Promoting War, Spurning Peace

Promoting War, Spurning Peace

by Stephen Lendman

US and Israeli agendas need enemies. Both pursue rogue state policies.

They defy international laws and conventions, applying rule of law standards to others, not themselves. Their interests alone matter, no matter the toll on others.

When enemies don't exist, they're invented. Fear stirs public angst. Major media scoundrels spread it. Propaganda substitutes for truth and full disclosure.

America's had no enemies since WW II. Israel's had none since the 1973 Yom Kippur war. However, you'd never know it from regular spurious claims. Haaretz writer Amos Harel reported the latest in his February 2 article titled, "Some 200,000 missiles aimed consistently at Israel, top IDF officer says," saying:

Military Intelligence chief General Aviv Kochavi alleged "a more hostile, more Islamic, more sensitive Middle East, one more attune to public sentiment, less controlled by the regimes, and less susceptible to international influence," despite no evidence whatever proving it.

In fact, clear evidence suggests the opposite. Since regional uprisings began a year ago, some names and faces changed, nothing else. Policies remain the same. Regime abuses and indifference to public need continue in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere, despite public anger and calls for change.

Kochavi stoked fear with lies, alleging 200,000 missiles target Israel. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas are blamed.

Iran's alleged nuclear threat further escalates tensions, despite no evidence one exists. Nonetheless, he said, if Ayatollah Khomenei "issues a command to achieve a first nuclear explosive device, we estimate it would take another year before that's achieved."

On February 1, IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz made similar accusations. He emphasized heightened regional threats and said Iran's nuclear program must be stopped.

Calling it a "global problem and a regional problem," he left unaddressed its legal peaceful purpose in contrast to Israel's nuclear proliferation agenda.

He lied saying "There is no doubt that Iran is seeking military nuclear capability." Israel's had one for decades. It's nuclear armed and dangerous.

In his 1997 book titled, "Open Secrets: Israeli Foreign and Nuclear Policies"," Israel Shahak said "Israel (is) clearly prepar(ing) itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East (with no) hesitati(on) to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear weapons."

Moreover, its longstanding policy dictates responding robustly if attacked, including with nuclear weapons. America has the same standard. Both are aggressive. As a result, world peace hangs in the balance. They and rogue partners threaten it, not Iran, Syria, Hezbollah or Hamas.

Nonetheless, strategy includes spewing lies to blame victims. According to Gantz, other Gulf states worry about Iran's alleged nuclear program. Moreover, he claimed:

"(W)e must not forget one basic thing: Israel is the only country in the world which someone is calling for its destruction and which someone is building the tools to do so. This is something that cannot be ignored."

Spuriously suggesting Iran, Gantz said "The world and the region must continue to isolate" the Islamic Republic, despite no threat whatever from its leaders. Nonetheless, he added:

"It is correct to continue economic pressure and sanctions, from which we are starting to see signs of achievement and progress in terms of what is going on in Iran. It is correct to act and continue to disrupt processes associated with the development of the Iranian nuclear project and to work to enhance oversight over what is happening."

Only Iran's leaders "will decide at the end of the day if it will give up on a military nuclear capability. But determined and consistent action will (lead) to this strategic insight."

Gantz and other Israeli officials know Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful and legal. In contrast, Israel defies NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) provisions. It never signed the treaty. Iran did in 1968 and abides fully with its standards. Israel operates lawlessly like its Washington paymaster/partner.

Gantz also manufactured other "threats," saying:

"Gaza and Lebanon are some of the largest munitions depots I know. (They) enter from Iran, Syria, and unfortunately even Russia continues to send arms to this day, where in Syria it is not clear who will control and operate them later."

"The Middle East is the most armed region in the world, and the bad news is that we are the target of these arms. And we need to remember this."

In fact, Israel's been unthreatened for decades. It alone threatens others and wages strategic wars against Gaza, Lebanon, and potentially against Syria and Iran. Mainstream reporting ignores it.

It also lets Israeli President Shimon Peres spew lies about Iran's "evil" leaders. Like other Israeli officials, he spuriously claimed Tehran's nuclear program threatens Israel. He called it "ours and the world's central problem at this time." He accused Iran of pursuing regional and "even global hegemony." In fact, Israel and America alone share that distinction.

Nonetheless, he said "Nuclear weapons mustn't be allowed to fall into the hands of Iran's Ayatollah regime." He called its religious leaders the "most morally corrupt regime in the world." Again, only Israeli and American political ones top the world's rogue list.

