| #ResistIllegalOccupation: A legal and moral case for Hamas rocket fire!

A legal and moral case for Hamas rocket fire ~ Jonathan Cook, the Blog from Nazareth.

 

Two leading intellectuals make separate and eloquent cases that the people of Gaza have the right to resist by any means – including by firing rockets – Israel’s efforts to slowly extinguish their right to self-determination, and possibly to life itself. They argue that the Palestinians have this right most certainly at a moral level, but also almost certainly at the level of international law.

I recommend reading each article in its entirety but, knowing the constraints on readers’ time and attention, I have extracted the most salient points they make.

Norman Finkelstein:

It is not altogether clear what constitutes an indiscriminate weapon [a reference to Human Rights Watch’s judgment that all Palestinian rockets from Gaza are war crimes by definition because they are not “precise”]. The apparent standard is a relative one set by the available technology: If an existing weapon has a high probability of hitting its target, then any weapons with a significantly lower probability are classified as indiscriminate. But, by this standard, only rich countries, or countries rich enough to purchase high-tech weapons, have a right to defend themselves against high-tech aerial assaults. It is a curious law that would negate the raison d’être of law: the substitution of might by right. …

The United States and Britain, among others, have staunchly defended the right of a state to use nuclear weapons by way of belligerent reprisal. By this standard, the people of Gaza surely have the right to use makeshift projectiles to end an illegal, merciless seven-year-long Israeli blockade or to end Israel’s criminal bombardment of Gaza’s civilian population. Indeed, in its landmark 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons, the [International Court of Justice] ruled that international law is not settled on the right of a state to use nuclear weapons when its “survival” is at stake. But, if a state might have the right to use nuclear weapons when its survival is at stake, then surely a people struggling for self-determination has the right to use makeshift projectiles when it has been subjected to slow death by a protracted blockade and recurrent massacres. …

Fully 95 percent of the water in Gaza is unfit for human consumption. By all accounts, the Palestinian people now stand behind those engaging in belligerent reprisals against Israel. In the Gaza Strip, they prefer to die resisting than to continue living under an inhuman blockade. Their resistance is mostly notional, as makeshift projectiles cause little damage. So, the ultimate question is, Do Palestinians have the right to symbolically resist slow death punctuated by periodic massacres, or must they lie down and die?

 

Chris Hedges:

If Israel insists, as the Bosnian Serbs did in Sarajevo, on using the weapons of industrial warfare against a helpless civilian population then that population has an inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The international community will have to either act to immediately halt Israeli attacks and lift the blockade of Gaza or acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to use weapons to defend themselves. …

Violence, even when employed in self-defense, is a curse. It empowers the ruthless and punishes the innocent. It leaves in its aftermath horrific emotional and physical scars. But, as I learned in Sarajevo during the 1990s Bosnian War, when forces bent on your annihilation attack you relentlessly, and when no one comes to your aid, you must aid yourself. When Sarajevo was being hit with 2,000 shells a day and under heavy sniper fire in the summer of 1995 no one among the suffering Bosnians spoke to me about wanting to mount nonviolent resistance. …

The number of dead in Gaza resulting from the Israeli assault has topped 650, and about 80 percent have been civilians. The number of wounded Palestinians is over 4,000 and a substantial fraction of these victims are children. At what point do the numbers of dead and wounded justify self-defense? 5,000? 10,000? 20,000? At what point do Palestinians have the elemental right to protect their families and their homes? …

The Palestinians will reject, as long as possible, any cease-fire that does not include a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They have lost hope that foreign governments will save them. They know their fate rests in their own hands. The revolt in Gaza is an act of solidarity with the world outside its walls. It is an attempt to assert in the face of overwhelming odds and barbaric conditions the humanity and agency of the Palestinian people. There is little in life that Palestinians can choose, but they can choose how to die.

PalSol5

 

#Call4Action: Arab and Islamic countries not providing help to Gaza need their leaders removed now!

 

 

| US is a knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture – George Galloway!

The US is a knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture – George Galloway ~  John Robles, The Voice of Russia.

The high point of the American Empire has passed and mercifully we have emerged intact from the 20 very dangerous years during which the United States was the sole superpower in the world. We must never allow ourselves to endure that trial again. Power in the world is now passing to the East, to China, to Russia and to other rising nations as the United States is an aging tiger whose teeth are falling out.

