesn't get along with Cuba or Venezuela that well.
Let’s not forget the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was spawned from Russia during President Kennedy’s time in office. Once again, Cuba is very anti-American.
And all of these nations would benefit in full to see the United States fall from grace, because then they would be a world power and their influence would dominate the globe much as the United States has for the last 200 years or so.
So here is a scenario. Considering that the IAEA has stated that Iran is under a year away from nuclear power (atomic weapons) and considering the fact that the president of Iran has stated that the world will see the destruction of Israel very soon… I present the following…
Iran nukes Israel. The United States would in turn come down on Iran. Russia would in turn come down on the United States. The United States returns. China steps in to help Russia. Britain would have no choice at this point but to step in and help the United States. Venezuela would invade the US from the south because we will, at that point, be attacking all of their “friends” and using Cuba as a staging point, as well as Mexico (considering our border situation). North Korea will have already launched against Japan, South Korea and Australia, which would keep our allies in that part of the world pretty busy but would also split China’s resources, considering that they help their friends to their south.
From there it’s hard to say, as far as I’m concerned. If anything was left, it would pretty much be a free for all. The scary thing is, it doesn’t seem too hard to believe. The sad thing is that many Americans can’t see this threat and refuse to see it. They want to continue helping out the enemy by living in this “nothing can hurt us” world and trying to aide the enemy by crying about all of the “innocent” people who might die during war. I say “innocent” because I’m sure the majority of the “innocent” people are not all that innocent.
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and many more… hate you for everything you stand for. It’s not just our president. It’s our flag, it’s our freedoms, it’s our values, and more.
The war with Iran is coming. THEY are making sure of it. I only pray that people can heed this American Warning and not be blind sighted when it goes down.
Anyway… I could go on and on… and probably will as soon as I write the outline. I just think it’s important to know that alliances have been made and our problems don’t rest in the hands of one nation. The picture is bigger than that.
Things to know:
Distance from Cuba to Florida – roughly 95 miles Distance from Cuba and Venezuela – roughly 848 miles Distance from Iran to Israel – roughly 988
2004—Iran – 350,000 active troops with 12,285,000 available 2005—Venezuela – 100,000 active troops with 4,907,947 available
Kim Myong-chol is author of a number of books and papers in Korean, Japanese and English on North Korea. He is executive director of the Center for Korean-American Peace. He has a PhD from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Academy of Social Sciences and is often called an "unofficial" spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea.
Is Pakistan responsible for the Mumbai attack in India? No.
Is India’s repression of its Muslim minority responsible? No.
Is the United States government responsible? Yes.
The attack on Mumbai required radicalized Muslims. Radicalized Muslims resulted from the US overthrowing the elected government in Iran and imposing the Shah; from the US stationing troops in Saudi Arabia; from the US invading and attempting to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, bombing weddings, funerals, and children’s soccer games; from the US violating international and US law by torturing its Muslim victims; from the US enlisting Pakistan in its war against the Taliban; from the US violating Pakistan’s sovereignty by conducting military operations on Pakistani territory, killing Pakistani civilians; from the US government supporting a half century of Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their lands, towns and villages; from the assault of American culture on Muslim values; from the US purchasing the government of Egypt to act as its puppet; from US arrogance that America is the supreme arbiter of morality.
As Justice Brandeis said, crime is contagious. Government teaches by example, and America’s example is lawlessness. America’s brutal crimes against the Muslim world have invited every Muslim to become a law unto himself—a revolutionary. It is not terror that Washington confronts but revolution.
By illegal, uncivilized and undiplomatic behavior, the US has stirred Muslim peoples from their long slumber as serfs of Western colonial powers. Some Muslims have had all that they can take, and their fury drives them to rouse a billion of their fellows to throw off the yoke of foreign hegemony.
The arrogant incompetence of American governments brought this conflict to the American people and inflicted it upon the world. By destabilizing Pakistan, the US lost a puppet and created an opportunity for Muslim revolutionaries to exploit. By enraging India against Pakistan, the Mumbai attack has created new problems for Pakistan that will focus that government’s attention away from combating Taliban sanctuaries on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. If the US picks up the slack, it will have invaded yet another country and become trapped in a larger quagmire.
Having fomented terrorism, the American government now pretends to be the innocent victim, just as Israelis, having brought about terrorism by driving Palestinians from their homes and villages, pretend to be innocent victims.
Today European members of NATO, an outdated organization formed to defend Western Europe against Soviet invasion, are sacrificing the lives of their soldiers fighting the American Empire’s war in Afghanistan. If America continues to have its way, Europeans will soon be dying in Ukraine, Georgia, and Iran.
The American government, which preaches “freedom and democracy,” has in the 21st century gone to great extremes to stamp out the US Constitution and the civil liberties that it guarantees. The US government has repudiated the Geneva Conventions and the prohibitions in US statutory law against torture. The US government has set aside habeas corpus, the ancient legal principle guaranteed by the US Constitution that prohibits governments from holding people in prisons without presenting charges. The US government has broken the laws of other nations by kidnapping foreign citizens and transporting them to other lands to be tortured.
These massive crimes have been justified in the name of the “war on terror.” In truth, America’s crimes foment revolution.