Peres proved it by ruling out no options against Iran, saying "It is the duty of the international community to prevent evil and nuclear (weapons) from coming together. That is the obligations of most of the leaders of the free world, one which they must meet."

Iran "funds, trains, and guides terrorists to spread terror and murder across the globe," he claimed. Proving it's another matter because saying so is baseless. He added more saying "the current Iranian leadership offers the future only destruction. It threatens human rights and the peace of nations."

Now age 88, Peres served in various political posts for decades, including prime minister from April - June 1977, again from 1984 - 1986, and most recently in 1995 and 1996. Now he's president, a largely ceremonial post.

In fact, he acts at the behest and discretion of Israeli ministers and other top officials. Israeli presidents don't make policy.

Nonetheless, their comments are widely reported on issues of war and peace and state security, no matter how duplicitous, untrue and hateful. Peres had lots of practice. His recent comments show it. He echoes official policies.

They've been unchecked for decades. No one challenges them, including major media scoundrels promoting the worst ones. As a result, world peace hangs in the balance. The threat's too grave to ignore.

A Final Comment

On January 25, American Conservative contributor Noah Millman headlined, "Is Israel a Failed State?" His article reviewed Gershom Gorenberg's new book titled, "The Unmaking of Israel."

What's "exceptional" about it, said Millman, is Gorenberg's framing. It discussed decisions made during and after the 1967 war. Occupation and repression followed. Progressively, Israel became "unmade."

Expanded settlements and other rogue policies corrupted democratic values. However, Israel's fall from grace began from inception. Ben-Gurion endorsed force, violence, and marginalizing non-Jews as policy.

Occupation intensified conflict. International law's spurned. As a result, Israel's settlement enterprise and other rogue policies "undermined the Israeli state top to bottom." Secrecy and corruption followed.

Decades of lawlessness reflect what Israelis "should have grown out of when they acquired the power and responsibility of a state." Instead, pursuing wrong over right "doesn't just undermine the" immorality of injustice, but it provides evidence that the "Zionis(t project) failed in what was arguably its primary objective."

Gorenberg wrote his book mainly for Jews. Instead of pursuing peace, Israel chose conflict. It persists aggressively against non-threatening targets.

Gorenberg's an Orthodox left-leaning Jew. He also espouses Zionism, but not Israel's version. He said its "goal was a sovereign, independent Jewish state in the historic land of Israel, as a means to the moral and spiritual rebirth of the Jewish nation."

Historical inaccuracies and stealing Palestine aside, Gorenberg deplores violence and repression. Pursuing them belie Zionist ideals, he believes, though others view its early days much differently.

Either way, he sees greater trouble ahead unless future Israeli leaders change course. So far, prospects at best are dim.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Israeli Settlements: An Obstacle to Peace

Israeli Settlements: An Obstacle to Peace

by Stephen Lendman

Netanyahu's Likud Party platform says the following about Palestinian self-determination:

Unilaterally establishing a Palestinian state "will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration."

In fact, on November 15, 1988, the Palestinian National Council (PNC) proclaimed an independent Palestine. At the time, Washington provisionally recognized its independence.

According to UN Charter Article 80(1), it can't reverse its position by vetoing a Security Council (SC) resolution calling for Palestine's UN admission. Doing so is illegal, subject to further SC action under the Charter's Chapter VI.

The SC only recommends admissions. The General Assembly affirms them by a two-thirds majority. An overwhelming majority of states support de jure Palestinian membership.

Abbas could have had it last fall by petitioning the General Assembly through the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377. Not doing so revealed his longtime collaborationist credentials. As a result, the issue remains in limbo.

Likud's platform said the following about settlements:

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (all Occupied Palestine) are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel."

"The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

Likud also rejects Green Line separation of Israel and Palestine. It proves it by incrementally stealing Palestinian land declared all Jerusalem sovereign Israeli territory.

Since 1967, Israel established 121 settlements. The Interior Ministry calls "communities." Another 100 unauthorized outposts exist.

In addition, Israel considers 12 annexed Jerusalem neighborhoods as settlements. Moreover, settler enclaves exist in Palestinian East Jerusalem.

Overall, Israeli occupied territory, including settlements, exceeds 40% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Their choicest parts are colonized. Systematic land theft increases them.

Yet international law is explicit. Fourth Geneva's Article 49 states, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Moreover, in July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled:

"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development." In addition, they've "been established in breach of international law" on sovereign Palestinian territory.

Five rounds of Amman, Jordan Israeli/Palestinian talks ended January 25 in failure. Further meetings aren't scheduled. At issue is Netanyahu's unreasonable demands. In return, he offered nothing.

