Criticize Israel and Lose Your Career interview with *Alison Weir

If you've ever tried to search for reliable information and analyses which expose the concealed and obscured side of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, you've surely come across to the website "If Americans Knew." This website belongs to a non-profit organization which focuses on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and the foreign policy of the United States toward the Middle East. "If Americans Knew" publishes commentaries and articles that the American mainstream media pusillanimously shun and reject because of their fear of the influential Zionist lobby which predominantly rules the U.S. administration and Congress. "If Americans Knew" releases statistical reports on the history of Israeli – Palestinian conflict including the number of Palestinian casualties, the number of children murdered by the Israel Defense Forces, the number of Palestinians detained in the Israel jails and the number of Israel's illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands.
American freelance journalist and researcher Alison Weir is the founder and executive director of "If Americans Knew." She has written several articles and compiled investigative reports on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and provoked the furious and frantic criticism of Zionist organizations such as Anti Defamation League. Her articles have appeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Counter Punch, Antiwar.com, The Link, Znet, Los Angeles Times, Greenwich Post, Poynter.org and Washington Report for Middle East Affairs.

Alison Weir is at the forefront of combating the biased coverage of Israeli – Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media and through her sincere efforts has revealed the plight of the Palestinian nation under the occupation of Zionist regime. She believes that criticizing Israel in public will cost a journalist his career. She says that it's far less damaging for an American journalist to write critically of the United State government than of Israel.

What follows is the complete text of my interview with Alison Weir in which we discussed a variety of topics including the dominance of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration and Congress and also the biased coverage of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict by the western mainstream media.

Kourosh Ziabari: Ms. Weir; Let me start with the question that, what would really happen if Americans knew? What would happen if they knew that their taxes go to empower an occupying regime which kills women and children ruthlessly, massacres innocent civilians relentlessly and destroys their homes unjustifiably?

Alison Weir: They would be outraged and would demand that this stop. I have found that when I speak to groups around the country the most common question I receive is, “What can we do about this?!”

KZ: What made you think of establishing "If Americans Knew?" Actually, what were your motives for taking such a sensitive step?

AW: When I returned from my first trip to Gaza and the West Bank, I was determined to tell Americans what was going on. I felt that while I could probably occasionally get articles into the mainstream media, the context would remain so distorted that they would make little difference. Therefore, I felt it was essential to begin an organization that would work to get the information straight to the public in as many ways as possible and that would also study and expose media malfeasance on this issue.

KZ: What difficulties did you face while working on this project?

AW: One of the most difficult aspects is raising enough money to sustain the organization. The good news is that we have been able to keep going for almost ten years. The unfortunate reality is that there’s never been enough money to go beyond a paid staff of about 2-3 people. Zionist organizations of all sorts have extremely large staffs, extensive offices, etc. They also have a great many people of sufficient wealth that they can work on this issue without compensation. We’re in a far different situation.

KZ: Have you ever been pressured by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media or the Israeli lobby in the United States not to talk of Israeli regime critically?

AW: I don’t recall being pressured by the Israeli Lobby directly. Instead, they frequently try to pressure local organizations not to have me speak.

Mainstream media organizations also don’t pressure me directly. Rather, they simply don’t report about my information or inform their audiences about the existence of If Americans Knew. Democracy Now is among this group.

One book editor commissioned an article by me and then attempted to censor what I wrote.

KZ: Have you ever been threatened or seriously intimidated for the content which you publish?

AW: Yes. I received a death threat in 2003. You can read the details here. We periodically receive obscene or harassing emails and phone calls from Zionists. There are websites that misconstrue my work and that defame me, including the very powerful Jewish “Anti-defamation League.”

There are infiltrators in the pro-Palestinian movement who initiate whispering campaigns against me and work to prevent groups from inviting me to speak and from using our written materials. This often fails; sometimes it succeeds.

Recently a man knocked my phone from my hands. You can see this here.Once when I tried to go to Palestine I was stopped at Ben Gurion Airport, held in a detention cell for 28 hours, and deported. Twice I have been briefly detained by Israeli soldiers while trying to film incidents in the Occupied Territories.

KZ: Several renowned politicians, academicians, activists and writers have likened Israel's treatment of the subjugated Palestinians to the deplorable situation of the blacks under the South African Apartheid regime. From the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu to former Israeli Knesset member Uri Avnery, many people believe that Israel undeniably resembles aspects of the South African Apartheid regime. What's your viewpoint in this regard? Does the Israeli regime have the features of an apartheid state?

AW: While no two situations are ever identical, it is clear that Israeli actions are a form of apartheid. As you note, South African experts who have visited Palestine have stated this and they are clearly in a position to know.

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa  commissioned a legal study of the Israel-Palestine situation to “scrutinize the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric.” Their 15-month investigation found that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”

In addition, inside Israel itself there is systemic discrimination against non-Jews.

KZ: In your recent article, you referred to statistical studies which reveal that primetime network news shows report on Israeli children's deaths at rates up to 14 times greater than they report on Palestinian children's deaths. The same is applicable to the other aspects of mainstream media's portrayal of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. For example, we clearly witnessed the exercise of double standards by the Western media during the Gaza War of 2008 – 2009. Why do the American media treat the Israeli – Palestinian conflict so unfairly?

AW: I feel there are most multiple causes. Below are some of the main ones:
1. Advertising and consumer pressure by Israel partisans against media that begin to provide more accurate coverage on this issue. These are often orchestrated and cause considerable financial damage to news organizations.

2. Reporters and editors who are biased towards Israel. I recently was astounded to learn how many of the allegedly “objective” journalists in the region reporting for American media have close ties to the Israeli military. Ethan Bronner, New York Times bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli army. Others have themselves served in the Israeli military. “Pundit” Jeffrey Goldberg, who is often interviewed for commentary on U.S. mainstream news broadcasts, served in the Israeli military.

