ISRAEL IS BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

The government of Canada, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has terminated all diplomatic relations with Iran.  But something here is strange.

Why did the Canadian foreign minister repeat the mantra of Israeli PM Netanyahu that Iran is the greatest exporter and threat of terrorism in the whole wide world?  I suspect that Netanyahu and Harper are buddies, and this was a favor to Bibi on some account or for some unknown reason.

I would argue that the biggest threat to world peace is Israel.  Under Netanyahu, it is clear that the Israeli government is looking to start a war against Iran.

U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD OFFER AID AND FOOD TO IRANIAN VICTIMS OF SEVERE EARTHQUAKES

Iran suffers another catastrophic earthquake.  Thousands of Iranians are without food or shelter.

Why can't the government of the United States publicly announce that it stands ready to help out?

I ask the same question for the Israeli government?

Iranian victims are people who are suffering—men, women, children, young babies, old persons.

Just because the governments of the U.S. and Israel have quarrels with the leaders of Iran should not prevent basic human sympathy and prompt offers of assistance.

MITT ROMNEY WOULD BE A DISASTER

Imagine the disaster if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election.  Mitt promises to visit Israel as his first country, he promises to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), he promises to treat Russia as an enemy.

I wonder how anyone can support these outrageous and dangerous proposals?  How can anyone be a Republican?  How can anyone with a grain of sympathy for those who have no health insurance want to take away a plan that tries to make health care an inviolable right?

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, IT IS ILLEGAL TO ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT U.N. RESOLUTION

Under settled concepts of international law, it is illegal for one country to attack another by invading its territorial space. When Colombia under Uribe attacked a FARC camp within Ecuador two years ago, that was illegal, notwithstanding Condoleeza Rice's imprimatur. And now some believe that Israel's war planes attacked and killed two men in a Hyundai within Sudan. If so, it too violates the law of nations.

See this report from the BBC webpage.

WHY IS OBAMA TELLING IRAN WHAT IT SHOULD DO WITH NUCLEAR POWER?

Pres. Obama ran on a campaign theme of "change you can believe in." But as to Iran, I see very little change in policy and approach as compared to the hated Bush/Cheney policy of making war threats. For Obama, there now should be "sanctions."

I have a suggestion to Obama and all his hard-line foreign policy advisors: recognize that Iran is a sovereign country just like Israel, India and China. If Iran wants to develop its nuclear industry, it has every right to do so.

Here's what the BBC writes about U.S. policy towards Iran:

"The US has said new sanctions against Iran are the "only path" after Tehran announced it was stepping up its uranium enrichment programme.

"Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, earlier said Tehran had told the UN's nuclear watchdog it would start enriching uranium to 20% from Tuesday.

"The move heightens fears that Iran is moving closer to weapons-grade uranium.

"The US called on the international community to take new action and France called Iran's latest move "blackmail"."

THE WORLD MUST STOP AN ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN

I vociferously and strenuously object to the government of Iran arresting, harassing and punishing opponents of the Supreme Leader who believe that Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei stole the presidential election.

But I oppose even more any attempt by the government of Israel and its prime minister Netanyahu to bomb or attack or otherwise commit an act of war against Iran and its people.

But there are more and more people who believe that Netanyahu and other Israeli war mongers intend just that. Micah Zenko writes today in The Los Angeles Times that he believes Israel and Netanyahu are on the verge of an attack.

Writes Zenko who is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations:

"But if diplomacy fails, the world should be prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons facilities. As Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged: "The window between a strike on Iran and their getting nuclear weapons is a pretty narrow window.""

An Israeli attack would have devastating and catastrophic effects on world peace at least for the next 500 years. And it would cast Israel as a outlaw and a paraiah among the world's nations, and doom it to go on its own for centuries. Reasonable people must stop such an attack.

BRITISH MPs WANT DIALOG WITH HAMAS

The foreign affairs committee of the British parliament has concluded that failure to talk with Hamas is achieving nothing in the pursuit of a stable peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

An article from the Press Association in today's The Guardian writes that the committee concludes that Hamas must be included in future talks and negotiations.

"The government refuses to talk to Hamas until it accepts the principles of the international Quartet - the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia - of non-violence and acceptance of the existence of the state of Israel.

""There continues to be few signs that the current policy of non-engagement is achieving the Quartet's stated objectives," the committee said.

""We further conclude that the credible peace process for which the Quartet hopes, as part of its strategy for undercutting Hamas, is likely to be difficult to achieve without greater co-operation from Hamas itself. We are concerned that the Quartet is continuing to fail to provide Hamas with greater incentives to change its position.""

