We mustn't Stand on the side of Injustice

By Adel – PeaceMaker
December 31, 2009

Psalms 82
Unjust judgments rebuked

GOD STANDETH in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Palestine has been a Muslim country for well over one thousand years. In that period it has endured numerous invasions by the Crusaders.

Finally they took Palestine with most of the Middle East at the end of the First World War with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. The Imperialist powers - Britain and France - carved the land into small pieces to divide between them. The British had control over Palestine at the end of the First World War.

Twenty years before this a political movement called Zionism had started among the Jews, they demanded a land of their own. They decided on Palestine for their exclusive Jewish state. Most of the Jews at the time rejected the idea; they condemned Zionism as a "blasphemy against Judaism". And in fact on November 10, 1975 the world condemned Zionism at the UN General Assembly as "a form of racism and racial discrimination".

It is only with the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe that Zionism gathered more support among the Jews. The Zionist realized that their plot to steal Palestine will require the support from the Imperialist powers of the day. They had predicted the British take over of Palestine before the end of the First World War. So they held secret meetings with the British government promising to be their watchdog in the Middle East, securing British interest like the Suez Canal in return for Britain's support in the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine.

British Prime Minister Sir Campbell Bannerman reveals why Britain found it imperative to support the creation of a Zionist state in the heartland of Islam. This is a quote from the British Prime Minister over 40 years before the creation of Israel - he is talking about Muslims not just Palestinians:

“There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state; it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

This resulted in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which Britain promised the Zionists a national home in Palestine. At that time, at the end of the First World War there were very few Jews in Palestine - just 56,000 Jews compare to 1 million Palestinians, that's less than 6% of the population in Pales0tine.

Lord Balfour in a confidential letter revealed the plot:

"In Palestine we do not propose to even go through the formality of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants… The four powers are committed to Zionism."

The four powers being America, Britain, France and Russia, they all conspired to create Israel.

After the Second World War the British Empire was coming to an end. The US, the country least exhausted by the war emerged as a new power in the world, so the Zionists turned to America for support, For the Americans this was an attractive proposal. President Truman new that a Zionist state, completely dependent on the US for its daily survival, would be devoted to US interests in the region.

So in 1946 after the Zionists blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem, slaughtering 91 innocent people, the Palestinian issue was hurriedly passed to the UN. The UN has no legal mandate to partition a country against the wishes of its people and yet with US domination of the UN, it proposed a partition plan for Palestine granting 55% of Palestine to the Jews who in fact owned only 6% of the land.

Even after massive US bullying, all the countries of Asia and Africa opposed the partition plan, except for three, one of which was white dominated South-Africa.

The UN ambassador of Haiti began to cry when he was forced to change his vote, similarly vulnerable Liberia threatened with a rubber embargo had to obey the US. This is the sort of shameful open bullying that went on that day to secure the votes for the partition of Palestine.

The Palestinians obviously rejected the theft of their land and a war broke out as the ruthless Zionist soldiers made a grab for the land slaughtering Palestinians wherever they found them. The Palestinians were left to fight alone; they had no army and few weapons to oppose the Zionist military that had been trained and armed by the British.

On 9th of April 1948 soldiers of the Irgun, a particularly fanatic Zionist terrorist group commanded by Menachem Begin who later became the Prime Minister of Israel, entered the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. And they slaughtered 250-300 men, women, and children in cold blood. Their bodies were purposely mutilated to terrorize the rest of the Palestinians into fleeing their homes from fear of similar massacres, thereby achieving the Zionist aim of ethnic cleansing.

Menachem Begin himself said:

“Deir Yassin massacre was not only necessary but without it the State of Israel would not have emerged.”

At Haifa, Jaffa and other cities the Zionists terrorized the population into fleeing. Those that didn't flee were slaughtered or forcefully removed - over 400 Palestinian cities and villages were depopulated like this. Over 800,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes.

This slaughter of Muslims in Palestine - their blood shed on the holy soil of the land of the first Qibla (the direction that should be faced when a Muslim prays), the Masjid Al-Aqsa, that started with Deir Yassin continues to this day; like the siege and barbaric massacre at the Jenin Refugee Camp in 2002.

You might have read about the 15 Israeli soldiers that beat Muntaha Seraya and her four children after bursting into her home during the Jenin siege. The youngest was just 4 years old. She herself was four months pregnant… she suffered a miscarriage half an hour after the soldiers left.

They used her husband as a human shield, resting their M-16 rifles on his shoulder as they moved door to door firing in to the houses. When an Israeli sniper shot the "human shield" by mistake he was left bleeding for five days before being taken to the hospital.

This is the reality Palestinians live with every day.

You probably know the story of Rachel Corrie from my previous post. She felt her duty was to stand against injustice so she went to Palestine. She stood against this Israeli army bulldozer, defending a Palestinian home from destruction. The bulldozer drove directly over her, twice, crushing her body and she lost her life, standing for justice on the 16th of March 2003.

"I feel like I'm witnessing the systematic destruction of a people's ability to survive... Sometimes I sit down to dinner with people and I realize there is a massive military machine surrounding us, trying to kill the people I'm having dinner with.” ~ Rachel Corrie

She was only 23 years old with her whole life in front of her. She had the same aspirations that all of us have for life and yet she sacrificed her life to stand against injustice.

If we can not stand for justice like Rachel Corrie did, what we mustn't do is stand on the side of injustice – we mustn't help the oppressor. For that, there is no justification.

Let’s Put Military Spending in Perspective

By Minuteman Media columnist William A. Collins
December 14, 2009

War’s expensive,
That’s just fine;
Taking care,
That I get mine.

