Israël assassine des présumés terroristes en sol américain

 

ISRAEL'S NEW POLICY OF TERRORISM ON AMERICAN SOIL
Joe Sansone

A recent UPI report outlined Israel’s new policy of assassinating suspected terrorists on American soil. In other words, Israel is now going to officially carryout terrorism on U.S. soil.

Isn’t that what murder is? As an American citizen you cannot murder, why should agents of a foreign government have any such right in your country?

The UPI report read, “Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International.” UPI claims to have verified this information with a dozen informants. The report goes on to say that Israel will go forward with this policy, “even if it risks complications to Israel's bilateral relations."

Such a policy by Israel that has no regard for the national sovereignty of the United States requires a reevaluation of an existing allied relationship. It is a callous disregard for not only the laws of the United States, but also the security, safety, and rights of its citizens.

What Israel terms as targeted assassinations is really the commencement of a low-grade war against its enemies. By carrying out acts of war on American soil, Israel will be committing acts of war against the United States.

Bringing its war to America, Israel is endangering the lives of Americans, including American Jews. Surely, as Israel’s campaign of terror is carried out against its enemies, there will be retaliatory action in the United States by Islamic militants. Are synagogues and Jewish schools immune from such horror? They will likely be the first targets. While less than three percent of Americans are Jews, and respectively three percent are Muslims, do we want them battling it out in our streets?

By proclaiming its license to kill on American soil, Israel places itself on the list of rogue nations diametrically opposed to the United States. Terrorism may be acceptable in the third world. It is not acceptable in the United States. This policy by definition is state sponsored terrorism. Maybe there should be weapons inspectors taking a look at Israel’s nuclear program next?

How exactly do we determine the innocence of the murdered victims? Since Israel now has no regard for the nation where it murders perceived terrorists, it is safe to say that they would also have no regard for the nationality of the alleged terrorist. What if some of them are American citizens? Are we going to allow a foreign nation to murder U.S. citizens too?

The UPI report also says, “Israeli hit teams, which consist of units or squadrons of the Kidon, a sub-unit for Mossad's highly secret Metsada department, would stage the operations”. If Israeli hit teams are in place in the United States, what will prevent them from targeting U.S. officials that aren’t willing to send billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel? Far fetched, not really when we’re talking about a nation that is openly planning terrorism in the United States.

Yes, openly, because a story this sensitive would have never leaked unless it was meant to be leaked.

If Israel is going to have a policy of terrorism on U.S. soil then it is not only plausible that it will kill American citizens that it considers to be enemies, but it is also likely that they will attack American targets and try to blame it on the enemies of Israel.

It’s bad enough that according to a PBS Transcript Senator Graham of the Select Committee On Intelligence said that classified evidence reveals that foreign governments were involved in the September 11th attacks. Now another nation is threatening to expand its terrorism to America.

No ally of the United States can commit act on war on its soil. Theoretically Israeli hit teams could already be here. Remember the DEA report last year about hundreds of Israeli spies posing as art students and stalking federal agents that were deported by the U.S. government. If Islamic terrorist cells may already be here it is entirely possible that Israeli hit squads are in place.

The U.S. should immediately pull all foreign aid, both monetary and military assistance from Israel. Immigration should be halted across the board, but especially from Middle Eastern countries, including Israel. Israeli citizens must be deported immediately.

If the United States does not have the political will to protect and defend its sovereign territory, then it does not have a right to exist, and probably won’t.

Either UPI fabricated the report and manufactured the Israeli government informants quoted in it or Israel is an enemy of the United States.

The Bush administration should send a clear signal that if Israel carries out acts of terrorism in the United States then war will follow.

Joe Sansone is the founder and president of USA Daily as well as a weekly columnist.



Video: Groupes terroristes juifs racistes d'Israël

 


State to be allowed to declare foreign groups terrorists
By Shahar Ilan
25/11/2007

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee will begin deliberating new regulations Sunday that would enable the authorities to declare foreign organizations and citizens terrorists.

These regulations are designed to conform to international declarations on terrorism used by the United Nations and in the West.

Two years ago, the Knesset legislated a ban on funding terrorism, which is punishable by a 10-year term in prison and the confiscation of property belonging the the convicted organization or individual.

There has been a long delay in presenting the new regulations to the approval of the Knesset, which stems in part from disagreement between security officials over who or what constitutes a terrorist.

The security authorities would like to be the ones to decide who is a terrorist, and this issue has not been resolved. At this stage, the authority deciding the issue is the "one appointed by the prime minister."

Another point of contention remains between the state and the banks, and the method through which the authorities will inform the financial institutions that they have declared someone "terrorist."

The regulations do offer guidelines for the following: the details that will be included in the declaration of a person or an organization as "terrorist"; the ways such information will be released; the ways an appeal may be filed.

According to the regulations, whoever is declared a terrorist or a terrorist organization will be informed about this only after a declaration is made. This will allow them to appeal the decision but not defend themselves against the declaration.




Canada places U.S., Israel on torture watch list

Israeli Assassinations, Haaretz, Jan 20 2008

Ministers call for assassination of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, Haaretz, 20/01/2008

Israël en guerre contre Gaza

Bande de Gaza: Incursion de chars et de bulldozers israéliens (AP) 11/12/2007

Pourparlers de paix Israël-Palestine, attentats-suicide à prévoir

L'ABC du Sionisme

Un ministre Israélien annule son voyage à Londres de peur d'y être arrêté pour crimes de guerre

Dichter nixes U.K. trip; fears arrest for 'war crimes'
By Barak Ravid

Public Security Minister Avi Dichter canceled a trip to Britain over concerns he would be arrested due to his involvement in the decision to assassinate the head of Hamas' military wing in July 2002.

Fifteen people were killed in the bombing of Salah Shehade's house in Gaza, among them his wife and three children, when Dichter was head of the Shin Bet security service. He is the first minister to have to deal with a possible arrest.

Dichter was invited to take part in a conference by a British research institute on "the day after" Annapolis. He was supposed to give an address on the diplomatic process.

Dichter contacted the Foreign Ministry and sought an opinion on the matter, among other reasons because of previous cases in which complaints were filed in Britain and arrest warrants were issued on suspicion of war crimes by senior officers who served during the second intifada.

The Foreign Ministry wrote Dichter that it did not recommend he visit Britain because of a high probability that an extreme leftist organization there would file a complaint, which might lead to an arrest warrant. The ministry also wrote that because Dichter was not an official guest of the British government, he did not have immunity from arrest.

Dichter's bureau said in response that the minister does not intend to go to Britain on any type of official or unofficial visit until the matter of the arrest warrant is resolved.

Dichter was already charged in a civil suit in the United States in 2005 for his part in the decision to assassinate Shehade. But in this U.S., this is not a cause for arrest.

British law, however, states that a private individual can file a complaint against another person for offenses such as war crimes. According to the law, such a complaint might lead to the court issuing an arrest warrant, or a summons to criminal investigation or clarification of the complaint by the police, or even the opening of criminal proceedings.

Dichter is the first minister to face this problem, which has mainly affected senior officers in the Israel Defense Forces. Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, formerly chief of staff, encountered a similar problem when he traveled to Britain in 2002 before becoming defense minister. Other officers in a similar predicament included former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon and former GOC Southern Command Doron Almog.

In September 2005, Almog flew to London and found that a British police officer was waiting in the terminal with an arrest warrant. Almog remained on the plane and returned to Israel to avoid an embarrassing incident.

Israel has brought up the subject over the past few weeks with the British government. Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni demanded in separate meetings with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband that the British government work seriously to change the law that harms former IDF officers. Miliband said his government was working on the matter but did not promise anything.

