USA/ISRAEL: Ron Paul or Bibi Netanyahu

Voters Choice: Ron Paul or Bibi Netanyahu

William A. Cook

(LA VERNE, Calif.) – A curious glance at the current crop of presidential candidates makes it clear that Ron Paul stands alone when it comes to the issue of US engagement in foreign wars. He stands with George Washington against foreign entanglements while the rest of the candidates stand with Teddy Roosevelt and the attempted creation of America’s first empire one hundred and twelve years ago. Mark Twain responded to that effort by creating the Anti-imperialist society while he caustically satirized the effort in his depiction of the massacre of the Moros in the Philippines. Now we have more massacres, using drones instead of canons, on equally hapless civilians who are caught unawares or hiding from the wrath of America’s righteousness as we drive to bring virtue to a primitive world.

Today America has an estimated 700 military installations in about 140 nations around the world; its bases surround Iran as does its nuclear capability, and it is engaged in executive “wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Palestine. All of this while carrying a debt that exceeds thirteen trillion dollars, cutting budgets in education, medical care and social security, and retaining a Pentagon budget that exceeds that of the 16 declared developed nations combined. And to top it all off, we are considering armed aggression against Iran that could plunge America into the biggest war since WW II. Why?

Why add Iran to the list of wars when we have succeeded in losing the “wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq? Let’s admit the truth, we do not control Afghanistan and, while we have ostensibly left Iraq, we have left it in chaos and disarray. The question persists, why?

Why invade Iran? Ask first, why did we invade Iraq? Why did we not object to Israel’s bombing in Syria? Why didn’t we object to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon or Gaza? The world’s nations objected in UN Resolution after Resolution. But America voted to support Israel’s illegal aggression. Why? It is America’s reputation that has been placed in the gutter; it is America that is ranked with Israel as the most dangerous nations on the planet; it is America’s democracy that has been diluted, nay emaciated, as our liberties have been eroded with ever increasing draconian delusions that they are purportedly designed to protect while they make the citizen fodder for the few in control. So the question persists, why?

Not long ago, the answer may have been provided when Netanyahu was interviewed by Piers Morgan about the Iranian threat. Relative to this discussion is a comment made by Netanyahu in his interview with Morgan, a comment that I have not seen mentioned in America’s press.

When pressed by Morgan about the Iranian threat constantly broached by Israel and its U.S. supporters and what Israel intends to do about it, the repartee always returns to Iran as not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to “Europe and the United States.” Morgan asks again, “What is the answer, Prime Minister?” Having successfully avoided saying that Israel would attack Iran to rid it of this danger, Netanyahu resorts to “I’m talking about a credible military action.” “Lead by who,” asks Morgan. “Lead preferably by the United States,” replies Netanyahu. “Could you contemplate some kind of land invasion,” asks Morgan. “Well, I think the United States has proven great effectiveness and I’m going to divulge a secret to you about their capabilities. They’re greater than ours.”

So says the Prime Minister of Israel as he talks about using America’s military to take out the Iranian threat to Israel. Why not use American boys and girls to kill your enemy and save your own sons and daughters? Why not indeed. Mark the tone. It’s almost as though he is saying to this imported talk show host, “Why do you ask, Stupid, it’s so obvious.”

According to recent polls, Americans have fallen out of favor with our numerous wars in countries we neither know nor can spell: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine and Syria. This fact seems to be of little interest to the candidates who appear committed to the military-industrial complex that funds their respective campaigns. Indeed all seem committed to the addition of Iran since it appears to threaten, existentially, our aborted child, Israel. In short, if an American believes that he or she should vote to end America’s foreign entanglements, he or she has only Ron Paul to vote for. All the others have stated unequivocally their support for the state of Israel and its drive to stop Iran from gaining nuclear power. A vote for Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or Huntsman means a vote for Netanyahu and his expressed desire to have American boys and girls serve Israel in this cause, or so he says.

Consider these statements by our candidates:

* Romney on Israel:”I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable…If I’m president of the United States, my first trip, my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region.” Mark that Romney makes no reference to Palestine or Palestinians; how does one resolve a conflict if one does not recognize the second party?

