Russia’s Daring Vote

Russia’s vote to endorse the Goldstone Gaza report in the United Nations Human Rights Council last Friday was an important, milestone event both for Palestine and for Russia. For Palestine, this vote opened a way to try and sentence Israeli mass-murderers, and thus ushered Israel into a new era of responsibility after a long period of Wild West-style, Colt-45 justice. For Russia, this vote has proved to its own country and to the world that it is free from American and Zionist diktat and able to navigate its own policy.

This story began on Christmas with the Israeli onslaught on defenceless Gaza. Taking advantage of the holiday lull, the Israeli army killed hundreds of Palestinian children and other civilians by indiscriminate use of white phosphorus and artillery. The world was horrified, and the UN Human Rights Council appointed Judge Richard Goldstone, a former prosecutor for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, to find out the facts.

Many people doubted his impartiality: Goldstone is a Jew — a self-described Zionist, well-connected to Israel – he sits on the board of its University and his daughter even lived in Tel Aviv for a while. Goldstone was guided by his conscience and not by his blood. He went to Gaza, invested a lot of time and effort, and concluded: Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. He recommended the case be transferred to the ICC court in the Hague. Israel did not cooperate and tried to undermine and block the report, but failed. That was the first Israeli defeat.

The second defeat occurred a few days later. The Fatah chairman, Ramallah PNA ruler Mahmud Abbas, was ready to do anything in order to remain in power after his electoral defeat. Netanyahu threatened him with taking away the broadcasting frequency for a second mobile phone provider – Abbas promptly called his representative in Geneva and ordered him to put the Goldstone report on a slow, very slow burner. Popular indignation was furious; he was called `traitor’ and worse. Facing revolt and sure political demise, Abbas u-turned once again and ordered his ambassador to proceed at full speed. Thus Bibi undermined and delegitimised his agent Abbas, while the report made its way to the council anyway. That was the second defeat.

Israel was infuriated by this development. The Jewish State considered itself invulnerable behind the triple defense of the Sixth Fleet, the US Senate and the Holocaust Museum. President Obama’s soft request to freeze the settlement building was met in Tel Aviv by what Internet chat calls “lol”. He was ridiculed. Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu even sped up their building plans in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to show that they could not care less. And now, all of a sudden, Jewish ministers of state are going to be judged as if they were Serbs or Sudanese.

Israeli leaders activated their main reserves, the US State Department and the Lobby. A few days ago I spoke with Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Tel Aviv, and he confirmed that the US State Department will do all it can to stop the Goldstone report before it gets to the Security Council. Another American veto would not look good. Worse, an insulted and hurt Obama might just forget to veto an anti-Israeli decision.

Israel began courting Russia, hoping to build bridges and to enlist Moscow in its cause. Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Moldova-born Foreign minister, met ten times with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov; Netanyahu flew to Moscow on a “secret mission” for a talk with Medvedev, and President Peres met with Medvedev in Sochi. They wanted Russian support for Iran sanctions and for silencing the Goldstone report. They said to the Russians that it would create a dangerous precedent: If today they judge Israeli ministers and generals for Gaza, tomorrow they will judge Russian ministers and generals for Chechnya. This is a false comparison: Chechens are Russian citizens with full rights, Gazans have no rights at all; Chechens are free to travel and live in Moscow or elsewhere, Gazans are not allowed to leave their concentration camp. Though Russia’s campaign against Chechen separatists was bloody and cruel, it could not be compared with the cold-blooded murder the Israelis unleashed on Gaza.

Moreover, the precedents were established a long time ago, when Milosevic the Serb was tried in The Hague. The question is whether the Jews are indeed above the law. Israeli observers were certain that Russia would stand by them. There is a small but profitable trade between the two countries; there is a Russian immigrant community in Israel; there are many bilateral relations. Beside, Russia has traditional interests in the Holy Land, and hundreds of thousands of Russian pilgrims make their way to the Holy Sepulchre.

On top of all this, Russia was interested in hosting a Moscow Middle East Peace Conference, in direct continuity with the Madrid Conference of 1989. There is also a powerful Zionist lobby in Moscow. True, some of the most obnoxious oligarchs are gone, whether to a Siberian jail or to exile in Tel Aviv or London. Power is now concentrated in the hands of Putin and Medvedev, and money is respected but not more than that. But there are many very wealthy Russian Jews who like to play the Jewish Lobby game.

Some arguments by the Zionist Lobby for supporting Israel were spectacularly feeble. They said that Russia should be forever grateful to Israel because it had allowed a few Russian wives to leave Gaza just before their homes were bombed to smithereens. If you buy that one, you may also buy their argument for bombing Iran: in 1836 (sic!), the Persians had lynched Russian playwright and diplomat Alexander Griboedov, who had sneaked into a harem and gotten caught.

Notwithstanding, the Russians disregarded the US and Israel’s overtures and stalwartly voted to endorse Goldstone’s report. They were joined by their three allies, China, India and Brazil, together representing the lion’s share of mankind’s human resources – of oil, of industry.

The Chinese sage Mencius (or Mengzi 372-289 BC) went to see t King Hui who said: “Old man, since you dared the distance of 1000 li to come here, you may know of a way to profit my state.” Mencius replied: “Why should you ever mention the word `profit’? What counts is benevolence and righteousness. If the King says `How can I profit my country?’ the high officials will say, `how can we profit our fiefs?’, and the intellectuals and the commoners will say: `How can we profit ourselves?’ If the upper and lower classes strive to snatch profit one from another, the state will be endangered.”

Apparently the Eurasian landmass of Russia, China and India prefer benevolence and righteousness, while the Anglo-American world prefers lust for gain. Russian leaders Putin and Medvedev were very outspoken in their objections to the Israeli plans to attack Iran. They spoke against the sanctions, too, and here they were fully supported by China. At the same time, Turkey refused to let the Israeli Air Force join its joint maneuvers with the US. The Zionist-run US immediately withdrew from the maneuvers as well. The position of Turkey is extremely relevant: This is the old imperial power that protected and controlled the Middle East for centuries. Turkey, together with Russia and Greece, are the main heirs to Byzantium. If we want to help Turkey to support the Palestinian cause we must not allow the Zionists to play the Armenian card right now. When Turkey joins Russia and China, they can decide quite a bit. They have put paid to the notion of Israeli impunity. One can’t overestimate the importance of the Russian vote:

1. This vote confirmed the principle of equality. All human beings are equal. If the ICC can judge Milosevic and Burundians and Sudanese, they can also judge Jewish ministers and generals.
2. This vote demonstrated that Russia is independent, not only of Washington, but even of Tel Aviv. The Zionist Lobby in Russia is powerful, but not omnipotent.
3. This vote saved innumerable children, women and men from death. After this vote, an Israeli general will have to think twice before dropping a bomb on a civilian target. This will save Israeli children as well from retaliation.
4. Russia regained its position lost by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Russia became again a leader of the free world, I mean the world free of US bases. Moscow’s position was decisive in forming China’s position as well.
5. It seems that the main weapon of Zionists, their voice, has worn out. Once upon a time they could convince individuals and nations as easily as the sirens by the charm of their persuasion. Now the witch of Zion had lost her charm.

A few years ago I wrote: “The world needs Russia, for since her star was obscured in 1990, for almost twenty years the runaway train of the US and the loose cannon of Israel made a mess on the planet. Russia must stop their orgy of aggression and regain its place as the ultimate protector of the weak and the meek. This is her manifest destiny”. The Geneva vote proved that Russia has done just that. We may once again connect our hopes with Russia in her friendship with China. They also can stop Israel from hurting itself and others.

So many people in the US and France, in Egypt and Palestine are tired of Israeli intransigence, egotism, hypocrisy and impunity. That is why so much hope was invested in Barack Obama after his Cairo talk. Obama had promised to cut Israel down to size, but meanwhile Israel cut him down to smaller-than-life. That is why the US is going down just like the Titanic, undermined by a Lobby iceberg and fleeced by financial wizards. Now Russia is coming under tremendous pressure from the US and other Zionist-led groups and states. We should pray she will withstand it and maintain her and our dignity.