The Bush policy of refusing to talk with Hamas leaders because Hamas was a "terrorist organization" makes no sense. The Palestinians in Gaza in 2006 democratically elected Hamas to represent them. Notwithstanding Bush's stated goal of bringing democracy to the nations of the world, he and Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney refused to open a dialog with Hamas until it "recognized" Israel, in retrospect a silly and foolish conditioning of peace negotiations on mere words, an excellent example of form over substance.

The conclusion of the MP's foreign affairs committee is long overdue and represents realism over stubbornness. Now we need Barack Obama to come out and announce the same opinion.

NEO-CONS ATTACK IRANIAN ELECTIONS, BASH OBAMA FOR WILLING TO TALK WITH IRANIANS

Charles Krauthammer writes in today's The Washington Post:

"That's the problem with Obama's transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn't mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight.

"A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Tehran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism.""

So it seems that together with Elliott Abrams in today's The New York Times the strategy of neo-cons like Abrams and Krauthammer is to bash both Obama and Iran. The one thing these guys could not stand is a genuine dialogue with Teheran securing peace between the U.S. and Iran, a development that both Abrams and Krauthammer and fellow American neo-cons would be against. Their whole game plan of demonizing Iranians and Iran would be halted and any opening for Israel to bomb Iranian cities would be eliminated.

Abrams tries to diminish the importance of today's Iranian elections. He calls them not democratic, not offering any real choice, doomed to fail.

Writes Abrams:

"Mr. Ahmadinejad’s defeat would probably be welcomed abroad as a sign that Iran is moving away from his policies, but Iran’s policies aren’t his — they are dictated by Ayatollah Khamenei and his supporters in the Revolutionary Guard and Basij paramilitary. In fact, a victory by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi, is more likely to change Western policy toward Iran than to change Iran’s own conduct. If the delusion that a new president would surely mean new opportunities to negotiate away Iran’s nuclear program strikes Western leaders, solidarity might give way to pre-emptive concessions."

Both Abrams and Krauthammer resent that Obama has admitted U.S. complicity in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953. For them, it calls into question American exceptionalism, the doctrine that the U.S. can do no wrong.

Writes Krauthammer:

"Distorting history is not truth-telling but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country."

From the above paragraph, the reader is left wondering in what psychological state Krauthammer finds himself. He accuses Obama of "disturbing ambivalence towards one's own country," as if overture to Iran and acceptance of Iran's elections as fair and democratic indicate ambivalence towards being an American. Someone help this poor guy with counselling.

LET IRANIANS SHOUT, "DEATH TO AMERICA," BUT DON'T BOMB THEM

Supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ("Ahmadi") marched through the streets of Teheran two days ago supporting their candidate in this Friday's elections and shouting,"DEATH TO AMERICA."

People like John Bolton and Dick Cheney would interpret the chant as a casus belli, as proof that Iranians are evil and irrational. For Cheney and Bolton and people like them, Iran is the "enemy," and should be destroyed.

Just like there are those in Israel and elsewhere who think that Israel must attack Iran because Ahmadi has denied the Holocaust, the Iran demonizers in the U.S. would like nothing better than to bomb Iranian cities and nuclear power plants.

Have any of these people ever heard of freedom of speech? Just because someone insults you or says, "Death to America," that is no reason to kill him. Words, after all, are merely words. Everyone, including the Iranians, should be able to say anything he or she wants, without having to fear physical retaliation. So a kid in grade school can call your mother any number of disparaging names, and you don't have any right to beat him up.

Iran has shown no threat to the world and has invaded no other country in the last 100 years. It hasn't dropped a nuclear device on another country. It hasn't been the aggressor as has been the U.S. in wars every 10 years.

So let Iranians chant anything they want about the U.S. Let them yell, "Death to America." That is their political right. Neither the U.S. nor Israel has any right to say, as a result, that Iran is the "enemy," and therefore they can bomb Iranian cities and towns because of Iranian verbal insults.

ISRAEL'S BULLDOZERS DESTROY ARAB HOMES IN EAST JERUSALEM

I heard a BBC Radio News report this afternoon that Israel sent bulldozers to East Jerusalem to take down Arab homes that Israel claims were built without proper permits. The BBC interviewed one lady surrounded by her five sobbing children after they were given five minutes to leave and their home was demolished. (Sorry I don't have a link to provide, but I will try to obtain one in the next few hours.)