I’ve written several articles and made a video on this topic:1, 2, 3 and 4

The Associated Press is probably the primary source of international news for media all over the U.S. and is probably an extremely significant cause of the problem. Its control bureau, through which virtually all reports on the region must pass, is located in Israel and is staffed largely by Jewish and Israeli journalists, many with close family ties to the Israeli military. Their reporting invariably contains pro-Israel spin and context. Quite often, they don’t even send out reports on newsworthy items that reveal negative facts about Israel.

3. Media owners, publishers, CEOs, etc. who are biased toward Israel, for example, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone, etc. Journalist Jeffrey Blankfort has reported on this.

4. Editors who know nothing about this issue and would not necessarily be Israel partisans but are taken in by AP, the New York Times, etc. Journalists who have never been to the region, never read a book on it, or studied it independently, often think they are experts on the subject because they’ve been reading AP et al reports for years. They have no idea how filtered and slanted these are.

5. Journalists quickly learn that reporting honestly on Israel-Palestine is not a good career move and often self-censor. It is much safer not to touch the “third rail” of American journalism; they are aware that the people who pay them won’t like it. It is far less damaging to one’s career to write critically of the American government than of Israel.

6. Fear of being called “anti-Semitic” and of being black-balled.  The ADL, similar organizations, and Israel partisans are quite powerful in the U.S. People don’t wish to come under their attack; they’ve seen what happened to Helen Thomas and others.

KZ: Many American citizens who voted for President Obama in the 2008 presidential elections had hoped that he would be a different, sincere and trustworthy politician and a real man of change who would detach himself from the hawkish policies of George W. Bush. However, no essential change of policy was observed during President Obama's administration. What's your analysis of the performance of President Obama? Why did he fail to fulfill his promise of change?

AW: Because he is aware that pro-Israel groups and individuals determine who has the chance to be a major contender for the Presidency of the United States. If he tried to do something substantial, there would be a powerful – and successful – campaign to prevent him from winning a second term. This campaign would consist of funneling donations away from him to his opponents and of defaming him on a variety of issues in the media. Plus, even if he tried to do something, Congress would over-rule him, out of the same fears. Long before Mearsheimer and Walt wrote their exposé on this, Paul Findley described this situation in his powerful book, “They Dare to Speak Out.”  Richard Curtiss, Janet McMahon, and Delinda Hanley, from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, have been exposing this for many years.

KZ: Following the 9/11 attacks, a wave of Islamophobic sentiments began to encompass the public sphere in the United States and the European society. The U.S. administration portrayed a horrific and appalling image of Islam and sowed the seeds of hatred against Muslims in the hearts of the Western citizens. However, we already know that they were not Muslims who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Even if we admit that it was Osama Bin Laden who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, I as a Muslim should promulgate that he was not a devout Muslim, but rather a CIA asset since the Afghan-Soviet war in 1980s. What's your viewpoint in this regard? Why is the American society's stance toward the Muslim so repulsive?

AW: Islamophobia in the U.S. has been largely promulgated by media, individuals, and organizations working on behalf of Israel. This is one of their most despicable and dangerous campaigns and has been going on for decades. Among those whose work, statements, and or funding have resulted in making Americans fear and hate Muslims are Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson, Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, Martin Kramer, Charles Jacobs, David Horowitz, David and Meyrav Wurmser, Frank Gaffney, Caroline Glick, Daniel Pipes, etc. John Sugg has written on this topic for years; more recently Max Blumenthal, Maidhc O Cathail, and several others have exposed it.See 1, 2, 3 and 4

KZ: The Zionist lobby and organizations such as Anti Defamation League, as you have pointed out in your articles, denounce as anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish every single criticism of the actions and policies of the Israeli regime, thus demoralizing and discrediting the critics of Israel who dare to call into question the illegal and immoral actions of this regime. What's your take on this? How should the critics of Israel find podiums to voice their opposition to the actions and policies of the Israeli regime without being demonized?

AW: This is one of their most widely used tactics. Their intention is two-fold: to undermine the credibility of people speaking and writing accurately on Israel, and to intimidate people from doing this.

I feel that people should simply ignore these attacks and continue to write and speak as honestly and accurately as possible. Such smears have become so widespread that they are beginning to be a bit like crying wolf too often. An increasing number of Americans are rolling their eyes when they hear that yet another person with no record of bigotry is allegedly “anti-Semitic.” In fact, such an attack often helps to raise interest in the person being so maligned, many people assuming – often correctly – that this is a person giving the true facts on Israel and/or the Israel Lobby.

KZ: You may admit that as long as the United States gives its unconditional support to the Israeli regime, vetoes any UNSC resolution critical of Tel Aviv and prevents the international community from investigating its crimes and illegal activities, including its underground military nuclear program, no progress may be made in the course of holding Israel accountable for its actions and policies and therefore no change will be resulted and the suffering of the Palestinian nation will continue. Do you foresee a future in which Israel is eventually held responsible for its criminal actions before the international community? Is such a thing practically possible at all?

AW: Yes, I believe strongly that this will change when Americans learn the facts and demand a change in U.S. policies. The reality often forgotten in analyses on this issue is that Israel’s power comes from the U.S. When the sleeping giant in this relationship, i.e. the American public, wakes up, everything will change.  The fact that this is already starting is reflected by the creation of entities such as J Street trying to co-opt this growing movement.

The Interviewer: Kourosh Ziabari

*Alison Weir,is a British writer of history books, mostly in the form of biographies about British royalty.

