stat counter

Friday, May 30, 2008

Terrorism Fighter Joe Lieberman Tied To Group (CUFI) Inciting Terrorism

Terrorism Fighter Joe Lieberman Tied To Group (CUFI) Inciting Terrorism

On: Friday, May 30, 2008 - By: Israel e News


By Bruce Wilson Talk To Action
United States Senator Joseph Lieberman has called for banning "terrorist videos" from YouTube but Mr. Lieberman has failed to recognize that he has closely associated and allied himself with a group that has repeatedly and very publicly incited acts, against Israel, which the state of Israel considers acts of terrorism posing a security threat of the highest magnitude. Yesterday Journalist Max Blumenthal, on the Huffington post, elaborated on Lieberman's continuing association with a US organization inciting terrorist acts against Israel. [ALSO SEE: Christian Zionism in 60 Seconds

At the July 16-18, 2007 Christians United For Israel (CUFI) yearly conference in Washington D.C., Senator Lieberman lavished praise on Christians United For Israel's founder, Texas megachurch evangelist Pastor John Hagee, likening Hagee to Moses, calling Hagee a "man of God", and stating that, like Moses, Hagee was the leader of a 'mighty multitude'.

But on July 18, 2007, at the nonprofit 501(c)(3) group's "A Night To Honor Israel" capstone event of it's three-day conference, CUFI Regional Director Billye Brim suggested that "God has a plan" for the Dome of The Rock, Islam's 3rd holiest site on Earth and the spot from which Muslims believe Moses ascended into Heaven. In the eschatolgical, or "End-Time" belief system held by most Christians United For Israel members, The Dome Of The Rock must be removed or destroyed to make way for the construction of a 3rd Jewish temple.

"Upon that hill, there is a rock,"
Brim told the audience in attendance at the July 18 "Night To Honor Israel" event, which was attended by former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of The House Tom Delay, other prominent US politicians and both current and former Israeli military and political leaders. "Upon that rock there is a dome," continued Billye Brim--as she addressed, in a stern and portentous tone, the attending crowd of up to 5,000 Christians United For Israel, while journalist Max Blumenthal and videographer Thomas Shoemaker, along with DayStar TV, filmed the event and while I watched and took notes. "God has a plan for that hill," declared Brim, to the cheers of the crowd.

Billye Brim did not directly call, on July 18th that night, for the destruction of The Dome of The Rock, but the message was clear--the Dome had to go--and in an undated audio recording I have discovered, from Billye Brim addressing a moderate sized and nearly orgiastic religious gathering, Brim makes the point more directly, stating that while she was with a group of evangelical Christians who were covertly praying around and on Jerusalem's Temple Mount Brim received a message directly from God which told her "that dome's coming down" and Billye Brim suggested that she knew the very date on which The Dome Of The Rock would be destroyed. "That dome's coming down," exulted Brim to her audience, and then she emitted what could be called nothing other than a triumphant ululation of victory.

Israel's Shin Bet security service is charged with protecting The Dome of the Rock and the nearby Al Akhsa mosque, from attempts by Jewish, American and Islamic extremist groups to damage or destroy the Islamic holy sites, and the State of Israel considers such attempts to pose a top-level security threat to Isrsel, because it is widely assumed that the destruction would touch off a regional, or even a world, war.

In his 2000 book The End of Days: Fundamentalism and The Struggle For The Temple Mount, Israeli journalist Gershom Gorenberg described the apocalyptic aspirations of the many fringe religious groups aspiring to bring on the Apocalypse and the "end of days" through attacks on the Dome of The Rock and the Al Akhsa mosque. The danger of such attacks is not hypothetical: the last several decades have seen both individual and organized group efforts to attack the Islamic religious sites on and around the Temple Mount, from both Christian and Jewish fundamentalist groups.

But Christians United For Israel, as an organization, is itself implicated in inciting attacks upon the Temple Mount holy sites. In early 2007, a year after the launch of the Christians United For Israel organization, which Pastor John Hagee has claimed can project it's purportedly "pro-Israel" message to millions of American voters via the email lists of numerous prominent evangelists, I publicized the fact that the Christians United For Israel organizational logo, distributed on all CUFI literature and paraphenelia, which also headed all web pages on CUFI's official organizational website, featured a photographic image of Jerusalem's Temple Mount from which the Dome of The Rock had been, literally, as was done by Stalin's agents to official Kremlin photographs of Politburo members who had been assassinated, airbrushed out of the image.

Source
related articles

McCain`s `Dear John` letter: When bad theology happens to good friends of Israel
American Jewish Committee Won't Touch Hagee on Holocaust; Silence from AIPAC, ADL
Neo-Cons Silent on Hagee Repudiation by McCain
Joe Lieberman To Headline Upcoming Hagee Summit
John Hagee: deviant theology, dangerous foreign policy
New American Century lasts eight years: Neocon Web Site PNAC Shut Down
Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11
Media Heavies Question `Pro-Israel` Moniker
Pastor Hagee and Christians United for Israel Push for Armageddon
Does Lieberman Still See Hagee As Moses Incarnate?
Lieberman defends radical McCain ally John Hagee
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571 Page Lie
Rumsfeld: `Why Not another 911`



Thursday, May 29, 2008

Tutu Shocked by Gaza Conditions (plus video)

Tutu shocked by Gaza conditions




Forty people were also wounded in the 2006 Israeli shelling [GALLO/GETTY]

Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel Peace prize winner, has said he is shocked by conditions in the Gaza Strip after months of Israeli sanctions.

Tutu, who has been on a UN fact-finding mission to investigate the deaths of 19 Palestinian civilians killed in November 2006, said on Thursday the coastal strip had become "desolate and scary".




He said Israel should ease the blockade, which has resulted in shortages of fuel and other basic goods.

Israel imposed sanctions last year after Hamas seized control of Gaza.
It has tightened the blockade in recent months in response to repeated rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.







Rights violation
Tutu told reporters in Gaza the blockade had to be lifted because "it is a gross violation of human rights".
In video

Beit Hanoun residents bear scars of Israeli attack
On Wednesday, Tutu said he had asked Ismail Haniya, prime minister of Gaza's Hamas government: "Can you stop the firing of rockets into Israel?"

Haniya was dismissed by Mahmud Abbas, the Palestinian president, last June when Hamas took control of Gaza from forces loyal to Abbas.

"The incident we are meant to investigate was a violation of human rights in the fact that civilians were targeted," Tutu said.

"We have said to the prime minister [Haniya] that equally, what happens with rockets fired at Sderot is a violation."

Tutu, who was a prominent anti-apartheid activist when South Africa was still under white minority rule, said it was crucial that the two sides negotiate.

Eight children were among the dead in the
November 2006 attack [File: GALLO/GETTY]
"That was our experience in South Africa. Peace came when former enemies sat down to talk," he said.

The team visited Beit Hanoun on Wednesday, where the 2006 killings occurred, to interview witnesses and survivors of the attack.

They will prepare a report to present to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The Israeli attack on Beit Hanoun was widely condemned by the international community for killing 19 civilians, including five women and eight children in their homes.

Source


Video: Beit Hanoun Tutu visit (Al-Jazeera)




Wednesday, May 28, 2008

More Israeli "Security" Coming to Your Hometown: Los Angeles

Below is an article which appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times announcing that Mayor Villaragosa is traveling next month to Israel for a "weeklong mission devoted to security, counter-terrorism and green technologies"

The irony of this trip does not escape me, for the last sentence in the article reads, "He went to El Salvador and Mexico last May for a mission that was cut short when police beat demonstrators and journalists during an immigrant-rights gathering in MacArthur Park."