After the incident in which Almog was almost arrested, a joint foreign ministry-justice ministry team worked to hire a major law firm in London to represent Israeli officers if they were arrested.

Senior officials met with a number of the most prominent London firms, some of which offered to provide the service pro bono. But none of the firms were hired, and the idea was set aside.

Israeli minister cancels London trip on arrest fears, AFP Jerusalem, Dec 6 2007

Psychopathy Alert! Israel is obstructing humanitarian work in Palestine, Palestinian Information Center, 17 Dec 2007

Professeur de torture: Dershowitz à la défense du "waterboarding"

by Mike Whitney
Counterpunch
Friday, 14 December 2007

Dershowitz for the Defense--of Waterboarding

Alan Dershowitz is a crafty debater, a capable attorney and a ferocious defender of Israel. He is also a Harvard professor and a former member of OJ Simpson's legal defense called the Dream Team.

An article by Dershowitz appeared on op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal on November 7, 2007, titled "Democrats and Waterboarding". In that article Dershowitz makes a spirited defense of waterboarding, going so far as to say that (he believes) the Democrats "will lose the presidential race if it defines itself as soft on terror." Dershowitz thinks the Democrats are headed for trouble if they assume the "pacifistic stance" that he identifies with Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. By using Moore and Sheehan as examples; it is clear that Dershowitz accepts the media's attempts to dismiss them as part of an imaginary "leftist fringe".

Instead, Dershowitz holds up ex-New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as an example of a candidate whose popularity has steadily grown because of his "tough" stance on national security issues. Dershowitz uses the "national security" hobgoblin in the same way as Bush; to justify government activities that conflict with our existing laws and basic principles. It is a neat bit of lawyerly footwork, but unconvincing.

In Dershowitz's defense, it is true that he does not approve of "the routine use of torture", but only in the rare situation when it might be useful in gaining " preventive intelligence information about imminent acts of terrorism--the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario." But, who decides? Do we bestow this authority on men who have already proven to be untrustworthy---on men who have already created an industrial scale system of torture in black sites around the world? Who do we trust with these new powers?

And how do we know when a so-called "terrorist suspect" is a terrorist at all? Are we being asked to forgo due process and the presumption of innocence along with our revulsion to cruel and inhuman treatment?

Dershowitz's loves to use the "ticking time-bomb" scenario and trots it out at every opportunity. It is a very persuasive argument, until one really examines the implications. Jose Padilla was supposedly a "ticking time-bomb", wasn't he? According to the earliest public statements by the Bush administration, Padilla had smuggled a nuclear device or "dirty bomb" into the country and was planning to use it in a terrorist attack against American civilians. But it wasn't true. The government had fabricated the entire story and kept him in prison without charges for over 4 years on claims that were manifestly false. The Bush administration has never offered an explanation for their lies.

Padilla's attorney has produced convincing evidence that he was repeatedly tortured in prison and was, thus, driven insane. And for what? The government knew that he was not involved in a terrorist plot to kill Americans. Under Dershowitz's regime, Padilla's treatment would be entirely justified. Is that what we want?

The "ticking time-bomb" argument is a way of challenging our core values. It's a test. It's like asking, "How much are we really willing to sacrifice for the sake of our beliefs? Are we willing to risk our lives and the lives of the people we love ?" Or are we ready to "throw in the towel" and hand the government even greater and more lethal powers hoping that they'll keep us safe?

In Dershowitz's book, "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age", he says:

"No torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge....An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it....The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life."

It's shocking that a respected author and attorney would actually qualify the type of needles ("sterile") that can be used while conducting torture. Can we see how outrageous this is?

The excerpt proves that Dershowitz advocates torture. The support for "torture warrants" is support torture. Period. It doesn't matter if the torture is limited to extreme cases or not. It's barbarism. More importantly, it is barbarism that is vindicated by the state.

Dershowitz has been defending his position on torture for more than 4 years. Here are his comments in 2002 from the op-ed page of the SF Chronicle :

"If American law enforcement officers were ever to confront the law school hypothetical case of the captured terrorist who knew about an imminent attack but refused to provide the information necessary to prevent it, I have absolutely no doubt that they would try to torture the terrorists into providing the information.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans would expect the officers to engage in that time-tested technique for loosening tongues, notwithstanding our unequivocal treaty obligation never to employ torture, no matter how exigent the circumstances."

"Want to Torture; Get a Warrant", SF Chronicle 2002)

Dershowitz is mistaken. According to every survey conducted in the last 5 years, the majority of American people are overwhelming opposed to torture and-I dare say---they are equally opposed to cops who take the law into their own hands and "engage in that time-tested technique for loosening tongues." What Dershowitz is suggesting here is deadly serious and paves the way for routine abuses of power and police brutality. It is a wonder that the Bar hasn't stepped in and chastised him for his public stance on this issue.

Dershowitz's logic is also flawed. His argument can be reduced to this: "The cops are going to torture anyway, so let's give them the green light by providing them with "torture warrants"? Isn't that what he is saying?

This is from the same article:

"Every democracy, including our own, has employed torture outside of the law....Throughout the years, police officers have tortured murder and rape suspects into confessing -- sometimes truthfully, sometimes not truthfully."

Again, this is poorly argued. Dershowitz is using the same feeble defense that schoolchildren use when they're caught breaking the rules: "Everyone else was doing it." That is not an acceptable defense for torture.

Finally, Dershowitz offers this threadbare excuse for waterboarding:

"There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works---it only produces false information. This is simply not true,as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives."

Dershowitz is invoking the classic "ends justifies the means" defense, but not very cogently. What difference does it make if the information that is extracted through "physical coercion" is of some utility or not if the system you are trying to defend has been obliterated by your actions? It doesn't require a finger-wagging patriot or a moralizing scold to see that state-sanctioned torture means the end of the republic. There is no such thing as "legal torture". It is a contradiction in terms. Torture is an assault on the fundamental rights of man and the rule of law. It is one of "red lines" that we don't cross because on the other side is tyranny.

There are certain basic assumptions upon which our country was founded and the entire legal and political system rests. These are our core beliefs; they are not facts. That's why the preamble of the Constitution reads: "We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT" because the founders posited that these beliefs did not require proof among civilized people. Among those "assumptions" is the idea of "inalienable rights" and the intrinsic value of man. Inalienable rights can't be casually swept away by a presidential signing statement or a congressional edict legalizing "torture warrants" any more than the Congress can haphazardly repeal habeas corpus by passing the Military Commissions Act. That's beyond their "pay grade". These officials weren't elected to rewrite the Constitution, but " to preserve, protect and defend" it to the best of their ability. These core principles cannot be changed without destroying the country itself.

Is that the hidden agenda here; to reshape the nation according to an ethos that is more disposed to autocratic government?

The Constitution isn't a security blanket. If we want to minimize the number of terrorist attacks on American citizens or US institutions; we should stop using war as an implement of foreign policy. As Noam Chomsky says, "The best way to stop terrorism; is stop committing it." That's good advice. We ought to put that on a billboard in front of the White House so the occupants can mull it over every day on their way to work.

Dershowitz's ruminations on waterboarding offer nothing constructive as far as national security is concerned. It just more demagoguery.

I agree with Dershowitz that "waterboarding cannot be decided in the abstract." Nor has it been. It has been thoroughly researched and condemned under the Geneva Conventions, the US military, and every human rights organization on earth. The issue has already been decided. It is torture, pure and simple, and no amount of legalistic gibberish changes a thing.