Palestinian People Power or Power to the People by *Alan Hart

Way back in the early 1980’s, Major General (then retired) Shlomo Gazit, the best and the brightest of Israel’s former Directors of Military Intelligence, said the following to me in a private conversation. “If we (Israel’s Jews) had been the Palestinians, we’d have had our mini state long ago.” He meant that they would have played the terror card. Simply stated (he knew he didn’t have to spell it out to me), they would bombed Israeli government offices and commercial centres and properties of all kinds and blasted transport and other communication facilities to cause maximum disruption and destruction.

Because Israel’s leaders prefer land to peace and there’s nothing any American president can do about that so long as the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress call the shots on U.S. policy for Israel/Palestine, it’s obvious that the Palestinians have nothing to gain, only more to lose, from politics and diplomacy. So what, really, can they do themselves to press their claim for an acceptable minimum amount of justice? (By definition an acceptable minimum amount of justice requires a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation with provision for Jerusalem to be an open, undivided city and the capital of two states).

Way back in the early 1980’s, Major General (then retired) Shlomo Gazit, the best and the brightest of Israel’s former Directors of Military Intelligence, said the following to me in a private conversation. “If we (Israel’s Jews) had been the Palestinians, we’d have had our mini state long ago.” He meant that they would have played the terror card. Simply stated (he knew he didn’t have to spell it out to me), they would bombed Israeli government offices and commercial centres and properties of all kinds and blasted transport and other communication facilities to cause maximum disruption and destruction.

And they would have done so knowing that their terrorism, provided it was ruthless enough and sustained, would be effective, would eventually cause many Israeli Jews to say to their government, “We’ve had enough, do a deal with the Palestinians.” (They would also have had the evidence of their own experience to go on. In 1947/48, mainly by terrorism, they drove out first the occupying British and then about 800,000 Arabs).

Though all governments deny it, a truth is that terrorism does work provided it is ruthless enough and sustained. And there’s no mystery about why. In many countries, especially those in which citizens are free to express their thoughts and feelings (the so-called democracies), there are limits to the amount terror-created disruption and mayhem the soft underbelly of public opinion will tolerate. All politicians know this.

There’s a case for saying that the Palestinians might have had some real bargaining power if they had played the terror card effectively at an early point in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (as the Zionists would have done if they had been the Palestinians). Arguably a good time to have played it would have been after the UN Security Council caved in to Zionist-driven American pressure and came up with a resolution, 242, which effectively put Zionism in the diplomatic driving seat. It did so by refusing to condemn Israel as the aggressor, by not demanding its immediate withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and by allowing it to attach conditions to its withdrawal. As I have explained in previous articles and my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the Security Council should have put Israel on notice that it would be subjected to sanctions and diplomatic isolation if it settled occupied territory.

Today, and even if they wanted it, the Palestinians do not have a terror option. And again there’s no mystery about why. In addition to the blockade of the Gaza Strip and checkpoints which are in place partly to humiliate the Palestinians who must pass or seek to pass through them, Israel’s state-of-the-art surveillance makes it almost impossible for Palestinians on the occupied West Bank and in the Gaza Strip open prison to have conversations which are not electronically bugged or listened to by one means or another. Palestinian organizations and groups are also riddled with informers, mostly Palestinian men who become Israeli intelligence assets in order to protect their women. The proposition often put to those who become informers is that if they don’t do what Israel wants, their mothers/wives/sisters will be rapped.

Simply stated there is not an environment in which the occupied and oppressed Palestinians could organize and execute a sustained terror campaign.

So if the Palestinians have nothing to gain from politics and diplomacy and don’t have a terror option, what can they do?

In theory their best weapon is their very existence and the demographic time-bomb it represents, but… It’s reasonable to assume that Israel will continue to work on defusing it by means which could go all the way to a final round of ethnic cleansing.

It was Sharon as prime minister who started the work of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation by ordering the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and IDF forces from the Gaza Strip. At the time, and with the assistance of the mainstream Western media which (generally speaking) is terrified of offending Zionism either too much or at all, it was presented as Sharon seeking to advance the peace process. That was Zionist propaganda nonsense.

According to a recent report in Ha’aretz by Barak Ravid, even Netanyahu has now accepted that Israel must make some withdrawals from the occupied West Bank “if it is to preserve a solid Jewish majority inside the State of Israel.” After his return from America that’s what he told a shocked cabinet meeting when he presented to it a report by the Jewish People Policy Institute on demographic changes among Jews and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank. The report was based on the demographic data of Prof. Sergio DellaPergola which shows that, in a number of years, the demographic trends will result in a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

So very probably the time is approaching when Netanyahu, if he can overcome the opposition of some of his lunatic cabinet colleagues, will announce Israel’s intention to make some limited withdrawals from the occupied West Bank. He will present them as “painful concessions” on Israel’s part and proof that it is serious about peace. The truth will be rather different. The withdrawals, if they happen, will be for one purpose and one purpose only – defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation in order to preserve a solid Jewish majority in a somewhat reduced Greater Israel, a Zionist state with borders taking in about 40% of the West Bank including all of Jerusalem.

As things are and look like going, that (about 60% of the West Bank with bits and pieces of pre-1967 Israeli land thrown in under the heading of “swaps”) is the best deal the Palestinians are ever likely to be offered by any Zionist leadership; and it is, of course, totally unacceptable. So back to the main question – What, really, can the Palestinians do themselves to get some bargaining power?

The answer I want to float came into my mind when I was reading a recent column by Uri Avnery. He was writing about the “nightmare” that has haunted Israel since 1948. What is it? “The 750,000 refugees and their descendents, some five million by now, will one day get up and march to the borders of Israel from North, East and South, breach the fences and flood the country.”