Home demolitions, land theft, dispossessions, and settlement construction continue.

It gets worse. Israel wants Green Line partitioning ended. Replacing it would be by Separation Wall annexation of 12% of Palestine when completed. Israel also wants Jordan Valley territory declared a strategic security asset. It represents one-fourth of West Bank land.

On January 28, AP said two Palestinian officials confirmed it "based on their interpretation of principles Israel presented in talks this week."

Moreover, Israel wants East Jerusalem and settlements made part of Israel. Palestinians want sovereign Palestine to include all occupied territories to their 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem as their capital. Nothing less is acceptable.

On January 27, New York Times writer Ethan Bronner headlined, "Israelis Say Settlements Must be Part of Israeli State," saying:

Israel's "approach" wants "settlement blocks to become part of Israel...." In fact, it's a demand, not an "approach." Bronner's framing is unsurprising. In March 2008, he joined Lone Star Communications' speakers bureau. It's one of Israel's leading PR firms. It arranges speaking dates for Bronner and suggests issues to discuss.

Times editors see no conflict of interest or for other writers compromising their journalistic integrity. An earlier controversy involved Bronner's son serving in Israel's military. Former Times executive editor Bill Keller backed him. Times assistant managing editor Susan Chira called his coverage "scrupulously fair...."

Others disagree based on studies showing pro-Israeli Times bias. It's how all its correspondents, op-ed and editorial writers do their jobs on all world and national issues. "Scrupulously fair" isn't in their vocabularies.

They also spurn Palestinians wanting self-determination and freedom, as well as millions of loyal supporters. None get Times or other major media print space.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Former US Policymakers Promote War on Iran

Former US Policymakers Promote War on Iran

by Stephen Lendman

In 2007, former Senators Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George Mitchell established their Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) imperial project front group.

Among other issues addressed, warmaking's prioritized. Its board of directors include:

• 
  
• Norman Augustine, former Lockheed Martin chairman and CEO;

• General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.);

• John Rowe, Exelon chairman and CEO, the nation's largest proliferator of dangerous nuclear power plants;

• Frances Fragos Townsend, Baker Botts partner; James Baker's a senior partner;

• former FAA head Jane Garvey, BPC chairperson;

• former National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) head Jason Grumet, BPC president;

• Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the right leaning, pro-corporate Aspen Institute; formerly he was CNN chairman/CEO and Time managing editor; and

• former Senators Charles Robb and John Danforth, as well as five former senators and General James L. Jones (ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander Europe and National Security Advisor, serving as senior fellows.

BPC's new report, released February 1, is titled "Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock on Iran's Nuclear Development."

Previous Iran reports included:

• 
  
• "Meeting the Challenge: US Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development" (September 19, 2008);

• "Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running Out" (September 15, 2009);

• "Meeting the Challenge: When Times Runs Out" (June 23, 2010); and

• "Iran's Nuclear Program: Status and Breakout Timing" (September 12, 2011).

They all urged a robust US response "to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability" even though BPC and Obama officials know Tehran's development is entirely peaceful, commercial, and legal according to Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty provisions.

Signed on July 1, 1968, NPT became effective March 5, 1970. Notably, Iran was one of its first signatories in 1968. It permits uranium enrichment for peaceful, commercial purposes.

Iran's program is entirely non-military. Nonetheless, it's maliciously targeted unfairly and illegally even though it fully cooperates with IAEA inspectors. Monitoring is constant, directly or through installed surveillance cameras operating round-the-clock.

In contrast, India, Pakistan, Israel and America are nuclear outlaws. Their policies endanger humanity. BPC's unconcerned.

On January 24, its press release headlined, "Stopping the Clock on Iran's Nuclear Development: Bipartisan Policy Center's New Report Recommends More Credible Threat of Military Action Against Iran," saying:

Iran's program "fast approach(es) a volatile threshold."

"Preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability is one of the most urgent national security challenges facing the US."

BPC's new report "argues that to prevent a nuclear Iran, the US must demonstrate its resolve to do whatever is necessary, including taking military action."

Despite no Iranian threat whatever, BPC promotes war. At issue is replacing its independent leaders with servile pro-Western ones. As a result, anything ahead's possible, including intervention against Syria.

America's business is war. Permanent war's its longstanding agenda. When enemies don't exist, they're invented. Washington pushes the envelope aggressively. Pretexts serve as justification. Imperial madness for unchallenged global dominance follows. As a result, humanity's threatened, today more than ever.

On February 1, Reuters headlined, "Group urges credible US military threat to Iran," saying:

BPC urged harsher war threatening rhetoric, covert operations, and stronger US regional military presence to stop Iran's alleged nuclear weapons development.