It may be that by now, Americans have a good handle on just how much money the Pentagon actually spends. Or not. In broad terms, U.S. military expenditures are just about equal to those of all other nations combined. Or, looked at another way, Pentagon expenditures are just about equal to those of all other federal agencies combined.

In any case, it’s a lot, maybe double what we really need. There are a number of unsettling explanations for this waste, so let’s glance at a few:

1. Congress: Most states produce something that the military used to think it needed—fighter planes, submarines, landmines, nukes, etc. Though needs change, the old jobs must somehow be retained, by way of countless budget items to keep them going.

2. Wars: This isn’t 1945. Wars used to end when they were completed. No more. Today they go on for political reasons, even though our country is no longer in danger. Sometimes it’s about oil, sometimes empire, sometimes arrogance, sometimes ingrained irrational fear of a supposed enemy.

3. Bases: We have about 900 of them in other lands. These are costly, but if you’re going to dominate the world you’ve got to pay. Presumably the giant ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will one day be turned over to those nations, but don’t count on it. It didn’t work out that way in Germany, Japan, Korea, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Cuba, etc. Many are still going strong.

4. Contractors: Military personnel used to do the cooking, cleaning, building, guarding, maintaining, translating, transporting, procuring, and all the other attendant work that goes with running a war or occupying a country. Today? Forget about that. We now have roughly a 1:1 ratio between troops and contractors. And most of them are expensive.

At the same time, still further giant expenses darken America’s military horizon. Interest on our debt is a biggie. We don’t pay for war and waste out of pocket, you know. We borrow it. From China, mostly. With luck we’ll be able to pay them back cheaply when the dollar isn’t worth much anymore. Maybe soon.

Then there are all those veterans. Step by grudging step, we are now paying them more for being poisoned by Agent Orange in Vietnam, 30 years late. Luckily, many have already died, and that holds down the cost. This script is currently being reprised with depleted uranium from Iraq. Happily, the longer we resist vets’ claims, the more of them pass on and the lower our liability. We may not get away so cheaply with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Thank heaven we don’t have to pay the Vietnamese, Iraqis, or Afghans.

Historically, it’s not uncommon for empires to get this overextended. They become intoxicated with power and domination and lose track of the price. At least if they are dictatorships there is someone in charge who can haul in on the reins when costs get out of hand. Democracies have a harder time. Everyone has a spoon in the pot. Retrenchment must overcome greed, power, fear, and tradition, a perhaps hopeless task for even the most motivated president. Britain needed a world war to pull it off.

So at the moment, President Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” still rules the roost, though it now has to share the spoils with Wall Street. Corruption on this scale makes the Afghans and Iraqis look like pikers.

Seven Principles of Public Life

By Adel – PeaceMaker

December 29, 2009

The Seven Principles of Public Life should apply to ALL in the public service, perhaps the most important, is integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties. These principles are:

1. Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.

2. Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

3. Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

4. Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

5. Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

6. Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

7. Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Yet the authorities turn a blind eye to the various lobby organizations, which go to great lengths to influence not only those in power; but those wishing to achieve power in the future. Those lobbies have periodically been conspirators, controllers of the media, and of wielding undue power and influence over governments.

Children of War

By Adel – PeaceMaker
December 28, 2009

When a child dies because of war, any war, then a big part of this Universe dies; and no matter which side is shooting, the end result is the same, innocent children die.

Many of us have no clue as to what the ramification of War actually does to our children or to any human being. It is the most HORRIFIC scenario anyone can face. The SCARS OF WAR are implanted in our brains as children, reliving them over and over and over again.

When will we come to the realization that war is getting us nowhere. If we would join together and save the world from the poverty, hunger, sadness, despair and death of the innocents, than we could truly say that we are “civilized".

In Memoriam

By Adel – PeaceMaker

December 27, 2009

Life in Gaza is a constant gauntlet of Israeli sniper fire, military rockets and army bulldozers. No one is safe.

The feeling in Gaza is that the West accepts this type of action; it doesn’t matter how much so called ‘collateral damage’ it causes. Those who try and stop the violence can end up paying with their lives.

Rachel Corrie brought the Palestinians’ plight to the world’s attention when she died in Rafah near the border with Egypt, crushed by an Israeli bulldozer operated by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on March 16, 2003 (age 23). “The driver could clearly see she was there,” states her friend. “But instead of stopping, he continued forward.”

"I feel like I'm witnessing the systematic destruction of a people's ability to survive... Sometimes I sit down to dinner with people and I realize there is a massive military machine surrounding us, trying to kill the people I'm having dinner with.” ~ Rachel Corrie

Cameraman James Miller was killed by a single shot fired by an Israeli soldier on May 2, 2003 (age 34) while filming a documentary in Rafah, Gaza Strip. “James died because we trusted them to behave like a civilized army. We knew they could see that we weren’t armed and that we were carrying a white flag. We trusted them not to kill us under those circumstances and they shot James anyway,” states his colleague Saira Shah.

On April 11, 2003, a British photographer Tom Hurndall, was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper while trying to help two Palestinian children flee Israeli fire in Rafah refugee camp, Gaza Strip. Hundrill was left in a coma and died nine months later on January 13, 2004 (age 22).

“What do I want from this life? What makes you happy is not enough. All the things that satisfy our instincts only satisfy the animal in us. I want to be proud of myself. I want more. I want to look up to myself and when I die, I want to smile because of the things I have done, not cry for the things I haven't done.” ~ Tom Hurndall

When the Children Cry

Just look what we have done, our children are born into this evil world where man is killing man and no one know just why.

The Horror of War

By Adel – PeaceMaker
December 27, 2009

American families will be missing a family member(s) this Holiday Season due to this so called “War on Terror”. According to a study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion, it is estimated that around 1,366,350 Iraqis have died since this immoral war began. This Holiday Season we need to all take time out of our busy holiday schedules to think about those who have been killed and maimed in the horror of war. Jesus Christ taught us love, compassion, understanding, and most of all PEACE – Let this holiday remind us that peace is a possible goal.