In my view getting up and marching to the borders of pre-1967 Israel is what the Palestinians should now do, and not only the Palestinians of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip prison camp. They should be joined by Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. To guarantee peaceful proceedings on their part, the Palestinian marchers should be completely unarmed – not only no guns, but no stones.

Of course Israel would seek to prevent it happening by banning Palestinians assembling in numbers on the West Bank and, also, by threatening the frontline Arab states with reprisal attacks and even war if they allowed Palestinians in numbers to enter I967 Israeli occupied Arab land from their territories. But with effort and commitment on the part of the Palestinians it could be made to happen.

Just imagine it… Several hundred thousand or better still one or two million Palestinians or more marching peacefully to the 1967 borders.

For what purpose? When they got as far as they could go, they would demand that the governments of the world do whatever is necessary to oblige Israel to stop defying international law and end its illegal occupation of the West Bank and its criminal blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Such an event would demand and command the attention of the world’s media, and it’s by no means impossible that the coverage would light a fire of understanding throughout the Western world; understanding of the fact that the nuclear-armed Zionist state of Israel is the aggressor, the land thief and the oppressor and that the Palestinians are its victims. Such a fire, if it was lit, could trigger a people power response in the Western nations that would make it impossible for Western governments, even the one in Washington D.C., to go on supporting Israel right or wrong.

If Israel’s leaders were stupid enough to order the IDF to break up and disperse the Palestinian marchers by shooting to kill, there would be a bloodbath. In that event it’s possible, in my view probable, that the fire of understanding the Palestinians had lit in the Western world would become an inferno of anti-Israelism that would force Western governments, including the one in Washington D.C., to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its crimes.

Though it would further isolate Israel and America, I don’t think a UN General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state in 1967 borders would change the facts on the ground. But if a vote in the General Assembly was taken against the background of the demonstration of Palestinian people power as outlined above, that could be a game-changer.

Rand Paul Slams Obama, Defends Israel by *W. James Antle

During his Senate campaign, Rand Paul walked a careful line on foreign policy: he shared his father's basic skepticism of interventionism but tried to be much more respectful of the majority viewpoint within the Republican Party. Sometimes that led him to state his positions differently from his father; sometimes it led him to take different positions than his father.

So it was interesting to read the Kentucky senator's statement on President Obama's Middle East speech. As expected, Paul slammed Obama's liberal interventionism: "Our mistakes in foreign policy have always been from hubris. We somehow believe that we can dictate the policies of the world, and enforce them with our military and economic strength. While this might sound like a good idea to many, it has its limits and its consequences." Yet even in opposing the Libya war, Paul took a pro-Israel line: "For example, instead of seeking proper authority from Congress and the Constitution to go to war with Libya, President Obama empowered the United Nations and the Arab League, two bodies that together endanger the security and sovereignty of our ally Israel."

Senator Paul continued his criticism of Obama's stance on Israel:

It is the United Nations who is threatening to impose a Palestinian state without a guarantee of safety for Israel. It is members of the Arab League who foment hostilities or refuse to recognize the right to safety and security of Israel.

But far worse than that, today it was an American President who stood before the world and once again demanded Israel act against her own strategic interest in the name of a false peace.

Peace from weakness or peace from outside coercion of Israel is a fool's errand. Unfortunately, the President today proved himself willing to play that fool.

Israel and her enemies have fought wars for the better part of the past 60 years. And terror-supporting countries in the region have spent the better part of those years feigning interest in peace while lobbing rockets across borders.

For President Obama to stand up today and insist that Israel should once again give up land, security and sovereignty for the possibility of peace shows an arrogance that is unmatched even in our rich history of foreign policy.

Paul then concludes on a noninterventionist note:

I agree with the President. This is in fact a moment of opportunity. It is time to seize control of our foreign policy from those who have spent the past decade policing the world, trying in vain to build nations after destroying them, and bankrupting our children and grandchildren in the process.

This opportunity will pass us by if we simply repeat the same mistakes, over again.

W. James Antle, is associate editor of The American Spectator.

When It Comes To Whistleblowers Obama Worse Than Nixon & Far Worse Than Bush

The New Yorker features a lengthy story on NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake who is scheduled to appear in court next month where he will face a ten-count indictment:

According to a ten-count indictment delivered against him in April, 2010, Drake violated the Espionage Act—the 1917 statute that was used to convict Aldrich Ames, the C.I.A. officer who, in the eighties and nineties, sold U.S. intelligence to the K.G.B., enabling the Kremlin to assassinate informants. In 2007, the indictment says, Drake willfully retained top-secret defense documents that he had sworn an oath to protect, sneaking them out of the intelligence agency’s headquarters, at Fort Meade, Maryland, and taking them home, for the purpose of “unauthorized disclosure.” The aim of this scheme, the indictment says, was to leak government secrets to an unnamed newspaper reporter, who is identifiable as Siobhan Gorman, of the Baltimore Sun. Gorman wrote a prize-winning series of articles for the Sun about financial waste, bureaucratic dysfunction, and dubious legal practices in N.S.A. counterterrorism programs…

Obama, prior to his election, during his ‘change’ campaign, had pledged his support for protecting national security whistleblowers, and had done so on record. As with the rest of his promises it didn’t take him long to switch positions on this front. In fact, he has broken the record among all US presidents, one that puts him in US history as the worst president when it comes to whistleblowers, truth-telling and transparency. Think Bradley Manning. Think Jeffrey Sterling. Think James Risen. Think Pentagon’s Fahrenheit 451 revisited- burning Lt Col Anthony Shaffer’s books. Think the Grand Jury on Wikileaks. And of course, think Thomas Drake:

When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”

If you ever come across a cool-aid drinking vote waster who argues against Obama being far worse than his predecessor when it comes to whistleblowing, truth-telling and transparency, please send him or her my way. I believe what I went through as a whistleblower for seven years under the Bush presidency gives me unarguable moral authority. As the most gagged woman in the history of this nation who has received two separate state secrets privilege invocations, whose right to due process via the judiciary branch has been taken away, whose case has put the United States Congress under a gag order, who has been subjected to torturous polygraph tests and having her home computer confiscated …Well, you see what I mean by my moral authority, and with that I am saying it again firmly: Obama has been far worse than Bush in cases of government whistleblowers- truth-tellers exposing government waste, fraud, abuse and criminality.