Mayor Villaragosa won his mayorial seat due in large part on appealing to the large Hispanic population of the community. Yet last year, when he was in Latin America his trip was cut short after the LAPD brutally broke up a May Day immigrants rally using strong armed tactics straight out of the training that the LAPD received after Chief Bratton of the LAPD had his force trained in ISRAELI police tactics.

The outrage in the community and the media over what occurred in McArthur Park last May Day drew international attention. Many in the Middle East who I spoke with recognized immediately what they were seeing in those news clips, ISRAELI strong armed tactics which are used on Palestinians being transported and used here on our own people.

At a celebration of May Day just a few weeks ago which the Mayor and Bratton both attended, they spoke these words of this year's McArthur Park gathering:

"Villaraigosa assured the crowd that "The city has learned the mistakes of the past" after Bratton declared the night a chance to celebrate at MacArthur Park “as a positive experience and remove the negative experience of last year."

Obviously they have NOT learned, because now Villaragosa is on his way to Israel to get help on security at LAX and other city owned airports (which includes Ontario) and the port. What new "security tactics" will they be learning from the Israelis? How to strip search and humiliate women as they do at Ben Gurion? (Video: "The Easiest Targets")

All of this is also coming on the heels of last fall's LAPD "Muslim mapping plan" which brought yet another black mark on the LAPD.

And may I ask where did the LAPD get THAT idea from?

What is going on here in Los Angeles as the city is choosing to align itself with these strong-armed Israeli tactics which VIOLATE our civil liberties as American citizens SHOULD be raising alarm in the community.

The question is what tactic will the city entities take up next which they will have to refute, of course AFTER further violations against citizens occur.

WAKE UP LOS ANGELES!!!

L.A. mayor to lead delegation to Israel


Bags packed

BAGS PACKED: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will spend the bulk of his Israel trip in Jerusalem.
The third overseas trip by Antonio Villaraigosa since taking office is expected to focus on security and green technologies.
By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2008
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will travel to Israel next month for a weeklong mission devoted to security, counter-terrorism and green technologies, aides announced Tuesday.

Villaraigosa will lead a delegation of city officials and about a dozen religious and business leaders June 11-18, his third overseas trip since taking office nearly three years ago.

The mayor's office released the name of only one delegation member outside of City Hall: Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Spokesman Matt Szabo, who said the list is being finalized, described the mission as "a short targeted trip that will focus on security and green technology exchange."

But the trip also could help Villaraigosa buttress his relationship with Los Angeles' Jewish community, an always important political constituency in the city.

Villaraigosa's itinerary calls for him to sign an agreement to bring experts from Ben Gurion International Airport to review security at Los Angeles International Airport and other city-owned airports.

The mayor also is expected to sign an accord calling for Los Angeles to provide guidance about green measures taken at its port in exchange for expertise on how to better secure the mammoth facility in San Pedro, one of nation's busiest.

City officials said they also want to expand their relationship with the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, which would provide training for the Los Angeles Police Department and other local law enforcement agencies.

Villaraigosa will spend the bulk of his time in Jerusalem. He has meetings scheduled with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, among others. He also is scheduled to meet Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai and visit a school in that city.

His schedule is expected to include a tour of Israel's seaport of Ashdod and a visit to Sderot, a desert town near the Gaza border that has faced repeated rocket attacks by Palestinians and has become a must-stop for American politicians. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, stopped by in March.

Villaraigosa also will meet with water experts to discuss conservation.

He will be joined by several top city leaders, including City Councilmen Jack Weiss and Dennis Zine. The list includes Department of Water and Power General Manager David Nahai and DWP board President Nick Patsaouras; port General Manager Geraldine Knatz and harbor Commissioner Doug Krause; Gina Marie Lindsey, general manager of the city's airport agency, and Airport Commission President Alan Rothenberg.

Szabo said the still-undetermined cost of the trip will be paid by the mayor's travel budget and by the semi-independent departments that oversee the DWP, airport and port.

Villaraigosa traveled to Asia two years ago for a 16-day trade mission. He went to El Salvador and Mexico last May for a mission that was cut short when police beat demonstrators and journalists during an immigrant-rights gathering in
MacArthur Park.

Source

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Tear Gas and the Tree



Palestinian protesters take cover behind an olive tree as they get caught in a barrage of tear gas canisters fired by Israeli troops during a demonstration against Israel's separation barrier in the West Bank village of Nilin, today. Israel says the barrier is necessary for security while Palestinians call it a land grab.

Source

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Palestinian Youth Express Themselves Through Hip-Hop

Palestinian Youth Express Themselves Through Hip-Hop

New America Media, News Feature, Suzanne Manneh, Posted: May 24, 2008

View Photo Gallery

SAN FRANCISCO — May 2008 marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Nakba – Arabic for catastrophe, the expulsion of the Palestinian people and creation of the state of Israel. However, the Palestinian Diaspora decided to commemorate it with a different image: sharing and performing hip-hop. A commemoration concert was recently held here at the Civic Center Plaza and it was free and open to the public.

Performers were male and female. They ranged in ethnic backgrounds –from Palestinian and other Arab nationalities, to African American, Mexican and Caucasian. They had come from across the United States, Canada, the West Bank and Israel.



"This is a hip-hop festival for Palestine. Hip-hop is not dead; it lives in Palestine. It's about unification for our people," Patriarch, a Palestinian-American hip-hop artist asserted before the audience.

Event organizers say this was the first large-scale gathering of 3,500 or more people: Palestinians, other Arabs and nearly a third of non-Arabs, recognizing the Nakba through hip-hop.

The performances were in English and Arabic, with some performers using both languages. The music was energetic and its sounds reflected everything from the classic African-American hip-hop of the 1980's and 1990's to contemporary underground African-American hip-hop. Some artists incorporated classical Arab beats, music, and melodies into their routine.

The Bay Area Nakba Committee, a group of Palestinian American peace activists, in collaboration with other Arab organizations and community groups such as the American Indian Movement and the International Jewish Solidarity Network, organized the event.

"I participated because I'm in solidarity with the Palestinian people and I want to demonstrate my support," said Alley, a volunteer with the International Jewish Solidarity Network. She didn’t want her last name to be used. “A people are being oppressed in my name, and it’s important to show that I disapprove of it,” she added.

Lead organizer Noura Khouri explained the need she saw for making the commemoration a hip-hop event.

"We wanted to connect urban youth culture with the Palestinian struggle," she said. "We're so sick of seeing people going up on stage and lecturing about history and politics. We wanted to connect youth to the issues in a way they can digest and we didn't know of a better way than through hip- hop." Yet, there is a perception that hip-hop could not be associated with Palestinians or Arabs.

"I never thought of Palestinians or Arabs as rappers," said a woman who was dancing to the music. This is a common stereotype that is assigned to Palestinians, and one that many people believe, says Nasser Halteh, activist and member of the hip-hop group Politikal Heat.

"We're supposed to be conservative and hip-hop is not something we're expected to participate in," he explained. "But what we're doing is nothing negative. We're performing hip-hop and telling our stories.” “Hip-hop was positive from the beginning. They (African American hip-hop pioneers) created something out of nothing to tell their stories, and that's what we're doing," he asserted.

