Thursday, March 19, 2015

Meaning of the Israeli Election


THE ABSURD TIMES




The Israeli Election
by
Zarathustra

           
ILLUSTRATION: We were just sent this.  Seems Mizzou has joined forces with Zionism.  There is a Zionist Presence there, but never this blatant.  Any association with these forces should be disavowed.  When Palestine was noticed on the poster, the History Museum cancelled the exhibit and discussion.

         


            The virtue of the Israeli election is that the determination of Israel never to allow Palestinians the right to exist or be treated as equal beings.  For the first time an Israeli Prime Minister has openly stated what we and many others have understood as fact:  there is no intention of a two-state solution. 

            The second party, the one that was considered "Center-left," which in this country is like Lindsay Graham and John McCain, called itself the "Zionist Union".  All this time people thought they were insulting Israelis by calling them Zionists and it becomes clear that they think this is a good idea, very liberal of them, don't you know?

            An attempt was made to keep Arabs from even being in Parliament be requiring a higher percentage to qualify, and this led the four Arab Parties to merge into one and actually gain seats.  The general view, held by both the Zionist left and the Zionist right is that Arabs are not to be given any consideration if such consideration would in any way reflect on the Jews being the "Chosen People".

            Of course, in this country, there are still a number of religious morons who think that the Bible meant the USA when it said "Israel."  These people are generally white baptists living in the states that Abraham Lincoln sent Ulysses Grant down to butcher.  In other words, "Dixie".  Jews tend to think of these people as beneath contempt.

            Obama actually had enough backbone for once not to congratulate Nitwityahoo after he promised no two-state solution and thus won the election.  It is even possible that the US will not vote against the rest of the world when the two-state idea comes up at the UN.  If so, finally.

            What else?  Nothing, this has been our position for years now.  Netanyahu simply confirmed and admitted it.

            Some literate people are interviewed, give some suggestions:



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015

After Netanyahu Wins Israel Vote with Racism & Vow of Permanent Occupation, How Will World Respond?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has won a surprise election victory, putting him on course for a fourth term in office. Netanyahu’s Likud Party is poised to control 29 or 30 seats in the 120-member Knesset. The Zionist Union opposition placed second with 24 seats. A united list of Arab parties came in third with 13 seats. Netanyahu closed out his campaign with a vow to oppose a Palestinian state, reneging on his nominal endorsement of a two-state solution in 2009. Netanyahu also vowed to expand the illegal West Bank settlements and issued a last-minute plea to supporters denouncing a high turnout of Arab voters. The Zionist Union, Netanyahu’s chief rival, also ran on a platform for Israel to keep the major Israeli settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank, the home of any future Palestinian state. Likud says Netanyahu intends to form a new government in the coming weeks. Talks are already underway with a number of right-wing parties. To discuss the election, we are joined by two guests: Jamal Zahalka, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset and chair of Balad party, which is part of the Joint List of Arab parties; and Amira Hass, correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz in the occupied Palestinian territories.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We’re going to move on now to Israel, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has won a surprise victory, putting him on a course for a fourth term in office. With 99.5 percent of the votes counted, Likud won 29 or 30 seats in the 120-member Knesset. The Zionist Union opposition placed second with 24 seats. A united list of Arab parties came in third. Exit polls had showed Likud and the Zionist Union in a close tie, but in the final days of the campaign, Netanyahu stressed his right-wing positions. He visited the Har Homa settlement and vowed to ramp up the construction of more settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. And he unequivocally ruled out allowing a Palestinian state, thus reneging on his nominal 2009 endorsement of a two-state solution. On Election Day, he railed against Israel’s Arab voters.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Right-wing rule is in danger. Arab voters are streaming in mass to the polling stations. Left-wing nonprofit organizations are bringing them in buses. Go out to the polling station, bring your friends and family, and vote Likud, in order to close the gap between us and the Labor Party. With your help and God’s help, we will form a national government and protect the state of Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: In a statement, Likud said Netanyahu intended to form a new government within weeks, with negotiations already underway with a number of parties, including the pro-settler Jewish Home party and ultra-Orthodox groups.
Isaac Herzog, the leader of the Zionist Union and the son of a former Israeli president, conceded defeat, saying he had called Netanyahu to congratulate him. The Zionist Union also ran on a platform for Israel to keep major settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank, keep Jerusalem as Israel’s "undivided" capital, and block the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
On Tuesday, Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator, responded to the election results.
SAEB EREKAT: Well, I think there is also, the Israeli elections indicate business as usual. It seems to me that Mr. Netanyahu will form the next government in Israel. And we all heard what he said yesterday. He said if he is re-elected as the prime minister in Israel, Mr. Netanyahu said, he will not allow a Palestinian state. He will continue with settlement activities and dictations. I believe he was not campaigning in the elections. I believe he was honest, and he specified his truth. Mr. Netanyahu has done nothing in his political life but to destroy the two-state solution. And I believe now it’s up to the international community to stop treating this prime minister as a prime minister that’s above the laws of man. And he should be held accountable. And he should—the international community should not cover him or give him impunity. Impunity will mean more conflict, more complicities, and it will not make peace. Justice will make peace.
AMY GOODMAN: Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.
To talk more about the Israeli election, we’re joined by two guests. Joining us from Tel Aviv, Jamal Zahalka, he is an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, chair of the political bloc of Arab parties known as the Joint List, which took third place in Tuesday’s election, winning 13 seats. He has served as a member of the Knesset since 2003. Here in New York, we’re joined by the Israeli journalist Amira Hass, correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz in the occupied Palestinian territories. She’s based in Ramallah. She’s the only Israeli Jewish journalist to have spent more than 20 years living in and reporting from Gaza and the West Bank. Her book, Diary of Bergen-Belsen: 1944-1945, written by her mother, Hanna Lévy-Hass, with her own afterword and introduction, is also just out in paperback this week.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with you, Amira Hass. Your reaction? Would you call this a surprise victory of—
AMIRA HASS: Not at all, not at all. The whole campaign was not about the real issues of war, of occupation, of Israeli continued colonization. The cosmetic differences between the Labor, which is now called the Zionist Alliance or the Zionist Camp, and Likud were minor, did not attract people’s real enthusiasm. What Netanyahu has been offering for the past years continues to be a winning horse for most of the people. That means the nonexistent welfare state in Israel proper now exists by the occupied territory in the forms of colonies, well-pampered colonies, so it is always an option for Israelis to move to the occupied territory to improve their conditions. Inside Israel, his policies guarantee that there will be continued the discriminated—the policy which discriminates Palestinians, Israeli citizens, from their—against the Israeli Jews. With a combination of support of the right-wing parties—of the religious parties, I think his position was guaranteed. The change would have been only in the puzzle—I mean, if he would get 28 seats and not 30 seats. So, for me, I didn’t expect much more.