* Now consider Perry’s comment: “We are going to be there to support you. And we are going to be unwavering in that. So I hope you will tell the people of Israel: Help is on the way.” Perry makes no reference to Obama’s unequivocal support for Israel having outspent all previous administrations in dollars and military hardware.

* Not to be outdone, Santorum offered the following: He said more or less what Newt Gingrich stated last month, “All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. They’re not Palestinian. There [are] no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.” What can one say, Santorum needs to read some history before opening his mouth.

“Gingrich has all but declared that under his presidency, the American position would be that of Netanyahu’s,” Andrew Sullivan recently wrote, and with his recent multi-million dollar support from Adelson, who is linked to Netanyahu by an umbilical cord, he is chained to Israel’s dictates should he be elected.

* And, finally, Jon Huntsman presented his views: “The United States should not pressure Israel to negotiate with terrorists, nor to enter into any negotiated deals that threaten Israel’s security. This is a particularly delicate moment. We are inspired by the “Arab Spring,” in which the Arab people are calling for an end to decades of dictatorial and corrupt leadership. These events also give the lie to the notion Israel is somehow the source of all problems in the Middle East.”

Note that Huntsman does not mention that Israel has occupied Palestine for 63 years, illegally according to international law and the charter of the UN that the US has agreed to. Moreover, the constantly reiterated cause of unrest in the mid-east is the occupation of Palestine by the Israelis. To say it is not so, is, to borrow Gingrich’s eloquent phrase, “baloney.”

* Since we know that our current president has bragged that his administration has outspent all previous administrations in support of Israel, there is no need to argue that he would change course now. Since we also know that Israel can count on close to 400 supporters in the House and virtually all 100 Senators, as votes in support these past twelve years attest, the choice for Americans who desire a return to George Washington’s admonition that American democracy can be destroyed by foreign entanglements have only Ron Paul as an option.

Here is what Ron Paul says about American imperialism, a voice crying in the wilderness:

• Islamists attacked us for US bases on Arab lands. (Sep 2011)
• Neither Dems nor GOP will cut one nickel from militarism. (Aug 2011)
• American Empire is big government war & militarism. (Apr 2011)
• We can’t keep troops in 135 countries & 900 bases forever. (Feb 2011)
• We’re broke and we just can’t continue to police the world. (Feb 2008)
• Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax. (Dec 2007)
• Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year. (Dec 2007)
• 9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)
• Pre-emptive war policy is a grave mistake. (Jun 2007)
• Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition. (Jun 2007)
• Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
• Jihadists attack because we have bases in their countries. (Jan 2006)
• Costs of war always higher than expected & go on for decades. (Jun 2005)
• Conscription is a trait of totalitarian government. (Dec 1987)

This is the choice presented to the American voter.

What we know clearly is that America has set out on a course of world domination that mocks the very concept of democracy where people are free to choose their government, not be told who will govern them by a foreign power. What we know tragically is that the American government is content to support and sometimes to create dictators that oppress their own people, if they obey America’s dictates, as the fall of Mubarak in Egypt attests. What we also know is that our government has been bought by a foreign power to secure its own ends regardless of the consequences to the people of the United States. What we know unfortunately is that any citizen wishing to run for the office of President must kowtow to the desires of the state of Israel by declaring his or her allegiance to that state or be declared a nut case.. What we know truly is that America is no longer the nation of the free citizen, since we are now subject to the fear that resides in the gut when threatened by unsubstantiated allegations of suspicion as a terrorist that can result in indefinite detention without trial or due process. Such is the decline of the once proud and free experiment that was the United States of America.

About the Author

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His works include Psalms for the 21st Century, Mellon Poetry Press, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy, The Rape of Palestine, The Chronicles of Nefaria, and most recently in 2010, The Plight of the Palestinians. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com.

