Sunday, April 20, 2008

proposal to create a Palestine Solidarity Movement in India.

Dear Friends,

Invitation for a meeting wherein we will discuss the
proposal to create a Palestine Solidarity Movement in India.

Venue: Press Club of India, C.S.T., Mumbai.
Date: 22nd April, 2008 (Tuesday) / Time: 4pm-6pm.

As we approach the 60th anniversary of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine on 14th May 1948, we stand mute witness to the ever deepening ties between the ruling elite of India and Israel. The growing and unambiguous shift in our foreign policy towards an Indo-US-Israeli axis has resulted in the betrayal of our solidarity with the Thirld World, which was built upon the principles of our anti-colonial struggle. Thus our historic support to the Palestinian people in their struggle against Israeli colonialism has been abandoned by successive governments.
The Palestine-Israel conflict is the central geo-political issue of our times. The Palestinian people courageously continue to struggle against all odds, taking on the combined might of the Israeli-US axis. The victory of the Palestinian nation will lead to freedom for the entire region and for much of the world as well.
Moreover the US designs for South Asia are to convert India into the Israel of South Asia and thus our solidarity for Palestine is built on the common foundations of our struggle against US-Israeli Imperialism.
Today India is the biggest buyer of Israeli weapons and it is our taxes that pay for the bullets that kill Palestinian children. Israel is basically a state built on the Zionist principles of racial and religio-ethnic exclusivity and superiority and is a far more advanced and brutal version of South African Aparthied.
Thus there is a growing global movement for boycott, divestments and sanctions against Israel !!
The Apartheid policies of the Israeli state is leading to the strangulation of the Palestinian people. Gaza is a veritable prison for its 1.4 million residents and the West Bank has been reduced to myriad bantustans due to the Aparthied Wall which has created the largest open air prison-cum-concentration camp encompassing more than 2.5 million men, women and children.
And the world continues to silently watch the holocaust of the Palestinian nation.
But the Palestinian resistance, the Intifada, refuses to surrender !!
Moreover a growing global Palestinain Solidarity movement continues to mobilise and oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestine in their own countries.
In India though there exists a latent support for Palestine and though we have been organizing programmes for solidarity, unfortunately we have been unable to build a sustained movement and campaign at the National level.
We thus propose a meeting wherein we will discuss the proposal to create a Palestine Solidarity Movement in India, as well as its aims, objectives and programmes.

Feroze Mithiborwala, Meena Menon, Dolphy D'Souza, Jatin Desai, Aslam Ghazi, Kishore Jagtap, Dilip Bansode, Uday Choudhary, Irfan Engineer, Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Daniel Mazgaonkar, Vinod Nikhalje, Asif Khan, Sunil Kadam, Shakeel Ahmad, Varsha Rajan Berry, Sayeed Khan, Amol S B, Varsha V V, Asad Bin Saif, Mulniwasi Mala, Mohammad Anis, Shridhar Shirsagar, Sanjay Shinde, Munawwar Khan, Ghazala Azad, Jagdish Nagarkar, Reshma Jajtap, Chetna Birje, Arif Kapadia, Jyoti Bedekar, Lynne Henry and Avinash Kamble.

We thus request you to be present at the meeting with your active participation and proposals for the same.

आयोग या दुर्योग ?

2002 के गुजरात नरसंहार पीड़ितों को इंसाफ दिलाने की राज्य सरकार की कोशिशों के बारे में यही कहा जा सकता है कि ये न्याय को तार-तार करने जैसी हैं. इसका ताजातरीन उदाहरण है मोदी सरकार द्वारा दंगों की जांच कर रहे नानावती-शाह आयोग में हाईकोर्ट के एक सेवानिवृत्त जज अक्षय मेहता की नियुक्ति. मेहता को आयोग में जस्टिस के जी शाह की जगह लाया गया है जिनकी कुछ समय पहले मृत्यु हो गई थी. नरोदा पाटिया हत्याकांड के मुख्य आरोपियों में से एक और बजरंग दल नेता बाबू बजरंगी को जमानत देने वाले जस्टिस मेहता को आयोग में लाए जाने की सभ्य समाज में तीखी आलोचना हुई है.

To read full article click here: http://www.tehelkahindi.com/InDinon/586.html

जज, ज्यूरी और जल्लाद भी

एक के बाद एक उत्तर प्रदेश की कई बार असोसिएशनों ने आतंकवाद के आरोपियों की पैरवी करने न करने का फैसला कर रखा है। नतीजा पुलिस स्वच्छंद होकर आरोपियों को मुजरिम साबित करने के लिए कुछ भी कर रही है और आरोपी अपनी बात तक रखने की स्थिति में नहीं हैं...अनिल वर्गीज़ की रिपोर्ट...

click here: http://www.tehelkahindi.com/InDinon/588.html



The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy

The Score Card for 2007
by James Petras

Never in recent history has US Middle East policy been subject to such a barrage of conflicting pressures from erstwhile allies, clients as well as adversaries. The points of contention involve fundamental issues of war and peace, foremost of which are divergent responses to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the US-Iranian confrontation, the US occupation of Iraq as well as the US-Ethiopian proxy invasion and occupation of Somalia.
The major contenders for influence in the making of US policy in the Middle East include the 'war party' led by the Zionist power configuration and its followers in Congress and its allies among the civilian militarists in the White House led by Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice, National Security Adviser for Middle East Affairs Elliot Abrams, along with an army of scribes in the major print media. On the other side are a small minority of Congress-people, ex-officials linked to Big Oil, a divided Peace Movement, Arab Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and a number of European countries on specific sets of issues.
To date the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) has consistently lined up its Congressional and White House backers and steamrollered domestic opposition in securing unconditional US backing for Israel's position in the Middle East. One of the latest examples of the Zionist Power Configuration's political and media influence is illustrated by their dismissal or omission of a major document on human and civil rights in Israel issued by the United Nation's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (published March 9, 2007). The study compiled by two-dozen experts offered 19 recommendations for Israel to comply with in 25 areas of racial discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel. Israel rejected the report, the ZPC automatically followed suit, as did Washington.

Nevertheless, there are signs (weak to be sure) that the visible and invisible power of the ZPC is being subject to critical public scrutiny and even 'put on trial' among US clients. The Council of Gulf Cooperation composed of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are the world's biggest oil suppliers (over 40%), made up of conservative, pro-US regimes, housing US military bases, linked to the largest US oil and financial houses and the biggest purchasers of military hardware from the US military-industrial complex. They met in late March 2007 and called for the US to engage Iran diplomatically and not militarily or with economic sanctions. Israel took a diametrically opposing view pushing for tighter sanctions and a military confrontation. Automatically the ZPC echoed the Israeli Party line (Daily Alert, March 26-30, 2007). Congress and Bush ignored Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, its Arab clients and followed the Zionist line: they escalated sanctions, increased commando operations, added to the war-ships off the coast of Iran and offered to send fighter-planes into Iran after British sailors, engaged in espionage, were captured (Blair, for once, rejected the war provocation). Once again the ZPC out-muscled Big Oil and the military-industrial complex in dictating US Middle-East policy.
Equally important, the US foremost Arab 'allies' in the Middle East have promulgated a series of proposals and policy options, which are directly opposed to the ZPC-Israeli agenda. Saudi Arabia's proposal approved by the Arab League offering Israel recognition and normal relations in exchange for abiding by UN resolutions and returning territory seized in 1967 is one example. These Arab initiatives have elicited a positive response in many governments in the European Union and Turkey, adding to the forces arraigned against the ZPC-Israeli direction for US Middle East policy. Defectors from the Israeli lobby's cause have been especially noticeable from among conservatives, including Robert Novack ("US War in Iraq — The Sharon War",
Haaretz, April 4, 2007).
New Directions for US Policy: Moderate Arab Agenda?
The primary pre-occupation of the moderate Arab regimes of the Persian Gulf is securing political stability, avoiding disruptive regional and internal conflicts and consolidating a favorable business climate for the dynamic development projects they have undertaken. The US military invasion, occupation and prolonged violent imperial war in Iraq have been a source of instability and internal conflict in the region. Israel's repeated military assaults and violent seizures of Palestinian land, its invasion of Lebanon and threats against Iran and, most important, their political vehicle — the ZPC's capacity to ensure US backing — has created an environment of permanent 'high tension'. The growing incompatibility between the conservative-business oriented goals of the moderate Arab states and the 'radical militarist' destabilizing policies of Washington and Tel Aviv has forced a widening breach between the long-time allies and clients. With large trade surpluses, enormous liquidity in dollars and Euros, the Arab East is intent on building economic empires both in the region and throughout the globe. For that they need, above all, a secure 'home base', the headquarters and operating base to sustain the global financial, commercial and real estate networks.
The recent meeting of Arab state in Riyadh, convoked by the Saudis, served as a platform for outlining a program for Middle East stability and the ending of violent destabilizing activities. Both in their formal proposals and informal pronouncements the conservative leaders put forth an agenda to re-direct US Middle East policy away from the ZPC-Israel line of military confrontation and toward diplomatic negotiations, elite reconciliation and the strengthening of regional economic stability. Within this conservative regional framework and the high priority given to economic stability, the 'new facts' on the ground (namely the critical position toward the US and the peace offer to Israel) become key markers in defining Middle East politics.