It was the US government that created the “war on terror,” which has been used to murder, which disposses millions of Iraqis and Afghans to imprison US citizens as if they were medieval serfs, and which squanders three trillion dollars for the sole purpose of enriching Halliburton and the military-security complex.
Investigative journalist John Pilger has shown that the so-called “moral superiority of the West” is a hoax designed to shield from view the self-seeking West’s crimes against humanity.
Obama promised change from this destructive behavior, but how does change arise when the most arrogant woman on earth is appointed Secretary of State, and the rest of the new government is staffed with tried and true Likudniks and servants of the military-security complex?
The change over which Obama will preside will have no American victories. The change will come from America as a failed state, from the dollar dethroned as reserve currency, from America repudiated by its allies and paid puppets, from massive unemployment for which there is no solution, from hyperinflation that produces anarchy.
The day might arrive when Washington is faced with revolution at home as well as abroad.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Bin Laden Urges Jihad- (Reuters) In a recording aired by Al Jazeera television, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden accused moderate Arab leaders of plotting with the West against Muslims and urged his followers to prepare for jihad (holy war). "It is clear that some Arab leaders have plotted with the Zionist-crusader coalition against our (Muslim) people, these (Arab countries) the United States calls the moderate states," bin Laden said, without naming any of the leaders. "We must seriously work and prepare for jihad to enforce the right and abolish the wrong," bin Laden said in the audio recording that was aired on Saturday. Bin Laden, who made a similar call for jihad on January 14, described Israel’s offensive in Gaza and its attacks on the Palestinian territory as a "holocaust" and said militants wanting to help Gazans should support Iraqis fighting U.S.-led forces and Baghdad’s government.
Satan's Zionist Movement: Antithesis of World Peace
Elie Wiesel explained to Charlie Rose that Obama invited him to join the Presidential tour of Buchenwald in Germany; and that he was not scheduled to speak on June 5, 2009, but, at the last minute, Obama asked him to be the final speaker (Wiesel's impromptu speech in the video above).
For thousands of years there was no conflict in Palestine. In the 19th century, the land of Palestine was inhabited by a multicultural population of Palestinian Arabs—approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish. For centuries these groups lived in harmony.
In the late 1800s, a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as "Zionists," this group consisted of an extremist minority of the Jewish population (and some non Jews) who wanted to create a Jewish homeland. They considered locations in Africa and the Americas before settling on Palestine, where the Jewish State of Israel was established in 1948.
Largely due to one-sided special-interest lobbying by AIPAC, the U.S. has given more funds to Israel than to any other nation: $85 billion in grants, loans and commodities since 1949, with an additional $50 billion in interest costs for advance payments, for a total cost of $135 billion or $23,240 per Israeli. During fiscal year 2007, the U.S. gave an average of $7 million per day to the State of Israel.
Albert Pike, 33° Mason,"Three World Wars" "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the 'agentur' of the 'Illuminati' between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other." -Pike's 1871 Letter to Giuseppe Mazzini
Zionism can be defined as a political movement among an extremist minority of the Jewish population (although supported by some non-Jews) which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel.
Christians are troubled when injustice is committed. We are especially troubled when it is perpetuated through the appropriation of Christian theology for ideological purposes. One such misappropriation is commonly referred to as Christian Zionism.
Christian Zionism may be defined either broadly or narrowly. Broadly speaking, it designates any Christian support for the national revival movement of the Jewish people realized through the establishment of the modern State of Israel (historically known as Zionism). More narrowly defined, Christian Zionism is an ideology grounded in beliefs which considers the State of Israel to be divinely ordained and scripturally determined with a central role in ushering in the end of history, where unconverted Jews and unbelievers (including Christians who are considered to be of questionable status) are judged by God’s wrath. It is the narrower form that causes immediate concern.
There are a number of reasons why this narrow ideological form of Christian Zionism raises concerns for the member communions of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Among these are the following:
It is a movement with negative consequences for Middle East peace
Christian Zionism, in its narrow ideological form, encourages political advocacy committed to preserving control over all of historic Palestine for Jewish people alone, including the West Bank and Gaza strip, to ensure the realization of the movement’s own end-times hopes. This ideological approach rejects any peace process built on a negotiated settlement towards a two-state solution to the conflict. Leading advocates of this ideology have formed themselves into oftentimes very public and well-funded political action groups whose aim is to prevent any negotiations that may lead to a two-state solution to the conflict.
It fosters fear and hatred of Muslims and non-western Christians
Prominent spokespersons for Christian Zionism are known for promoting negative stereotypes of Muslims and Middle Easterners, including Middle Eastern Christians. They often accuse these Christians of siding with Muslims against the U.S. and the State of Israel in a cosmic battle of good and evil, thus questioning their Christian faithfulness. Rather than fostering understanding and cooperation with neighbors, ideological Christian Zionism often teaches Christians in the U.S. to harbor suspicion and enmity towards Muslims and non-westernized Christians. When it does so, the movement negates Christ’s command to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39).