This was stated in an interview which outspoken and brutally honest British MP George Galloway granted to the Voice of Russia’s John Robles. With regard to US surrogate NATO which is circling both Russia and China with bases and nuclear weapons, he labeled it an “imperial war machine” and called it “the greatest danger to peace and security in the world.” Mr. Galloway was also candid on his assessment of Saudi Arabia which he called a “gangster state” with Prince Bandar acting as chief capo who delivers severed horse’s heads into the bed of whomsoever they wish to intimidate.

As for Ukraine Mr. Galloway put the situation into stark perspective by saying: “Can you imagine what would happen if President Putin went to the streets of Toronto on street demonstrations whipping up anti-American feeling, in neighboring country. And yet this is precisely what is happening on the front line in Kiev now,” he added; again President Putin has again played a masterful diplomatic game. As for declining US hegemony he stated: “… they are losing and losing and losing. … they are losing because their power is waning, because hard power is waning, their financial power is defunct and their soft power, their cultural power is virtually non-existent. Anyone who takes a look at John McCain and thinks that that is a cultural soft power icon to desire, to head towards, would need their head examined. This is knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture,” he stated.

Download audio file

This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament. This is part 3 of an interview in progress. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com

Part 1,  Part 2

Robles: Another country that, I just want to add to your list, was Saudi Arabia when Prince Bandar threatened terrorist attacks on the Olympic Games in Sochi. Russia would have had every right to just wipe it off the map.

Galloway: Well, Saudi Arabia is a gangster state and Bandar is increasingly the chief capo. He is the man who goes around delivering the severed horse’s headinto the bed of whomsoever they wish to intimidate.

They try bribery first of all and then they try browbeating, and finally they are ready to bully through the use of their surrogate auxiliary terrorist army.

And they found that President Putin could be neither bribed nor bullied, and he was sent away with a flea in his ear. But he was very lucky; it was only a flea in his ear. Frankly if he’d tried it with me he’d have gone home without an ear.

Robles: Yeah, I mean, you don’t threaten a nuclear superpower, I’m sorry, the West can say whatever they want but Russia is still a nuclear power. You don’t tell a president: “We are going to unleash Al Qaeda; we control your Chechen terrorists”. What about Scotland? You are Scottish, yes, sir?

Galloway: Yes, I am, yes.

Robles: What about Scottish independence? Do you think that will happen? How is it going?

Galloway: I don’t think it will happen and I don’t want it to happen. I’m against the breakup of states. This small country has been one country for more than 300 years. We speak the same language, we have a common language, a common culture, a common economic situation and once upon a time, if only briefly, we did some good things in the world, particularly in 1940 and 1941 when we stood alone against Fascist barbarism,and we didn’t ask the people who did so whether they were Scottish or whether they were English.

And I just think that working people divided are always weakened, working people together will be stronger. So, I was against the breakup of Yugoslavia, I was against the breakup of the USSR, I can hardly be in favor of the breakup of this small country.

Robles: Ok. Can you give us your opinion of sovereignty in the EU with regard to, for example, Ukraine and how much do countries lose in terms of sovereignty in your opinion when they join the EU?

Galloway: Before I answer that, let me just make this point. Can you imagine what would happen if President Putin went to the streets of Toronto on street demonstrations whipping up anti-American feeling, in neighboring country. And yet this is precisely what is happening on the front line in Kiev now. European and North American politicians are on the streets of Russia’s neighboring country whipping up anti-Russian feeling. But it seems to me, maybe I’m wrong – you will know better than I – but it’s running out of steam.

Again President Putin with his economic arrangements that he has now made with the President of Ukraine has again played a masterful diplomatic game. And the European Union, virtually bankrupt, is not in a position to match what Russia can do to help Ukraine in this terrible economic situation that it is in.

But to answer your point, the European Union is a good idea in principle. It has stopped the countries of the west of Europe in the first instance, from attacking each other, and murdering each other in their millions, which they did from 1870 until 1945, three times at least. And that is a good thing.

It is a good thing if working people in the European continent, not only within the boundaries of the European Union but throughout the European continent, can reach a common agreements on social policy, on environmental issues, on issues of social security and even common defense. There is nothing wrong with any of these things.

But the European Union is utterly dysfunctional when it comes to the manner in which it is run and the free market banking principles on which it is based.

We have a Reganite-Thatcherite European Central Bank which sets monetary and fiscal policy for the Franco-German center and not for the periphery even of Western Europe, never mind Central and Eastern Europe as they become more often members of the European Union.

So it is a very dysfunctional organization, it is broke and it ought to fix its own problems rather than sticking its nose into the problems of Ukraine and the Ukraine’s relationship with Russia.

