Sunday, September 30, 2007

No Says Taleban To Karzai Talks

Taleban shun Karzai talks offer

A spokesman for Taleban militants in Afghanistan has rejected another offer for talks by President Hamid Karzai. Spokesman Qari Yusuf Ahmadi said the Taleban would never negotiate with the Afghan authorities while foreign troops remained in the country.

President Karzai repeated on Saturday that he would be willing to offer the Taleban positions in government if it would bring peace.

"Taliban are not interested in government posts - ministries or anything. We want the withdrawal of foreign forces and we stand by our position," Qari Yusuf Ahmadi told news agencies.

"As long as they have not withdrawn, we'll never talk with the Kabul administration."
President Karzai said on Saturday he wished he could contact Taleban leader Mullah Omar and warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to ask why they were trying to destroy Afghanistan. He said he would meet both men personally, and even offer them cabinet posts, if it would help to bring about peace. But he reiterated he would not agree to any troop
Left: A Taleban suicide bomber killed 30 people on Saturday

The Taleban claimed responsibility for Saturday's suicide bomb attack on a Kabul bus, which was split in two by the blast. The attack, in which a further 21 people were injured, was the second deadliest in the Afghan capital since 2001.

The Afghani people have renewed confidence in the Taleban as civic services wither, security worsens and air strikes carried out by international troops deployed in the country continue to kill civilians. Foreign air forces bombard villages and sometimes Mosques in the hope of killing Taleban militants,

In July, 2007,over 130 dead bodies of civilians including women and children were found in the rubble left by coalition bombardment.

The civilian casualties in that incident became even higher as the search for dead bodies continued. Some estimates put the total loss of life at over 180 persons. But, as US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said, "we don't do body counts." Moreover, it is difficult to independently, verify the death toll in these incidents as the bombings occur in remote and volatile regions of the country.

About 37,000 soldiers of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and 13,000 US-led coalition troops are operating in Afghanistan to hunt down militants. However, they have frequently caused high civilian casualties in their operations, critically undermining the Afghan people's support for them.

Nevertheless, foreign forces have asserted that Taleban insurgents deliberately mingle themselves with civilians therefore, civilian casualties are caused. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has severely criticized foreign troops this year for their lack of coordination with Afghan forces during their operations and the high loss of life among civilians.

Due to rising Taliban insurgency, over 3,000 persons, most of whom are Taleban militants, have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Scores of Taleban fighters have been killed in the past week. However, there seems to be an endless supply of young Paskiistani and Afghani young men who want to take up arms and are willing to die to liberate Afghanistan from the seven-year occupation.


Ethiopia's Haile Gebrselassi Sets Marathon Record

Left: Haile Gebrselassie is a double Olympic champion over 10,000 meters

Haile Gebrselassie broke the marathon world record in Berlin on Sunday, posting an official time of two hours, four minutes and 26 seconds.

The 34-year-old Ethiopian beat the mark of 2:04:55 set by Kenya's Paul Tergat in Berlin in September 2003. Gebrselassie was already 32 seconds inside Tergat's pace at the 10km mark and went through halfway at 62.29.

"This is wonderful, really special," said Gebrselassie, who missed the record by 61 seconds in the 2006 race. The mild weather conditions were almost ideal, with overcast skies for most of the race.
"Today it was perfect," he added. "It was a little bit windy, but perfect. The spectators were great and gave me great support."
The fast, flat course wound through nine districts of the German capital with a total inclination of just 30m.

Last year, Gebrselassie had faded in the final six kilometres in the face of a stiff headwind but this year the race organisers made sure there were enough pacesetters to take him through the 30km point.

Gebrselassie won four successive world titles over 10,000m and set numerous world records on the track before turning to road racing late in his career.

What a wonderful world record. The noble Ethiopian, in the twilight of his career proving he's probably the best long distance runner of all times. This was an amazing run from the greatest long distance runner ever. Mr. Gebrselassie hold world records in distances of 1,500m to the marathon.

Haile Gebrselassie (Ge'ez ኃይሌ ገብረ ሥላሴ haylē gebre silassē) was born April 18, 1973 and is a long distance track and road running athlete born as one of ten children in Asella, Arsi Province, Ethiopia. According to his biography on the International Olympic Committee website, as a child growing up on a farm in Ethiopia he used to run ten kilometers to school every morning, and the same distance back every evening. This led to a distinctive running posture, with his left arm crooked as if still holding his schoolbooks.

He currently holds the marathon world record with a time of 2 hours 4 minutes 26 seconds and is considered by many to be one of the best distance runners of all time, having broken 25 world records and won numerous Olympic and World Championship titles. For a full list of Gebrselassie's World Records, rankings, race history, recent news, and more SEE HERE.

Gebrselassie gained international recognition in 1992 when he won the 5,000-metre and 10,000-metre races at the World Junior Athletics Championships and a silver medal in the junior race at the World Cross Country Championships. The next year Gebreselassie won the first of what would eventually be four consecutive world championships in the men's 10,000 meters at the World Track & Field Championships (1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999).

* 1993
o 1993 World Championships in Athletics
+ 10,000 metre gold medal
+ 5,000 metre silver medal
o 1993 IAAF African Athletics Championships

+ 5,000 metre silver medal
+ 10,000 metre bronze medal
* 1994 IAAF World Cross Country Championships - bronze medal
* 1995
o 1995 World Championships in Athletics
+ 10,000 m gold medal
* 1996
o 1996 Summer Olympics
+ 10,000 m gold medal
* 1997
o 1997 World Championships in Athletics
+ 10,000 m gold medal
o 1997 IAAF World Indoor Championships
+ 3,000 m gold medal
* 1999
o 1999 World Championships in Athletics
+ 10,000 m gold medal
o 1999 IAAF World Indoor Championships
+ 1,500 m gold medal
+ 3,000 m gold medal
* 2000
o 2000 Summer Olympics
+ 10,000 m gold medal
* 2001
o 2001 World Championships in Athletics
+ 10,000 m bronze medal
o 2001 IAAF World Half Marathon Championships winner
* 2003
o 2003 IAAF World Indoor Championships
+ 3,000 m gold medal
o 2003 World Championships in Athletics
+ 10,000 m silver medal
Haile Gebrselassie in his own words:
"At the moment I am a little bit politician, yes. I think that could be my next step. It is not because I want power, it is because of what I think I could do for the people."

"But in my country people are hungry, people are thirsty. The problems will never be overcome just by helping them to run fast."

"Eradicate poverty. This is all that matters in my country. When I am out training I think about this a lot; when I am running it is going over in my mind. As a country we cannot move forward until we eradicate poverty."

"You know, I want to help my country. Definitely I can help them, simply by winning races. Sure, they can follow my path to a good career. But for me it is not enough. I want to be more than that. In everything I want to be a role model."
Gete Wami of Ethiopia won the women's marathon in a time of 2:23.17.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Political Puppetry: Afghani Act Staged Right

Left:Britain launched a "reconciliation" drive to undermine the Taleban after its strategists concluded military victory cannot be won
Below: Afghan President Hamid Karzai gestures

Is not this the way it usually, works in political puppetry? There are usually such compromises, co-opting or accommodation of the 'revolutionary' forces into an attenuated and austere polity. Historically, these types of pyrrhic imperial clienteles have been amenable to the exertion of force. Albeit, the insurgency must be able to militarily, fight the governing order to at least a standstill. Otherwise, there is no incentive for the sovereign and occupier to dislodge some of their usurped power.

The sycophant must acknowledge the big Taleban elephant in the hinterland. Although, Hamid and his masters shirk and besmirch the Afghani Parliament while dismissing their democratic voices however, they are compelled to listen to the loud laudations of bombs and bullets - they have no pallet for the ballot but will allot for the mallet.

Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistant offers to meet with Mullah Omar for
peace talks and government posts. President Hamid Karzai offered Saturday to meet personally with Taleban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.
"If I find their address, there is no need for them to come to me, I'll personally go there and get in touch with them," Karzai said. "Esteemed Mullah, sir, and esteemed Hekmatyar, sir, why are you destroying the country?"
"If a group of Taliban or a number of Taliban come to me and say, 'President, we want a department in this or in that ministry or we want a position as deputy minister ... and we don't want to fight anymore ... If there will be a demand and a request like that to me, I will accept it because I want conflicts and fighting to end in Afghanistan," Karzai said.

"I wish there would be a demand as easy as this. I wish that they would want a position in the government. I will give them a position," he said.
Above:Taleban guerillas - Below: NATO commander says Taleban could regain territory.

The Taleban could recapture territory in southern Afghanistan won by British troops in fighting this summer, Nato's commander warned yesterday.
General Dan McNeill, an American, said British soldiers had made "significant progress" in Helmand province but were facing difficulties securing gains and it was "likely" some of the ground would have to be taken again if the Taliban regrouped over the winter.
British soldiers have been fighting the Taliban at close quarters, especially in the fertile river valleys of northern Helmand. So far this year, 35 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. The number of British troops in the area is due to increase next month to 7,700, more than double the initial deployment.

Above: As NATO shifts from a defensive alliance to a responsive organization, it is developing technologies and doctrines that provide commanders greater control over their assets.


