Antony Loewenstein

My following article appears in today’s edition of Crikey:

Antony Loewenstein, author of My Israel Question, writes:

In late 2006, hardline Zionists in Israel and the United States raised the possibility of indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” against the Jewish state.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, “Iran is a danger to the entire world, because it envisions a 1,000-year Islamic Reich based on nuclear weapons.” A key problem for the case, casually slipped into the Jerusalem Post, was that, “the court is problematic for Israel — it has stipulated that settlements are tantamount to war crimes — and Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statue upon which it is based.”

Before last year’s Australian election, the then Labor opposition advocated chasing Ahmadinejad in a shameless ploy for the paranoid, Jewish vote. The fact that the case had zero chance of success and was being pursued by leading, discredited neo-conservatives – including former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who again recently advocated “responsible” bombing of Iran — appeared not to bother Kevin Rudd.

Perhaps most concerning was his acceptance of the widely mistranslated Ahmadinejad comment about wanting to “wipe Israel off the map”. In fact, he said nothing of the sort. The Iranian leader is certainly prone to making outlandish comments about Israel and denying the Holocaust, but that’s no more offensive than a host of Israeli leaders advocating the elimination or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

It appears that the Rudd government is still on the case. Yesterday’s front-page story in The Australian breathlessly reported that Attorney-General Robert McClelland is “currently taking advice” on the possibility of pursuing Ahmadinejad. McClelland told the paper that this course of action was preferable to “wholesale invasion of countries”. Well, yes, but what about direct engagement?

Iran’s regional challenge to the American and Israeli-imposed status-quo is the great untold story of the last eight years.

Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan backed the move and Rudd told Sky News that Ahmadinejad’s comments had a “roll-on effect across the Islamic world, particularly those who listen to Iran for their guidance”.

Crikey asked the Attorney-General’s office to clarify the latest developments and a spokesman from his office said that, “the Government strongly supports maintaining pressure on Iran to act as a responsible member of the international community.” Furthermore, “like many in the community, Labor has long expressed abhorrence at the remarks of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. We believe the international community should do all it reasonably can to pressure Iran to be a more responsible global citizen.”

Questions about the pressure from the local Zionist leadership on the government went unanswered.

A Sydney-based ALP source told Crikey that pursuing Ahmadinejad was a pet project for Rudd, not unlike his slavish motion in parliament in March celebrating Israel’s 60th anniversary. The source said that, despite the opposition of many in the ALP, the motion was written with the involvement of the country’s leading Zionist lobby, AIJAC, and was initially far more congratulatory before being tempered.

Regular, public displays of affection for the Jewish state are an article of faith across the political divide. Zionism has become a religion. As we’ve seen with Barack Obama, support for the Palestinian cause virtually guarantees political oblivion.

Share This

If You are Not Muslim in Iraq, You are Trash.

A compelling essay co-written by friend and author of American Torture, Mike Otterman.

Share This

Syrian expert Joshua Landis comments on the latest news from Lebanon (and the apparent withdrawal of Hizbollah troops from the streets of Beirut):

By pulling back from the city it so easily conquered and by turning over its strategic centers to the Lebanese army, Hizbullah has been gracious in victory.

It has not pressed its superior hand, putting paid to the irresponsible claim that Hizbullah wants to impose an Iranian-style, Islamic mullocracy on Lebanon’s Christians and Sunnis. On the contrary, it can be argued, Hizbullah is trying to broker the type of power-sharing government that the US would only be too eager to see emerge in divided Baghdad.

Share This

Robert Fisk in the London Independent on the current crisis in Lebanon:

Another American humiliation. The Shia gunmen who drove past my apartment in west Beirut yesterday afternoon were hooting their horns, making V-signs, leaning out of the windows of SUVs with their rifles in the air, proving to the Muslims of the capital that the elected government of Lebanon has lost.