Can we have a better example of "ethnic cleansing"? The United States decided to go into Bosnia and Serbia to prevent the rampant inhumane ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. But American politicians seem steadfast in their support of Israel, no matter how cruel or racist Israel appears and no matter how much ethnic cleansing Israel engages in.

Remember that a few days ago at a United Nations conference on racism, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad termed Israel "cruel and racist," and delegations from several European countries made a show of walking out during the speech. Israel's action in destroying homes belonging to Arabs in East Jerusalem is a good example of its cruelty towards Arabs and its embedded racism. Israel just does not want Arabs living in a part of Israel that it believes Jews should populate alone. Given that belief, Arab children put out of their homes peremptorily and families cruelly deprived of their possessions without due and fair process means nothing to the Israeli government.

ISRAEL - STOP ILLEGAL BLOCKADE OF FOOD, MEDICINE TO PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

The BBC reports that Israel has temporarily allowed an easing of the blockade so that fuel and other essentials could be transported into Gaza.

The Palestinians living in Gaza, more than one million, have been punished by Israel for the rocket attacks threatening Israeli villages and towns that have emanated from Gaza. For the last several months, Israel has imposed a total blockade of medicines, food and fuel.

Israel must stop once and for all this cruel and destructive collective punishment. To deny food, medicine and other essentials of life to Palestinians just because some in Gaza have fired missiles cannot be justified as legal under international law. Israel's blockade offends basic human rights as outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights.

PREPOSTEROUS: BUSH CLAIMS HE MADE PROGRESS IN MIDDLE EAST

George Bush today tried to defend his "legacy" in the Middle East. He claims there has been progress.

The BBC reports:

"President George W Bush has defended his Middle East policies, but said his successor Barack Obama would inherit problems in the region.

He said his administration had been "ambitious in vision, bold in action and firm in purpose"."

Will this Bush spinning never stop? I prefer to say Bush has been blind in vision, reckless in action and stubborn in policy.

One of the most egregious of Bush's statements today has been on the Palestinians. Reports the BBC:

""On the most vexing problem in the region - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - there is now greater international consensus than at any point in recent memory," he said.

"While the Israelis and Palestinians have not yet produced an agreement, they have made important progress," he said. "They have laid a new foundation of trust for the future.""

Please someone tell me evidence for "greater international consensus than at any point in recent memory." There has been no consensus. Surely Saudi Arabia disagrees with Bush's favoring of the Israelis and his ostracization of Hamas and all the Palestinians living in Gaza. And Russia and China cannot possibly go along with Bush's treatment of Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organizations." If it were not for Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, there would be mass starvation and humanitarian catastrophes in those areas.

Furthermore, how and when did the Israelis and Palestinians make "important progress"? Oh, Bush must mean with Abu Mazen in the West Bank and his Fatah party, certainly not with Hamas and the million plus desperate Palestinians in Gaza.

But about the worst and most baseless claims are Bush's words trying to justify his immoral and reckless invasion of Iraq:

"Mr Bush admitted that the Iraq war had been "longer and more costly than expected," but said that his decision to invade had been justified.

""America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction," he said."

Saddam Hussein was a "sworn enemy"? He acted "belligerently"? He supported "terror"? Surely Bush must give some evidence to back up these far out claims. But there is no evidence, just Bush trying to gild his legacy in his last 45 days in office.

Funny how Bush tries to make himself the righteous hero in this disastrous story about Iraq. Also isn't strange how war mongers always try to demonize the "enemy," as if to say, "but we only attacked because he started it, it was all his fault, we started firing and bombing only because he provoked us."

But has Bush ever mentioned the 600,000 Iraqis killed since 2003? How about the 4,000 lives of American soldiers? How about all the Iraqi wives made widows by the invasion and their subsequent descent into abject poverty? How about Iraqi children maimed, killed or blinded by American cluster bombs left on the ground after American shock and awe bombing runs?

Iraq, as well as Bush's destructive policy towards the rest of the Middle East, has stained Bush and this lethal fiasco will never wash off his "legacy."

ISRAEL LETS IN 40 TRUCKS WITH FOOD TO GAZA BUT BORDER CLOSINGS CONTINUE

Israel continues its illegal and inhumane and unjust blockade of Gaza. Today, the BBC reports that Israel did let in 40 truck-loads of food and some fuel but that just highlights the true nature of the blockade. Forty trucks of food for over a million Gazans reveals the awful nature of the collective punishment that Israel continues to inflict.

Israel says it will not open the borders for the necessities of life until insurgents stop firing missiles and rockets into Israeli towns. But how can Israel justify the punishment of an entire population on account of the very few who are firing the rockets? I thought war-crimes trials after WWII demonstrated the illegal and indefensible nature of collective punishment.