Friday, September 28, 2007

Holy Wholly Murder

Unholy, wholly

Debarked boat plane, plan plain
Put us in camps they came from
They spread like disease
Neighborhoods and villages,
infected then misdirected
There ain't no cure,
Beserk it's hard to correct
Selective justice de jure
Uzy elected

Blessed by the Most High claim
Cursed low scheme just the same

Close to comatose brain waves rigamortis[t]
You forget the holocaust bit
the mortician termination,
terrorist emeritus
Remember they just wanna murder
Know what I mean?

Yeah I know, you probably don't believe me
Dawn calm, proselytize coffin spree
Who is going to bless, what man curse?
The prejudgment of children?
Indiscriminate indictment?
To a free ride in a hearse?

Who God bless no man curse!
O' Murderers

Here they come, encore
known bloodsuckers of the poor,
Just like before
Rob culture, land- legacy vulture
and now they want more

Caution they come in many forms
identities - all faulty and phony
Shame suspects guilt, detects enemy
While the true nemesis is in their soul
Worse than a mosquito vampire suckle

Huh, yeah, I know you don't believe me,
the body count is my account
my witness in black dress depress

Let me tell you they are murderers
Dress up in a beard, or fatigue
and then made up in a Yarmulke
Dreams and desires to deprive
Covet to defile and contrive

Yes them

Blessed Yahweh tale
Cursed allegory bottom tail
horn story
Close to comatose, brain waves rigamortis[t]
Seen four Act too take bliss
Victim skit, Eminent Omnipotent fist
I remember they always crave to murder

Watch them, catch them,
Smash they march
unfold behold
bombs and bullets
busted heads
blood flows
pain blows
spilled matter
blood splatter
bone batter
all in the name of a borrowed
and gawdy god


Israeli forces concluded a four-day operation in the West Bank city of Nablus however, the onslaught prods along in its century-long plot. Israel Attacks Nablus: "Operation Hot Winter" (2007)

Scripture warns of the "Jewish" impostors and their Synagogue of Satan:
Revelation 2:9 "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

Revelation 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan, Which say they are Israel and are not, but do lie, behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have love you."
From the word hexagram, which means six sided figure, we get the word hex, which means to curse or cast a spell. It is actually the male and female equilateral triangle interlocked to bring forth the great emanating light of Lucifer. That is why witches stand sky- clad or naked in a six-pointed star to invoke the principalities and powers from beyond the astral plane. The hexagram is also the geometric form of the mark of the beast, for in it are six angles right, six angles left, and six angles in the core or center, which is 666. This has nothing to do with the Israelite people but with a rabid religion that welds witchcraft and Judaism together in a deadly mosaic.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Palestine - Dance of excuses in meters of blood - libel

(stern gang, I hope you excuse me for saying so but your poem have neither rhythm or meter..)

PALESTINE - Dance of excuses in meters of blood - LIBEL

Children of Israel?
Forestalled forsaken covenant
Thrown down from your false altars,
slain gain each grain
Every meter Eretz Yisrael barometer
Horrendous horde with modern sword

Woe unto you Pharisees, oh hypocrites!
Instead of temples you build tombs
With will never stumble will not succumb
Claim the mantle of the righteous
If we could be in the days of our fathers
You are but prophets who profit from blood

As Rachel mourned for her children
So you butchered Rachel
Six core candles on your false altar
Praying for the next prey to slaughter
Silt Flesh slits and blood of innocents
flows in your flood of guilts
Head bowed at the wailing wall
Dancing steps of death as our tears fall

Babylon reborn house of Satan
From since to senseless to Eden
Manifest destiny
The premise stands
The promised sands
Evil manifests
From the four poles of the earth
Incantations ceremonious rebirth

O' Palestine enthralled
Wail onto Allah
Sing songs of freedom
Chant for liberation
And it shall come to pass
With grace wrest their trespass
from fear and from bondage
To surprise demise and rise
from the yoke of profit prophets
Fret not because of evil doers
The oppressor will cease!
Their golden city deceased!

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Ahmad Chalab Expresses Regret and Dismay for the US Invasion of Iraq

["But "they disintegrated in the face of the coalition's first several weeks of combat, so they weren't here,""

Wow - this is a really incoherent statement.

And perhaps Pace has forgotten that it was Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi military?]"

The Iraqi military must have learned a lesson or two concerning which tactics would best harass and assail the western forces sent to crush their nation into complete submission to the US and its economic elite. Hussein and/or his generals, were perceptive because, for the most part, the Iraqi military folded - as the western onslaught painted the landscape with bombs - in the face of advancing US/UK aka., 'coalition forces.'

Iraqi forces went underground immediately, and began to execute the insurgency. Whether Bremer disbanded the army or not would not have dispelled this plan of resistance. However, the scope and size of the military opposition to the US/UK occupation must have augmented to a certain degree - how significant is difficult to ascertain - however slight with the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Some have posthumously, called Hussein a 4th generation warfare genius if this was his original design when invasion became obviously, inevitable as early as late 2001.

Remember all the MSM reports at the time of invasion asking: "Where is the Iraqi army?" "Why aren't they fighting back?" "Have the US bought off the generals and commanders?" "The US walks into Baghdad unopposed."

"'US bought off the generals and commanders'

May 19 'Defense News' U.S. special forces had gone in and bribed Iraqi generals not to fight.

"I had letters from Iraqi generals saying, 'I now work for you,' " Franks told Defense News reporter Vago Muradian in a May 10 interview.

The article quotes a "senior official" as adding, "What is the effect you want? How much does a cruise missile cost? Between one and 2.5 million dollars. Well, a bribe is a PGM [precision-guided munition]—it achieves the aim, but it's bloodless and there's zero collateral damage."

One official is quoted as saying that, in the scheme of the whole military operation, the bribery "was just icing on the cake." But another says that it "was as important as the shooting part, maybe more important. We knew that some units would fight out of a sense of duty and patriotism, and they did. But it didn't change the outcome because we knew how many of these [Iraqi generals] were going to call in sick."


The article referencing Chalabi can be found HERE

Iraqi National Congress Leader Ahmad al-Chalabi Talks to Asharq Al-Awsat
15/09/2007 - By Ma'ad Fayad

London, Asharq Al-Awsat- It might be rare to find an Iraqi politician who is optimistic about the current situation in Iraq, or who can see a bright and clear future for the country despite what is taking place.

Such an Iraqi politician is Dr Ahmad al-Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress [INC], who today sits on the "reserve" seats in the political "Derby" of his country, if we can use such a "sports term" in this context. He sits among the reserve despite the fact that he was the "black horse" on which the United States wagered, and he was the most prominent of those who defended and consecrated the Iraq Liberation Act [by the US Congress in 1998]. Al-Chalabi explains his current situation by saying:" Along history, the process of political change has not necessarily meant that those carrying out the change are the ones who will shoulder the responsibility after implementing the change." Nevertheless, he is optimistic.

Al-Chalabi revealed to Asharq al-Awsat in a lengthy interview conducted in his apartment in Central London that the leaders of the opposition decided immediately after the removal of the Saddam Hussein Regime to form an interim Iraqi Government, but the US Administration strongly rejected that, and appointed Paul Bremer an absolute ruler. Al-Chalabi objected to the issue of the sectarian quotas in Iraq, despite the fact that he was the first one to establish the "Shiite household"; he said: "It has been proved that the sectarian quotas and divisions are futile in governing Iraq." He called for forming a government for all Iraqis that would defend them everywhere at home and abroad. Al-Chalabi pointed out: "The last elections were merely a sectarian referendum; the Shiites elected Shiites, and the Sunnis elected Sunnis."

Al-Chalabi said that the US Administration had failed at the security and political levels, despite the statements to the contrary from the White House.

The interview with Al-Chalabi, who is enthusiastic for Debathification, is characterized by unconventional replies. What distinguishes it more is Al-Chalabi's keenness to list the accurate figures and statistics, especially with regard to the Iraqi oil and economy. Al-Chalabi is optimistic about resolving the Iraqi situation through the abilities of the Iraqis. This optimism of his explains why he keeps smiling despite the difficult conditions in which the country lives.

The following is the text of the interview:

[Asharq Al-Awsat] How do you see the situation in Iraq today?

[Al-Chalabi] I am optimistic about the situation in Iraq. This is because the plan to impose the law has achieved good results. The sectarian fighting has been reduced, and also Muqtada al-Sadr's invitation to the Al-Mahdi Army not to appear for six months has helped in calming down the situation. Since the beginning of the implementation of the plan to impose the law, we have worked to achieve an agreement among the Al-Sadr tendency, the Iraqi forces, and the multi-national forces in order to calm down the situation in the Al-Sadr City; however, the agreement was not achieved because of the death of one of its engineers, namely Col Muhammad al-Furayji. Now, I consider Al-Sadr's invitation to be positive. Moreover, the reaction in the western regions against Al-Qaeda, and the tendency to confront that organization are an important factor in reducing the proportion of political terrorism in Iraq.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you look at the political process with the same optimism?

[Al-Chalabi] In the political situation, the picture seems foggier. There are different opinions, and US expectations that clash with the Iraqi reality; this is what arouses clamor and causes problems in political action. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is trying relentlessly to establish political agreement, and he has been working in this direction with the other sides. Al-Maliki has shown flexibility in dealing with the presidential establishment (the president and his two vice presidents) with regard to the issue of listening to their opinions about the state administration; this strengthens the political process, and allows the presidential establishment, which has political and moral weight in Iraq, a scope to participate indecision making.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] What about the government's performance?