Sammy Totah, of the pan-ethnic hip-hop group Scribe Project, feels likewise and believes that hip-hop is the strongest, constructive medium to communicate the Palestinian message.
"Hip-hop has a lot of history behind it," Totah said. "It is a revolutionary tool that has inspired positive change and instead of using our fists, we use our words."

crowdBut hip-hop has also become a means of self-exploration for many Palestinians, Halteh suggests. Halteh, who was born and raised in the United States, has been rapping since he started high school, and sees it as “his duty” to rap about Palestine. “I feel lost here in America, and when I rap, I can express myself, my Palestinian roots, and that maintains my identity."

Formed in 1998, DAM (Arabic for "lasting an eternity”), the first Palestinian hip-hop group, performs in Arabic, Hebrew, and English, and came from Israel to perform and realize the importance of expression and exploration through the music.

"Hip-hop is my way of expression. Our songs speak to all kinds of people and reflect what they feel," he said.

For this very reason, over the past decade, hip-hop has generated much popularity in the Palestinian American youth culture and has gained a larger success in Palestine, as shown in the documentary feature, Slingshot Hip-Hop.

However, while the older generations of Palestinians admit that hip-hop is not their musical preference, several were at the hip-hop event to support the Palestinian struggle, and recognize the success hip-hop has gained for articulating it.

Nabila Mango, founder of ZAWAYA, an Arab arts organization, said that while she understands "barely two-thirds of the hip-hop culture," she enjoyed the concert nonetheless. "I was shaking and grooving with everyone else," she said.

Khouri said that her parents and older relatives, all over 60, are not hip-hop fans, but came and found themselves "waving their arms and raising their fists into the air, singing and dancing with the music." Other performers included distinguished African American hip-hop artist Boots Riley from The Coup, (who brought his constituents and said he wanted to show his solidarity for the Palestinians. He said all minorities are struggling in the face of oppression.

While the Nakba commemoration was primarily focused on hip-hop, there were also cultural and educational elements consisting of Dabke, the traditional Palestinian folkloric dance, as well as simulated refugee camp exhibits, pictures from the 1948 Nakba, and a tent where Palestinian elders recounted their memories for those interested in listening.

Khouri explained that hip-hop carries a peaceful, hopeful, yet strong message and effect that she cannot find in other ways of expression and hopes to plan similar gatherings in the future.

"Just like Erykah Badu sings it," Khouri said, quoting the famous hip-hop diva, "'hip-hop is bigger than the government, it’s bigger than religion. It's the healer.'"

View Photo Gallery

Listen: Palestinian Hip Hop Tracks:



(4m 04s, mp3, 5.0MB) Download File



(3m 54s, mp3, 5.5MB) Download File

Related Articles:

Israel Turns 60

Young and Palestinian Like Me

Stop the US/Israeli War Rally in San Francisco

Radio Free Palestine

Support: Nakba Posters In New York!!

Parachutes Falling

Artist challenges US Zionists with depiction of the Nakba

James Reinl, Foreign Correspondent

  • Last Updated: May 24. 2008 8:05PM UAE / May 24. 2008 4:05PM GMT

NEW YORK // When Ildiko Toth designed a poster commemorating the 1948 destruction of Arab towns by Jewish militants, the Oregon-based artist said she wanted to “give a voice to the suffering of the Palestinian people”.

This week, it appears that the Hungarian-born designer has got her wish. More than 1,000 copies of her poster will be plastered on billboards across midtown Manhattan to coincide with next month’s Salute to Israel Parade.

Bearing the words “Nakba – 60 Years of Forced Exile”, the posters will probably be seen by hundreds of thousands of supporters of Israel as they march along New York’s glitzy 5th Avenue and celebrate what organisers describe as “an ancient dream realised”.

Members of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation freely acknowledge they orchestrated the poster campaign to rain on the Zionists’ parade, according to the national advocacy director, Josh Ruebner.

“Participants in the Salute to Israel Parade will see our ads and be forced to confront the reality which they deny, namely, that Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state is only possible by refusing Palestinian refugees’ their right of return home,” Mr Ruebner said.

The posters will “educate New Yorkers that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was accompanied by the widespread and purposeful ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands”, he said.

But parade organisers said Israel’s supporters will march undeterred, saying the event celebrates a “war of survival” in 1948 that saw Jews overcome “attacks on all sides” to create “the only democratic state in the Middle East”, according to Michael Miller, chief executive officer of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.

“This is America, and everyone here has the right to free speech, which many in the Arab world do regrettably not have,” Mr Miller said. “If movements that have a different point of view want to put their message on a poster and stick it on walls throughout the city, that is their privilege.

“The supporters of Israel are not going to be guided by a poster. This parade is going to be one of the most exciting we have had in years. There is so much to celebrate: from what Israel has brought to the world to what Israel means symbolically to the Jewish people.”

Ms Toth’s poster, a winning entry in the US Campaign’s Expressions of Nakba art competition, depicts parachutes in the pattern of kaffiyehs carrying keys towards Jerusalem, together with a list of the Palestinian villages destroyed by Israelis in 1948.

The design plays with potent symbols for the Nakba exiles who still treasure property deeds to the flattened buildings and keys to doors that no longer exist – images that possess particular significance to Ms Toth, 34.

Following an internet romance, the designer married Samir al Sharif, 26, a Palestinian student, in Cairo in May 2006 before taking a honeymoon cruise on the Nile and heading to Ms Toth’s family home in southern Hungary.

After spending several months together in Hungary, Ms Toth returned to the United States, where she has been resident since 2000, while Mr Sharif visited his parents and 10 siblings in northern Gaza.

When he tried to leave, Mr Sharif was told he needed to apply for a new exit visa but bureaucratic failures and tighter regulations have kept him trapped in Gaza waiting for the valid paperwork to arrive. He blames officials on both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, for keeping him there.

“Why do they refuse me?” Mr Sharif said. “I have done nothing against Israel. Since returning to Gaza I have done nothing except sit at home. I have a right to be with my wife.”

Without direct access to consulates, Mr Sharif was forced to write dozens of letters pleading internationally for help from ambassadors, human rights groups and even Oprah Winfrey, the US television host. To date, nobody has been able to help.

By day, Mr Sharif works in his parents’ electronics store – an irony in an area beset by power blackouts – where an absence of customers and goods has seen sales plummet to the equivalent of– about Dh20 a day. In the streets outside, donkeys and carts have replaced cars due to a shortage of petrol.

By night, he waits until 3am for his wife to call during her lunch hour so the couple can reminisce about the few happy times they have enjoyed in two years’ of marriage.

“As a Palestinian, he acts very strong,” Ms Toth said. “He tells me: ‘Everything will be OK soon’ and ‘We will make it’. But I know it is really hard for him.”

The outlook for Mr Sharif remains uncertain. Ms Toth is pinning her hopes on securing US citizenship, believing the nationality change will improve her chances of getting her husband out of Gaza.

In the meantime, she contents herself with the knowledge that her poster – the product of her pain – will bear testament to the difficulties still faced by herself, Mr Sharif and many other Palestinians.

“In today’s age, people can easily form a one-sided opinion about an issue without fully understanding the other side,” she said. “I’m trying to raise awareness of the situation of Palestinians, humanise their tragedy and educate people who are not aware.

“I’ve always been interested in the deep, dark recesses of the world and to give a voice to such issues. Since I have known Samir, I have found a passion in him as well as his plight.”

Source


US CAMPAIGN TO END THE OCCUPATION

You’ve Got to See Our Nakba Ads in NYC

May 19th, 2008


This past weekend, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation began a month-long advertising campaign in New York City to raise awareness about the 60th anniversary of the Nakba.

