yourworldnews.org

Draconian Cybersecurity Bills

by Stephen Lendman

Bipartisan complicity’s involved in hyping cyber threats. At issue is promoting draconian cybersecurity legislation.

Obama supports congressional effects. Internet freedom’s at stake. So are other civil liberties.

On March 8, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted a mock New York cyber attack. At issue was gaining support for pending Senate legislation.

White House spokesperson Caitlin Hayden called the stunt a way to give “senators….an appreciation for new legislative authorities that would help the U.S. government prevent and more quickly respond to cyber attacks.”

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said:

“The fact that we could be subject to a catastrophic attack under the right circumstances and we now know some of the things that would help us to protect against such an attack, that’s why it’s important now for the Congress to take this up.”

Destroying a free and open Internet and other civil liberties is no way to do it. Power grab politics are in play. Major media scoundrels are silent.

The past decade witnessed a systematic war on freedom. It last vestiges are being attacked. Unless stopped, tyranny will gain full control. It practically has it now.

Bipartisan complicity’s on board to seize it. So is Obama. Bad as things are now, the worst is yet to come.

In recent years, various cybersecurity bills were introduced. Recent House and Senate versions are the latest threat.

On November 30, 2011, HR 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 was introduced. It’s pending for further consideration. On February 14, a companion Senate version was offered – S. 2105: Cybersecurity Act of 2012. It also awaits further consideration.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said the House version gives “companies or the government free rein to bypass existing laws in order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for ‘cybersecurity purposes.’ ”

Companies are urged to share information with each other and Washington. At issue is allegedly foiling potential cyber attacks. In fact, the bill attacks vital freedoms.

Claiming a possible cyber threat, the bill lets government and business bypass existing laws. They include prohibiting telecommunication companies from monitoring routine communications. The bill permit it as long as done in “good faith.”

Likely abuse is obvious. For example, bill language says “cyber threat intelligence” and “cybersecurity purpose” mean “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”

EFF calls it “a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property.”

As a result, ISPs could block or prevent access to accounts accused of infringing, whether or not true. At risk are those providing vital suppressed information everyone has a right to know.

Already severely weakened, First Amendment freedoms could erode further or entirely disappear. Anything business or government finds offensive could be blocked from the public domain. Online information as we now know it could vanish.

Freedoms we take for granted are on the chopping block to eliminate. Passage of current House and Senate bills will be a giant step toward doing it. They provide powerful new repressive tools. Any site or blog could be called a “cyber threat.”

Congress wants legislation passed this year. So does Obama. HR 3523 is one of the worst. The Senate version is almost as bad. Vague language is their common denominator.

For example, the Senate bill states:

“(C)ybersecurity threat” means any action that may result in unauthorized access to, exfiltration of, manipulation of, or impairment to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system.”

A “cybersecurity threat indicator” is defined in hugely disjunctive vague scenarios. They include, for example, “a method of defeating a technical (or operational) control.” Merely using “a proxy or anonymization service” to access sites could be called a “cybersecurity threat indicator.”

So could using cryptography to protect personal communications or be able to access systems securely. Nearly anything could be misinterpreted as a threat.

Government and business could monitor online traffic and communications without Wiretap Act or other legal restrictions.

“Effectively, the broad definitions of threats could immunize a whole host of monitoring activities by a huge swath of different government and non-government actors.”

In addition, S. 2105 and a newer March 1 S. 2151: SECURE IT bills let “private entities” operate “countermeasures.” Vague language means those allowed are open to interpretation. Abuses are certain.

Acting with “defensive intent” can also be abused. As always, the devil’s in the details and potential latitude within them. Most worrisome is government and business in bed against personal freedoms for greater control.

ISPs could block all traffic on certain ports or filter out what they don’t want the public to know. Cryptographic protocols could also be crippled. The best defense is a strong offense, no matter how destructive to personal freedoms.

EFF calls potential abuses worrisome. It’s not known what countermeasures would be used. Senate and House bills give no guidance. Government and business will decide on their own privately. Transparency won’t exist.

Safeguarding civil liberties requires laws with “utmost specificity.” Concrete, not vague, language is essential. Online freedom depends on it. Cybersecurity should protect everyone equally, not government and business alone.

A Final Comment

EFF raised four unanswered questions in both Senate bills and the House one:

(1) Who’ll be in charge of cybersecurity?

HR 3523 has the military/intelligence community running it. Still another House bill (HR 3674 introduced last December) puts DHS in charge.

EFF calls civilian control essential. Without it, openness, transparency, and accountability would be entirely destroyed. It may be either way, depending on enacted language and how it’s interpreted.

(2) What constitutes a cybersecurity threat?

House and Senate bills lack clear definitions. Potential harm is obvious. People adopting privacy and security measures EFF recommends, potentially could be treated like criminals.

“(L)legitimate security research would be targeted and security researchers could find themselves under perpetual scrutiny as potential “cybercriminals.’ ”

(3) What does “information sharing” mean?

House and Senate bills mandate it in some form. They also let government and business collude. Information sharing’s urged, including private emails, web searches, GPS data, social networking, and other personal data.

Moreover, claiming cybersecurity threats immunizes abusers from civil or criminal liability. Information sharing, in fact, is a euphemism for surveillance and other countermeasures like filtering content, blocking access to web sites, or shutting them down.

(4) Will an eventual cybersecurity law enhance or harm security?

Benefits are possible if everyone’s protected equally with no personal freedoms infringed. Proposed House and Senate bills erode or entirely destroy them.

Measures improving online security are laudable. Major operating systems are vulnerable, as are various types of commercial software. Nothing is fail-safe, but better encryption, more secure protocols, and better authentication methods could improve things.

House and Senate bills fall short. “Instead of creating incentives for better defensive Internet security, the proposed bills take an offensive posture: more monitoring, more surveillance, and more disclosure of your private information.”

Instead of improving online safety, user privacy and security more than ever will be comprised en route to destroying them altogether and a free and open Internet along with it. The stakes are that great.

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

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

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

ICC Absolves Israeli Lawlessness

by Stephen Lendman

Established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on July 1, 2002, it’s mandated to prosecute individuals for genocide and aggression, as well as crimes or war and against humanity.