[Al-Chalabi] There is a problem in the issue of the government performance. There are withdrawals and resignations from the Council of Ministers. This casts negative political shadows on the government performance. The important issue is the government performance, and this depends on the security situation. The administrative performance is below par. The prime minister has accepted the sectarian quota system, while he is trying to make his government effective and capable; this clashes with the current reality. Yes, the performance is weak, and the state needs a large budget despite the fact that there is weakness in spending, but this leads us to the need to establish cohesion among all the state institutions in order to improve the performance.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] What about the dire services offered to its citizen, such as electricity and the scarcity of fuel?

[Al-Chalabi] Let me mention for example the electricity minister, who exerts huge efforts to repair and rebuild the power stations, and to make them capable of producing 6,000 megawatts of electricity every day. However, Baghdad is deprived of electric power because the terrorists blew up the high-voltage lines. The electricity minister cannot undertake military operations to protect the high-voltage lines; this is the duty of the Iraqi and the multi-national forces.

There is another issue that is related to electricity, namely the fuel required by the power stations; it is difficult to transport this fuel to the power stations. Therefore, however successful the electricity minister, for instance, might be, the citizen cannot see this success, because the Iraqi citizen wants the electric current to reach his home, and this is his criterion of success.

The other service issue is that of the fuel. Iraq needs 22million liters of gasoline, and the same amount of gas oil, but the production of the refineries is unstable. There are three main refineries in Iraq, which are the Biji refinery, the Al-Durah refinery, and the Basra refinery. The Biji refinery needs 280,000 barrels of crude oil every day, and Al-Durah and Basra refineries need 90,000 barrels each; the pipes that convey crude oil to these refineries are frequently blown up, so are the tankers that transport crude oil to these refineries, even the groups responsible for protecting these pipelines have been behind blowing up and obstructing the work of these pipes and the transport of crude oil. The production of Biji refinery does not reach Baghdad because of what I mentioned of the blowing up of the pipelines and tankers. The production of Al-Durah refinery is very limited. There is a strategic pipeline that links Basra and Haditha city to transport oil to the Mediterranean Sea, but this pipeline is broken down. There are three pipelines to transport oil from Basra to Baghdad, but two of them are broken down. The amount of crude oil that reaches the Al-Durah refinery is between 50,000 and 60,000 barrels everyday, i.e. less than 60 percent of the amount required for the capacity of the refinery. This means that Iraq needs to import 10 million liters of gasoline every day; when stable security is achieved, this figure will rise to 20million liters. The only land borders across which we receive oil are the borders with Iran.

I would like to explain the fact that there are plans, pressure, and actions by the terrorists and the Saddamists to put Baghdad under siege, and to prevent fuel and electricity from reaching it. These plans have started in 2003 with the beginning of the terrorist and Saddamist action against the new situation in Iraq. This situation increases the tension and the crisis in Baghdad; the population of the capital suffered during this summer, and still suffer from the power cuts and the interruption of fresh water supplied to their homes, despite the efforts of the capital secretary to convey fresh water to the population in Al-Karkh, which was interrupted as a result of problems in the coordination between the secretariat and the electricity authority.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Why didn't you import oil from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?

[Al-Chalabi] With regard to Kuwait, there is an insignificant financial problem that will be resolved, and that problem has delayed our agreement with them to import fuel. The road is blocked to importing or exporting oil via Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Where is Ahmad al-Chalabi in the political situation today? When you were in the opposition, you worked relentlessly in support of the Iraq Liberation Act, and defended it. Today, you are outside the government and the parliament?

[Al-Chalabi] I am in Iraq. Along history, the process of political change has not necessarily meant that those carrying out the change are the ones who will shoulder the responsibility after implementing the change. There is a price for political change in Iraq that has been paid by those who carried out this change. Even the US officials have been involved in debates and have exchanged accusations over the stage of change in Iraq, the last of which was the debate between President Bush and Ambassador Bremer over the issue of dismantling the Iraqi Army. Dick Cheney said it explicitly: We were wrong not to pay attention to the INC opinion with regard to the formation of a sovereign interim Iraqi Government recognized by the world during the stage of change.

In the Salah-al-Din conference in February 2003, before the change of the regime in Iraq, we decided to form a sovereign interim Iraqi Government that would be recognized, and that would be a party to the process of liberating Iraq. The US Administration sent its Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to Salah-al-Din with strict instructions to prevent the formation of such government. While we were committed to form this government, we confronted US insistence on not dealing with it; faced with the huge US military forces and US political weight on the international arena, we acquiesced. This is the reason we formed the political command. Less than one month after the entry of the US forces in Iraq, in the first week of May, in a meeting in Baghdad that included the leaders of the opposition, Zalmay Khalilzad announced that the idea of forming a sovereign interim Iraqi Government was a sound idea. Zalmay Khalilzad went to Washington to discuss this idea with the US Administration, but he was surprised by the appointment of Bremer as absolute ruler of Iraq, and that his [Zalmay Khalilzad's] role in Iraq was terminated. As a confirmation of this, I wrote an article that was published in a US newspaper on 19 February 2003, i.e. before the war, in which I explicitly called for the formation of an interim Iraqi Government, and warned against the results of declaring Iraq an occupied country.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] But you were one of the most prominent people who pushed for the issue of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which is considered one of the most prominent reasons of the war?

[Al-Chalabi] Our political work in the opposition and as INC did not push in the direction of war and of getting US forces in Iraq; we were calling for the support of the opposition efforts to topple Saddam Hussein. This is the meaning of the Iraq Liberation Act, which did not talk about getting US forces to change the regime. We did not call for waging a war against Iraq; we were calling for offering US aid to the Iraqi people so that they undertake the change process. However, our voice was wasted in the midst of the US political conflicts, and thus the war and the occupation created the largest historical problem.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] Who is responsible for the Debathification Law?

[Al-Chalabi] There was a need to confront the Baath Party, and thus we proposed the idea of Debathification according to specific control since we were in opposition and before the London conference in 2002. There were three aims for Debathification: preventing the Baathists from containing and controlling power again in Iraq, avoiding what happened in the March 1991uprising when they said that the uprising carried out random vengeance operations against the Baathists, and the third aim was that we wanted to isolate the overwhelming majority of the Baathists from the Baath Party as apolitical organization in order that the majority would return to normal life and would play its role in the new regime and in destroying the Baath organizations. I believe that we succeeded to a large extent in achieving these aims, as we excluded many Baathists from the revenge campaigns, and a majority of them returned to work in the state departments. The number of the Baathists was 1,200,000, I mean the active members of the party, 32,000 of them asked for retirements and their requests were approved, 15,000 asked to be excluded from the Debathification Law and their requests also were approved, and 14,000 of the party's division members (a division member is a very senior rank in the Baath Party) did not contact the Debathification authority. In March 2000 the Debathification authority proposed a plan specifying that a Baath branch member (Baath Party organizational rank below the division member) can either retire or return to his job following the approval of the Debathification authority and the referral of his application to the Council of Ministers. Those who have remained among the people included in the decisions of the Debathification authority are 1,500 members, but if the latest amendment is approved, they can contact the authority. All this will prevent the Baath Party's return to power.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] In the light of the current situation, what is your political program?

[Al-Chalabi] Any political process or program has to be implemented under the auspices of the constitution and the law. Even the amendments of the constitution and the amendments of the issues to which there are constitutional objections ought to be carried out according to the constitution itself. It has been proved that the sectarian quotas and divisions are futile in governing Iraq. The first Unified Iraqi Coalition List was necessary for the approval of the Constitution, and the (Shiite) religious authority played an important role in the process of approving the Constitution. The Constitution is for protecting the Iraqis without discrimination, and the field is open for political action not on a sectarian basis, but on the basis of political programs and projects. The elections that took place were not elections; they were sectarian referenda, the Shiites elected Shiites and the Sunnis elected Sunnis. As for the political program for which we work, it is based on forming political blocs according to an Iraqi national program, and not according to tribal or sectarian bases; on drawing up a clear plan for the administration of the state; and on focusing on economic plans that provide job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of unemployed. There is a program for the Real Estate Development Corporation, which is financed by the state with a huge capital, and for contractors from the private sector to build thousands of housing units on land belonging to the state outside the cities, which will be sold to the citizens by easy-term loans. This will resolve the housing problem, activate the economy, help in putting an end to unemployment, and encourage investment.

In the field of oil, Iraq is capable of producing and exporting 4 million barrels of oil every day, and if we invested 150 billion dollars to develop the oil projects over four years, Iraq could increase its production to 8 million barrels every day until the end of the current century. The Iraqi citizen ought to have direct monetary revenue from oil. Today, the Iraqi Government shoulders the burden of paying the salaries of more than 3,400,000active and retired employees, while the number of active and retired employees during the first year after the change of the regime was 1,900,000; this is because the employment opportunities outside the government service are limited.

As for the security issue, it should not be resolved by using force; it should be resolved through dialogue and understanding. The best example on this is that the sons of Al-Anbar have resisted terrorism on their own, and not through military campaigns. The Constitution ought to be adhered to, the laws ought to be implemented, and the judiciary and their independence ought to be consolidated.

