Archive for August 19th, 2009

What happened to the antiwar movement? Cindy Sheehan hits ‘hypocrisy’ of Left, Democratic allies.

What happened to the antiwar movement? Cindy Sheehan hits ‘hypocrisy’ of Left, Democratic allies–Cindy-Sheehan-responds-53628177.html

Neocon advocate Byron York linked to the following article of his in the above one:

For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all:

Cindy Sheehan heads to the Vineyard; wants anti-war demonstrators to emulate health-care protesters; will anyone cover the story?

Cindy Sheehan to lead protests against the wars near Obama’s vacation spot on Martha Vineyard

ABC’s Charles Gibson to Cindy Sheehan: Thanks for your sacrifice. Now get lost.

Where’s the Coverage of Cindy Sheehan? «
Cindy Sheehan didn’t have the courage to stand behind what she had so courageously written in the ‘Nightline’ email with regard to her son (Casey) dying for a PNAC Neocon agenda to benefit Israel (see following URLs):

Cindy Sheehan/’Nightline’ email situation in UK Guardian

James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book and the Mearsheimer/Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ book ( and Dr. Stephen Sneigoski’s ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book clearly convey how the Iraq war was for Israel just as Cindy Sheehan had initially (and courageously) written (in the ‘Nightline’ email) before the Zionist pressure came her way (she subsequently threw her friend and son ‘under the bus’ as a result of such).

Additional on the Mearsheimer/Walt book via the following URL:

U.S. Middle East policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby

Stephen Sniegoski’s lecture on his book, “The Transparent Cabal”

Israel’s Position on Iran

Monday, August 17, 2009

STRATFOR.COM Diary Archives

Israel’s Position on Iran

ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES Michael Oren told CNNs Fareed Zakaria on Sunday that Israel is “far from even contemplating” a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. He went on to say that Israel supports U.S. President Barack Obama’s opening to Iran. The Israelis had been extremely concerned about Iran, but Oren said the immediate concern had dissipated because “we were greatly comforted during the prime minister’s visit here in May, when the president told him, assured him, that there would be a serious reassessment of the policy before the end of the year. We are further reassured now that the end-of-the-year deadline has been moved up to September.” Oren said that a series of serious sanctions are now being considered.

It is hard to know what Israel’s position is on Iran any longer. The Israelis have said so many contradictory things over such an extended period of time that the tendency is to dismiss their public statements. The paranoid among us can construct a theory in which the Israelis are deliberately trying to confuse everyone. Those of us who speak to Israelis tend to think that they are themselves confused. Nevertheless, Oren’s statement does seem to be in keeping with Israel’s intent and capabilities — and with a looming crisis with Iran in September.

We have always been of the view that Iran’s ability to deploy a nuclear device is far from imminent. Moreover, Israel is incapable of delivering a sufficiently large attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities because of airspace issues, the distance, the number of sorties required and the fact that Israel lacks the means to counter Iran’s nuclear response — which would be mining the Strait of Hormuz. The size of the target set vastly outstrips Israel’s capability.

“The Israelis cannot count on Iran’s reaction, and being responsible for a global economic meltdown is not something that Israel really needs.”

This is a point we have made in the past. Readers have chided us by pointing out that Iran would be as badly hurt as any other state by closure of the strait. We agree with that. However, many of the same readers frequently argue that Iran would launch a nuclear strike against Israel regardless of a devastating Israeli counterstrike. It is a little hard to imagine that Iran would not be deterred by nuclear annihilation, but would be deterred by an economic crisis. In any event, the Israelis cannot count on Iran’s reaction, and being responsible for a global economic meltdown is not something that Israel really needs. The threat would have to be far more immediate for them to strike.

But again, Israel draws our attention to an American commitment in September. That obviously has to do with the G-8’s decision to impose harsh measures unless the Iranians agree by Sept. 20 to come to the negotiating table. Given that Russia is part of the G-8 and that both Russia and China must agree to participate in the sanctions for them to have full effect, it is not clear what usefulness the sanctions will have.

Oren, the ambassador, is signaling that the Israelis are confident in the sanctions that would emerge from the next G-8 meeting. It is very difficult to imagine what those sanctions might be. There could be a blockade of Iran, for example, but would the U.S. Navy board Russian or Chinese ships? And what would the Iranian response be? If Iran was blockaded, would that be sufficient provocation to attempt to mine the Strait of Hormuz?

The Israelis are saying that they are not about to strike Iran because of sanctions being considered in September. We would say that Israel is simply sandbagging, and that when fairly weak sanctions are imposed, they will be freed for action, having given diplomacy its best shot. But in our view, Israel’s ability to carry out strikes with a high degree of assurance and negate the possibility that the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf will not be interrupted is fairly low.

Any meaningful sanctions regime against Iran would have to include a military component, ranging from a blockade to strikes against naval facilities. The probability of Russia and China participating is low, and therefore supplies will continue to flow into Iran at some level. Yet the Israelis have announced that they are comfortable. The one thing that Israel never is, is comfortable.

We continue to focus on late September for clarification of the mystery.