 The Empire shall 

collapse

CORPORATES: Beyond Pretense

 

 The Global Free Market Wars Finally Acknowledged

 Scott Creighton

For years, I have been using the phrase "The Global Free Market Wars" to explain what is happening around the world. I didn't coin the phrase, I don't know who did, I wish I had. The pretense is coming to a end.  The Global War on Terror is and has been since it's inception, a fraud. A lie. 935 lies for Iraq; 1 Big Lie for Afghanistan (built on literally tons of smaller lies); NGO lies for Libya; a Fox News generated lie for Pakistan; a retroactive lie for Yemen; a lie of omission for Sudan; an opportunistic lie for North Korea; and finally, a string of lies for Iran.Iran was recently accused of 9/11 believe it or not. The judge in that ridiculous show trial (which was not even a trial and the defense had no presence in court) found in favor of some very small group of family members of victims of 9/11 to the tune of billions of dollars in damages. Take a look at the Iranian institutions listed as the defense in this case:

1. The Central bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
2. The Iran Ministry of Commerce
3. The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines
4. Iran Airlines
5. The National Iranian Gas Company
6. The National Iranian Petrochemical Company
7. The Iranian Ministry of Economic Affairs
8. The National Iranian Tanker Association
9. The National Iranian Oil Corporation
10. The Iranian Ministry of Petroleum
11. The Current Iranian Representative to the United Nations

What do you think these nationalized industries had to do with 9/11? What did the National Iranian Tanker Association have to do with 9/11? When the 9/11 Commission Report felt the need to deal with finding the funding of the actual attack, they stated that funding was of "little significance" so beyond the funding which these institutions had nothing to do with, they could not have possibly had ANYTHING at all to do with 9/11, yet there they are and the laughable ruling is on the books.

What is listed first? That's right, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A couple days ago on Sunday, the Secretary of Defense admitted that Iran was not seeking to make a nuclear weapon. No hemming no hawwing, just said it outright as a statement of fact.

Panetta says: “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.” Global Research

A NYT editorial makes it clear that the IAEA report never states that Iran has a military program of any kind associated with it's enrichment program.

"These words strongly suggest Iran is conducting a nuclear weapons program but it is noteworthy that nowhere does the IAEA come right out and say this. The agency stops short of making a clear conclusive statement." New York Times

 

All of which is supported by our own national intelligence agencies' consensus opinion; the Iranian nuclear program, if they actually existed then, has been halted since 2003.

"A government consultant who has read the highly classified 2011 N.I.E. update depicted the report as reinforcing the essential conclusion of the 2007 paper: Iran halted weaponization in 2003. “There’s more evidence to support that assessment,” the consultant told me." Seymour Hersh

In light of all the prevailing evidence, the IAEA report, the 2007 N.I.E. report, the 2011 N.I.E. update, and the statement from the former head of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, it is easy to conclude the obvious; Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

So what does globalist Hillary Clinton do? She tries to revive the old "the evidence is the fact that there is no evidence" doublethink.

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's charge Tuesday that Iran had intended to keep the Fordow site secret until it was revealed by Western intelligence revived a claim the Barack Obama administration made in September 2009." Gareth Porter

This old war-mongering desperation chestnut was debunked years ago with the former head of the IAEA reported in his book that Iran had told them of the site 3 days prior to the U.S. informing them, thus showing that Iran had indeed lived up to their requirements under the non-proliferation agreement.

With Clinton's feeble attempt to finger Iran as the next great axis of evil threat to all mankind fizzling out like Umar Fizzlepant's diaper of doom, a new course of action had to be mapped out. They had tried to frame Iran for an assassination plot on U.S. soil that looks like it was written by the creators of Sponge Bob Square Pants. They sent a spy over to get a receipt for a half a million dollars from the Iranian intelligence agency and that ended up with him confessing before they sentenced him to death.

They tried everything, so now they are just going to try telling the truth and they are going to see if the people will just ignore it like they do everything else in this country just so long as "progressive" Obama provides sufficient left-cover for our collective crimes.

"The latest round of American sanctions are aimed at shutting down Iran's central bank, a senior US official said Thursday, spelling out that intention directly for the first time.

"We do mean to close down the Central Bank of Iran (CBI)," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity, while adding that the United States is moving quickly to implement the sanctions, signed into law last month." AFP

1. The central bank of Iran is state owned.
2. The central bank of Iraq WAS state owned. Now it is privatized.
3. The central bank of Afghanistan WAS state owned. Now it is privatized.
4. The central bank of Libya WAS state owned. Now it is privatized.
5. The central bank of Syria is state owned.
6. The central bank of North Korea is state owned.
7. The central bank of Venezuela is state owned.

Are we starting to see a pattern developing? Yes, to the leaders of the free world, it is evil to keep the masters of the universe from corrupting your economic system and locking your citizens into a life-long cycle of debt servitude. Looking out for the welfare of others who aren't super rich, is in fact, evil.