This is a program over which many political sides can agree, and get away from the quota system.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] But you were the first to establish the sectarian quota system, and you supported the sectarian tendency through your establishment of the Shiite household?

[Al-Chalabi] I established the Shiite household for the sake of the Constitution, to speed up the approval of the Constitution. I laid down the foundations for a Shiite bloc for the sake of the Constitution. Yes, a sectarian tendency has been established, but we gained the Constitution. This is an important issue, but it is possible to treat its negative results. For instance, I said that the elections that took place in Iraq were merely a sectarian referendum, and the government has the legitimacy, but it cannot perform. This is the result of the elections that were carried out on the basis of lists. Thus, the Iraqis have elected a list, but most of them do not know who they have elected. We call for amending the electoral law on the basis of individual lists [first past the post] as it is done in Britain, the United States, and in Iraq during the eras of the monarchy and of the Baath Party.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] What is your assessment of the US's performance in Iraq?

[Al-Chalabi] The US performance in Iraq is a failure. The United States has spent nearly 1,000 billion dollars in four years in Iraq, and then President Bush comes to praise the victories of the Al-Anbar Salvation Council, whose power and resources cannot be compared at all to those of the US forces. The United States has not succeeded either militarily or politically in Iraq. The United States mostly issue slogans and promote laws, such as the oil law, and the discussion of the Debathification Law, and the elections. All these laws have not been placed on the agenda of the new session of the Council of Representatives. At the political level, the political failure of the US Administration continues, because it still acts in its own way, which could be summarized in fragmenting the situation, and which is a US characteristic. We would like the new US Ambassador Ryan Crocker to succeed in his mission. He is a realistic man and a skillful politician, and he understands the Iraqi situation better than the others. The United States cannot succeed on its own in resolving the problems of Iraq without seeking the help of the Iraqis themselves. For instance, consider the withdrawal of the British forces from Basra; it did not take place because of security problems in the governorate as it is claimed. To say that security problems will erupt when the multi-national forces withdraw is unrealistic. The Iraqis can reach an understanding among themselves, and it is wrong to form new armed groups away from the Iraqi Government, and it is not permissible to form new armed militias in Iraq. National reconciliation ought to be established, which is a necessity; however, this should not be done merely as slogans.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] You say that the existence of armed militia is wrong, while you have been the first to support Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of murdering Abdul-Majid al-Khoei, is wanted by the law, and is the leader of the Al-Mahdi Army?

[Al-Chalabi] The Al-Mahdi Army was formed one year after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime as a reaction to the targeting of Muqtada al-Sadr. Moreover, accusing Muqtada al-Sadr of being criminally responsible for the death of Al-Khoei is not confirmed.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] I was an eyewitness of the incident, and I know the details. The order to kill Al-Khoei was issued by Muqtada al-Sadr?

[Al-Chalabi] In the era of Bremer we reached a solution in which Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to an investigation by an Iraqi court after the state acquires its sovereignty. I asked Bremer: What is the price of arresting one person (meaning Muqtada al-Sadr) and how many lives will be wasted because of one person who is in Iraq? I am not saying a judicial investigation should be prevented, but I say that the political power to suspend the decision to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr for the sake of higher political interests does exist. However Bremer insisted on implementing the memorandum of arrest as a way of driving a wedge between the people.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] How do you see the future of Iraq?

[Al-Chalabi] The situation in Iraq is going to be "good." The Iraqi people are intelligent, they understand their problems, they are capable of overtaking these problems, and they know what is good for them. Today, Iraq faces a grave problem, which is emigration, especially the emigration of brains and qualified people who are responsible for the reconstruction of Iraq. These qualified people should be brought back after providing them with protection. The government ought to protect and defend the Iraqis at home and abroad.

[Asharq Al-Awsat] There are those who talk about early elections; what is your opinion on this?

[Al-Chalabi] The idea of early elections is a reasonable one. This decision is up to the Iraqi Council of Representatives [the parliament]. However, is the Council of Representatives going to be up to the level of responsibility of dissolving itself and calling for early elections? The important thing is not to bypass the constitutional requirements.

The Two-State Solution Is A Problem

How the Palestinians will get a state: the Israelis will complete the wall and force them at gunpoint to pick up their own trash and deliver their own mail. The Arabs will live without mail and in piss and garbage up to their chins.They will complain about how the Israelis persecute them, when they aren't engaged in blood-honor-revenge shoot-outs. And that will be their state."

"yep, the israelis will wall off the palios leaving them to live or die by their own hands..."

Well, that's just it, aint it? Moderate people have been urging Israel to follow this sensible course since 1967! We continue to dare you Zionists to return to your legal borders and leave the Palestinians to their own designs - for better or worse. Wash your hands of the blood stains, which are ultimately, attributed to mostly, you precisely, because you are the power with overwhelming force and legal duties beholden to the Palestinians.

We continue to dare you to be daring and relinquish that which has continued to malign not only your internal society but your image worldwide.

It's the honorable and practical thing to do. Do it now!

"The two State solution was never viable, and it will never be."

The Israelis do not want a two-state solution either, never did and probably never will. Instead, they prefer to keep the so-called occupied 'Judea and Samaria' in a status of perpetual purgatory. It is not the Palestinian territories that are being occupied by Israel, instead the logic inducts that Samaria and Judea are being occupied by the Palestinians. The Zionists maintain the same viewpoint on the part of the Syrian Golan Heights.

They refuse to annex the Palestinian territories because that would essentially, result in an one state solution. The calculation is to exercise perseverance and persistence in order to ploddingly, carve more and more Palestinian territory into Eretz Yisrael - the recounted Israel as depicted in the urges of the religious scribes.

Most Israelis and Zionists in particular see any state that is not totally or overwhelmingly, Jewish as a gross injustice because the Arabs have 22 nations and they have none. Israelis see any calls for a state including the OPT, [with its majority Palestinian and Muslim population] which avails equitable, universal and formal rights to all persons regardless of race, religion and sex as anathema to their existence - and would rather die then see the actualization of such a situation. When Zionist say they face an existential threat, it not bombs and bullets they are invoking, rather it is a concept of a state that doesn't have an overrunning Jewish population - it is the ballot they fear. This is what is at the heart of the Sampson project - they would rather die and do away with everyone then submit to the 'whims' of the ballot - ironically, conjuring the pejorative of being the only democracy in the region.

The Palestinians must continue to sustain their culture and national aspirations. Under no circumstance should they allow the Israelis to assimilate them, politically or socially, as was done in America, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, etc., to indigenous people. The Palestinians should live today so that their oppression may be found dead tomorrow - but some of course, will choose to die today so that others may live tomorrow.

Let's review the demographics:

5.5 million jews in Israel.
1.36M arabs with Israeli citizenship.
1.1M arabs in the Gaza strip
2.2M arabs in the west bank.
About 4.7M arabs in "greater Israel".

Refugees outside "greater Israel":
Jordan 1.8M refugees
Syria 432K refugees
Lebanon 404K refugees
Saudi Arabia 240K refugees
Egypt 70K refugees

Total refugees outside "greater Israel": about 3 million.

That makes it approximately: 7.7 million Arabs [there are many ex-patriates throughout the world who may want to returen] versus 5.5 million Jews.

"Your analysis is basically correct, except in the last paragraph. "Under no circumstance should we allow the Israelis to assimilate us"

It is most definitely not only a question of Israel. Muslims also want to immigrate to other countries like France and Sweden, to all EU in fact all the developed countries in the world. You must ask yourself why you are not welcome. When you say we shall not allow Israelis to assimilate us, what you really mean is, "we will not be assimilated into modernity".

If you want to emigrate to the Modern Western democracies, you must embrace their values and way of living. We don't want Sharia laws and ridiculous customs as coming to a swimming hall covered from top to toe. Never have heard about "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?"

You have two choices, either you must adapt effectively to the challenges of modern living in all aspects, scientific, economic, sociological and cultural. Or, if you don't like our values and way of living, fix your own countries, like Japan did and China is doing and stay where you are."

I am not Palestinian, Arab nor, Muslim. Be as it may, your explication collapses precisely, because many people have maintained their culture and religion while embracing and excelling at the things you enumerate: scientific, economic, sociological and cultural discourse. The very Jews you espouse present a prime example of this process of modernizing while maintaining cultural and religious practices thousands of years old.

As an erudite person, Sweden, you must realize that it is usually a frustrating and fruitless process to attempt cross-cultural judgments - in light of all the subjective implications therein.

However, I am content that you agree with the post - and feel fortunate for the opportunity to redress the points you were having difficulty grasping.

["Those very Jews you espouse present a prime example of this process of modernizing while maintaining cultural and religious practices thousands of years old"]

That was a good example! The Jews also have cultural and religious practices which was regarded repulsive and offensive, however,

1) They are not as repulsive and offensive as Islamic customs, from my point of view
2) The Jew was for the mostly meek and humble, nor arrogant like the Muslims
3) The Jews were competent, the Muslims are incompetent.

In spite of all this, my forfathers no doubt gallantly partipicated in the pogroms of their days.

So if the Jews have been so heavy persecuted and punished for their relatively mild repulsive religious practices (compared to the Muslim's), then the Muslims have something to look forward to in the next 1000 years…

That is called logic and reason.

It should be noted too, that it was when the Jews finally cast of their mantel of religious backwardness and embraced modernity they at last were accepted and welcomed in among the Western Democracies."