Instead, it functions solely as an imperial tool. It supports wealth and power. It targets independent states Washington and other Western nations oppose. In the process, it lets America and rogue NATO powers get away with murder.

Chief prosecutor Jose Luis Moreno Ocampo’s complicit in their crimes. Now he’s done it again. On April 3, Haaretz headlined, “ICC rejects Palestinian bid to investigate Israeli war crimes during ‘Cast Lead’ Gaza operation,” saying:

On Tuesday, Ocampo rejected the PA’s request. His reasoning was spurious. He claimed under the Rome Statute, “only internationally recognized states can join the court.” His official statement said:

“(T)he current status granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly is that of ‘observer,’ not as a ‘Non-member State,’ (and only) relevant bodies at the United Nations” or group of states that make up the court may decide if Palestinians can become part of the Rome Statute.

“(T)he Office has assessed that it is for the relevant bodies at the United Nations or the Assembly of States Parties to make the legal determination whether Palestine qualifies as a State for the purpose of acceding to the Rome Statute and thereby enabling the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court.”

“The Rome Statute provides no authority for the Office of the Prosecutor to adopt a method to define the term ‘State.’ ”

Fact check

Palestine IS a state. Over 140 nations recognize it, well over the required General Assembly’s two-thirds majority. In the late 1980s, Francis Boyle drafted Palestine’s declaration of independence.

On November 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council (PNC) adopted his Memorandum of Law. It “proclaimed the existence of the new independent state of Palestine.”

A de facto UN member, it only lacks de jure status because of Abbas won’t seek it. If he tried, it’s easily gotten.

Boyle’s “CREATE THE STATE OF PALESTINE” Memorandum of Law explained requirements necessary for recognition. They include:

• “a determinable (not necessarily fixed) territory;” its borders are negotiable; the new state is comprised of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem; Palestinians have lived there for millennia; it’s their nation state;

• a fixed population;

• a functioning government; in 1988, Arafat declared the PLO as Palestine’s Provisional Government; and

• the capacity to enter into relations with other states; over 140 nations recognize Palestine; others haven’t because, under occupation, it lacks effective control; still others disagree, saying Israel isn’t in control; it’s an occupier, an illegal one; on December 15, 1988, the General Assembly recognized Palestine’s legitimacy, affording it observer status.

Palestine satisfies all essential membership criteria. Moreover, all UN Charter states (including America and Israel) provisionally recognized Palestine in accordance with UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4).

Further, as the League’s successor, the General Assembly has exclusive legal authority to designate the PLO as the Palestinian peoples’ legitimate representative.

The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the PLO’s legislative body. It’s empowerered to proclaim the existence of Palestine. According to the binding 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren, automatically are citizens. So are diaspora Palestinians. Those living in Israel and Jordan have dual nationalities, and residents of the Occupied Territories remain “protected persons,” according to Fourth Geneva, until a final peace settlement is reached.

There’s more, including simple steps to gain full de jure UN membership. If properly done, it can’t be blocked. The Security Council only recommends admissions. The General Assembly affirms them by a two-thirds vote. If proper procedures are followed, it’s rubber stamp certain.

Palestine already has statehood. Ocampo suggesting otherwise reveals his imperial agenda and support for lawlessness. In the future, he said, the ICC could “consider allegations of crimes committed in Palestine, should competent organs of the United Nations or eventually the Assembly of States Parties resolve the legal issue” regarding Palestine’s membership status.

In January 2009, Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Khashan recognized the ICC’s authority “for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since July 1, 2002.”

The ICC considered the possibility. During discussions, Arab League representatives submitted evidence of Israeli war crimes. In July 2011, the PA appealed to the ICC in writing.

Instead of doing his job as international law and his own mandate require, Ocampo again bowed to power. He supported wrong over right. He absolved Israeli crimes.

Moreover, although Israel signed the Rome Statute, it sent UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan the following statement:

“….in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court….Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party….be reflected in the depositary’s status lists relating to this treaty.”

In other words, Israel wants all rights and privileges the Rome Statute affords but none of its obligations. It’s gotten everything it wants, especially from Annan, his successor Ban, Ocampo, and Western leaders. They’re replicas of each other. They defile their sworn mandates. They support power, lawlessness, and criminality. They ignore fundamental rule of law justice.

Last year, Ocampo compounded his hypocrisy by illegally indicting and issuing arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Saif, and Libya’s intelligence chief, Abjullah al-Sanoussi.

Besides charging victims of NATO’s war of aggression, Libya wasn’t a Rome Statute signatory. As a result, the ICC had no authority to act. Ocampo did anyway. He followed orders. He’s an imperial tool. Now he’s done it again.

Worse still, he refused to investigate US/NATO Iraq and Libyan war crimes. AfPak ones also since July 1, 2002 when the Rome Statute became effective.

When established, it was hoped victims of genocide and aggression, as well as crimes of war and against humanity, would achieve justice. Instead, they’ve been subordinated to Western imperial interests. Ocampo’s complicity supports them. Victims are punished a second time.

ICJ Rules Against Israel

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Israel’s Separation Wall illegal. It said its West Bank route and associated gate and permit system violated Israel’s obligations under international law.

It ordered completed sections dismantled, and “all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto” repealed or rendered “ineffective forthwith.”

It also mandated reparations for the “requisition and destruction of homes, businesses, and agricultural holdings (and) return (of) land, orchards, olive groves, and other immovable property seized.”

It obligated member states to reject the illegal construction and demand Israel comply with international law.

Most nations ignored the ruling. Israel defied it and keeps building. When completed, it’ll be over 800 km long, twice the length of the Green Line, four times as long as the Berlin Wall, and in some places twice as high on about 12% of stolen Palestinian land.

The ICJ’s non-binding ruling called on the Security Council to consider “further action” to halt Wall construction, order sections built dismantled, and compensate affected Palestinians for their loss.

Court President Shi Jiuyong said:

“The court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall.”

He added that Israel’s alleged “military exigencies,” “national security,” or “public order” needs didn’t justify its construction. Continuing it is “tantamount to de facto annexation” and “severely impede(s Palestinian) self-determination.”