And when people say that it is because he promised now not to have a Palestinian state, to do everything against a Palestinian state, his actions have done everything possible to prevent this from happening anyway. So it’s not about statements that the people fall to. I mean, it’s the reality that he’s established for the past—and not only he, other parties as well. So it’s not about the last-moment statements, I think, that—what guaranteed his position. Labor—anyway, the two-state solution that people, that other parties, like the Labor Party, advocate, I call it the 10-state solution or the seven-, eight- solutions, which doesn’t see Gaza in a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian state itself is a bunch of bantustans inside the West Bank.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about the impact on the international community of Netanyahu’s last-minute veering even more to the right on many of these issues and his attacks on Arab citizens within Israel?
AMIRA HASS: Yeah, sure, sure.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What’s going to be the long-term impact.
AMIRA HASS: This has to be seen, because, I mean, we always expect, you know—we feel that each, every time Israel is crossing a red line, and now is the moment for the world to react, and there it doesn’t react, the world. So still we want to see it reacting. We thought that the war on Gaza was a red line that was crossed again, and good relationships with Europe, with America continue. So, of course, we want to hope that something will change, and not only among rank-and-file and grassroots levels, but also among the political echelons in their decisions. But so far, as long as Israel is considered part of the enlightened, democratic West, and Israelis are welcome, and Israeli support teams are welcome everywhere in the world, and scientists, etc., Israel is seen as part of this world.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break, and when we come back, we’ll go to Tel Aviv, as well, to get response from Dr. Jamal Zahalka, who is a Knesset member for more than a decade and chair of the Joint List. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are the award-winning Israeli journalist Amira Hass, who is a correspondent for Ha’aretz, lives in the Occupied Territories, and we’re joined in Tel Aviv by Dr. Jamal Zahalka, Arab member of the Israeli Knesset. He is chair of the Balad party, which is a part of the Joint List of Arab parties, joining us from Tel Aviv.
Doctor, you’re an MK, I guess you’re called in Israel, member of the Knesset. Dr. Zahalka, your response to the win of Netanyahu, who has vowed there will be no Palestinian state and went after Arab voters yesterday, saying if he lost, it would become—it would be because of, well, I guess, people like you?
DR. JAMAL ZAHALKA: First of all, we are proud of the achievement of our Joint List. We are four parties, and we won—more than 30 percent more voters voted for us. Mr. Netanyahu winning the Israeli elections is a very, very, very bad message to everybody, to everywhere, because he implemented war crimes in Gaza, and he should be punished. Now he’s become Israeli hero. So I think this is why, because the world watched him and did nothing. Men like him should be sentenced in an international tribunal. He killed more than 2,000 Palestinians. I think this is the main thing in the Israeli elections, meanwhile. Politically, no change in Israel, and Netanyahu is continuing with the same policies.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about the impact of the growth on the Joint List vote? Most Americans are not aware that the Arab population of Israel is 20 percent. That’s a higher percentage than the African-American population of the United States. And what about the impact for the future in Israel of the growth of the Palestinian and Arab vote of citizens of Israel?
DR. JAMAL ZAHALKA: We are stronger now, and we can defend better our people and our interests, our lands, our rights, and oppose rising Israeli racism and their policies, especially those of Mr. Netanyahu himself. He did yesterday something which I don’t—I don’t think that any prime minister in the world did: He said that voting of some citizens is a danger. Instead of encouraging the citizens to go to vote, he said that Arabs are voting, and it’s danger for us. This is something, I think, clarify that Mr. Netanyahu is anti-democrat and racist, mainly.
AMY GOODMAN: This is one of the videos, produced by the Joint List, that features a variety of Israeli voters explaining why they support it.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 1: [translated] I’m voting for the Joint List as a Jew, because I think that it’s the only democratic option.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 2: [translated] The hesitaters need to look inward and ask themselves what they’re afraid of.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 3: [translated] Because I’m sure you want to live in a state of social justice and equality.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 4: [translated] I feel totally confident and comfortable, as a Mizrahi Jewish feminist, to vote for the Joint List.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 5: [translated] The Joint List represents me, as a half-Palestinian, half-Jewish girl living here.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 6: [translated] It’s the first time that I feel I’m going to vote wholeheartedly.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 7: [translated] It’s the only list that represents both of us.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 8: [translated] The Joint List is my political home.
JOINT LIST SUPPORTER 7: [translated] Nice!