'New Facts' and the New Middle East Realities
The old clichés lobbed by liberal critics of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are highly misleading and fail to capture the new economic and political dynamics of the region. The liberal and Zionist images of reactionary sheiks engaged in conspicuous consumption, luxuriating in their backward and stagnant economies, living exclusively on 'rents' accruing from the gushing oil wells and dependent on US military protection, has largely been superseded. All the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are heavily engaged in long-term, large-scale economic diversification projects, creating new business, financial, commercial and real estate markets, based on local capital and, in some cases, major overseas investment banks. Major joint industrial ventures in energy, refineries, and chemical plants between Saudi Arabia and China and India have been consummated. Multi-billionaire 'princes' are major investors and part owners of global networks of financial enterprises, hotels, ports and other large-scale infrastructure and construction sectors.
Energy wealth from gas and petroleum is the point of departure for the new ruling elites, reinventing themselves as regional if not global players. While still retaining many of the 'external traditional religious forms' (opposition to usury), vast armies of local financiers have in fact invented financial instruments that pay de facto returns equivalent to interest. Given the growing global and regional economic interests of these conservative elites they have everything to lose by following US-Israeli destructive colonial-militarist policies in the region.
Economic diversification and dynamic internal development has created a new bourgeoisie in the Gulf linked to European and Asian capital (state and private), increasingly politically independent from the US and less dependent on 'external' military power. These new economic facts provide clues to the new 'political facts' on the ground, including Saudi Arabia's low key, but forthright, critique of the US occupation of Iraq and demands for troop withdrawal. The Gulf States backing for the Saudi initiated "Mecca Agreements" leading to the PLO-Hamas unity government, explicitly went against the White House-Israeli-Zionist policy of isolating Hamas as did the explicit rejection by Saudi Arabia and the Emirates of US and Israeli war preparations against Iran. They have rejected Washington's and Israeli-Zionist's policy of refusing to meet with Iran, by holding separate top level meetings and discussions. The Arab League's offer — authored and authorized by Saudi Arabia -– to Israel of peace and recognition in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from the 1967 regions of occupied Palestine has exposed Israel's pretexts for continued colonization and annexation of Palestinian land and US subordination to the Zionist Power Configuration.

The new economic and political facts in the Middle East pit an increasingly militarized US foreign policy elite, heavily influenced by the Zionist Power Configuration, against an increasingly marketized Arab Gulf elite. Israel's military-industries, central to its economy, the political leverage of the settler parties, religious fundamentalists and security apparatus, and the Israeli state's dependence on multi-billion dollar handouts from the US treasury and wealthy right-wing militarist Jewish donors means that Israel is structurally incapable of coming to any peace for land agreement. The re-settlement of a half-million armed fanatical Jewish settlers into pre-1967 Israel, the peaceful re-conversion of Israel's military industries and maintaining support from overseas Zionist plutocrats without the rhetoric of 'existential military threats' is beyond the boundaries of the Israeli political class as it is currently constituted. The deep integration and subordination of the Zionist Power Configuration to the Israeli power structure results in the demands of Israel's settler-military-industrial complex getting transmitted into the US Congress and Executive and eventually into policy.
In so far as this is the case, the ZPC is responsible for the rigidities of US Middle East policy expressed in its fixation on permanent warfare, and its blindness to the yawning gap between market-driven Arab states and US-Israeli militarism. ZPC accounts for the unchanging, unconditional support for an anachronistic colonial regime in a time of growing global market relations. The paralysis of US policy is the result of the power of a modern 21st century extraordinarily wealthy and entrepreneurial lobby (24% of Forbes 400 richest are Jews) acting on behalf of fundamentalist Judaic territorial claims going back to a period almost 2500 years ago. The notion of 'combined and uneven development' certainly applies to Israel's biggest overseas financiers.
The rigid structural parameters of Israeli politics are transmitted via the ZPC into the basic contradictory reality in US-Israeli relations: The rigid structural politics of a tiny 'isolated, militarized, settler-controlled' state blocking economic transactions of a globalized imperial economy by forcing it into disastrous military adventures.

Zionist Power and the Democratic Congressional Majority
Contrary to many war critics, especially those daring enough to attack the pro-war, neo-conservative and Zionist lobby, the US invasion of Iraq has not been a 'disaster', a 'debacle' or a 'defeat'. The corollary of this argument that the 'Iraq disaster' has led to a 'rout' of the Zioncons from the Bush Administration is also open to question.
The principle goal of the ZPC was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the destruction of the Iraqi state (especially its military and intelligence apparatus) and the societal infrastructure in order to eliminate a key backer of the Palestinian resistance to Israeli ethnic cleansing, a staunch backer of secular Arab nationalism in the Middle East and a strong challenger to Israel's attempt to assert hegemony in the region. The Zioncon-orchestrated war succeeded in each and every one of Israel's strategic objectives: the Palestinian resistance lost a powerful financial and political backer. The Middle East opposition to Israel was reduced largely to clerical Muslim states and movements. The stage was set for a new sequence of wars with Israeli adversaries, including Hezbollah, Syria and, most important, Iran. As a consequence of the US destruction of the Iraqi state, Israel had a free hand in invading and devastating Palestine, especially Gaza, complete its ghetto-wall isolating Palestinian towns and villages from their markets and everyday activities, and extending its colonial settlements. US Zioncons in the Administration were able to scuttle any serious peace negotiations, using their scripted 'war against terror' as a pretext. The departure of some of the Zioncons from the Administration in the aftermath of the US military occupation of Iraq was a result of having successfully served Israeli strategic interests through a massive commitment of US economic and military resources. But as the Israel-serving war turned into an unpopular, prolonged and costly war for the United States, public and highly placed critics, investigators and military figures began to point their finger at the key role of the Zionist officials in the Government as the prime movers of the 'disastrous' war, the Zioncons 'resigned' from office. This short-circuited any wide-reaching and serious investigation into the inter-face between the US Zioncon war architects and the Israeli Foreign Office and its military command.

Out of their successful 'war with Iraq' operation the Zioncons suffered a few collateral losses. Irving 'Scooter' Libby, Chief of Vice President Cheney's military planning office, was convicted on peripheral perjury charges, which did not directly implicate the Zioncon network's role in the run-up and follow-through on the war. One major and one secondary AIPAC leaders were indicted for spying for Israel. The two indicted spies did not in any way materially or politically weaken AIPAC's powerful hold over the US Congress or White House. They continued to receive unconditional support from the US Congressional leaders of both parties, as well as the Vice President and Secretary of State who gave keynote addresses at the AIPAC's annual conventions in 2006 and 2007.
The fact that the ZPC considers the Iraq war a 'done deal' in enhancing Israel's Middle East position and has now moved onto realizing Israel's next strategic objective, the destruction of Iran, has caused a visible rift with key officials in the White House who are still stuck in a losing war in Iraq.
Vice President Cheney, speaking at the AIPAC annual convention in 2007, directly challenged AIPAC leaders who seemed to be abandoning support for the Administration's Iraq war and pressing for more aggressive economic sanctions and the war option strategy toward Iran. The Zioncons seek to maximize support for their new phony 'existential' war against Iran among Jewish liberals who have turned against the Iraq war, thus leaving Cheney and Bush holding the US body bags. At the AIPAC convention, Cheney, no neophyte to backstabbing intrigues, offered to escalate US threats against Iran if the Zionists maintained their support for the Bush-Cheney-Rice war in Iraq. While Israeli Prime Minister Olmert formally reiterated the importance of the US continuing its occupation of Iraq for Israeli 'security', in practice all his ministers attending every major Zionist conference have emphasized to their US acolytes the Iranian threat and the need to eliminate the Iranian regime, its nuclear power plants and state structures. Despite the fact that the US is bleeding white from the open wounds of the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that over three quarters of the US population is fed up with US involvement in Middle Eastern wars, this has not prevented or, even more important, weakened the ZPC effort to set the US on a course toward new wars with the whole hearted support of the majoritarian Democratic Party leadership.

With an eye toward campaign financial contributions, every single Democratic and Republican presidential candidate has pledged to unconditionally support Israeli interests, specific pledges to the ZPC-AIPAC included.
The Pro-Israel Lobby and Bush: War Powers and the Capitulation of the Democrats
The key factor in the Democrats' withdrawal of constraints of Bush's management of the occupation of Iraq was the Jewish Lobby. According to the Associated Press (March 13, 2007): "Conservative Democrats, as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel, had argued for the change in strategy…" As the Congressional Quarterly noted: "Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would require the President to seek Congressional approval before launching any military force in Iran."
The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire by some leading Democratic politicians to ensure that Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, a measure approved by the vast majority of Democratic rank and file. But during the week of March 5-10, the Zionist elite both in Congress and in the Lobby banged heads in a series of closed door sessions and literally forced the 'leading Democrats' to recant and capitulate. Echoing the Olmert line, one of several Zionist mouthpieces in Congress overtly spoke against constitutional and legislative restraints on President Bush because of its 'effect' on Israel. Representative Shelley Berkley said in an interview, "there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran which…has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish State." Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emmanuel, who works closely with AIPAC, 'predicted', "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the US has when it comes to Iran,"(Associated Press March 13, 2007). He succeeded in excluding the amendment in the Supplemental War Budget Allocation, although it was initially favored by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Representative John Murtha, Chair of the Defense Appropriation Committee.