It can lead to the dehumanization of Israelis and Palestinians
Because Christian Zionism bases support for the State of Israel on its supposed role in the end of history, its adherents tend to treat Israelis and Palestinians not as neighbors to be loved, but as pawns in a cosmic drama of divine vengeance and retribution. The conclusion of this drama involves the death of all non-Christians, including Jews, through apocalyptic warfare or divine judgment. Given these beliefs, even many Jews wonder if the movement promotes proper Jewish-Christian relationships and question the nature of the movement’s support for Israel.
It is not based on traditional teaching or doctrines of the Church
Christian Zionism and its theological presuppositions are nineteenth-century innovations in Christian doctrine. The most prominent spokesperson for these beliefs was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). Although the advocates of Christian Zionism and its underlying theology sometimes claim to base their beliefs on ancient understandings, generally scholars recognize these to be recent innovations.
Evangelical Christians are concerned
Ideological Christian Zionists sometimes claim that they speak on behalf of all American evangelicals. This is not so. Many evangelicals in the U.S. do not want to be identified as ideological Christian Zionists. Several prominent evangelical spokespersons have spoken out strongly against this ideology, recognizing how it contradicts the central commitments of Christianity to justice and peace-making. Many question its theological assumptions.
Christians in the West must ask themselves questions about the influence of Christian Zionism in U.S. public opinion. It grieves the member communions of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA to note that many Christians visiting the land of Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection are not even aware of the existence of Arab Christians, and do not have opportunities to interact with local Christian communities. One step toward addressing this concern is for Christians in the West to become better aware of Christian Zionism and its effects, including the history, theology, and forms of biblical interpretation underlying this ideology. Please take the time to learn what this movement is all about, get involved, and continue to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6).
"Although there are those who refuse to accept the teachings of our rabbis and will continue to support the Zionist state, there are also many who are totally unaware of the history of Zionism and its contradiction to the beliefs of Torah-True Jews. From its inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to God should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis."
"We were given the Holy Land by God in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, 'Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu'—'Because of our sins, we were expelled from our land.'"
"We have been forsworn by God 'not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time;' 'not to rebel against the nations;' to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour; not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; 'not to leave exile ahead of time.' On the contrary, we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. To violate the oaths would result in 'your flesh will be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest,' and the redemption will be delayed."
By Mariefli Perez-Stable, McClatchy Newspapers April 10, 2009
Cuba and Venezuela have often crossed paths. In the early 1960s, Havana abetted armed groups against democratically elected Venezuelan governments. Meddling in Venezuela's affairs, in part, determined Cuba's 1962 suspension from the Organization of American States. Caracas and Havana stood at irreconcilable odds afterward.
By the early 1970s, Cuba's foreign policy made a U-turn. With the failure of guerrillas, Havana largely embraced diplomacy. It was a fortuitous pivot that led Cuba down the path of a world-class foreign policy.
Under Rafael Caldera (1969-1974), Venezuela also changed. Left-wing parties, which had supported Havana's meddling, were legalized. Caldera likewise opened a dialogue with the English-speaking Caribbean that had looked askance at Caracas's hostility toward Havana.
In 1975, Carlos Andres Perez (1974-1979) normalized relations with Cuba. Embassies were opened and trade resumed. Thanks to a Caracas-Moscow agreement, Cuba imported Venezuelan oil while the former Soviet Union supplied Caracas' clients in Europe. Though subsequent presidents strayed from Perez's track, Venezuela never restored a policy of confrontation.
As president again from 1989-93, Perez again improved relations with Cuba. In 1992, little-known colonel Hugo Chavez staged a failed coup against Perez that landed him in jail. Havana quickly congratulated Perez in surviving the coup. When freed in '94, however, Chavez traveled to Havana where Fidel Castro gave him a hero's welcome.
Carlos A. Romero, a professor at Venezuela's Universidad Central, wrote a handy overview of Cuba-Venezuela relations in the last 50 years. Chavez's election was a godsend for Cuba, which at last had a true ally in the Western Hemisphere. Romero analyzes Venezuelan-Cuban ties in two stages: between 1999 and 2004 when the bilateral relationship consolidated and since 2004 when the two countries crafted a regional strategy.
Their decade-long closeness has been mutually beneficial. Since 2005, Venezuela sends Cuba a daily lifeline of 100,000 barrels of oil at subsidized prices. Bilateral trade grew from $388 million in 1998 to $7.1 billion in 2007. Havana in 2007 provided Caracas with the services of 39,000 Cubans, including 31,000 health professionals. The remaining 8,000 presumably include political and security advisors instrumental in Chavez's blueprint for gutting democracy from within. Appearances to the contrary, Venezuela is also dependent on Cuba.
Founded in 2004, ALBA—the Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America - is the cornerstone of the joint regional strategy to counter free-trade agreements with the United States. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Dominica and, most recently, Honduras have joined ALBA. Still, Nicaragua and Honduras are members of the CAFTA-DR, the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States FTA. In 2007, Chavez added the need for a regional security strategy built on:
-Excluding the United States from any regional defense council
-Diversifying military purchases and technical assistance
-Forging closer ties with China, Russia, Iran and other U.S. rivals.
There might be a lot less than meets the eye in this strategy. In a recent visit to China, Chavez ranted about U.S. imperialism, which Beijing promptly disowned. Russia is readily seeking a renewed military presence in the region, which Cuba hasn't embraced.
If Iran responds to the Obama administration's offer to dialogue, Venezuela may be left with a short-stick strategy.