There's another reason for rejecting torture besides the fact that it is morally abhorrent, or because it conflicts with our reading of the Constitution, or even because it abrogates the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to attorney, habeas corpus and every other principle to which we claim to adhere.

The real reason that torture should be rejecte is because it confers more authority on the state than is prudent for the safety and welfare of "We the people". The state is now"and has always been"the greatest threat to human rights and civil liberties. That's truer today--in our post 9-11 world--than ever before. The state is the natural enemy of personal freedom.

Dershowitz's polemic has nothing to do with his alleged interest in the security of the American people. That's hogwash. It is an attempt to expand the authority of the state by softening public attitudes towards torture. It's a blatant power-grab, pure and simple; and should be repudiated by anyone who grasps its true meaning.

Le Conseil talmudique d’Israël a statué : "En temps de guerre, même des enfants ennemis peuvent être exterminés"

par Khalid Amayreh
7 aout 2006

Le Conseil talmudique des rabbins et des sages de la Torah, connu sous le nom de "Yesha", qui représente les colonies juives de la Cisjordanie et de Jérusalem occupées, a statué qu’il est permis, et même souhaitable, de viser et d’exterminer les civils non-juifs en temps de guerre.

Le dernier édit du conseil, publié mardi sur le site web israélien "Ynetnews" du journal Yediot Aharonot, a déclaré que "selon la loi juive, en temps de guerre, il n’existe pas de ’civils innocents’ [dans le camp] de l’ennemi".

"Toutes les discussions sur la moralité chrétienne affaiblissent l’esprit de l’armée et de la nation et nous coûtent le sang de nos soldats et civils", dit le texte.

Le même conseil a publié une décision semblable il y a deux semaines, en conseillant à l’armée israélienne "d’exterminer l’ennemi" et de "ne pas hésiter à massacrer les civils ennemis".

Le conseil décrit comme de la "moralité chrétienne" les conventions internationales et lois interdisant de prendre délibérément pour cibles les civils en temps de guerre.

Il a appelé "mitzvah", ou bonne action, la prise pour cible et le massacre des civils ennemis.

Selon des sources israéliennes, une grande partie du camp non-laïc israélien, qui inclut les puissants mouvements religieux et nationalistes-religieux, ont exprimé une profonde satisfaction pour le deuxième massacre de Cana, qui a eu lieu le 31 juillet avec pour conséquences la mort de 60 ( ?) civils libanais, 37 d’entre eux étant des enfants et des bébés.

L’armée israélienne avait tout d’abord prétendu que des combattants du Hezbollah se trouvaient à l’intérieur du bâtiment de 3 étages visé par l’armée de l’air israélienne.

Cependant, les commandants militaires israéliens ont changé leur récit de l’atrocité le mardi 2 août, reconnaissant qu’ils n’avaient aucune preuve que des combattants de la résistance étaient parmi les civils massacrés dans le bombardement.

Quelques fonctionnaires israéliens ont fait des excuses pour le carnage, faisant de la peine aux rabbins et aux sages talmudiques qui soutiennent qu’Israël ne devrait pas faire d’excuses pour le massacre des civils ennemis, puisque, selon la Halacha (la loi religieuse juive), il n’y a aucune chose telle que des civils et des innocents en temps de guerre.

Même les enfants des ennemis peuvent être massacrés. Ce n’est pas la première fois que de telles décisions sont publiées. Il y a presque deux ans, un groupe d’éminents rabbins a conseillé à l’armée israélienne de "ne pas hésiter à massacrer les civils palestiniens, enfants inclus".

Dans une lettre à Shaul Mofaz, alors ministre de la défense, les rabbins, qui représentent le courant dominant du judaïsme orthodoxe, ont écrit que "tuer les civils est chose normale en temps de guerre" et que l’armée israélienne "ne devrait pas hésiter à tuer les civils non-Juifs pour sauver les vies juives".

"Le précepte Chrétien : ’tendre l’autre joue’ ne nous concerne pas, et nous ne serons pas impressionnés par ceux qui préfèrent les vies de nos ennemis à nos vies", disait la lettre, signée par des douzaines des rabbins, dont Haïm Druckman, un ancien membre de la Knesset dirigeant d’un grand mouvement religieux de jeunesse connu sous le nom de Bnei Akiva Society.

Parmi les autres signataires on trouve : Elizer Melamed, dirigeant de l’école supérieure religieuse de Cisjordanie ; Youval Sharlo, dirigeant de l’école supérieure talmudique de Petah Tikva, qui combine les études talmudiques et le service militaire d’active ; et Dov Lior, le rabbin de Kiryat Arba près de Hébron.

Lior, qui avait appelé Baruch Goldstein, le juif meurtrier de masse, un "grand saint", a soutenu "qu’il est très clair à la lumière de la Torah que les vies juives sont plus importantes que les vies non-Juives".

"Un millier de vies non-Juives ne valent pas l’ongle d’un juif"

Le 25 février 1994, Goldstein assassina 29 Palestiniens innocents qui priaient dans la Mosquée d’Ibrahim au centre de Hébron.

Les vies juives ont plus de valeur

Les édits talmudiques qui encouragent l’armée israélienne à prendre pour cible des "civils ennemis" se basent sur plusieurs injonctions talmudiques aussi bien que sur des passages de l’Ancien Testament, dans lesquels les israélites sont chargés par Yahvé de massacrer chaque homme, femme et enfant de la terre de Canaan et de ne pas laisser un seul être en vie.

De fait, beaucoup de rabbins juifs partisans du ciblage de civils ennemis en temps de guerre s’appuient sur des passages bibliques tels que Josué 6-20 :

"Le peuple poussa des cris, et les sacrificateurs sonnèrent des trompettes. Lorsque le peuple entendit le son de la trompette, il poussa de grands cris, et la muraille s’écroula ; le peuple monta dans la ville, chacun devant soi. Ils s’emparèrent de la ville, (6:21) et ils passèrent au fil de l’épée tout ce qui était dans la ville, n’épargnant ni hommes, ni femmes, ni enfants, ni vieillards, jusqu’aux bœufs, aux brebis et aux ânes."

Il y a aussi de nombreux passages indubitables du Talmud babylonien qui voient les non-juifs comme des animaux dont la vie a peu ou pas d’importance.

Le Premier ministre israélien Ehud Olmert a publiquement déclaré en juin que "les vies juives ont plus de valeur que les vies non-Juives".

Des édits talmudiques de ce type ne devraient pas être traités légèrement.

En effet, avec presque 50% d’officiers de haut rang de l’armée israélienne endoctrinés par l’idéologie talmudique et affiliés au "camp nationaliste-religieux", les édits talmudiques ne risquent pas de tomber dans des oreilles de sourds au sein de l’armée israélienne.

Ceci devrait expliquer, au moins partiellement, les brutaux massacres de civils libanais et palestiniens par l’armée israélienne sans le plus léger remords ou scrupule.

Video: Groupes terroristes juifs racistes d'Israël

Le népotisme des Murdoch à News Corp.

Qui commande les médias?

Saviez-vous que ce sont majoritairement des Juifs sionistes! (en anglais)

Prenez par exemple la famille de milliardaires Bronfman à la tête de l'empire Seagrams.

Les Murdoch, Bronfman, Oppenheimer (diamants) et Rothschild, ce sont eux qui possèdent les grands médias - les plus enclins à la propagande...

Rupert Murdoch: Propaganda Recruit for Reagan, by Robert Parry
L'ultra-sioniste Rupert Murdoch (de mère juive et de racines juives du côté paternel) possède News Corporation (FOX News, Harpercollins, New York Post, etc.).

