Tag Archive for 'neo-conservatives'

Rudd government reignites campaign against Iranian president

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.

Is Iran next?

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.

Killing a chance for peace

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.

How can I help the chaos, daddy?

Being a war blogger (and getting everything wrong.)

What Zionism means to them

Leon Hadar, The American Conservative, April 21:

…It seems to me that what [William] Kristol and other leading neoconservatives have been promoting hasn’t been Zionism (whatever that means) but their own very unique Zionist agenda in which Israel assumes the role of a crusader Jewish state in the Middle East that will never make peace with its neighbors and whose survival will always been dependent on the patronage of an American hegemon that maintains its dominant position in the Middle East.

Keeping the masses underfed

Glenn Greenwald, civil libertarian, blogger and author, discusses the themes in his new book Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, conservatives’ bogus anti-government rhetoric as they preside over the biggest growth of government ever, their contempt for the Constitution they claim to venerate as they consolidate all power constitutional and otherwise in the presidency, the legacy of William F. Buckley in destroying what was once conservatism with the ex-communism of the neoconservatives, the cowardice of the War Party’s leaders, the parallels between the media’s love for Bush in 2000 and for McCain today, the shallowness and self-serving narcissism of American media figures, Attorney General Mukasey’s lies about what the law says and does and fictional versions of phone calls between terrorists before 9/11 in order to justify further expansions of power over us.

Was the Israel lobby behind the Iraq war?

Norman Finkelstein and John Mearsheimer discuss the reasons behind the Iraq war on Al-Jazeera English:

How occupation has corrupted Israel’s soul

My following book review appears in today’s edition of Sydney’s Sun-Herald newspaper:

Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
Jonathan Cook
(Pluto Press, $42.95)

The September 11 attacks on New York and Washington caused the Western media and political elite to seriously examine their behaviour in the Middle East. Most concluded that maintaining client states was the only viable way forward; the desperate need for oil supplies supplanted most other considerations.

The US-led invasion of Iraq was a radical form of shock treatment designed to unseat a once friendly Washington-friendly dictator. The nationalist insurgency crushed those plans, leaving the world’s sole super-power battling a relatively small number of fighters whose sole goal was the removal of an unforgiving occupation.

One country that has received relatively little scrutiny in the years since September 11 has been Israel.

The Jewish state has the most powerful military in the region, with an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, and an arsenal of cluster bombs that it used against civilians in Lebanon in the final days of its botched 2006 campaign against Hizbollah.

During the recent Australian parliamentary motion to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the country as a “custodian of freedom” amongst dictatorships. In his compelling new book, Jonathan Cook, former Guardian journalist and current resident of Nazareth, challenges this perception and concludes that, like the Bush administration, Israel actively pursue policies that lead to civil war and partition. Cook bravely skewers the mainstream narrative of a Jewish state constantly striving for peace with the Palestinians.

Israel’s security establishment developed ideas in the 1980s that advocated dissolving many of the Middle East nations, leaving Israel, like the Ottomans in centuries past, to be the local imperial power. “In this way, hoped Israel and the [predominantly Zionist] neo-cons”, Cook writes, “large and potentially powerful states such as Iraq and Iran could be partitioned between their ethnic rivalries and sectarian communities.”

Aid agencies reported in 2007 that eight million Iraqis, nearly a third of the population, required emergency aid and millions were both internally and externally displaced. Was this the intended goal?

The similarities between the Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank and America’s plans in Iraq are meticulously examined. Cook argues that Washington found an invaluable template for its own occupation after carefully studying the Jewish state’s record in dividing and conquering the indigenous population.

Cook approvingly quotes Palestinian academic Karma Nabulsi who has written of a “Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed, ruled by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and extremists, broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism and co-opted collaborationists.”

David Rose, in a recent issue of Vanity Fair, reported on Bush administration plans to trigger a civil war between Hamas and Fatah after the former won a free and fair election in the Palestinian territories in 2006. The “wrong” party had won. Nabulsi’s nightmare had come true.