What awaits the decade-old alliance between Cuba and Venezuela?
-One scenario points the relationship continuing on its present terms. Yet, oil prices are cutting into Venezuela's largess in the region, even if Cuba might be the last tosuffer.
-A second scenario entails a certain distance between the two countries if Cuba under Raul Castro opens the economy and eases tensions with the United States. Rumors abound about the Cuban Armed Forces mistrust of their Venezuelan colleagues.
-Changed domestic circumstances in Cuba or Venezuela is a third scenario. While Havana and Caracas can't fathom a future without revolution, history is often like an old mole who surfaces unannounced, for good or ill. I'm glad; otherwise, writing columns would be boring.
Marifeli Perez-Stable is vice president for democratic governance at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, a professor at Florida International University and a columnist for the Miami Herald.
Global Security Originally Published on March 19, 2008
Iranian moves to solidify ties with Venezuela, Bolivia and other leftist governments in Latin America have sparked increasing concern in the United States. From Miami, VOA's Brian Wagner reports the growing Iranian ties reflect shared political and economic goals and anti-American sentiment.
At first glance, Iran seems to have little in common with Latin America. Trade and economic relations are rare, and the two regions have different cultural and religious traditions. But Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has found common ground with leftist leaders critical of the United States and its policy goals around the world.
To help build alliances, Iran has signed a series of economic deals with Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. This week, Bolivia and Iran agreed on joint projects worth $1 billion, including the installation of three Iranian-backed television channels in Bolivia.
Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says the agreements are driven by Iran's political interests, and not economic ones.
"That is why we see all these economic cooperation deals signed, which make no economic sense whatsoever," he said. "But both sides deeply believe in them, and both sides deeply believe in the spread of world revolution."
Clawson says projects like the construction of a new seaport in Nicaragua will have little economic benefit for Iran, but he says Iranian support may help generate political support across the region.
Clawson and Latin America experts spoke at a conference at the University of Miami about Iran's growing influence in Latin America.
University of Miami professor Jaime Suchlicki said Iran and its allies are seeking to nurture other like-minded politicians across Latin America. He says recent Iranian support for candidates in Latin American elections has raised concern about the impact on democracy.
"They are taking advantage of democracy in Latin America," he said. "They support candidates and friends at all levels and try to bring them to power. So the main challenge in Latin America is how to deal with growing Iranian influence within a democratic framework."
Iran's key partner in the region has been Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a fierce critic of the United States. Experts say the Iranian and Venezuelan leaders have used their nations' oil wealth to finance international projects and build new relationships around the world.
Mr. Chavez has backed Iranian plans to begin issuing oil contracts in euros, not U.S. dollars, because of the falling price of the dollar against the euro. Financial experts say the move could weaken the value of the dollar and hurt the U.S. economy.
Jose Azel is a senior research associate at the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies.
"That is a very sophisticated and dangerous position that Iran and now Venezuela seems to be backing," he said.
Azel says Iran's growing involvement in Latin America is complicating U.S. ties to the region, which have been strained by the war in Iraq and other policy differences. He says Washington recently has been seeking to engage Latin America in an effort to counter the leftist influence.
"The [U.S.] administration has negotiated a number of trade deals with Latin America," he noted. "And [President] Bush has actually visited Latin America more than any other president in U.S. history."
President Bush is currently backing a free trade agreement with Colombia, which administration officials say will help counter leftist influence in the region. The pending trade deal with Washington's close ally may not, however, be enough to ease concerns over Iranian influence in Latin America. Experts say Washington will face a diplomatic struggle as long as Iran continues to offer economic aid and political support to potential allies.
The Chinese are not fools. They can clearly see that the U.S. will try to devalue our way out of our financial mess. They are going to put the $500 billion of USD holdings to work, before it becomes worthless.
Recent examples reported by the Washington Post have been:
On Feb. 12, China's state-owned metals giant Chinalco signed a $19.5 billion deal with Australia's Rio Tinto that will eventually double its stake in the world's second-largest mining company.
On Feb. 17 and 18, China National Petroleum signed separate agreements with Russia and Venezuela under which China would provide $25 billion and $4 billion in loans, respectively, in exchange for long-term commitments to supply oil.
On Feb. 19, the China Development Bank struck a similar deal with Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company, agreeing to a loan of $10 billion in exchange for oil.
Iran announced that it had signed a $3.2 billion agreement with a Chinese consortium to develop an area beneath the Persian Gulf seabed that is believed to hold about 8 percent of the world's reserves of natural gas.
The Chinese have a long-term plan to rule the world. They are buying up natural resources throughout the world. The walls are closing in on the U.S. The U.S. solution is to print more dollars, borrow from future generations, and tax their citizens more. Ben Bernanke has rolled the dice, but the fear is in his eyes, not our enemies’. We will shortly realize that our castles were built upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand.
And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them (Revelation 9:13-16).
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty (Revelation 16:12-14).
By Noah Shachtman, Wired Danger Room April 17, 2009
For a year and a half, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been trying to get the military establishment to focus on the guerrilla wars we're in today—instead of hypothetical showdowns with another big power tomorrow. But this morning, at the Naval War College, Gates had a subtle message for the gathered sailors, marines, and soldiers: Don’t forget about China, either.