NewsCorp board of directors

News Corp to sell 8 U.S. TV stations for $1.1 bln, Dec 22 2007

News Corp. prend le contrôle de Dow Jones

Rupert Murdoch [News Corp] passe la main à son fils James, PerfomanceBourse.com 17/12/2007

James Murdoch steps up as News Corp heir apparent
REUTERS, Dec 7 2007

Murdoch's steward picked for key Dow Jones role
REUTERS, Dec 7 2007

Murdoch son to lead News Corp Asia, Europe: source
Dec 6, 2007
By Kenneth Li

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Rupert Murdoch's younger son James will take over News Corp's (NWSa.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Asian and European operations, according to a source familiar with the matter, in a move that appears to position him as the global media empire's heir apparent.

James Murdoch, 34, will step down as chief executive of satellite television operator British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc (BSY.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and become its nonexecutive chairman. BSkyB's Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Darroch is expected to get the CEO job, the source said on Thursday.

In his new role, James will control News Corp's international broadcasting, print and Internet divisions from Asian satellite television operator Star TV to Sky Italia.

"This is grooming James for a larger role longer term at News Corp," Pali Research analyst Richard Greenfield said. "He has proved himself beyond a doubt over the last several years at BSkyB."

His return to News Corp addresses long-held investor concern over who will take over the media and communications conglomerate from the 76-year-old mogul.

Rupert Murdoch's older son, Lachlan, 36, was once a top executive at News Corp and viewed as the heir apparent, but he left the company in 2005 to start a new venture, Illyria.

Like his father, who built one of the world's biggest media companies from two newspapers in Australia, James Murdoch has a reputation for being a risk taker and aggressive deal maker.

Although accused of nepotism in 2003 when he was named CEO of BSkyB, James has gotten high marks from analysts and shareholders for expanding the company from a TV service into broadband and digital phone services.

But his competitive style has also made him a target of regulators. He leaves BSkyB engaged in three regulatory investigations, including one by Britain's Competition Commission for the company's 2006 purchase of a 17.9 percent stake in commercial broadcaster ITV (ITV.L: Quote, Profile, Research). The Commission has said the stake restricts competition.

BSkyB is also engaged in legal action with Virgin Media Inc (VMED.O: Quote, Profile, Research), its nearest pay TV rival, over basic channels. News Corp owns a 39 percent stake in BSkyB.

SAME CLOTH

The news of the changes, which were first reported on the Guardian's Web site, comes a week before News Corp closes its $5.6 billion deal to buy The Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co Inc. (DJ.N: Quote, Profile, Research)

Tall and smoothly charming, James Murdoch had played a key role during strained negotiations with Dow Jones's controlling Bancroft family, fanning speculation then that he would be his father's successor.

Rupert's daughter Elisabeth, 39, was also once considered a leading candidate because of her reputation as a shrewd media deal maker and role as a former managing director of Sky Networks. She left the company in 2000 and set up her own TV production company, Shine.

James's penchant for speaking his mind has gotten him in hot water on occasion, like his father.

A year ago, James launched a blistering attack on the British broadcasting industry and the publicly funded BBC BBC.UL in particular, accusing it of megalomania. In a speech in London, he appealed for less regulation and a free market.

"The triumph of the free market surely indicates that broadcasting should be more like other industries," he said on November 30, 2006.

But broadcasting in Britain was still not sufficiently free-market, he said. "Indeed, the UK's main state broadcasting agency, the BBC, famously fantasizes about creating a 'British Google' -- and wants the taxpayer to fund it.

"This is not public service; it's megalomania," he said.

News Corp's (NWS.AX: Quote, Profile, Research) Australian shares rose 1.84 percent to A$24.85 after news of James Murdoch's new job.

(Additional reporting by Kate Holton in London; Editing by Gary Hill)

News Corp pushing to get MySpace on carrier decks
MySpace Is The Trojan Horse Of Internet Censorship: Media elite's last gasp effort to save crumbling empire

Le groupe News Corp. (Rupert Murdoch) : évolution depuis 2004, par Nadine Floury, 3 jan 2008

Murdoch tops Vanity Fair's power 100 for second year after media coup, By David Usborne in New York, 07 September 2007

Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair', By NATHAN BURSTEIN, Oct 12 2007

The 2007 New Establishment. Our annual power ranking, Vanity Fair, October 2007

Vanity Fair's `Top 100' seems to confirm age-old `canards' about `Jewish power', By Michael Collins Piper

Kissinger: portrait d'un psychopathe

Almost Human: Global villain or strategic genius? Neither, asserts new book on Henry Kissinger

University of Wisconsin-Madison
09 Jul 2007


Author: "What are your core moral principles - the principles you would not violate""

Henry Kissinger: "I am not prepared to share that yet."

Comment: Because he doesn't have any moral principles he could or could not violate.

This peculiar exchange hints at one of the central themes of a new book about the enigmatic statesman, "Henry Kissinger and the American Century", written by University of Wisconsin-Madison historian Jeremi Suri. In examining Kissinger's complicated and controversial legacy, Suri creates a portrait of a man whose political career was motivated by deep moral convictions, yet the outcomes of many of his policies were viewed as morally horrendous.

While many books have been written about Kissinger's policies, Suri says his book is the first to offer a deeper understanding of the man based on Kissinger's remarkable life history. Suri conducted intensive research on all phases, including Kissinger's childhood in Furth, Germany; the disturbing rise of Hitler and his family's status as Jewish-German refugees in New York City; his return to occupied Germany as an American soldier in World War II; his Harvard-educated rise to international prominence as a Cold War strategist; and his foreign policy counsel to nearly every president of the modern era.

Suri's book examines how these life experiences - especially Kissinger's Jewishness - impacted the way he viewed the world and its threats. Suri also had unprecedented access to the man himself, getting the opportunity over three years to have more than a dozen sit-down interviews with Kissinger.

Kissinger is an extremely polarizing figure, and much of what is written about him falls into the extreme camps of "strategic genius" or "war criminal." "Kissinger and the American Century," released in June by Harvard University Press, argues that neither camp is correct.

Comment: Actually, it is both: strategic murderous genius and war criminal.

"What I am more interested in," Suri says, "is how can someone who is so smart - and entered politics for moral reasons, because the experience of the Holocaust loomed so large in his life - how does someone like that produce results such as the bombing of Vietnam?"

Comment: The answer is: being almost human - a psychopath.

The key to that answer begins with Kissinger's youth in Germany, Suri says, where he witnessed the sophisticated and highly democratic society of Weimar, Germany, destroyed by the Nazi regime with little apparent resistance. It deeply impressed in Kissinger a view that democracies were inherently weak and frequently under siege, and that protecting Western civilization sometimes requires the morally compromising need to support "the lesser of two evils."

"The experience of being a Jew in World War II certainly made him more skeptical of human rights and idealism," Suri says, noting that the phrase "human rights" is almost completely absent from his policy lexicon. "I think he saw - in his own phrase - that there was 'evil in the world' and that for greater moral purposes, you had to presume that sometimes you had to use immoral means."

Comment: Obviously, the author is projecting his own moral perceptions on a person who completely lack understanding of such concepts. As a result, his "justifications" of clearly inhuman deeds or decisions made by Kissinger cause a state of cognitive dissonance.

Kissinger's legacy as secretary of state from 1969-1977 will be tarnished by his policy of escalated bombings in Vietnam that killed thousands of innocent civilians, as well as his open support for General Pinochet's murderous regime in Chile. Suri says that Kissinger had a propensity to too quickly dismiss legitimate concerns about the human rights implications of his decisions.