Over the course of the next month, more than 1,000 of these posters will be displayed on the streets of Manhattan, educating New Yorkers about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

We need your support to continue our creative educational programs on the Nakba and other projects such as challenging military aid to Israel, running corporate accountability campaigns against Motorola and Caterpillar, and organizing a high-profile anti-apartheid speaking tour this fall.

Donate $20 or more today and we’ll send you a suitable-to-frame copy of our Nakba awareness ad.Please make your generous tax-deductible donation now by clicking here.

The ads in New York have been strategically placed to coincide with the route of the June 1st “Salute to Israel Parade” so that everyone coming to celebrate Israel will be reminded (or educated) that Israel was established through an act of ethnic cleansing.If you appreciate these types of educational efforts, then please make a generous tax-deductible contribution to keep us going by clicking here.

The poster featured in our New York ad campaign is a version of the winning poster design entry from our Expressions of Nakba multi-media arts competition.The poster was created by Ildiko Toth, a Hungarian-born graphic designer who is married to a Palestinian man trapped in the Gaza Strip for more than one year.To see the original poster design and learn more about the artist, click here.You can also read a feature story about Ildiko and Expressions of Nakba in The National (U.A.E.) by clicking here.

If you haven’t yet taken the opportunity to view the amazing artwork we received for Expressions of Nakba, then please take some time to view our stunning new on-line gallery by clicking here.

Don’t forget that you can get your copy of this poster by making a tax-deductible contribution of $20 or more to support our work by clicking here.

To view a high-resolution image of the New York ad and the poster we’ll send you with your contribution of $20 or more, please click here. (Please note that this version of the poster is different from one displayed in our on-line gallery.)

Friday, May 23, 2008

American Zionism: Uniquely Inspired by it's own Phisosophy of Manifest Destiny Codifed by the Supreme Court

Many have taken notice of the similarities between the outcomes of Manifest Destiny and Zionism, that is, how the US government treated the Native Americans is indeed similar to how the Zionists treated the Palestinians. In the essay below, the author goes further than the facts to compare the philosophies of Manifest Destiny and Zionism, in particular, going to a key Supreme Court ruling concerning Indian lands.

In this excellent essay he explains how the two philosophies coincide, and therefor, why Zionism is an "easy fit" for many Americans.

To read more about the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M'Intosh, read these other articles:

Essay: "Property and Empire: The Law of Imperialism in Johnson v. M'Intosh" by Jedediah Purdy

"The Christian Right of Colonization" by Steven Newcomb

"Johnson v. M'Intosh" Otherwise Occupied

Source
of below essay

Newcomb: American Zionism
Posted: May 23, 2008
by: Steven Newcomb / Indigenous Law Institute



In his May 15 speech before the Israeli Knesset, President George W. Bush invoked the Old Testament story of the chosen people and the Promised Land. Bush said that the establishment of Israel in 1948 ''was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham, Moses and David - a homeland for the chosen people in Eretz Yisrael.''

Bush also spoke explicitly of an alliance and a friendship between Israel and the United States rooted in the Bible. The source of the link between the two countries, he said, ''is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul.'' Then, weaving a bit of American history into the mix, Bush told his audience: ''When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of [the Hebrew prophet] Jeremiah 51:10: 'Come let us declare in Zion the word of God.'''

According to Bush, ''The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.'' American Indian lands, in other words, were viewed by the founders of the United States as a new Land of Canaan, a promised inheritance and everlasting possession.

Although there may be those orthodox Jews who would not concur with Bush's characterization of the Old Testament, his speech illustrates the kind of thinking that has played such a prominent role in the historic mistreatment of American Indians by the United States, and in the callous and often brutal mistreatment of Palestinian people by the state of Israel. The mental model of a chosen people and a promised land provides a convenient rationalization whereby one people feels entitled and justified, by divine right, to take over, possess, and profit from the lands of other peoples.

The Old Testament tells us that Abraham was originally named Abram. In Genesis 15:18, we find the description of a ceremony on the ''same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto they seed [offspring] have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaim, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.'' (KJV)

The grammatical placement of a colon after the word ''Euphrates'' indicates that not merely land was being given to Abraham and his descendants; the indigenous peoples already living in the land were also being given to Abraham and the ''chosen people.'' The colonial adventure story of the Old Testament tells us that ''the Lord'' brought Abram to ''this land to inherit it.'' After renaming him Abraham, ''a father of many nations,'' the deity told Abraham: ''And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.''

By using Bradford's quote of Jeremiah, Bush was making a metaphorical connection between the United States and Israel, but also between Zion and the lands of the indigenous nations of North America. Bradford used the Old Testament quote of Jeremiah to project the concept of Zion onto the lands of the indigenous nations in North America. Clearly, this is an American version of Zionism.

In 1823, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in the case Johnson v. M'Intosh, a decision that was fully in keeping with the chosen people-promised land tradition. The unanimous ruling was written by Chief Justice John Marshall regarding a supposed land dispute. The court used the doctrine of Christian Discovery and Dominion as the basis for its decision. Marshall said that a ''discovery'' by ''Christian people'' of lands inhabited by ''heathens'' resulted in the Christians having an ''ultimate title'' and ''ultimate dominion'' to those lands. The Johnson ruling still serves today as the cornerstone of U.S. federal Indian law and policy and in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court cited the doctrine of discovery in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York.

The Johnson ruling is premised on the idea that when Christians, as the new chosen people, locate or discover lands that have not yet been taken over and possessed by other Christians, the ''discoverers,'' as if by magic, obtain the divine right and authorization to assert an ultimate dominion over and subdue those lands, and the indigenous peoples living there.

Bush's use of the chosen people-promised land model before Israel's Knesset reflects a mentality of privilege and entitlement by supposed divine right. This mental framework has greatly contributed to the intractable aspects of U.S. policy towards American Indian nations and Israel's policy toward the Palestinian people.

Steven Newcomb, Shawnee/Lenape, is indigenous law research coordinator for the Sycuan Education Department, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today.

Source
In his May 15 speech before the Israeli Knesset, President George W. Bush invoked the Old Testament story of the chosen people and the Promised Land. Bush said that the establishment of Israel in 1948 ''was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham, Moses and David - a homeland for the chosen people in Eretz Yisrael.''

Bush also spoke explicitly of an alliance and a friendship between Israel and the United States rooted in the Bible. The source of the link between the two countries, he said, ''is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul.'' Then, weaving a bit of American history into the mix, Bush told his audience: ''When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of [the Hebrew prophet] Jeremiah 51:10: 'Come let us declare in Zion the word of God.'''

According to Bush, ''The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.'' American Indian lands, in other words, were viewed by the founders of the United States as a new Land of Canaan, a promised inheritance and everlasting possession.

Although there may be those orthodox Jews who would not concur with Bush's characterization of the Old Testament, his speech illustrates the kind of thinking that has played such a prominent role in the historic mistreatment of American Indians by the United States, and in the callous and often brutal mistreatment of Palestinian people by the state of Israel. The mental model of a chosen people and a promised land provides a convenient rationalization whereby one people feels entitled and justified, by divine right, to take over, possess, and profit from the lands of other peoples.