And men still fight; don’t they know it’s harder to shake hands with fists?

A Christmas Remembrance

The Mainstream Media don’t permit such pictures to be made public. That’s brutal, pornographic; people will be shocked, or dismayed that the enemy seems so small, so sweet, so silent, so dead.

By Adel – PeaceMaker

December 24, 2009

Little four year old Kaukab Al Dayah, whose tender face rests on top of the rubble of her home, an unsuspecting victim of Zionist brutality that delivered her family a missile as a Christmas gift just over a year ago.

What horror strikes the soul to see that face encased in death, the cement wall rising beside her like the vault’s side that receives the coffin, but there is no coffin. This is unnatural death. This is civilized death, the death of the innocent whose life was yet to be lived, whose eyes, shut now, will see no more the rising sun, whose hair, all matted now, will never flow in the warmth of the breeze, whose voice, silenced now, will never sing again.

Think as you look upon this young girl’s face, her grave in the ruins of her room as she slept; her life ended in such suffering and pain; think of her as a reflection of all who died in this horrific bloodbath that accomplished nothing but indescribable pain for the Palestinian. It provided only a moment of ecstasy for the Zionists, feeling nothing but self-gratification, a sickness of the mind and spirit, a high that knows nothing of Humanity.

For the Palestinian, little Kaukab and all children: the joy that should have been; the love showered upon her, lost forever; the home filled with laughter and hope and dreams and warmth and security, blasted now; the neighbors and friends and family, tightly knit in love and kinship, shattered now as this home is shattered.

For the Israeli, it mirrors what this state has become and what the future of the Jews might be under the pathological sickness imposed on them by the Zionists. They enforce what they will to ensure their power not through rational deliberation but through deceit, coercion, fear, and mass murder.

Let us all ask of the Child of Bethlehem that He offer this world once again the Beatitudes:

• For little Kaukab, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
• For her parents, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
• For the perpetrators of this annihilation, Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.

Avatar’s Anti-War Message

By Adel – PeaceMaker

December 23, 2009

James Cameron’s much-anticipated film "Avatar" has a Green and Anti-War message, and exposes America's conduct in the War on Terror through its plot line.

The story is set in the year 2154 when Earth's inhabitants, plan to use military force to conquer Pandora for its rich resources that they desperately need. Pandora, a planet roughly the same size as Earth, is inhabited by a peaceful human like species with blue skin called the Na'vi.

The earthlings send in a crew of special-forces mercenaries armed with sophisticated weaponry to attack and conquer the Na'vi, despite the fact that they represent no direct threat to Earth. The military employs mind-controlled avatars that resemble the Na'vi in to venture out from their landing crafts to destroy a pristine world out of blindness and greed.

James Cameron has publicly proclaimed that he's an environmental activist who believes that our "industrial society" is "causing a global climate change" and "destroying species faster than we can classify them." In a recent interview, Cameron admitted that he made "obvious" references in the film to Iraq, Vietnam and the American colonial period to emphasize the fact that humans have a "terrible history" of "entitlement" in which we "take what we need" from nature and indigenous peoples "and don't give back."

The impunity of Israel and its allies will carry a price

Outrage over Tzipi Livni’s arrest warrant would be better directed to the suffering of Gaza and the risks of a new eruption.

By Seumas Milne

The Guardian, December 17, 2009

When evidence of war crimes is produced, you might expect states that claim to defend the rule of law to want those crimes investigated and the perpetrators held to account. Not a bit of it. The decision by a London judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of Israel's former foreign minister Tzipi Livni over evidence of serious breaches of the laws of war in Gaza has sparked official outrage in Britain.

The court's behaviour was "insufferable", foreign secretary David Miliband declared. The Times called it "repugnant". Gordon Brown yesterday assured Livni that action would be taken to ensure no such thing ever happens again.

As it turned out, Livni had cancelled her visit and the warrant was withdrawn. But for the British government, it seems, it isn't the compendious evidence of war crimes during the Gaza bloodletting – including the killing of civilians waving white flags, the use of human shields and white phosphorus attacks on schools – that is insufferable. It's the attempt to use the principle of universal jurisdiction Britain claims to uphold to bring to book the politicians who ordered the onslaught.

Of course, it would make more sense if Israel itself held an independent investigation into its soldiers' conduct in the Gaza war. That was what the UN's Goldstone report called for, on both sides – failing which, other states should start their own investigations. Instead, Israel is demanding Britain change its laws without delay, and the British government is falling over itself to oblige.

No doubt both Britain and the US, with their own record of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, fear that if universal jurisdiction is applied to Israel it could be catching. This was a principle that was apparently only intended to apply to countries that challenge western power or African states, not a "strategic partner" and "close friend", as Miliband described Israel this week.

But Israel's claim that it is being singled out doesn't stand up to scrutiny; on the contrary, it is trying to put itself beyond the reach of international law. Attempts to hold US or British leaders to account over the Iraq and Afghan wars have also been swatted away, but there have been official inquiries and convictions lower down the chain of command. In the case of this year's Gaza war, the only Israeli convicted has been a soldier for stealing a credit card.

Nor does the argument that peace negotiations will be undermined if some Israeli politicians are unable to travel abroad cut much ice. Government ministers have legal immunity, and are therefore unaffected. And a viable Middle East settlement no more depends on the travel arrangement of Israeli opposition figures than on those of Hamas leader Khalid Mish'al.

It does, however, depend on western states starting to apply common standards to both sides in the conflict. The conviction that no such move is in prospect is what has led supporters of the Palestinians' six decade-long struggle for justice to explore any and every way to fill the gap: hence last weekend's visit to the London courts.