Constitutional Hypocrisy

Millions of Americans are politically informed, smart, active and angry. They see many wrongs in our political and government system. They are fed up with politics as usual, meaning corrosive corruption of politicians by corporate and other special interests. They see little good in either the Democrat or Republican parties. And they almost always share a common bond: They love and honor the US Constitution, even though they may see some flaws in it. Yet they are also constitutional hypocrites.

Why do I say this? Because Americans are overwhelmingly ignorant or misinformed about the constitutional paths for amending the Constitution. Too many, in fact, seem to miss the profoundly important point that the Founders and Framers knew that they had not created a perfect document and blueprint for the US. That is why they placed two specific paths for amending the Constitution.

But very few Americans know that only one of these amendment mechanisms has been used in the entire history of the country. All the current amendments were proposed by Congress. This should raise this serious question today: Considering the very low regard for Congress by the overwhelming majority of Americans, which is richly deserved, why should we have any confidence that Congress would ever propose amendments that could kill so much of the corruption that plagues our system, especially corruption of members of Congress?

This situation was somehow anticipated by the Framers. They could see that there was a strong possibility that Americans would eventually lose confidence in the federal government. Which is why they put a second path to amending the Constitution into the document. A path that has never been used. This is the provision in Article V for a convention of state delegates that could propose amendments, which like the proposals from Congress would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

Being human, the Framers made a mistake. They gave Congress the sole power to call or convene an Article V convention. The single explicit requirement that was supposed to make Congress call a convention was that two-thirds of state legislatures had to request an Article V convention. The Framers did not, apparently, envision a future in which Congress would stubbornly ignore state applications for a convention and get away with it, despite language that demands that Congress “shall” call a convention when one simple requirement is met. How could they envision that Congress would blatantly disobey something so simply stated in the Constitution? How could they anticipate such weak states, unwilling to make Congress respect their constitutional right? The Framers clearly were not cynical enough.

The situation we face today is that all 50 states have submitted over 750 applications for a convention, considerably more than enough to trigger the constitutional mandate that Congress convene an Article V convention. How could Congress get away with this kind of unconstitutional behavior? Apparently, a combination of political corruption and public ignorance has allowed Congress to get away with this. Even among the millions of Americans that proudly declare their loyal allegiance to the Constitution, there is no recognition that unless they demand that Congress obey Article V, they are constitutional hypocrites. Congress has no right to unilaterally decide that it can ignore and disobey a part of the Constitution.

Note that Congress never even created a mechanism where they would collect in a public way the state applications for an Article V convention, which helped create public ignorance of this situation. Add to this that many, many organized vested interests on the left and right like their ability to corrupt Congress to get what they want from it. This is why they have frequently mounted campaigns to make the public fear a convention, because such a convention might actually propose reforms that would remove corruption of Congress by contributing money for campaigns and pursuing lobbying.

Ignorance and fear have combined to thwart public demands that Congress obey the Constitution and convene the first Article V convention. In fact, there is only one national, nonpartisan organization vainly attempting to educate the public so that Congress would be forced to finally give us the first Article V convention. Friends of the Article V Convention at foavc.org is also the only group that has collected state applications for a convention and made them publicly available.

Their efforts may be working. A new online survey asked this: Based on your assessment of American politics, would you support or oppose a call for a Constitutional Convention? Supporters won easily at 65 percent.

It comes down to this, unless you get informed and join the mission to make Congress obey the Constitution, you are a constitutional hypocrite, not what the nation needs.

Much ado about nothing?

What is there about the Iranian election of June 12 that has led to it being one of the leading stories in media around the world every day since? Elections whose results are seriously challenged have taken place in most countries at one time or another in recent decades. Countless Americans believe that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen by the Republicans, and not just inside the voting machines and in the counting process, but prior to the actual voting as well with numerous Republican Party dirty tricks designed to keep poor and black voters off voting lists or away from polling stations. The fact that large numbers of Americans did not take to the streets day after day in protest, as in Iran, is not something we can be proud of. Perhaps if the CIA, the Agency for International Development (AID), several US government-run radio stations, and various other organizations supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (which was created to serve as a front for the CIA, literally) had been active in the United States, as they have been for years in Iran, major street protests would have taken place in the United States.

The classic “outside agitators” can not only foment dissent through propaganda, adding to already existing dissent, but they can serve to mobilize the public to strongly demonstrate against the government. In 1953, when the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, they paid people to agitate in front of Mossadegh’s residence and elsewhere and engage in acts of violence; some pretended to be supporters of Mossadegh while engaging in anti-religious actions. And it worked, remarkably well.¹ Since the end of World War II, the United States has seriously intervened in some 30 elections around the world, adding a new twist this time, twittering. The State Department asked Twitter to postpone a scheduled maintenance shutdown of its service to keep information flowing from inside Iran, helping to mobilize protesters.² The New York Times reported: “An article published by the Web site True/Slant highlighted some of the biggest errors on Twitter that were quickly repeated and amplified by bloggers: that three million protested in Tehran last weekend (more like a few hundred thousand); that the opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi was under house arrest (he was being watched); that the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid last Saturday (not so).” ³

In recent years, the United States has been patrolling the waters surrounding Iran with warships, halting Iranian ships to check for arms shipments to Hamas or for other illegal reasons, financing and “educating” Iranian dissidents, using Iranian groups to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran, kidnapping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, kidnapping Iranian military personnel in Iran and taking them to Iraq, continually spying and recruiting within Iran, manipulating Iran’s currency and international financial transactions, and imposing various economic and political sanctions against the country.⁴

“I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs,” said US President Barack Obama with a straight face on June 23. “Some in the Iranian government [have been] accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd.”⁵

“Never believe anything until it’s officially denied,” British writer Claud Cockburn famously said.

In his world-prominent speech to the Middle East on June 4, Obama mentioned that “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” So we have the president of the United States admitting to a previous overthrow of the Iranian government while the United States is in the very midst of trying to overthrow the current Iranian government. This will serve as the best example of hypocrisy that’s come along in quite a while.

So why the big international fuss over the Iranian election and street protests? There’s only one answer. The obvious one. The announced winner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Washington ODE, an Officially Designated Enemy, for not sufficiently respecting the Empire and its Israeli partner-in-crime; indeed, Ahmadinejad is one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy in the world.

So ingrained is this ODE response built into Washington’s world view that it appears to matter not at all that Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s main opponent in the election and very much supported by the protesters, while prime minister 1981-89, bore large responsibility for the attacks on the US embassy and military barracks in Beirut in 1983, which took the lives of more than 200 Americans, and the 1988 truck bombing of a US Navy installation in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons. Remarkably, a search of US newspaper and broadcast sources shows no mention of this during the current protests.⁶ However, the Washington Post saw fit to run a story on June 27 that declared: “the authoritarian governments of China, Cuba and Burma have been selectively censoring the news this month of Iranian crowds braving government militias on the streets of Tehran to demand democratic reforms.”

Can it be that no one in the Obama administration knows of Mousavi’s background? And do none of them know about the violent government repression on June 5 in Peru of the peaceful protests organized in response to the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement? A massacre that took the lives of between 20 and 25 indigenous people in the Amazon and wounded another 100.⁷ The Obama administration was silent on the Peruvian massacre because the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia, is not an ODE.

And neither is Mousavi, despite his anti-American terrorist deeds, because he’s opposed to Ahmadinejad, who competes with Hugo Chavez to be Washington’s Number One ODE. Time magazine calls Mousavi a “moderate”, and goes on to add: “It has to be assumed that the Iranian presidential election was rigged,” offering as much evidence as the Iranian protestors; i.e., none at all.⁸ It cannot of course be proven that the Iranian election was totally honest, but the arguments given to support the charge of fraud are not very impressive, such as the much-repeated fact that the results were announced very soon after the polls closed. For decades in various countries election results have been condemned for being withheld for many hours or days. Some kind of dishonesty must be going on behind the scenes during the long delay it was argued. So now we’re asked to believe that some kind of dishonesty must be going on because the results were released so quickly. It should be noted that the ballots listed only one electoral contest, with but four candidates.