He also urged “reboubl(ing)” UN efforts to end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Its continuance he called a threat to world peace.

Washington prevented the Security Council from enforcing the ICJ ruling. However, it stands in contrast to Ocampo repeatedly subordinating his mandate to wealth and power interests.

Instead of prosecuting individuals responsible for genocide and aggression, as well as crimes of war and against humanity, he only targets victims.

Absolving Washington, NATO, and Israel defiles the Court’s mandate and makes him a willing imperial accomplice.

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

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

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

The View from Istanbul

by Stephen Lendman

So-called “Friends of Syria” aren’t at all friendly to most Syrians. Syrian National Council/Free Syrian Army hostility is visible in daily violence they commit.

Backed by Washington, Britain, France, and other rogue NATO partners, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and perhaps other regional states supply powerful weapons and munitions to reign terror on ordinary civilians. They’ve also killed thousands of security forces.

At issue isn’t democracy or other high-sounding values. Anti-Assad nations don’t tolerate them at home. They’re never exported through subversion or barrel of a gun violence. Establishing another pro-Western state’s planned, as well as isolating and weakening Iran before targeting its government for regime change.

Behind the scenes, Washington’s dirty hands manipulate everything. Longstanding plans called for ousting Assad by any means, including war. Nothing changed.

In pursuit of unchallenged dominance, Syrians and others in the region die daily. That’s what imperialism’s all about. Body counts don’t matter, only wealth and unchallenged power.

Rogue Partners Talk Shop in Istanbul

On April 1, dozens of Western countries discussed ways to control, perhaps divide, and exploit Syria. Regional Arab League despots joined them. Russia and China boycotted the conference for good reason.

The New York Times headlined, “At Summit, Nations Move to Increase Aid for Syrian Rebels,” saying:

Washington and others there “moved closer….to direct intervention in the fighting in Syria….” It’s been raging since violence erupted over a year ago. Admitting it confirms what’s already known.

Weapons, munitions, funding, and training are involved. US, UK, French, and perhaps other special forces  participate actively on the ground. So do CIA and MI6 operatives.

Events replicate the early 2011 Libya model. In February, US/UK/French special forces and intelligence operatives actively began helping anti-Gaddafi NATO-backed militants. An armed insurgency followed, including bombing weeks later.

Round two’s raging in Syria, short of bombs away. If other methods fail, expect it ahead of moving on to target Iran. Plans are made. Only timing’s not known. Election year politics and other issues dictate it.

In Istanbul, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Arab states pledged $100 million to bankroll opposition fighters. Doing so means they’re on their payroll. They’re employees. They’re hired guns like Mafia hitmen for much less pay.

Militant “Friends of Syria” want force, not diplomatic resolution. Even The Times admitted it that using it “stretch(es) the definition of humanitarian assistance.”

It stopped short of acknowledging the latter’s never involved when Washington intervenes. Responsibility to protect is a thinly veiled regime change scheme by any means.

Free Syrian Army fighters and Syrian National Council (SNC) members are Western tools to achieve it. SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun said “This is high noon for action.”

Hillary Clinton told conference attendees that Assad defied Annan’s six-point peace plan, saying:

“The world must judge Assad by what he does, not by what he says. And we cannot sit back and wait any longer.”

Clinton’s a war goddess. She’s part and parcel of Washington’s plan to instigate and continue violence. Assad’s blamed for confronting it. Blame game strategy operates that way.

International involvement inside and outside Syria “drags into a second year,” said The Times. It “appears to be deepening.”

“We are discussing with our international partners how best to expand support,” said Clinton.

Turkey’s Today’s Zaman quoted Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan saying:

The “legitimate demands of the Syrian people must be met, right here, right now.” Suggesting military intervention, he called for international leaders to defend the Syrian people’s “right to self-defense” if the Security Council can’t provide it. He added:

“A Security Council that has failed to say enough to a regime that has massacred innocent civilians, shelled cities and resorted to brutal violence is clearly incapable of preserving international peace and security.”

As long as Washington’s a member, the Security Council won’t tolerate international peace and security. Violence is standard practice. Targeted regimes are obligated to confront it. Their people expect it.

On April 1, Lebanese Defense Minister Fayez Ghusn stressed what Assad faces, saying:

“Smuggling weapons persists and is in fact increasing; the army is fighting it as much as it can but the smuggling operations are on the rise because they bring lots of profit and money. The army is ready but sometimes there are gaps and problems.”

Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour said:

“We deal with Syria….state to state as we deal with all the Arab countries.” We stress “the necessity of halting violence and adopting dialogue.”

Despite clear evidence Washington supports and perhaps actively participates in arming insurgents, The Times quoted an unnamed “senior American official” saying Washington and other nations agreed Sunday to set up a “working group” to monitor countries involved in arming or otherwise supporting Assad.

They want “to basically name and shame those entities, individuals, and countries, who are evading the sanctions.” They also want to “document acts of violence by Syrian forces” to be used later to prosecute Assad and others around him.

Scoundrel Media Assail Him

Their attacks are vicious, relentless, and one-sided. New York Time op-ed contributor Aaron David Miller mocked Annan’s peace plan for the wrong reasons. Headlining, “Will Annan Save Assad? he said:

“Although it is well intentioned, Mr. Annan’s plan won’t end the crisis; it will make it worse. The plan is an ill-timed lifeline to a murderous regime that will exploit Mr. Annan’s diplomacy to buy time, to reload and to divide the opposition and the international community.”

It offers Assad “time and space to rest and plan.” It also “break(s) the momentum of supplying weapons to the Free Syrian Army.”

Fact check

Annan’s peace plan is a ruse. It’s more theater than resolve to end conflict diplomatically. While calling for both sides to stop violence, it insists Assad make the first move.

His government must “immediately cease troop movements towards, end the use of heavy weapons in population centers, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centers.”

In other words, it calls on him to stop protecting his own people, leave them on their own unprotected, and let insurgents reign terror unopposed because who’ll stop them. No responsible leader would agree.

Moreover, weapons continue flowing freely to opposition fighters. They’re supplied regularly through porous borders.

“Assad (will) exploit (Annan’s plan) because it is based on a process that doesn’t rule out his government’s staying in power and indeed might ensure” it. “Suddenly” he’s now “part of the solution.”