While Kissinger made costly mistakes in his career, he is without question the chief architect of post-World War II American foreign policy - an architecture that is still standing today, Suri notes. The opening of U.S. relations with China, a hallmark Kissinger achievement, would have been impossible without his unwavering commitment to diplomacy with friends and adversaries.

On the topic of Kissinger's Jewish heritage, Suri uncovered evidence that it had a ubiquitous impact on his political life - a fact, Suri says, Kissinger stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. "He spent his entire life surrounded by people who were either anti-Semitic or at least mildly prejudiced against Jews," he says, including President Nixon. "He had to appeal to these people for power."

The issue was especially acute during his work for a peace agreement in the Middle East in the early 1970s. Suri says that every time he met with leaders from Saudi Arabia, he was handed a copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a fictitious anti-Semitic pamphlet that describes a conspiracy theory about Jewish plans for world domination.

"Every time he meets with Egyptians, there was an assumption that he speaks on behalf of the Jewish world," Suri says. "Every time he meets with Israelis, there's a presumption he should be doing more because he's 'one of them.' His Jewishness is always on the table."

But remarkably, rather than disable his political career, he found ways to use the prejudices to his political advantage by essentially playing it differently in negotiations with Israelis and Arab nations, Suri says. And in spite of those prejudices, he is highly respected by leaders throughout the world.

There are other Kissinger traits that help explain his profound political influence and longevity. He has a relentless work style and "simply outworked everyone around him," and has an amazing capacity to assimilate massive amounts of information and frame issues in forceful ways. For example, he carefully scrutinized briefing papers in more depth than anyone else and preferred to review original documents to extract the information he needed.

"That gave him enormous power because he was often the only person in the room who knew the whole story," he says. "He's the type of thinker who can lay out three options and make it clear in the end there's only one good option - his."

Suri takes Kissinger's legacy all the way up to the present-day war in Iraq, which perhaps represents the first significant diversion from the Kissinger template of embracing moderate regimes (usually dictatorships), maintaining access to (but not control over) oil resources, and using indirect force through proxy regimes to maintain stability.

"What the Bush administration did differently is they tried to promote democracy, but Kissinger was always opposed to the idea that you can bring democracy to the Middle East," Suri says. "Ironically, the failure of the Bush administration to bring democracy to Iraq is going to result in a more Kissingerian world. We will be essentially creating a proxy regime, the same thing Kissinger was doing in Egypt and Israel."

Kissinger's political ideals centered on protecting the greatness of Western civilization, Suri says. "What does he mean by Western civilization" Not necessarily democracy, but law and order, rules of fairness, basic personal freedoms and a hierarchy of values."

Suri says that Kissinger - who had witnessed the absolute worst of hatred and violence during the Nazi regime - believes that hatred and violence are persistent forces in the world and that foreign policy must reflect that reality. Defeating those forces usually requires a combination of diplomacy, force and compromise - rather than rhetoric about democracy and moral absolutes.

Suri concludes that despite the intense criticism of Kissinger's legacy, critics have failed to offer a more effective foreign policy alternative. "The 21st Century awaits Kissinger's successor," he writes.

Comment: No doubt that this is the plan.

Guerre en Irak et en Iran: pour le pétrole?... ou pour ISRAEL?

Neo-conservatism at the Vatican? Kissinger to become Political Adviser to Pope Benedict XVI

Propagande: The Pope and Kissinger Warn the World About Islam

Bush is a sociopath says psychoanalyst Dr. Justin Frank (George Washington University Medical School)

APA President defends U.S. psychologists' participation in torture
Stephen Soldz, Counterpunch, 06 Dec 2007

The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain, by James Blair, Derek Mitchell, Karina Blair

The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain is the latest research on psychopaths. While it is not as accessible as Robert Hare's work (Without Conscience, Snakes in Suits), it is an in depth and lucid account of the latest studies on psychopathic individuals.

Specifically, Blair et al., demonstrate that "Antisocial Personality Disorder" is not a synonym for psychopathy. Most antisocials are NOT psychopathic. This is perhaps the most important point made in this book. Psychopathy is a genetic, biologically determined disorder that affects emotional makeup.

Blair et al.'s work provides an excellent background for other works, like Andrew Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology, which describes the larger effects psychopaths have on society, especially when in positions of political power. The new research only confirms what Lobaczewski and his colleagues learned generations ago under the Polish Communist regime.

If you have a handle on psychological terminology, and want to learn something TRUE about psychopaths, check out these books. (H. Koehli: psychopaths & ponerology)

Comment une pathocratie fonctionne-t-elle?

In the first four articles of this series, we looked at the players who are running the United States from the point of view of political ponerology. For convenience, we call them the insiders. We saw in the second article that this type of person was also found in our everyday lives. Then we took a look at the insider enablers, that is, the insider wannabes, those people in society who form the support base for power.

We noted that the core group of insiders suffer from different forms of pathological traits that are genetic in some individuals, due to accidents that affected the brain in others, and the result of societal influence in still others, or perhaps a mixture in some cases. Among the genetic deviants I include essential psychopaths. Those created by society are commonly known as sociopaths.

The wannabes have been infected by certain pathological forms of thought that leave them open to influence by the snake charmers in the first group. Rather than having developed their own capacity for critical thinking and analysis, the wannabes are lost in a sea of slogans and ready-made formulae taken from the mainstream media that they mindlessly repeat as explanations for everything. These solutions have no basis in reality.

Finally, we looked at the notion of reality itself and saw that psychopaths believe they can create reality by fiat; by merely declaring a thing to be so, they can call it into existence. We gave an example of this type of thinking from an insider at the Bush White House.

We will now begin looking at the social implications of the arrival of such types to positions of power. We will step back from the individuals and look at society as a whole.

Lire la suite:
Good Times, Bad Times 1: The Hysteroidal Cycle, by Henry See, Sott.net, 03 Dec 2007

Good Times, Bad Times PART 2: Insiders and the Hysteroidal Cycle, by Henry See, Sott.net, 11 dec 2007

Good Times, Bad Times 3: The USA and the Hysteroidal Cycle, Henry See, SOTT.net, 18 Jan 2008

Références:
L'impotence du DSM-IV à détecter les psychopathes

Le psychopathe d'à côté

The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain, by James Blair, Derek Mitchell, Karina Blair

The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain is the latest research on psychopaths. While it is not as accessible as Robert Hare's work (Without Conscience, Snakes in Suits), it is an in depth and lucid account of the latest studies on psychopathic individuals.

Specifically, Blair et al., demonstrate that "Antisocial Personality Disorder" is not a synonym for psychopathy. Most antisocials are NOT psychopathic. This is perhaps the most important point made in this book. Psychopathy is a genetic, biologically determined disorder that affects emotional makeup.

Blair et al.'s work provides an excellent background for other works, like Andrew Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology, which describes the larger effects psychopaths have on society, especially when in positions of political power. The new research only confirms what Lobaczewski and his colleagues learned generations ago under the Polish Communist regime.

If you have a handle on psychological terminology, and want to learn something TRUE about psychopaths, check out these books. (H. Koehli: psychopaths & ponerology)

Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes (présentation vidéo en français)

War Made Easy: propagande guerrière

1er dec 2007
Normand Provencher
Le Soleil

Sans le savoir, ou plutôt sans vouloir le savoir, le peuple américain se fait remplir comme une amphore lorsqu’il s’agit de déclarer la guerre à un pays ennemi. Depuis un demi-siècle, la propagande de la Maison-Blanche, par médias interposés, est si puissante qu’elle marginalise le discours pacifiste.

Telle est la thèse défendue avec succès par le documentaire War Made Easy, de Loretta Alper et Jeremy Earp, à travers une série de films d’archives et le constat implacable du critique de médias Norman Solomon.