In recent years, Beijing's buildup of quiet, diesel electric submarines and advanced, super-sonic cruise missiles has been met with increasing worry in some corners of the Pentagon and Congress. Gates, for the most part, has been seen as outside that camp. Today, however, the Defense Secretary warned that "we know other nations are working on ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet—whether by producing stealthy submarines in quantity or developing anti-ship missiles with increasing range and accuracy. We ignore these developments at our peril."
Gates never mentioned China by name. Instead, he referred only to the "risks posed by the military forces of other state actors" looking to "deny the U.S. military freedom of movement and action." He also warned of "potential adversaries" building weapons that "threaten" America's "bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them." In military circles, such talk usually implies the Chinese.
Since Gates announced his radical overhaul of the Pentagon's arsenal, his critics have accused him of something close to unilateral disarmament, in the face of China's stockpiling of weapons. American Enterprise Institute analyst Tom Donnelly, for one, accused the Defense Secretary of ignoring a "persistent pattern of provocation by the Chinese military."
Of course, the American arsenal still dwarfs that of any potential foe, including China. Gates noted that the U.S. "battle fleet, by one estimate, is still larger than the next 13 navies combines—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners." That's "why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one is aiming to bankrupt themselves by challenging the U.S. to a shipbuilding competition."
But Gates warned that the source of America's strength at sea—her massive aircraft carriers and destroyers—could be a point of vulnerability, too. The loss of even one of these multi-billion dollar ships "would be a national catastrophe," he noted. In World War II, the Royal Navy lost two of its capital ships in part because British admirals "had little appreciation [for] the threat posed by a single, air-delivered torpedo." Gates didn't have to warn the American officers assembled here too loudly not to make the same mistake.
US/China Education.U.S. Education Secretary Signs Partnership with Chinese Communists Who Put Dissidents in Re-Education Camps: "U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has signed a formal educational partnership agreement with the Peoples Republic of China... The documents signed by both Secretary Duncan and Zhou Ji include, among other items, the following initiatives: '...Consultation with the higher education community (academic institutions and organizations) take place on direct collaboration with China or the United States that includes the sharing of best teaching practices and deepening of existing ties....'
"Leading human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize-nominee Harry Wu... said the United States cannot learn anything from the Communist Chinese educational system.... The State Department’s Human Rights Report on China, dated Feb. 25, 2009, states that the Chinese government... continued to ... detain citizens for possession of unauthorized religious texts, imprison citizens for religious activities determined to be ‘extremist’....
"...the XUAR government would carry out ‘preemptive attacks,’ implement ‘antiseparatist reeducation’ across the region, and increase policing of religious groups.'"
China and Communism.China Orders Tightened Internet Controls: "The rules ban online videos that harm national stability, 'instigate hatred between ethnic groups' or 'maliciously disparage' the nation's police or armed forces, a notice on the government's main website said.... Chinese authorities have a history of blocking websites they deem politically unacceptable or offensive, and their censoring of the Internet has created a so-called 'Great Firewall of China.'"
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a walkout from his speech to a U.N. racism summit on Monday when he accused Israel of establishing a "cruel and repressive racist regime" over the Palestinians.
The summit had already been badly undermined by a boycott by the United States and some of its major allies over concerns that it would be used as a platform for attacks against Israel.
The boycott left Ahmadinejad, who has in the past cast doubt on the Nazi Holocaust, as the only head of state in attendance. His speech produced the kind of language that the Western countries and Israel had feared.
"Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," Ahmadinejad told the conference, on the day that Jewish communities commemorate the Holocaust.
"And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine," he said, according to the official translation.
"And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."
Dozens of diplomats in the audience promptly got up and left the hall for the duration of the speech. "Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a U.N. anti-racism forum," said British ambassador Peter Gooderham, whose country chose not to send a minister to Geneva.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store told the conference after Ahmadinejad had spoken that his words amounted to incitement to hatred. He said Iran had made itself the odd man out by undermining agreement on a conference declaration. "Norway will not accept that the odd man out hijacks the collective efforts of the many," he said.
FEARS OF CONTROVERSY
Eight Western nations including the United States were avoiding the entire meeting, fearing it would be dominated by what U.S. President Barack Obama called "hypocritical and counterproductive" antagonism toward the Jewish state.
However, a number of the delegations that remained behind applauded Ahmadinejad's speech.
Arab and Muslim attempts to single out Israel for criticism had prompted the United States to walk out of the first U.N. summit on racism, in South Africa in 2001.
Although the declaration prepared for the follow-up conference does not refer explicitly to Israel or the Middle East, its first paragraph "reaffirms" a text adopted at the 2001 meeting which includes six paragraphs on those sensitive issues.
U.S. President Barack Obama, the first African-American leader of the United States, said on Saturday that Washington wanted a "clean start" to engage with the United Nations on the issues to be tackled at the meeting.
Rupert Colville, spokesman for Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights who convened the meeting, said she deplored the language used by Ahmadinejad. "This speech was completely inappropriate at a conference designed to nurture diversity and tolerance," he said.
Earlier Pillay had urged participants to do all they could to ensure the declaration is adopted at week's end. She said this was necessary to restore confidence in the United Nations as a forum to address frictions that can explode into xenophobic attacks, as occurred in her native South Africa last year, when 62 foreigners were killed.