When those planes hit those buildings in 2001, the Global War on Terror took off and it was crucial that it had no boundaries, no specific limitations because, as in Yemen since then, the revolution that started threatened to nationalize their central bank once again, and that could not be allowed, thus al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was formed and the "terrorists" had to be bombed by Obama's cruise missiles.

The Global Free Market Wars are out in the open. They have been for some time, just relegated by the MSM and the institutionalized masses to the realms of the conspiracy theorists and wing-nuts. We are pushing World War III so that bankers and financial houses can own and control more nations and their economies but that isn't anything new in the world of warcraft.

What is new, at least this time around, is their final admission that this is the point of it all; shut down nationalized central banking systems and replace them with our privatized model. Pure and simple. That is what it is.

When all else fails, tell them the truth and see if they give a shit. You can always count on the fact that they will forget.

willyloman

 

| January 13, 2012 at 8:05 am | Categories: Destabilization campaign Iran, disaster capitalism, Economic Crisis ie. Disaster Capitalism, economic terrorism, Fake Libyan Revolution, Fake Syrian Revolution, Global Free Market Wars, Globalization, Neoliberalizing Iran,Neoliberalizing Libya, Neoliberalizing Syria, Obama™, Protests in Yemen, Scott Creighton, Somalia, The So-Called PIIGS, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, War on Pakistan, war on the middle class, War on Yemen, war with Iran, Yemen, Yemen Protests

CHOMSKY: Ron Paul’s Libertarian Policies: “This is Just Savagery”… “a Call for Corporate Tyranny”

 Noam Chomsky

Posted on January 15, 2012 by willyloman

This is what happens when a Paulbot runs over to a liberal event hoping to get some dissatisfied democrats on board the “Revolution” Express. He gets a dose of reality.

Ron Paul is anything but an anti-establishment candidate. If corporatism is the problem then Ron Paul and his neoliberal libertarian agenda is nothing more than a concerted effort to make young naive voters beggars to their own demise.

Noam Chomsky 

on Ron Paul, Kutztown University 

Nov. 21, 2011

  The Empire shall 

collapse

USA/ISRAEL/IRAN: Is Western Terror-Bombing of Iranians Legitimate?

By Michael Hoffman | January 11, 2012

This column is online

 Karasik: "Clean, Easy and Efficient” 

 Theodore Karasik, a "security expert" at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai, said the assassination on January 11 of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, 32, a professor at a technical university in Tehran, and a department supervisor at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant, by a bomber on a motorcyle, "fit a pattern over the past two years of covert operations by the West and its allies" to “degrade and delay” Iran’s nuclear program.  The assassin attached a magnetized explosive device to the scientist’s car and escaped during the rush hour in northern Tehran. Mr. Karasik, formerly of the RAND corporation, said magnetic bombs were used in covert operations, describing them as “clean, easy and efficient.” 

 According to the New York Times, the Jan. 11, 2012 bombing "resembled the methods used in attacks in November 2010 against two other nuclear scientists — Majid Shahriari, who was killed, and Fereydoon Abbasi, who survived and is now in charge of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.” 

(Other than in initial dispatches, in follow-up reporting the New York Times and most of the American media have omitted the fact that Prof. Abbasi's wife was wounded in the 2010 terror bombing of her husband’s car. She is only Iranian however, and therefore just a bit of collateral damage. In line with Talmudic halacha, Mrs. Abbasi does not qualify as fully human the way the wife of an Israeli scientist would be if the Zionist state’s nuclear weapons program was under attack and an Israeli scientist’s wife had been injured. In that case, the Israeli lady's injury would be reported in all subsequent follow-up reports).

Almost exactly two years ago, in January 2010, a physics professor, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, was also assassinated in Tehran. 

 Mordechai:"Not shedding a tear"

 Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, said of the Jan. 11 terror bomb that killed Prof. Roshan, "I am definitely not shedding a tear,” Agence France-Presse reported. (Mordechai was formerly a member of the Israeli “Golani Brigade.” Golani troops committed war crimes against Lebanese civilians during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982). The world must shed copious tears however, when Islamic bombs strike Israelis or Americans.