A smirking Vice President Cheney pointed out the hypocrisy of the pro-Israel liberal Democratic Congresspeople and liberal Zionists who opposed Bush on Iraq and were pressing a pro-war policy on Iran. "It is simply not consistent for anyone (including pro-Israel liberals! JP) to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened," (AP March 13, 2007). Once again the interests of Israel took precedence over the voting preferences of the Democratic electorate. Once more the power of Congressman Rahm Emmanuel and his fellow 'conservative' pro-Zionist congressional colleagues overpowered the 'conscience' of other leading Democrats. Once again AIPAC freed Bush from any Constitutional and Congressional constraints to launch a military attack on Iran. Once again Israel's bellicose policy dictates were effectively transmitted and implemented in the US Congress. The Democrats abandoned the war authority provision of the Constitution. Israel once again demonstrated that it is the supreme arbiter of US Middle East war policy through its representatives in the US Congress. (No wonder Buchanan and others call the Congress 'Israeli-occupied territory').
Bush got AIPAC backing for his arbitrary war powers; Israel retained a President who is a willing accomplice to its war aims in the Middle East.
Israel-AIPAC-US Middle East Wars
The role of Israel in mobilizing the Zionist Lobby in favor of Bush's broad war powers was evident in Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's forceful speech to the annual AIPAC conference in Washington in March 2007. According to the Israeli daily, Haaretz (March 12, 2007) Livni "warned the US not to show weakness in Iraq." She went on to emphasize the importance of exercising violence and power… "in a region where impressions are important, countries must be careful not to demonstrate weakness and surrender to extremists." This is another way of stating the familiar Israeli canard that 'Arabs only understand force', a well-worn colonial-racist justification for widespread and continued repression of subjugated Arab people.

Livni instructed the thousands of cheering AIPAC loyalists and hundreds of US Congressional followers at the convention of the Iranian threat and incited them to escalate their attacks on Teheran: "Iran was at the forefront of extremist threats to Israel, the Greater Middle East and the world in general because of its nuclear ambitions. To address extremism is to address Iran, she said urging tougher UN sanctions over its nuclear program," (Haaretz, March 12, 2007). Livni's closing words touched all the agit-prop code words that fire-up the zealotry of the AIPAC leaders, followers and US Congresspeople. Iran, she stated, "is a regime which denies the Holocaust while threatening the world with a new one. To those states who know the threat but still hesitate because of narrow economic and political interests, let me say this: History will remember!"
Livni's speech served several purposes. It laid down the 'line' to pro-Israel loyalists in the US to continue supporting Bush-Cheney's policy on the Iraq war, independently of the sentiments of most American Jewish voters. It strengthened the hand of the Lobby and its US Congressional followers by forcing House liberals, Jews and Gentiles, to retract their American voter-mandated constraints on Bush's war powers. Thirdly it laid out the high priority agenda and campaign for its Zionist followers to pursue with regard to Iran. Finally it ended any breach between Cheney-Bush and the Lobby over prioritizing a 'new' war against Iran over the 'old' unpopular war in Iraq by tying them together.
The Israeli Foreign Minister's direct intervention in the internal politics of the US, its blatant support for the Bush-Cheney war, and attack on the US public's anti-war sentiments, is reminiscent of the worst diplomatic intrusions by the US in the banana republics of Central America. Not a single Congress member dared to point this out, let alone oppose Israeli interference in US politics for fear of retaliation by the aroused mass of 'Israel Firsters'. Not a single 'leftist' or 'progressive' commentator noted that Livni's attempt to universalize Israel's hostility to Iran was nothing but a demagogic ploy. Extensive opinion surveys in Europe found absolute majorities rating Israel the most threatening and 'negative' country in the world, exceeding Iran, North Korea and Syria. The fact that Iran is a welcome participant in the World Congress of Islamic Countries representing over 500 million people is a slight omission in Livni's rhetorical excesses. These lapses are no cause for worry in the Israeli Foreign Office, because it is not the propagation of deliberate and verifiable falsehoods which is a problem, but the power of lies to arouse to action its US agents and to discourage any possible US critics. By sounding off on the 'Holocaust' and its corollary, 'History will remember', Israel was guaranteed the blind fanatical adherence of the ZPC to its bellicose war policies and the silence and capitulation of its ineffective Jewish liberal anti-war doubters. The Jewish-based 'AIPAC Alternative', especially the 'Jewish Voice for Peace', spends as much time denying the power of the pro-Israel Lobby as criticizing US policy (
Nation, April 23, 2007 on AIPAC Alternative).
In an ironic and perverse twist of the pro-Israel, anti-war slogan, 'No War for Oil', Livni demanded 'No Peace for Oil'. Livni's warning to those "states who know the threat but still hesitate because of narrow economic or political interests", is a clear reference to the United States. More specifically it is aimed at politicians who might look toward peaceful negotiations with Iran, or accept the Saudi peace plan in order to safeguard US oil interests, rather than sacrificing these interests to serve Israel's political and military supremacy in the Middle East. Livni is clearly directing its 'Israel Firsters' in the US to trump the Oil Appeasers, to browbeat any politicians who raise US market concerns over Israeli and Zionist war demands.
While Livni's perception of the danger to Israel emanates from the peaceful-diplomatic approach of 'narrow (sic) economic or political interests' (to the even narrower Israeli concern for land grabs in Palestine and Lebanon), what passes as a US peace movement joins in chorus by blaming the oil industry for US Middle Eastern wars. There is a convenient coincidence of Israeli hawks and US doves in denouncing Big Oil, which is not such a coincidence if we remember that what passes for the US peace movement is inordinately influenced by prominent left Zionists, who combine criticism of 'Bush's war' with exclusion of any mention of Israel or criticism of the war mongering Zionist lobby. Before, during and after the AIPAC conference in Washington several thousand of its zealots blitzed the offices of Congress members and Senators. More than half the Congress members and practically every Senator were browbeaten in over 500 meetings in favor of Israel's war agenda against Iran.
In late March, the Arab League led by Saudi Arabia proposed a comprehensive peace plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The proposal offered Arab recognition, trade and diplomatic relations, an end of the state of belligerency and economic sanctions, in exchange for Israel abiding by United Nations resolutions and withdrawing from all Palestinian lands seized during and after the 1967 war. The Israeli Prime Minister flatly refused to accept the Saudi proposal arguing that it was only the 'basis of negotiations'. The ZPC immediately echoed the Israeli party line, calling into question the form and substance of the proposal as well as attacking the Arab regimes. On March 29, 2007 alone, the organ of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations published four major propaganda pieces attacking the peace proposal and backed Israel's rejection. The Lobby ensured that the US Congress and executive either supported the Israeli position or refused to back the Saudi plan. Once again, AIPAC's 150 full time lobbyists ran circles around pro-Arab US oil multinationals.

House Majority Leader as Israel's Messenger
Democratic House Majority leader Nance Pelosi's visit to Syria stirred a hostile response from the White House and accolades from liberals and progressives. Bush objected to Pelosi for interfering with his foreign policy powers and 'non-negotiation' position vis a vis Syria. Liberals hailed Pelosi's visit as opening new vistas for 'diplomacy' rather than saber rattling. Both failed to recognize that Pelosi's main substantive task was to serve as a proxy and messenger for the Israeli state. During her visit to Israel, prior to going to Syria, the Israeli regime instructed Pelosi to pressure Syria to end support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. The Israeli prime minister told his messenger, Pelosi, to relay to the Syrians that breaking ties and isolating itself from its only allies were the conditions for Israel opening negotiations. This was despite the fact that up to Pelosi's visit to Syria, AIPAC and the entire Zionist political machine had vilified any Congress member who even mentioned visiting Syria. However when Israel gave the word that Pelosi was running Israeli messages to Syria, the Lobby did not object. The party line from Tel Aviv had shifted and the Israeli Fifth column automatically shifted its line, and not one of its 'functionaries' raised a peep. There were far more overseas Communist dissenters when Stalin abruptly changed the party line than there are Zionist defectors under similar circumstances.
The almost comical back flips and ideological contortions which the 'Israel Firsters' (IF) engage in to conform to the zigzags of their Israeli handlers is evident in their treatment of the Arab Gulf states. For the longest time the IF did everything possible to discredit them, referring to them as decrepit, absolutist states, and debunked the State Department's characterization of them as 'Arab Moderates'. More recently when Olmert referred to the same states as 'moderate' largely because they engage in covert trade with Israel through third parties, and criticized Iran, the Lobby revised its line and spoke favorable of them. Then when the Saudis brokered the Hamas-PLO unity government, Israel attacked the role of Saudi Arabia as backing the terrorist Hamas and the Zionist propaganda machine followed suit labeling the Saudis as financiers of Hamas terrorism. The blind servility of the Israel Lobby to a 'foreign power' would simply be a matter for the Justice Department if it didn't have such a profound impact on US Middle East policy, where every Israeli change in policy is automatically reflected in US policy.