Phil Wilayto, American peace activist and author of a book on Iran, has observed:

Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?⁹

All of which is of course not to say that Iran is not a relatively repressive society on social and religious issues, and it’s this underlying reality which likely feeds much of the protest; indeed, many of the protesters may not even have strong views about the election per se, particularly since both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are members of the establishment, neither is any threat to the Islamic theocracy, and the election can be seen as the kind of power struggle you find in virtually every country. But that is not the issue I’m concerned with here. The issue is Washington’s long-standing goal of regime change. If the exact same electoral outcome had taken place in a country that is an ally of the United States, how much of all the accusatory news coverage and speeches would have taken place? In fact, the exact same thing did happen in a country that is an ally of the United States, three years ago when Felipe Calderon appeared to have stolen the presidential election in Mexico and there were daily large protests for more than two months; but the American and international condemnation was virtually non-existent compared to what we see today in regard to Iran.

Iranian leaders undertook a recount of a random ten per cent of ballots and recertified Ahmadinejad as the winner. How honest the recount was I have no idea, but it’s more than Americans got in 2000 and 2004.

By what standard shall we judge Barack Obama?

Many of my readers have been upset with me for my criticisms of President Obama’s policies. Following my last two reports, more than a dozen have asked to be removed from my mailing list. But if you share my view that the numerous atrocities US foreign policy is responsible for constitute the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity and happiness, then I think you have to want leaders who are unambiguously opposed to America’s military adventures, because those interventions are unambiguously harmful. There’s nothing good to be said about dropping powerful bombs on crowds of innocent people, invading their land, overthrowing their government, occupying the country, breaking down the doors of the citizens, killing the father, raping the mother, traumatizing the children, torturing those opposed to all this … Barack Obama has no problem with this, if we judge him by his policies and not his rhetoric.

And neither does Al Franken, who’s about to become a Democratic Senator from Minnesota. The former Saturday Night Live comedian would like you to believe that he’s been against the war in Iraq since it began, but he’s gone to Iraq four times to entertain the troops. Does that make sense? Why does the military bring entertainers to soldiers? To lift the soldiers’ spirits. Why does the military want to lift the soldiers’ spirits? A happier soldier does his job better. And what’s the soldier’s job? All the charming things listed above. Doesn’t Franken know what these guys do? He criticized the Bush administration because they “failed to send enough troops to do the job right.”¹⁰ What “job” did the man think the troops were sent to do that had not been performed to his standards because of lack of manpower? Did he want them to be more efficient at killing Iraqis who resisted the occupation?

Franken has been lifting soldiers’ spirits for a long time. This past March he was honored by the United Service Organization (USO) for his ten years of entertaining troops abroad. That includes Kosovo in 1999, as imperialist an occupation as you’ll want to see. He called his USO experience “one of the best things I’ve ever done.”¹¹ Franken has also spoken at West Point, encouraging the next generation of imperialist warriors. Is this a man to challenge the militarization of America at home and abroad? No more so than Obama.

Tom Hayden wrote this about Franken in 2005 when Franken had a regular program on the Air America radio network:

Is anyone else disappointed with Al Franken’s daily defense of the continued war in Iraq? Not Bush’s version of the war, because that would undermine Air America’s laudable purpose of rallying an anti-Bush audience. But, well, Kerry’s version of the war, one that can be better managed and won, somehow with better body armor and fewer torture cells. This morning Franken was endorsing Sen. Joe Biden’s proposal to send 5,000 NATO troops to close the Syrian-Iraq border, bring in foreign trainers for the Iraqi officer corps, and put Iraqis to work cleaning up the destruction of our invasion. … Now that Bush has manipulated us into the invasion, Franken thinks we have no choice but to … stay until we crush the insurgents. It’s a humanitarian excuse for open-ended American occupation. And it’s shared widely by the professional political and pundit class who think of themselves as the conscience of the American establishment and the leadership of the Democratic Party.¹²

I know, I know, I’m taking away all your heroes. But such people shouldn’t be your heroes. You can learn to see through the liberal, Democratic Party apologists for the empire. Only a week ago, documents released by the Nixon Library in California revealed that five days before US and South Vietnamese troops made their surprise invasion of Cambodia on April 29, 1970 – which elicited widespread, angry protests in the US, resulting in the fatal shootings by the National Guard of students at Kent State University in Ohio – President Richard Nixon got approval for the invasion from the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Stennis of Mississippi. Stennis told the president: “I will be with you. … I commend you for what you are doing.”¹³

Long live the Cold War

President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup June 28 because he was about to conduct a non-binding survey of the population, asking the question: “Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?” One of the issues that Zelaya hoped a new constitution would deal with is the limiting of the presidency to one four-year term. He also expressed the need for other constitutional changes to make it possible for him to carry out policies to improve the life of the poor; in countries like Honduras, the law is not generally crafted for that end.

At this writing it’s not clear how matters will turn out in Honduras, but the following should be noted: the United States, by its own admission, was fully aware for weeks of the Honduran military’s plan to overthrow Zelaya. Washington says it tried its best to change the mind of the plotters. It’s difficult to believe that this proved impossible. During the Cold War it was said, with much justification, that the United States could discourage a coup in Latin America with “a frown”. The Honduran and American military establishments have long been on very fraternal terms. And it must be asked: In what way and to what extent did the United States warn Zelaya of the impending coup? And what protection did it offer him? The response to the coup from the Obama administration can be described with adjectives such as lukewarm, proper but belated, and mixed. It is not unthinkable that the United States gave the military plotters the go-ahead, telling them to keep the traditional “golpe” bloodiness to a minimum. Zelaya was elected to office as the candidate of a conservative party; he then, surprisingly, moved to the left and became a strong critic of a number of Washington policies, and an ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, both of whom the Bush administration tried to overthrow and assassinate.

Following the coup, National Public Radio (NPR) showed once again why progressives refer to it as National Pentagon Radio. The station’s leading news anchor, Robert Siegel, interviewed Johanna Mendelson Forman, of the conservative think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies:

Siegel: “There hasn’t been a coup in Latin America for quite a while.”

Forman: “I think the last one was in 1983″

Siegel did not correct her.¹⁴

This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole?

Notes

1. William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 9 ^↩
2. Associated Press, June 16, 2009 ^↩
3. New York Times, June 21, 2009 ^↩
4. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker magazine, June 29, 2008; ABC News, May 22, 2007; and Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch, June 19-21, 2009 for descriptions of some of these and other anti-Iran covert activities. ^↩
5. White House press conference, June 23, 2009 ^↩
6. The only mention is by Jeff Stein in “CQ Politics” [Congressional Quarterly], online, June 22, 2009, “according to former CIA and military officials”. ^↩
7. Center for International Policy (Washington, DC) report, June 16, 2009 ^↩
8. Time magazine, June 29, 2009, p.26 ^↩
9. AlterNet.org, June 14, 2009; Wilayto is the author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation’s Journey through the Islamic Republic” ^↩
10. Washington Post, February 16, 2004 ^↩
11. Star Tribune (Minneapolis), March 26, 2009 ^↩
12. Huffington Post, sometime in June 2005, but it may no longer be there. ^↩
13. Washington Post, June 30, 2009 ^↩
14. NPR, All Things Considered, June 29, 2009 ^↩

Chosen Nukes

The struggle for Korean nuclear independence is extremely relevant for the Middle East, and first of all, for the Iranian nuclear project. The Judeo-American interests want to turn North Korea into an example for Iran. They wish to do something nasty to not-too-relevant Korea so that Iran will fall in line. But a nuclear Iran is likely to check Israeli warmongers and force Israel to proceed with peace process. The balance of fear, or MAD (mutual assured destruction) is still the only way to deal with the Israeli-American threat.

Fry and Laurie (or Laurel and Hardy) could do it nicely:

– The Chosen have got nukes. They’ve gone nuclear!

- Well, is that news? Israel has had hundreds of nuclear bombs for some twenty years, according to Vanunu, but only antisemites ever mention it.

- Sorry, I did not mean the Chosen People, I mean the People of the Chosen, and “Chosen” is the Korean name for North Korea.

- The Chosen? How dare they challenge the international community! Where do these Chosen men get off thinking that they are chosen?