Only Syrians can decide if he stays or goes. International law prohibits outside intervention in any form. Most Syrians support him, especially his reform plans.

It’s their choice, and their right to tell less than friendly “friends” to butt out and let them run their own affairs unobstructed.

On March 30, a Washington Post editorial headlined, “Syria’s cover for murder,” saying:

Days after agreeing to Annan’s plan, violence keeps raging. The editorial, of course, blames Assad, not responsible killer gangs. “The results were completely predictable,” it said. Annan gave him “cover.”

“How much (more) time” should he get? “How many more dead?” The Post’s offices are near the White House. Its editors can trot over and ask. Instead, they continue saying:

“The Obama administration’s de facto choice to tolerate the survival of a regime that is Iran’s chief ally in the Middle East and the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah might have many motivations. But neither the will to prevent mass murder nor the pursuit of U.S. strategic interests could be among them.”

Fact check

Obama, those around him, and most in Congress plan ousting him. Insurgent “mass murder” is part of their scheme.

Washington’s “strategic interests” entail installing another pro-Western regime, exploiting Syrians, isolating Iran, replacing its government by any means, reigning terror on the entire region, and controlling it unchallenged.

That’s how imperialism works. Media scoundrels support it in lockstep. Body count totals don’t matter, just success by any means, fair or foul.

Nearly always the latter way’s chosen. Suffering never ends. It increases.

Syrians know Assad’s their only hope. They won’t tolerate becoming another pro-Western vassal state. It’s their country, their government, their choice, and their right.

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

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

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

Waging War on Truth

by Stephen Lendman

Major media scoundrel reports, commentaries, and editorials distort, misreport, censor, and suppress. Truth and full disclosure lose out. Readers and viewers deserving better are cheated.

The New Republic’s (TNR) owner and former editor-in-chief Martin Peretz ranks with the worst. His columns exclude journalism the way it should be.

He’s unabashedly pro-Israel, pro-war, and ideologically extreme on all issues mattering most. In December 2010, New York Magazine contributor Benjamin Wallace-Wells called him “a born belligerent (with) an extraordinary capacity for anger.”

American Prospect contributor Eric Alterman said he “spread the virus of liberal self-hatred….(D)uring his reign (as TNR editor-in-chief, he’s) done lasting damage to the cause of American liberalism.”

“By turning TNR into a kind of ideological police dog, (he) tarr(ed) anyone who disagreed (with him) as irresponsible and untrustworthy.” He did it based on (a) narrow and ideosyncratic….Israel-centric neoconservatism.”

On Peretz’s watch, no TNR editorial ever criticized Israel. Its interests alone matter. “Support for Israel,” he said, is “deep down, an expression of America’s best view of itself.” He suggested Israel’s worst crimes are justifiable, when, in fact, they violate fundamental international laws and norms.

As for Arabs, he calls them “violent, fratricidal, unreliable, primitive, crazed, and barbarian.” They created a “wretched society.” They’re “cruel, belligerent, intolerant, (and) fearing.” Palestine’s “an utter fiction,” a “fraudulent nation-state.”

They’re “murderous. grotesque, (and) can’t even run a post office.” Their societies “have gone bonkers over jihad, (and they’re) feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or) Israeli atrocities.” They “behave like lemmings, (and) are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all.”

He added:

“I can’t imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. That is, you will say my prejudice, but some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.”

He not only wrong, he’s bigoted and ideologically out-of-control supporting wrong over right. He’s also too morally compromised to admit it.

There’s more:

“Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf [leader of those seeking to create the Muslim religious center near ground zero] there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood.”

“So yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

Criticizing him is easy. Turn him loose and let him hang himself. Yet for decades, he’s gotten away with hawkish bigotry. Now in his seventies, he’s as irascibly Islamophobic and uncompromising as ever. Hate defines his being. Truth’s airbrushed out. Honor’s not in his vocabulary.

Yet, in 1993, Harvard inaugurated the Martin Peretz Chair in Yiddish Literature. Pro-Israeli zealot Ruth Wisse holds the post. Harvard earlier made him an assistant professor. He lectured there for decades. Imagine putting up with his pontificating. After a panel discussion, protesters chanted, “Harvard, Harvard, shame on you, for honoring a racist fool.”

Nonetheless, he got seven honorary degrees, and in 1982 received the Jerusalem Medal. It’s Israel’s highest civilian honor for outstanding service to the Jewish state. It includes purveying myths, preaching hate and false logic, supporting Israel’s worst crimes, and vilifying anyone denouncing them.

Glenn Greenwald calls Peretz’s blog “a museum for every anti-Arab/Muslim stereotype and caricature that exists.” Hubristically called The Spine, it’s no longer written.

Yet few challenge him. After decades of extremist commentaries, he continues polemical hate pieces in TNR columns. According to Alterman:

“By pretending to speak as a liberal but simultaneously endorsing the central crusades of the right, he has enlisted The New Republic in the service of a ruinous neoconservative doctrine, as the magazine sneered at those liberals who stood firm in the face of its insults.”

“He has done so, moreover, in support of a blinkered and narrow view of Israeli security that, again, celebrates hawks and demonizes doves.”

He whitewashes Israeli crimes and vilifies Palestinian victims as terrorists for his own misguided purposes. Yet Islamophobe David Horowitz called him “a pillar of responsible liberalism since buying (TNR) in 1974.”

In fact, he’s not only unabashedly pro-Israel, he embraces the entire neocon foreign policy agenda. It includes Reagan’s Central American wars, the Gulf and 2003 Iraq wars, attacking Afghanistan post-9/11, removing Gaddafi, Cold War hawkishness, and anyone to the left of his ideologically extremist views on Iran and Syria.

On February 28, he asked if Israel could “pull of an attack on Iran.” He suggested better do it now before it’s too late, and it’s got the capability to inflict considerable damage. Jointly with Washington assures greater success. Opposing views aren’t welcome. Anyone espousing them he calls “lame brains.”

Why? He’s “in love with the state of Israel.” How? By disdaining reason, preaching racist hate, and vilifying Israel’s enemies.