The Old Testament tells us that Abraham was originally named Abram. In Genesis 15:18, we find the description of a ceremony on the ''same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto they seed [offspring] have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaim, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.'' (KJV)

The grammatical placement of a colon after the word ''Euphrates'' indicates that not merely land was being given to Abraham and his descendants; the indigenous peoples already living in the land were also being given to Abraham and the ''chosen people.'' The colonial adventure story of the Old Testament tells us that ''the Lord'' brought Abram to ''this land to inherit it.'' After renaming him Abraham, ''a father of many nations,'' the deity told Abraham: ''And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.''

By using Bradford's quote of Jeremiah, Bush was making a metaphorical connection between the United States and Israel, but also between Zion and the lands of the indigenous nations of North America. Bradford used the Old Testament quote of Jeremiah to project the concept of Zion onto the lands of the indigenous nations in North America. Clearly, this is an American version of Zionism.

In 1823, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in the case Johnson v. M'Intosh, a decision that was fully in keeping with the chosen people-promised land tradition. The unanimous ruling was written by Chief Justice John Marshall regarding a supposed land dispute. The court used the doctrine of Christian Discovery and Dominion as the basis for its decision. Marshall said that a ''discovery'' by ''Christian people'' of lands inhabited by ''heathens'' resulted in the Christians having an ''ultimate title'' and ''ultimate dominion'' to those lands. The Johnson ruling still serves today as the cornerstone of U.S. federal Indian law and policy and in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court cited the doctrine of discovery in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York.

The Johnson ruling is premised on the idea that when Christians, as the new chosen people, locate or discover lands that have not yet been taken over and possessed by other Christians, the ''discoverers,'' as if by magic, obtain the divine right and authorization to assert an ultimate dominion over and subdue those lands, and the indigenous peoples living there.

Bush's use of the chosen people-promised land model before Israel's Knesset reflects a mentality of privilege and entitlement by supposed divine right. This mental framework has greatly contributed to the intractable aspects of U.S. policy towards American Indian nations and Israel's policy toward the Palestinian people.

Steven Newcomb, Shawnee/Lenape, is indigenous law research coordinator for the Sycuan Education Department, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today.

Source

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Another McCain Straight talking LIE

This sudden revelation of McCain's is utterly disingenuous. He knew darn well how crazy Hagee is, but wanted the VOTES of the Christian Zionist Fundamentalists who have been supporting Bush all along.


What a JOKE!

McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust

May 22, 2008 4:48 PM

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this afternoon rejected the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee after a sermon was publicized in which Hagen suggested Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust were caused by God so as to bring about the creation of the state of Israel.

A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things.

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," McCain said in a statement. "I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

Hagee had quoted the book of Jeremiah saying, "Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers. Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks."

Hagee suggested that Hitler as a hunter, and as a result of the Holocaust, Jews had been brought back to the land God gave unto their fathers.

Hagee's sermon about the Holocaust was broken at the liberal website Talk2Action. You can hear Hagee's sermon HERE.

McCain tried to make sure voters did not see his Hagee issue in the same light as the controversy involving Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and his controversial former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views," McCain said. "But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today."

Immediately upon receiving Hagee's endorsement in February in San Antonio, McCain was asked if he shared Hagee's "End of Days" views of Armageddon. McCain said he was not aware of them. And as days past, McCain found himself increasingly under fire for other Hagee views, particularly about Catholics. As months progressed, McCain tried to distance himself from Hagee's comments, then he condemned them, then he said Hagee had not been properly vetted.

Hagee issued a statement this afternoon saying that ever since he endorsed McCain, "people seeking to attack Senator McCain have combed my records for statements they can use for political gain. They have had no qualms about grossly misrepresenting my position on issues most near and dear to my heart if it serves their political ambitions. I am tired of these baseless attacks and fear that they have become a distraction in what should be a national debate about important issues."

Hagee then suggested that rather than McCain having rejected his endorsement, he had taken it back. "I have therefore decided to withdraw my endorsement of Senator McCain for President effective today, and to remove myself from any active role in the 2008 campaign," Hagee said. "I hope that the Senator McCain will accept this withdrawal so that he may focus on the issues that are most important to America and the world."

A fuller excerpt of the sermon is as follows:

HAGEE: "Again he said unto me “Prophesy unto these bones, and say unto them, ‘O you dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!' And he spoke to them and they stood and they became an exceeding great army - meaning they physically came to life.

"Now how is God going to bring them back to the land? The answer is fishers and hunters. The answer is given in Jeremiah 16, verse 15 and following.

"God says in Jeremiah 16 - 'Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers' - that would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - 'behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them' - that will be the Jews - 'from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.'

"If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust, you can't see that.

"So think about this - I will send fishers and I will send hunters. A fisher is someone who entices you with a bait. How many of you know who Theodore Herzl was? How many of you don't have a clue who he was? Whooo. Sweet God! Theodore Herzl is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew that at the turn of the 19th century said, 'This land is our land, God wants us to live there.' So he went to the Jews of Europe and said, 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.'

"So few went, Herzl went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the Holocaust.

"Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says - Jeremiah righty? - 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks,' meaning: there's no place to hide. And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be offended: I didn't write it. Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth.

"How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, 'my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.' Today Israel is back in the land and they are at Ezekiel 37 and 8. They are physically alive but they're not spiritually alive. Now how is God going to cause the Jewish people to come spiritually alive and say, 'the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He is God'?" (Source)

____________________________________________________

So let me get this straight Senator McCain, you SOUGHT his endorsement, but you weren't aware of Hagee's craziness? Isn't THIS crazy enough for you? Or THIS

But what about Reverend Parsley Senator? He's endorsing you to.

_________________________________________________-

MORE: In THIS article in the Nation, it not only talks about McCain's relationship with Hagee, but also Joe Liberman's:

During a banquet at CUFI's 2007 convention, I watched with astonishment as Lieberman strode to the stage, then compared Hagee to Moses (watch Lieberman's remarks at 5:30 of my video) "I want to take to opportunity to describe Pastor Hagee in the terms the Torah used to describe Moses," Lieberman declared. "He is an Ish Elohim. A man of God. And those words really do fit him. And I have something else," the senator continued. "Like Moses, he's become the leader of a mighty multitude. Even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the Promised Land."

Was Lieberman aware at the time of Hagee's statements about Jews and the Holocaust? I don't know. But with McCain's tacit acknowledgment of Hagee's anti-Semitism, Lieberman must now decide: is Hagee a man of God, or just a mamzer.

___________________________________________

Of COURSE Joe Lieberman knows what Hagee is all about! But he loves the MONEY Hagee's CUFI group sends to support settlements and aliya.

And here you go, a nice picture of Olmert with his friend Hagee

Meeting with Prime Minister PM 6

Letter of Encouragement being presented to the Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert


Question: Could it be that Pastor Hagee is going Dowwwwwwwwn?

Hello Olmert, what say you now?


California Teacher Fired for Wanting to Add Adendum to the State Loyalty Oath

Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath

Cal State system ousts another instructor who objects on religious grounds to a pledge adopted by California in 1952 to root out communists.
By Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
When Wendy Gonaver was offered a job teaching American studies at Cal State Fullerton this academic year, she was pleased to be headed back to the classroom to talk about one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.

But the day before class was scheduled to begin, her appointment as a lecturer abruptly ended over just the kind of issue that might have figured in her course. She lost the job because she did not sign a loyalty oath swearing to "defend" the U.S. and California constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The loyalty oath was added to the state Constitution by voters in 1952 to root out communists in public jobs. Now, 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its main effect is to weed out religious believers, particularly Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses.