Obama affirms "all options are on the table."

BPC's "central thesis is that to persuade Iran to address questions about its nuclear program via negotiations (and) economic sanctions, (they) must be accompanied by a credible threat of military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities."

It bluntly stated:

"The United States needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have its program destroyed militarily by the United States or Israel."

Relevant Background

In the 1950s, Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program encouraged and financed Iran's nuclear power program. Despite substantial oil revenues, the Shah wanted a modern energy infrastructure, built around nuclear power.

As a result, by 1978, Iran had the world's fourth largest program, the largest among developing nations, and plans were for 20 new reactors by 1995.

Washington's support continued until November 1978. Carter's task force recommended replacing the Shah with Ayatollah Khomeini, then living in France.

At the time, his BP oil negotiations broke down. BP demanded exclusive future output rights but refused to guarantee oil purchases. As a result, the Shah sought other deals. Eager German, French, Japanese and other buyers showed interest.

Washington and Britain were alarmed. Destabilization followed, including reduced Iranian oil purchases and other economic pressures. US/UK agitators fanned religious discontent and turmoil. Oil strikes occurred. Production was crippled.

Regime change was planned. In January 1979, things came to a head. The Shah fled the country. Khomeini returned and proclaimed an Islamic republic. In May, he cancelled further nuclear development. It was peaceful then and now.

In the 1980s, America encouraged Saddam's war against him. Around a million on both sides died. Iran was too strong to defeat. Other measures short of war followed, including vicious anti-Iranian propaganda.

It portrays the Islamic Republic as uncultured, uncivilized, and dangerous. Forged documents and other materials suggest an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Western media scoundrels regurgitate the lie. They've been doing it for years, despite no corroborating evidence whatever.

Nonetheless, Washington, Israel and rogue Western allies spuriously accuse Iran of covertly developing a nuclear weapons capability.

BPC urges combating it aggressively, including:

• 
  
• strengthening America's "declaratory policy" to use force;

• escalating disruptive covert operations and intelligence;

• bolstering Washington's Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman presence by deploying another carrier battle group, conducting regional military exercises with allies, and pre-positioning supplies for possible aggression;

• building the military capabilities of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and UAE;

• "quarantin(ing)" Iran if other measures fail; it's diplomatic language for blockading, constituting an act of war under international law; and

• as a last resort, launching "an effective surgical strike against Iran's nuclear program."

BPC recommends several weeks of air attacks against key military and nuclear targets combined with Special Forces on the ground, saying:

"A military strike would delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability but not eliminate it."

"Still policymakers need to consider whether delaying Iran's program in the short term would allow Washington to take advantage of that space to stop Iran's nuclear program altogether."

"It is also possible that the delays and increased costs that a devastating strike would impose on Iran's nuclear program might be followed by a different set of dynamics that would cause or compel the Iranian leadership to change course."

More likely, it would encourage an Iranian nuclear weapons program to deter future attacks. America strikes soft targets. Nuclear armed ones can retaliate.

Former Senator Charles Robb said BPC tried to prepare a "reasoned, thoughtful approach," not a "bombs away" one. The above recommendations suggest otherwise.

A Final Comment

Previous articles discussed America's media war on Iran, notably by The New York Times in print. On January 31, Mondoweiss headlined, " 'NYT' gives Israelis its magazine to make an attack on Iran normal," saying:

Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth analyst Ronen Bergman headlined, "Will Israel Attack Iran?" saying:

The New York Times Magazine "published a landmark in warmongering journalism, a huge article predicting and justifying an Israeli attack on Iran...."

Have all measures to contain Iran's "nuclear threat been exhausted, bringing Israel to the point of last resort," Bergman asked?

Some of Israel's "most powerful leaders" believe it and want more decisive action before "it will no longer be possible to act."

Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs stressed Israel's resolve, saying:

"Our policy is that in one way or another, Iran's nuclear program must be stopped. It is a matter of months before the Iranians will be able to attain military nuclear capability. Israel should not have to lead the struggle against Iran."

"It is up to the international community to confront the regime, but nevertheless Israel has to be ready to defend itself. And we are prepared to defend ourselves in any way and anywhere that we see fit."

Other influential Israeli policymakers share his view. Bergman's complicit by promoting them. So is The New York Times for providing feature space instead of taking a principled anti-war stand.

Mondoweiss contributor Matthew Taylor called his article "Megalomania on high," saying The Times piece "cheerleads an Israeli attack on Iran."