In 1982, he denounced IF Stone for supporting a public appeal to help victims of Israel’s lawless Beirut siege. He claimed it was about raising “money so that the PLO (could) continue to fight.”

At the time, in fact, PLO respectability was growing. It pursued peace negotiations and unilaterally ceased attacks. Israeli Prime Minister Yithak Shamir admitted Israel waged war on Lebanon because of “a terrible danger….not so much a military one as a political one.”

So alleged PLO threats were invented to wage war lawlessly. Before it ended, 18,000 died, mostly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. They included thousands massacred in cold blood in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

In August 1982, his TNR revisionist article titled, “Lebanese Eyewitness” said:

“Much of what you have read in the newspapers and news magazines about the war in Lebanon – and even more of what you have seen and heard on television – is simply not true.”

Robert Fisk called the slaughter “one of the most shocking war crimes of the 20th century.” For Peretz, murdering 18,000 innocent victims was justified. For decades, he outrageously supported Israel’s worst crimes of war and against humanity without batting an eye or apologizing for lying to readers on what actually happens, why, and the consequences for innocent victims.

He also viciously attacks Israeli critics and Muslims in hate commentaries. He called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine a “kangaroo court.” He accused Jimmy Carter of being “demented.”

He assailed Archbishop Desmond Tutu for lying about Israeli injustice towards Palestinians. He denounced Richard Falk for calling Ayatollah Khomeini critics misguided, and saying Aerial Sharon should be indicted for his involvement in the Shabra and Shatilla massacres.

He defended Israel’s lawless Cast Lead Gaza war. Ignoring 1,400 mostly civilians murdered, thousands more injured, illegal terror weapons like white phosphorus used, and vast gratuitous destruction, he said:

“Frankly, I am up to my gullet with this reflex criticism of Israel as going beyond proportionality in its responses to war waged against its population with the undisguised intention of putting an end to the political expression of the Jewish nation….”

“The current warfare will go on a bit longer. If there is a pause and if I were giving advice to the Israelis, this is what I would say to Hamas and to the people of Gaza: “If a rocket or missile is launched against us, if you take captive one of our soldiers (as you have held one for two and a half years), if you raise a new Intifada against us, there will be an immediate response. And it will be very disproportionate. Proportion does not work.”

He regrets nothing he wrote or said. Hatemongers don’t say they’re sorry. He called visiting Israel at age 15 transformative. He lives there part-time in Tel Aviv.

West Chester University Professor Lawrence Davidson once debated him. He said he handled challenges by “speaking very fast and very loudly so that you could not get a word in edgewise.”

Davidson sensed “he was capable of going hysterical. Some people usually self-destruct over time,” he added. He wondered if Paretz was preordained to implode. “I do hope so,” he added.

A Final Comment

After decades of fanatical Israeli support, Peretz remains ideologically committed. Even fellow TRN staffers take issue with his views. Some go further and mock him. A few even want him out. He’s an embarrassment to be around.

Calling Arab society “hidebound and backward,” and the Druze “congenitally untrustworthy” reflects hate and profound ignorance. For Peretz, it’s all in a day’s work. For more level-headed TRN writers, it’s more than they can bear. Can you blame them?

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

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

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

Bahraini Kangaroo Court Trials

by Stephen Lendman

A new Human Rights Watch (HRW) report discussed sham show trials in Bahrain titled, “No Justice in Bahrain.”

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights said hundreds of unfair, politically motivated trials were conducted for months. Innocent victims were convicted.

Before trial, they were arrested, imprisoned and brutally tortured. They’ll endure years more brutality. It’s largely unreported by Western media scoundrels, especially American ones suppressing unpleasant truths.

Last March, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa assumed emergency powers. Field Marshall Khalifa bin Ahmad Al Khalifs, Bahrain Defense Force commander, issued sweeping regulations governing public order.

Military courts were also decreed, called National Safety Courts, to prosecute alleged crimes “brought about (by) the State of National Safety (and) def(ied decree) procedures.”

As a result, from April 4 through early October, hundreds were lawlessly tried. Military judges convicted defendants by accusation. Justice was denied.

HRW said:

“Based on scores of interviews with defendants, former detainees, defense lawyers, and observers of the trials, as well as a comprehensive review of available court records, medical documents, and other relevant material, this report finds that the National Safety Courts repeatedly failed to respect and protect basic due process rights.”

“These findings are similar to those in the November 2011 report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), which comprised five international jurists and human rights experts, and was created by royal order in June 2011.”

On June 1, King Hamad lifted the State of National Safety, but continued military tribunal alleged felony cases through October 7. Thereafter, politically connected prosecutions and appeals were held in civilian criminal courts. Defendants were treated just as harshly. Justice continues being denied.

Prior to February 2011, civil courts disregarded fair trial protections. They replicated military court injustice, violated free expression and association, denied the right to counsel and proper defense, and ignored systematic torture and ill-treatment in detention.

Special Military Courts

Only armed forces members and combatants should get military court trials. Civilians deserve civil ones. Bahrain’s National Safety Courts flout international law, as well as Bahraini criminal law provisions.

The monarchy’s choice lack competence, impartiality and independence. Defendants can’t communicate properly with counsel. Nor can prosecution witnesses be cross-examined. As a result, they’re convicted by torture extracted confessions. They have no validity in judicial proceedings.

In one case, the tribunal convicted and sentenced a defendant, despite no incriminating evidence against him. Moreover, trials were mostly closed to the public.

Overall, National Safety Courts “served primarily as a vehicle to convict defendants of alleged crimes stemming from the exercise of fundamental rights of freedom of expression, association, and assembly, in violation of international and Bahraini law.”

In fact, hundreds were convicted of “political crimes” related to exercising their free expression rights.

HRW examined two high-profile collective cases, involving 21 activists and 20 medical personnel. National Democratic Action Society leader Ibrahim Sharif was involved.

He was sentenced to five years for encouraging assemblies, demonstrations, and sit-ins, “discuss(ing) the demand for a republic,” asserting the existence of “sectarian and tribal discrimination in the country,” and claiming Bahrain’s government “lost its legitimacy.”

Al Haq leader Hassan Mushaima was also tried. He was accused of advocating “marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience” supporting the “establishment of a democratic republic.” He got a life sentence.