Israel ‘far from’ striking Iran: Envoy

Obama’s War Signals: Iran in the crosshairs:

Warmongers who sold you the Iraq war are pushing for a war with Iran:

AIPAC propagandist Dennis Ross moves over to the National Security Council (NSC) for coming war with Iran:

Zionist Organization of America Pushing Hard for US war with Iran (for Israel of course!):

Lieberman: Attack May be Only Option on Iran

Anyone can take a look at following Dutch doco if they don’t think AIPAC is pushing for war with Iran (note what former Colin Powell assistant Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says about WW III near the end if Iran is attacked)!:

McKinney talks human rights, activism, prison

General (Ret) James David is mentioned on the cover of the third edition of former Republican congressman Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) on the US political system and media:

Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:22 AM
From: General (Ret) James David
Great interview and great answers.  Cynthia McKinney makes more sense than most people in the news.  It’s just too bad that the controlled media have made her appear the way she has.  Take a minute to read what she says.  There isn’t anything that she says that is not the truth.  Cynthia McKinney is to be admired for what she has done.
McKinney talks human rights, activism, prison |


By Rosalind Bentley

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

You either love her. Or you don’t. Few politicians evoke passionate responses the way former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney does.

Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney said she is currently working on building up Dignity, an organization she helped start.

AJC file Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney said she is currently working on building up Dignity, an organization she helped start.


Since losing her 4th House District seat to DeKalb County’s Hank Johnson in 2006 and moving to California, the 54-year-old McKinney has run for president as the Green Party’s nominee. Last fall, she set her sights on the international stage. She’s taken two tumultuous trips to Gaza, which she said were humanitarian missions. On the last such mission in July, she and a group of other activists were arrested by the Israeli navy for trying to sail through a blockade. They were held in an Israeli jail for nearly a week.


Q: Your trip to Gaza in July wasn’t your first attempt at trying to deliver humanitarian aid there, correct? December of 2008 was the first trip, no?

A: In December, we had medical supplies on a boat that was called the Dignity. We were trying to deliver those medical supplies to the people of Gaza. It was during that attempt that the Dignity was basically destroyed by the Israeli military that rammed the boat.


Q: You’ve said the Israeli navy attacked your party. Why would they just out and out attack you?

A: Well, I think you would have to speak to the Israelis to find out why they would do such a thing.


Q: Then tell me about this last trip in July when you were arrested and taken into custody by the Israeli navy.

A: Basically, there were 21 of us aboard the Spirit of Humanity, and again we were trying to deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza … school supplies to the children. And again, while we were in international waters, the Israelis surrounded our boat, boarded it, then took us not to our destination, which was Gaza, but to Israel, and we were incarcerated for seven days.


Q: So they gave you no warning?

A: I didn’t say that. I said we were in international waters.


Q: OK, when you were brought to Israel, what was the experience like?

A: We were in prison.


Q: Behind bars?

A: We were in prison, just like prisoners are treated.


Q: I’m just trying to find out if you were mistreated while you —

A: Of course I was mistreated! I was kidnapped!


Q: How do you view the current administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What would you like to see happen?

A: When the Palestinian people speak about self-determination and the right of resistance, the right to live, these are all principles that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So I would like to see a more pronounced support from the Congress as well as the Obama administration for these principles.


Q: These principles as they apply to both sides, Palestinian as well as Israeli? Because of, you know, Israel’s right to exist, the right to defend itself against attack.

A: Well I think it’s clear that Israel exists. What is not clear is the extent to which a Palestinian state exists or will exist.


Q: Then what would you like to see Israel do to move the peace process forward?

A: Israel has nuclear weapons. It has F-16s, helicopters, gunships, white phosphorus, uranium, cluster bombs and the list goes on of the sophisticated technology and military hardware that is used to kill people. What I would like to see is less use of such technology to kill people and more readiness to respect international law.


Q: Israel says it has those weapons because it’s surrounded by countries that won’t recognize its right to exist.

A: I was carrying crayons to the children of Gaza and the Israeli military attacked me.


Q: OK. Let’s jump to your presidential campaign last year. What were some of the lessons you learned as the Green Party nominee?

A: Winning the Green Party nomination was definitely one of the most wonderful affirmations of my policy prescriptions and advocacies that I have experienced. I was able to travel across the country and meet with people from all backgrounds and all walks of life, all people who were interested in finding a better way.


Q: The health care debate has garnered a tremendous amount of opposition. What sort of health care deal do you think we’ll see in the long run? It’s pretty obvious that we won’t see universal care.

A: Well, if you predict that we won’t see universal care without asking why we won’t get universal care, then of course your prediction will come true.


Q: I hear you, but indulge me just a little. What would be your prescription for a workable health care system?

A: Medicare for all.


Q: Medicare for all?

A: That’s correct.


Q: Why?

A: Because it works.


Q: But the cost …

A: The system that we have costs an entire fortune and the costs are borne by the people, unfortunately, who suffer worse health outcomes as a result. What costs a lot is war and occupation.


Q: Let me ask you this then, what’s your assessment of how the Obama administration is performing so far?