Former Carter/Ford administrations National Security Council member/Middle East analyst Gary Sick condemned the article as "sensationalist" hype adding more "hysteria" to current US/Israeli Iranian relations.

He also caled Bergman's conclusion "at odds with virtually everything he produce(d) as evidence, but there are some omissions in his analysis that regrettably have become predictably routine in talking about" Iran's nuclear program.

Like other anti-Iranian writer/analysts, Bergman ignores facts to hype fear. Israel benefits by "keeping the pot near the boiling point" to portray possible planned aggression as justified.

Bergman ended his article saying, "I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012." Obama (so far) hasn't gone beyond saying "no options (are) off the table."

The National Interest's Leon Hadar believes Israel and Republican candidates, not Obama, lead the war offensive and won't tolerate "a deal with Iran that would be acceptable to the regime there."

Other feature Times articles and editorials unfairly demonize Iran. They barely stop short of endorsing war, but smooth the way if planned by repeated baseless accusations.

If Israel and/or Washington use nuclear bunker-buster munitions against underground Iranian nuclear facilities, millions of lives will be risked. Retaliation will follow. The entire region will be inflamed. General war may follow, or as this writer explained several times in on air interviews:

At issue is possible WW III, the first nuclear war, potentially endangering humanity's survival.

Hawkish policymakers, Bergman, others like him, and NYT editors mindlessly ignore the threat.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Progressive Radio News Hour Guests for February 2, 4 and 5, 2012

The Progressive Radio News Hour Guests for February 2, 4, and 5, 2011

Thursday, February 2 at 10AM US Central time: Finian Cunningham

Cunningham is a musician, writer and activist based in Northern Ireland when he's not on site elsewhere doing research.

Earlier he spent months in Bahrain, writing about brutal Al-Khalifa monarchy repression.

Currently, he's on the Horn of Africa covering struggles in that strategic part of the world, but not ignoring other vital issues.

Key ones will be discussed.

Saturday, February 4 at noon US Central time: Herbert Bix

Bix is a Professor of History at Binghamton University, New York. A noted Asian/Japanese scholar, he writes often on issues of war and America's empire.

His books include "Peasant Protest in Japan, 1590 - 1884," acclaimed as one of the best ever on peasant rebellions in premodern societies.

His "Making of Modern Japan" won the 2001 nonfiction Pulitzer prize.

Major world and national issues will be discussed.

Sunday, February 5 at noon US Central time: Mickey Huff

Mickey Huff is a California-based Professor of History at Diablo Valley College and Director of Project Censored (PC) and the Media Freedom Foundation. MFF supports First Amendment freedoms and investigative research, and works closely with PC and other media related organizations.

PC is the media democracy advocacy group that publishes vital news stories suppressed or censored in the mainstream.

Each year, it ranks the top 25 and publishes them in its yearbook, Censored: Media Democracy in Action. The latest Censored 2011: The Top Censored Stories of 2009 - 10 can be purchased at projectcensored.org/store.

Major world and national issues will be discussed.

New York Times-Style Journalism

New York Times-Style Journalism

by Stephen Lendman

Like other major media scoundrels, New York Times writers, op-ed commentators and editorials fail the test. They're biased, shameless and irresponsible, especially on issues of war and peace.

Times tradition dates from 1896 when Ochs-Sulzberger family members took control. Thereafter, it's played the lead print role distorting, censoring, and suppressing truth and full disclosure.

Its shameful record includes:

• 
  
• supporting wealth and power interests;

• backing corporate interests against popular ones mattering most;

• cheerleading imperial wars;

• ducking major issues like government and corporate crimes, sham elections, America's duopoly power, an unprecedented wealth gap, and lost civil liberties and social benefits; and

• backing regime change in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria, mindless of international laws prohibiting it.

The record of the "newspaper of record" produces misinformation masquerading as real news, information and opinion. Its slogan "All The News That's Fit to Print" fails on truth and full disclosure.

Its war against Iran is longstanding. Against Syria, it's more recent. It promotes regime change in both countries. On January 31, Times writer Rick Gladstone attacked them in his article headlined, "As Syria Wobbles Under Pressure, Iran Feels the Weight of an Alliance," saying:

Pro-Western anti-Assad insurgents increased "pressure on (him) to step down...." As a result, "his main Middle East supporter, also finds itself under siege, undermining a once-powerful partnership and longtime American foe."

If Assad falls, "Tehran would lose its conduit for providing military, financial, and logistical support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza." Both Israeli opposition groups "considered terrorist organizations by Washington, have vast arsenals of rockets and other weapons."