Human rights advocate/political opposition leader Abdulhadi al-Khawaja was also convicted. He also received a life sentence for “advocat[ing] the overthrow of the regime, a willingness to sacrifice, disobedience, a general strike, and marches.” Prosecutors also charged  him with “insult(ing) the army” and “impugn(ing) the integrity of the judiciary.”

In fact, all activists lawfully exercised their speech, assembly, and association rights nonviolently. International and Bahraini law protects them. However, hanging judges ruled emergency decree provisions took precedence.

Yet the nation’s constitution only permits suspending citizen rights under martial law. King Hamad’s decree establishing the State of National Safety excluded doing so. Judges also ignored Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa statements pertaining to lawfully permitted and protected peaceful street demonstrations.

Nonetheless, law abiding Bahrainis were extrajudiciously convicted based on torture extracted confessions.

Of the 21 activists, two got 15-year sentences, despite no evidence whatever against them. Blogger Ali Abdulemam and human rights activist Abdul Ghani al-Kanjar were tried in absentia. No incriminating evidence was presented. Yet they were convicted of joining an illegal group and attempting to overthrow the government.

Overall, all 21 activists were convicted. Eight got life sentences. Others got from two to 15 years, despite violating no laws.

All 20 medical personnel were also convicted for doing their jobs responsibly. Baseless charges included joining in “slogans and chants,” expressing “hatred and contempt for the governing regime,” and “broadcast(ing) false and tendentious news” in interviews.

In fact, one defendant was convicted for having accidently stepped on the prime minister’s photo. Charges against another involved asking Manchester United football club manager Alex Ferguson to observe a moment of silence before a match.

Judicial proceedings were rigged to convict. Military judges prohibited defense lawyers from cross-examining prosecution witnesses. In some cases, defendants got no right to testify in self-defense.

HRW also examined numerous other cases. They included a prominent defense attorney and former parliamentarian. In all trials, defendants were guilty by accusation.

Bahrain’s civil courts function like military ones in highly politicized cases. Eleven of the charged 21 activists were earlier accused of being part of a “terrorist network” in civil proceedings. They involved 25 opposition activists.

The case was ongoing when unrest began last year. As an early concession to protesters, King Hamad freed 23 of the 25. However, 11 were re-arrested, tried and convicted.

In the “terrorist network” case, defendants were denied the right to counsel and access to trial materials. In addition, inappropriate prejudicial public statements were made against them. Moreover, allegations of torture in detention were whitewashed. According to court minutes, all but one defendant claimed security forces abused them physically and psychologically.

Charges against all were spurious. No evidence whatever proved crimes. An accused cleric was asked about his sermons and “what rights people should have.”

Last year, HRW interviewed eight defendants after their release. All said they were tortured and ill-treated. They explained beatings, sleep deprivation, forced prolonged standing, extended isolation in solitary confinement, and other forms of abuse.

Torture extracted confessions used in two civil trials unraveled during proceedings. One case involved two defendants accused of assaulting a pro-government newspaper editor. In fact, the victim said they weren’t his assailants. After release, the two men said they were slapped, punched and threatened with electric shocks until confessed to stop pain.

The other case also involved a torture extracted confession. An innocent young man got a year in prison, despite his passport showing he was in Britain at the time of the alleged incident. According to HRW:

“The egregious violations of fair trial rights in the cases presented in this report do not reflect simply poor practices by individual judicial officers, but also serious, systemic problems with Bahrain’s criminal justice system as a whole and the role of the military and intelligence services in state oppression.”

“For this reason, the government should conduct thorough and impartial investigations into the broad range of human rights violations detailed in this report by implicated ministries and agencies, including the Ministry of Interior, the National Security Agency, the Bahrain Defense Force, the Ministry of Justice and Islamic Affairs, and the Public Prosecution Office.”

“The government should fully prosecute those responsible for serious abuses, regardless of position or rank, and adopt measures to deter future violations.”

A Final Comment

Despots spurn rule of law principles with impunity. They also ignore calls for judicial fairness and redress for victims. Instead, their crimes against humanity continue daily.

Since nonviolent protests began in February 2011, dozens of people were killed. Over 90 journalists were threatened and abused. So were many others. Hundreds of arrests were made. Virtually everyone was brutally tortured.

Defendants tried were guilty by accusation. Rigged proceedings railroaded them. On March 4, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights said unfair, politically motivated civil trials continue. They operate like military ones.

Virtually everyone convicted, sentenced and imprisoned is innocent. No matter. Some got life sentences for supporting right over wrong. King Hamad calls them terrorists. Like other regional despots, he’s a valued US ally.

A year after nonviolent protests began, democratic change remains elusive. Yet courageous Bahrainis keep resisting. Their liberating struggle continues.

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

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

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

NATO Intervening in Syria

by

Stephen Lendman

On March 6, the BBC reported Obama saying Washington won’t intervene in Syria unilaterally. At the same time, he stopped short of ruling out joint Western aggression. In his first 2012 news conference, he said:

“The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military, that hasn’t been true in the past, and it won’t be true now.”

“We’ve got to think through what we do through the lens of what’s going to be effective – but also through what’s critical for US security interests.”

Since taking office, Obama launched more belligerence than all his predecessors. He’s not shy about initiating more. As a result, his comments ring hollow, especially given his record as a serial liar. Believe nothing he says.

On March 5, Russia Today (RT) headlined, “Stratfor leaks: NATO commandos in illegal special ops in Syria,” saying:

According to hacked Stratfor emails released by WikiLeaks, NATO forces already operate covertly in Syria. The company’s analysis director, Reva Bhalla, wrote them for internal use.

They discusses “a confidential Pentagon meeting in December.” Allegedly, senior US, UK and French analysts attended. Western powers categorically denied involvement. It’s known they’ve been supplying opposition forces with heavy weapons for months.

Syrian National Council leader Bassma Kodmani admitted it. Moreover, Assad’s forces intercepted smuggled supplies and uncovered internal caches.

Bhalla claimed US officials “said….SOF (special operations forces) teams are already on the ground, focused on recce (reconnaissance) missions and training operations forces.”