And it has. The national army still patrols the streets, but solely to prevent sectarian killings or massacres. Far from dismantling the pro-Iranian Hizbollah’s secret telecommunications system – and disarming the Hizbollah itself – the cabinet of Fouad Siniora sits in the old Turkish serail in Beirut, denouncing violence with the same authority as the Iraqi government in Baghdad’s green zone…

No, this is not a civil war. Nor is it a coup d’etat, though it meets some of the criteria. It is part of the war against America in the Middle East. The Hizbollah “must stop sowing trouble,” the White House said rather meekly. Yes, like the Taliban. And al-Qa’ida. And the Iraqi insurgents. And Hamas. And who else?

Share This

My following article appears in today’s ABC Unleashed:

The fifth anniversary in March of the Iraq war should have given the political and media elite time to reflect on their actions since 2003. Virtually ignored by the mainstream media were stories such as life in Fallujah, where citizens remain mired in poverty and resentment.

Despite the failings of the conflict, increasingly aggressive rhetoric against Iran suggests that a military strike against the Islamic Republic is being considered at the highest levels of the American and Israeli governments.

During the recent testimony of American General David Petraeus, he consistently blamed Iran, and not al-Qaeda, for Washington’s problems in the occupied nation. Tehran now complains that US-backed rebels are provoking its borders. New evidence proves that the Bush administration wanted to target Iran soon after 9/11.

Fox News‘ Bill Reilly blindly accepted the argument that, “Iran is directly responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American troops, and it is the primary reason Iraq remains so chaotic”. Bombing should clearly commence in five minutes.

The reality of Iran’s involvement in Iraq remains confusing, however, something confirmed by Independent journalist Patrick Cockburn. Tehran’s influence is complex, though undeniable.

Cockburn fears that an American attack on Iran is not unlikely, but for reasons other than currently stated. A regional challenge to America’s hegemony is not accepted lightly. Moreover, Washington will simply not tolerate a well-armed and relatively wealthy nation, Iran, challenging its unimpeded flow of oil from various, authoritarian client states.

The fact that America now has less control over the world’s global resources is something ignored by most commentators. The great, ironic legacy of the Bush administration will be its success in increasing the decline of America’s diplomatic influence. Large swathes of the world now largely ignore State Department dictates.

Israel also finds itself in a situation largely of its own making (not unlike its colonial addiction to the settlement project). Yossi Alpher, former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, has articulated the thinking in Tel Aviv:

“…In order to understand Israel’s response to both the current tension with Syria and Hizballah and the link between that tension and the status of Israeli-Palestinian relations, it is vital to recognize the major evolution that has taken place in recent years in Israel’s grand strategic thinking regarding the Iranian threat. Iran - not Syria and not Palestine - is today the prism through which Israeli security planners look at the region, its permutations and the threats it presents. Any effort at either war or peace with Syria is directed against Iran. The non-state Islamist actors Hizballah and Hamas represent Iranian footholds on Israel’s borders and on the shores of the Mediterranean. Israeli-Egyptian cooperation regarding Hamas relates to Iran.

“Of course, Israel still has a host of strategic threats and issues to deal with. But the prism is Iran.”

The last weeks have seen bellicose statements by various Israeli ministers, not least Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer who warned Iran that any attack on Israel would result in the “destruction of the Iranian nation”. The Iranian response was predictable. Gen. Mohammad Reza Ashtiani said that Iran would destroy the Jewish state if attacked.

The Bush administration provide valuable insights into the mindset that led Tony Blair, John Howard and a host of other leaders into the “war on terror’s” orbit. Time.com’s senior editor Tony Karon explains:

The U.S. or an ally or proxy launches a military offensive against a politically popular “enemy” group; Bush and his minions welcome the violence as “clarifying” matters, demonstrating “resolve”, or, in the most grotesque rhetorical flourish of all, the “birth pangs” of a brave new world. Each time, the “enemy” proves far more resilient than expected, largely because Bush and his allies have failed to recognize that each adversary’s power should be measured in political support rather than firepower; and the net effect of the offensive invariably leaves the enemy strengthened and the U.S. and its allies even weaker than before they launched the offensive.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may be faced with a request from the White House – including from the next President, either Democrat or Republican – to support military action against Iran.