The successful underground nuclear test in North Korea unleashed a huge wave – a wave of hypocrisy, that is. The state with by far the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the country that has already used A-bombs against civilians, the US, expressed its outrage. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said, “The United States thinks that this is a grave violation of international law and a threat to regional and international peace and security and therefore the United States will seek a strong resolution with strong measures.” According to Rice, it is not invasion, it is not occupation, it is not aggression, but rather it is arming oneself against a very probable invasion, aggression and occupation that violates international law. Nor did she remind us of a well-forgotten fact: for many years it was North Korea that called for turning the whole of Korean peninsula into nuclear-weapons-free zone, and it was the US that insisted on having its nukes on North Korea’s doorstep.

North Korea, or the Chosen in its own language, is a country of indomitable men and women. They are strong, independent and hard-working. They shake hands with an iron grip. Their names are short, their cabbage is fiery, their national pride knows no limits – and for good reason: they fought against the US in its prime, and survived the worst onslaught ever engineered by Man. Think Dresden, multiply by Gaza and add Iraq to equal Korea in the 1950s. The US and its satraps dropped more bombs on this small mountainous country than they had dropped on Germany. General Douglas MacArthur wanted to nuke them, but Harry Truman stopped him: there were no objects worth nuking, for every single standing man-made structure had already been destroyed. The Korean War was mass murder writ large: millions of Koreans were killed, burned by napalm, shot and executed by the Americans and their allies. Any Korean village’s death rate could compete with that of Auschwitz.

The Koreans survived and rebuilt their country. But the massive bombing took a heavy toll on the people’s psyche. A nation will never be the same after saturation bombing, any more than will an individual who has been gang raped. Usually they break down into total submission for a generation (that is why gang rape is the prisoners’ way to assume control over a disobedient inmate), so did Serbs, so did Germans, so did the Japanese after being sodomised by US bombs. The Koreans’ own post-traumatic syndrome consisted of withdrawal, extreme self-reliance and endless fear of another attack. This fear was well-grounded in reality: US troops and bases still occupy the south of the Korean peninsula. South Korea is still as far from independence as it was before the WWII, only the US has replaced Japan as the colonising power.

More importantly, the US has carried out relentless sanctions warfare against unvanquished, independent Korea. This well-developed strategy of blockade was utilised with great success against Iraq and Cuba, and now Americans plan to use it against Iran. Noam Chomsky correctly defined the US strategy: never give up; keep destroying countries which do not submit by all means possible including economic warfare. Whoever does not surrender should be pushed back into the Stone Age.

Korea was willing to dismantle its nuclear facilities, provided that the US would cease its economic warfare. They signed an agreement and closed down the reactor, but the US reneged on the agreement and turned up its hostilities. America, as ruled by its “Chicago boys,” is neo-liberal to the bone and cannot tolerate a socialist state. Korea would not let American companies take over its economy, and that is why the US and its satellites kept impounding Korean bank accounts and interfering with its trade. The imperial media were kept busy churning out dreadful stories (actually, regurgitated anti-Communist urban legends from McCarthy’s days) about starving Koreans under commies’ yoke. Korea could not be allowed to live in its own, socialist way.

When the people of South Korea began to express their wish to unite with the independent North, South Korea was robbed by the Mammonites who engineered the great Tiger crisis of 1997. Everything you are experiencing now, during the 2009 crisis, the South Koreans went through twelve years ago. Their great economy was broken to pieces and bought for peanuts by the trans-nationals. All their accumulated labour of many years was snatched by George Soros et al. At the same time, the American offensive against independent Korea was intensified.

President GW Bush (or his speechwriter David Frum) designated Korea, next to Iraq and Iran, as part of the Axis of Evil. In this situation, the Koreans were right to develop the ultimate weapon of defence. And this holds equally true for Iran today. A Korean and Iranian nuclear deterrent would be a defensive shield for these independent countries.

Korea is not taking it lying down. This rather small and far away country, enfeebled by blockade and sanctions, contributes more than its fair share to the most important battle over Palestine. The Koreans, who suffered so much from the American-imposed siege, do help besieged Gaza and other neighbours of the Jewish state to acquire weapons. Not necessarily nukes – even conventional arms interfere with the total freedom of Israelis to kill Palestinians and to fly over Beirut and Damascus.

Using the nuclear issue as a pretext, the pro-Israel Lobby pushed for the decision to search all Korean shipping. They also orchestrated a vast public campaign in the mass media, uniting anti-Communists and nuke-fearing pacifists against socialist Korea. We are supposed to be afraid of Korean A-bombs and call upon Obama and Netanyahu to disarm the rebels.

God knows I am a peaceful man, but I’m not a pacifist. Weapons are needed to defend people from Israeli-American state terrorism. A so-called pacifist who supports American and Israeli attempts to maintain their monopoly on nuclear arms is, in my book, just another supporter of the Judeo-American war machine. If he is an honest man, let him call for the disarmament of the Chosen Peoples of Israel and America, and postpone dealing with the Chosen people of Korea and the Iranians until after Dimona is dismantled and American nukes are turned into plowshares.

The struggle for Korean nuclear independence is extremely relevant for the Middle East, and first of all, for the Iranian nuclear project. It is true that Iran is not seeking military application for its nuclear industry, being perfectly content with peaceful energy. However, the Judeo-American interests want to turn North Korea into an example for Iran. They wish to do something nasty to not-too-relevant Korea so that Iran will fall in line.

Obama could settle with Korea at the quite reasonable price of stopping the interference with its life. Sign a peace treaty, stop the threats, remove the sanctions, terminate the campaign of hate. The Koreans would pay for normalization of their relationship with the US by giving up their nuclear facilities. But that would neither frighten nor seduce Iran. So Obama may choose a violent action including a naval blockade, so that a suitably impressed Iran will close down its reactors.

This would be a pity. A pity for Koreans who deserve, like everybody else, to live their lives the way they like. A pity for Korea’s enemies, for the Koreans are not easy to defeat. And a pity for the Middle East which badly needs the deterring presence of a nuclear-capable Iran.

The Israeli media published a poll claiming that “some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon”. The idea is to push the US and Europe into a frenzy of anti-Iranian action, for no country would like to absorb two million Israeli refugees. This is the secret Doomsday weapon of Zionist propaganda: if pushed hard, we’ll just go back to your countries and you are not going to like it. However, the fine print in this survey shows that this fear of Iran is spread mainly among suggestible Israelis, 39 percent of women as opposed to 22 percent of men – they swallowed their government’s propaganda — hook, line and sinker.

Paradoxically for us Israelis, nuclear Iran represents hope for peace, not a threat to it. Our greatest danger lies in the aggressive tendency of our generals and politicians. They have already caused so many unneeded wars by attacking Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinians. There is need for a counterbalance, for a great and powerful state that would keep our [Israeli] hawks in check. Since Iraq was subdued by the US army and Egypt by political means, Israeli generals have gone to war every two years. Only a nuclear Iran is likely to check Israeli warmongers and force Israel to proceed with peace process.

No sane Israeli expert, not even an extreme hawk, believes that a nuclear Iran would endanger or threaten Israel. Israel is too powerful, perfectly capable of delivering a deadly second strike. But this mind-boggling freedom of action the Israeli military enjoys would be gone, and that would be a good thing.

The balance of fear, or MAD (mutual assured destruction) is still the only way to deal with the Israeli-American threat. This was the reason for the martyrdom of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; by helping the USSR to build their nuclear bomb they saved uncounted millions from horrible death, even at the price of their own life.

The Voice of Saruman

It is extremely worrisome that Russia and China, two friends of independent Korea, did not throw the American-sponsored resolution right out the high window of the Security Council. True, they refused the Americans’ call for sanctions, but this is not enough. They should not agree with any sort of condemnation of an independent country acting within its own legitimate rights. Russia and China fought on the side of Pyongyang against the US, and they should not betray their war-tried ally, and with it their own dead soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army and the fallen pilots of the Russian Air Force.

Chinese leaders may remember Mao’s decision to go nuclear. When China exploded its first atom bomb, he declared:

“This is a major achievement of the Chinese people in their struggle to strengthen their national defense and oppose the U.S. imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail and nuclear threats. To defend oneself is the inalienable right of every sovereign state. To safeguard world peace is the common task of all peace-loving countries. China cannot remain idle in the face of the ever-increasing nuclear threats from the United States. China is conducting nuclear tests and developing nuclear weapons under compulsion.