The Israel First Lobby Blocks Big US Arms Sale
With the US trade deficit exceeding $500 billion dollars, one of its few competitive export sectors is its arms industry, which is number one in world arms sales, followed by Israel. The Bush Administration's planned arms sale to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies has been blocked by Israeli action through its Zionist Lobby (NY Times, April 5, 2007). The Administration officials twice scheduled and canceled briefings for members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because of AIPAC's influence over the Committee and the likelihood that the arms deal would be rejected. As a result the Administration is hoping that Israel will call off its Lobby attack dogs in exchange for a 20% increase in US military aid and grants to Israel — upping the total of military aid from $2.4 billion dollars to $3 billion annually. Secretary of Defense Gates, who was unable to shake the Lobby's influence over Congress, had to fly to Israel to plead with Israel to allow the sales to go through in exchange for receiving advanced US military technology.
US grants to Israel of advanced military research, design and technology has increased Israel's competitive position in the world's military high-tech market and increased its share at the expense of the US, as seen in its recent $1.5 billion dollar military sales to India. In brief, the Israel Lobby runs circles around the US military-industrial complex in terms of influencing the US Congress, blocking lucrative deals and advancing Israel's sales in the world market.
Democratic Party Candidates Truckle to the Lobby
Major Democratic Party Presidential hopefuls have made an extraordinary effort to secure the Lobby's approval: All back Bush's 'military option' toward Iran; all support the annual $2.4 billion dollar foreign aid package to Israel, despite Israel's $25,000 per capita income and booming high tech industry. Speaking before the National Jewish Democratic Council, New York Senator Hillary Clinton called on the US to confront Iran militarily (
Jerusalem Post, April 26, 2007). Taking advantage of the fawning behavior of all the candidates, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz promoted a panel of Israeli 'experts' to evaluate US Presidential candidates on the basis of their servility to Israeli interests. This, in turn, led Senator Obama to send his latest, most crass and bellicose pronouncements regarding Iran to the Israeli panel (see Robert Kagan, 'Obama the Interventionist', Washington Post, April 29, 2007). Nonetheless, it is Hillary Clinton who leads the pack in securing Jewish campaign financing. The Lobby's high regard for Clinton is not merely because of her total and complete identification with Israel — as stated as the March 2007 AIPAC Convention — but by the family's notorious track record. Former CIA Director, George Tenet, in his latest book At the Center of the Storm, devotes an entire chapter to then President Bill Clinton's proposal to free American-Israeli master-spy, Jonathan Pollard from federal prison. Under prodding from Israel's far right-wing President Benyamin Netanyahu, his National Security Advisor, the Zionlib Sandy Berger, Zioncon envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross and a substantial sector of the Lobby, Clinton proposed to release the convicted spy Pollard. According to his book, Tenet told Clinton that he would resign because he would lose all his moral capital with the entire intelligence apparatus that would argue that an American traitor was being rewarded. More likely, the entire military and intelligence community was outraged that Clinton would follow the policies laid out by the Israeli spymasters and their US lobbyists over American national security concerns.
Clinton later broke precedent in granting a pardon to a fugitive criminal, the billionaire swindler Marc Rich, now a citizen of Israel and close friend of the Lobby and Israeli leaders. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she and Bill not only speak, but also act, for the primacy of Israeli interests even when it involves going against the entire US security community and its legal system. That sordid history must count a lot in securing guarantees that the Clintons are bona fide 100% Israel camp followers, something none of the other candidates can boast.

In early May, the Bush Administration proposed an 8-month timetable of steps meant to bolster prospects for peace between Israel and Palestine. The proposal simply asked Israel to allow Palestinians normal but urgent bus and truck travel between Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for Palestinians curbing the homemade cross border rocket firings. As was predictable, the Israelis objected to even the slightest breach in the oppressive ghettoization of the Palestinians (Daily Alert May 2, 2007). Israeli leaders rejected a time-table because it prevented them from procrastinating: Israeli military officers opposed any loosening of their stranglehold on Gaza for "security reasons" (Daily Alert May 8, 2007). They maintained that Hamas might increase its influence in the West Bank through persuasion. Once the Israeli military rejected the Bush initiative, the Zionist Power Configuration went to work. The Democrats, including all their leading Presidential candidates and Congressional leaders, refused to back Bush's anemic effort to open the Gaza ghetto. The mass media followed suit. The pro-Israel lobby buried the entire proposal before it even entered into public debate.
The Lobby Versus Federal Prosecutors: The AIPAC Spy Trial
On August 4, 2005 two AIPAC leaders and a Pentagon analyst, Larry Franklin were indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with spying for Israel. The indictment lists numerous acts of espionage dating back to 1999 in which the two AIPAC leaders acted as conduits for classified information flowing from Washington to Tel Aviv. Franklin has confessed and cooperated with the FBI in recording his meeting with Rosen and Weissman regarding the passing of a high security White House document related to US policy on Iran to Israeli Embassy agents. Faced with overwhelming evidence AIPAC 'fired' Rosen and Weiss, stopped paying for their legal expenses and initially denied any responsibility for the pair. Subsequently however AIPAC and numerous satellite and auxiliary organizations decided to turn the spy trial into a campaign over 'free speech'. Accordingly, the liberal and conservative members of the pro-Israel lobby succeeded in rounding up a 'Who's Who' of otherwise leftist journalists, progressive news broadcasters and academics in defense of Rosen and Weissman. Speaking in defense of the two AIPAC functionaries, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz argued in the editorial pages of the
Wall Street Journal that handing high security government documents to Israeli Embassy security agents are "activities that go on every day in Washington and that are clearly protected under the First Amendment" (Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2007). As the trial date approaches, major pro-Israel organizations, billionaire Hollywood producers and most, if not all, of the Jewish press in the US have taken the defense of Rosen and Weissman (The American 'Dreyfuss Trial'). Except for a few internet bloggers, not a single political party, social or political movement has dared to criticize acts of handing over classified documents to Israel or to raise eyebrows over the equation of 'free speech' with spying for a foreign power. Because of the pervasive pressure of the Lobby, the Federal Judge T.S. Ellis has made several procedural rulings weakening the case of the prosecution. Once again the Zionist Power Configuration seems to have successfully out-muscled US institutions, in this case Federal prosecutors and the FBI.
AIPAC and Israel: Strategic Informant in the White House
The spy trial of two top officials of AIPAC, who admitted to handing over strategic documents to Israeli diplomats, (and who have been defended on the basis of 'free speech' by a host of American progressive left Zionists) has turned up further evidence of their deep penetration of the highest echelons of the White House. In the preliminary hearings of the spy trial, defense attorney Abby Lowell, in an attempt to exonerate the Zionist spy suspects, announced that the accused received 'explosive' and even more volatile information from then National Security Adviser Condeleeza Rice (Jewish Telegraph Agency, April 10, 2007). There is little doubt that the Rice's transmission of confidential security information to AIPAC was also handed over to the Israeli embassy and its undercover Mossad agents operating in Washington.
The Lobby spy network extends beyond confessed Pentagon spy, Laurence Franklin, who handed confidential documents to the accused AIPAC officials. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency quoting Attorney Abby Lowell, "Rice had not merely been Rosen's interlocutor but had leaked information identical to and at times more sensitive than examples cited in the indictment." In addition Lowell said the information Rice provided was more volatile than the information described in the indictment. Lowell claimed that 'three other current and former Middle East policy officials, in addition to Rice" were providing information to the AIPAC accused Israeli spies.

The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC): Cultural Repression at the Service of Israel
Racist rabble-rousing against Muslims runs rife among zealous Zionists inside the US Government and outside among mainstream pro-Israel organizations with no apparent reprimands. The Conference of Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO) backed co-thinker and Israeli-US dual citizen Michael Chertoff's (head of the Department of Homeland Security) efforts to curtail Muslim visits to the US, including British citizens, of what the New York Times (May 2, 2007) diplomatically refers to as of "Pakistani origin". In a follow up lead article in the CPMJO news bulletin The Daily Alert (May 9, 2007) they featured a xenophobic article by Josh Meyer and Erika Hayasaki titled, "Six Foreign-born 'Radical Islamists' Charged in Plot to Strike Fort Dix Army Base." When pro-Israel zealots in high government positions engage in blatant racist witch-hunts against Muslims and respectable mainstream Zionist umbrella organizations publish inflammatory, xenophobic rhetoric, no Congress members or Justice Department officials call for public hearings or inquiries.
The power of ZPC far exceeds the political lobbying of AIPAC. It extends to every realm of US cultural and intellectual life. The frenzied vitriolic nation-wide mass media personal assaults on former President Jimmy Carter for authoring a critical book documenting Israel's apartheid system is one example of the extensive web of Zionist propagandists. Many are situated in major academic and media institutions and share a common set of hardened doctrinaire beliefs in Israel's infallibility. The same malicious treatment was dished out to Harvard Professor Mersheimer and University of Chicago Professor Walt for writing a critical article on the US Zionist lobby. Apart from the wave of ideological screeds condemning the essay and slandering the authors with the usual banalities ('anti-Semites'), several wealthy Jewish 'philanthropists' forced the Harvard corporation to dissociate itself from the essay on its Kennedy School website. The same Zionist octopodian reach was manifested in the canceling of a meeting discussing Israel, which included New York University Professor Tony Judt, a rather mild critic of the Jewish state and its Lobby. Most pernicious, and in some ways even more demonstrative of the brazen repressive cultural role of the Zionist Power Configuration is their power to prevent a play which is based on the writings of the murdered American human rights worker Rachel Corrie, who was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer in the Gaza Strip in April 2003. In New York, Miami and Toronto, publicly scheduled performances of My Name is Rachel Corrie were forced to cancel because of financial threats by local Jewish 'philanthropists' and 'patrons of the arts'. The seriousness of these blatant acts of political and cultural censorship reveals the ZPC's profound and open hostility to the best examples of US humanitarian solidarity and embrace the worst kinds of Israeli violence. Not a single leftist or progressive critic dared to raise the issue of American Zionist complicity in this egregious 'hate crime' committed by a foreign power against an American human rights worker. No other group can successfully back the cold-blooded killers of an American citizen with impunity, anonymity and continue to retain credentials as 'patrons of the arts and culture'. To this day, 40 years after the fact, the same pro-Israel crowd defends or excuses Israel's deliberate military attack on the unarmed US naval surveillance ship the USS Liberty in international waters, killing and wounding about 150 US sailors. This gang of 'Israel Firsters' is honored in their communities here in the United States, welcome to high office and secure in their affluent surroundings.