Last October the U.S. government accused Iranian agents of a heinous conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in the United States, supposedly using Mexican drug cartel hit-men. The spectre of the alleged plot caused widespread moral revulsion and denunciation of Iran across the American media, and even calls for war with Iran from American politicians. 

Will U.S. media and politicians denounce today's assassination of another Iranian scientist? Will Prof. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan's murder by car bomb result in calls for a Congressional investigation of Israeli and American covert terror operations? Or will the January 11 terror bomb planted by one of our assassins (or that of our “allies"), be applauded? How is it that western terror-bombing and assassination are morally permissible?  Can anyone answer?

Sources: New York Times, Jan. 11, 2012, Agence France-Presse, Jan. 11, 2012. BBC Nov. 29, 2010.

This column is online: http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-western-terror-bombing-of-iranians.html

 USA of Israel

NEWS: News and Links

 

Israel’s ambassadors can’t defend their country in Europe and USA

December 30th, 2011

Barak Ravid hears unhappy mutterings from Israel's ambassadors; they can't answer the questions about reports of right-wing and religious attacks on the country's democracy - though they congratulate themselves on stopping the flotilla and UN recognition for Palestine

No to ‘normalisation’ will mean yes to apartheid

December 29th, 2011

'Anti-normalization is one of the hottest topics in the Palestinian community' writes Aziz Abu Sarah who opposes the strategy as going along with Israel's rule by separation of Arab and Jew; PACBI defends the policy as refusing 'colonisation of the mind' and preventing any appearance of Israel as a 'normal' state 

‘We who have fought for the two state solution must now regroup’

December 29th, 2011

Carlo Strenger, liberal commentator on Haaretz, declares 2011 the year the two-state solution died. He takes hope from the community who share his values and will continue, at least, to stand for civil and human rights and stop their further erosion in Israel 

Both sides can destroy, neither can make things happen

 December 29th, 2011

Like Carlo Strenger (above) Palestinian American and Jpost columnist Ray Hanania despairs of leaders or 'extremists' making peace; he launched the Yalla peace party "to promote peace based on two-states non-violence and compromise". 

EU members of Security Council demand end to settlement construction

December 28th, 2011

EU members of the UN Security Council call on Israeli government to halt the devastating effects of building settlements and of escalating settler violence and asks for political leadership on both sides. Israel responds with 'outrage' at European assault 

‘Palestine’s Mandela’ spends his prison time reading, writing, thinking

December 28th, 2011

Marwan Barghouti, the popular Palestinian leader, has been in prison since 2002 for his alleged role in the second intifada. It is widely assumed that he was not freed in the prisoner swap because the official Palestinian leadership regard him as a threat to their authority. Joseph Dana describes this complex man who has supported non-violent and violent resistance but always ia commitment to intellectual work 

The very earth of Palestine can be shipped away by Israel High Court rules

December 28th, 2011

High Court rules that Israel's 'unique' occupation allows it to transgress international law on the fruits of the land, thus enriching Israel but impoverishing its own status as an upholder of law and justice 

Remembering lives taken and lives damaged by Cast Lead December 28th, 2011

On the third anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, Israel's deady onslaught on Gaza, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights publishes a series of stories about some of those killed, maimed, bereavd. Here we pst the first two. 

One becomes a Jew over one’s life

December 27th, 2011

At Rosh Hashanah - Jewish New Year - 2011 the Jewish Chronicle gathered 5 people for a discussion on being Jewish in Britain. For our coming secular New Year, we post this round-table which ranges, calmly and crossly, over identity, Israel, God, anti-semitism, parenthood, judgmentalism, Palestine, the diaspora and much else. 

Mass rally against ultra-Orthodox persecution of girls and women

December 27th, 2011

President Shimon Peres has added his voice to the thousands who have rallied in defence of the right of girls and women to move and mix freely in public space. Like the settlers, the Haredim are now using violence against police as well as neighbours they disapprove of in order to get their own rule enforced. 