The Labor party has already stated that it intends to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the International Court of Justice (something praised by the local Zionist lobby). It will inevitably fail but worryingly associates Australia with a neo-conservative foreign policy agenda, something supposedly jettisoned last year. It’s a shame our media doesn’t investigate recent claims that Israel is purchasing oil from the Islamic Republic, fundamentally undermining its claims of victimhood.

Rudd’s recent world tour was praised by the Wall Street Journal, though journalists missed a far more important gauge of public opinion. Iranians, in a recent poll, expressed scepticism towards America but a willingness to have “direct talks on issues of mutual concern” and “more access for each other’s journalists” Iranian bloggers continue to be active, despite the onerous restrictions.

Our media has a responsibility to fully investigate the claims and counter-claims surrounding Iran’s alleged nuclear program (though Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric rarely helps matters). As former US President Jimmy Carter said this week about the necessity of including Hamas in any Israel/Palestine peace deal, Tehran will inevitably need to be engaged if Middle East peace is to be achieved.

That is, of course, if what America and Israel truly desires.

Share This

Joschka Fischer, Guardian Comment is Free, May 5:

President Bush’s Middle East policy undeniably managed to achieve one thing: it has thoroughly destabilised the region. Otherwise, the results are not at all what the US had hoped to accomplish. A democratic, pro-western Middle East is not in the cards.

But, while things are not developing as American neoconservatives had intended, they are nevertheless developing. The historical failure named the Iraq war, the demise of secular Arab nationalism and the soaring oil and gas prices have wrought profound changes in the region. From Damascus to Dubai, from Tel Aviv to Tehran, a new Middle East is now emerging.

Share This

Raw Story provides necessary context to the latest missive from US Vice President Dick Cheney:

George W. Bush has made the world a more hopeful place.

This from Vice President Dick Cheney, who spoke to a crowd of Oklahoma Republicans Friday evening.

“When the history is written, it will be said this is a safer country and more hopeful world because George Bush was president,” Cheney said, according to Oklahoma’s Tulsa World.

Of Iraq, Cheney quipped: “Our strategy is the right strategy. The only way we can lose is to quit.”

If the US departs, he said, it would show America “doesn’t have the stomach for a fight.” Cheney himself received five draft deferments to avoid service in the Vietnam war.

To justify a US presence in the wartorn region, Cheney cited the Russian experience in Afghanistan.

“We were engaged in that country, lending support to the mujahadeen against Soviet forces,” he said. “Afterwards, everybody walked away and forgot about Afghanistan. What followed was a civil war and the emergence of the Taliban. In 1996, Osama Bin Laden was invited into Afghanistan. He trained thousands of terrorists, some of whom were part of the attacks here on the United States.”

He didn’t mention the the US pulled out of Afghanistan as well, after the defeat of the Soviets, or that US business, including those in Texas during George W. Bush’s term as governor, engaged in business with the Taliban regime.

Share This

Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj, held without charge in Guantanamo Bay for over six years, speaks out after his release from the American gulag:

Share This

This is how America tortures:

Part one and part two.

Share This

Stephen Kinzer, Guardian Comment is Free, April 23:

Trying to figure out who won the Iraq war is a challenging parlour game. Nearly every faction, group and nation has lost. The only evident victors are Iran, the Kurds and a handful of giant American corporations.

It is slowly becoming clear, however, that there is another winner: Latin America. With the United States so totally consumed by the Iraq conflict, it has no time, energy or political capital to crack down on challenges south of the Rio Grande. Sensing their historic chance, many Latin nations have embarked on experiments that the US would in past eras have instantly stepped in to crush.

The independence that many Latin American countries have shown in the last five years borders on outright defiance of US power. Yet to a degree unprecedented in modern history, Washington is allowing them to do as they please.

Well, not quite as they please.

Share This