As a Quaker from Pennsylvania and a lifelong pacifist, Gonaver objected to the California oath as an infringement of her rights of free speech and religious freedom. She offered to sign the pledge if she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, a practice allowed by other state institutions. But Cal State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the job.

"I wanted it on record that I am a pacifist," said Gonaver, 38. "I was really upset. I didn't expect to be fired. I was so shocked that I had to do this."

California State University officials say they were simply following the law and did not discriminate against Gonaver because all employees are required to sign the oath. Clara Potes-Fellow, a Cal State spokeswoman, said the university does not permit employees to submit personal statements with the oath.

"The position of the university is that her entire added material was against the law," Potes-Fellow said.

In February, another Cal State instructor, Quaker math teacher Marianne Kearney-Brown, was fired because she inserted the word "nonviolently" when she signed the oath. She was quickly rehired after her case attracted media attention.

It is hard to know how many would-be workers decline to sign the pledge over religious or political issues. Some object because they interpret the pledge as a commitment to take up arms. Others have trouble swearing an oath to something other than their God.

Public agencies do not appear to keep a record of people denied employment over the oath. Union grievances and lawsuits are rare.

Some agencies take the oath more seriously than others. Certain school districts and community colleges have been known to let employees change the wording of the oath when they sign or to ignore the requirement altogether. Others, including the University of California, advise employees on how they can register their objections yet still sign the pledge.

All state, city, county, public school, community college and public university employees -- about 2.3 million people -- are covered by the law, although noncitizens are not required to sign.

UC Berkeley was the first to impose a tough anti-communist loyalty oath in 1949 and fired 31 professors who refused to sign.

After a version of the oath was added to the state Constitution, courts eventually struck down its harshest elements but let stand the requirement of defending the constitutions. In one court test, personal statements accompanying the oath were deemed constitutional as long as they did not nullify the meaning of the oath.

Now, the University of California advises new employees who balk at signing the pledge that they can submit an addendum, as long as it does not negate the oath.

UC even provides sample declarations, such as: "This is not a promise to take up arms in contravention of my religious beliefs," or "I owe allegiance to Jehovah."

The California State University system takes a firmer approach.

Kearney-Brown, the math instructor fired by Cal State East Bay, said she added the word "nonviolently" just as she had when taking previous jobs as a high school teacher. The university, however, told her she could not alter the pledge.

After her case attracted media attention and help from the United Auto Workers, which represents some Cal State employees, the university reversed course. The office of Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown drafted a statement declaring that the oath does not commit employees to bear arms in the country's defense. Cal State agreed to let Kearney-Brown attach it to her oath and she was reinstated.

Kearney-Brown said she believed she was defending the Constitution by objecting to the oath and argued that signing a pledge should not be reduced to a meaningless formality.

"The way it's laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker," she said.

The 23-campus Cal State system has fired instructors over the oath at least twice before.

In 2001, Cal StateDominguez Hills dismissed geography lecturer Alejandro Alonso after he refused to sign. He said at the time that he identified with the Jehovah's Witnesses and that swearing an oath to anyone but God violated his religious beliefs.

When his request for a religious exemption was denied, he proposed signing the oath and attaching a personal statement. That also was denied. Alonso, who went on to teach at USC, has become an expert on Los Angeles gangs and runs the website www.streetgangs.com.

In 1995, Methodist minister Bud Tillinghast was teaching a course on comparative religion at Humboldt State University, when he was pulled out of class by campus police and fired because he had not signed the oath.

Tillinghast said he believed that swearing an oath to the state helped establish the government as a religion.

"I was teaching world religions and I ran up against a state religion," the retired minister recalled. "My concern was that this was breaking down the separation of church and state and making the state a religion you swear allegiance to."

He filed suit against Cal State for reinstatement arguing that the oath violated the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But after a court found that law unconstitutional, his suit was thrown out.

In all, Tillinghast said, he went up against the loyalty oath three times. Before being fired by Humboldt, he taught a religion class at a community college for nearly a decade. For that job, the school allowed him to sign an alternate oath.

Last year, he was named to the Humbolt County Human Rights Commission. A potential problem was averted when officials decided he didn't need to sign the oath.

Efforts to remove the oath from the state Constitution have been unsuccessful, although the matter came under scrutiny in 1998 when a congressional subcommittee held a hearing on religious freedom.

Among those who testified was Zari Wigfall, a Jehovah's Witness who said she twice lost jobs at Sacramento City College in 1994 because of the oath, first as a student tour guide and later as a theater house manager for a children's play.

"Citizens are entitled to certain rights, and also minorities, including religious minorities, are given certain guarantees," she told the committee. "And I just didn't think that . . . because of my religious beliefs I would have two jobs taken away from me."

She is now a dancer, choreographer and teacher in Southern California.

For Gonaver, the oath came up unexpectedly.

She was offered the job at Fullerton teaching two classes last fall, Introduction to American Studies and Introduction to Intercultural Women's Studies. She received two appointment letters and signed a contract. When she attended an orientation session for new faculty, she heard of the oath for the first time.

After researching the issue and learning that UC allowed its employees to provide personal statements, she submitted her own six-sentence declaration to Fullerton.

In her statement, she wrote that the oath violates the 1st Amendment and discriminates against religious pacifists, such as Quakers and Buddhists. She called the pledge an "instrument of intimidation." And she wrote that employees who sign it "while harboring legitimate religious and political objections" could be exposed to a charge of perjury.

Margaret Atwell, the Fullerton school's associate vice president for academic affairs, replied in an e-mail that Gonaver was not allowed to submit any statement, no matter what the practice at UC. Gonaver would have to sign the oath or lose the job, Atwell said.

Gonaver refused.

Potes-Fellow, the Cal State spokeswoman, said the university stands by its stricter interpretation of the requirement and is not affected by how UC or other public institutions handle the oath.

"The university concluded that state law did not allow her to attach her addendum," Potes-Fellow said.

The attorney general's statement that Kearney-Brown was allowed to attach her oath did not violate Cal State's policy because it was not an addendum, Potes-Fellow said. "We think the circumstances are different in both cases," she said.

Gonaver said the attorney general's statement does not go far enough in answering her objections to the oath. But if she had been offered a chance to use it last fall, she said, she probably would have signed the oath and would have been teaching all year at Fullerton.

Now, she would like to see the oath eliminated for all public employees except those who deal with sensitive information. She also would like an apology and a job next year.

"It makes no sense that they do this to people," she said. "It's people who take it seriously who don't get hired." (source LA Times)

Text of the California Loyalty Oath which ALL California state employees no matter at what level must take:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about


Link to Resist the State Loyalty Oath to learn more


Sign the petition in support of Wendy Gonaver and others who have
questioned this oath and either refused to sign it OR had their adendums
refused by the CalState system.

On KPFK this morning I heard Wendy Gonaver speak. You can go to the archives of
KPFK archives and listen to her interview.
The program is "Morning Review Thursday with Eisha Mason" That podcast
will only be available for 89 more days.

Stepping on the Scales Together, Palestinian and Israeli Women Meet

Lose weight, make peace at Middle East diet group


Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Come Out, Admiral Fallon, Wherever You Are

An Open Appeal for Straight Talk

Come Out, Admiral Fallon, Wherever You Are

By RAY McGOVERN

Dear Admiral Fallon:

I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I have drafted this letter in the hope it will come to your attention.

First, thank you for honoring the oath we commissioned officers take to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. As you are doubtless aware, that oath has no expiration date; it remains on active duty, so to speak.