All Arabs are worthless says Israeli cabinet minister

December 27th, 2011

Israel's minister for information, who is active in the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, has denounced all Arabs as deplorable, damaged, worthless. Ben White reports, Yossie Gurvitz adds and definitions of a few words are offered 

Founding faults: talk to the neighbours not the Great Powers said Arendt

December 27th, 2011

Hannah Arendt, 1906-75, was a rare philosopher who combined deep grounding in the classics with an acute and lively appreciation of contemporary politics, 1st. Her sceptical inquiries into Zionism, Israel, nationalism, what constitutes a people remain provocative as shown in Judith Butler's review of her Jewish Writings, 2nd 

Israel acknowledges another people’s holocaust

December 26th, 2011

The uniqueness of the holocaust of Jews in Europe has long been the mainstay of Israeli ideology, beyond discussion or comparison. Now the Knesset is considering appointing another holocaust memorial day - for the Armenian people systematically killed by Turks 1915-18. Why? because Turkey is Israel's 'new enemy says Richard Silverstein. 

Hamas leader supports two states and Arab Spring in Palestine

December 26th, 2011

In a interview with AP, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (or Meshal) speaks in favour of two-state soution and the 'tsunami' power of non-v iolent popular protest. The interview took place in Cairo where Hamas and Fatah are having unity talks 

Israel pours money into cutting Palestinians out of Jerusalem

December 26th, 2011

At huge expene Israel is creating a new map of the West Bank through separate Israeli/Paleinian roads and checkpoints. The hub of the new lines of division is Jerusalem whose Palestinian residents will now come under the authority of the Civil Administration instead of the Jerusalem muicipality. 

USA: How the Media Manipulates the World into War

 Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War

USA: But how soon?!!!

 Chris Hedges "Brace Yourself! The American Empire Is Over & The Descent Is Going To Be Horrifying!"   The 4th world

BOOKS: Anatomy of Israel's Survival

Anatomy of Israel's Survival

Reviewed by Jim Miles

(The Anatomy of Israel's Survival.  Hirsh Goodman. Signal/McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, 2011.)

The “Anatomy of Israel’s Survival” rests on a single backbone: military strength.  I have always said that Israel will survive regardless of the situations it may find itself embroiled in because of its obvious overwhelming military strength and its historical record of using disproportionate force while doing so. Hirsh Goodman’s presentation, as much as it discusses other problems for Israel, is essentially the same. Israel has the military strength, is “known to possess an arsenal of several hundred nuclear weapons of various kinds,” has one of the most technologically advanced militaries, and is linked directly to the largest military state in the world with which it shares its technology and ideologies, the U.S.  Survival is virtually guaranteed, what remains is the question of what kind of state it will be. 

While the work is a recommendable read for understanding the mind set of a dedicated Israelite, it presents some familiar problems. Hirsh does deal reasonably critically with the politicians and politics within Israel (and the U.S.), yet as with most pro-Israeli writers there are problems with the work - context, definitions, lack of references, and the narrow mindedness of an accepted narrative. 

Iran

The first chapter of the work starts with all the fear and paranoia that one might expect from a sensationalist tabloid magazine. Whether this is an attention getting mechanism, or perhaps Israelis really do feel this fear as instilled into them by their system, Hirsh’s writing carries far too much along the line of fear mongering to be acceptable for critical analysis. After many pages of declaring how irrational and violent Iran can be, he finally sums it all up stating “The cost to both countries of such an attack would be vast and enduring. It is strategically nonsensical.”

His attitude towards Iran continues throughout the work. It is blamed for troubles with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria in particular, while not fully acknowledging Israel’s role in the creation of these problems.  Iran is a “sinister regime that works in sinister ways. It uses terror, surrogates, and subterfuge with impunity around the world.” Given a broader context, that also describes the U.S. and Israel with many of their actions around the world.  The 2006 war in Lebanon was “provoked” by Hezbollah, later it was described as being “started” by Hezbollah. There is no context given to the contentious border and the ongoing series of raids and incursions by both sides, nor that Israel always had plans to re-invade Lebanon (later saying that Israel had new plans with the intent to attack with disproportionate force).

Hezbollah

The leaders of all these groups are seen as irrational, yet except for Nasrallah’s acceptance that he had not considered the extent of Israel’s retaliation for a cross border raid, all the groups have acted quite rationally and pragmatically. Iran has not attacked anyone for centuries, aided the U.S. at first in its fight with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, has generally worked within the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty unlike India, Pakistan, and yes, Israel, the latter having “danced around UN bureaucrats…defied the great powers and thumbed their nose at successive American administrations, weaving and dodging and playing one side against the other.” Okay, I misquoted Hirsh on the last phrase, but its validity carries both ways. 