It's not hard to see why they feel like that. A year on from the onslaught on Gaza – which Livni described as Israel "going wild" – nothing has changed. The rockets that were supposed to be the justification for Gaza's devastation have been virtually silent all year, as they were for much of the six months before the assault, policed by Hamas.

In fact, armed resistance throughout the occupied Palestinian territories has been minimal. So evidently that's not the block on achieving a just peace, as often claimed. But the barbaric siege of the Gaza strip continues unabated, backed by the US, Britain and the European Union, leaving 70% of Gazans living on less than a dollar a day, without clean water or the means to rebuild the 21,000 homes, 280 schools and 16 hospitals partially or completely destroyed last December and January.

That might be thought repugnant and insufferable. But far from encouraging the easing of the blockade to reward the ceasefire, the US has prevailed on Egypt to build a new wall on its border with Gaza to prevent the tunnel-smuggling that keeps Gazans from utter destitution.

Meanwhile, on the occupied West Bank, illegal Israeli land seizures and settlement building are proceeding apace, especially in Jerusalem. Barack Obama's peace initiative has already run into the sand. Having insisted on a complete freeze on settlements, his bluff was called by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the US is now trying to bamboozle the hapless Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas into swallowing Obama's failure.

At the same time, the US and EU are bankrolling, training and directing a Palestinian security apparatus which is systematically imprisoning without trial and torturing its political opponents, in collusion with Israel. Several hundred Hamas activists have been arrested in the last fortnight alone. It is widely understood that no genuine peace settlement can stick without Palestinian unity, but by requiring a crackdown on Hamas under the guise of fighting "terror", the US and Europe are making reconciliation impossible.

If, as expected, Israel releases hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the captured Israeli soldier, the dynamic of Palestinian politics is likely to shift, probably in Hamas's favor. Confidence in further negotiations delivering real progress is at rock bottom. As one veteran Fatah leader and ostensible Abbas ally, Jibril Rajoub, told me: "If the Americans were serious, they would encourage national reconciliation. But they are not, they are making excuses."

If that continues, the Palestinians will have to "consider other options", Rajoub says, though he specifies he doesn't necessarily mean armed resistance. "But the occupation has to be made painful for the Israelis, they can't have occupation and security." That is far clearer for Hamas, which certainly won't maintain a ceasefire that is only answered with blockade and violent repression.

There is talk of another intifada if the present drift continues. As has been demonstrated this week, Israel is treated with impunity by its western allies, and neither is going to shift course unless the price gets significantly higher. There's no point in western handwringing when the next upheaval comes – or crying foul if it spills over beyond the Middle East.

Troubles Of The World - Mahalia Jackson

Poverty, Homelessness, Starvation, natural and manmade Disasters, animal Cruelty... there are many more Crimes committed by humanity but this song isn't long enough to fit them all.

Brother Did You Weep

This man was a true minstrel, a voice for people who had no voice, he was a major champion and activist of the right to roam movement e.g. the Manchester rambler, “Brother Did You Weep” is sung with his wife Peggy Seeger. Ewan Mccoll was a founder member of folk singers for Vietnam. When you see pictures of such cruelty it should make you weep whether with anger, shame or sadness at mans inhumanity to man.

Stunning Statistics About the War That Everyone Should Know

Contrary to popular belief, the US actually has 189,000 personnel on the ground in Afghanistan right now—and that number is quickly rising.

By JEREMY SCAHILL

Ahearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.

In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff,

“From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.”

At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.

Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.”

A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are “administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations.” According to one USAID official, the agency is “sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent.” As a result, the agency does not “know … where the money is going.”

The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:

In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects. According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects. USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan.

The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: “The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan.” Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors.

As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed.

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His new website is RebelReports

Facts & Myths about Nuclear Weapons

TEN FACTS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

1. There are still some 26,000 nuclear warheads in the world, enough to destroy civilization many times over and destroy most life on earth. Nuclear weapons make humans an endangered species.

2. More than 95% of all nuclear weapons are in the arsenals of the US and Russia.

3. The average nuclear weapon in the US arsenal is approximately eight times more powerful than the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, immediately killing some 90,000 people.

4. There are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons (US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea).

5. The 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, ratified by nearly every country in the world, requires the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

6. The United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 in order to pursue missile defenses and space weaponization. US withdrawal from the treaty has caused both Russia and China to improve their offensive nuclear capabilities.

7. There are up to 2,000,000 kilograms of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in global stockpiles, and it takes just 15-24 kilograms for a nuclear weapon. There are 28 countries with at least one bomb’s worth of HEU and 12 countries with at least 20 bombs’ worth.

8. Plutonium created in nuclear power reactors is another source of bomb material. It takes as little as three to five kilograms of plutonium to create a nuclear weapon. There are now some 500,000 kilograms of separated plutonium in global stockpiles. Plutonium stocks continue to increase due to civilian ‘spent’ fuel reprocessing.

9. The 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review provides for developing contingency plans for nuclear weapons use against seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Russia and China.

10. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expires on December 5, 2009. A replacement treaty will need to address the number of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles each side can possess as well as procedures to verify the dismantlement of nuclear warheads. The new treaty will need to be ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate.

-----------------------------------------------

TEN MYTHS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

1. Nuclear weapons were needed to defeat Japan in World War II. This is not the opinion of many leading US military figures in the war. General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II and later US president, wrote, “I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’….”

2. Nuclear weapons prevented a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. There were many deadly conflicts and “proxy” wars carried out by the superpowers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Vietnam War, which took several million lives, is a prominent example. These wars made the supposed nuclear peace very bloody and deadly.

