Netanyahu in Congress - Deferring Sanity

This article is mirrored from CounterPuch.

MARCH 03, 2015

Deferring Sanity

Netanyahu in Congress

by JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN

The special US-Israeli relationship is as secure today as it has ever been. There is no danger that Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress will have a “destructive” effect on our commitment to Israel’s “security”. After listening to National Security Adviser, Susan Rice’s, speech to AIPAC this evening, I shut off the television and realized, to my chagrin, that, if anything, Israel may even benefit from the international media soap opera touched off by Netanyahu’s hubris: shame on our political leaders, news commentators and spin doctors for allowing the personal animosity between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, divert us, yet again, from the real issues.

Bypassing President Obama, Netanyahu accepted an invitation by Senate Majority Leader, John Boehner, to address the US Congress on the topic of Iran. It would hardly surprise me to learn that this invitation was deliberately engineered to humiliate Obama publicly; to bolster the mainstream Republican agenda on Iran; and to elevate Netanyahu’s standings in the upcoming Israeli elections this March 17th. Whether his speech to Congress will, in fact, have a positive effect on the latter is arguable and depends, to some extent, on just how outrageous and duplicitous the content of Netanyahu’s lecture turns out to be.

A few things remain unclear: either Netanyahu doesn’t read the news, he is hoping that nobody else notices Israel’s de facto alliance with ISIS, or he is more concerned with poking Obama in the eye publicly than in the future of his country, a fact that would not surprise me. Focusing on the dangerous forces lurking in his “neighborhood”, Netanyahu singles out Iran, Lebanon (by which he presumably means Hizbullah), Syria, and Hamas. Unlike most Americans, Netanyahu views the potential of a nuclear capable Iran as a greater threat to regional stability than the spread of ISIS and extremist groups, such as al-Qaida.

With even Saudi Arabia, fearing Blowback, reversing course on its official policy toward ISIS by making it illegal for its nationals to fight in foreign wars (an about face from the nation whose extremist, fundamentalist form of Islam — Wahhabism — has been among its leading exports for over 40 years, and certainly its deadliest) it is that much more disturbing to note the silence echoing from Tel Aviv.

Instead Netanyahu has regaled us with tirade after tirade on the ramifications of an Iranian nuclear bomb and the existential threat it poses little Israel — ironic since Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has categorically stated that his country doesn’t want one.

Why would he lie? A nuclear-armed Iran would be its country’s suicide note to the world before being “obliterated” (to use former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s, word) by the United States. Iran would like to acquire nuclear technological know-how – not an atomic arsenal – the sanest possible acquisition in a ‘neighborhood’ where the only nuclear-armed power, Israel, threatens Iran’s destruction almost daily, and has wreaked havoc on the region routinely for nearly 7 decades. How else might Iran succeed in deterring Israeli militarism, and how else might Iran – a country whose conventional armed forces barely allow a defensive capability – move forward into a future in which it is not bullied and brow-beaten into submission, preferring instead to seek the option of independent energy efficiency, and freedom from a regional hegemon whose godfather already enjoys unrivaled authority over most of that hemisphere?

All speculation aside, what strikes me as the most obvious piece of information to re-emerge from the tempest now brewing in Washington is that Benjamin Netanyahu is an unscrupulous, scheming, vile man who has taken the meaning of “chutzpah” to new heights in his display of unseemly and undiplomatic behavior. That no world leader has yet demanded that he and his regime be made to answer for its brutally criminal, scandalous policies time and again compels us to recognize how grievously weak and flawed the ‘international community’ is, and by extension, how depraved those leaders are whose actions are considered most synonymous with it. It takes the unknown human rights organizations on the ground in the Gaza Strip, the Mezan Center for Human Rights and the Palestine Center for Human Rights, to have to beseech the world repeatedly, day after day, to compel Israel and the United States to adhere to the most fundamental precepts of international law and accepted standards of humanitarian and diplomatic behavior.