Le discours n’est peut-être pas nouveau, mais le travail de défrichage et le recoupement des faits conduisent à un portrait pour le moins dévastateur des stratégies mises en place par les gouvernements américains successifs afin de vendre le concept de la guerre, peu importe les coûts financiers et humains.

Que ce soit au Viêtnam ou en Irak, que le président se nomme Johnson, Nixon ou Bush, le plan de match est toujours échafaudé de façon à embellir la réalité et à maintenir le support populaire à la guerre. Peu importe l’endroit où les soldats américains débarquent, c’est toujours au nom de la paix, de la liberté et de la démocratie, fait remarquer Solomon. «En réalité, la guerre se perpétue quand elle est utilisée comme raison pour la paix.»

C’est bien beau vouloir partir en guerre, mais la collaboration des médias est indispensable pour espérer vaincre l’adversaire. War Made Easy démontre que le Pentagone, soucieux de ne pas répéter l’expérience du Viêtnam, a su faire des grands réseaux de télé américains ses plus fidèles porte-étendards. Plus souvent qu’autrement, le discours officiel est repris sans aucun travail de vérification. Si le secrétaire d’État Colin Powell clame haut et fort devant les Nations unies qu’il y a des armes de destruction massive en Irak, c’est qu’il y en a, point à la ligne.

Les traîtres à la nation qui osent se poser des questions légitimes tout haut, comme le commentateur Phil Donahue, de MSNBC, se font montrer la porte. «Si vous êtes pour la guerre, vous êtes objectifs; si vous êtes contre, vous êtes biaisés.»

Au lieu de poser les vraies questions et d’être les chiens de garde de l’administration américaine, les journalistes choisissent d’être des collaborateurs aveuglés par la propagande, davantage soucieux de parler de l’avion dernier cri de l’armée que des milliers de civils tués chez l’ennemi. Une note interne d’un patron de CNN à ses journalistes leur demandait de toujours mettre en parallèle les bombardements américains en Afghanistan et les 5000 morts du 11 septembre.

War Made Easy (présenté en version originale anglaise sous-titrée) ne cache pas ses allégeances de gauche. À preuve, la narration faite par l’acteur et activiste Sean Penn. Mais peu importe notre position sur le spectre politique, force est d’admettre que le documentaire collige des faits troublants qui amènent à une réflexion en profondeur sur les agissements des «faucons» du Pentagone.

Un film qui risque de vous revenir en mémoire la prochaine fois qu’un président américain montrera les dents...

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

Of Course! Secrecy Invoked on Abramoff Lawsuits

By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The administration agreed last year to produce all responsive records about the visits "without redactions or claims of exemption", according to a court order.

But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that sometime in the past year the Secret Service identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff's trips to the White House.

The Justice Department declared that the contents of the "Sensitive Security Records'' cannot be publicly revealed even though they could show whether Abramoff made more visits to the White House than those already acknowledged.

"The simple act of doing so ... would reveal sensitive information about the methods used by the Secret Service to carry out its protective function", the Justice Department argued.

(...)To date, the government has turned over Secret Service records referring to seven White House visits by Abramoff - six of them in the early months of the Bush administration in 2001 and the seventh in early 2004 just before Abramoff came under criminal investigation.

(...)Time magazine reported that its reporters had been shown five photographs of Bush and Abramoff. Most of them, the magazine said, had the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions".

The Justice Department probe of Abramoff and his team of lobbyists has led to convictions of a dozen people, including former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, former White House official David Safavian and former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles.

Abramoff is serving six years in prison on a criminal case out of Florida. He has not yet been sentenced on charges of mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion stemming from the influence-peddling scandal in Washington.

Comment: So now, the Bush administration is defining these records as "Sensitive Security Records", to avoid having them made public?

And the motion was filed in the dead of night, so that the story would get buried during the weekend?

Someone, somewhere, is sweating precisely what those records would reveal.

And trust me, this has absolutely nothing to do with revealing "...sensitive information about the methods used by the Secret Service to carry out its protective function".

Daniel Hopsicker reported that days before the 9/11 attack, Mohamed Atta and several other alleged hijackers were invited on Abramoff’s casino boats

If this accusation turns out to be true, this is evidence that the hijackers were patsies for the Zionists. Furthermore, Abramoff’s connections with AIPAC, Tom Delay, and other people should be investigated.

Professor Cole describes Jack Abramoff’s “charity” as a front for Zionist terrorism.

Condoleezza Rice donne des conférences de presse truquées pour couvrir son incompétence

Rice gives fake press conferences, too
Rice ‘Planted’ Question With ‘Friendly Journalist’ To ‘Help Erase’ Pre-Iraq War Legacy
Thinkprogress.org

In 2003, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice helped push America into war with Iraq. She disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from CIA Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq’s uranium acquisition was weak. She infamously said, “[W]e don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

In an interview with C-SPAN’s Washington Journal today, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler, author of Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy, revealed that after President Bush promoted her to Secretary of State, Rice mounted a “public relations” campaign to distance herself from the pre-war fiasco.

As part of this PR campaign, she directed an aide to “plant a question” asking if she would run for President, in order to help “negate American memories of her very direct role” in invading Iraq:

She had a very deliberative public relations strategy when she became Secretary of State to help erase the images of how ineffective she had been as National Security Adviser. And I describe how one of her aides even planted a question with a friendly journalist to ask whether she would be interested in running for president — to give her the aura of someone who might have presidential aspirations, make her seem more powerful than she was.

And that all helped negate American memories over her very direct role in the invasion of Iraq.

Watch it

In October, it was revealed that FEMA clumsily staged a “fake” press conference where agency employees posed as journalists. Condi, however, has fake press conferences down to a fine art.

Rice, Hadley, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Feith, Armitage, Rosen et Weissman devront s'expliquer en cour sur leur rôle dans le scandale d'espionnage à l'AIPAC

Le gourou néocon Norman Podhoretz: "En tant qu'Américain et Juif, je prie pour que Bush bombarde l'Iran"

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
May 30, 2007

Mr. Podhoretz is editor-at-large of Commentary. His new book, "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism", will be released by Doubleday on Sept. 11. This essay, in somewhat different form, was delivered as an address at a conference, "Is It 1938 Again?", held by the Center for Jewish Studies at Queens College, City University of New York, in April.

La conclusion de son article:

Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.

Podhoretz: "We have to bomb Iran"
By Toby Harnden
27/10/2007

A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.

The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.

Norman Podhoretz and Henry Kissinger

Podhoretz is a founder of neoconservatism

"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.

"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful.

"People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set it back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions."

Although Mr Podhoretz said he did not speak for Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor whom he briefs daily appears to have embraced at least the logic of his hard-line views.

During a visit to London last month, Mr Giuliani said Iran should be given "an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years".

Mr Podhoretz said: "I was very pleased to see him say that. I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow ... I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out and say we have to bomb - it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign."

But Mr Podhoretz’s 77 years and his position as a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual means he can not only think the unthinkable but say the unsayable.

"My role has simply been to say what I think," he said, explaining that he takes part in weekly conference calls and is in daily email contact with the Giuliani campaign.

He is the most eminent of a clutch of uncompromisingly hawkish aides assembled by Mr Giuliani. They include Daniel Pipes, who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should "inspire fear, not affection", and Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who has argued that Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is "dangerous" and signals American "weakness" to Teheran.

"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."

Mr Podhoretz’s thesis is that the war on terror is in fact World War Four and that the 42-year-long Cold War should be more properly described as World War Three.

Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, by President George W. Bush in 2004, Mr Podhoretz later sought a rare one-on-on audience with the US commander-in-chief. They met in New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel in the spring.