The Boiling Frogs

Understanding Obama and His America by *Dr. Haider Mehdi

Pakistan is in for its eventual long and difficult battle for survival, likely to be unfolding in the coming months at the hands of Obama’s America, and in no less measure, by the courtesy of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the CIA’s hit man in his own country, and indeed, the NRO US-Britain-blessed and backed incumbent Zardari-Gilani PPP regime in Islamabad.  The Pakistani nation would have liked to escape the coming conflict, but we know there is no point in it.  This conflict is going to be forced on this nation – there is no escape from so the nation must prepare itself for this eventuality.

Hence, it is imperative now that we understand who political Barack Obama is, what he is, and why he is what he is! 

Does the Pakistani civil-military establishment and the nation know how Obama is going to “come at” Pakistan (using a phrase borrowed from the epic film The Godfather) for its planned destruction as a nation?

Close friends and associates of Barack Obama, the “Political Man, will tell you that the American President’s favorite film is Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece The Godfather.  It is well known in the President’s circle that Obama regularly and repeatedly views this film with religious zealousness, profound political interest, and mythical fascination reserved only for mystical experiences in life.  Several political observers believe that the American President has, since the beginning of his political career, developed an occult-intellectual captivation of and enchantment with the narrative, intriguing plot and historical social-cultural and political phenomena that this film depicts.  Film critics and social psychologists claim that there are political strategic management techniques and lessons that can be learned from this movie which are historically relevant and accurate in the context of the obsessive American political cultural doctrine of capitalism and the individualism cult – the fundamental base of American social and political psyche nationwide and specifically of its ruling elite. 

In essence, The Godfather’s entire plot is about the ultimate power of wealth, even obtained without ethical constraints, the limitless power and influence of individual charisma and its associated diabolical die-hard resolves, irrespective of their moral human determinants, the colossal power of the Western adage that “the end justifies the means,” and the massive power of the fantasy of violence and its imaginative applications (as applied in the film). Indeed, above all, it is about the demonstrated power of the purely American ideological motive “nothing succeeds like success” – the rest, including humanitarian ethics and divine morality in politics is all trash – the lame excuse and the escape of losers.

The amazing thing is that although this movie treats humanity as if it were a piece of merchandize, it’s violence is non-stop, gross and brutal, and the main theme revolves around human carnage for material prosperity, Coppola, in an astonishing filmmaking endeavor, makes all of it look heroic, fascinating and brave – even likeable. 

Indeed, Barack Obama’s permanent fascination with The Godfather is meaningful and revealing of the “Political Man” that he is: it illustrates a link between the individual who is Barack Obama, born of an American mother and foreign father, and the making of Barack Obama, the “Political Man,” who has conceived a specific mindset, a political management vision and an ideological-temperamental world view through which he operates and functions as the President of the United States of America – the sole world Superpower and the most powerful man in global politics.  But Obama is a hostage of his own political mindset. The American President practices what his favorite movie preaches: The application of undeterred brutal power against America’s adversaries, and the promotion of the ideological doctrine, capitalism. Ironically, the spread of worldwide capitalism has proven to be a historical failure in our present times.  Capitalism has not resolved global problematics – it is not part of a solution; it is the problem. 

In my perceptual view, Obama’s Abbottabad plan of Osama Bin Laden’s assassination, if it ever took place, or simply the enacted drama for public consumption (indeed, Obama’s ratings jumped instantly), owes its entire conception to the President’s essential political nature, the “Political Man,” that this film has turned him into in his para-psychological  fascination with The Godfather.  In fact, with two specific episodes in the film’s sequels: the narrative and the execution of the assault in Abbottabad has a striking resemblance to Joey Zasa’s murder by Michael Corleone’s nephew who shoots his victim point blank out of vengeance and because of disrespect to the Corleone family.  And to the other scene of baptism in a church:  while Michael Corleone acts as godfather to his sister’s child, his “soldiers” brutally and in cold blood, murder his adversaries all over town.  Though both of these scenes are depicted as uncontrolled vengeance, and meticulously pre-planned organized violence, Coppola is able to make them look like acts of pride, gallantry, bravery, and unsurpassed organizational skills in their execution.  Similarly, Joey Zasa’s assassination is portrayed as an act of daring courage and justified revenge. 

Do you get the point? Do you see the connection? Do you see the thread that runs between the “Political Man” that Obama has become and how this “Political Man,” the American President, is going to deal with America’s adversaries – most specifically Pakistan, during his re-election campaign. 

Obama’s paramount political objective now is his re-election for the second presidential term.  Obama’s (the “Political Man”) global political objectives, as the incumbent president, are: US hegemony in South Asia and Central Asia vigorously promoted with an aggressive US military political foreign policy initiative to ensure containment of China through an Indian alliance.  Hence, Pakistan will be subjected to a US policy of massive pressures to make it subservient to India’s global preeminence. 

America’s policy modus operandi towards Pakistan is:  all means justify the ends – including whatever it takes to do the job!!