Hezbollah is also a pragmatic and rational actor. It demonstrates no intention of initiating a war with Israel, works positively for the development of the people of southern Lebanon if not all Lebanon, and now that it is in power, has taken a very pragmatic role in the country’s politics. Others may not like it, but it is not an aggressor nation, certainly one that is very prickly for the defensive. Hezbollah has proven reasonably pragmatic once in governance, as the ANC performed in South Africa, and as the Sinn Fein performed in Ireland. 

Hamas

The same misrepresentation goes for Hamas. All the blame for Gaza’s problems are aligned with Hamas and Iran.  Hirsh’s narrative has it that Hamas forcibly took control of Gaza in order to hide its fighters among the citizens and women and children of the small enclave - no misquotes here, just the Reader’s Digest condensed version of Hirsh’s version. The full context is not even hinted at.

Hamas won what at the time was considered the most democratic elections held in any country in the Middle East (save Israel of course). Not wanting to allow this democratic representation to stand, the U.S. and Israel - preceded by Canada - denounced the electoral results, not for the vote itself, but for the fact that a ‘terrorist’ organization won the vote. Funding was immediately cut off, and in Gaza, Fatah was encouraged to attack Hamas (as in the West Bank) in order to subdue it and completely overthrow the ability of the group to act as a political representative of the people of Palestine. Fatah lost the internecine battle, Hamas was confined to the Gaza strip, and now Hirsh complains about inaccurate errant rockets fired from Gaza, wondering why Hamas does not just get on with building a society in Gaza.

But that is another miss with Hirsh’s context on Gaza. He proudly reiterates the history of the 2005 withdrawal of the settlers from Gaza, describing only the closing of the borders of Gaza to Israel. No mention is made of the complete embargo of trade, the absolute control of the air space and foreshore space, and the control of water and electricity, all of which are intended to starve the Palestinians of Gaza into submission and to try and get them to throw off the yoke of Hamas or simply move away. 

Palestine

The largest problem with Hirsh’s description is its almost complete lack of historical context.  The deepest he goes is with some superficial criticism of some of the decisions pertaining to the nakba, and the politics and military decisions from that time forward.  There is no discussion of the historical narrative of Zionism which carries with it extensive commentaries on the Palestinians living in the region and how the Israeli’s need to have a clear majority in order to rule the country, achieved by some form of ethnic cleansing. These commentaries extend back to the father’s of Zionism, Herzl and  Jabotinsky, extending through Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir to today’s Lieberman and Netanyahu.

For Hirsh, Palestine becomes an inconvenience to Israel’s survival, not absolutely, but as to whether it can be “democratic and Jewish” or become a “unitary state.” Hirsh does present some reasoned solutions to the problem of Jerusalem, but for the Palestinians as a whole he stops at questioning conjectures, the big “if.” 

“Israel’s relations with the world could be very different if and when the country gets the Palestinian issue off the table.”

“If Israel can resolve the Palestinian issue, it will become even healthier…”

“If Israel realizes that settlements are harmful to its own broader interests…”

Lots of ifs, no solutions are offered. 

Democracy

Hirsh’s narrative quite naturally views Israel as being a democracy, with a vibrant economy and a world leader in cutting edge technology, most of it with military applications (whose achievement is assisted with large government subsidies for research and development, see “Start-up Nation”, Senor and Singer, McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, 2009).

It should be quite obvious, even to Hirsh, that a country that militarily occupies territory gained in a unilateral pre-emptive war (as the war of 1967 was) and is signatory to the UN and Geneva conventions can hardly declare itself a democracy when it uses imprisonment, torture, land confiscation, illegal construction (either the Wall, or the many settlements that are illegal under international law), and a variety of restrictive social and economic measures to keep the Palestinian population completely under its control. Similarly, the Arab/Palestinian population in Israel itself, while theoretically equal politically, is subject to restrictive and racist legislation that limits the social and economic mobility of the Arab residents. 