She also said the December meeting focused on possible US air strikes. Comments included saying Washington has “high tolerance for killings,” but won’t initiate attacks without “enough media attention on a massacre like the” falsified one attributed to Gaddafi on Benghazi.

Attacks are “doable, (but) the air campaign in Syria makes Libya look like a piece of cake.” At issue, is Syria’s ballistic missile capability and alleged chemical weapons.

France’s official said “Syria won’t be a Libya-type situation in that France would be gung-ho about going in. Not in an election year.”

Britain’s also reluctant but is “looking for ways to reassert itself on the continent following the renegotiation of the EU treaty.”

US army experts said “the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”

Stratfor won’t comment on the emails, but didn’t deny them. What it knows, in fact, isn’t clear. Russia Today’s Max Keiser calls it the Economist a week later. In other words, it’s talk of high-level insider contacts may be more bravado than fact to sell subscriptions.

On March 4, the Syrian Free Press claimed 100 foreign mercenaries captured after regaining control of Homs. Most were French. Others were from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states. They had weapons supplied by America and Israel.

On March 5, 13 French officers were captured. RT said Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper reported it.

On March 7, RT said Mossad, CIA and Blackwater elements are operating inside Syria. In addition, according to Lebanon’s Al-Manar, “around 700 gunmen were recently arrested in the former rebel stronghold of Babar Amr.”

They came from Gulf states, Iraq and Lebanon. Qatari intelligence operatives were with them, as well as fighters from Afghanistan, Turkey, France and other European countries.

Syrian forces said American, Israeli and European weapons were seized. “The Syrian army also uncovered tunnels and equipment,” as well as “advance” Western and Israeli arms not net tested in real time.

“The Syrian security forces have documents and confessions that could harm everyone who conspired against Syria, and could make a security and political change, not just on the internal Syrian level, but also on the regional level.”

Stratfor’s email suggested covert NATO forces operating in Syria. Internal security reports confirm what’s been known for weeks, perhaps months. However, Syrian authorities won’t reveal all they know, but called their evidence “high value.”

For months, many independent analysts said Western supported foreign killer gangs operated in Syria for months. China and Russia said so.

On March 7, China Daily contributor MD Nalapat (an Indian geopolitics professor) said “NATO behav(es) like a law unto itself,” and now is involved in Syria.

“(A)rmed gangs are being encouraged to kill not just security forces but elements of the population that favor the recognized regime in Damascus. And while NATO may gain from such unethical actions, the rest of the world is the loser.”

“But everything done by NATO indicates that it has set itself up not only as the enforcer of international law, but also the law itself.”

Washington’s Latest Security Council Proposal: Little Different from Its Last One

Washington’s again trying to strong-arm through another anti-Assad Security Council resolution. While paying more attention to opposition violence, Russia said the document remains unbalanced.

A draft demands Syria grant “unhindered humanitarian access (and) condemns the continued widespread, systematic, and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities.”

It also demands Assad “immediately put an end to such violations.”

The hypocrisy’s galling. Assad’s more victim than villain. Washington, Britain, France, Turkey, Israel, and rogue Arab League allies bear main responsibility. Assad responded to violence their killer gangs initiated.

The draft merely called on “the armed elements of the Syrian opposition to refrain from all violence only after the government forces” cease attacks. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov called it a “slightly renewed version of the previous document” Russia and China rejected.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry added:

“We would like to warn our American and European partners from wishful thinking. Russia’s stance on the Syrian settlement has never been subject to any short-term considerations and hasn’t formed under the influence of electoral cycles, unlike that of some of our Western colleagues.”

Syria’s SANA news agency quoted Assad saying:

“The Syrian people, who have in the past managed to crush foreign plots…have again proven their ability to defend the nation and to build a new Syria through their determination to pursue reforms while confronting foreign-backed terrorism.”

RT also said Washington plans more aggressive intervention, including more aid for Syria’s opposition. An unnamed US official said America’s now helping opposition forces overthrow Assad.

Admitting it signifies a significant change in US policy. Is direct military intervention next, putting a lie to Obama’s latest denial of planned aggression.

A Final Comment

Iran’s Fars News Agency says Tehran has “corroborative evidence to prove US involvement in arms smuggling into Syria.”

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir Abdollahian said thousands of weapons and mercenaries have entered a number of Syrian border towns and cities.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar said they’re prepared to help  opposition forces. Of course, they’ve been doing it all along with Turkey, Jordan, Washington, Britain, France, and Israel.

Kuwait’s parliament passed a nonbinding resolution calling for providing opposition forces weapons and breaking ties with Damascus.

Washington’s dirty hands want Assad replaced by a pro-Western regime. If current methods fail, expect war to follow.

Note:

In recent days, this writer established contact with a Syrian monitoring events on the ground. His name’s unmentioned for his safety.

On March 4, he said a major Al Qaeda figure was arrested in Damascus. The same day, he emailed as follows:

“Sources familiar with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said a secret military order includes plans by senior Syrian military officials to confront a possible United States surprise attack.”

“The plan involves Syria’s military responding immediately and decisively, including launching rocket and missile attacks against Israeli and US targets.”

“Syrian forces established a joint military operations Chamber, involving officers from the Syrian army, Iran, and Hezbollah, to coordinate military action if ordered. This means that any U.S. military attack against Syria Sijah will be met by the greatest possible missile force.”

Clearly the stakes are drawn. Heated rhetoric’s picking up. John McCain wants air attacks launched. Assad’s preparing to respond defensively. Anything ahead may erupt suddenly and violently.

When America plans regime change, everything’s on the table to achieve it, including war. As things now stand, bet on it.

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

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

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

Imperial Rage for War

by Stephen Lendman

America ravages the world one country at a time or in multiples. Post-9/11 alone, millions died. Vast destruction was caused. Human misery caused is incalculable.

Now Syria and Iran are targeted. Disagreement only is on timing, not intent. Neocon Senator John McCain wants Syria bombed. In spring 2007, on a “Straight Talk” campaign tour stop, he responded to a question singing:

“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” then lied, saying:

“Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the President (Bush) when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel.”

In 2008, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton threatened war on Iran, saying:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

In other words, she threatened to murder over 70 million people. At the same time, she as well as top Washington and Israeli officials know Iran menaces no one, and hasn’t attacked another country in over 200 years.