No evidence corroborates anti-Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas accusations. Ignored are sovereign country rights, international law, Lebanon's legitimate Hezbollah-led government, and Hamas' democratically elected Palestine one.

Neither espouses terrorism. Nor do Iran and Syria. In contrast, Washington and Israel pose grave terror threats. Both are nuclear armed and dangerous. They threaten preemptive strikes against invented threats. Neither has real ones.

Not according to Times-think. It stokes fear to promote conflict and regime change lawlessly.

Numerous articles and opinion pieces promote Washington's imperial agenda. In 2011, Libya was target one. Before that Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it's Iran and Syria.

On January 31, Times writer Neil MacFarquhar headlined, "At UN, Pressure Is on Russia for Refusal to Condemn Syria," saying:

Both sides "skirmished over a draft Security Council resolution proposed by Morocco (serving Washington) that calls for (Assad) to leave power as the first step of a transition toward democracy."

Ignored were international law issues. Among others, the 1933 Montevideo Convention explicitly prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. So does the UN Charter. Nations doing so are criminally culpable. None are more guilty than Washington, Israel, and rogue NATO partners. In contrast, Iran and Syria threaten no one.

Yet MacFarquhar blamed Russia for blocking Security Council actions. In fact, Moscow’s resolute against Washington replicating its Libya model. Various language revisions left considerable wiggle room for war.

Russia's determined to prevent it. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said "Russia will not support anything that is imposed on Syria." He firmly opposes anti-Assad resolutions. He called replicating "another Libya" disastrous. China's view is similar. Both have Security Council veto power. Lavrov promised to use it.

He and others also assailed Syria's externally generated insurgency. Qatar's Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr-al Thani spuriously blamed Assad's "fail(ure) to make any serious effort to cooperate with us."

Syrian Observers Report

It contradicts al Thani. It called many of the 166 team members too old and/or too ill for their task. Mission head General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi praised Assad's cooperation. He also said:

"Regrettably, some observers thought that their visit to Syria was for pleasure. In some instances, experts who were nominated were not qualified for the job, did not have prior experience, and were not able to (fulfill their) responsibility."

On January 18, Arab League Secretary-General General Nabil Elaraby suspended their mission. He said violence undermined it, dismissing the competence issue al-Dabi raised and reports about about Assad's cooperation.

He also ignored a "confidential account of the League's mission." Turtle Bay obtained it. It shows monitors lacked proper staff and equipment. As a result, their mission was undermined from inception.

On January 30, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov insisted that Security Council members are briefed on its findings. Washington and rogue allies dismissed them out of hand. They call Arab League efforts a failure, saying their report adds nothing new.

One conclusion recommends Arab governments continue mediating for peaceful conflict resolution. Al-Dabi wrote:

"The mission....sensed the acute stress, injustice and oppression endured (by) Syrian citizens. Yet they are convinced that the Syrian crisis must be resolved peacefully, in the Arab context, and not internationalized so that they can live in peace securely, and achieve the desired reforms and changes."

He also sharply criticized the ineptness and indifference of mission observers. He recommended reinforcing them with 100 more members, "preferabl(y) young with military background(s), 30 armored vehicles, protective vests, vehicle mounted cameras, and night vision binoculars."

In addition, he said:

"It should be stressed (that) performance shortcomings will be addressed and remedied with further practice and guidance, God Willing."

He stressed no mission mandate for addressing a widening conflict, pitting heavily armed insurgents against Assad's government. In Homs and Daraa, for example, opposition elements used "thermal bombs and anti-armor missiles" supplied by foreign governments.

Al-Dabi said "The mission was witness to acts of violence against government forces and citizens leading to death and injury of many. A case in point was the attack against a civilian bus which killed eight persons and injured others, including women and children."

Foreign insurgents were responsible. The Times and other Western media scoundrels quoted monitor Anwar Walek's reason for quitting the team. He called the mission a "farce," saying:

"What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people. The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released."

In response, al-Dabi said "Malek did not leave the hotel for six days and did not go out with the rest of the team into the field giving the excuse that he was sick."

In other words, he saw nothing and lied. Media scoundrels regurgitated it. It's standard practice, supporting lawless US imperialism against nonbelligerent countries.

Washington and rogue partners accused Assad of manipulating the monitoring mission to gain time to crush armed insurgents. Al-Dabi disagreed, saying their mission's vital to Syria's stability, adding:

"Any termination of the work of the mission after this short term will undermine the positive results - even if incomplete - that have been achieved so far. This may result in complete chaos on the ground (if) parties are neither qualified nor ready for the political process which aims at resolving the Syrian crisis."