The author of the recent World War IV: the Long Struggle Against Islamofacsism spent about 35 minutes outlining his case for air strikes against Iran as Mr Bush’s then chief adviser Karl Rove took notes.

"Whether I had any effect on him I truly don’t know but I sure tried my best to persuade him," he said.

"He was very cordial. He was warm. He listened. He occasionally asked a question as I made the case but he was truly poker faced."

Mr Podhoretz left the meeting unshaken in his belief that Mr Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office.

- Why Does Norman Podhoretz Hate America? by Michael Scheuer, Sept 26 2007

- Il faut bombarder l’Iran, Richard Hétu, 30 Mai 2007

- Podhoretz secretly urged Bush to bomb Iran, David Paul Kuhn, Sep 24 2007

- The Neocons' Crazy Dream of World War III, by Rodrigue Tremblay, November 2 2007

- Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran. The Deadly Embrace.

- Neoconservatism as a jewish movement, Kevin Macdonald

- A List of prominent Jewish Neocons

La guerre c'est la paix, les sanctions c'est la diplomatie

War Is Peace, Sanctions Are Diplomacy

Carah Ong, Iran policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington, DC.
Middle East Report Online
24 Nov 2007

The White House is pressing ahead with its stated goal of persuading the UN Security Council to pass far-reaching sanctions to punish Iran for refusing to suspend its nuclear research program. Sanctions are what President George W. Bush is referring to when he pledges to nervous US allies that he intends to "continue to work together to solve this problem diplomatically." The non-diplomatic solution in this framing of the "problem," presumably, would be airstrikes on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic.

With its portrayal of UN and unilateral US sanctions as part of a diplomatic effort, the Bush administration has successfully confused much media coverage of the Iranian-Western confrontation over Iran's enrichment of uranium. Sanctions are punitive measures, not serious diplomacy, and the Bush administration has never undertaken a sustained diplomatic initiative aimed either at inducing Iran to cease enriching uranium or at soothing broader US-Iranian tensions. Meanwhile, the Bush administration's persistent refusal to take military options "off the table," combined with its intensified rhetoric against Iran, has made sanctions palatable to allies, as well as to some of the most dovish members of Congress and the American public -- but without addressing the political disputes that keep the US and Iran on a collision course. Congress, by and large, has merely greased the skids.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

On September 28, the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the US -- issued a joint statement, along with Germany and the European Union, agreeing to wait to discuss a potential third round of sanctions on Iran until International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana delivered progress reports on negotiations with Iran in November. No sooner had the IAEA released its November 15 report than the Bush administration renewed its push for stiffer penalties on the Islamic Republic.

US spokespersons seized upon the IAEA's statement that Iranian cooperation with its investigators, while "sufficient" and "timely," has been "reactive rather than proactive." This "reactive" posture, along with Iran's blockage of spot inspections of nuclear sites (as required by the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), made it impossible for the IAEA to assert that Iran's program is geared exclusively toward peaceful generation of nuclear power, as Iran claims. The US dismissed the positive aspects of the Agency's report. As State Department briefer Sean McCormack put it, "Partial credit doesn't cut it when you're talking about issues of whether or not Iran is developing a nuclear weapon." While the report did not give Iran a clean bill of health, its overall content suggests that there is room for real diplomacy to resolve outstanding issues.

The Bush administration, however, had tipped its hand, long before the IAEA report's release, that only additional coercive measures would be forthcoming. In August, it was leaked to the press that the State Department was considering designating the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps -- created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 to protect the Islamic Revolution from domestic and foreign foes -- as a terrorist organization. European allies expressed strong opposition to the idea, warning that such a unilateral initiative could alienate Security Council member China, thus forestalling another round of UN sanctions. The end result was Bush's executive order on October 25, imposing new unilateral sanctions and designating the Revolutionary Guards as a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" and the Guards' elite Quds Force as a "supporter of terrorism."

The basis for the latter designation was Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks. That order authorizes the US government to block the assets of organizations or individuals listed as sponsors of terrorism, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents and associates. It is unprecedented for the United States to use this measure against the armed forces of another nation.

Several other entities were listed in the executive order, including the Iranian Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics; two major banks and their subsidiaries; and construction, engineering and other firms owned or controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. Individuals affiliated with the Guards and with Iran's ballistic missile program were also named as "proliferators" to be sanctioned. Most notably, and inexplicably, absent from this list was Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, appointed as commander of the Revolutionary Guards by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on September 1.

If Bush's executive orders exacerbated the divisions among Security Council members over Iran, there is even more dissension following the release of the IAEA judgments. European allies have lined up behind the US position, with France and Britain saying that Europe could impose its own unilateral sanctions on Iranian oil and financial industries if the Security Council does not act. China and Russia, meanwhile, prefer to emphasize the progress that has been made in securing Iranian cooperation and have vowed to veto a third round of multilateral sanctions slated to come up for a vote in December. The parallels to the international deliberations over Iraq -- wherein US failure to achieve consensus on sanctions was marketed by hawks as justification for ever more aggressive US-British actions -- are hard to ignore.

CONGRESSIONAL PRELUDE

Throughout 2007, in fact, hawks in Congress have been intensifying their own pressure on the Bush administration to get tough on Iran. Section 2, Paragraph 14 of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Relations, said "the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization...and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters." The measure had 325 co-sponsors and passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 397-16 on September 25.

Though the bill nods to the view that "the United States should use diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem," it is focused on the necessity of broader unilateral sanctions. During floor debate, not a single representative spoke in opposition. The Senate version of the bill, introduced by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), contains similar language, but has been held up in the Banking Committee. It is not clear when or if the measure will come up for a vote.

In any case, the far more important political cover for the executive order targeting the Revolutionary Guards was provided during debate of the 2008 defense authorization bill. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) introduced Amendment 3017, a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that expressed the view that the Guards should be labeled a terrorist organization, citing as justification the alleged role of the Guards and the Quds Force in supplying Shi'i militias in Iraq with money and material.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment initially contained even more provocative language, calling on the US to use all means available, including "military instruments," to "combat, contain and roll back" Iran and its surrogates in Iraq. The two paragraphs containing this language were eventually dropped after several senators and the Democratic leadership expressed concern that it might be construed as an authorization for the use of military force against Iran.

Freshman Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) was particularly outspoken in opposition to the amendment, noting that even after the modifications, Kyl-Lieberman could still be interpreted as an authorization for the use of force. Nevertheless, on September 26, the amendment passed 76-22, with the Democratic presidential frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, voting in favor, her opponent Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois not voting and only two Republicans, Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, voting against. The amendment helped to press the Bush administration into action.

HYPING THE THREAT

Behind both the White House and Congressional moves is the conviction that Iran, its protestations of peaceful intent notwithstanding, is trying to build an atomic bomb. On October 17, the president told reporters: "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." In a speech at a Washington Institute for Near East Policy retreat four days later, Vice President Dick Cheney worded it more strongly: "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Is the US conviction about Iran justified? The IAEA does not think so. Its November 15 report concluded: "The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." The concern, as the UN watchdog acknowledged, is that Iran may be diverting undeclared material to a clandestine bomb-making effort, but there is no proof that such an effort exists. As Mohamed Elbaradei told CNN on October 28, there are "a lot of question marks. But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used in a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."