A: I would start by saying we still have restrictive ballot access laws. We still have electronic voting. The Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Commissions Act are all still law. We still have ethnic and racial disparities. No one is talking about full employment. Our free trade agreements are still on the books. We would rather have these issues addressed.


Q: But people have already criticized the administration for spreading itself too thin and taking on too much.

A: It is feasible for an administration to set its priorities and to implement its priorities. I think the administration has demonstrated what its priorities are.


Q: Do you miss being in Congress?

A: Well, I certainly miss being able to help people. But, at the same time, the Power to the People Campaign [Green Party presidential run] was a way for me to get to know the people of this country and gain a clearer appreciation for just how many people there are who are looking for alternatives.


Q: Would you ever run again for public office, and do you think you’d do it in Georgia?

A: We will cross that bridge when we get to it. Right now I’m doing the work of building the organization that I and several other people founded and that is Dignity. We’re looking at the opportunities to partner with other organizations that are doing bold and courageous and much-needed work in the areas of housing, jobs and health care and many more issues.


Q: What was your congressional legacy?

A: Of course, we were able to do a lot of things for the district. We were also able to do things for our veterans and for the homeless population, which is always important. We were also able to serve as advocates for a vision of where our country should be in terms of policy.


Q: But was there any one piece of legislation that you took up [sponsored] and now you look back on it and say, “Yes, that was it. That is the thing that makes me smile.”

A: My entire 12 years in Congress makes me smile, and I don’t want to be narrowed, as you are trying to do.


Q: Do you have any regrets when you look back over your political career?

A: I enjoyed the mandate for 12 years from the people of Georgia, and it was an honor and a privilege to work in the United States Congress.


Q: All the controversy that surrounded the whole accosting of the police officer and the —

A: I thought that you asked the question and I answered that question in terms of the regrets. I did answer your question.


Q: And it’s not a yes or no answer. You said you were proud of your 12 years and the service you provided.

A: I think that’s an excellent answer, myself.


Q: I just wondered if you had regrets, if you look back and say, “I wouldn’t change a thing,” or “Hmmm, maybe I would’ve handled that differently.” That’s a human thing to do.

A: I’ve answered your question.


‘I’m no anti-Semite,’ says Swedish writer of IDF organ harvest story

General (Ret) James David is mentioned on the cover of the third edition of former Republican congressman Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) on the US political system and media:

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:02 AM
From: General (Ret) James David
To help maintain pressure for a favorable media tilt, supporters of Israel have a not-so-secret weapon, brandished most effectively as a preemptive threat–the charge of “anti-Semitism.”  Any journalist who speak out against Israel’s extreme disregard for human rights are liable to be in the line of fire.  The case below is no exception. 
Robert Fisk, a journalist for the London-based daily Independent whom I have always admired, once said “Our gutless, our refusal to tell the truth, our fear of being slandered as ‘anti-Semites’–the most loathsome of libels against any journalist–means that we are aiding and abetting terrible deeds in the Middle East.” 
Last update – 13:35 19/08/2009
‘I’m no anti-Semite,’ says Swedish writer of IDF organ harvest story
By Assaf Uni and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondents
Tags: Sweden, Israel News, IDF 
Donald Boström, the Swedish journalist whose article accusing Israel Defense Forces soldiers of killing Palestinians to obtain their organs evoked outrage, denied on Tuesday that he was motivated by anti-Semitism.”I’m very sad to hear people accuse me of anti-Semitism,” Boström told Haaretz on Tuesday.Sweden’s largest daily newspaper, Aftonbladet, ran Bostrom’s piece under the headline, “They plunder the organs of our sons”. In the wake of the report and the furious public reaction, the Israeli embassy in Stockholm on Wednesday sent a sternly-worded diplomatic protest to the Swedish government.  


Boström’s article makes a link to the recent exposure of an alleged crime syndicate in New Jersey. The syndicate includes several American rabbis, and one Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, who faces charges of conspiring to broker the sale of a human kidney for a transplant.
“Now that [the story] has once again risen to the surface, I wanted to point out the link [to the New Jersey affair] and the fact that there needs to be an investigation of the claims,” Boström said.
Boström said he had offered the story to another Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, which turned it down “with no explanation.”
The reporter said Aftonbladet, the most popular evening tabloid in Sweden, published the article without making any editorial changes.

Asa Linderborg, an editor of the newspaper’s culture section which printed the story, told Haaretz that the publication “stands behind the demand for an international inquiry.”

“We had many discussions on whether to publish the article or not, and to the best of my knowledge, there are no facts there that are incorrect,” Linderborg said.

Swedish embassy in Tel Aviv condemns article

Sweden’s ambassador to Israel issued a press release on Wednesday condemning the article which appeared in Aftonbladet.

“The article in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet is as shocking and appalling to us Swedes, as it is to Israeli citizens,” the ambassador, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, said on Wednesday.

“Just as in Israel, freedom of the press prevails in Sweden,” Bonnier said. “However, freedom of the press and freedom of expression are freedoms which carry a certain responsibility.”

Related articles:  




Top Sweden newspaper says IDF kills Palestinians for their organs
 Sweden denies Israel request to condemn IDF organ harvest article