"We all should be mindful that a failure to agree on the way forward would negatively reverberate on the human rights agenda for years to come," Pillay said at the meeting's opening.
UPI reports not only that Israel will bomb Iran later this year, but also that “many now assume” that Iran will then retaliate against Persian Gulf states such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia.
Gulf States Fear Iranian Attack The UPI report states that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Oman have deployed Patriot missile batteries along the Persian Gulf to deflect incoming Iranian missiles. The members of the Gulf Cooperation Council are “getting ready for what many now assume will be retaliation from Iran following Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities later this year,” UPI reports.
It has been reported in the past that Iran has trained secret networks of agents in the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event that the U.S. or Israel attacks it. Sleeper cells of teachers, doctors and nurses trained by Iran are ready to be activated when necessary, it is claimed.
“Such a scenario,” the Telegraph recently reported, “would bring chaos to the Gulf, one of the few areas of the Middle East that remains prosperous and has largely pro-Western governments.”
Other reports say that Iran would launch a “missile blitz” against the Gulf states if attacked by Israel or the U.S. Qatar, Bahrain and Oman all host important American military bases as well as British forces.
US: Gates Says Israeli Attack Won’t Work At the same time, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed concern about an Israeli attack and tried to downplay its effectiveness. Gates told a group of Marine Corps students this week that an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear program would probably delay Tehran's nuclear program by only one to three years. He added that such an attack would "cement [Iran’s] determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them.”
Iran has registered a protest against perceived Israeli threats to attack it. Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammad Khazaee sent a letter on Tuesday to the UN Security Council denouncing Israel’s "unlawful and insolent" threats. He said the threats violated international law and the U.N. Charter, and urged the UN to respond.
Obama vs. Yesha Israel largest newspaper, Yediot Acharonot, reported on Thursday that the Obama Administration is hinting that if Israel gives up Judea and Samaria (Yesha), the U.S. would help in dismantling the Iranian nuclear threat. The paper reports that Administration officials are speaking of a “Bushehr in exchange for Yitzhar” plan, implying that if Israel gives up Yitzhar and the other approximately 170 Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria, the U.S. will help in neutralizing Iran’s Bushehr and other nuclear plants.
Obama vs. Israel The paper further reports that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s hard-hitting Jewish Chief of Staff, recently told a Jewish leader in Washington, “In the next four years, there will be a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, based on ‘two states for two peoples,’ and we couldn’t care less who the Prime Minister is.”
The message from Israel's new prime minister is stark: if the Obama administration doesn't prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, Israel may be forced to attack.
The Atlantic March 31, 2009
In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.
“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”
History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”
But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East.
“This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”
Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals.
In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work.
“I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.”
When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said:
“Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”
He went on, “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”
Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior.
Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash… It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”
He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.
Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack.
“The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.
Both Israeli and American intelligence officials agree that Iran is moving forward in developing a nuclear-weapons capability. The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, said earlier this month that Iran has already “crossed the technological threshold,” and that nuclear military capability could soon be a fact:
“Iran is continuing to amass hundreds of kilograms of low-enriched uranium, and it hopes to exploit the dialogue with the West and Washington to advance toward the production of an atomic bomb.”
American officials argue that Iran has not crossed the “technological threshold”; the director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, said recently that Israel and the U.S. are working with the same set of facts, but are interpreting it differently. “The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view,” he said. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, recently warned that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would undermine stability in the Middle East and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf.
The Obama administration agrees with Israel that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to Middle East stability, but it also wants Israel to focus on the Palestinian question. Netanyahu, for his part, promises to move forward on negotiations with the Palestinians, but he made it clear in our conversation that he believes a comprehensive peace will be difficult to achieve if Iran continues to threaten Israel, and he cited Iran’s sponsorship of such Islamist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas as a stumbling block.
Ya’alon, a former army chief of staff who is slated to serve as Netanyahu’s minister for strategic threats, dismissed the possibility of a revitalized peace process, telling me that “jihadists” interpret compromise as weakness. He cited the reaction to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza four years ago.
“The mistake of disengagement from Gaza was that we thought like Westerners, that compromise would defuse a problem—but it just encouraged the problem,” he said. “The jihadists saw withdrawal as a defeat of the West… Now, what do you signal to them if you are ready to divide Jerusalem, or if you’re ready to withdraw to the 1967 lines? In this kind of conflict, your ability to stand and be determined is more important than your firepower.”
American administration sources tell me that President Obama won’t shy from pressuring Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue during his first visit to Washington as prime minister, which is scheduled for early May. But Netanyahu suggested that he and Obama already see eye-to-eye on such crucial issues as the threat posed by Hamas.
“The Obama administration has recently said that Hamas has to first recognize Israel and cease the support of terror. That’s a very good definition. It says you have to cease being Hamas.”
When I noted that many in Washington doubt his commitment to curtailing Jewish settlement on the West Bank, he said, in reference to his previous term as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999, “I can only point to what I did as prime minister in the first round. I certainly didn’t build new settlements.”