He, Assad, and most Syrians want peaceful resolution. Washington, rogue allies, and major media scoundrels promote war and regime change.

Civilians, of course, always suffer most and have grievously since early 2011. Washington and complicit allies share blame.

Assad's unfairly condemned for their crimes. Don't expect NYT writers, op-ed commentaries and editorials to explain. Truth and full disclosure's not their long suit.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa: Israeli Prisoner of Conscience

Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa: Israeli Prisoner of Conscience

by Stephen Lendman

In 1948, brute force established Israel. In 1967, militarized occupation of one-fifth of former Palestine followed.

An entire people suffer. Collective punishment is official policy. So are torture, violence, land theft, apartheid, injustice, and other forms of state-sponsored terror.

They include imprisoning Palestinians for wanting to live free on their own land in their own country. As a result, since June 1967, over 750,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned.

Arrests occur regularly. Middle-of-the-night raids terrorize nonviolent men, women and children. Alleged "ticking bomb" ones are held in the name of "security." So are various other type political prisoners. Denied all rights, they're brutalized for praying to the wrong God.

They face torture and horrific prison conditions. International and Israeli laws are spurned.

Doing so constitutes blatant civil/human rights violations. B'Tselem said if Likud (and other) party members were held to the same standard, at least half their members would be administratively detained.

Lawless military tribunal trials follow. Those charged are guilty by accusation. Children fare no better. Some young as six are held for allegedly throwing stones. It's a catchall charge (like many others) to arrest anyone for any reason.

Once in custody, horrific mistreatment follows. Permanent scars remain. Entire families are traumatized. At issue always is who's next, for what reasons, and for how long.

Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa's Ordeal

Khader's one of hundreds of thousands mistreated. On December 17, 2011, at 3:30AM, dozens of Israeli soldiers stormed his home. He was violently seized in front of his children and ailing mother. In the process, face and back injuries occurred.

Blindfolding and painfully shackled, he was placed in a military jeep. Soldiers slapped and kicked him. Abuse continued until arriving at Dutan settlement.

Transfer to Megiddo prison followed. In protest, Khader immediately went on hunger strike. In detention, interrogators insulted and humiliated him. After initially answering general questions, he refused to respond.

Nonetheless, interrogations continued for 10 days, excluding Mondays. On day four, Israeli Prison Service (IPS) authorities isolated him to inflict further punishment. Legal counsel and family visits were denied. So was information on alleged secret evidence.

Interrogations continued daily. Throughout his ordeal, his hands were painfully shackled behind his back. Other ill-treatment followed.

On December 30, he was transferred to Ramleh prison hospital because of deteriorating health. Hunger striking took its toll. Nonetheless, he was isolated and subjected to extreme cold. In addition, cockroaches infested his cell. Air circulation was cut off, and intimidation continued daily.

On January 8, he was administratively detained for four months. Three Israeli military measures authorize them:

• 
  
• Order Regarding Administrative Detention (the Administrative Detention Order); it's part of military law governing the West Bank;

• Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law for Israel; and

• Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law (the 2002 Unlawful Combatants Law); it's similar to America's practice, violating international law.

Under it, detainees have no rights. Held incommunicado, they're denied counsel, due process, and judicial fairness. They're also tortured and at times disappeared and/or killed.

Prolonged arbitrary detention breaches international law. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

(1) "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.

(2) Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

(3) Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful."

Fourth Geneva's Article 78 states:

"If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment."

"Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal (decided on) with the least possible delay. (If it's upheld), it shall be subject to periodical review...."

Administrative detentions should never substitute for customary criminal proceedings. Moreover, they should only be used to prevent future lawless acts, never abusively, routinely, and illegally.

Denied all rights, Khader has no way to defend himself. Moreover, in Ofer military court, Nahshon police intervention members terrorized him.

In detention, he remains on hunger strike for multiple reasons, including:

• 
  
• his rights and identity were violated;

• his lawless arrest and abusive detention; and

• Israel's illegal administrative detention system.

It may continue indefinitely. Addameer: Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association calls him "prisoner at risk."

He currently suffers from fatigue and dizziness. He refuses medical treatment. In addition, cameras monitor him constantly.

He endured seven previous detentions, spending years in prison. In 2005, he went on hunger strike for 12 days. At issue was isolation in Kfar Yuna.

On January 17, 2012, Addameer demanded his immediate release. On January 16, his 30th hunger strike day began. He's now endured over six weeks. His health is rapidly deteriorating. He refuses medical treatment until released.