AMY GOODMAN: One of the videos produced by the Joint List. Dr. Zahalka, can you explain what the Joint List is, what are the parties that make it up, and how you came into being?
DR. JAMAL ZAHALKA: You know, the Joint List is comprised of four parties: Hadash, which is communist and that allies its binational party, Jews and Arabs; and Balad, my party, is a democratic national party; and the moderate Islamic Movement; and the Arab Movement for Change. And I think that we became a major force in the Knesset by joining together. And we also have many Jews who are supporting us. And because we have also—they support us as act of solidarity with oppressed people, first of all, and also because we have a democratic platform, the only democratic platform in the Israeli Knesset, based on the state for all its citizens, not state who belong to one group of the citizens, namely a Jewish state.
AMY GOODMAN: During an interview with a website owned by U.S. casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, one of his leading backers, the prime minister, Netanyahu, unequivocally vowed never to allow a Palestinian state if he’s re-elected.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: [translated] I think that whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel. This is a genuine reality that was created here in the past few years. Those who do not understand that bury their heads in the sand. The left-wing parties do it, bury their heads in the sand, time and again.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Amira Hass, talk about the significance of this and also of the growth of the Joint List. Is this a new development in Israeli politics?
AMIRA HASS: As I said before, what Netanyahu said now in an interview to an American, probably he says now he’s more frank than he was four years ago, five years ago, three years ago, but, again, his actions have been always directed to preventing a Palestinian state from being established. But he was not unique in that sense. I mean, the whole trend in the past 20 years of—also of Labor-led coalitions and Labor-led governments, all was channeled to this reality, that the two-state solution seems almost impossible, at least in the sense that we saw the two-state solution—Gaza, West Bank, '67 border, East Jerusalem the capital, and no settlements. I mean, now, when they talk about the Palestinian—some kind of a strange configuration of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, which is an agglomeration of some islands in the ocean of Israeli-controlled area, I mean, this is a joke. This is not really two states. So, I don't attribute, personally—maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t attribute too much importance to this statement, only that he—maybe he’s defying more the American audience, who likes to hear, or the American politicians, who like to hear that—"Oh, since also even Netanyahu is for the two-state solution, let’s continue and support him." Maybe it’s a sort of defiance, stretching a bit more this edge or pushing the edge a little bit more. I tend to believe that also this will pass quietly, but I hope to be wrong. But...
Now, the List, of course, I think it’s one of the—it’s the only positive thing about these elections, the Joint List. First of all, because it was—you know, that, actually, it was a reaction to the Knesset bill to higher—to increase the threshold for these elections, so not three votes, not three seats in the Parliament, but four seats in the Parliament, so that you should get as many votes as—I mean, up to four seats, minimum, in the Parliament, which meant that some of the parties were in danger not to be elected, some of the Arab parties, of the four. And this made—this brought to the decision to unite forces, even though there are big differences between the different parties and animosities, you know, that exist, because, OK, they are all Arabs, but they are also—they also have different convictions and different viewpoints. But still, we thought—many of us, both Palestinians, citizens of Israel, and Israeli Jews—we felt that because it is the most targeted community in Israel, targeted against, because the threshold build meant to eliminate them, or almost eliminate them, from political presence, from parliamentary presence—and, by the way, it was the—Avigdor Lieberman suggested it, and it went through, and some of the so-called mainstream parties voted also in favor. So this was a defiance of the Israeli right-wing wish to oust them from political presence. And this is why—this is why this is already a victory. If there are 13 seats or 14 seats, which are two or three more than it used to be together, altogether, in the past elections, then it’s already a sense of achievement—I won’t say victory, but a real achievement, that can also—of course, as being the third strong party in the Parliament, it gives them certain position within the committees of the Parliament. But the best thing for me is the message to the Palestinians in Israel and also in the West Bank and Gaza, that some changes in internal politics can create a change of other effects.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you, in the lead-up to the elections, a lot of the coverage here in the United States talked about the growth of the economic issues—
AMIRA HASS: Yeah.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —in the Israeli electorate, and not so much the issue of the occupation.
AMIRA HASS: That’s right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But in the end, it really was the occupation that drove so much of the vote for Netanyahu, don’t you think? I mean, did the economic issues fade?