"It should be noted too, that it was when the Jews finally cast of their mantel of religious backwardness and embraced modernity they at last were accepted and welcomed in among the Western Democracies."

Your last post contains some sensible and historically cogent points. However, it seems that the assertion, that the Jews were 'accepted' and 'welcomed' into western culture once they shed their ancient traditions, is erroneous. In fact, Jews were mostly, rejected for modernizing, as evident by the pogroms and especially, the holocaust.

This rejection [spanning many centuries across many lands] was the catalyst for a resurgence of Jewish culture [many began to forsake their Jewish heritage]: learning Hebrew, taking on Jewish names [as opposed to carrying names and titles of their hosts] and other such Jewish traditions.

The Jews excelled as you attest however, this excellence sued the ire of the so-called modern world, which led to their persecution en masse. The irony of the situation in Palestine is that longstanding witch-hunts against the Jews somehow escapes them and does not instruct many of their current policies. A people who has suffered so much has the responsibility to ensure that their actions are relatively moral and that these types of tragedies do not repeat themselves.

This is the reason Israelis should wash their hands of the Palestinian problem [unilaterally, even if the Arabs or the west will not allow it]. Israelis should reclaim their good name - release the captives. Jews once sang and prayed for liberation - for life. They should not allow the outrages of the world to tarnish their souls and transform them into the tyrants that once tread upon them.

"Then she adopted Zionist ideology, 'willingly,' no body but no body made her go to Israel, what ideology except love of corruption and total parasitism [brought her there?]. How many passports does she have? To whom does she pay taxes?

The fact that she willingly lied to go to Israel and live in Israel like a Zionist with all the rights and privilages (sic) and on here play the 'role of a Palestinian' - what kind of ideology is that? She, on all counts, is a traitor to Russia to Israel and probably more. Just because some body on a blog is 'baiting Jews and Zionists' does this say she has an ideology?"

The post brings up a number of important questions and observations. Foremost is whether the Jewish exclusivity institutionalized in Israel can stand? In addition, does this policy benefit the Jewish people in the long run?

As I have previously, inquired, how can Israeli officials determine to a degree of certainty who is really a Jew? What if the Palestinian refugees and those in the OT suddenly, converted to Judaism and made their heartfelt Aliya to their ancestral religious home Israel? Would a more equitable immigration and citizenship policy better serve Israelis and Jews in the diaspora?

What is the percentage of those who have attained Israeli citizenship in the Aliya that falsified their claims? Certainly, there exists a measure of ruse in the process.

Therefore, the 'Aliya' policy within the exclusive Jewish regime is fundamentally, flawed - it disguises a gaping backdoor that may neutralize - a vehicle of detriment - the very mission of this selectivity - Zionism. It is apparent that the requirements need to be drastically, altered to prevent undermining the purpose of the Aliya.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Dual citizenship: Loyalty and Betrayal in US Foreign Policy

U. S. Secretary of State, 1982-1989
Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow
Hoover Institution, Stanford University

In this important book, Abe Foxman does what he has done his whole professional life: he defends groups and individuals - Jews and non-Jews - against defamatory lies. He has had plenty to do. People who hate seem unable to keep from lying about those whom they despise. Others cannot resist using lies and half-truths to exploit the hatred in others to advance their interests or agendas.

He is not arguing against criticism of Israel. If you want to hear harsh criticism of Israel’s policies and leaders, listen to Israelis. It’s a free, democratic, open, and relentlessly self-analytical place. So questioning Israel for its actions is legitimate, as part of a tough debate about national and international issues.

But lies are something else. Lies can be deadly. Throughout human history they have been used, not only to vilify, but to establish a basis for cruel and inhuman acts. Many groups and individuals have suffered as a result. The Jewish people have suffered most of all. The catalogue of lies about Jews is long and astonishingly crude, matched only by the suffering that has followed their promulgation.

The unique history of the Jewish people has, across the centuries, spawned the intellectual disease of anti-Semitism. Jews were persecuted as “perfidious” in the early Christian era, as insufferable zealots by the Romans, as sly exploiters by medieval Europeans, as financial manipulators during the rise of capitalism, as “rootless cosmopolitans” by Communists, and as “Communists” by Nazis. And all too often, the allegations sparked violence, brutality, and death inflicted on the Jews.

So defaming the Jews and disputing their rightful place among the peoples of the world has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful series of episodes across history.

Again and again, a time has come when legitimate criticism slips across an invisible line into what might be called the “badlands,” a place where those who should be regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats, targets, all-purpose objects of blame.

These moments become dangerous when otherwise respected and notable figures find themselves - knowingly or unthinkingly - slipping into such territory. The dangers can expand exponentially because ignorant, prejudiced, or even deranged people may act out their worst instincts and fantasies under the cover of authorization from distinguished or prominent public figures.

In America, we protect all speech, even the most hurtful lies. Instead, we count on people such as Abe Foxman to challenge untruths and dangerous exaggerations with facts and reason. This is what he does in this book. It takes on three recent publications: a paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by Professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; commentary on the same subject by New York University Professor Tony Judt; and former President Jimmy Carter’s recent book entitled “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid.” Many articles and books have examined these writings. This book clearly, vigorously, and succinctly details their flaws.

I have spent a good portion of my life serving in the government of the United States. I was a member of the Cabinet for a dozen years, six and one-half of them as Secretary of State. So I have had plenty of opportunity to see the workings of our system. We are a people committed to law. But we allow a virtual free-for-all in the process by which laws are adopted, enforced, and interpreted. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent yearly to influence these processes. Thousands of groups vie for influence, pursuing the interests of many causes. Among these are the Jewish groups cited in the writings evaluated in this book as the all-powerful “Israel Lobby.”

Jewish groups are influential. They also largely agree that the United States should support Israel. But the notion that these groups have anything like a uniform agenda, and that U.S. policy on Israel and the Middle East is the result of their influence, is simply wrong. The critics Abe Foxman takes on seem over-impressed with the way of thinking that says to itself, “Since there is this huge Arab-Islamic world out there with all the oil and it is opposed to this tiny little Israel with no natural resources, then realistically the United States has to be on the Arab side and against Israel on every issue, and since that isn’t the case, there must be some underhanded Jewish plot at work.” This is a conspiracy theory pure and simple, and scholars at great universities should be ashamed to promulgate it.

Then there is yet another tried and untrue method for damaging the well-being and security of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. This is the dangerously false analogy. The prominent recent case comes from former President Jimmy Carter’s book titled “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid.” Here the association, on the one hand, is between Israel’s existentially threatened position and the measures it has taken to protect its population from terrorist attacks driven by an ideology bent on the complete eradication of the State of Israel, and, on the other, the racist oppression of South Africa’s black population by the white Boer regime. Under sharp reactive criticism, President Carter has disavowed his choice of words, but the tendency of mind that lies behind such repulsive analogies remains and is reinforced by the former president’s views, spread across his book, which come down on the anti-Israel side of every case. We must respect President Carter’s clarification of his book but nonetheless bear in mind that once the false analogies start, it is only a short step to the cartoons in the Arab press and European media which portray Israelis as contemporary versions of Nazi storm troopers. And these false analogies stir up and lend legitimacy to more widely based movements that take the same dangerous direction, such as the deplorable recent proposals by British academic and other unions to boycott Israel.

Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogenous “lobby” ought to spend some time dealing with them. When Soviet persecution of Jews renewed in earnest after World War II, for example, Jewish groups were all over the place on what should be done. Some called for and funded the creation of a Jewish “homeland” within the Soviet Union. Some supported Israel’s approach of quiet diplomacy. Most adopted the techniques of the civil rights movement and made lots of noise. Some advocated and used force. The tension among these groups - all dedicated to saving Soviet Jews - was electric. When the doors began to swing open, many American Jews wanted to allow the Soviet Jews to choose to come to the United States instead of going to Israel. Israel fought hard against these Jewish groups, arguing, among other things, that U.S. law should not discriminate against Israel as a haven for Jewish refugees. Many other examples could be cited, including my decision to open a dialogue with Yasser Arafat after he publicly met our longstanding conditions. My decision evoked a wide spectrum of responses from the government of Israel, its various political parties, and the many American Jewish groups who weighed in on one side or the other.

Many examples can also be cited in which the U.S. rejected Israel’s view of an issue, or the views of the American Jewish community. This book cites several, including the arms sales to Saudi Arabia. A very dramatic case was President Reagan’s decision to go to the cemetery at Bitburg, Germany, on his trip to commemorate the end of the war in Europe and peace among former adversaries. When the decision was made, he did not know that the cemetery included SS officiers of the Nazi machine. Jewish groups as well as the Government of Israel protested vigorously. We looked hard at the issue. After hearing from Elie Wiesel and other great, moral figures, we concluded that the president should not go to Bitburg now that we knew who was buried there. But our important ally, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, had announced the trip. We asked if another site could be substituted for Bitburg. Chancellor Kohl said that he could not politically sustain that change. He had stood up courageously to his commitment for the deployment of Pershing missiles in Germany in late 1983, a turning point in the Cold War. President Reagan concluded that America’s interests required him to stand by his commitment. He did so, despite the pressure and understandable outrage directed against him. So, even where we agreed with the Jewish leadership, we were able to reject their position and act in America’s best interests, as we judged them to be.