What we are watching today, and have been a party to for the past few weeks is yet another media-political circus for the sake of narrow sectarian interests. A genuine rift in US-Israeli relations would manifest itself in long overdue concrete policies the US would demand of its client regime: an immediate end to the building of illegal Jewish settlements on all occupied Palestinian land; recognition of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state; a full moratorium on the on-going theft and use of natural resources outside the boundaries of the Green Line, or borders that existed prior to June 4th, 1967; a complete withdrawal of all military checkpoints and barriers within occupied Palestinian land; an immediate halt to the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the withholding of tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority, and the closure of crossing points into and out of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

It would mean the end to all restriction of movement by Palestinians to and from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, and the right of any Palestinian to return to that land now recognized by a majority of the world’s nations as a Palestinian state.

In short, a genuinely ‘destructive’ rift in US-Israeli relations would suggest at the very least a beginning to the end of America’s unconditional support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine. It would commence the end to an occupation whose accompanying militarization and brutalization has had ramifications for countries as far away as Iran and that will continue to contribute to the growing havoc and destruction Western colonial and United States’ imperial history have wrought on the region we know as the Middle East.

Jennifer Loewenstein is a human rights activist and faculty associate in Middle East Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She can be reached at: amadea311@earthlink.net

---

Some additional information on this subject from Noam Chomsky.

--Joe

More "Thought" Murders by Hallucination

Haaretz.com

6 hrs · 

Israeli source: "We thought we were hitting an enemy field unit that was on its way to carry out an attack on us at the frontier fence."

Israeli security source: Iranian general was not target of Syria strike

Source tells Reuters Israel believed only lower-level operatives would be present at the site of the strike.

EBX.SH

--Joe

"what makes us exceptional"

"That’s what makes America different."

--President Obama in a national address from the White House Tuesday night, September 10, 2013.

American's are exceptionally different alright, but not in the way Obama wants to say.  You can believe President Barack Obama's pack of uncontested lies or you can stick to the facts.

Naom Chomsky sets forth seventy years worth of facts in his latest conversation on Democracy Now.

Here's an excerpt as he comments on the Presidential address of September 10, 2013, regarding his plans to go to war with Syria.  If you want to know how the whole world sees America you need to read his complete commentary.  At some point decent, God-fearing people always put down the rogue bully.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the Russian plan is a godsend for Obama. It saves him from what would look like a very serious political defeat. He has not been able to obtain virtually any international support for this—the action he’s contemplating. Even Britain wouldn’t support it. And it looked as though Congress wasn’t going to support it either, which would leave him completely out on a limb. This leaves him a way out. 

He can maintain the threat of force, which incidentally is a crime under international law, that we should bear in mind that the core principle of the United Nations Charter bars the threat or use of force, threat or use of force. So all of this is criminal, to begin with, but he’ll continue with that. The United States is a rogue state. It doesn’t pay any attention to international law. 

He—it was kind of interesting what he didn’t say. This would be a perfect opportunity to ban chemical weapons, to impose the chemical weapons convention on the Middle East. The convention, contrary to what Obama said, does not specifically refer just to use of chemical weapons; it refers to production, storage or use of chemical weapons. That’s banned by the international norm that Obama likes to preach about. Well, there is a country which happens to be—happens to have illegally annexed part of Syrian territory, which has chemical weapons and is in violation of the chemical weapons convention and has refused even to ratify it—namely, Israel. So here’s an opportunity to eliminate chemical weapons from the region, to impose the chemical weapons convention as it’s actually formulated. But Obama was very careful not to say that he—for reasons which are too obvious to go into—he—and that gap is highly significant. Of course, chemical weapons should be eliminated everywhere, but certainly in that region. 

The other things that he said were not unusual, but nevertheless kind of shocking to anyone not familiar with U.S. political discourse, at least. So he described the United—he said that for seven decades the United States has been "the anchor of global security." Really? Seven decades? That includes, for example, just 40 years ago today, when the United States played a major role in overthrowing the parliamentary democracy of Chile and imposing a brutal dictatorship, called "the first 9/11" in Latin America. Go back earlier years, overthrowing the parliamentary system in Iran, imposing a dictatorship; same in Guatemala a year later; attacking Indochina, the worst crime in the postwar period, killing millions of people; attacking Central America; killing—involved in killing—in imposing a dictatorship in the Congo; and invading Iraq—on and on. That’s stability? I mean, that a Harvard Law School graduate can pronounce those words is pretty amazing, as is the fact that they’re accepted without comment. 