The Chinese Government has consistently advocated the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. If this had been achieved, China need not have developed nuclear weapons. But our proposal has met with stubborn resistance from the U.S. The nuclear tests ban treaty of 1963 by the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union was an attempt to consolidate the nuclear monopoly of the three nuclear powers and tie the hands of all peace-loving countries, and that it had increased, and not decreased, the nuclear threat of U.S. imperialism against the people of China and of the whole world. . . .By developing nuclear weapons, China’s aim is to break the nuclear monopoly of the nuclear powers and to eliminate nuclear weapons.”

Every word in this wonderful, ringing declaration is as right today as it was then. Just put ‘Korea’ or ‘Iran’ in place of ‘China’, and you’ll agree that Korea and Iran “cannot remain idle in the face of the ever increasing nuclear threats from the United States”. Korea and Iran are “conducting nuclear tests and developing nuclear weapons under compulsion”. If and when President Obama eliminates American and Israeli arsenals, Korea and Iran’s turn will surely come.

Russia’s leaders Medvedev and Putin should apply their own doctrine of a multipolar world to the case of Korea. If they sincerely dispute the US doctrine of full spectrum dominance and believe in the sovereignty of every state, they should accept the sovereign right of Koreans to self-defence and deterrence. Nuclear monopoly is ethically wrong, for it establishes two tiers of states: these entitled to a nuclear shield and those deemed unworthy of one.

They should reject the ploy of “joint responsibility” that the Russians have repeatedly fallen for. There is no such thing as “joint responsibility” or “joint security” between the Empire and the rebels. Gorbachev was a great adept of joint responsibility and security, and he ruled long enough to see his Russia skinned by creditors and surrounded by NATO bases. Putin was taken in by this ploy in 2001, when he supported George W. Bush’s War on Terror, facilitated his conquest of Afghanistan, and willingly dismantled two important naval bases in Cuba and Vietnam. Later he learned that the US had exploited his credulity to move its own bases forward and undermine Russia’s standing in her own backyard.

Russia and America are interlocked in a zero-sum game, and that is why America promotes the anti-Russian policies of Georgia and the Ukraine, and tries to isolate Russia in the great pipeline competition. Russian leaders should recognise this sad fact of life and give more support to Iran and Korea. They should kick their oh-so-human desire to hobnob with the Western leaders. This is a constant problem of people’s representatives: trade union leaders discover that they do enjoy sumptuous lunches with factory owners more than hanging out with factory hands. Socialist leaders are prone to accept the cajoling of Western leaders and then to sign on the dotted line against the best interest of their people.

Gorbachev has sold his country down the river for the sheer pleasure of being embraced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Anwar as-Sadat would give up Arab interests for a prime-time interview with Barbara Walters. In the very beginning of his rule, Vladimir Putin was for a while taken in by the bonhommerie of his G8 mates, fellow rulers and shepherds of men.

They listened to the voice of Saruman. In the Lord of the Rings, the evil sorcerer Saruman tries to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and he proposes to Gandalf, the leader of the good guys, a “joint responsibility” proposal in front of his friends and foot soldiers:

“Our friendship would profit us both alike. Much we could still accomplish together, to heal the disorders of the world. Let us understand one another, and dismiss from thought these lesser folk! Let them wait on our decisions! For the common good I am willing to redress the past, and to receive you. Will you not consult with me? Will you not come up?”

The good guys got scared. They felt like “stupid servants overhearing the elusive discourse of their elders, and wondering how it would affect their lot. It was inevitable that Gandalf and Saruman should make alliance. Gandalf would ascend into the tower, and they would be left outside, dismissed to await the allotted work or punishment. Even in the mind of Théoden the thought took shape, like a shadow of doubt, “He will betray us; he will go, we shall be lost.”

Then Gandalf laughed. The fantasy vanished like a puff of smoke.”

This is the right reply to the American offers of “joint responsibility”. Russia and China are the leaders of the free world, the world free from American bases and troops, free from Israeli diktat, free from consumerist mania, free from neo-liberal dogma. They are responsible for the Freedom of Man, and they should laugh off every suggestion about what they will do together with the great oppressors.

We would all love to see President Obama taking his soldiers and hardware back home from Iraq and Afghanistan, from Italy and Germany, from Japan and South Korea, and turning the US into a friendly giant. This still can happen: this week, his Pentagon issued a medal for courage to an American soldier who survived the Israeli attack on USS Liberty in June 1967, 42 years after that atrocity was first hidden from the public. This could herald a new turn in American politics and the end of Zionist ascendancy. If and when that happens will be the time for greater cooperation between countries. But meanwhile, it is freedom that is at stake, and North Korea is the place to defend it.

_________________________________________

Appendix

The Atomic Bomb, Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, October 16, 1964

China exploded an atomic bomb at 15:00 hours on October 16, 1964, thereby successfully carrying out its first nuclear test. This is a major achievement of the Chinese people in their struggle to strengthen their national defence and oppose the U.S. imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail and nuclear threats.

To defend oneself is the inalienable right of every sovereign state. To safeguard world peace is the common task of all peace-loving countries. China cannot remain idle in the face of the ever increasing nuclear threats from the United States. China is conducting nuclear tests and developing nuclear weapons under compulsion.

The Chinese Government has consistently advocated the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. If this had been achieved, China need not have developed nuclear weapons. But our proposal has met with stubborn resistance from the U.S. imperialists. The Chinese Government pointed out long ago that the treaty on the partial halting of nuclear tests signed in Moscow in July 1963 by the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union was a big fraud to fool the people of the world, that it was an attempt to consolidate the nuclear monopoly of the three nuclear powers and tie the hands of all peace-loving countries, and that it had increased, and not decreased, the nuclear threat of U.S. imperialism against the people of China and of the whole world. . . .

The atomic bomb is a paper tiger. This famous statement by Chairman Mao Tse-tung is known to all. This was our view in the past and this is still our view at present. China is developing nuclear weapons not because it believes in their omnipotence nor because it plans to use them. On the contrary, in developing nuclear weapons, China’s aim is to break the nuclear monopoly of the nuclear powers and to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The Chinese Government is loyal to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We believe in the people. It is the people, and not any weapons, that decide the outcome of a war. The destiny of China is decided by the Chinese people, while the destiny of the world is decided by the people of the world, and not by nuclear weapons. China is developing nuclear weapons for defence and for protecting the Chinese people from U.S. threats to launch a nuclear war.

The Chinese Government hereby solemnly declares that China will never at any time or under any circumstances be the first to use nuclear weapons. . . .

The Chinese Government will, as always, exert every effort to promote, through international consultations, the realization of the lofty aim of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. Until that day comes, the Chinese Government and people will firmly and unswervingly follow their own path to strengthen their national defence, defend their motherland and safeguard world peace.

We are convinced that man, who creates nuclear weapons, will certainly be able to eliminate them.

Source:

from Break the Nuclear Monopoly, Eliminate Nuclear Weapons (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965), pp. 1-5.

Obama and the Denial of Genocide

Writer-activist David Boyajian’s investigative articles and commentaries have appeared in Armenian media outlets in the U.S., Europe, Middle East, and Armenia and the Newton Tab and USA Armenian Life newspapers named him among their “Top 10 Newsmakers of 2007.” So, when Barack Obama paid a visit to Turkey last month, it seemed like a good time to ask Boyajian for his take on the new president’s approach to the issue of the Armenian genocide.

Map: http://www.armenianchurch.net/heritage/history/map.html

Mickey Z: This April, President Barack Obama broke campaign promise #511, namely to explicitly acknowledge the Armenian genocide as U.S. President. What happened on his recent visit to Turkey? What are the ramifications of his breaking this promise?

David Boyajian: President Obama visited Turkey from April 6 to 7, where he did not use the word “genocide” when referring to the 1.5 million murders committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against its Armenian citizens from 1915-1923. As a candidate, Obama had promised several times to do so. His statement in Turkey that he had “not changed his views”-implying he still believes it was genocide-was still a clear breach of his promise to use the “G word.” It was a case study in verbal gymnastics and political duplicity and should be studied in political science courses. Obama’s broken promise obviously eroded his credibility. The same holds true for Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, as senators, supported the Armenian genocide resolution. They’ve since fallen disgracefully silent. Dr. Samantha Power should also be embarrassed. She’s the National Security Council’s genocide expert and a Pulitzer Prize winning author. As a campaign advisor to Obama, she made a video telling Armenian Americans that as president, Obama would definitely acknowledge their genocide. “Take my word for it,” she said.