3. Nuclear threats have gone away since the end of the Cold War. In the aftermath of the Cold War, a variety of new nuclear threats have emerged. Among these are the following dangers:

• Increased chances of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists willing to use them;
• Policies of the US government to make nuclear weapons smaller and more usable;
• Use of nuclear weapons by accident, particularly because of decaying Russian infrastructure; and
• Spread of nuclear weapons to other states that may perceive them to be an “equalizer” against a more powerful state.

4. The United States needs nuclear weapons for its national security. US national security would be far improved if the US took a leadership role in seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the world. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could actually destroy the United States, and their continued existence threatens US security.

5. Nuclear weapons make a country safer. By threatening massive retaliation, the argument goes, nuclear weapons prevent an attacker from starting a war. There are many ways, though, in which deterrence could fail, including misunderstandings, faulty communications, irrational leaders, miscalculations and accidents.

6. No leader would be crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons. US leaders, considered by some to be highly rational, have used nuclear weapons in war, against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Threats of nuclear attack by India and Pakistan are an example of nuclear brinksmanship that could turn into a nuclear war. Globally and historically, leaders have done their best to prove that they would use nuclear weapons.

7. Nuclear weapons are a cost-effective method of national defense. The cost of US nuclear weapons research, development, testing, deployment and maintenance has exceeded $7.5 trillion.

8. Nuclear weapons are well protected and there is little chance that terrorists could get their hands on one. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the ability of the Russians to protect their nuclear forces has declined precipitously. In addition, a coup in a country with nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, could lead to a government coming to power that was willing to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.

9. The United States has worked to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations. The United States failed for nearly four decades to fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, requiring good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Ways that President Obama can show leadership for nuclear disarmament include negotiating a strong replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, pushing for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking nuclear weapons off of high alert status and adopting a “No First Use” policy.

10. Nuclear weapons are needed to combat threats from terrorists and “rogue states.” The threat of nuclear force cannot act as a deterrent against terrorists because they do not have a territory to retaliate against. If the leaders of a rogue state do not use a rational calculus regarding their losses from retaliation, deterrence can fail.

Nuclear Weapons

By Adel - PeaceMaker
December 16, 2009

As this video illustrates, it is truly insane to think nuclear weapons will protect us. The U.S. must take the lead in honoring the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). We must educate youth about these pressing issues and prevent further militarization of space.

War Is Never The Answer

By Adel - PeaceMaker
December 15, 2009

Don’t you think it’s ironic that humans are the only species who go out and murder each other when they don’t agree with the other person’s actions or words?

That’s why war is never the answer. Why condone violence with more violence? That just makes it seem like aggression is the way to get what you want, instead of sending out the message that violence is not the answer.

Instead of being destructive when we encounter a problem, by going to war and killing innocent people, we should be productive, by stopping the violence before it’s too late and a war is created. When we start wars, even for justifiable reasons, we are actually making things worse by destroying the country and killing innocents who don’t deserve it. If war can slaughter vulnerable children, it is definitely not the answer. STOP the violence. STOP the war.

Road to Armageddon

You’ve probably heard about climate change. Chances are you’ve also heard about “cap and trade.” It’s a scheme that tries to sell business-as-usual as a solution to global warming.

Cap and trade is a dangerous distraction from what we must do to avert climate chaos. That includes shifting public support from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and other renewable energy alternatives, rebuilding our economy around new jobs in clean industries and energy efficiency improvements, and promoting policies that reward real innovators, not dirty industries.

Darfur Genocide and OIL

By Adel - PeaceMaker

December 13, 2009

The worse it looks the better it sells. Famine and horror become commodities. From Darfur we get photographs of the dead bodies, but anyone can ride out the relief apparatus and take a picture of sick and dying Africans. Victims and refugees flock to relief centers, "presenting to visiting reporters a concentration of misery that is indeed shocking."

But this is not the appropriate behavior of humanitarians. It is the behavior of pigs at a trough and it applies to the entire misery industry. Save the Children? Which children? And save them from whom? What about Save the Children’s partnerships with Exxon-Mobil? Or CARE’s partnerships with Lockheed Martin?

Now how many connections to unaccountable military agencies, programs, institutions, corporations, mercenaries, rebel factions, Christian soldiers, or other questionable "parties" do we need to identify before we can determine that there is much more to Darfur than meets the eye?

 "It has all happened before, and it’s happening again."

America's War In Darfur

By Keith Harmon Snow

The Darfur region of Sudan possesses the third largest copper and the fourth largest uranium deposits on the planet, in addition to strategic location and significant oil resources of its own. Is the US-based "Save Darfur" movement snowing the US public on the fundamental nature of the conflict in Sudan? Are "Save Darfur" and the prevention of genocide the covers of convenience for the next round of US oil and resource wars on the African continent?

The Darfur region of western Sudan has been a hotbed of clandestine activities, gunrunning and indiscriminate violence for decades.

"The humanitarian tragedy in Darfur revolves around natural resources… Given current realities, no intervention in Darfur will proceed, and if it did it would fail."

So opined the authors of the September 2006 op-ed "Keeping Peacekeepers out of Darfur" [GN1](DHG, 9/15/06). Now, over a year later, the situation in Sudan is grimmer than ever, the Darfur conflict remains widely mischaracterized, and many of the predictions of that op-ed have come true. Meanwhile, the "Save Darfur" advocates pressing military intervention in Darfur as a "humanitarian" gesture have escalated pressure in the face of mounting failures, including allegations that millions of "Save Darfur" dollars fundraised on a sympathy for victims platform have been misappropriated.