U.N. DEMANDS ISRAEL CEASE ILLEGAL GAZA BLOCKADE OF FOOD, MEDICINE

It is clear to all with the possible exception of American neo-cons and Israeli ultra nationalists that Israel's blockade of shipkents of food and medicine into Gaza is a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights today condemns Israel for the blockade.

This from the U.N. web site:

"The top United Nations human rights official called today for an immediate end to the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, which she said contravened international law and had deprived those living there of their most basic human rights for months."

Israel seems to believe it can violate basic tenets of international law because a few members of Hamas are shooting missiles into and onto Israeli towns. What Hamas is doing is also a human rights crime, but that does not give Israel the right to respond with collective punishment. We have seen too much collective punishment with the Nazis in WWII where for every German soldier killed, the Nazis would kill 10 or even 100 innocent civilians. It is unbelievable that Israel, homeland to the Jews from all over the world, would even consider using collective punishment against the one million plus residents of Gaza, many of whom are children.

Reports the UN website:

"Ms. Pillay called on the Israeli authorities to facilitate the urgent passage of essential humanitarian goods into Gaza, including food, medical supplies and fuel, to allow the immediate restoration of electricity, water and other essential services, and to lift restrictions on the movement of civilians for medical, educational and religious purposes.

"“Decisive steps must be taken to preserve the dignity and basic welfare of the civilian population, more than half of which are children,” she said."

ISRAEL INFLICTS COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT ON PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

Israel still persists in cutting off food, medicine and fuel from the Palestinians in Gaza. Israel claims it is doing this because it must close all the border crossings for purposes of security because Palestinians have been firing rockets into Israeli towns.

Linda Gradstein writes for The Washington Post:

"The resulting Israeli blockade has disrupted a U.N. program that feeds about half of Gaza's population, said Ging. Food distributed through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency includes flour, oil, rice, sugar and canned meat, and is meant to provide 60 percent of daily caloric needs.

""Many of these families have been subsisting on this ration for years and they are living hand to mouth," Ging said angrily. "This is a disastrous situation and its getting worse and worse. Even during the cease-fire we were prohibited from building up our reserves which could have prevented the current crisis. This is shocking.""


This is outright collective punishment, a violation of international law. A few Palestinians fire rockets, therefore starve and punish the entire Palestinian people.

Israel, stop this illegal and inhumane practice of collective punishment!

ISRAEL CONTINUES BLOCKADE OF FOOD, MEDICINE, FUEL TO GAZA

Israel continues with its blockade of food, medicine and fuel to the Palestinians in Gaza. Can we have any better example of the shameful and despised practice of collective punishment? Some Hamas members shoot missiles into Israeli towns along the border, so Israel decides to punish the entire Gaza population by denying essentials of life. Israel is thereby saying that it is willing tokill the entire million people in Gaza for the actions of a handful.

ISRAEL, EGYPT VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS OF AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS

Human Rights Watch released a report highly critical of both Egypt and Israel for their treatment of immigrants coming from Africa, principally from Sudan and Somalia. Over 30 immigrants have been shot as they tried cross from Egypt into Israel, all by Egyptian border patrol guards. Israel has rounded up immigrants and forced them back into Egypt where they can look forward to being deported back to their home countries.

The BBC reports on the Human Rights Watch study:

"An international human rights lobby group has called on Egypt to stop shooting African migrants as they cross the country's border into Israel.

"Egyptian border guards have shot dead at least 32 African refugees and migrants since June 2007, Human Rights Watch says in a new 90-page report."

However, Israel is also criticized in the study. Reports the BBC:

"Police in Israel have detained about 200 Africans in Tel Aviv following the announcement of tough measures against illegal immigrants.

"A police spokesman said the detainees - mainly from Sudan, Eritrea and the Ivory Coast - who do not have refugee status would be deported.

"Human rights activists have criticised the detentions."

Ehud Olmert has ordered the tightening of border controls, reports the BBC:

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday instructed Israeli police to deport thousands of African asylum seekers who have entered Israel though the Egyptian border. He also ordered security officials to tighten control of the border with Egypt."

We see this wave of anti-immigration in Italy, Israel and, of course, in the United States. The whole question of immigration is based on individual human rights and dignity. Everyone should be able to go wherever he or she wants to improve or better one's economic position, provided that one is peaceful and does no bodily harm. But at its roots, the anti-immigrant movement distrusts the foreigner, his language and different skin color.