You have let it be known that, even though you are now retired, you do not intend to speak, on or off the record, about the looming war with Iran.

You are acutely aware of the dangers of attacking Iran, but seem to be allowing an inbred reluctance to challenge your erstwhile commander in chief to trump that oath, and to prevent you from letting the American people know of the catastrophe about to befall us if, as seems likely, our country attacks Iran.

Two years ago I lectured at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. I found it highly disturbing that, when asked about the oath they took upon entering the academy, several of the “Mids” thought it was to the commander in chief. This brought to my mind the photos of German generals and admirals (as well as top church leaders and jurists) swearing personal oaths to Hitler. Not our tradition, and yet…..

I was aghast that only the third Mid I called on got it right—that the oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the president.


Attack Iran: Trash the Constitution

No doubt you are very clear that an attack on Iran would be a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States, which stipulates that treaties ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United Nations Charter treaty—which the Senate ratified by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945—expressly forbids attacks on other countries, unless they pose an imminent danger; that there is no provision allowing some other kind of “pre-emptive” or “preventive” attack against a nation that poses no imminent danger; and that Iran poses no imminent danger to the United States or its allies.

You may be forgiven for thinking: Isn’t 41 years of service enough; isn’t it enough that I resigned in order to remove myself from a chain of command with no conscience or respect for national or international law—that I shuddered at the thought of being charged in some earthly or heavenly court as a war criminal, if I “just followed orders” and helped start an unprovoked war on Iran? Isn’t making my misgivings known to journalists last year, realizing fully that this could be a career-ender—isn’t all that enough?

With respect, sir, no, that’s not enough. The stakes here are extremely high, and together with the integrity you have already shown goes still further responsibility. Sadly, the vast majority of your general officer colleagues have, for whatever reason, ducked that responsibility. You are pretty much it.

In their lust for attacking Iran, administration officials will do their best to marginalize you, but you do not strike me as one likely to be deterred by that. And, prominent a person that you are, the corporate media surely will try to do the same, if you exposed the lies given as justification for attacking Iran.

Indeed, there are clear signs the media have been given their marching orders to support an attack on Iran—to include pre-censorship of factual stories exposing administration hyperbole and fecklessness, as the White House and the Pentagon paint a dubious portrait of the dangers posed by Iran.

Preparing a Captive Audience for War…

At the CIA I used to analyze the Soviet press, so you will understand when I refer to the Washington Post and the New York Times as the White House’s Pravda and Izvestiya. Sadly, these days it is as easy as during the days of the controlled Soviet press to follow our own government’s evolving line with a daily reading of our own controlled press.

In a word, our newspapers are dutifully revving up for war on Iran, and are even trotting out some of the most widely discredited cheerleaders for war on Iraq—the New York Times’ Michael Gordon of aluminum tubes fame, for example, who is again parroting what he gets from administration officials and casting it as news.

In some respects the manipulation and suppression of information in the present lead-up to an attack on Iran is even more flagrant and all encompassing than in early 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.

It seems entirely possible that you are unaware of a recent misadventure that speaks volumes about this—unaware precisely because the media have put the wraps on it. So let me adduce one striking example of what is afoot here. The example has to do with the studied, if disingenuous, effort over recent months to blame all the troubles in southern Iraq on the “malignant” influence of Iran.

Sadly, some of your erstwhile colleagues are among the dramatis personae.

…But Covering Up Fiasco

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters on April 25 that Gen. David Petraeus would be giving a briefing “in the next couple of weeks” that would provide detailed evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.” Petraeus’ staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.

Small problem. When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons they found nothing that could be linked credibly to Iran.

News to you? That’s because this potentially embarrassing episode went virtually unreported in the media—like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no corporate media to hear it crash. So Mullen and Petraeus live, uninhibited and unembarrassed, to keep searching for Iranian weapons so the media can then tell a story more supportive of the orders they have been given to find ways to blame Iran for the troubles in Iraq. Luckily for them, a fiasco is only a fiasco if folks know about it.

Media suppression of this misadventure is the most significant aspect of this story, in my view, and a telling indicator of how difficult it is to find honest reporting on these key issues.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis announced that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate U.S. claims about Iranian weapons, and to attempt to “find tangible information and not information based on speculation.”

Dissing the Intelligence Estimate

Top officials from the president on down have been dismissing the key judgment of the National Intelligence Estimate released on December 3, 2007, a judgment concurred in by the 16 intelligence units of our government, that Iran had stopped the weapons-related part of its nuclear program in mid-2003.

Always willing to do his part, the malleable CIA chief, Michael Hayden, on April 30 publicly offered his “personal opinion” that Iran is building a nuclear weapon—the National Intelligence Estimate notwithstanding. For good measure, Hayden added:

“It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq….Just make sure there’s clarity on that.”

Voicing his various “opinions,” Hayden is beginning to sound like the overly clever lawyers who advised him, orally, that it would be just fine to order NSA to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and like the other attorneys who approved water boarding.

And, please; tell me why we should care about Hayden’s “personal opinion?” My neighbor Suzie, who gets her news from FOX, keeps voicing her “personal opinion” that all Muslims want to kill Americans, that generals with blue uniforms are the most trustworthy, and that weapons of mass destruction will still be found in Iraq.

But, seriously, I don’t need to tell you about the Haydens and the other smartly saluting, desk-riding headquarters generals here in Washington.

The Price of Silence

What I would suggest is that you have a serious conversation with a real general, Gen. Anthony Zinni, one of your predecessor CENTOM commanders (1997 to 2000). As you know probably better than I, this Marine general is an officer of unusual integrity. Nevertheless, when placed into circumstances very similar to those you now face, he could not find his voice. And so he missed his chance to interrupt—or at least slow down—the juggernaut to war in Iraq. You might ask him how he feels about that now, and what he would advise in current circumstances.

Zinni happened to be one of the honorees at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on August 26,2002, at which Vice President Dick Cheney delivered the exceedingly alarmist speech, unsupported by our best intelligence, about the nuclear threat and other perils awaiting us at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That speech not only launched the seven-month public campaign against Iraq leading up to the war, but set the terms of reference for the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate fabricated—yes, fabricated—to convince Congress to approve war on Iraq, which it did ten days later.

Gen. Zinni later shared publicly that, as he listened to Cheney, he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years earlier, his role as consultant had required him to stay up to date on intelligence relating to the Middle East. One Sunday morning three and a half years after Cheney’s speech, Zinni told Meet the Press. “There was no solid proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…I heard a case being made to go to war.”

Zinni had as good a chance as anyone to stop an unnecessary war—not a “pre-emptive war,” since there was nothing to pre-empt—and Zinni knew it. What he and other knowledgeable officials could—and should—have tried to block was a war of aggression, defined at the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal as the “supreme international crime.”

Sure, Zinni would have had to stick his neck out. He may have had to speak out alone, since most senior officials, like then-CIA Director George Tenet, lacked courage and integrity. In his memoir published a year ago, Tenet writes that Cheney did not follow the usual practice of clearing his August 26, 2002 speech with the CIA; that much of what Cheney said took him completely by surprise; and that Tenet “had the impression that the president wasn’t any more aware of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it.”

It is difficult to believe that Cheney’s shameless speech took “slam-dunk” Tenet completely by surprise. We know from the Downing Street Minutes, vouched for by the UK as authentic, that Tenet told his British counterpart on July 20, 2002 that the president had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”

Encore: Iran

Admiral Fallon, you know this to be the case also now with respect to the “intelligence” being fixed to “justify” war with Iran. And no one knows better than you that your departure from the chain of command has turned it over completely to smartly saluting martinets. No doubt you have long since taken the measure, for example, of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So have I.