AMIRA HASS: The feeling that there is nothing to change about the occupation, this is good. I mean, people approve. Voting for Netanyahu is an approval of—a re-approval of his policies: to keep the occupation going; to call it—I don’t know what to call it, to name it—to call Gaza a state, a separate state; to have wars every now and then; to repress the Palestinians. This is a vote for confidence, an Israeli vote of confidence for these policies, and which says that, yeah, it is—it is always a mystery how a population that is not rich, the Israeli Jewish—not everybody is rich, not everybody benefits from the plutarchy that Netanyahu has created over those years, on the contrary—still they vote for the nationalist option. But it works. At the end, it works, because we are still—still, we are better off. We benefit from the occupation, as we see it now. I mean Israelis. We benefit from the occupation, when it comes to water, when it comes to land, distribution of land also in Israel proper, when it comes to always having an option to go and move into the occupied territory. There are about—there are more than half a million Jews who live in the occupied territory—I mean, both in East Jerusalem and in the West Bank—and in conditions so much better, that they could never afford in Israel proper. Half a million is a lot, is not something to dismiss.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask Dr. Jamal Zahalka about the foreign minister, Netanyahu’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who recently made headlines after calling for the beheading of disloyal Arab-Israeli citizens, prompting critics to label him "the Jewish ISIS." Your response to Mr. Lieberman?
DR. JAMAL ZAHALKA: Mr. Lieberman is a racist, and being the foreign minister of Israel reflects the change in Israel, and that racism is not in the margin, but it’s the mainstream of Israeli politics. The fact that capitals in Europe and in America received him and they respect a racist character like him, racist man like him, I think it’s a very bad message to Palestinians as a whole and Palestinian citizens of Israel: "We don’t care about you. He can—he’s racist against Arabs, not against Jews, so he should be forgiven." That’s what—otherwise, he shouldn’t be a guest in Paris and London and Berlin and Rome and Washington.
I think the world should intervene what happen—in what’s happening in our country. And I think the world should force a solution. The Israel is not right for any solution, kind of solution. And the only way to end the bloodshed is that the world intervene and force—have a force—force solution over everybody, according to the U.N. resolutions.
AMY GOODMAN: How can you, as an Arab Israeli—what difference can Arab parties make in the Israeli Knesset?
DR. JAMAL ZAHALKA: We struggle for our rights and defending our land. And we use the Knesset for that. So now we will be represented in more committees, and we will have more votes in the Knesset. And the world will change its policies toward us. I met European embassies, and everybody came, and they were very interested in our List. And now they are not dealing with us as partners, but rather as representatives of our community. This is very important, according to the world. And every establishment in Israel would be forced to do that for us—with us also. So now we are not one party or four parties united, but rather representatives of our community in the Knesset.
AMY GOODMAN: I was just speaking to a young Palestinian activist. She couldn’t vote—
AMIRA HASS: No.
AMY GOODMAN: —in the Israeli elections. She lives in the Occupied Territories. But she said she really—if she could vote, she would have voted for Netanyahu, because she said he states it exactly as it is.
AMIRA HASS: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: The other parties may soft-pedal it, but at least the world understands what’s happening.
AMIRA HASS: Yes, there is such a theory, which, of course, you know, it’s—we all know that he speaks frankly what maybe the Labor Party is saying more softly. But when it comes to policies, there hasn’t been much of a difference. There is still—with age, I come to appreciate also the danger of being in the worst—choosing for the worst situations, because when it’s worse, it’s worse. And sometimes if he might bring his bullies to be in ministries and in the army and in all kind of deciding stations in the body politic, which can push to brutalization which is not reversible. This is what I fear. It is not—it is not that I think that Labor would have made a change. Of course not. I mean, it’s not—I never thought of voting for them. But the brutalization that the presence of very right-wing parties in a coalition, this brutalization is very dangerous for both people. So sometimes it might be healthier or wiser to wait a bit more and to change one’s—also one’s tactics than to opt for the worst solution. I mean, that’s my—
But the right wing, the extreme right wing in Israel, I mean, the real—the most racist party of all, and the really dangerously racist party, Yachad, I think they’re named together, which is a combination of very, very—how would I say?—retarded religious party with the extreme nationalist religious groups, didn’t pass the threshold. Though we still have to wait for the soldiers’ votes. They are counted a day or two days later, and usually they strengthen the right wing. So we have to wait for the soldiers.
I wanted to add that one of the things that really warmed our hearts—I mean, I would say left wing, and even some of the Israeli press—is that the Joint List, Arab List, also presented that they—true, as Jamal said, representing the Palestinian community in Israel, but they also want to represent and to fight for the rights of other weakened groups in the Israeli society, which means also Jews, so to fight for social justice for all, and, of course, coming out from their position as representatives of the Palestinian community in Israel. But this is something that was—it showed how they are so much more enlightened than any of the other Israeli Jewish parties.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there. I want to thank you both for being with us. Amira Hass is a longtime Israeli journalist, has lived in the Occupied Territories for more than 20 years, award-winning journalist with Ha’aretznewspaper. Her mother’s book has just come out in paperback, Diary of Bergen-Belsen: 1944-1945, by Hanna Lévy-Hass, with a foreword and afterword by Amira Hass. We also want to thank our guest in Tel Aviv, Dr. Jamal Zahalka, Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, chair of the Balad party, which is a part of the Joint List of Arab parties.
This is Democracy Now! 