The United States supports Israel, not because of favoritism based on political pressure or influence, but because both political parties and virtually all our national leaders agree with the American people’s view that supporting Israel is politically sound and morally just. Those who disagree with this policy, such as the authors whose writings are examined in this book, seem to assume they could not be wrong, and so they contend that the American people and its leadership must have been deceived, time and time again, by Israel and its supporters.

The United States has vigorously disagreed with many Israeli policies. We have made explicit our view, shared by most Israelis and American Jews, that a Palestinian state should be created alongside of Israel. But any fair-mined person would have to recognize that Israel cannot achieve this objective without a Palestinian partner. When Egypt and Jordan were ready to make peace, Israel took the necessary steps and risks of doing so.

President Carter, more than anyone else, knows the great effort required for both Egypt and Israel to overcome years of warfare and hostility. He was instrumental in helping them to do so. His call for justice for Palestinians is heartfelt and sincere. But he knows better than to suggest that Israel has created a system of “apartheid” either within Israel or in the territories. Using this word is a dangerous exaggeration, and not an appropriate way to secure the attention he recently admitted he sought in doing so.

My problem with blaming Israel and the pro-Israel lobby for U.S. government policies and actions goes beyond the points ably made by Abe Foxman. We are a great nation, and our government officials invariably include brilliant, experienced, tough-minded people. Mostly, we make good decisions. But when we make wrong decisions - even one that is recommended by Israel and supported by American Jewish groups - it is our decision, and one for which we alone are responsible. We are not babes in the woods, easily convinced to support Israel’s or any other state’s agenda. We act in our own interests. And when we mistakenly conclude from time to time - as we will - that an action or policy is in America’s interests, we must take responsibility for the mistake. We must take into account any effort to mislead us, as appeared to be the case with certain expatriates from Iraq. But we will fail far more frequently if we blame others for our mistakes than if we accept them as our own.

So, at every level, those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters for U.S. policies they do not support are wrong. They are wrong because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our best interests. They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S. government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other state or any of the myriad lobbies and groups that battle daily — sometimes with lies - to win America’s support.

It has taken not a little courage to write The Deadliest Lies. Perhaps what impresses me most of all is the fair-minded and carefully judicious tone of Abe Foxman’s voice as it is heard in these pages. This is not an angry riposte, but the responsible and admirable effort by a good man to return the discourse to a civil, sane, and constructive level.

George Shultz This is George Shultz introduction to The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control by Abraham Foxman (Palgrave Macmillan).


The Obama campaign is a project in futility. Jews may have been able to become honorary white people in America [not long ago Jews were seen as Gypsies and Slavs] - just as the capital class was able to encroach itself upon and supersede the nobility with the power of their accumulated wealth through banking, insurance, manufacturing and mostly the slave trade and colonialism - however, for better or worse, Obama must continue to keep his eyes on the prize and keep the dream alive.

There is no point in cowering, pleading and groveling to special interests when in the end analysis the campaign will necessarily, be hindered by socio-politico forces beyond his control.

But, Obama may view his candidacy as a means and not an end of and in itself - a well placed investment. The calculation could be that he envisions an ability to maneuver further up toward the ceiling after this bid. In which case tactical sniveling may prove useful in achieving that aim.

At any rate, The Israeli Lobby and US Froeign Policy misses the point on the fundamental foundations of the relationship between Israel and the US. The American and Israeli marriage spans and pans a myriad of undertakings. Israel has earned every reb blood cent and deserves all the political capital the US spends on her.


Israel holds the world bodies [the West] hostage to the social guilt (a guilt reinforced by varied media, i.e. books, movies, News, etc.,) of the holocaust. Israel is afforded great latitude because of this social shame and continues to manipulate its existence. Case in point, the word Jew has become a sanctified notion in Germany that is upheld with the sanction and force of the state. So it goes throughout most of the consumers of western discourse in the world in varying degrees.

Israel could have been such a wonderful of example of Humaninty making amends for its failures. Unfortunately, it now signals and stands for the repetition of those mistakes.


"the sinister kosher gangsters who now rule over us. "

Overestimating or demonizing (giving extra-human qualities - God-like characteristics [devilish attributes] those you profess to be fighting against (rhetorically or otherwise) only lends support to their cause while detracting from the fortitude of your message and your aims. The same dynamic unfolds when an underestimation takes place.

So keep it moderately sane, objective and even handed at least - well, unless one has had a few too many straight shots in which case blabber on!

The crux of the matter is summarized in these clauses in the document you presented:

65. At the first meeting in Geneva, the Committee also took up the question of a visit to displaced persons camps, [Jews in Europe] a matter which had already been discussed in both Lake Success and Jerusalem, but upon which decision had been deferred. The discussion was continued to, the next meeting, at which a representative of the Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organization appeared before the Committee to describe activities in the resettlement of displaced persons, and to answer questions regarding Jewish displaced persons in particular.

66. The Committee was divided on the question of principle involved in such a visit. Some members expressed the view that the visit was unnecessary. It was common knowledge that the people in the camps wanted to go to Palestine, and the Committee could add no new facts. Others felt that the Committee should inspect the camps because it was obliged by its terms of reference to do so. The view was expressed by two members that it was improper to connect the displaced persons, and the Jewish problem as a whole, with the problem of Palestine; a third felt that the Committee's work had not yet reached a stage in which this relationship had become clear. A number of members indicated that they would not oppose a visit.

Population of Palestine

Muslims Jews Christians
486,177 83,790
Year 1922
Muslims Jews
493,147 174,606
Year 1931
Muslims Jews
906,551 474,102
Year 1941
Muslims Jews
1,076,783 608,225
Year 1946

Notice the upward trend of Jews in Palestine during the period of the EUROPEAN HOLOCAUST against Jewry? In essence we have a European problem transfered and placated elsewhere. Could it be that many European racists sighed, "good riddance" to the victims of their genocide?

...rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe.

4. It will have been noticed that not only has there been a remarkably rapid increase in the total population of Palestine but also the proportion of Jews in the total has greatly increased, from 12.91 -per cent in 1922 to 32.96 per cent in 1946.

Contrast this artificial and unnatural influx of Europe's victims into Palestine with the quote below:

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.

To conclude and alleviate and soothe your mirages and nightmares - in your search for peace of mind, I'm certain - I present the following from the document you provided:

22. There is no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas. Jews are more than 40 per cent of the total population in the districts of Jaffa (which includes Tel Aviv), Haifa and Jerusalem. In the northern inland areas of Tiberias and Beisan, they are between 25 and 34 per cent of the total population. In the inland northern districts of Safad and Nazareth and the coastal districts of Tulkarm and Ramie, Jews form between 10 and 25 per cent of the total population, while in the central districts and the districts south of Jerusalem they constitute not more than 5 per cent of the total.


"Whether you like it or not, or whether - for reasons that are now becoming apparanet - oppose self-determination for the Jewish people in their ancient homeland - is immaterial to this."

Historically, speaking, me and my creed have a greater claim to the "Jewish state" than any European victim of the Nazi holocaust. However, the treatment of which is not appropriate to the task at hand. Nor, would any such historical claim be relevant in modern affairs thousands of years removed.

Be as it may, your crude attempt to hue me anti-Jewish is expected and routine Zionist modus operandi. The Zionist mantra of victimization [while victimizing millions of the indegenous inhabitants of Palestine] must necessarily, turn everyone into a blood thirsty Nazi in order to maintain the bubble of lies.

Fortunately, there are few Jew haters in the world. But, there exists many anti-racists who abhore the oppressive policies of ethnic cleansing and occupation of millions of human beings by Israel.

"Land belongs to whomever can hold it. 8:07 AM "

Now that statement is much closer to reality than the rest of the diatribe formerly, presented by Zionists on this thread. However, intrinsic in that comment is the acknowledgment of malfeasance.

"However, intrinsic in that comment is the acknowledgment of malfeasance."

Not so.

Please feel free to argue your various points of moralities and legalities to your heart's content.

They mean nothing when armies march, whether it be an army of ants or men.

"Please feel free to argue your various points of moralities and legalities to your heart's content.

They mean nothing when armies march, whether it be an army of ants or men." 8:47 AM

By this absurd logic, a heartless person could say: "continue to mourn the victims of the holocaust; feel free to argue your various points of moralities and legalities to your heart's content. They meant nothing when Nazi armies marched."

I refuse to submit to this false and heuristic logic; besides apparent overwhelming force hasn't been able to relieve the woes of Israel has it? No it hasn't. Wherefore, the Palestinians within this pseudo logic of yours is compelled to mount their armies, nascent as they currently, are to harass and muddle the oppression installed by force upon them. My friend continuous war is the logical exdtension of your argument.

Instead, an acknowledgment of wrongs on both sides would better serve an ameliorative resolution rather than intransigient and intractable positions founded on pure force.

Moreover, it was legalities and moralities that urged the UN to propose and actuate the founding of a sanctuary for the victims of the holocaust. The very principles Zionists now spit at - lest the UN itself [unless it serves their interest as in the buffer zone between Egypt and Israel after the '67 war or the current UNIFIL undertakings on the northern border].

Zionism in essence has become an equation of fear multiplied by guilt which, ultimately, results in blind hate.