So, what is on the US menu for Pakistan?  More drone attacks, more US unilateral incursions in Pakistan’s domestic and external affairs, more manipulated demands to accommodate India’s interests, more threats, more propaganda, more bribing, more NGO funding, more IMF-World Bank pressures, more psychological warfare, more organized violence, more enacted dramas, more suicide bombings, more internal destabilization, an ultimate plan to denuclearize Pakistan as part of a plot to make this country’s capabilities to respond to Indian aggression null and void, neutralizing Pakistan’s armed forces, and more support to reactionary, backward and American-centric political forces in this nation.  The picture as of now is extremely bleak – but as realistic as it can be. 

“Americans have a right to grieve and remember those who died on 9/11”wrote Gary Younge in Guardian News.  “But they have no monopoly on memory, grief or anger.  Hundreds and thousands of innocent Afghanis, Iraqis and Pakistani’s have been murdered as a result of America’s response to 9/11.”  And unfortunately, Coppola’s “Political Man,” Barack Obama, is going to continue this human carnage against these sad countries, and God knows, wherever else. 

Pakistan needs to switch over to a level-headed full sovereignty mode over its internal and external affairs and a political diplomatic offensive in telling the US that this is the end of the road.  We will not go further nor allow the US to do so.  As Imran Khan has said in his recent article, “Let us reclaim our Pakistan” !!

Indeed, the PPP regime in Islamabad cannot do it – Let the masses stage a Kalma Chawk or Constitutional Avenue revolution in Pakistan.

We have no choice now: this is a battle for our national survival!!

We would have liked to escape this conflict, but we know there is no point in it!!

*Dr. Haider Mehdi, is a university faculty member and regular columnist for The Nation newspaper of Pakistan.

Rebranding Israel by *Alan Hart in Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a master of Zionist double-speak and deception, is about to undertake the most important assignment of his life. Because of its continuing occupation and oppression of the Palestinians (not to mention on-going property and land grabs), Israel is becoming a pariah state so far as a growing number of the citizens of nations are concerned. The main purpose of Netanyahu’s forthcoming trip to America is to launch a public relations campaign to rebrand Israel in the hope of stopping the rot of its growing isolation.

The highlights of this campaign launch will be a meeting with President Obama on 20 May; an address to AIPAC’s annual convention the following day; and, the climax, a speech to a joint session of Congress on 24 May.

When he meets with Obama, I imagine Netanyahu will say something very like the following: “Mr. President, you have demonstrated the strength of your commitment to fighting and winning the war against terrorism by bringing your policy into line with ours on the matter of targeted assassinations.” (I also imagine that Netanyahu has given Mossad the greenlight to liquidate Hamas leaders).

With most Republicans who run for election to Congress now as willing as most Democrats to speak from Zionism’s script in order to secure Zionist lobby organized campaign funds and votes, it can be taken for granted that the applause Netanyahu will receive in Congress for his propaganda nonsense will match that he’ll get at AIIPAC’s convention. The truth can be simply stated. On matters to do with Israel-Palestine, it is not the Congress of the United States of America. It’s the

Congress of Zionism and its deluded Christian fundamentalist allies.

The line Netanyahu will take has been trailed by the Zionist lobby, which probably wrote more of the words he will deliver than his advisers in Israel. In its response to the resignation of George Mitchell, Obama’s Middle East envoy, the lobby said in a statement that it “deeply regrets Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ continued unwillingness to negotiate directly with his Israeli counterpart without preconditions.” Mitchell, the statement went on to say, had made it clear to both parties that the only way to “true peace” was via direct, bilateral negotiations. But instead of making peace with Israel, the statement added, Abbas opted for reconciling with Hamas, “a U.S-designated terrorist organization responsible for the death of countless civilians and unwilling to recognize the existence of the Jewish state.”

So the name of Netanyahu’s game will be, as ever, to blame the Palestinians for the failure to get a peace process going and to present Israel as the only party seriously interested in peace.

The timing of Mitchell’s resignation is not without interest. I thought the BBC’s Kim Ghattas reporting from Washington was probably about right in her analysis (my emphasis added).

 “Mr Mitchell is said to be resigning for personal reasons. He is 77 and the travelling has probably taken a toll. But if Mr Mitchell had sensed that success was within reach, it's unlikely he would be quitting his job. The timing is also interesting: an indication the policy disagreement had reached an impasse. Mr Obama is expected to make a speech about his Middle East strategy next week. Mr Mitchell was in favour of a more hands-on approach, maybe even pushing to put a detailed US peace plan on the table”.

Kim’s conclusion? “It looks like the administration may have decided to take a step back.”

From reading between the lines of recent reports in the New York Times, I think it is possible to identify the particular step back Obama has taken and which probably did cause Mitchell to resign.

For quite some time, urged on by Mitchell behind closed doors, Obama was seriously considering the idea of putting a U.S. plan on the table as the only hope for getting a real peace process going, but that idea was killed by Israel’s predictable response to the agreement between the PA and Hamas. When Israel said it would not deal with the PA if it was doing business with Hamas, Obama’s advisers said that now was not the time for an American initiative. (They meant something like, “It will seriously damage your chances of re-election, Mr. President.”)

A report in the New York Times by Mark Landler offered this insight. Interviews with several administration officials suggested that the tensions in Obama’s Middle East policy “are less the product of a debate among advisers than of a tug of war within the president himself.”

In my reading of Obama that makes a lot of sense. He knows that it’s not in America’s own best interests to go on supporting Israel right or wrong. He knows that he ought to be putting an American peace plan on the table and challenging Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress to reject it. But he also knows that would be political suicide for himself and many other Democrats who’ll be running for re-election next year.

On 24 April there was an editorial in the New York Times with the headline President Obama and the Peace Process. It’s opening paragraph was this. “President Obama began his presidency vowing to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace. He backed off in the face of both sides’ obstinacy and after a series of diplomatic missteps. Since then, the stalemate, and the mistrust, have only deepened, and it is clear that nothing good will happen until the United States fully engages.”(My emphasis added).