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.




-->

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Fwd: [The Absurd Times] Bibi and Congress


THE ABSURD TIMES

Speaking of Congress
by
Zarathustra

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2015

Illustration: A friend of mine asked if Cruz looked like old Joe McCarthy (HUAC) to me and I sort of agreed.  I mentioned it to another who had put a photo of Cruz next to Hitler, suggesting he think more of McCarthy.  He put the two together, not altering either one but and the above was the result.  A group of his ilk is the perfect audience of Netanyahu who today advised Congress that he, not the President, should be in charge of U.S. foreign policy.


________________


Before we begin, a note on Russia.   A well-known Dissident was shot and killed a few days ago.  This, of course, would not be the time Putin would feel the need to eliminate opposition considering his current popularity.  While he investigates, we hear from the BBC, which ought to have a better grasp of the English language, that his "final funeral" had been held.  This leads, of course, to the question of how many funerals does he get?  While he was being buried, voices in the crowd chanted "Heroes never die!"  This leads to the question whether it is ethical to bury him if he is not yet dead.  However, hat is enough on the subject.


________________


So, we start out with a discussion of the Republican Party, mainly, and its involvement in the Mid-East as well as oppression of Americans here at home.  There are a few, granted, on the very far right wing of the party who have some nearly sensible views on the topics, but mainly it is one massive reactionary elephant.


This fact is difficult to face as the Democrats are not much better.  Perhaps the only sure place where they are better is in appointments to the Supreme Court, but such is not always the case.  Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower and Goldberg, obnoxious as he was at the U.N., was an excellent Supreme Court Justice which well may be the reason Lyndon Johnson cajoled him off the court. 


The question of how much of a threat Iran is in developing Nuclear Weapons is a quite different issue and raises the question of whether Israel should have nuclear weapons.  One wonders if anyone in his right mind thinks that this increasingly oppressive and militant state should be so armed or trusted with such an arsenal.  It is not as if another Auschwitz is in the offing for them, although they do come close when it comes to members of another ethnicity.


One reason Bibi is running around to other countries trying to recruit Jews to come to Israel may be that he imagines that soon Israel will control all of the land in the area and he sees a need to boost the Jewish vote.  During his speech, he compared Iran to Isil, or Deash, which seems odd as the main military attacks on Isis are supported and co-coordinated by Iran.


The final question or issue is that if we have no agreement with Iran, they may well develop nuclear weapons while if we continue with the negotiations they may not.  Bibi's comments, if implemented, would almost certainly lead to Iran developing such weapons, even though they do not wish to.


Here is some more fact on the situation from Noam Chomsky who spoke before the farce of a speech: 


 

Noam Chomsky: Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel’s Goal Isn’t Survival — It’s Regional Dominance