Netanyahu will manage Israel’s relationship with Washington personally—his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, of the anti-Arab Israel Beiteinu party, is deeply unpopular in Washington—and I asked him if he could foresee agreeing on a “grand bargain” with Obama, in which he would move forward on talks with the Palestinians in exchange for a robust American response to Iran’s nuclear program. He said:
“We intend to move on the Palestinian track independent of what happens with Iran, and I hope the U.S. moves to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons regardless of what happens on the Palestinian track.”
In our conversation, Netanyahu gave his fullest public explication yet of why he believes President Obama must consider Iran’s nuclear ambitions to be his preeminent overseas challenge.
“Why is this a hinge of history? Several bad results would emanate from this single development. First, Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella. This raises the stakes of any confrontation that they’d force on Israel. Instead of being a local event, however painful, it becomes a global one. Second, this development would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.
“Third, they would be able to pose a real and credible threat to the supply of oil, to the overwhelming part of the world’s oil supply. Fourth, they may threaten to use these weapons or to give them to terrorist proxies of their own, or fabricate terror proxies. Finally, you’d create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area—nearly all the Arab regimes are dead-set opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. They fervently hope, even if they don’t say it, that the U.S. will act to prevent this, that it will use its political, economic, and, if necessary, military power to prevent this from happening.”
If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Netanyahu asserted, Washington’s Arab allies would drift into Iran’s orbit.
“The only way I can explain what will happen to such regimes is to give you an example from the past of what happened to one staunch ally of the United States, and a great champion of peace, when another aggressive power loomed large. I’m referring to the late King Hussein [of Jordan]… who was an unequalled champion of peace. The same King Hussein in many ways subordinated his country to Saddam Hussein when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Saddam seemed all-powerful, unchallenged by the United States, and until the U.S. extracted Kuwait from Saddam’s gullet, King Hussein was very much in Iraq’s orbit. The minute that changed, the minute Saddam was defeated, King Hussein came back to the Western camp.”
One of Iran’s goals, Netanyahu said, is to convince the moderate Arab countries not to enter peace treaties with Israel. Finally, he said, several countries in Iran’s neighborhood might try to develop nuclear weapons of their own.
“Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The Middle East is incendiary enough, but with a nuclear arms race it will become a tinderbox,” he said.
Few in Netanyahu’s inner circle believe that Iran has any short-term plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv, should it find a means to deliver it. The first-stage Iranian goal, in the understanding of Netanyahu and his advisers, is to frighten Israel’s most talented citizens into leaving their country.
“The idea is to keep attacking the Israelis on a daily basis, to weaken the willingness of the Jewish people to hold on to their homeland,” Moshe Ya’alon said. “The idea is to make a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews unattractive for them. They are waging a war of attrition.”
The Israeli threat to strike Iran militarily if the West fails to stop the nuclear program may, of course, be a tremendous bluff. After all, such threats may just be aimed at motivating President Obama and others to grapple urgently with the problem. But Netanyahu and his advisers seem to believe sincerely that Israel would have difficulty surviving in a Middle East dominated by a nuclear Iran. And they are men predisposed to action; many, like Netanyahu, are former commandos.
As I waited in the Knesset cafeteria to see Netanyahu, I opened a book he edited of his late brother’s letters. Yoni Netanyahu, a commando leader, was killed in 1976 during the Israeli raid on Entebbe, and his family organized his letters in a book they titled Self-Portrait of a Hero. In one letter, Yoni wrote to his teenage brother, then living in America, who had apparently been in a fight after someone directed an anti-Semitic remark at him.
“I see… that you had to release the surplus energy you stored up during the summer,” Yoni wrote. “There’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s too bad you sprained a finger in the process. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with a good fist fight; on the contrary, if you’re young and you’re not seriously hurt, it won’t do you real harm. Remember what I told you? He who delivers the first blow, wins.”
The most powerful Jewish lobby in America is facing an unprecedented threat from a rival pro-peace pressure group that is vying for the ear of President Barack Obama.
By Leonard Doyle, Telegraph April 18, 2009
For the past 25 years, the influential and hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has helped thwart every US presidential effort to deliver Middle East peace on terms it was unhappy with. The lobby’s legendary stranglehold over US foreign policy is now receding with the rise of J Street, which describes itself as the “political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement”.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s executive director, said: “We want to give a voice to the majority of the American Jewish community that is liberal and open and isn’t supportive of settlements, opposed the Iraq war and isn’t keen on a war with Iran.”
J Street recently released a YouTube video, complete with threatening sound effects, which condemned the “incendiary and racist” campaigning tactics of Israel’s new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Even activists were stunned by the boldness of the attack.
It argues that despite the liberal sympathies of most Jewish Americans, a narrow group of Right-wingers have skewed the debate over Israel in the US. While American Jews will reflexively support Israel if they feel the security of the state is threatened by an enemy like Iran, a majority is also in favour of a “two-state solution” for Israel and the Palestinians and favours diplomacy over military force. More than 78 per cent of American Jews supported Mr Obama in November’s US election.
In the past, however, many senators, congressmen and presidential candidates who favour an end to settlements and certain blueprints for a negotiated two-state solution have been afraid to incur the wrath of Aipac.
J Street’s rise to prominence comes as the Obma administration is preparing to lock horns with Israel’s new hardline government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who is due to meet the US president in Washington next month.