The U.S. is not going to fully engage. Only bad things can come out of Netanyahu’s visit to America. And I mean bad things for all of us, everywhere.

*Alan Hart, former BBC Reporter

Is Iran Still Center Of Middle East's 'Great Game?' by *Inside Iran

From being the most assertively visible actor in the Middle East, it has seemingly become quiet and unnoticed, almost the forgotten country. Yet three months into what has become known as the "Arab awakening," non-Arabic-speaking Iran remains the giant elephant in the living room for foreign-policy makers in Washington.

Indeed, some view current developments as little more than a temporary lull in the long-running contest for influence between the United States and the Islamic regime, an interpretation that appears to be shared by senior officials in Tehran.

"The New York Times" crystallized the trend by reporting on April 2 that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama regarded events in Libya, where Western powers have sided with rebels trying to unseat Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, as a "sideshow" and that it "sees the region through a Persian lens."

Under the headline, "The Larger Game In The Middle East: Iran," the paper wrote, "Containing Iran's power remains their [administration officials'] central goal in the Middle East. Every decision -- from Libya to Yemen to Bahrain to Syria -- is being examined under the prism of how it will affect what was, until January, the dominating calculus in the Obama administration's regional strategy."

Trita Parsi, head of the Washington-based National American Iranian Council, says the preoccupation is evident in conversations with U.S. officials as well as in administration decisions, including its hesitation over whether to back the mass protests that ultimately ousted the former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak.

"In my own conversations with administration officials in regard to what is happening in the region, it's been very clear that the frame through which they are looking at these things consistently is: 'How does this affect the competition between the United States and Iran?'" Parsi says. "When looking at what was happening in Egypt, the real question was not what was best for the Egyptian people or democracy. It was: how will this affect the geopolitical rivalry between Iran and the United States? Will any of the decisions the U.S. make[s], or any of the developments, undermine Iran's position in the region?"

Pushing The Old Order Out

Fueling that tendency is the widespread feeling that the upheavals are working in Iran's favor. Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, says the revolts play to the Islamic regime's inclination to sow and exploit discord.

"I think Iran is the beneficiary of almost everything that is happening in the region, including what has happened in Bahrain," Maloney says. "The one exception is the recent upheaval in Syria. But everything else has really put many of Iran's old adversaries on the defensive and has obviously forced Washington to scramble and revisit some policies and deal with new elites and leaders."

She describes this as a "real positive" for Iran, because the Islamic republic "has a natural predisposition toward uncertainty and turmoil. They don't need a wholly sympathetic or identical system of government as the Iranians themselves [have developed]. They simply need to see some of their old adversaries pushed out of power and they need to have opportunities to cultivate new allies."

The turbulence in Bahrain -- where Saudi troops were recently deployed to help the U.S.-backed Sunni monarchy suppress an uprising among the Shi'ite majority -- seems to capture the Iranian specter in microcosm.

Events there have been heavily covered by Iran's state-controlled media, which has sided with their fellow Shi'a. This is in contrast to the deadly clashes in Syria, Tehran's close ally, which have been virtually ignored. Iranian officials, including President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, have also bitterly criticized the Saudi involvement in Bahrain, with some predicting the imminent collapse of Saudi Arabia's Western-backed dynasty.

The global intelligence website Stratfor recently depicted the turmoil in Bahrain as the center of a wider struggle with greater strategic importance than events in Libya or elsewhere in North Africa. "Bahrain is the focal point of a struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for control of the western littoral of the Persian Gulf," wrote Stratfor's chief executive officer, George Friedman, who added that Tehran's goal was to be "the dominant power" in the gulf.

The Wrong Frame Of View

Yet the portrayal of Iran as "the biggest show in town" rankles some specialists, who believe it runs the risk of blinding policymakers to underlying currents in the region. Scott Lucas, head of the EA World View website and an Iran analyst at Birmingham University in Britain, describes it as a "terrible approach."

"The U.S. is applying a relatively old strategy of linking up with elites in the region to a new situation and I don't think they're really thinking through the consequences" argues Lucas, who says the approach is unsuited to an "asymmetrical battle" that is being waged. "The issue of political legitimacy is the one that people are pushing. It's not the U.S.-Iran contest, it's not even the question of economic factors and if you are seen in any way as basically not really being on board with that question of political legitimacy, if you are seen as in effect trying to impose this Iran question on top of it, I think it'll bite you on the backside."

The regime in Tehran has mirrored the tendency to view the Arab revolts in geostrategic terms, portraying them as rebellions, inspired by Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, against unpopular U.S.-backed governments.

The difference, Lucas says, is that Iran's approach is driven by propaganda purposes stemming from a need to distract its own discontented population still smarting over Ahmadinejad's bitterly disputed reelection in 2009. The U.S. policy, by contrast, is being shaped by "mistaken conceptions" about Iranian power that overlook the country's internal weakness.

"What Egypt should have proven to us is that the old way of looking at this as some kind of "Great Game", where these countries are just pawns in the Great Game and the people are just pawns, [is] absolutely out of date," Lucas says. "It also completely wipes out the internal considerations regarding Iran. This is a country which has serious internal issues. All you do by projecting this Iran game in the Middle East is ignore those issues. The U.S. made this mistake in 2009 when it went with a nuclear-first approach to Iran and missed what was happening. It's making the same mistake in 2011."

And according to Parsi, fixating on the time-honored Washington-versus-Tehran policy frame obscures the emergence of new contests in the region.