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in the United States as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran during a controversial speech before the U.S. Congress on Tuesday. Dozens of Democrats are threatening to boycott the address, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. Netanyahu’s visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the United States, are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31 deadline. "For both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran," says Noam Chomsky, institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region." Chomsky also responds to recent revelations that in 2012 the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, contradicted Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb, concluding that Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in Washington as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu will address the lobby group AIPAC today, followed by a controversial speech before Congress on Tuesday. The visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31st deadline. At the White House, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Netanyahu’s trip won’t threaten the outcome.
PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST: I think the short answer to that is: I don’t think so. And the reason is simply that there is a real opportunity for us here. And the president is hopeful that we are going to have an opportunity to do what is clearly in the best interests of the United States and Israel, which is to resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program at the negotiating table.
AARON MATÉ: The trip has sparked the worst public rift between the U.S. and Israel in over two decades. Dozens of Democrats could boycott Netanyahu’s address to Congress, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. The Obama administration will send two officials, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, to address the AIPACsummit today. This comes just days after Rice called Netanyahu’s visit, quote, "destructive."
AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also facing domestic criticism for his unconventional Washington visit, which comes just two weeks before an election in which he seeks a third term in Israel. On Sunday, a group representing nearly 200 of Israel’s top retired military and intelligence officials accused Netanyahu of assaulting the U.S.-Israel alliance.
But despite talk of a U.S. and Israeli dispute, the Obama administration has taken pains to display its staunch support for the Israeli government. Speaking just today in Geneva, Secretary of State John Kerry blasted the U.N. Human Rights Council for what he called an "obsession" and "bias" against Israel. The council is expected to release a report in the coming weeks on potential war crimes in Israel’s U.S.-backed Gaza assault last summer.
For more, we spend the hour today with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Noam Chomsky. He has written over a hundred books, most recently On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare. His forthcoming book, co-authored with Ilan Pappé, is titled On Palestine and will be out next month. Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than 50 years.
Noam Chomsky, it’s great to have you back here at Democracy Now!, and particularly in our very snowy outside, but warm inside, New York studio.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Delighted to be here again.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Noam, let’s start with Netanyahu’s visit. He is set to make this unprecedented joint address to Congress, unprecedented because of the kind of rift it has demonstrated between the Republicans and the Democratic president, President Obama. Can you talk about its significance?
NOAM CHOMSKY: For both president—Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it is—if we believe U.S. intelligence—don’t see any reason not to—their analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they don’t know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.
And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the Anti-Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means. In doing so, they’ve had to—you can’t get votes that way, so they’ve had to mobilize sectors of the population which have always been there but were never mobilized into an organized political force: evangelical Christians, extreme nationalists, terrified people who have to carry guns into Starbucks because somebody might be after them, and so on and so forth. That’s a big force. And inspiring fear is not very difficult in the United States. It’s a long history, back to colonial times, of—as an extremely frightened society, which is an interesting story in itself. And mobilizing people in fear of them, whoever "them" happens to be, is an effective technique used over and over again. And right now, the Republicans have—their nonpolicy has succeeded in putting them back in a position of at least congressional power. So, the attack on—this is a personal attack on Obama, and intended that way, is simply part of that general effort. But there is a common strategic concern underlying it, I think, and that is pretty much what U.S. intelligence analyzes: preventing any deterrent in the region to U.S. and Israeli actions.
AARON MATÉ: You say that nobody with a grey cell thinks that Iran would launch a strike, were it to have nuclear weapons, but yet Netanyahu repeatedly accuses Iran of planning a new genocide against the Jewish people. He said this most recently on Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, saying that the ayatollahs are planning a new holocaust against us. And that’s an argument that’s taken seriously here.
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s taken seriously by people who don’t stop to think for a minute. But again, Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything that’s going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missile—that is, to bring a missile near a weapon—the country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, there’s no indication that they’re suicidal.
AARON MATÉ: The premise of these talks—Iran gets to enrich uranium in return for lifting of U.S. sanctions—do you see that as a fair parameter? Does the U.S. have the right, to begin with, to be imposing sanctions on Iran?
NOAM CHOMSKY: No, it doesn’t. What are the right to impose sanctions? Iran should be imposing sanctions on us. I mean, it’s worth remembering—when you hear the White House spokesman talk about the international community, it wants Iran to do this and that, it’s important to remember that the phrase "international community" in U.S. discourse refers to the United States and anybody who may be happening to go along with it. That’s the international community. If the international community is the world, it’s quite a different story. So, two years ago, the Non-Aligned—former Non-Aligned Movement—it’s a large majority of the population of the world—had their regular conference in Iran in Tehran. And they, once again, vigorously supported Iran’s right to develop nuclear power as a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That’s the international community. The United States and its allies are outliers, as is usually the case.