The meeting may also prove to be the first time in decades that a US president engages in a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that the settlement activity - including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions - does to the peacemaking process.
Thanks to J Street’s video, the mood in the US towards Mr Lieberman is now so hostile that he may not even come to Washington.
J Street, which marked its first anniversary last week, was founded with the specific aim of ending Aipac’s influence over US foreign policy. J Street alleges that Aipac has needlessly prolonged the Middle East conflict and its activities are not in the best interests of either Israel or America. Aipac which rarely seeks publicity, declined to discuss J Street or its aims with the Sunday Telegraph.
Initially staffed by just three three people and run on a shoestring budget, J Street’s name is a reference to their Jewish roots and to Washington’s nearby K Street, the epicentre of America’s vast political lobbying industry and home of Aipac.
It started out modestly hoping to raise about $50,000 from pro-peace American Jews, which they intended to channel to a handful of congressional candidates who were willing to directly challenge Israel’s policies and withstand pressure from Aipac. Instead, they managed to raise about $600,000, securing victory for dozens of Democrats and a few Republicans in the 2008 elections. J Street claims that 33 of the 41 candidates it backed won their seats.
Alone among Jewish groups, J Street sharply criticised Israel’s recent military offensive against Hamas in Gaza.
“While there is nothing 'right’ in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing ’right’ in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them,” the organisation told its members.
In twelve months J Street has mushroomed, becoming Washington’s leading pro-Israel political action committee. Its success has surprised founding members like Joel Rubin, who expected Aipac to act more aggressively to try to snuff out the new organisation, perhaps by leaning on its major donors.
“They missed an opportunity and it is too late now,” he said.
Using sophisticated online organising techniques, fundraising and YouTube attack videos - as Mr Obama did in his run for the White House - the peace lobby has managed to outmanoeuvre the better funded Aipac.
It attracted more than 100 co-sponsors in Congress for a resolution welcoming Mr Obama’s appointment of the former Northern Ireland peace negotiator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy. Aipac has remained conspicuously silent about Mr Mitchell’s appointment.
“The notion that 100 members of Congress are willing to sign on is a real accomplishment,” said Mr Ben-Ami. “We’re not changing the world, but it’s a signal that things are shifting.”
J Street’s budget is expected to double to $3 million in its second year, and like the Obama election campaign it is now focused on recruiting on US college campuses.
Few expect J Street to rival Aipac’s $80 million purse and vast influence among US politicians and policymakers soon, however.
Jon Alterman, who runs the Middle East programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said:
“Aipac has found a way over a half-century to tremendously energise people about their mission.
“Can J Street build a donor base who believe that it is something that is vital in the way that Aipac does? I don’t know if that’s possible.”
Not all American liberal Jewish leaders are enthusiastic about J Street. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, condemned its position on the Gaza invasion as “morally deficient”, “appallingly naive” and “out of touch” with mainstream Jewish opinion.
North Korea has begun fuelling a long-range rocket and could launch it by the weekend, CNN said, with the United States and others promising punishment for a move they say violates U.N. resolutions.
North Korea has said it plans to send a satellite into orbit from April 4-8, but the United States, South Korea and Japan say the launch is a disguised test of the long-range Taepodong-2 missile, which is designed to carry a warhead to U.S. territory.
The fuelling signals North Korea is in the final preparation stages for the launch, CNN quoted U.S. military officials as saying in Washington in a report monitored in Seoul on Thursday. Officials in Seoul could not confirm the report.
The launch will be the first big challenge for U.S. President Barack Obama in dealing with the prickly North, whose efforts to build a nuclear arsenal have long plagued ties with Washington.
In London on Wednesday, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity on the sidelines of a G20 meeting, said Washington would respond to any North Korean launch by raising the matter in the U.N. Security Council.
"The president made clear we are deeply concerned about the prospective missile launch by the North Koreans... There will be a reaction to it," the official said.
The three and other global powers said the launch would violate U.N. Security Council resolutions imposed after the earlier exercise in 2006. North Korea has said it is putting a satellite into orbit as part of its peaceful space program.
Any attempt to punish North Korea will infuriate Pyongyang, which has threatened to restart a plant that makes arms-grade plutonium and quit nuclear disarmament talks if the United Nations takes action.
Analysts said they expect China, a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council and the closest thing Pyongyang can claim as a major ally, to block any new sanctions or attempts to tighten the enforcement of existing ones.
"The North Korean people need this. If you have a military first regime (like North Korea's), it has to been seen as doing something. You are going to need these spectacular displays of North Korean defiance of the outside world," said Brian Myers, a professor at South Korea's Dongseo University and a specialist in the North's state ideology.
Several missile-interceptor ships with sophisticated radar from Japan, the United States and South Korea are expected to be in waters along the rocket's flight path over Japan but there are no plans to intercept it unless it threatens their territories.
U.S. spy satellites constantly monitor the launch site in the northeast corner of North Korea. Weather for the area is expected to be partially cloudy from Saturday.
This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
For thousands of years there was no conflict in Palestine. In the 19th century, the land of Palestine was inhabited by a multicultural population of Palestinian Arabs—approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish. For centuries these groups lived in harmony.