Appeasement of a genocide-denying country such as Turkey is bad policy because its message is that genocides can be committed without consequence. Appeasement also erodes U.S. credibility on human rights and its stated desire to be a leader in genocide prevention. Unlike what lobbyists for Turkey would have U.S. believe, Armenian genocide affirmation by America would not harm U.S. national interests. Turkey depends on the U.S. for weapons systems, support for billions in loans from the International Monetary Fund, security guarantees through NATO, advocacy for Turkish membership in the European Union, and more. Some 20 countries, including Canada, France, and Switzerland, as well as the parliaments of the EU and the Council of Europe, have acknowledged the Armenian genocide. None has ever experienced much more a Turkish temper tantrum in retaliation.

MZ: Two days prior to Armenian Genocide Remembrance day- which annually falls on April 24-Turkey and Armenia announced that they had agreed to a “roadmap” to normalize relations. What was the significance of this timing? What does the “roadmap” contain?

DB: Behind the scenes, the U.S. State Department had long been twisting Armenia’s arm to agree to a so-called “roadmap” with Turkey before President Obama issued what has become a customary “April 24 statement” by U.S. presidents marking Armenian genocide memorial day. The “roadmap,” announced on April 22, provided political cover for Obama to not use the “G word” on April 24. That is, since there was now supposedly a roadmap for normalization of relations-no matter how vague and hurriedly slapped together- Obama could say that he did not want to upset Turkey and the touted-as-highly-delicate Turkish-Armenian negotiations by using the “G word.” Notice that Obama did not consult with Armenian-Americans or Armenia about this. So much for promises and moral principles. It’s disgraceful that Obama, simply to help Turkey save face, not only broke his promise, but showed blatant disregard for the activists-not just Armenians-who labored so hard for many years for the cause of recognizing all genocides.

Armenia has always said that it was ready to normalize relations with Turkey-which would include Turkey’s re-opening its border with Armenia-without pre-conditions. Suddenly, however, Armenia has had pre-conditions imposed on it in this “roadmap.” According to the Turkish press, the “roadmap” allegedly contains pre-conditions such as: Armenia’s agreeing to a joint commission to examine the veracity of the Armenian genocide-yes, you heard right, Armenia’s formal recognition of current Turkish boundaries-which contain the Armenian homeland, and, possibly, Armenia’s accepting Turkish mediation in the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijan over the disputed Armenian region of Karabagh-which is absurd since Azerbaijan and Turkey are allies. It appears that Armenia’s president, whose electoral legitimacy is in question, has been worn down in these negotiations by Turkey, the West, and possibly even Russia. And because the Armenian president is grappling with his legitimacy, he is not heeding the cautions being voiced by the people of his own nation about the “roadmap.”

MZ: The U.S. administration and mainstream media would have us believe that Turkey is seeking to “reconcile” with Armenia. Is “reconciliation” really a possibility, or have we misunderstood what’s going on?

DB: The word “reconciliation” in relation to Armenian-Turkish relations is largely an invention of U.S. policymakers, their emissaries, and the mainstream media who take their cues from them. What the U.S. and Europe would like to see is a more stable Caucasus-that is, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia-with open borders. Open borders, you see, would facilitate laying more oil and gas pipelines that would originate in the Caspian Sea region and proceed west to Turkey and then to energy-hungry Europe and Israel. The U.S. and Europe don’t want to put it quite that crudely-no pun intended-so they try to depict Armenia and Turkey as possibly “reconciling” and thus resolving all their differences. Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 out of sympathy with its ally Azerbaijan, which was in a war with the Armenians of Karabagh, a historically Armenian-populated autonomous area within Azerbaijan that Stalin handed to Azerbaijan. Turkey has also been infuriated that Armenia and Armenians worldwide have been demanding that Turkey acknowledge the genocide it committed against Armenians.

Turkey has to acknowledge the genocide or there will never be peace between it and Armenia. And although the Armenian government has not put forth any claims for reparations arising out of the genocide, or for territory, many Armenians do have these goals. They cite the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920, which provided for Armenian sovereignty over Armenian lands upon which Turkey committed the genocide, and which have since been incorporated into what is now eastern Turkey.

MZ: The countries of the Caucasus are Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Most Americans, including the mainstream media, could not find these small countries on a map. Why are Russia and the U.S.-the latter being thousands of miles from the region-so interested in these three small countries?

DB: The Caucasus is truly Ground Zero in Cold War II, the ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S.-along with Europe and the NATO military alliance-regard Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan as middlemen between the West and the gas and oil-rich regions around the Caspian Sea. The West has already laid gas and oil pipelines from Azerbaijan through Georgia and then on to Turkey and the west. The U.S. wanted those and future pipelines to bypass Russia and Iran because those two countries could shut such pipelines to pressure the U.S. and others. The only possible pipelines routes, therefore, are through Georgia or Armenia. But Turkey shut its border with Armenia in 1993, and Azerbaijan closed its border with Armenia even earlier due to the conflict between it and the de-facto Armenian region of Karabagh. That left Georgia as the only place for these Western pipelines. After the Russian-Georgian was last year, however, opening an alternative route has become more urgent. That largely explains the West’s renewed interest in Armenia. Conversely, Russia sees the Caucasus as within its traditional sphere of influence, and regards U.S. and European interest in the region as hostile acts.

Simultaneously, NATO has been pushing into the region. Georgia, Azerbaijan, and to some extent even the ex-Soviet republics on the other side of the Caspian Sea, are on the path to joining NATO. Russia was already upset that, following the Cold War, NATO had absorbed the former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe. NATO is now attempting, in effect, to do the same thing on Russia’s southern border. Russia fears that it will eventually be virtually surrounded by NATO. As a result, we have Cold War II: The U.S. and NATO are trying to push into the Caucasus and Central Asia, while Russia is trying to keep them out.

MZ: Why is Israel interested in the Caucasus, and what role is that country playing? Why are Israel and the pro-Israel lobby dead set against recognition of the Armenian genocide by the U.S. Congress?

DB: Israel is interested in getting some of the oil and gas that flow out of the Caspian Sea region. That is, from countries such as Azerbaijan, oil and gas flow west through Georgia, and then on to Turkey and other countries, possibly including Israel. After all, the U.S. and Turkey, which are important players in these pipelines, are obviously also very friendly with Israel. Israel also welcomes all non-Arab supplies of energy since they would make its Western allies less dependent on Arab oil and gas. And Israel has long had what it calls its Periphery Policy. Historically, Israel has not had good relations with its Arab neighbors. Therefore, to serve as counterweights, Israel befriends those countries further away, especially Muslim countries that aren’t necessarily sympathetic to Israel’s Arab neighbors or Palestinians. Azerbaijan, the only Muslim nation in the Caucasus, and some Muslim nations to the east, such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, are such countries. Fortuitously for Israel, they also possess significant deposits of gas and oil.

For decades, Israel and Turkey have had very good relations, mainly because they have a common ally, the U.S., and common adversaries, namely Arab nations. In the 1990′s, Israel and Turkey signed a number of military, economic, and political agreements that solidified their relationship. Even before that, but particularly after that, Turkey felt that it did not have sufficient lobbying muscle in Washington. So the Turks asked Israel to convince some of the pro-Israel lobby-the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and others-to serve as advocates for Turkey. The Jewish lobby groups agreed. So these groups, as part of their deal with Turkey, deny or call into question the Armenian genocide and work to prevent U.S. acknowledgement of that genocide. These groups won’t tolerate anyone questioning of the Holocaust, and yet hypocritically work against acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide. Interestingly, for the last 2 years, Armenian Americans have exposed the ADL’s hypocrisy. In Massachusetts, for example, fourteen cities severed ties with an anti-bias program sponsored by the ADL because of the latter’s hypocritical and anti-Armenian stance (see NoPlaceForDenial.com). Armenians are determined to challenge genocide denial whenever it occurs.