ISRAEL CUTS OFF FUEL, FOOD TO PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

Aleem Maqbool writes for the BBC website today on the latest collective punishment meted out by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza.

Writes Maqbool:

"Over the last six days, Israel has all but closed its crossings with the Gaza Strip.

"No fuel (paid for by foreign donors) has been allowed into Gaza for its power station, no food has been allowed in for the United Nations' aid distribution centres on which most Gazans rely.

"No journalists are being allowed into Gaza to cover the story."

What is the Israeli government thinking? Because there have been recent rocket attacks on nearby Israeli villages after the Israeli army sent tanks into Gaza, the Israeli leaders decide to punish the whole population in Gaza. That includes women, children, elderly, infirm, innocent civilians.

I thought collective punishment was disgraced in WWII. Apparently, it is alive and thriving in today's Israel.

OBAMA'S COMMENTS ON IRAN SUPPORTING "TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS" UNFORTUNATE AND UNNECESSARY

When Barack Obama gave his first news conference last Friday, he was asked about a letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulating the U.S. president-elect. Obama said he would study the letter and respond "appropriately."

But why did Obama need to add that Iran must stop "supporting terrorists?" And why did he also think it necessary to say that the U.S. would never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons?

This is the same old Bush/Cheney bellicose blustering about Iran. Instead of engaging Iran and its leaders with diplomacy and respect, Bush/Cheney and now Obama somehow think they must oppose Iran's legitimate quest for nuclear technology. Iran has said many times it has no interest in nuclear weapons. Why must Obama now contradict them when there is no credible evidence to the contrary?

And as far as Iran's support for "terrorists," I assume Obama refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is Hezbollah a "terrorist organization?" Or is it really an indigenous Lebanese social/economic/military organization that represents an insurgency against Israel and its restrictive policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Just because the U.S. government has labeled it a terrorist organization, following the lead of Israel, this does not ipso facto mean that Hezbollah is engaged in "terrorism." What is terrorism to Israel may be liberation insurgency to the majority of Lebanese.

ISRAELI OFFICIALS WARN AGAINST OBAMA CONDUCTING TALKS WITH IRAN

It is curious that in the last few days before president-elect Obama's news conference and his statements on Iran, two high-ranking officials from Israel thought it necessary to come out and warn Obama about establishing talks with Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Foreign Minister Tzipy Livni offered that Obama's acceptance of talks with Iran would show "weakness."

"US President-elect Barack Obama should not talk to Iran just yet, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Thursday, warning that such dialogue could project "weakness."
"We need to fight extremism," Livni said as she stood next to visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in the home of the American ambassador to Israel.. "We need to continue the pressure on Iran and I believe that the idea of continuing the pressure comes with more intense and effective sanctions on the Iranians."
Although she described Obama's election as "a source of inspiration to millions around the world," and congratulated him on his "historic victory," her comments marked a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration. Obama has stated a willingness to talk to Iran about its nuclear program without condition, telling The Jerusalem Post in July that he would engage "in tough, direct talks" with Teheran."

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said it would allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons behind the pretense of engaging in diplomatic talks. Tovah Lazaroff reports for The Jerusalem Post:

"Israel is not ruling out any option when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday.

"Following a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem, Barak said he told her that Israel is "not taking any option off the table, and we don't recommend that others take any option off the table," stressing, "We mean what we say."

"Barak insisted that Iran was continuing to "trick the world" in negotiations over the monitoring of its nuclear activities. "

The question is why we are getting all of these anti-Iranian statements from Israeli officials at this time.

I though that Barack Obama's statement on Iran at his news conference was bellicose enough with the push of the Israelis. Obama said he would never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that furthermore, Iran should stop giving aid to "terrorists."

By "terrorists," I assume Obama meant Hezbollah in Lebanon. If so, Obama is no better than George W. Bush in a simplistic approach to Hezbollah and the Shiite Muslims spread throughout the Middle East. Israel calls Hezbollah a terrorist group, so does the United States. But it is not clear that Hezbollah is anything more than a political entity infused with Shiite Islam that fights against Israel for land and civil rights. In other words, Hezbollah is an insurgency against the Israelis.

And as far as Iran's approach to nuclear weapons, Iranian leaders claim they have no desire to make nuclear weapons, and certainly, the IAEA has found no evidence to the contrary. All statements by Israel and Bush about Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is based on supposition and conjecture.

The question then is, would Obama allow Israel to attack Iran on the basis of conjecture? Obama's statements don't seem to reassure me on this important question.