Highly qualified candidates with outstanding résumés are denied academic and professional appointments or threatened with loss of tenure or expulsion for the mere reason of criticizing Israel. The cases of Professor Juan Cole's appointment at Yale and Professor Norman Finkelstein at De Paul University are the most notorious cases. The world-renowned Palestinian American scholar, Edward Said was persecuted and slandered up to his recent death by the attack hounds of the Lobby.
The theoretical and practical point is that the ZPC includes hundreds of local organizations and tens of thousands of individuals who take local initiatives in defending Israeli policy, its image and interests by trampling on the Constitutional and academic freedom of other Americans.
For every play which is banned, producer chastised and theater put in the red, thousands of other cultural workers and institutions are intimidated. They internalize the repressive codes imposed by the Zionists and self-censor. They submit to ZPC dictates of what can and cannot be performed, what is or is not offensive to 'Jewish sensibilities', that exquisitely stated euphemism for Zionist power.
Manifestations of Zionist cultural authoritarianism is found at the local level and is closely linked with national campaigns to monopolize the entire discussion of US Middle East policy, and in particular, to exclude any criticism of Israel and the powerful role of the Zionist Lobby. That monopoly is most evident in any systematic study of the op-ed pages of the big circulation print media and the panels of 'experts' included in the major broadcast media. The role of the pro-Israel repressive cultural-ideological hydra especially finds expression among the great majority of 'progressive' critics. 'Marxist' ideologues and 'peace' advocates deliberately and totally ignore the ZPC's influence in Congress, the Executive and in cultural life. Instead they repeatedly criticize Bush, Cheney, the Republicans and Democrats without mentioning their prime movers among the hundreds of thousands of Zionist zealots and thousands of prime political donors. It is no wonder that the Zionist power configuration has greater power than any other lobby in Washington – they are the only power group which has no opposition, no organized group willing to name them, let alone challenge and fight their stranglehold over Congress. Worse still, some of the most influential critics of the war in Iraq provide ideological cover by denying the ZPC's dominant role and deflecting attention to either non-existent war-makers (Big Oil) or to secondary political actors, who carry out Lobby initiatives.

Re-arming Clients: Washington and the ZPC's War Machine Rolls On
The political-military setbacks inflicted on US-Israeli policy in the Middle East in 2006-2007 has not led to any moves toward serious diplomacy or negotiations. On the contrary the lessons drawn by Washington and Tel Aviv is to escalate the militarization of client groups and prepare for destructive civil and ethnic wars.
In response to the failure of the US-backed Israeli attack on Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah, Washington has been engaged in a large-scale rearming of right-wing Christian, Druze and Sunni militias in Beirut and throughout North-Central Lebanon (Guardian, April 11, 2007). The purpose is to provoke an armed conflict with Hezbollah which will force it to move its resistance fighters northward and weaken its defense of the Southern Lebanese border. A US-Israeli induced 'civil war' will, it is presumed, divide the Lebanese army and weaken any auxiliary role it might play in defending the country from Israeli cross border attacks or invasions. Given the widespread violence, resulting from a conflict, Israeli aircraft, now engaged in daily over-flights and reconnaissance would be free to bomb and destroy any and all reconstruction and Hezbollah defenses.
Israeli-backed American arming of a Palestinian military force led by longtime CIA collaborator, Mohammed Dahlen, working with 'President' Abbas, is advancing rapidly with the training of hundreds of officers in Jordan, pre-selected for political loyalty by Israeli and US officials. A heavily-armed force of 12,000 US-paid Palestinian mercenaries is being prepared to oust Hamas from power, destroy its police and defense forces and hunt down its leaders and intimidate its electoral supporters.
The Zionist lobby succeeded in inserting an extraordinary clause in Bush's military aid to the Abbas faction in the Palestinian government. The lobby secured Israeli as well as US political screening of all Palestinian trainees before they are allowed to travel to Jordan for the US-funded training. In defense of the Jewish state's right to oversee the administration of US military aid, the Lobby argued that the clause was necessary because of Israeli 'fears' — in other words — Israeli interests in retaining Palestine as a colony policed by Israeli screened Palestinian mercenaries (Adam Entous, Reuters News Service quoted in the Daily Alert, March 29, 2007.)

A Palestine destroyed by US-Israeli induced 'civil strife' will be in no position to negotiate any peace agreement that returns Israel to its pre-1967 borders. The idea is to establish a pro-US Palestinian-run police state within the territorial limits dictated by Israel.
The third area of militarization involves Northern Iraq where the US and Israel have financed the Kurdish military build-up. They politically support Kurdish separatists who for all intents and purposes operate as an independent state. According to Laura Rozen's article, "Kurdistan: Covert Back Channels", published in Mother Jones, April 12, 2007, the US and Israel support a willing Kurdish client in the plot to break up Iraq, impoverish Baghdad as its capital and set up Irbil as their capital. In June 2004, US top official Paul Bremer 'transferred $1.4 billion US dollars from Iraq's oil for food funds to the Kurds. Israeli 'counter-terrorist' training given to Kurdish security forces is used by Kurdish death squads under US direction in Northern Iraq and elsewhere. Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker (June 2004), stated that Israeli-trained Kurdish commandos infiltrate Iran and Syria. According to Rozen, the Mossad station chief Eliezer Geizi Tsafrir in Irbil, the 'capital' of Iraqi Kurdistan, set up a Kurdish intelligence service for the war-lord Mustafa Barzani. He is better known as the 'rent-a-Kurd' mercenary leader, who has served the US CIA, the former Shah of Iran and whoever else could pay him. The Kurds provide the bulk of what General David Petraeus has called 'reliable Iraqi troops' collaborating with the US colonial occupation forces. They have been active in infiltrating Iraqi resistance groups and fomenting ethnic-religious strife. They are responsible for the massive forced eviction of Iraqi Arabs, Turkomen and Assyrian Christians from Kirkuk and other multi-ethnic towns and cities in the north and repopulating them with Kurds. The Kurdish leaders in Northern Iraq have provided bases and arms for pro-US armed groups operating in Iran, Syria and Turkey, although the latter is without formal US approval. The Kurds serve as commandos and guides for US Special Forces engaged in assassination missions in Iran. The Kurds based in Northern Iraq are instructed to incite 'separatist' regional movements in Iran. With strong backing from the US, the Kurds have seized control of the rich oil wells in Kirkuk and surrounding areas, have signed oil contracts with European and US oil companies, de facto privatizing Iraqi public enterprises. The Kurds play a vital role in the US-Israeli strategy of breaking up Iraq into a multiplicity of mini-client entities divided by sectarian ethnic-religious identities with no influence in the region and incapable of ousting long-term US military bases in the country.

In the Horn of Africa, the US has armed and directed the Ethiopian client regime to restore the totally discredited 'Transitional Regime' to power in Mogadishu, killing over one thousand Somali civilians and displacing over 300,000 civilians during April-May 2007. The Ethiopian mercenary armed forces caused over $1.5 billion dollars in destruction with the advice of US Special Forces officers and Israeli counter-insurgency advisers. Once again, US policy is directed at destroying an Islamic country as much as it is defeating a potential political adversary: the Islamic Court Councils. Certainly the policy of relying on the military might of a hated Ethiopian dictator to invade and occupy Somalia has no possibility of creating a viable client regime. Washington's quick resort to military escalation follows recent defeats and is preparatory to its forthcoming large-scale air war supplemented by mercenary ground attacks against Iran. This is where the ZPC comes into play as key policy makers and propagandists.
While one can debate whether the latest wave of US military escalation is the 'dying gasp' of a desperate empire, an irrational miscalculation by civilian militarists pursuing a military victory to bolster flagging domestic support or a continuation of long-standing imperial policies in the region, the fact remains that the principle domestic backer of the re-escalation strategy is the ZPC. No other organized political-economic force consistently supports all US military efforts in each of the zones of conflict. No other group backs US military action in countries where there is little or no oil. No other group totally ignores the 'overstretch' of the US military — the over-extension of US military forces in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa at the expense of providing military defense of other strategic imperial regions. Only the ZPC, of all theoretically possible influential 'interest groups' has put all countries — Islamic or secular — critical of Israel on the US's military hit-list. Only the ZPC has orchestrated legislation to bar US financial institutions, pension funds and major oil and gas companies from lucrative investments in Arab and Persian markets. Not a single oil company has favored or benefited from the restrictive legislation on Iran authored by AIPAC, sponsored by Zionist Congressman Tom Lantos and approved by a Congress dominated by the Zionist 'lobbies' — the alphabet soup of organizations — whose prime reason for existence is to promote Israeli state power. Every big oil company in Europe and Asia opposes the US confrontational posture to Iran. As the
Financial Times states, "Europe's oil majors have plans to invest billions (in Iran) but US sanctions mean they are reluctant to go ahead." (Financial Times, May 10, 2007 p.2)
The self-styled 'alternative' Jewish lobbies, which claim to speak for liberal Jews critical of Israel, maintain that AIPAC is merely 'one of many factors' influencing US policy, in a 'complex mosaic of changing circumstances'. Using the argument of 'complexities' and packaging the ZPC with 'numerous groups' they downplay or eliminate the essential role of the pro-Israel forces and join their mainstream brethren in smearing as 'anti-Semite' writers who put the ZPC at the center of their analysis of US policy toward Arab and Muslim countries. The liberal Zionists have a disastrous impact on the peace movement, by deflecting its attention away from a prime mover of US military policy and thus giving the ZPC an uncontested and open terrain for continuing their dominance of US Middle East policy. The liberal Jewish lobby willfully ignores Israeli geopolitical interests, Israeli reliance on military rather than diplomatic measures, its pursuit of ethnic cleansing and the ZPC influence on US policy, in terms of the methods and strategies that Washington should pursue. They deliberately and continuously ignore the opposition of all the major oil companies to US sanctions against Iran.
Conclusion
From 9/11 to the present, the pro-Israel power configuration has broadened its definition of 'the areas of interest for Israel', and thus the issues on which it will intervene, thus narrowing the parameters for discussion and policymaking in the US. By defining the limits of action that the US President and Congress can take on issues relating to Israel, the ZPC now influences US policies toward the entire Middle East. Today, issues of war and peace, trade and investment agreements by US, European and Asian oil companies and banks in the Middle East, multi-billion dollar arms sales to Saudi Arabia are subject to ZPC scrutiny and veto. The new 'broad definition' of what effects Israel includes Lobby backing for Bush's shredding of Constitutional restraints on his war powers. According to Zionist ideologues unleashing presidential authoritarianism at the service of Israeli extremism is no vice.