Once the pillars of fear and guilt are alleviated through self-introspection, forced or otherwise; subsequently, a healing process can begin in the region. Whereby, Jews and Arabs can cry together and mourn the cursed dead of yesterday, while rejoicing in the promise of tomorrow.

True enough, there is also great animosity on the Arab side of the ledger. However, for the most part, this trepidation is driven by a "reactionary" dynamic of resistance in the face of the political power, in all its manifestations, of Israel over the routines of these captives.

Many couldn't imagine the political demise of the Afrikaaners, in light of their political, military and economic superiority over the front line states, specifically, the ANC and other groups in South Africa agitating for emancipation - as late as the mid-1980's. Lo and behold, the white minority doesn't enjoy 'formal' superiority anymore. Who would have thought?

Israel and the then South Africa are/were essentially, colonial projects. European Zionists can claim linkages to Israel from now until the Messiah returns. Nevertheless, that fiction will not hue them onto the the bosom of the land they claimed with bombs and bullets.

Wherefore, continue to sleep with your Uzi under your pillows because it is, was and will remain your only foundation to the land you now occupy immorally and illegally.

Once your society develops a humane basis for your existence, then the situation will necessarily become humane for you. Henceforth, you will glady lock the Uzi in the cabinet until trespassed against by interlopers and haters.

I always wondered why Israel hasn't based their state on universal humanistic principles. Without, Jews are some of the brightest people in the world, evident by many tracts produced by them. Why is so difficult to realize that the current founding principles only detract from the Zionist mission?

A close fist and vinegar may work in the short term, but in the long run, this policy will boomerang, just by the mathematical probabilities alone. Every dog must have her day as the adage goes.


Despite Israel's ratification of the ICCPR and its guarantee to protect all of its citizens against discrimination, Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel are discriminated against in a variety of forms and denied equal individual rights because of their national belonging. Though this discrimination is politically motivated, the Israeli legal system is part of this political context. As well as offering limited provisions for equality or political participation to members of the Palestinian Arab minority, the law in Israel subjects them to three types of discrimination: direct discrimination against non-Jews within the law itself, indirect discrimination through "neutral" laws and criteria which apply principally to Palestinians, and institutional discrimination through a legal framework that facilitates a systematic pattern of privileges.

The Declaration of Independence in 1948 defined Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state, committed to the "ingathering of the exiles," and to guaranteeing equality to all its citizens. Yet insofar as Israel defines itself as Jewish, it overrides and compromises the extent to which it can be democratic.

Israel as a Jewish state has been legally defined as resting on three minimum conditions: where Jews form the majority, where Jews are entitled to special treatment and preferential laws, and where a reciprocal relationship exists between Israel and the Jewish people in the diaspora. Yet in all these conditions, the Palestinian Arab minority is both excluded and hence discriminated against: by privileging Jews, the state treats others as second-class citizens.

Israel does not have a formal constitution, but has drawn up a series of Basic Laws that form a constitution in evolution. Prior to 1992, none of these Basic Laws guaranteed any basic rights. However, in 1992 the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom was passed which subsequently authorized courts to overturn Knesset laws that were contrary to the right to dignity, life, freedom, privacy, property and the right to leave and enter the country.

Specifically, however, it did not include the right to equality. Further, section 1A of the law states that it aims to anchor "the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Given the lack of an explicit law that constitutionally protects equality for all citizens, this emphasis on the Jewishness of the State again compromised the equal rights protection for the Palestinian Arab minority.

Palestinian Arabs rights to run for elections to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, are also limited by their acceptance of the notion of the Jewish state. These limits are expressed in the Law of Political Parties (1992) and, in particular, the amendment of section 7A(1) of the Basic Law: The Knesset which prevents candidates from participating in the elections if their platform suggests the "denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." Under this section a party platform that challenges the Jewish character of the state, that for example calls for full and complete equality between Jews and Arabs in a state for all its citizens, can be disqualified, as lists have been in the past. The law demands that Palestinian Arab citizens may not challenge the state's Zionist identity.

There are two main examples of laws that discriminate against Palestinian Arabs by directly distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews:

Citizenship Rights & the Law of Return: National identity is the main factor in deciding the acquisition of citizenship in Israel. The Law of Return grants every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel. The Nationality Law automatically grants citizenship to all Jews who have done so, and also to their spouses, children,s grandchildren, and all their spouses. This privilege is for Jews only. Palestinian Arabs can only get citizenship by birth, residence (after meeting a cumulative list of conditions) or naturalization.

Special Status of Jewish Organizations: As a result of the World Zionist Organization- Jewish Agency Law, the Jewish National Fund, Jewish Agency, and World Zionist Organization have special constitutional status in Israel and are known as quasi-governmental bodies. They are Jewish organizations which explicitly aim to benefit Jews only, but have authority for certain governmental functions, including developing the land and housing projects and settlements. Their activities are co-ordinated with the government and are given tax benefits, and they have a lot of influence on decision-making boards (particularly in agriculture and land use).

The Palestinian Arab minority is excluded entirely from these functions as either beneficiaries or participants. Further no government organizations perform the same functions for non-Jews. Consequently, Palestinian Arab needs are systematically disregarded.

More widespread is the use of "non-discriminatory" criteria in statutes that lead to differences in the treatment of Jews and the Palestinian Arab minority:

Military Service: Many government preferences and benefits in Israel are conditioned on performing military service. Whilst military service is technically compulsory for all citizens, by discretion the vast majority (90%) of Palestinian Arabs are not required to serve; whereas the majority of Jews do. As a consequence, they do not receive the wide range of benefits, including larger mortgages, partial exemptions from course fees, and preferences for public employment and housing. The discriminatory factor is that in many cases the link between the benefit offered and the requirement for military service is tenuous, often as in employment opportunities, and that government offices provide benefits beyond what is legislated. The most celebrated example of this was the level of state child benefits, which until 1997 were conditioned on military service, rather than more obvious socio-economic factors.

The impression that this is a mechanism for privileging Jews is borne out by the fact that Jewish Yeshiva students, who like Arab citizens do not serve, are granted the benefits anyway, a policy which has been upheld by the courts.

Place of Living: The government categorizes the country into different zones and awards different statuses and benefits to different towns. For instance, it denotes certain areas national development areas, which then makes them eligible to receive benefits including special tax incentives for industry, educational pro grammes, and housing incentives. These areas are supposed to be determined according to socio-economic criteria. Yet the zones are drawn to include a disproportionate number of Jewish localities rather than Palestinian Arab ones.

For example, in the 1998 classification, out of the 429 localities accorded Development Area A status, only 4 were Arab, despite the fact that Arab towns and villages are consistently at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The zoning was used to exclude the vast majority of the Palestinian Arab minority from these benefits.

The Palestinian Arab minority in Israel is discriminated against by the aspects of the legal system which allow the government to adopt discriminatory policies, or the discretionary power that can be used by officials to maintain a systematic pattern of preferences.

Budgets & Resource Allocation: The Budget Law, which governs state funds, does not specify what proportion should be earmarked for minorities; the decision lies with officials’ discretion. Due to their lack of representation in government offices, Palestinian Arabs receive substantially less funding for e.g. local government budgets (usually 50% less), and have less resources allocated for welfare budgets, school facilities or other education programmes. Often this discrepancy is justified by the government running projects in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, thus necessitating only Jewish beneficiaries.

Uneven Implementation of the Law: There are three ways in which the implementation of the law adversely affects the Palestinian Arab minority:

1) Positive statutes that the State is expected to enforce or services that the State is required to provide can simply not be implemented in Palestinian Arab communities, such as the Compulsory Education Law, and the provision of truant officers or counselors, despite the fact that Arab students form 75% of those who drop out of school throughout the whole country.

2)Laws that apply to both Jews and Arabs can be selectively or predominantly implemented on Palestinian Arabs, such as land confiscation laws or house demolitions.

3)Laws can be implemented with different criteria for Jews and Arabs, such as criteria for family assistance in education programmes or production quotas for agricultural production. Often differences in quotas are maintained due to a lack of Arab representation in decision- making authorities.

The judicial review of this institutional discrimination is limited. To date, there is not one court case where the Supreme Court has accepted a case of discrimination against the Palestinian Arab minority and ruled to protect its rights. It usually accepts the claim of the State that its policies serve national priorities and thus are not discriminatory, or that different treatment between Jews and Arabs is legitimate, as they are different groups. Even when historical discrimination is admitted, the court will not rule to close the gaps, arguing that responsibility lies with the decision-making of the executive


In 1948, the Palestinian Arab community owned and used most of the land within the State of Israel. Today it owns less than 3% of these lands. Palestinian Arab citizens ability to own or use the rest is severely restricted by a series of discriminatory laws and practices which are detailed below.

93% of the land within the State of Israel is today controlled by the State and is formally known as “Israel lands.” This extensive territory has been accumulated by a continual process of land expropriation from private (Arab) owners, that has systematically reduced Arab land ownership to cement Jewish control over all parts of the country.

This process has been achieved by and an extensive framework of laws and military regulations (see inset overleaf) that have allowed state authorities to confiscate lands for defined purposes (such as requiring areas for military firing ranges or for potential infrastructural projects), or through simply refusing to recognize indigenous land rights (such as the Bedouin in the Negev).