The Darfur region of western Sudan has been a hotbed of clandestine activities, gunrunning and indiscriminate violence for decades. The Cold War era saw countless insurgencies launched from the remote deserts of Darfur. Throughout the 1990's factions allied with or against Chad, Uganda, Ethiopia, Congo, Libya, Eritrea and the Central African Republic operated from bases in Darfur, and it was a regular landing strip for foreign military transport planes of mysterious origin. In 1990, Chad's Idriss Deby launched a military blitzkrieg from Darfur and overthrew President Hissan Habre; Deby then allied with his own ethnic group against the Sudan government. Sudanese rebels today have bases in Chad, and Chadian rebels have bases in Darfur, with Khartoum's backing.[GN2] When the regime of Ange-Félix Patassé collapsed in the Central African Republic in March 2003, soldiers fled to Darfur with their military equipment. Khartoum supported the West Nile Bank Front, a rebel army operating against Uganda from Eastern Congo, commanded by Taban Amin, the son of the infamous Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin, who heads Uganda's dreaded Internal Security Organization. Darfur is the epicenter of a modern-day international geopolitical scramble for Africa's resources.

Darfur is reported to have the fourth largest copper and third largest uranium deposits in the world.

Conflict in Darfur escalated in 2003 after in parallel with negotiations "ending" the south Sudan war. The U.S.-backed insurgency by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), the guerilla force that fought the northern Khartoum government for 20 years, shifted to Darfur, even as the George W. Bush government allied with Khartoum in the U.S. led "war on terror." The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)—one of some 27 rebel factions mushrooming in Darfur—is allied with the SPLA and supported from Uganda. Andrew Natsios, former USAID chief and now US envoy to Sudan, said on October 6, 2007 that the atmosphere between the governments of north and south Sudan "had become poisonous." This is no surprise given the magnitude of the resource war in Sudan and the involvement of international interests.

Darfur is reported to have the fourth largest copper and third largest uranium deposits in the world. Darfur produces two-thirds of the world's best quality gum Arabic—a major ingredient in Coke and Pepsi. Contiguous petroleum reserves are driving warfare from the Red Sea, through Darfur, to the Great Lakes of Central Africa. Private military companies operate alongside petroleum contractors and "humanitarian" agencies. Sudan is China's fourth biggest supplier of imported oil, and U.S. companies controlling the pipelines in Chad and Uganda seek to displace China through the US military alliance with "frontline" states hostile to Sudan: Uganda, Chad and Ethiopia.

Israel reportedly provides military training to Darfur rebels from bases in Eritrea, and has strengthened ties with the regime in Chad, from which more weapons and troops penetrate Darfur. The refugee camps have become increasingly militarized. There are reports that Israeli military intelligence operates from within the camps, as does U.S. intelligence. Eritrea is about to explode into yet another war with Ethiopia.

African Union (AU) forces in Darfur include Nigerian and Rwandan troops responsible for atrocities in their own countries. While committing 5000 troops for a UN force in Darfur, Ethiopia is perpetrating genocidal atrocities in Somalia, and against Ethiopians in the Ogaden, Oromo and Anuak regions. Uganda has 2000 U.S.-trained troops in Somalia, also committing massive atrocities, and the genocide against the Acholi people in northern Uganda proceeds out of sight. Ethiopia is the largest recipient of U.S. "Aid" in Africa, with Rwanda and Uganda close on its heals. France is deeply committed to the Anglo-American strategy, which will benefit Total Oil Corp.

The "Save Darfur" campaign is deeply aligned with Jewish and Christian faith-based organizations in the United States, Canada, Europe and Israel.

AU troops receive military-logistic support from NATO, and are widely hated. Early in October 2007, SLA rebels attacked an AU base killing ten troops. In a subsequent editorial sympathetic to rebel factions ("Darfur's Bitter Ironies," Guardian Online, 10/4/07) Smith College English professor Eric Reeves espoused the tired rhetoric of "Khartoum's genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur," a position counterproductive to any peaceful settlement. To minimize the damage this rebel attack has done to their credibility Reeves and other "Save Darfur" advocates cast doubt about the rebels' identities and mischaracterized the SLA attackers as "rogue commanders." However, there is near unanimous agreement, internationally, that rebels are "out of control," committing widespread rape and plundering with impunity, just as the SPLA did in South Sudan for over a decade.

Debunking the claims of a "genocide against blacks" or an "Islamic holy-war" against Christians, Darfur's Arab and black African ethnic groups have intermarried for centuries, and nearly everyone is Muslim. The "Save Darfur" campaign is deeply aligned with Jewish and Christian faith-based organizations in the United States, Canada, Europe and Israel. These groups have relentlessly campaigned for Western military action, demonizing both Sudan and China, but they have never addressed Western military involvement—backing factions on all sides. By mobilizing constituencies sympathetic to the "genocide" label and the cries of "never again" they do a grave disservice to the cause of human rights.

There is growing dissent within the "Save Darfur" movement as more supporters question its motivations and the Jewish/Israeli link. "Save Darfur" leaders have been replaced after complaints surfaced about expenditures of funds. Many rebel leaders reportedly receive tens of thousands of dollars monthly, and rebels emboldened by the "Save Darfur" movement commit crimes with impunity. There is a growing demand to probe the accounts of "Save Darfur" to find out how the tens of millions collected are being spent due to allegations of arms-deals and bribery—rebel leaders provided with five-star hotel accommodations, prostitutes and sex parties.

The West is desperate to deploy a "robust peacekeeping" mission in Darfur, to press the Western agenda, but United Nations forces will only deepen the chaos.

"Save Darfur" is today the rallying cry for a broad coalition of special interests. Advocacy groups—from the local Massachusetts Congregation B'Nai Israel chapter to the International Crises Group and USAID—have fueled the conflict through a relentless, but selective, public relations campaign that disingenuously serves a narrow policy agenda. These interests offer no opportunity for corrective analyses, but stubbornly press their agenda, and they are widely criticized for inflaming tensions in Darfur. Rhetoric, aggression and propaganda do not make a strong foreign policy, and the African people suffering from this brutal international conflict involving China, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, Canada, the United States and Israel cannot eat good intentions foolishly delivered under the banners of "humanitarian aid" and a poorly cloaked militarism.

