Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9439)	12/10/2005 4:20:42 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22250

Re: But you wouldn't be popular at the UN for saying it. Just as seventy years ago anti-Nazi Germans were not "popular" in Germany.... yet History proved them right.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9439)	12/11/2005 7:34:07 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

US Seen as the Great Violator of Global Human Rights By BILL CHRISTISON former CIA analyst The task was to talk for three minutes -- not one second more -- on the grounds of the New Mexico State Capitol building (commonly known as the Roundhouse) on December 10, 2005. The occasion was a Peace-with-Justice Rally celebrating the anniversary of the U.N. General Assembly's adoption on December 10, 1948 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Challenged by the thought that people who would never listen for ten minutes might indeed listen for three, the author of this piece spoke the following. And he fervently believes every word of it. We need to WAKE UP! The policies of the United States are a human rights disaster. Here we are, in December 2005, engaged in an orgy of shopping and consumerism, blatantly glorifying our wealth and utterly unconcerned with the picture this orgy presents to the world's poor. The global policies of the U.S. are seen -- and justly so -- as greedy and immoral, policies that violate the human rights of the poor and the powerless everywhere. At the same time we also glorify our military, and fight wars in which we kill and torture many people, wars that most of the world believes are designed to enlarge our own and our closest allies' wealth and power. In the process, the military-industrial complex that runs the U.S. government rakes in obscene profits. Outside the United States it is widely understood that the true motives of the Bush administration for invading Iraq in 2003 were threefold: (1) the U.S. drive for global empire, (2) oil, and (3) the desire of the neocons in Washington to conquer Iraq in order to benefit Israel. Inside the U.S., the last of these reasons -- the pressure of the neocons for war on Israel's behalf -- is hardly ever mentioned. This taboo on even discussing the Israeli link to the war in Iraq introduces major distortions into practically every effort to examine and change the policies that are causing massive hatred of the U.S. We should beware the "clash of civilizations" that the neocons, their rightwing Israeli allies, and the Christian fundamentalists are promoting nowadays against Islam. We should instead think seriously about what kind of future relationship the United States should have with the state of Israel. The Middle East is today the central target of U.S. foreign policy, and we all need to understand that the Palestine-Israel problem is a very central issue to the peoples of the Middle East. Most Arab leaders today have been so co-opted by the U.S. that they no longer object to our support for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, but the peoples of the area are a different story. Regardless of what happens in Iraq, or in Iran, or in Syria, or in Saudi Arabia, we will never end the "War on Terrorism" without, first, a solution to the Palestine-Israel issue that provides as much justice to the Palestinians as to the Israelis. The daily injustices and cruelties imposed by Israel and the U.S. on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are today worse than they have been in the previous 38 years of occupation, and this, by itself, is a major human rights issue facing the United States. Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He can be reached at christison@counterpunch.org

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9439)	12/16/2005 5:01:16 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 22250

Re: Gus > I have myself suggested 4 or 5 years ago that Germans ought to carve out a Jewish Homeland in the midst of Bavaria.. But you wouldn't be popular at the UN for saying it. ncr-iran.org >>UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on Thursday expressed shock over Ahmadinejad's remarks questioning the Holocaust and suggesting that the state of Israel be moved to Europe. According to Israeli pundit Caroline Glick, Annan's pro-Israeli utterances are but "crumbs" thrown at his Zionist foes to lull them.... Clue: Dec. 16, 2005 3:22 \| Updated Dec. 16, 2005 8:20 Column one: Privatizing foreign policy By CAROLINE GLICK John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, may very well be Israel's greatest friend in the US government. Last Sunday, in a glittering ballroom at a New York hotel, Bolton gave the keynote speech at the Zionist Organization of America's annual dinner. Bolton's address was refreshingly blunt. He pulled no punches in his criticism of the UN and its endemic anti-Semitism. Bolton allowed that the election of Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman, to the post of one of 15 vice presidents of the General Assembly and the passage of Israel's resolution to establish an official UN Holocaust Memorial Day are "positive steps." But at the same time, he stipulated that "to say that Israel can be said to be treated as a normal nation at the UN would be a statement of fantasy." Bolton noted with evident disgust the fact that remarks by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be wiped off the map draw "almost no attention at the UN." They have been met with inaction in spite of the fact that "this is a president of a government that has for nearly 20 years been pursuing a strategic policy of trying to acquire nuclear weapons." Bolton emphasized that the Iranian nuclear program threatens not only Israel, but all the nations of the region and may eventually threaten the US itself. The American ambassador discussed at length an anti-Israel event that took place at UN Headquarters on November 29 which did not receive coverage by the Hebrew media and was ignored by the Foreign Ministry. On that day, as on every anniversary of the 1947 UN vote recommending the partition of the British Mandate in the Land of Israel, the UN sponsored an official Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This year, law professor Anne Bayevsky, who in recent years has heroically taken it upon herself to expose the UN's institutional anti-Semitism, managed to photograph the event in which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council participated. The three UN leaders sat on a stage against the backdrop of a map of the Middle East in which Israel was mysteriously replaced by a country called "Palestine." Not one of the UN leaders, or any of the other participants in the event, saw fit to protest the fact that Israel had been literally "wiped off" this official UN map. According to Bolton, "I think we need to use this example, this piece of evidence about a fundamental flaw within the UN itself. This is not simply a mistake that the three men made not speaking about the map. They didn't speak about the map because they didn't see anything unusual. And in fact there isn't anything unusual about it in the context of the UN. We need to take this instance and go beyond what our normal reaction might be - to slam the people involved for not criticizing the map, for not walking out. We need to say this is a pivot point to change the culture at the UN." As an Israeli, listening to Bolton I could not help feeling a deep sense of shame. True, it is exhilarating to know that there is an American ambassador at Turtle Bay who is going out of his way to defend Israel's rights. But I couldn't help wondering where Israel's UN ambassador and Foreign Ministry fit into this story. It seems that since he was elected vice president of the General Assembly, Ambassador Gillerman has spent an inordinate amount of his time praising Kofi Annan for the crumbs he throws in Israel's direction whenever he comes under pressure from the US Congress to reform the endemically corrupt UN. [...] jpost.com

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9439)	12/16/2005 12:00:31 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Birobidzahn---The Jewish homeland that was rejected. A National homeland for Jewry was established by Stalin in southeastern Asia in 1928. This large area rich in natural resources was approximately 10 times larger than the UN Israel of 1948. Had the Jewish/Zionist leadership accepted this generous offer in 1928 and moved the Jewish population, there never would have been a "holocaust" and consequently no need to carve out a Jewish state on stolen Palestinian land in 1948. Stalin's Jewish autonomous state was a secular and political solution to the Jewish/Zionist desire for a homeland. The Zionist rejection of this secular solution for a Jewish homeland exposed the theological engine driving the Zionist movement. The forces behind Zionism (Jewish/Christian-Zionists/Masonic were not interested in rebuilding Solomon's Temple in a Birobidzahn Jewish homeland. Solomon's Temple in Birobidzahn had no theological, biblical or prophetic appeal for the deluded masses of Christian and Jewish Zionists. swarthmore.edu