The World Medical Association says:

"after the 42nd day of a hunger strike, it is expected that individuals will begin to lose their hearing and vision, and suffer bleeding in the gums, intestines, and esophagus. The body will gradually stop functioning. After the 45 day, there is a high risk of death due to vascular system collapse and/or cardiac arrest."

Addameer's campaign "aims to highlight cases" requiring "urgent action." Without help, Khader may die.

Addameer urges joining its campaign to stop it by protesting to Israeli authorities, other governments, and organizing a vigil or demonstration in his behalf.

Sustained pressure is needed. It's the only way rogue states notice.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

University of Ottawa Systemic Racism and Abuse

University of Ottawa Systemic Racism and Abuse

by Stephen Lendman

On June 3, 2008, former Canadian politician/UN ambassador/pro-Israeli flack Allan Rock became U of O president.

His administration's marked by secrecy, political censorship, abuse of students and faculty, and repudiation of fundamental university values.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association reprimanded him for banning an Israeli Apartheid Week poster. He then pressured a student union president into distancing the organization from the student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG). It opposes repressive Israeli practices as do growing millions.

In September 2008, Rock got the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors (EBOG) to suspend tenured Professor Denis Rancourt. In December, he recommended dismissing him and barring him from campus. In March 2009, he fired him for his principled stand on Israel/Palestine, but blamed it on his creative teaching methods.

Rancourt is a distinguished physics professor, a recognized expert in his field, and a "phenomenal teacher" according to members of the Environmental Studies Student Association.

Its members said he provided an "extremely enriching individualized.... empower(ing and) positive learning environment where inspired students gained confidence and courage."

Yet Rock twisted his innovate pedagogical approach and grading methods as pretext to fire him. He then ordered campus police to ban and remove him from campus, assigned his graduate students to other faculty members, fired his post doctoral research fellow, and summarily dismissed him without cause.

That's how despots operate. Under Rock, U of O is more police state than university. As a result, education and learning suffer.

Ironically, U of O's Vision 2010 claims it "Support(s) and recognize(s) initiatives designed to implement a range of new and diversified strategies for learning and evaluation."

Rancourt wanted U of O pedagogically improved and more democratic. He also advocated effectively on environmental concerns, professional ethics, lobbying, media influence, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In response, university officials silenced him by banishment.

In addition, Freedom of Information (FOI) documents showed he was victimized by intense illegal surveillance. A student spy and professional reporters were enlisted to produce transcripts of his academic and professional talks at other universities to use against him.

Most likely, it was the first time a university used a student to spy on a professor and like-minded students in violation of Canadian and international law.

Under Rock, U of O is a hotbed of autocratic extremism. It's also racist, according to a November 2011 lawsuit. A January 30, 2012 press release explained, saying:

"Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed a joint action against the University of Ottawa and several of its officials."

Those charged include Dr. Jacques Bradwejn (Dean of the Faculty of Medicine), Dr. James Worthington (Ottawa Hospital's Vice President of Medical Affairs and Patient Safety), Dr. Paul Bragg (Associate Dean Postgraduate Medical Education), Dr. Eric Poulin (Chair of Cardiac Surgery), Dr. Richard Moulton (Neurosurgery Chair), Dr. Fraser Rubens (Cardiac Surgery Program Director), and Dr. John Sinclair (former Neurosurgery Program Director.

Charges relate to university discrimination against foreign medical students at both provincial and national levels. It also focuses specifically on U of O abuses.

In spring 2011, plaintiffs held a press conference announcing a Human Rights Complaint against U of O. Attorneys Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka represent them.

Their November 2011 lawsuit detailed charges explicitly and extensively. For example, plaintiff Khalid Aba-Alkhail AlGhaithy asked for $25 million in damages for wrongful dismissal and violation of his freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as Section 15(1), pertaining to issues of equality, right to equal protection, as well as benefits without discrimination.

Other charges included conspiracy to injure, public office malfeasance, defamation, intimidation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract, U of O liability for negligence and breach of contract, vicarious liability, and violations of the 1990 Human Rights Code.

Plaintiffs also said defendants treated them "in a high-handed and oppressive manner. The conduct of the University and the individual defendants described herein constitute such wanton and reckless disregard of their professional duties, their contractual obligation as well as their Charter obligations, and (have) caused such devastating harm that an award of punitive and aggravated damages is warranted."

Damages plaintiffs suffered include loss of income, reputation, mental distress and suffering (including depression and anxiety), loss of future employment as surgeons, and loss of time and opportunity to pursue other medical specialties.

A Toronto trial was requested. At issue is securing a neutral venue, exposing U of O administration and faculty abuses, and assuring justice is served. Nothing less is acceptable.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.