So what he said is I’m going to lie like a trooper about history; I’m going to suppress the U.S. role, the actual U.S. role, for the last seven decades; I’m going to maintain the threat of force, which is of course illegal; and I’m going to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is not imposed on the region, because our ally, Israel, would be subjected to it. And I think those are some of the main points of his address.

It always comes back to protecting Israel, doesn't it?  Ever wonder why Israel is so important to America? Both Israel and the United States a violent military states.  A historical reality that decries their legitimacy as a sovereign country.

Read the first part of th interview here on Democracy Now.
and 
The second part of the interview (Chomsky on 9/11, Syria’s "Bloody Partition" and Why U.S. Role Ensures Failure of Mideast Talks) here.
and
The third and final part of the interview (Noam Chomsky: U.S. Has Been "Torturing" Iran for 60 Years, Since 1953 CIA-Led Coup).

-Joe

IRAN - Smarter Than the Average Bear

Yep! They know a slicker when they see one.

Even Yogi knew a rat when he smelled one.

Did Yogi smell an "overture"? Joe doesn't thinks so.

You can read it here: Iran's supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures

"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech ..."

"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said.

For its part, the Obama administration must take practical steps such as lifting a ban on selling Iran spare parts for passenger aircraft or considering unfreezing Iranian assets in the U.S., (a prominent political analyst Saeed) Leilaz said.

"They say we have stretched a hand toward Iran. ... If a hand is stretched covered with a velvet glove but it is cast iron inside, that makes no sense," Khamenei said.

Sometimes it takes a preacher to know a preacher.

UPDATE :: Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Lebanon perspective: Dialogue of the Deaf
The following is an excerpt:

It is for this reason that the Iranians want "deeds" in addition to words from Obama. They are intelligent enough to notice the change in the type of discourse Obama is adopting with them. But what comes after this? Can the black President offer them the apologies which they demand, for more than half a century of the US dealing with them badly, from toppling Mossadegh to protecting the Shah to supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against them? In other words, can he erase half a century of the history of the country that chose him as its President?

The new US President wants to give the impression that his policies are different from those of his predecessor. But a change in the language of discourse on the part of the White House will have no effect if it is not accompanied by a change in the type of response to such discourse on the part of the recipients of US messages. Without this such discourse would become a dialogue of the deaf, which is what currently seems to be taking place between Washington and Tehran

On the one hand, there is a tendency on the part of the Obama Administration to put an end to previous conflicts and to deal with international crises with a new mindset. On the other, such a step is being interpreted as the result of the defeat of the US's plans, which entails that such a defeat should be exploited by Iran, and that it should strengthen its influence in the places where it feels it has achieved victory. Obama's problem with Iran is that he is not willing to submit to such Iranian victories, nor do his country's interests allow him to do so. [For the complete article.]

--Joe

No Shame - Just War

Addendum to the Lunacy

Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
June 30, 2008

More lunacy?
Is Israel preparing to bomb Iran?
Read this interview (June 23,2008):
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/23/is_israel_preparing_to_bomb_iran

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress
by Andrew W Cheetham
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377

A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively
requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining
co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for
in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all
shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also
"demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on
all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or
departing Iran."

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade
in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution
has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the
bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained
co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by
Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it
has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

AIPAC's Endorsement

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the
rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it
sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures
against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to
''Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation" and tells readers to lobby Congress to
pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over
the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007
and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue
memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear
weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

The Resolutions put forward in the House and the Senate
bear a resounding similarity to AIPAC analysis and Issue Memos in both its
analysis and proposals even down to its individual components.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive
steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. "It is my hope that…this
Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in
economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways," said Congressman
Mike Pence(R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution
along with Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the sub committee on Middle
East and South Asia of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral
sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the
international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his
online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US
allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. "The
Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are
close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services
joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island," he
writes.

These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran
tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of
Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms
classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of
these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.

Last week’s sharp rise in the cost of oil following
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran indicated
the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the
world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional
endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.

In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a
meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said
economic sanctions have "exhausted themselves" and called a blockade a
"good possibility."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377