Robles: I see. And by extension – NATO, what is your opinion about NATO and their expansion?

Galloway: Well, NATO is an imperial war machine; its name is increasingly of course a misnomer. The North Atlantic has been stretched as a geographical definition as far as the desserts of North Africa. And the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is circling both Russia and China with bases and nuclear armed warships and airplanes and so on. And it is the greatest danger to peace and security in the world.

And one of the many reasons why I find the call for Scottish independence implausible is that the Independence Party plans on making the independent Scotland a member of NATO which makes a mockery of its professed intention to be rid of nuclear weapons. You cannot be rid of nuclear weapons whilst joining a nuclear armed club.

Robles: Do you see NATO weakening or just growing and growing beyond all control?

Galloway: No, no, they are definitely weakening. The high point of the American Empire has passed as the high point of the British Empire before it passed.

Power is passing to the East, to China, to Russia and to other rising countries in the East and the South. I wouldn’t say as Chairman Mao said 30 years or 40 years, prematurely, that the United States was a paper tiger, but it is definitely an aging tiger whose teeth are beginning to fall out.

Robles: I see. Very well put, thank you sir – brilliant.

Galloway: Thank you.

Robles: If I could last, very last point and then I’ll let you go: Ukraine, right; Syria, we think Ukraine it was like revenge for their loss in Syria, right? Now if they lose in Ukraine what is the next hot spot going to be in your opinion?

Galloway: Well, the thing is they are losing and losing and losing. Now that might make them more angry but it doesn’t make them more able to win. They are losing because they are losing, they are losing because their power is waning, because hard power is waning, their financial power is defunct and their soft power, their “cultural power” is virtually non-existent.

Anyone who takes a look and a listen to John McCain and thinks that that is a cultural soft power icon to desire, to head towards, would need their head examined. This is knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture. And I don’t think that the great people of the Ukraine or in many other places are attracted to the soft power of the United States. The United States doesnot have the financial and economic wherewithal to make it worth their while.

So people are increasingly looking to themselves I hope, and looking elsewhere to other rising powers in the world. And let’s hope that in the next year and the next decade we have a number of great powers in the world.

Mercifully we have emerged intact from the very dangerous twenty years in which the United States was the sole superpower in the world, we escaped that and we must never allow ourselves to endure that trial again.

Robles: I see. Can we finish up with your film? Can you give us a few details maybe plug it if you want to, tell us where can we go.I understand, your film its very unique in that it’s being funded by the people.

Galloway: Yes, the Killing of Tony Blair began on Kickstarter, which is a crowd-funding mechanism. We asked for £50,000 and we got £160,000. And the money is still coming in, it can’t come in now by Kickstarter but you can still support us through PayPal, you can go to theblairdoc.com.

You can follow us on Twitter at the @TheBlairDoc. There are many many ways, if you forget any of those, just go to George Galloway MP on Facebook or follow me @George Galloway on Twitter and I’ll put you in the right direction. The film should be out next autumn, and it is coming to a cinema near you.

Robles: OK. I’m sure it will be very popular in Russia; hopefully we can get a Russian version.

Galloway: I hope so. Thanks very much indeed, John.

Robles: Ok, thank you, sir, it was an honor and a pleasure, and thanks for your time.

Galloway: My pleasure, my pleasure, thanks, bye.

Robles: Ok, bye-bye.

That was the end of Part 3 of an interview with British Member of Parliament George Galloway. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening and as always I wish all the best and happy holidays wherever you may be.

Part 1Part 2

________________________________________________________________________

US Hijacked2 mlk justice1

US except1A police state usaA

| WTF! For 20 Years US Nuclear Launch Code Was 00000000!

For 20 Years the Nuclear Launch Code at US Minuteman Silos Was 00000000 ~ KARL SMALLWOOD – TODAYIFOUNDOUT.COM, Gizmodo.

Today I found out that during the height of the Cold War, the US military put such an emphasis on a rapid response to an attack on American soil, that to minimize any foreseeable delay in launching a nuclear missile, for nearly two decades they intentionally set the launch codes at every silo in the US to 8 zeroes.

We guess the first thing we need to address is how this even came to be in the first place. Well, in 1962 JFK signed the National Security Action Memorandum 160, which was supposed to ensure that every nuclear weapon the US had be fitted with a Permissive Action Link (PAL),basically a small device that ensured that the missile could only be launched with the right code and with the right authority.

There was particularly a concern that the nuclear missiles the United States had stationed in other countries, some of which with somewhat unstable leadership, could potentially be seized by those governments and launched. With the PAL system, this became much less of a problem.