“As far as the neocons were concerned, whatever Israel wanted, it should get”, writes Cook, whose summary of the last eight years is reflected in the public utterances of Washington’s leading power-brokers. After Israel’s futile war against Lebanon in 2006 – with over 1000 Lebanese civilians killed – leading neocon Meyrav Wurmser, whose husband was a former senior advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, lamented Israel’s performance. “The anger [in the White House] is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians”, she said. “The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space [before the UN resolution ended the conflict.]”

These noble ideas were clearly what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had in mind when she talked during the war about “birth pangs” of a new Middle East. Cook explains that there are times when Washington tries to push Israel into actions it would not rather not do itself and other times when the Jewish state acts recklessly, such as the ever-growing expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and America remains mute. It’s a relationship that is widely accepted by the foreign policy elite and the vast majority of the establishment media.

Challenging its integrity guarantees charges of anti-Semitism or disloyalty by the Zionist lobby.

This book, while not containing a great deal of original research, is an important contribution to understanding why “Israel’s role [is] to dictate and terrify other states in the region with threats of punishment so that they dare not step out of line.”

The result, while temporarily successful on military grounds, has left the Jewish state isolated internationally and reviled across the Arab world. If Israel is to survive for another 60 years, it will need to understand that the ongoing occupation has corrupted its soul. The current signs are that its leadership doesn’t grasp this basic fact.

There’s so much more bombing to do

What does a Jewish, neo-conservative, former Bush administration official do after he leaves office?

Advocate war against Iran.

Our imperial designs

What will the future of the Middle East look like?

The Left just adores fascists?

“Liberal Fascism”, a book dressed up as meaty analysis by one of America’s leading neo-conservative commentators, is beautifully debunked by a writer who actually understands what “fascism” and “liberalism” truly mean.

How to know nothing about something

This is how to distort Islam and its practitioners (courtesy of the Murdoch press.)

Take one. Take two.

Talking to “them”

A majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas.

Who leads whom?

Israel, the Zionist lobby, the Iraq war and US foreign policy.

A discussion.

Democracy is an option

Be a patriotic citizen and support every action of the American government and military in the world.

Or else.

Victory in Iraq is so yesterday

Inside the mind of a neo-conservative (and yes, Iraq is as fun as Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children before breakfast):

Blogging for freedom (and torture)

The democratisation of media continues apace:

Since CNN embraced the citizen journalist movement in August 2006 with the launch of its iReport initiative, the news organization has received nearly 100,000 news-related photos and videos from viewers.

Yet fewer than 10% of those submissions have appeared on CNN.com or the cable channel.

That’s all about to change. CNN this week will enter YouTube territory with iReport.com, a new site built entirely on user-produced news. And unlike CNN’s own properties — where only iReport submissions that have been handpicked by editors and checked for accuracy ever make it online or on air — the new site will be wide open, allowing users to post whatever content they choose, CNN said.

On the other side of the internet, what happens when an aging war criminal (Henry Kissinger) gets together with a new breed of wannabes?

It was a bit like the great-grandson having a party for the patriarch. On Monday night, the six-year-old conservative blog Power Line gathered a group of luminaries — including Henry A. Kissinger, William Kristol and Paul D. Wolfowitz (with his companion, Shaha Ali Riza, in tow) — to honor Norman Podhoretz with a book award.

It was the kind of crowd that applauds when a speaker calls for military action against Iran. Some other highlights: There were calls to fight “Islamofascism” and praise for John McCain’s stance on the Iraq war. Mr. Podhoretz predicted that George W. Bush’s presidency would one day be held in the same high esteem as Harry S. Truman’s. Mr. Kissinger, perhaps in deference to his hosts, discussed digital media for a bit but admitted he didn’t know what a blog was.