As in the leadup to the Iraq war, hawks are fond of portraying the IAEA as hapless -- "the UN's nuclear watchpuppy," scoffs ex-Ambassador to the UN John Bolton -- and implying that the US knows more about Iran's capacities than is public. Yet the US has long delayed releasing an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, requested by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization, which became law after it was signed by the president on October 17, 2006, reportedly because its conclusions are not alarming enough for the White House's taste. The most recent administration estimate of Iran's capability, delivered by then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte in February 2006, stated that if Iran continues on its current path, it could "produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade." The findings of the special Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction further highlight issues of credibility, revealing that US intelligence on Iran is as bad or worse than it was on Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.[1]

The primary justification for the designation of the Revolutionary Guards as a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" actually had less to do with nuclear materials, and more to do with ballistic missiles. According to the State Department fact sheet released to justify the designation, the Guards Corps has been "outspoken about its willingness to proliferate ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction." Ballistic missiles themselves certainly are not weapons of mass destruction, but the relevant executive order covers both "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Iran's ballistic missile program remains largely in its nascent stages, however. The US intelligence community has consistently estimated since 1999 that Iran will not have mastered the science of intercontinental ballistic missiles until 2015. At that point, Iran would still have to manufacture an arsenal of missiles and weapons to fit the missiles, putting the actual deployment date even further into the future. (Also, though the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation and the Missile Technology Control Regime are voluntary mechanisms intended to discourage states from proliferating missile technology, there is no binding international treaty that prohibits Iran from developing its ballistic missile capability.)

Since Iran lacks the ability to reach the United States, the Bush administration has tried to focus attention on the "threat" of its shorter-range missiles. Just two days before the sanctions rollout, Bush delivered a speech at the National Defense University in which he spoke of Iranian "ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel and Turkey, as well as American troops based in the Persian Gulf." He further cited the Iranian ballistic missile program as a justification for a heavier US military presence in Eastern Europe: "Today, we have no way to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, so we must deploy a missile defense system there that can."

Congress has been complicit in bolstering the perception of peril emanating from Iran's missile program. On July 12, the Senate passed, by a vote of 95-0, an amendment introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to the defense authorization bill. The amendment states that it should be the policy of the United States to develop and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective defense against "the threat from Iran." Congress has cut the entire $85 million in requested construction funding for the new missile defense sites in Europe, however, perhaps heeding Defense Secretary Robert Gates' comment (made the same day of Bush's speech) that such sites need not be operational until Iran actually tests missiles capable of flying overhead.

DISABLING ENGAGEMENT

The unilateral US steps were clearly intended to stoke the fears of Security Council members that, in the absence of stronger UN sanctions on Iran, the Bush administration might take additional measures on its own. In the short and medium term, however, the more important question is their effect on the behavior of the Iranian regime, and there they appear to be a mixture of the toothless and the counterproductive. The direct effect of the designations is to freeze assets of the named Iranian entities on deposit in US financial institutions, but it is unlikely that such assets exist.

As for indirect effects, the Bush administration's prophecy of Iranian belligerence may be self-fulfilling: The Revolutionary Guards are deeply embedded in the country's political and economic structure. They operate a vast and nebulous network that usually does not act in unison or take a single position. Both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and one of his stronger political opponents, 2005 presidential candidate and Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf, hail from the Guards' ranks, for instance. Differences of opinion among the Guards very much reflect the broader disputes in Iran today: There are those who want greater openness and increased engagement with the outside world and those who do not.

Some members of the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their role in the formal economic arena, especially the oil and gas sector. These members have been badly affected by economic isolation and sanctions because of their need for external expertise to maximize their enterprises' productivity. On the other hand, Guards who are involved in black-market activities, including oil and weapons smuggling, have no interest in increased engagement. For them isolation is a boon, as it is for the middlemen and brokers in Iran and Dubai who launder money and otherwise help businessmen in Tehran to skirt trade restrictions. US policies that pressure allies doing business in Iran play directly into the hands of enemies of engagement.

On the political level, of course, US sanctions allow hardliners to argue that moderates are deceiving themselves about the possibility of a rapprochement with the West. In the wake of the designations, many former Guards commanders who had been disillusioned with Ahmadinejad's defiant stance have closed ranks behind him. Others have been silenced, the most prominent example being former Guards commander Mohsen Rezaei, whose Baztab website was shut down by the authorities for its criticism of the government.

Though it is unclear whether the Security Council will be able to reach agreement on a third round of sanctions, side effects of US unilateral sanctions are already visible. In November, the World Bank suspended $5.4 million of aid scheduled for projects in Iran until it can find financial institutions other than the blacklisted Bank Melli to handle the transactions. The aid package was intended to assist Iran with recovery from the deadly Bam earthquake in 2003, as well as with water treatment, environmental management and urban renewal. Also in November, corporate giants Yahoo! and Microsoft removed Iran from the country lists of their webmail services. Sanctions may not alter the behavior of the Iranian government, but they certainly hurt the people of Iran.

SILVER LINING

One positive outcome of the October 25 designations is that they have reinvigorated efforts in Congress to put the brakes on the White House's Iran policy. Following the administration's announcements, Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Bill Delahunt (D-MA) held a press conference to introduce a bill designed to restore Congress' role in declaring war. Along with two co-sponsors, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) also introduced a resolution stipulating that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated."

Sen. Webb, who had broached a similar resolution in March, bolstered efforts to find co-sponsors for Durbin's bill. After being attacked for her vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Sen. Clinton signed up as a co-sponsor. Webb also initiated and sent a letter to Bush signed by 30 senators emphasizing "that no offensive military action would be justified against Iran without the express consent of Congress."

While he did not sign Webb's letter, presidential candidate Obama introduced his own resolution on November 2. It seeks to clarify that the use of force against Iran is "not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law." Meanwhile, Sen. Hagel sent a personal letter to Bush on October 17 urging the president to "offer direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with Iran."

DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS

These pending resolutions and letters have not exactly tied the White House's hands, but they do inject a vitally important point into the political discourse: Just as the notion that sanctions and economic pressure are diplomatic tools is flawed, so too is the notion that the only strategic choices before the US are war or capitulation. Such was the false choice posed by the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. There is in fact a wide array of alternatives available to the US for resolving tensions with Iran, but the political will to get to the negotiating table has been lacking on both sides.

To break the impasse, the US should determine which elements of the offer made by Iran in 2003 to settle outstanding disputes might remain a feasible basis for talks. Washington should also drop its insistence that Iran suspend enrichment of uranium before such talks can begin. In effect, this insistence transforms the outcome of negotiations into a precondition for starting them. Dropping the precondition would signal to both Iran and European allies that the US is sincere in its repeated expressions of preference for real diplomacy.

In the near term, the US could offer confidence-building measures to help bridge the enormous gap in trust between the two countries. At a minimum, the US should pledge non-interference in Iran's domestic affairs, which is, in any case, its legal obligation under the terms of the Algiers accord signed in 1981 to end the hostage crisis. The Bush administration could repeal Office of Foreign Assets Control restrictions that prohibit US non-governmental organizations from obtaining licenses to work inside Iran, or offer to replace engine parts in the aging fleet of Iranian civilian aircraft. The US could also lift restrictions on visas, allowing for an increase in citizen exchanges, which would in turn foster the growth of constituencies in Iran calling for a government that is fully integrated into the international community.(...)

Un article d'analyse de SOTT offre un exemple des 'Insiders' ('Initiés') à Washington qui créent leur propre réalité.
Ils veulent attaquer l'Iran, et comme ils ont fait en Irak, ils manufacturent les excuses pour le faire. Aucun fait ni preuve n'est jamais pris en considération.

Rupert Murdoch and William Kristol: Using the Press to Advance Israel's Interests, By Richard H. Curtiss, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003

Neoconservatism as a jewish movement, Kevin Macdonald

A List of prominent Jewish Neocons