MZ: Is there a problem with the way the mainstream media has been covering Armenian issues?

DB: Yes. The mainstream media have several problems. First, they know very little about the Caucasus or Armenians. Reporters tend, therefore, to copy each other and repeat clichés and falsehoods-such as that Armenia and Turkey are on the verge of a historic “reconciliation.” Media also tend to accept at face value the propaganda issued by Western governments whose interest in the Caucasus is-let’s be frank-not “reconciliation,” democracy, or human rights, but rather self-interested economic, political, and military political penetration of the Caucasus.

Turkey has about 30 times more people and territory, and 50 times more Gross Domestic Product, than Armenia. The power differential is enormous. Turkey has infinitely more allies in Western media, governments, think tanks, and multi-national corporations-and knows how to use them. Commentators who have a vested interest in touting Turkey for their own political and even financial reasons have particularly come out of the woodwork to deride legitimate Armenian demands. But we rarely hear commentators speak of how a small country that has been the victim of genocide, that has had most of its territory stripped from it, and that has been blockaded by the denier of that genocide-Turkey-is being threatened by that very same unrepentant denier. Mainstream media largely fail to appreciate the foregoing facts. Hopefully, Mickey, this interview will help the media and your readers understand the issues and the region a bit better.

David Boyajian can be reached at David_Boyajian@Yahoo.com

In Defense of the White Man

While many believe that prejudice has diminished over time, it’s not really true. Prejudice is much like the wind: Its direction changes, and the sheltered and well-situated may not sense it, but it’s always blowing on some people somewhere. Put literally, every age has its fashionable biases – and unfashionable people.

This was obvious during the presidential inauguration benediction, given by the Reverend Joseph Lowery. While making a supplication to the Lord, he made the following anachronistic plea:

“. . . help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right [emphasis mine].”

Well, I wonder if the reverend has ever asked the Lord why He scourged the world with white people in the first place.

It isn’t surprising that caucaphobia is in fashion. You can demonize any person, group or place; all you need do is focus on the object’s failings to the exclusion of its/his accomplishments. It isn’t even hard to do. To bastardize one of Abraham Lincoln’s lines, if you look for the worst in a group, you’re sure to find it. It’s just as with a person. If I repeatedly disseminated your sins and mistakes among the town folk while downplaying your good points, how long would it be before they were chasing you with pitchforks?

So it has been with whites for a long time now. It is not correct to say that history textbooks, documentaries and entertainment inundate us with stories about slavery and civil rights abuses; no, they inundate us with stories about whites’ practice of slavery and abuse of civil rights. There are movies such as “Roots” and “Mississippi Burning” but none of note about the Aztecs’ or Shaka Zulu’s domination of neighboring peoples, or the current African slave trade or Zimbabwean “president” Robert Mugabe’s persecution of whites and political opponents. Then, relating the American history guidelines of a prominent textbook publisher, the author of The Language Police, Diane Ravitch, writes:

“European Americans, the guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in all human history.”

This philosophy imbues school textbooks. While featured prominently are the sins of whites, others’ sins are whitewashed. For instance, due to special-interest-group pressure – such as that applied by Moslem activists – examples of slavery perpetrated by non-whites are in short supply or are sanitized. This, despite the fact that Moslem North Africans did at one time capture young boys of both the white and black races, castrate them and sell them into slavery. And this bias is a continuation of decades of anti-white propaganda of the kind embodied in Susan Sontag’s famous 1967 line, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” It’s an idea that has taken hold.

Thus must I mount a defense of the white race. But I want to preface it with a few remarks. First, don’t ask why I undertake such an endeavor. When the president has a preacher talking about the black, brown, yellow, red and white, it’s silly to ask why I speak of race. I’m not initiating such a discussion, I’m responding. I’m not throwing punches, I’m blocking.

Second, because of this – since I’m refuting those who assign blame by highlighting the sins of whites – it’s necessary that I trumpet whites’ accomplishments. Unlike those I’m refuting, however – who often ascribe the evils they feature to something inherent in whites – I don’t claim there is an innate quality in the race that should be credited with all these triumphs. On the contrary, I believe the force primarily responsible for Western civilization’s glories is Christianity, but that is grist for a different day.

It’s not hard to figure out where a defense of whites must start: Slavery. It’s the most odd of issues, in that we all thoroughly agree on the wrongness of it yet it is thoroughly divisive. It is the defining grievance of black America, something that imbues millions of black psyches. As an example, I attended a gathering a few years ago at which there was a certain guest, a rather emotive and outgoing black fellow who was very good at relating every topic of discussion, from the meaningful to the mundane, to America’s slavery. It was as if he could channel Kunta Kinte in every conversation.

Yet the reality of slavery is that, along with prostitution, it is one of the world’s oldest institutions. It is mentioned in the Bible and Koran, and, to the best of my knowledge, every major civilization has practiced it. And, if we’re to believe history and Afrocentrists (and I suppose you cannot believe both), the ancient Egyptians were black and enslaved Jews.

Moreover, the Islamic slave trade took at least as many Africans into bondage as did the European variety, and African tribes themselves had slaves and sold them to both civilizations. Additionally, while the word “slave” conjures up the image of a black person in the typical American mind, the term itself is derived from the word “Slav.” This is because great numbers of Slavs were once sold into slavery by conquering peoples. In other words, no group ever cornered the market on slavery – it touched ever corner of the Earth.

Yet, in the history of involuntary servitude, something else should be noted. It is a startling fact:

While whites weren’t the first ones to practice slavery, they were the first ones to abolish it.

Let’s be clear about this. Slavery was accepted. It was the status quo. It was an institution whose origin was shrouded in the mists of time. It was unquestioned.

That is, until Europeans said “No more.”

It was not Asians who effected this bold and unprecedented social change. It was not South Americans. It was not Africans. It was not American Indians. It was not Aborigines. It was Europeans, that cancer of human history, and they were just as white then as they are today. They gave the world change you can really believe in.

People will try to explain away this historical fact, saying that this striking example of man’s humanity to man has nothing to do with race. I will simply reiterate that the why of the matter is a discussion for a different day. For now, I’m content to say that if whites can be demonized without explanation for being one of many groups to enslave Africans, they can be credited without explanation for being the first group to outlaw the enslavement of anyone.

One of the reasons we fixate on slavery that ended more than 150 years ago concerns the effects many believe it has today. This is called the “legacy of slavery,” which, actually, seems not nearly as big a problem as the legacy of obsessing on legacies. Be that as it may, what is the real legacy of slavery?

Well, let’s think about it: Many lament blacks’ economic state in America, claiming it’s part of slavery’s legacy. But where would blacks be were it not for slavery? The answer is Africa, where people’s economic state is far, far worse than that of American blacks.

In other words, there is no reason to agonize over an event – even an evil one – responsible for your presence in a country that has offered its citizens unprecedented rights and standard of living. (Of course, to be precise, most blacks currently in the U.S. would not actually have been worse off absent slavery. This is because they wouldn’t have “been” at all, as ancestors whose procreation led to their existence would never even have met. The big picture is a funny thing, isn’t it?)

The point is that most people who arrived on American shores were driven here by some kind of persecution. Whatever the reason, however, thank God we’re in the land of opportunity and not languishing in a slum in Asia, South America, Africa or Eastern Europe. So, it’s ironic, but that some blacks were brought here in chains yesterday ensured that their descendants wouldn’t have to wear chains today.

Now we come to prejudice, another supposedly characteristic white fault. Yet the truth is quite the opposite. In reality, racial prejudice is probably found least among whites, due to political correctness.

Most white children are raised today with the idea that it’s profoundly immoral to be prejudiced (I discussed this here). This isn’t to say there aren’t some Archie Bunker types extant, but they certainly aren’t in fashion. Remember, it was mainly white people who originated, promoted and funded sensitivity-training classes, tolerance programs and multiculturalism (come to think of it, I may start hating white people myself). Now, while I consider these abominations to be worse than what they ostensibly remedy, this brings us to a relevant question: Can you think of another group that has gone to the point of self-flagellation to purge prejudice from its ranks? Heck, with how we beat each other up over this, no one really has to worry at all about whites. We’re all black and blue.