The Lobby's concept of what 'relates to Israel' — its guiding light for intervening in US politics — has been stretched, along with Israel's expanding interests. During the 1940s to 50s, the main focus of the Lobby was to secure US diplomatic support for Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The Lobby's focus on areas of 'interest to Israel' extended to Israel's wars with Egypt and Syria in the 1960s and 1970s; to Lebanon and Iraq during the 1980s and 1990s; and to Iraq and Iran during the current decade. The extension of the Lobby's intervention in US Middle East politics mirrors Israel's growing regional aspirations. But according to both Israel and its bucket carriers in the Lobby, it is not merely regional expansion which 'interests Israel' but economic and military aid and sales — namely who determines what military goods the US can sell to Arab states as well as what high end military technology the US should provide to the world's second biggest arms merchant — Israel (which is also the US's biggest arms export competitor).
What 'relates to Israel' involves the Lobby in intervening and determining the US votes in the United Nations, what pressures it will exert on the European Union in the Security Council, and how the White House should react to peace proposals from its clients in the Gulf states. As Jeff Blankfort correctly points out: every US President starting with Richard Nixon has attempted to pressure Israel to withdraw from land it occupied in 1967. And except for Jimmy Carter forcing Israel out of Sinai, Israel has successfully pressured the Israeli Lobby to mobilize the US Congress to end these presidential efforts. Today, the 'Israel Firsters' do not have to 'mobilize the Democratic Congress' — they are automatically programmed to work for Israel, as is the US President. As former Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once said: "We tell him (Bush) what to do, and he does it."
The score card for the ZPC under the Bush Presidency and the Democratic Congressional majority is 10 for the Israel Lobby to 0 (zero) for the American People. These '10 Points' are:

1. No limits on the Presidential war agenda toward Iran.2. No end of sanctions against Palestine3. No arms sales to Saudi Arabia without Israeli approval.4. No withdrawal from Iraq.5. No land for peace agreement to end Israeli colonization of Palestine6. No end of US escalation of troops in Iraq7. No end to the power of the Lobby in making US Middle East policy8. No end to Israeli spying on the US (its even called 'free speech)9. No end to the censoring of US cultural and intellectual work critical of Israel and to uncontested harassment of Muslims10. Undisputed Judge and Jury of the beauty contest of US Presidential candidates.11. No end to the Peace Movement's silence and cover-up of the Lobby's power over US Middle East policy.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). His latest books are The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, 2006) and Rulers and Ruled (Bankers, Zionists and Militants (Clarity Press, 2007). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu. Read other articles by James, or visit James's website.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Fear the Khaki Shorts or the Khaki Uniform?


by: Johanna Lokhande

"Taslima has been courageous in speaking out against fundamentalists. If the Central government cannot look after her, send her to Gujarat. The people and government of Gujarat will look after her. I have the courage to protect her," the Chief Minister said while addressing an election meeting in Botad town of Bhavnagar district.
Narendra Modi on Taslima Nasreen


Walking through a narrow road with slums on both the sides, I suddenly took a turn and to reach Siyast Nagar, most popularly know as Bangali Waas (Residence of the Bengalis). I just had to walk down a slope to get close to the colony. The overpowering stench from Chadola talav (Chandola Lake) was in the air, after a while I got used to the stench as I could no longer cover my nose and walk around.. There were flies everywhere, on playing children, on resting elders, sleeping infants' stored water, everywhere.

Small children only with their short pants and with running nose, were all around the place, playing with the dirt and some broken toys. I sat with some men and women talking to them, suddenly a young boy came up to me and showed me his license and his voting ID card, and he said that I also have my ration card, he asked me, "Isn't this proof enough of me being an Indian citizen' This question troubled everyone, sitting around, men, women, children everyone. The young lad told me that the police had picked him up the other day, and demanded money, when he refused, the policeman threatened to book him under 151. The boy tried to argue but in vain, the police man, showered him with blows

In this very area, last year four older women were picked up, all the women were above 50, they were sent back to Bangladesh, these women who have lived all their lives here do not even know a single soul there (Bangladesh), have been left to the mercy of strangers. Such incidents are very common in this area; there are about 250 families that live here. The living conditions of these people are deplorable, no facilities of any sort can be found here. When the Chandola Talav (Chandola Lake) over flows, the residents of this area run with their belongings to neighbours homes as their houses are flooded with water, this happens very often. It's a Muslim dominated area, during the 2002 violence, all the houses in this area were burnt down to ashes. Post the violence, some organization from Hyderabad had rebuilt their houses.

There is a constant fear of the police, if there is anticipated tension in the city, the people from this area, especially the men, sleep either at their friends place or just move away from their residence leaving their children, and come back in the morning to meet their kids. This place has become a soft target for the police, as they can come anytime of the day or night and pick up people and demand money, the residents feel so helpless, in spite of having all proofs of being Indian citizens. Very few children go to school, not every one is educated in this area, and many families have sold house hold items to release their family members. Innocent people are picked up, leaving the family stranded.

It is difficult to decide whether in India it is bad to be a Muslim or a migrant from a Muslim country. If you are a Muslim, khaki shorts will haunt you, and if your are a migrant both the khaki shorts and uniform. Muslims from India are constantly asked to go to Pakistan when they are born in this country and live this culture, Muslims settled here for life definitely are discriminated. Muslims have to constantly negotiate for their citizenship, are they really free in India.

Do these people living in this area deserve this treatment, when the CM of Gujarat pledges to protect Taslima Nasreen, may be the CM is aware of this section of the society but will pledge to protect them in the next election campaign.


johanna_07@rediffmail.com

Sunday, April 13, 2008

In case you missed it

John Pilger: Breaking The Silence
Must Watch Video Documentary
A hard hitting special report into the "war on terror" Award winning journalist John Pilger. Click to view