The West is desperate to deploy a "robust peacekeeping" mission in Darfur, to press the Western agenda, but United Nations forces will only deepen the chaos. The UN forces will cost billions of dollars and will achieve nothing positive. Indeed, the results will be disastrous, creating another Iraq and Afghanistan—only increasing the chaos and devastation already apparent. The United States is hated for this kind of aggression and posturing, and the U.S. economy will continue to suffer.

Keith Harmon Snow is an independent human rights investigator and war correspondent who worked with Survivors Rights International (2005-2006), Genocide Watch (2005-2006) and the United Nations (2006) to document and expose genocide and crimes against humanity in Sudan and Ethiopia. He has worked in 17 countries in Africa, and he recently worked in Afghanistan.

Keith Harmon Snow is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Keith Harmon Snow

A Global Outrage

The Hidden Cost of War

There are over 300 million people in this country and they don't understand what is going on, they’re more concerned with the newest reality TV show and every other kind of entertainment you can think of, this is the end result. This is how it was planned for a long time, the people are dumbed down and don't have the will to stand up.

In 2003 Donald Rumsfeld estimated a war with Iraq would cost $60 billion. Five years later, the cost of the Iraq war is over 10 times that figure. Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilme's exhaustedly researched book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict," breaks down the price tag, from current debts to the unseen costs we'll pay for years to come.

If we start acting and protesting, things could change. We are over 300 million strong, we can force change. Either we make our stand or let organizations like Triple Canopy, DynCorp, and/or Blackwater Worldwide (changed its name to Xe in February), the worlds most powerful mercenary army control the rest of our lives and our children’s lives.

Zionism

By Adel – PeaceMaker
December 10, 2009

Zionism is an ideology, a political movement and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish religion. The dispossession and expulsion of a majority of Palestinians were the result of The Zionist Movement and its policies planned as early as 1905.

Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, stated before the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919, that he expected 70,000 to 80,000 Jewish immigrants to arrive each year in Palestine. When they became the majority, they would form an independent government and Palestine would become: "as Jewish as England is English". Weizmann proposed that the boundaries should be the Mediterranean Sea on the west; Sidon, the Litani River, and Mount Hermon on the north; all of Transjordan west of the Hijaz railway on the east; and a line across Sinai from Aqaba to al-Arish on the south.

Weizmann argued that: "...the boundaries above outlined are what we consider essential for the economic foundation of the country. Palestine must have its natural outlet to the sea and control of its rivers and their headwaters. The boundaries are sketched with the general economic needs and historic traditions of the country in mind."

The aims of the movement are based on certain fundamental doctrine:

• The movement was seen not only as inherently righteous but also as meeting an overwhelming need among European Jews.
• European culture was superior to indigenous Arab culture; the Zionist could help civilize the East.
• External support was needed from a major power; relations with the Arab world were a secondary matter.
• Arab nationalism was a legitimate political movement but Palestinian nationalism was either illegitimate of non-existent.
• If the Palestinians would not reconcile themselves to Zionism, force majeure, not compromise, was the only feasible response.

There is an excellent article on Zionism And Its Impact if you are interested to get more insight and understand better what it is all about.

----------------------------------------------------------

Polite Discussion on Zionism: Is it Possible?

By Karin Friedemann

April 25, 2007

The Zionist philosophizes that the Palestinian is not a human (Israel was a land without a people). The Anti-Zionist argues that the Palestinian is a human being. So what is the moderate viewpoint? The Palestinian is a quasi-human? Is this the American Progressive Jewish position?

I have dedicated my life to the study of our people's repressed racism. For this reason, I found the website www.realisticdove.org very interesting. Usually when confronted, we just get indignant and refuse to speak to you for a few months. I always wondered how a person could think that Israel has a "right" to "security" and shrug off this amazing assumption with the accusation that anyone who has questions about his definitions is accusing him of being an evil murderer. Why would any sane person think that he has the right to live un-harassed on someone else's stolen property? Even the cute kids waving Israeli flags are participating in a criminally insane political ideology.

Progressive Jews want to make the bottom line "Jews are nice people." But that is not the bottom line. As Hillel mentioned, the bottom line is that you don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. What would we expect if our neighbor, with or without warning, bulldozed our house?

First, we would call the police. If the man with the bulldozer failed to stop bulldozing the house, the police officer would have the duty to disable the vehicle and he might even shoot him. I'm talking about American law. The bulldozer man would be stopped. He would be considered a criminal. He would be put on trial. He would go to prison. If he had killed people in the process of bulldozing the house, he might even be executed. The owner of the house that was bulldozed would be entitled to damages plus extra for pain and suffering. The law requires that his property be restored to the original state that it was in. That includes replanting the trees and fixing the pavement around the house.

The emotional defensiveness of Jews is actually quite amusing, where they want to argue that the bulldozer man was not evil, he was not a murderer. The family that moved into the stolen property are just innocent idealists. They may be misguided, or mistaken, but for some reason Jews want to argue that they are not evil. What they are really saying is that they don't want Jews to be held legally accountable for their actions. They want to enjoy the privilege of being "protected" from the laws that apply to other people.

A law does not cover the "evilness" of a criminal. It covers actions and consequences.