It must have been quite a night to remember, celebrating endless war, calling for more bombing, torture and US hegemony. After all, neo-conservatives just can’t resist some water-boarding after dinner.

The thick underwear will keep him warm

The Daily Show on the real reason behind Mitt Romney’s withdrawal from the presidential campaign (something about letting the terrorists win?)

Complicit in silence

My following article appeared in yesterday’s Guardian Comment is Free section:

During the current Israeli siege of Gaza - correctly described by Saree Makdisi as “strangulation”, Israel’s ambassador to Australia issued a plea for understanding the Jewish state’s position.

The ambassador, Yuval Rotem, argued that, “the people of Gaza are not the enemy”. He also wrote, “nor is there any benefit from Israel making them so” but the words of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert directly contradicted him. “As far as I am concerned”, he said, “all of Gaza’s residents can walk and have no fuel for their cars, as they live under a murderous regime”.

Israel’s supreme court last week ruled that the state could limit the supply of petrol, diesel and electricity. Collective punishment is illegal under international law. Leading neoconservatives now proudly encourage the west to push Egypt to take full responsibility for Gaza. The worldwide Jewish community leadership responds with a shrug or remains complicit in its silence.

The one-year anniversary of the launch of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) in Britain signals a similar milestone for a movement I co-founded: Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV). As I described on this site last March, many Jews in Australia believed that the official Jewish leadership could not claim to speak on behalf of all Jews.

We gathered close to 500 signatures and launched a campaign of public awareness that made clear that a growing number of Jews would no longer issue unconditional support for every action of the Jewish state. The response was overwhelming and continues to this day. Barely a week passes without a disparaging comment about IAJV in the national Jewish newspaper, Australian Jewish News. Like IJV, we plan a series of events and speakers to expand debate in the public domain.

Australian media coverage of the Middle East conflict is predominantly friendly to Israeli goals, ably assisted by a new Labor government. A recent glowing article in Rupert Murdoch’s national broadsheet articulated the mindset: “Deep inside the plucky country”. But groups such as IAJV and IJV are undoubtedly reflecting a global shift in Jewish sentiment, increasingly vocal in their concerns over ongoing Zionist dominance.

A leading Israeli professor has warned that the relationship between Israel and the diaspora is drifting apart. The Jewish state, he said, was “no longer viewed as a safe haven, a source of pride”. Thirty-four per cent of Israeli children are now living in poverty. South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu continues to compare conditions in Palestine to apartheid South Africa.

The current American presidential election has proven that unwavering support for Israel is an article of faith for the leading candidates. Republican contender Mike Huckabee writes that Washington should ignore the Middle East’s “terrorist states” - any nation that refuses to bend to Israeli dictates - and “defeat Islamofascism”. However, a recent study by the American Jewish Committee proved that this neoconservative doctrine is fundamentally opposed by a majority of American Jews.

A far saner suggestion, offered by dedicated Zionist writer AB Yehoshua, is for America to recall its ambassador in Israel until all West Bank settlements are removed. Despite all the rhetoric about a two-state solution, the ever-expanding occupation makes this impossible. The number of settlers in the West Bank grew by five per cent in 2007.

Australians are a long way from the Middle East, but a blind man could see that Israeli and American actions are making the region a more volatile place. Perhaps Haaretz editor David Landau was right when he said that the Jewish state had to be “raped” by America to achieve peace.

A reporter’s job

Never. Turn. On. The. Bush. Administration.

But if you do, and you’re a journalist revealing a secretive and illegal program, expect to be hounded and possibly prosecuted for simply doing your job.

All journalists should express solidarity with any reporter, from the left or right, attacked by an institution that specialises in war crimes.




This is a non-profit site dedicated to providing timely and challenging material. Any financial contributions would be greatly appreciated, however, to sustain hosting costs and the life of a freelance journalist.
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from AntonyLoewenstein. Make your own badge here.



Global Voices Advocacy
Dogpile Search



Close