I was his branch chief when he was a young, disruptively ambitious, CIA analyst. When Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey sought someone to shape CIA analysis to accord with his own conviction that the Soviet Union would never change, Gates leaped at the chance, proved his mettle, and bubbled right up to be chief of analysis. After Casey died, Gates admitted to the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus that he (Gates) watched Casey on “issue after issue sit in meetings and present intelligence framed in terms of the policy he wanted pursued.” Gates’ entire career showed that he learned well at Casey’s knee.

So it should come as no surprise that, despite the unanimous judgment of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran stopped the weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program in mid-2003, Gates is now repeating the party line that Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Some of his earlier statements were more ambiguous, but Gates recently took advantage of the opportunity to bend with the prevailing winds and freshen his own loyalty oath—to the president.

In an interview on events in the Middle East with a New York Times reporter on April 11, Gates was asked whether he was on the same page as the president, Gates replied, “Same line, same word.” I imagine you are no more surprised at that than I. Bottom line: Gates will salute smartly and transmit the order, legal or illegal, if Cheney persuades the president to let the Air Force and Navy loose on Iran.

You know the probable consequences; you need to let the rest of the American people know.

A Gutsy Precedent

Can you, Admiral Fallon, be completely alone; can it be that you are the only general officer to resign on principle? And, of equal importance, is there no other general officer, active or retired, who has taken the risk of speaking out in an attempt to inform Americans about President George W. Bush’s bellicose fixation with Iran. Thankfully, there is.

Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, took the prestigious job of Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when asked by the younger Bush. From that catbird seat, Scowcroft could watch the unfolding of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Over decades dealing with the press, Scowcroft had honed a reputation of quintessential discretion. Thus, it was all the more striking when he did what he decided he had to do to warn Americans about what may be the president’s most dangerous fixation.

In an interview with London’s Financial Times in mid-October 2004 Scowcroft was harshly critical of the president, charging that Bush had been “mesmerized” by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. “Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger,” Scowcroft said. “He has been nothing but trouble.”

Needless to say, Scowcroft was given his walking papers and told never to darken the White House doorstep again. His very troubling observations have been largely shunned in the media, and banned from polite conversation here in Washington, although the insight they provide is worth a thousand erudite op-eds. Testifying before Congress on June 16, 2005, I alluded to Scowcroft’s comments, and was widely pilloried in the media the next day for being, you guessed it, “anti-Semitic.”


A Bush Commitment?

There is ample evidence that Sharon’s successors believe they have extracted a commitment from President Bush to “take care of Iran” before he leaves office, and that the president has done nothing to disabuse them of that notion—no matter the consequences.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum at Sharm el Sheikh on Sunday, Bush threw in a gratuitous reference to “Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.”

“To allow the world’s leading sponsor of terror to gain the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Pre-briefing the press, Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley identified Iran as one of the dominant themes of the trip, adding repeatedly what seemed to be the PR formula of the day; namely, that Iran “is very much behind” all the woes afflicting the Middle East, from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq, even to Afghanistan.

The Rhetoric is Ripening

In the coming weeks, at least until U.S. forces can find some real Iranian weapons in Iraq, the rhetoric is likely to focus on what I call the Big Lie—the claim that Iran’s president has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” In his controversial speech in 2005, Ahmadinejad was actually quoting from something Ayatollah Khomeini had said in the early eighties. Khomeini was expressing a hope that a regime that was treating the Palestinians so unjustly would be replaced by a more equitable one.

A distinction without a difference? I think not. Words matter. As you may already know (but most Americans don’t), the literal translation from Farsi of what Ahmadinejad said is “The regime occupying Jerusalem much vanish from the pages of time.” Contrary to what the administration and corporate media would have us all believe, the Iranian president was not threatening to nuke Israel, push it into the sea, or wipe it off the map—or, as is so often heard, “destroy” it.

President Bush is way out in front on this issue, and this comes through with particular clarity when he ad-libs answers to questions. On October 17, 2007, long after he had been briefed on the key intelligence finding that Iran had stopped the nuclear weapons-related part of its nuclear development program, the president spoke as though, well, “mesmerized.” He said:

“But this—we got a leader in Iran who has announced he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems you ought to be interested in preventing them from have (sic) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.”

Some contend that Bush does not really believe his rhetoric. I rather think he does, for the Israelis seem to have his good ear, with the tin one aimed at the U.S. intelligence he has repeatedly disparaged. But, frankly, which would be worse: that Bush believes Iran to be an existential threat to Israel and thus requires U.S. military action?—or that he knows it’s just rhetoric to “justify” U.S. action to “take care of” Iran for Israel?

What You Can Do

Admiral Fallon, you can surely speak authoritatively about what is likely to happen—to U.S. forces in Iraq, for example—if Bush orders your successors to begin bombing and missile attacks on Iran. I imagine you have spent more than one sleepless night sorting through the full array of Iranian options for serious retaliation.

And you could readily update Scowcroft’s remarks, by drawing on what you observed of the Keystone Cops efforts of White House ideologues like Iran-Contra convict Elliot Abrams, supported by amateurish covert action operatives and Israeli intelligence, to overturn by force the ascendancy of Hamas in 2006-07 and Hezbollah. (Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of misleading Congress about the Iran-Contra affair, but was pardoned by the first President Bush on Dec. 24, 1992.)

Clearly, it is the arch-neoconservative Abrams, aided, instructed, and abetted by the vice president, who is running U.S. policy toward the Middle East. And it is just as clear that the status of the secretary state has been reduced simply to “frequent flyer.”

It is easy to understand why no professional military officer would wish to be in the position of taking orders originating from the likes of Abrams—not to mention the vice president.

If you weigh in, as I believe your (non-expiring) oath to protect and defend the Constitution dictates, you might conceivably prompt other sober heads and courageous hearts to speak out. I hope you will agree that an attack on Iran can still be prevented, but it seems that this will take more outspokenness and energy than those of us who see what is coming have been able to muster so far. And the controlled press is a huge problem.

Were you to speak out strongly at this stage, the media could not ignore you. I cannot bring myself to believe that you, like so many on the Hill, would be cowed at the prospect of being pilloried by FOX and branded anti-Semitic. And, who knows; perhaps some of those former subordinate officers who admire you for what you have done, will be encouraged to go and do likewise.

And, in the end, if profound ignorance and ideology—supported by a captive corporate press and abetted by political parties supine before the Israel lobby—enable an attack on Iran, and the Iranians, for example, take thousands of our troops hostage in southern Iraq, you will be able to look in the mirror, and at the rest of us, and say at least you tried.

You will not have to live with the remorse of not knowing what you might have made possible, had you been able to shake your reluctance to speak out.

Leadership does not end with retirement; neither do oaths.

Respectfully,

Ray McGovern
Steering Group


Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington, DC. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (Verso). He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@aol.com

The original version of this article appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

Source

When someone finds General Fallon, can they please have him talk directly to Bush, Hillary, McCain, and ALL others who have been openly threatening towards Iran vis a vis their "support of Israel" ? If he has to, lay himself down in front of the first plane taking off toward Iran for attack before these war-mongerers kill even more people? Please, it may seem like a naive suggestion, but America should NOT be engaging in this destructive foreign policy, this goes to war crimes, war crimes, war crimes.