India: Disappearing The Poor

By Jeremy Seabrook

As if to demonstrate that poverty is now a residual issue in the world, the poor are being slowly eliminated from the imagery of the busy global media. “Nowhere in Bollywood films do you see a poor person,” says Pandurang Hegde, activist in the forests of northern Karnataka. “There is no place in the iconography of the new India for anything that suggests impoverishment and loss.”
Nor on the majority of TV stations which have flooded India with their unblinking radiance. The poor have become peripheral figures, with scarcely walk-on parts in the great drama of liberalisation. All that is known is that those living below the fanciful economic latitudes designated by “the poverty line” are being reduced. Poverty is clearly a mop-up operation, and will eventually be abolished by the rising tide which, as everyone knows, lifts all boats. This is an automatic consequence of economic growth. If the poor scarcely appear in the media, is this because their destiny is to become, if not rich, at least no-longer-poor?
If they have not yet been completely eclipsed, at least their wellbeing is now entrusted to NGOs, charities and international institutions, far more dependable custodians of their welfare than any self-help, or organisation on their own behalf. “The poor” have become an object of piety in a secular world. Who does not strive to raise them out of their misery? Is that after all not the purpose of wealth-creation?
Window-dressing is perhaps the highest art in the culture of globalism. In spite of appearances, poverty exhibits a disagreeable tenacity in the world. Since its removal would be an arduous process, it is, perhaps, easier to obliterate the representation of the poor in the world’s media than to wipe out poverty.
It may also be that the media vanishing trick prefigures something far more sinister, preparatory, perhaps, to more material disappearances. For their persistent presence remains a spectre at the global feast. What an agreeable place the world is - or would be - without them: nothing to mar the smiling imagery of plenty, the abundance of the display window and the publicity machine, the shopping mall and the showroom, the wall-to-wall entertainment and TV channels of endless music and laughter.
There are daily intimations of a more brutal dematerialisation of the poor. Wholesale clearances of city slums intensify whenever some spectacular event is to be staged - Beijing has unceremoniously removed its urban poor for the Olympics. Delhi has been cleansing its slums in readiness for the Commonwealth Games in 2010. Bengaluru is to become “slum-less” as a result of its “slum clearance with a mission” programme. On almost every map of the world’s major cities, the areas occupied by the urban poor appear as blank spaces, emblem of their future erasure.
Their embarrassing presence evokes an archaic world, in which humanity creates its own shelter out of industrial debris, scrapes a living off the garbage heaps of abundance, recycles the discarded goods of others, lives a pinched and frugal existence. In other words, the poor offer a ghastly example of meagre resource-use and compulsory austerity in a context where excess and extravagance are now the norm. No wonder they are increasingly intrusive: they embody our worst nightmare - this could also be our fate when the oil is exhausted, the taps run dry, the world overheats, the seas rise and the deserts encroach …
Some poor people have also internalised a sense of their own redundancy; and, only too eager to comply with this assessment of their worth, have obligingly rid the world of their presence. At least 140,000 farmers in India committed suicide between 1997 and 2007, almost certainly an underestimate, because the social shame of this cause of death impels many families to conceal it. These suicides are generally attributed to indebtedness: that people can be made to take responsibility for what are clearly socially-induced traumas suggests that the poor have become less capable of resisting personal culpability for the effects of economic forces over which they have no control.
Dr Sanjeev Jain is a psychiatrist at the Nimhans hospital in Bengaluru. He says every night the city hospitals deal with two or three dozen cases of suicide or attempted suicide. These he calls “accidents of modernity”, people for whom nothing has replaced decaying structures of meaning. Even the lowest castes - the sweepers and cleaners, removers of waste, tenders of animals and conservers of the environment - have seen many of their functions vanish, as much of their labour has been replaced by machines.
And where the poor do resist, how easy it is to label them outlaws, dacoits, criminals, Naxalites, terrorists. The prime minister of India has said that “the single largest internal security threat comes from Maoists”. This, too, is a form of fundamentalism, an ideology of radical nostalgia, a reaction of despair. How simple for the state to shoot them down, and write off their no-account lives as an “encounter” with militants, ultras, extremists, and all the other inventive taxonomies devised to justify the elimination of those they have impoverished to the point of hopelessness.
Arundhati Roy sees preparations for a “genocide” against the poor; although the word is not quite right in the context, since the poor are not a race. Povericide is an inelegant but more accurate word for what Arundhati Roy sees as a corollary of “the most successful secessionist struggle ever waged in India - the secession of the middle and upper classes to a country of their own”.
As if to support this grim scenario, the ghost of hunger is presently being invoked by the global information machines. The cost of staple foods continues to rise - thanks, we are told, to changing appetites of (some of) the people of India and China, the diversion of agricultural land to jatropha, soya or sugar-cane for biofuel, the using up of fertile farmland for infrastructural projects (India lost over a million hectares of agricultural land between 1990 and 2005), erratic harvests which may or may not be an early symptom of climate change. The Malthusian insight, that no place is set at nature’s banquet for the poor, has been revised: no longer nature’s banquet, it is now a feast crafted by a global food manufacturing industry.
The poor are scattered and divided. While some will doubtless obligingly efface themselves by consuming pesticide, jumping on to the railway track or hanging themselves from a ceiling fan, others will join the doomed ranks of armed resistance, while yet others will almost certainly be drawn into spectacular acts of violence and terror.
In the perpetual artificial sunshine of the technosphere, within the global gated community in which all the inhabitants are rich, the poor have already ceased to exist. But it is one thing to banish them from the enchanted islands of plenty, that virtual reality of the fantasists of wealth, but quite another to erase them from a material world in which they remain an obdurate majority. Their refusal to go quietly into the oblivion for which they are apparently destined is likely to take unpredictable and malignant forms; since they are the footsoldiers of the militias, Maoists, mafiosi and militants who have flooded the spaces evacuated by governments for whom the poor no longer count.


10 April, 2008 The Guardian
Jeremy Seabrook is the author of over forty books.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

टिड्डियों की आवाज़--नरसंहार, नकार और विजयोत्सव

by: Arundhati Roy

http://www.tehelkahindi.com/SthaayeeStambh/KhulaaManch/537.html

Mayawati's Burgeoning Wealth:Who Gains?

By S.R.Darapuri
In April, 2007 while filing her nomination papers for Assembly elections Mayawati had declared her assets to be worth Rs. 52 crores. While filing her income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09 she estimated her income to be Rs. 60 crores and had deposited Rs. 15 crores as advance tax. The actual income is likely to exceed this estimate at the end of this financial year. As such her name has been included in the list of a few topmost earning persons of India. Even before this Mayawati was embroiled in a case of acquiring disproportionate assets, covering the period of 1995-2003. This was when her declared income was paltry Rs 88.70 lacs. The interesting thing here is that the super sonic build up in Maya’s wealth has actually come after the filing of this case and that too in a very short period from 2004 -2007.
Now the question arises as to what are the sources of her income and what are the consequences of this amassing of wealth by her. It is also pertinent to discuss as to apart from Mayawati who else are the beneficiaries of this money game. What is the loss and gain of Dalits in this game of exchange of money? Some of the legitimate and questionable sources of her income will be discussed later.
It is a matter of great surprise and anguish to go through the arguments being put forward by Mayawati and her followers to justify her burgeoning wealth. It will be better to judge Mayawati by the ideals and norms laid down by Dr. Ambedkar, which she often claims to follow. During a conversation with some journalist Dr.Ambedkar had remarked that," my opponents have been levying all sorts of allegations against me. But none could dare to levy a single allegation on me regarding my integrity and character." Hence it will be proper to judge Mayawati on these parameters.
As regards character, it is of no use to discuss character of any of the present politicians. The recent exposures of many politicians on this front have left no scope for discussion and evaluation. The less said the better. The present politicians play many underhand games of which the public has almost stopped taking notice of and discussing it.
As regards integrity it has become a victim of every kind of dishonesty both moral and material. Mayawati is no exception to it. Now let us judge Mayawati on her score on integrity. It is quite bold of Mayawati that she makes no secret of her hunger for power and wealth. She takes money during her birthday celebrations as gifts from her followers and well wishers. She takes it during elections by selling tickets to the highest bidder. There have been allegations of money being taken by her in various projects and schemes. Transfers and postings are also said to be an important source of corruption for the persons in power. CBI has already prepared a charge sheet against her in a case of ill-gotten assets worth Rs.30 crores. The Taj Corridor Scam is still hanging fire. Ganga Express Highway Project has already raised a lot of dust.
One argument being put forward by Mayawati and supporters is that she needs it to run her party. It is being put forward that she is being gifted money by her followers out of love and affection. It is noteworthy that the majority of her followers are Dalits of whom 60% happen to be below poverty line. As such it is obvious that these so called gifts are either being given by her Non- Dalit followers or they are being routed through Dalits to make black money white for Mayawati. Both these processes are not beneficial for her Dalit constituency and Dalit politics as well. It is corrupting both Mayawati and her Dalit followers.
Non-Dalits who are paying money directly or indirectly are the major beneficiaries. With money and muscle power they are gaining positions in Assembly and Parliament. Many of them are known criminals and mafias including some who had committed atrocities on Dalits. Her Dalit constituency does not look into the credentials of the party candidates during election. They simply follow the dictates of Mayawati and vote for the candidates selected by her. As such they are losing their self respect and moral courage to oppose the wrong doings of Mayawati and her lieutenants.
It is alleged that Mayawati sells her party tickets at exorbitant rates to the highest bidder. It is a common knowledge that candidates are changed many times before the selection reaches the final stage. The main consideration is said to be the money. After getting the ticket they in turn invest a lot of money in elections by buying votes through party workers who are bound to be infected with corruption. This deprives the genuine party workers of the chance to stand in the election because they cannot afford to pay for party tickets. As such a large number of criminals and mafia dons have found place in the present day party. BSP's journey from 'Bahujan' to 'Sarvjan' is full of such episodes.
As regards the need for raising money through corrupt means to run a political party it will be apt to refer to what Dr. Ambedkar had to say on this point. In his famous speech on "Future of Parliamentary Democracy" he had remarked, "If moneyed people try to influence the elections by contributing to the election fund of any political party, what will be the result. If the party to which they supported financially comes into power they will naturally try to extract concessions for themselves either by modifying the present legislation or by influencing the party in power to legislate in such manner as would be beneficial to their interests." Now we can just think of the persons paying lacs and crores to buy Assembly and Parliamentary seats. Will not they do their best to earn back the money they have invested in elections? Resultantly Dalits and other poor people will be robbed of their due. The all prevailing corruption in almost all the welfare schemes and development works is the direct consequence of this political corruption in U.P. The Dalits and all other poor men are the resultant losers.
It is universally accepted that "as the means are so will be the end ". Now if the means are corrupt the end result is bound to be corrupt. Secondly it is a hard fact that Dalits are the worst victims of the present corrupt system and are expected to oppose and fight against this system. Now the Dalits when they occupy a position of power become a party to the corruption, it gets legitimacy and the chances of its being uprooted get lost. The slogan of "Change of system" becomes a hoax.
Regarding integrity and character of leaders Dr. Ambedkar in his famous address titled "Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah" had remarked,"... Observe carefully what qualities count for most in public life. Is character becoming of greater or less important? Are men who obtain the highest posts in the nation men of whom, in private life irrespective of party, competent judges speak with genuine respect? Are they of sincere convictions, consistent lives and indisputable integrity? It is by observing this current that you can best cast the horoscope of a nation." I think it applies in the case of Mayawati and other Dalit leaders as well.
"Hero worship" is another mental attribute which has infected the Dalit followers of Mayawati. Here I would like to quote Dr. Ambedkar on hero worship which many supporters of Mayawati take pride in. Dr. Ambedkar in the above address had further remarked that," Hero worship in the sense of expressing our unbound admiration is one thing. To obey the hero is a different kind of heroworship.There is nothing wrong in the former while the latter is no doubt a most pernicious thing. The former is only man's respect for everything which is noble and of which great man is only an embodiment. The latter is the villain's fealty to his lord. The former is consistent with respect, but the latter is a sign of debasement. The former does take away one's intelligence to think and independence to act. The later makes one a perfect fool. The former involves no disaster to the State. The latter is the source of positive danger to it." I think that each one of us should take this warning very seriously.
On another occasion while warning his followers Dr. Ambedkar remarked, "... ideas of hero worship will bring ruin on you if you don't nip them in the bud. By deifying an individual you repose faith for safety and salvation on a single individual with the result that you get into the habit of dependence and grow indifferent to your duty. If you fall a victim to these ideas, your fate will be no better than logs of woods in the national stream of life. Your struggle will come to naught" I think all of us should take notice of this warning and learn some thing from it. We must be intellectually honest and objective in our evaluation of any one including Mayawati.
S.R.Darapuri
(I.P.S.Retired)18/455,Indira,Nagar,Lucknow(U.P.)-226016,India.email:srdarapuri@yahoo.co.in