"The inherent weakness of all frames is that they may not be capable of incorporating completely new and unforeseen developments," Parsi says. "The competition between Iran and the United States is still there but it's not the only competition. There are new developments taking place in the region and the major question going forward is going to be how the relationship between Egypt, Turkey, and Iran will change the picture."

From being the most assertively visible actor in the Middle East, it has seemingly become quiet and unnoticed, almost the forgotten country. Yet three months into what has become known as the "Arab awakening," non-Arabic-speaking Iran remains the giant elephant in the living room for foreign-policy makers in Washington.

Indeed, some view current developments as little more than a temporary lull in the long-running contest for influence between the United States and the Islamic regime, an interpretation that appears to be shared by senior officials in Tehran.

"The New York Times" crystallized the trend by reporting on April 2 that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama regarded events in Libya, where Western powers have sided with rebels trying to unseat Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, as a "sideshow" and that it "sees the region through a Persian lens."

Under the headline, "The Larger Game In The Middle East: Iran," the paper wrote, "Containing Iran's power remains their [administration officials'] central goal in the Middle East. Every decision -- from Libya to Yemen to Bahrain to Syria -- is being examined under the prism of how it will affect what was, until January, the dominating calculus in the Obama administration's regional strategy."

Trita Parsi, head of the Washington-based National American Iranian Council, says the preoccupation is evident in conversations with U.S. officials as well as in administration decisions, including its hesitation over whether to back the mass protests that ultimately ousted the former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak.

"In my own conversations with administration officials in regard to what is happening in the region, it's been very clear that the frame through which they are looking at these things consistently is: 'How does this affect the competition between the United States and Iran?'" Parsi says. "When looking at what was happening in Egypt, the real question was not what was best for the Egyptian people or democracy. It was: how will this affect the geopolitical rivalry between Iran and the United States? Will any of the decisions the U.S. make[s], or any of the developments, undermine Iran's position in the region?"

Pushing The Old Order Out

Fueling that tendency is the widespread feeling that the upheavals are working in Iran's favor. Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, says the revolts play to the Islamic regime's inclination to sow and exploit discord.

"I think Iran is the beneficiary of almost everything that is happening in the region, including what has happened in Bahrain," Maloney says. "The one exception is the recent upheaval in Syria. But everything else has really put many of Iran's old adversaries on the defensive and has obviously forced Washington to scramble and revisit some policies and deal with new elites and leaders."

She describes this as a "real positive" for Iran, because the Islamic republic "has a natural predisposition toward uncertainty and turmoil. They don't need a wholly sympathetic or identical system of government as the Iranians themselves [have developed]. They simply need to see some of their old adversaries pushed out of power and they need to have opportunities to cultivate new allies."

The turbulence in Bahrain -- where Saudi troops were recently deployed to help the U.S.-backed Sunni monarchy suppress an uprising among the Shi'ite majority -- seems to capture the Iranian specter in microcosm.

Events there have been heavily covered by Iran's state-controlled media, which has sided with their fellow Shi'a. This is in contrast to the deadly clashes in Syria, Tehran's close ally, which have been virtually ignored. Iranian officials, including President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, have also bitterly criticized the Saudi involvement in Bahrain, with some predicting the imminent collapse of Saudi Arabia's Western-backed dynasty.

The global intelligence website Stratfor recently depicted the turmoil in Bahrain as the center of a wider struggle with greater strategic importance than events in Libya or elsewhere in North Africa. "Bahrain is the focal point of a struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for control of the western littoral of the Persian Gulf," wrote Stratfor's chief executive officer, George Friedman, who added that Tehran's goal was to be "the dominant power" in the gulf.

The Wrong Frame Of View

Yet the portrayal of Iran as "the biggest show in town" rankles some specialists, who believe it runs the risk of blinding policymakers to underlying currents in the region. Scott Lucas, head of the EA World View website and an Iran analyst at Birmingham University in Britain, describes it as a "terrible approach."

"The U.S. is applying a relatively old strategy of linking up with elites in the region to a new situation and I don't think they're really thinking through the consequences" argues Lucas, who says the approach is unsuited to an "asymmetrical battle" that is being waged. "The issue of political legitimacy is the one that people are pushing. It's not the U.S.-Iran contest, it's not even the question of economic factors and if you are seen in any way as basically not really being on board with that question of political legitimacy, if you are seen as in effect trying to impose this Iran question on top of it, I think it'll bite you on the backside."

The regime in Tehran has mirrored the tendency to view the Arab revolts in geostrategic terms, portraying them as rebellions, inspired by Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, against unpopular U.S.-backed governments.

The difference, Lucas says, is that Iran's approach is driven by propaganda purposes stemming from a need to distract its own discontented population still smarting over Ahmadinejad's bitterly disputed reelection in 2009. The U.S. policy, by contrast, is being shaped by "mistaken conceptions" about Iranian power that overlook the country's internal weakness.

"What Egypt should have proven to us is that the old way of looking at this as some kind of "Great Game", where these countries are just pawns in the Great Game and the people are just pawns, [is] absolutely out of date," Lucas says. "It also completely wipes out the internal considerations regarding Iran. This is a country which has serious internal issues. All you do by projecting this Iran game in the Middle East is ignore those issues. The U.S. made this mistake in 2009 when it went with a nuclear-first approach to Iran and missed what was happening. It's making the same mistake in 2011."

And according to Parsi, fixating on the time-honored Washington-versus-Tehran policy frame obscures the emergence of new contests in the region.

"The inherent weakness of all frames is that they may not be capable of incorporating completely new and unforeseen developments," Parsi says. "The competition between Iran and the United States is still there but it's not the only competition. There are new developments taking place in the region and the major question going forward is going to be how the relationship between Egypt, Turkey, and Iran will change the picture."

*A project of The Century Foundation