Yet aggressive war’s planned for regime change, no matter the potentially catastrophic consequences.

AIPAC lobbies aggressively for war on Iran. Tops on its agenda is advocacy for “S. Res. 380: A resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.”

The so-called Casey/Lieberman/Graham resolution has 44 sponsors. At issue is lowering the threshold for war on Iran. Occupy AIPAC calls it “a blank check for war.”

If enacted into law by both Houses and signed by Obama, presidents henceforth could use it as an authorization for war based solely on Washington wanting it preemptively without justification.

In September 2001, Congress approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

Of course, those attacked had nothing to do with 9/11. But you’d never know it from scandalous major media scoundrel reports, commentaries and editorials.

“War on terror” authority facilitated permanent wars. Scoundrel journalism cheerleads them. Presidents now wage them at their discretion. S. Res. 380 makes it easier. Specifically naming Iran, it’s easily replicated against Syria or any other US target.

The Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI)

ECI fabricates claims about alleged Israeli security risks. Tops is lying about Iran’s “pursuit of a nuclear weapon and its support of terrorist groups.”

Founded by William Kristol, a rabid war advocate director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), its board also includes Gary Bauer (a Christian Zionist war on terror extremist), and Rachel Abrams, wife of convicted Iran-Contra criminal Elliott Abrams.

Last year, she wrote about Gilad Shalit’s release on her Bad Rachel blog as follows:

“….round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women … as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons … but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.”

On March 1, ECI ran a spurious full-page New York Times hate ad. Targeting the Center for American Progress, Media Matters, and by implication other like-minded groups, it falsely accused them of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israeli policy.

AIPAC’s Annual Gathering of the Faithful

On March 4, AIPAC’s annual conference convened in Washington. Obama and Netanyahu spoke. So did top Republican and Democrat officials. In lock step, they subserviently pledged fealty to Israel.

They also repeated fabricated claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its threat to Israel, and need to confront it aggressively. Thousands of attendees heard Obama vow to protect Israel against any threat. He also said Washington won’t tolerate Iran acquiring nuclear weapons even though he knows Tehran spurns having them.

Netanyahu claimed “Iran’s nuclear program continues to march forward. My friends, Israel was waited and waited for the international community to resolve this issue. We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer. As prime minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation.”

He barely stopped short of declaring war against a nation he know poses no threat to Israel or any other nation.

Senator Joe Lieberman was even blunter saying:

“The president has said he doesn’t bluff and neither can we in Congress. The Iranian regime must hear a message from us and we must state it loud and clear: Either you peacefully negotiate an end to your illicit nuclear activities or they will be ended for you by military attack.”

In response, attendees leapt to their feet and applauded.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. KY) matched Lieberman, saying:

“If Iran at any time begins to enrich the uranium to weapons grade or decides to go forward with a weapons program, then the United States will use overwhelming force to end that program.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said if all else fails, Washington will “act against Iran.”

Other speakers echoed similar comments. The conference wreaked hawkish hate. Lawless rogues infest it annually. Their policies threaten humanity.

AIPAC’s Destructive Agenda

Calling itself “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” virtually no one in Congress confronts it. Doing so is a career-ender. As a result, it has virtual veto power over war and peace, trade and investment, multi-billion dollar arms sales, enormous handouts to Israel, and all Middle East policies affecting the Jewish state under Democrat and Republican administrations alike.

Deferentially, politicians, presidents, their hangers-on, media scoundrels and others genuflect dutifully to its influence and the government it represents.

On its web site, AIPAC spuriously calls Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability. Through its proxy armies of Hizballah in Southern Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian regime is supporting terrorists carrying out daily attacks on American troops and Israeli civilians.”

Its talking points include the following:

“Iran must stop its nuclear weapons program.

American policy must unabashedly seek to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel and would arm the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism with the ultimate weapon.

Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Iran finances, arms and trains terrorist groups operating around the world. It is the leading sponsor of Hamas and Hizballah, and is also arming insurgents fighting U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stop the human rights violations.

In the aftermath of the 2009 Iranian presidential election which falsely awarded Mahmoud Ahmaninejad a second term, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard quelled popular protests by arresting civil leaders, beating and killing peaceful protesters and cutting off internet and mobile access to its citizens.”

It falsely claims Iran’s “approaching a nuclear weapons capability….The United States must make clear that Iran will not be permitted to achieve a nuclear weapons capability.”

It stresses all options must be used to prevent it. It barely stops short of demanding a declaration of war to assure it.

AIPAC’s a menacing influence. It’s also an illegal unregistered foreign agent. Yet political Washington bows to its will even when US interests are harmed. Attacking Iran endangers everyone.

Yet deranged leaders are too unconcerned to care. Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Rogue Washington and Israeli officials qualify.

A Final Comment

On March 4, Haaretz writer Gideon Levy took aim at Israel’s inordinate power to influence US policy, saying:

On March 5, “an elephant and an ant” met in Washington. “But wait,” he asked? Who’s the dominant power, and who’s the patron?

“A new chapter is being written in the history of nations. Never before has a small country dictated to a superpower; never before has the chirp of the cricket sounded like a roar; never has the elephant resembled the ant – and vice versa.”

“No Roman province dared tell Julius Caesar what to do, no tribe ever dreamed of forcing Genghis Khan to act in accordance with its own tribal interests. Only Israel does this. On Monday, when Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House, it will be hard to tell which one is the real leader of the world.”

Israel teaches size doesn’t matter. One day going along will go too far. Iran’s a red line not to be crossed.

Alfred Lord Tennyson’s “Charge of the Light Brigade” comes to mind, saying:

“Into the valley of Death rode the six hundred.” In the bloody 19th century Crimean War, few returned.

When policy becomes insanity, the cost exceeds what any responsible leader should pay. The potential one today is survival if Iran’s attacked, especially with nuclear weapons, whether or not other world powers get involved.

Yet Israel and AIPAC demand Obama risk it. Imagine what’s at stake if he agrees. Odds are, in fact, he will or give Israel the green light to go it alone or act jointly with Washington. Bet on it.

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

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

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