Countercurrents.org

Western politics are infected with a lethal virus

By Eric WalbergOnline Journal Contributing WriterApr 8, 2008, 00:19

This year's sixth international Cairo Conference against imperialism and Zionism continued the same themes as last year: dialogue between the left and Muslims, the struggle against Islamophobia, press censorship, torture and dictatorship, and the chance for Western peace groups to network on Middle East issues. The most inspiring project was the growing campaign to boycott Israel in the West and plans to coordinate this on an international level with the long-standing Arab and Muslim boycott campaign.
Otherwise, there was little to gladden activists, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue apace, not to mention the increased brutality of Israel against the Palestinian people. There are changes going on in Western countries, with increased activism of students and trade unionists. But the political scene is dismal, despite the overwhelming unpopularity of US-NATO/Israeli wars, as governments continue to bow to Zionist pressures -- both internal and external.

A case in point is Canada, which was unofficially represented at the conference by 14 members of the Canadian Peace Alliance (CPA) and others from student organisations. Delegates to last year's conference were attacked in the right-wing National Post and Ottawa Citizen for consorting with "terrorists" and "shouldn't be surprised if they come under scrutiny of the Canadian security services," simply for their willingness to dialogue with Muslims fighting the various wars now being inflicted on them. But they were not intimidated and returned full of energy. The conference gave them the opportunity to continue to share their experiences and make valuable contacts in the antiwar struggle. Al-Ahram Weekly spoke with several delegates about what is happening in the land of the maple leaf.
The Canadian political scene has been transformed in the past year, and not for the better. The 2,500 Canadian troops in the dangerous southern Kandahar region of Afghanistan had their mission extended to 2011 on 13 March, in what was billed as a fateful parliamentary vote, as the pro-war Conservatives have only a minority government and the war is deeply unpopular among Canadians. In a recent poll, only 15 percent favoured extending the troop presence to 2011, with 60 per cent in favour of bringing the troops home now. In fact, the vote was a walk-over, with the Liberals voting alongside the minority Conservative government, with only the small social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois voting against.
How was this possible? The Liberal Party leader, Stephane Dion, should be a natural opponent of the war. In fact, as Liberal critic for foreign affairs in 2006, he voted against extending Canada's original commitment of troops, which was to end in 2005. Quebec politicians -- mainly Liberal -- opposed WWI and WWII, and the federal governments of the time dared not introduce conscription, fearing the collapse of the Canadian confederation.

Yet Dion was manipulated into supporting the Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, and forcing his own Liberals to vote against what is clearly a violation of Canada's sacred role as peacemaker in international affairs. Despite strict pressure by party whip Karen Redman, 20 Liberals didn't show up and one -- Newfoundland MP Bill Matthews -- dared vote against. Redman issued a statement saying she "would make whatever decisions need to be made" to punish the truants and the lone rebel. Meanwhile, in a less than subtle propaganda ploy to counter French-Canadian distaste for "fighting other people's wars," the media is always highlighting Quebecois troops bravely fighting the "detestable scumbags and cowards," as Canadian Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier famously called the Taliban.
A partial answer to Dion's political about-face was revealed at a bi-election meeting two days after the parliamentary vote, on 15 March in Toronto. Bob Rae, an ex-NDP leader and born-again Liberal, was running in a safe Liberal constituency. When CPA members heard about the meeting, 10 snuck in the back door, raised their antiwar banner and demanded to hear why, in a democracy, the overwhelming opinion of the electorate was being ignored by the leading candidate. Dion, who was present, was paralysed, while Rae smoothly offered the protesters their 30 seconds but proceeded to ignore their question. When establishment journalists took up the theme, he neatly sidestepped the issue and escaped unscathed. Interestingly, Rae, a committed Zionist -- his wife is vice-president of the main pro-Israeli lobby, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) -- came second to Dion during the last leadership convention, and is clearly being preened as the heir apparent when the Liberals collapse in the next election.
An earlier bi-election last year in another supposedly safe Liberal riding in Quebec backfired even more spectacularly for the Liberal leader. Outremont has been Liberal for 68 of the 73 years it has existed, and the NDP traditionally fares abysmally in Quebec. Yet they won 48 per cent of the vote there in an election that NDP leader Jack Layton called a "referendum on Afghanistan." Layton is called "Taliban Jack" by pro-war critics, just one step away from being put on a terrorist watch list like last year's Cairo Conference delegates presumably have been. His is virtually the only clear antiwar voice on the national scene, despite the solid antiwar sentiment in Canada, which stubbornly refuses to bow to the pro-war media.

The Afghan debacle has already cost over 80 Canadian soldiers' lives (vs Britain's 91), and the Canadian taxpayers well over $5 billion (official figures are $3 billion by 2009), as the government hurries to slash social spending. An intelligent and brave politician should be able to take this issue and run with it. But just as Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's antiwar position is now being derided by US media as his "weak point," no Canadian politician is allowed to do what should come naturally in any democracy worthy of the name.
All this is, in fact, an eerie replay of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's argument about the Israel lobby in the US, whose "core" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend US policy so that it furthers Israel's interests." Its Canadian counterpart, led by the CJC and B'nai Brith, through extensive media control and privileged access to the highest levels of government, has poisoned the Canadian political scene, paralysing the antiwar majority and choking all debate, pushing the Liberals into the Conservatives' arms on the one issue that could win them the next election. Canada's continued agony in Afghanistan is vital to the Israel lobby; after all, a rejection of the Canadian role in the genocide in Afghanistan is a step down the slippery slope of a rejection of blind support for Israel's genocide in Palestine.
Instead, the Liberals are now very likely to loose -- probably resoundingly, with their indecisive leader flip-flopping on the one issue that could secure him victory. Just as McCain is now the favourite of the US pro-Israeli lobby and US antiwar sentiment is stifled and ignored, Harper has earned their Canadian counterpart's favour and antiwar proponents are silenced, allowing the Conservatives to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in the next election, with the media cheering him on and a disillusioned electorate splitting the vote among lesser parties or merely staying home.

This poison has unfortunately infected the NDP as well, as shown by its caving in to the Zionist lobby on its campaign to boycott the UN's Durban II Conference on Racism to be held next year in South Africa. The upcoming conference was loudly denounced by both Harper and Dion for daring to criticise Zionism as a form of racism, and NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar, apparently without clearance from Layton, joined the chorus. When CPA activists protested to Layton personally, he claimed ignorance and to his credit had all references to this criticism of the UN conference removed from NDP websites. However, he did not actually support the conference and certainly would never dare criticise Israel or Zionism in any significant way. On the contrary, several NDP MPs are outspoken supporters of Israel. None openly support Palestine. So the rot goes deep into all parties on the Canadian political scene.
An interesting footnote to poor Canada's plight is how it is being used as a Trojan Horse to encourage more NATO troops to actively fight the Taliban alongside Canadian troops. CAP activist Sid Lacombe told the Weekly his Dutch and German colleagues explain that their foreign/defence ministers would never try to convince unsympathetic electorates that the US needs help. Instead, they talk about how "Canada helped liberate us from the Nazis," arguing, "We Europeans owe them one."
The sorry state of Canada's political scene is replicated in Britain, according to peace activist Ian Taylor, who told the Weekly the one hope to fight their Israel lobby, George Galloway's newly minted Respect Party, is collapsing under the weight of too many expectations and media loathing. Labour was long ago co-opted by the Zionists (the latest bribery political scandal involves Labour Friends of Israel). A trip through Western "democracies" surely would turn up similar sad cases of political near death from poisoning. Where is the antidote?
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online JournalEmail Online Journal Editor