Then we have the matter of white achievement. The vast majority of what makes the lives of all races better today – modern science and medicine; our luxuries; Western art, literature, legal institutions; etc. – is the handiwork of whites. Oh, this is simply a matter of circumstance, of opportunity, of a twist of fate, you say? Perhaps. Again, this is not the time to discuss the ways and whys. Suffice it to say for now that if President Obama (PBUH) can frame matters in terms of race at his inauguration (and in his books and everywhere else, it seems), I can in an article. And if whites can be ridiculed for their transgressions, they can be recognized for their triumphs.

Yet, despite all this and more, caucaphobia is still not only accepted but often encouraged. And the hypocrisy is stark. The left admonishes against making even valid generalizations or entertaining intellectual discussions about group differences. And indulging stereotyping – that specter of egalitarian nightmares – can fast earn one pariah status in addition to a place on the unemployment line. Why, even the positive variety is off limits. We cannot say blacks are better athletes, even though the sports arena may bear witness to this; we cannot say Asians are more intelligent, even though they have the highest average I.Q. of any major racial group; we cannot say Latinos are good dancers (not sure about that one). The idea is that such beliefs can lead to stigmatization or resentment or, or . . . whatever the theory du jour may be.

But when the matter is whites, even baseless negative stereotypes aren’t thought cause for alarm. A Reverend Lowery can imply that whites are uniquely flawed and immoral, they can be portrayed as the bane of man, as “the cancer of human history,” and it’s ho-hum.

Yet, are we to believe that such demonization magically becomes harmless when whites are the targets? What does history teach about the plight of consistently scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It’s that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized – as Sunnis’ domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans’ enslavement of the Helots proved – it’s foolish to dismiss the peril posed by mainstreaming caucaphobia. (In fact, whites already suffer the sting of persecution; I documented some cases here and here).

Yet, that increasingly-maligned dead white male Ben Franklin knew whereof he spoke when he said, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Prejudice is a function of emotion, not logic, and emotion is like darkness, in that it can be blinding. A person who sees only color – and through colored glasses – will have a powerful immunity to facts. Thus, I only expect caucaphobia to intensify.

So what can we do? Well, prayer is always good, so I’ll conclude with one of my own right now. Lord, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will cease the attack, brown will no longer frown, white will be all right – and rhymes will fit the times.

Compassionate Killers

By Gideon Levy

“Haaretz” — This war, perhaps more than its predecessors, is exposing the true deep veins of Israeli society. Racism and hatred are rearing their heads, as is the impulse for revenge and the thirst for blood. The “inclination of the commander” in the Israel Defense Forces is now “to kill as many as possible,” as the military correspondents on television describe it. And even if the reference is to Hamas fighters, this inclination is still chilling.

The unbridled aggression and brutality are justified as “exercising caution”: the frightening balance of blood – about 100 Palestinian dead for every Israeli killed, isn’t raising any questions, as if we’ve decided that their blood is worth one hundred times less than ours, in acknowledgement of our inherent racism.

Rightists, nationalists, chauvinists and militarists are the only legitimate bon ton in town. Don’t bother us about humaneness and compassion. Only at the edges of the camp can a voice of protest be heard – illegitimate, ostracized and ignored by media coverage – from a small but brave group of Jews and Arabs.

Alongside all this, rings another voice, perhaps the worst of all. This is the voice of the righteous and the hypocritical. My colleague, Ari Shavit, seems to be their eloquent spokesman. This week, Shavit wrote here (“Israel must double, triple, quadruple its medical aid to Gaza,” Haaretz, January 7): “The Israeli offensive in Gaza is justified … Only an immediate and generous humanitarian initiative will prove that even during the brutal warfare that has been forced on us, we remember that there are human beings on the other side.”

To Shavit, who defended the justness of this war and insisted that it mustn’t be lost, the price is immaterial, as is the fact that there are no victories in such unjust wars. And he dares, in the same breath, to preach “humaneness.”

Does Shavit wish for us to kill and kill, and afterward to set up field hospitals and send medicine to care for the wounded? He knows that a war against a helpless population, perhaps the most helpless one in the world, that has nowhere to escape to, can only be cruel and despicable. But these people always want to come out of it looking good. We’ll drop bombs on residential buildings, and then we’ll treat the wounded at Ichilov; we’ll shell meager places of refuge in United Nations schools, and then we’ll rehabilitate the disabled at Beit Lewinstein. We’ll shoot and then we’ll cry, we’ll kill and then we’ll lament, we’ll cut down women and children like automatic killing machines, and we’ll also preserve our dignity.

The problem is – it just doesn’t work that way. This is outrageous hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Those who make inflammatory calls for more and more violence without regard for the consequences are at least being more honest about it.

You can’t have it both ways. The only “purity” in this war is the “purification from terrorists,” which really means the sowing of horrendous tragedies. What’s happening in Gaza is not a natural disaster, an earthquake or flood, for which it would be our duty and right to extend a helping hand to those affected, to send rescue squads, as we so love to do. Of all the rotten luck, all the disasters now occurring in Gaza are manmade – by us. Aid cannot be offered with bloodstained hands. Compassion cannot sprout from brutality.

Yet there are some who still want it both ways. To kill and destroy indiscriminately and also to come out looking good, with a clean conscience. To go ahead with war crimes without any sense of the heavy guilt that should accompany them. It takes some nerve. Anyone who justifies this war also justifies all its crimes. Anyone who preaches for this war and believes in the justness of the mass killing it is inflicting has no right whatsoever to speak about morality and humaneness. There is no such thing as simultaneously killing and nurturing. This attitude is a faithful representation of the basic, twofold Israeli sentiment that has been with us forever: To commit any wrong, but to feel pure in our own eyes. To kill, demolish, starve, imprison and humiliate – and be right, not to mention righteous. The righteous warmongers will not be able to allow themselves these luxuries.

Anyone who justifies this war also justifies all its crimes. Anyone who sees it as a defensive war must bear the moral responsibility for its consequences. Anyone who now encourages the politicians and the army to continue will also have to bear the mark of Cain that will be branded on his forehead after the war. All those who support the war also support the horror.

Thousands march against Israel

PARIS – Tens of thousands of protesters marched through central Paris and other French cities Saturday to denounce Israeli’s offensive in Gaza and express support for the Palestinian cause.

Thousands of French men and women carried Palestinian banners, amid cries of “Israel murderer.”

As the various groups gathered, portraits of slain Hamas chief Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah were carried behind those of revolutionary Che Guevara and Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez.

A banner strung along a truck carrying a sound system declared: “Support for Hamas,” as all the chants laid the blame for the fighting at Israel’s door.

“We are all Palestinians. We are all children of Gaza,” the cortege chanted as it set off down a treelined boulevard separating eastern Paris’ districts from the Marais, the city’s oldest Jewish quarter.

“I have no problem marching with Hamas. Hamas has been victim of a campaign of disinformation,” Mark Cramer, a 62-year-old a former journalist from New York and founder member of Paris group “Americans Against the War.”

Cramer put the blame for the collapse of the Middle East ceasefire on Israel. “There was a medieval siege against Gaza. That siege was violent. People were starving,” he said.

Some 3,800 police were deployed, equipped with riot shields and body armour, but remained discreetly in side streets as the crowd marched on under a sea of Palestinian and Hezbollah flags.

Despite the biting winter chill, organisers claimed a turnout of 100,000.

“We want to point to the hypocrisy of an international community which votes for tons of resolutions that it never enforces,” declared Olivier Besancenot, the well-known leader of France’s Revolutionary Communist League.

While the groups organising the demonstration focused their slogans on the suffering of Palestinian civilians, many homemade banners declared “Zionism equals Nazism” and depicted Israeli flags emblazoned with Swastikas.

Elsewhere in France, smaller crowds gathered for similar demonstrations in several cities. In Nice, on the Mediterranean Riviera, protesters smashed the windows of a McDonald’s restaurant and threw stones at the Ruhl casino.

“McDonald’s because they’re American, they’re the paymasters,” one marcher said.

In the northern industrial city of Lille around 10,000 protesters gathered, according to both police and organisers.

Other protests took place in Toulouse in the southwest and Mulhoise in the east.