If international law were followed, the Israeli "government' would never have kicked out any Palestinians. The entire existence of Israel is based on the condition made by the UN that Palestinians would remain in their homes and receive equal citizenship in the new nation state. That condition was not followed. Therefore, there is no legal basis for any assumption that Israel has a right to exist according to the UN. In fact, Israel does not really exist. It is a figment of imagination, the defensive mechanism of the neurotic Jewish collective consciousness. I agree that we need to stop arguing about isms but the next step is to solve the problems. Don't wait for the world community to force Israel to do it. Why don't we, as Jews, just do it? Why are Progressive Jews wasting their time feeling emotionally threatened by a one state solution? The real problem is that we are feeling emotionally threatened by any solution. Because a solution means that Jews need to be prosecuted.

The refugees must be given back their property with extra for damages. Even if they fled their homes because Arab leaders told them to get out of the fighting zone in 1948, they have the legal right to return to their homes as soon as the fighting stops. Small wonder why Israel continues to attack people day after day. The refugees must be given full civil rights. Full water rights, full road rights, and the full right to prosecute as part of an organized crime network. Especially if both the Palestinian and the Jewish persons are American citizens. For example one friend of mine, after her family was forced off their land by gunpoint, New York Jews bought the land, bulldozed everything, and planted orange trees. She knows where they live. She knows their names. Anyone who buys or sells stolen property is a criminal who needs to be prosecuted. Any Jew who owns Palestinian property in the Holy Land should have his property seized, including their US assets, just like we did to the rum smugglers who funded Jewish terrorism in the 1920s, and Progressive Jews should insist on it instead of doing these mental "I'm not evil" gymnastics.

The Jews need to give back what they stole. I am not sure why that is so confusing to people. There needs to be a world tribunal like the Nuremburg trials to determine what was done and who was responsible, and to put an end to this nonsense. But failing that, the US legal system could solve the problem within a year if we just prosecuted this obnoxious real estate mafia. Why are Progressive Jews not lobbying for criminal penalties on Jews who invest in property that was cleared of its original owners by force in the Holy Land? There is enough room in Bush's new prisons for all these shady real estate agents. This is a simple matter of holding people legally accountable for the harm they cause others and for undermining the security of the United States in the process. It is exactly the same issue with dispute over the Roxbury Mosque in Boston. Some shady white (Jewish) real estate dealers were furious that the black community benefited from this piece of land next to the subway station that they wanted to develop, so now they are engaging in extra-legal trickery and character assassination to try to get that piece of real estate away from the people who own it. Once the Palestinians get their land back and all the Zionist organizations' assets are confiscated to repair the damage they have done, then we can talk about whether or not "the Jewish People" have the right to "self-determination" in the form of an ethnocentric nation state.

I learned when I was a kid that the way to get self-determination - i.e., the ability to do what you want when you want how you want - is to behave yourself. The Jews are not behaving themselves, and there is nothing okay about it. When a Progressive Jew avoids discussion by whining, "You think I'm evil!!" he or she breaks the heart of the human being who is trying to have peace with this person. It ends all rational discussion. It ends all hope for peace.

Sometimes Palestinians find it easier to deal with right wing Zionists than left wing because at least they are honest. A Palestinian can say to a right wing Jew, "You stole my property." The right wing Jew will say, "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? My religion says I can steal your property." Then the Muslim can with dignity say, "Well my religion says that God curses the man who puts another man out of his home, and that I have the right to fight you." That actually can be done in the context of a polite dialogue. A peace plan is even potentially possible. Because then the Jew can say, "Well, I don't want you to kill me and I can see why you would think that I deserved it, because if you did the same thing to me I would certainly kill you. So let's make a deal. I'll let you live in the garage." This is still insulting behavior, but it's in the process of becoming less sadistic.

On the other hand, if a Palestinian says to a Progressive Jew, "You stole my property!" the Progressive Jew will usually shut down entirely. I have seen a fifty year old man start crying and insisting he's not evil. This is the behavior of someone who is guilty as sin. Like when you accuse your husband of adultery and he starts guilt-tripping you about how you don't believe in him (hypothetical but common scenario).

The other reaction is to get maliciously angry and start doing character assassination via gossip so that none of the other Progressive Jews will greet that person who brought up the "touchy" subject. They will be told that this person is an "enemy of peace" - so that it will be politically correct to shun them the same way that we avoid eye contact with skinheads and Bible thumpers. Progressive Jews are the most amazingly idealistic people on the planet. They want to be able to continue to sit on someone else's stolen property (or at least vacation on it) and not only do they think they have a "right" to travel around unharmed, ride the buses, shop and eat pizza while the people they made homeless have no water or food - but they want their victims to LIKE them. The Jews are the only conquerors in the history of the planet that expected the conquered people to LIKE them! If they don't like us, we feel offended and outraged. And what Jews consider as "liking behavior" is never mentioning the property they stole.

I've discussed some of this with Avigail Abarbanel, an ex-Israeli psychiatrist in Australia. She views Zionism as a mental illness that can be treated. But Zionism is just a symptom of a deeper problem, the delusional belief that you have "rights" which do not exist. Like a kid thinking he has the right to hit his sister. It's a failure to apply the Golden Rule to one's personal sense of responsibility in certain situations. The inner conflict that arises from these "situational ethics" certainly does create a clinically diagnosable mental inability to process certain types of information that trigger the neurotic or sometimes even psychotic defensive reaction.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Israel, Jews are defensive in the sense that they cannot process the type of information that is necessary to create peaceful behaviors. For example, if a Jew and Palestinian live next door to each other in New Jersey, the Jew being the "owner" of a condo built on the Palestinian person's property, don't you think the Jew should offer to give it back, if he expects the other's friendship? If the Palestinian, as is normal, invites the Jew over for tea and politely doesn't bring up the subject, does the Jew feel that this means it's OK what he did? That he can forgive himself? That is what Jews want after all. We want to be forgiven without apology for everything we have done AND everything we are about to do.

Is this a rational approach to peace? Is it working?