And as far as sanctions are concerned, it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s now 60 years since—during the past 60 years, not a day has passed without the U.S. torturing the people of Iran. It began with overthrowing the parliamentary regime and installing a tyrant, the shah, supporting the shah through very serious human rights abuses and terror and violence. As soon as he was overthrown, almost instantly the United States turned to supporting Iraq’s attack against Iran, which was a brutal and violent attack. U.S. provided critical support for it, pretty much won the war for Iraq by entering directly at the end. After the war was over, the U.S. instantly supported the sanctions against Iran. And though this is kind of suppressed, it’s important. This is George H.W. Bush now. He was in love with Saddam Hussein. He authorized further aid to Saddam in opposition to the Treasury and others. He sent a presidential delegation—a congressional delegation to Iran. It was April 1990—1989, headed by Bob Dole, the congressional—
AMY GOODMAN: To Iraq? Sent to Iraq?
NOAM CHOMSKY: To Iraq. To Iraq, sorry, yeah—to offer his greetings to Saddam, his friend, to assure him that he should disregard critical comment that he hears in the American media: We have this free press thing here, and we can’t shut them up. But they said they would take off from Voice of America, take off critics of their friend Saddam. That was—he invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in weapons production. This is right after the Iraq-Iran War, along with sanctions against Iran. And then it continues without a break up to the present.
There have been repeated opportunities for a settlement of whatever the issues are. And so, for example, in, I guess it was, 2010, an agreement was reached between Brazil, Turkey and Iran for Iran to ship out its low-enriched uranium for storage elsewhere—Turkey—and in return, the West would provide the isotopes that Iran needs for its medical reactors. When that agreement was reached, it was bitterly condemned in the United States by the president, by Congress, by the media. Brazil was attacked for breaking ranks and so on. The Brazilian foreign minister was sufficiently annoyed so that he released a letter from Obama to Brazil proposing exactly that agreement, presumably on the assumption that Iran wouldn’t accept it. When they did accept it, they had to be attacked for daring to accept it.
And 2012, 2012, you know, there was to be a meeting in Finland, December, to take steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. This is an old request, pushed initially by Egypt and the other Arab states back in the early '90s. There's so much support for it that the U.S. formally agrees, but not in fact, and has repeatedly tried to undermine it. This is under the U.N. auspices, and the meeting was supposed to take place in December. Israel announced that they would not attend. The question on everyone’s mind is: How will Iran react? They said that they would attend unconditionally. A couple of days later, Obama canceled the meeting, claiming the situation is not right for it and so on. But that would be—even steps in that direction would be an important move towards eliminating whatever issue there might be. Of course, the stumbling block is that there is one major nuclear state: Israel. And if there’s a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone, there would be inspections, and neither Israel nor the United States will tolerate that.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about major revelations that have been described as the biggest leak since Edward Snowden. Last week, Al Jazeera started publishing a series of spy cables from the world’s top intelligence agencies. In one cable, the Israeli spy agency Mossad contradicts Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb within a year. In a report to South African counterparts in October 2012, the Israeli Mossad concluded Iran is "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons." The assessment was sent just weeks after Netanyahu went before the U.N. General Assembly with a far different message. Netanyahu held up a cartoonish diagram of a bomb with a fuse to illustrate what he called Iran’s alleged progress on a nuclear weapon.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: This is a bomb. This is a fuse. In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages. By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. A red line should be drawn right here, before—before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September 2012. The Mossad assessment contradicting Netanyahu was sent just weeks after, but it was likely written earlier. It said Iran, quote, "does not appear to be ready," unquote, to enrich uranium to the highest levels needed for a nuclear weapon. A bomb would require 90 percent enrichment, but Mossad found Iran had only enriched to 20 percent. That number was later reduced under an interim nuclear deal the following year. The significance of this, Noam Chomsky, as Prime Minister Netanyahu prepares for this joint address before Congress to undermine a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the striking aspect of this is the chutzpah involved. I mean, Israel has had nuclear weapons for probably 50 years or 40 years. They have, estimates are, maybe 100, 200 nuclear weapons. And they are an aggressive state. Israel has invaded Lebanon five times. It’s carrying out an illegal occupation that carries out brutal attacks like Gaza last summer. And they have nuclear weapons. But the main story is that if—incidentally, the Mossad analysis corresponds to U.S. intelligence analysis. They don’t know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But I think the crucial fact is that even if they were, what would it mean? It would be just as U.S. intelligence analyzes it: It would be part of a deterrent strategy. They couldn’t use a nuclear weapon. They couldn’t even threaten to use it. Israel, on the other hand, can; has, in fact, threatened the use of nuclear weapons a number of times.
AMY GOODMAN: So why is Netanyahu doing this?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Because he doesn’t want to have a deterrent in the region. That’s simple enough. If you’re an aggressive, violent state, you want to be able to use force freely. You don’t want anything that might impede it.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this in any way has undercut the U.S. relationship with Israel, the Netanyahu-Obama conflict that, what, Susan Rice has called destructive?
NOAM CHOMSKY: There is undoubtedly a personal relationship which is hostile, but that’s happened before. Back in around 1990 under first President Bush, James Baker went as far as—the secretary of state—telling Israel, "We’re not going to talk to you anymore. If you want to contact me, here’s my phone number." And, in fact, the U.S. imposed mild sanctions on Israel, enough to compel the prime minister to resign and be replaced by someone else. But that didn’t change the relationship, which is based on deeper issues than personal antagonisms.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->

--
Posted By Blogger to The Absurd Times at 3/03/2015 01:57:00 PM