Certainly Israel has the institutions of a democracy, but then so do most autocratic rulers around the world from Myanmar to Zimbabwe. Hirsh complains about the various factions in the Knesset and how some of the more radical ones hold the more central parties hostage to their racist legislation. That can only be accomplished with the compliance of the more powerful parties. To blame the ultra-orthodox community for problems created in the Knesset is avoiding the real issue of ethnocracy versus democracy. A Jewish Israel, with racist legislation that can be applied against the Arab population cannot be a democracy.  To have a set of civic laws apply to one segment of the population, and to have military rule imposed on an almost equally large ‘other’ segment is quite simply non-democratic.

Demographics

One of the underlying fears of all Israeli arguments concerning Palestine is that of demographics. As indicated above, this well precedes the creation of the state of Israel.  Hirsh’s arguments for Jerusalem contain this element, as the expansion of the territory of Jerusalem has incorporated a large number of Palestinians, creating a situation in which percentage wise, the Arab population is increasing as the Jewish population declines, with birth rates for both groups supporting this tendency. 

Gaza re-enters the picture here.  For all the arguments about Gaza, Israel’s main intention is to remove that segment of the population from Israel’s demographics, eliminating theoretically 1.5 million Palestinians from the Israeli books. That puts the siege of Gaza in a rather strange light:  if that population were to be removed from Israel effectively, would not that best be achieved by making the area an economically successful and viable community, with open borders, free airspace and rights to the foreshore as all other littoral countries have? Or is the real agenda the old ethnic cleansing idea, hoping that the Gazans will give up and move away?

All the more reason to make Hamas into the ultimate bad guy and keep the pressure on Gaza, ultimately a not very democratic format for removing the population from the demographic equation that bothers Israel. 

References

I mentioned in my introduction that I had a problem with Hirsh’s lack of references. He argues that “those who have a desire to get deeper information on any given point can do so in a matter of seconds, just as I did,” with a quick thank you to the people at the CIA for creating the World Factbook, “which I used throughout the book.”

Okay, the CIA used as the main source of information.  Considering all its other ineptitudes in reading world situations, one has to wonder about the validity of its statistics and commentaries. Of course, anyone wishing to “dig deeper” has many alternatives to the CIA statistics. Also, it is easy to receive good statistics, as most governments will release that kind of information voluntarily or through one of many organizations they may belong to. It is the application of that information and its wise usage where the CIA has clear limits and lacks. 

Hirsh’s arguments tend to support the Israeli narrative - as expected - of a country up against a hostile neighbourhood.  As for “digging deeper” into why this may be so and what the historical contexts are for the Middle East, it is almost fully missing.  Hirsh’s narrative indicates his support for a Jewish ethnocracy supported by the ultimate military establishment. Most people tend to have their beliefs first, then search to rationalize those beliefs, rather than formulate beliefs based on a rational research into the information available. 

For those wanting to dig deeper, start here, at Palestine Chronicle.  There are many other informative Palestinian websites that reveal the true nature of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.  For different views on foreign affairs, in particular countering the U.S. view of the world, there are a vast number of sites. Anyone interested in “digging deeper” can try Znet, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Axis of Logic, al-Jazeera English, Foreign Policy Journal, Uncommon Thought Journal among the many, many associated and linked websites.

Hirsh does worry about Israel’s image abroad in the world, rightly so. From the literature that I have been reviewing over that past decade concerning U.S. foreign policy and the Palestinian problem, there have been distinct trends. First off were the many ‘revisionist’ writers, Pappe, Gordon, Rinehart, et al who elucidated the historical context of Palestine, Zionism, and Israel. More recently, I have been in receipt of several volumes that indicate a turn in the world’s perspective on Israel, wherein the Jewish people themselves are beginning to question the validity of Jewish actions in Israel as representative of Judaism.  Further, there are many indications that the BDS movement is gaining publicity for Israeli occupation atrocities, if not having a true economic effect on Israel (not likely with its global military trade, global security trade, and billions of dollars in annual U.S. support).

Read It Anyway

For all my criticisms of the work, it is engagingly written and may be fairly indicative of the general Israeli academic mindset at this point in time.  If one is to understand all aspects of this arena of conflict, “The Anatomy of Israel’s Survival” represents a perspective that requires deeper digging. I cannot argue with or against someone if I do not understand their perspective, and while a true understanding may not always be possible, the author is obviously attempting to make his viewpoint understood.  Books can do that. 

- Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle.  Miles' work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.