There is little possibility of legal appeal at these confiscation orders since wide powers are given to the executive authorities. Equally, the terms of the expropriation are unreasonable since the compensation levels offered are low and the government determines the value of the land. These terms are often refused, and the land is expropriated without settlement. At all times, a punitive system of land taxation is maintained to encourage private owners to sell their lands incrementally.

State lands in Palestinian Arab areas are often forcibly protected to prevent their former owners continuing to use them by fencing, afforestation and in particular a military “environmental” unit known as the Green Patrol, which was established to keep trespassers off public lands.

To further the goal of dispersing the Jewish population, the state has maintained a policy of continually establishing new settlements for Jews only. These settlements have had the added function of acting as wedges among concentrations of Palestinian Arab communities.

The establishment of these settlements is coordinated principally by the Jewish Agency, rather than the government, which provides houses, infrastructure and also the facilities for basic services. The settlements are established for Jews only (even when they are on public land) and Palestinian Arab citizens are not allowed to move there. There are no parallel settlements established for Palestinian Arab citizens. Despite this policy's obvious contradiction of the equality principle, it has never been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court.

In a case still pending before the courts, a Palestinian Arab family tried to buy a house in a new settlement, Katzir, estblished by the state and the Jewish Agency on state owned land. The Katzir housing committee refused to allow the family to move in on the grounds that they were not Jewish. The family has petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming that this constituted racial discrimination, and challenging the fact that citizens could be excluded from public land through the Jewish Agency. The court has not yet ruled on the matter, hoping instead that the petitioners will reach an out of court settlement. Yet in doing so, the practice that public land can be limited to use by Jews only through the Jewish Agency continues to be upheld.

Public Land Administration

Public land in Israel is administered by the Israel Land Authority (ILA) which as a public body has a legal obligation not to discriminate against citizens. Yet the ILA is heavily influenced by the Jewish National Fund, which acts in the interests of Jews only, and uses a number of methods to limit the land available for development for the benefit of the Palestinian Arab community, including the following:

Jurisdiction: Putting large areas of Palestinian Arab land under Jewish control, through the creation of regional councils in Arab areas such as the one at Misgav. Limiting the jurisdiction of Palestinian Arab localities has made them increasingly built up compared to Jewish localities. For example, Nazareth has a jurisdiction of 14,200 dunams for 60,000 people; whereas the nearby Jewish town of Nazerat Illit has 34,000 dunams among a population of 45,000, a significant proportion of which was originally Nazareth land. There is increasingly less space in these jurisdictions to cope with natural growth.

Zoning: Using land zoning categories (construction, agricultural, industrial) to prevent Palestinian Arab communities from expanding and limit the land that can be built on, or even to deny some communities’ right to exist, as in the case of the unrecognized villages. There are almost no cases of the category of land use being changed for Arab development.

Jewish National Fund: Transferring public land next to Palestinian Arab communities to Jewish National Fund (JNF) ownership which, by the Fund’s constitution, can then only be used by Jews. The recently defeated 1998 Burg-Sharon plan attempted to transfer thousand of dunams in the Galilee, central triangle and Negev to the JNF and so circumvent the legal pressures against discrimination on state lands.

Military Service: Connecting the price at which state lands may be leased to military service, so that the price can vary by as much as 20 times depending on whether the lessee has performed military service or not. This discriminates against Palestinian Arab tenants since over 90% of them do not and are not required to serve in the army.

National Planning

To further its demographic goals, a number of other methods are used to differentiate between Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities, including:

National Priorities: Declaring certain towns areas of national priority and granting them significantly higher development budgets and other social and economic benefits to provide incentives to expand the Jewish development towns. In 1998, out of the 429 localities classified as national priority status 'A' areas, only 4 were Arab.

Local Plans: Delaying approval of local development plans for Arab communities. To date, only 29 out of 81 Arab local authorities have had their development plans approved. Until central approval of their plans, local authorities are prevented from bidding for development budgets to implement them.

National Plans: Regional and national plans either ignore Arab needs, or contradict and override the plans of Arab local authorities. In the new master plan of the Northern (Galilee) district, the issues identified as key problems included: (i) The overwhelming demographic minority of Jewish citizens in many parts of the Galilee. (ii) The geographic continuity of Arab communities. Though the state recently granted Nazareth municipality land on which to build an industrial zone as part of its local development plan, part of that land was subsequently zoned as an environmental area in the Israel 2020 national plan, thus preventing work from beginning.

Arab Participation: Today there is one Palestinian Arab representative on national planning committees. Until recently, there was none. Palestinian Arabs arealso severely under-represented on district and local planning authorities.

Forced Evictions

Houses built outside the planning framework or without the appropriate permit are subject to demolition. Yet planning laws are enforced unequally: while illegal building is tolerated in Jewish communities, it is harshly punished among Arab communities. Demolition orders are used to change settlement patterns: a 1996 Ministry of Interior report recorded that though Arab construction accounted for 57% of unlicensed building, it accounted for 90% of all demolitions. There are 12,000 demolitions orders outstanding in the Galilee alone.

This policy is particularly hard on residents of a number of villages unrecognised by the state, who are unable to get permits under any circumstances. The entire villages face prosecution in the courts and demolition orders, as well as suffering very hard living conditions: Houses without a permit cannot by law be connected to water, electricity or any other basic service network. The government maintains a policy of denying the villagers basic rights in order to pressure them to move elsewhere. The measures employed to implement this policy, including preventing development, withholding services, and demolishing homes, constitute a policy of forced eviction.

"Palestinians know that Israel is a land of justice, and they openly admit that Hamas tyranny is worse than anything they experienced when Israel controlled Gaza. Palestinians in the Westbank are thankful and reassured in knowing that thanks to Israeli control there, they run no risk of being subjected to the kind of bloody coud d'état that happened to the Gazans. Palestinians have such faith in Israeli humanity that they go to Israel to get specialist medical treatment, and not to Egypt or Jordan. They don't trust Egypt with delivering electricity and water, but have complete faith in the Israelis to continue to nurture them and allow them to survive under Hamas tyranny."

Israel now,

Therein lies the crux of the immorality regimen Israel has unwittingly or willingly, confined herself to; suing the ire of humanists around the globe through the continuation of the occupation.

The so-called benevolence you mention on the part of Israel to the OT is her legal responsibility as military occupiers of the land.

Relinquish the occupied lands, even if you have to do it unilaterally, without any formal conventions. Allow these areas full and complete autonomy. Similarly, moderate the current national laws to allow full participation of all citizens in all Israeli discourse without any formal bias. In essence, wash your hands of the "Palestinian problem." This is not even a call for a one state solution, which realpolitik deems a non-starter. Although, that path would offer a brighter future to all. But, to cease and desist and end the bloodshed, the former would seem to be urgently, necessary. What amalgamation may occur in a future where both sides have autonomy is limitless.

Most objective people, [one can never please all sectors - some will continue to live in the past] must then laud Israel and will support you if attacked and applaud your retaliation to such transgressions. Can you see how simple this can become?

Moreover, Israel faces no real military threat in the region; Israel's assurance of survival has been etched by the resolve of Isralis since at least 1960 if not before - Israel alligned herself with powerful military powers at the onset, which in turn led her to possessing the most modern and destructive military arsenal known to man. Your economy set within the current global arrangements is also, insaliable. The fortress mentality is really superfluous. [I anticipate you responding with, a moment of rest will spell doom - however, this will not be the case. In colloquial terms, "no one can test Israel"] Once a certain level of violence is attained, 'detente' is achieved forever.

It does not matter that the Israelis possess 'overwhelming force' at least when it comes to Palestine. Other neighboring states may prove a different matter altogether.

Well, in terms of Israel's Sampson option, could it be implemented? It is quite conceivable since Israel has developed a class of mini neutron nukes, nuclear artillery shells and nuclear land-mines that may serve this end. These weapons are designed to destroy life while leaving buildings, roads and other "infrastructure" intact with very little residual radiation, which would dissipate in a relatively short time.

The question arises however, if Israel chooses to "pull down the central pillar" will it continue to be a member of the international community or will it be ostracized as a pariah rogue state? Since Israel depends to a great extent on positive public opinion in the west for its livelihood - will the so-called civilized west understand and accept the spin Israel would undoubtedly, put on the events leading to its use of nuclear weapons in the immediate vicinity?

There exists the American precedents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, America remained the preeminent measure of civilization in the West - in fact her standing augmented soon after.

Could Israel weather the 'storm' with think-tank reports, news blitzkriegs, political support from diaspora organizations / allies and post facto humanitarian aid to the victims? We are certain that the US would most likely veto any UNSC resolution to sanction and censure Israel no?

My estimation is that the Zionists in power in Israel, along with the other elites that exert influence have too much to lose financially if they go down that road. The entire Zionist project may come crashing down once boycotts and a sanctions regime is implemented against Israel. Why would calculating and pragmatic Israelis risk 100 years of maneuvering in this desperate act?

Therefore, at least in Palestine/OT, the Sampson option is just another fiction to be weilded as a political club to sue submission - a paper tiger if you will.

Moreover, it is worthy to note that the Afrikaaner nukes neither deterred nor rendered moot the aspirations of revolutionaries. The threat was real enough, but the cause of freedom was greater than any probable fear factor the nukes presented.

The Green Line - the demarcation of Palestinian territory.!OpenDocument