Beyond foreign seizure, there was also simply the problem that many U.S. commanders had the ability to launch nukes under their control at any time. Just one commanding officer who wasn’t quite right in the head and World War III begins. As U.S. General Horace M. Wade stated about General Thomas Power:

I used to worry about General Power. I used to worry that General Power was not stable. I used to worry about the fact that he had control over so many weapons and weapon systems and could, under certain conditions, launch the force. Back in the days before we had real positive control [i.e., PAL locks], SAC had the power to do a lot of things, and it was in his hands, and he knew it.

To give you an idea of how secure the PAL system was at this time, bypassing one was once described as being “about as complex as performing a tonsillectomy while entering the patient from the wrong end.” This system was supposed to be essentially hot-wire proof, making sure only people with the correct codes could activate the nuclear weapons and launch the missiles.

However, though the devices were supposed to be fitted on every nuclear missile after JFK issued his memorandum, the military continually dragged its heels on the matter. In fact, it was noted that a full 20 years after JFK had order PALs be fitted to every nuclear device, half of the missiles in Europe were still protected by simple mechanical locks. Most that did have the new system in place weren’t even activated until 1977.

Those in the U.S. that had been fitted with the devices, such as ones in the Minuteman Silos, were installed under the close scrutiny of Robert McNamara, JFK’s Secretary of Defence. However, The Strategic Air Command greatly resented McNamara’s presence and almost as soon as he left, the code to launch the missile’s, all 50 of them, was set to 00000000.

Oh, and in case you actually did forget the code, it was handily written down on a checklist handed out to the soldiers. As Dr. Bruce G. Blair, who was once a Minuteman launch officer, stated:

Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel.

This ensured that there was no need to wait for Presidential confirmation that would have just wasted valuable Russian nuking time. To be fair, there was also the possibility that command centers or communication lines could be wiped out, so having a bunch of nuclear missiles sitting around un-launchable because nobody had the code was seen as a greater risk by the military brass than a few soldiers simply deciding to launch the missiles without proper authorization.

Dr. Blair, whose resume to date is far to long to write out here, is the one who broke this “8 zeros” news to the world in his 2004 article “Keeping Presidents in the Nuclear Dark.” He also outlined the significant disconnect between the nation’s elected leaders and the military when it came to nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

Dr. Blair had previously made waves in 1977 when he wrote another article entitled “The Terrorist Threat to World Nuclear Programs“. He had first attempted to communicate the serious security problems at the nuclear silos to congressmen starting around 1973. When that information fell on mostly deaf earshe decided to outline it for the public in this 1977 article where he described how just four people acting in tandem could easily activate a nuclear launch in the silos he had worked in. Further, amongst other things, the PAL system McNamara had touted was barely in operation and thus launches could be authorised by anyone without Presidential authority. He also noted how virtually anyone who asked for permission to tour the launch facility was granted it with little to no background checks performed. It is, perhaps, not coincidence that the PAL systems were all activated and the codes changed the same year this article was published.

So to recap, for around 20 years, the Strategic Air Command went out of there way to make launching a nuclear missile as easy, and quick, as possible. To be fair, they had their reasons, such as the fact that the soldiers in the silos in the case of a real nuclear war may have needed to be able to launch the missiles without being able to contact anyone on the outside. That said, their actions were in direct violation of the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States, during a time of extreme nuclear tension. Further, not activating this safeguard and lax security ensured that with very little planning, someone with three friends who had a mind to, could have started World War III.

We don’t even think that could pass for a bad conspiracy theory film plot, but history is so often stranger than fiction!

If you liked this article, you might also enjoy:

Bonus Facts:

  • Amazingly, if we were actually able to convert matter perfectly to energy with 1 kg of matter being completely annihilated, the energy produced from just that small amount of matter is about 42.95 mega tons of TNT. So an adult male weighing in at around 200 pounds has somewhere in the vicinity of 4000 megatons of TNT potential in their matter if completely annihilated.
  • This is about 80 times more energy than was produced by the largest ever detonated nuclear bomb, the Tzar Bomba, which itself produced a blast about 1,400 times more powerful than the combined explosions of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  • To further illustrate, 1 megaton of TNT, when converted to kilowatt hours, makes enough electricity to power an average American home for about 100,000 years. It is also enough to power the entire United States for a little over 3 days. So 1 kg of some matter being completely annihilated would be able to power the entire United States for about four months. One average adult male then, when completely annihilated, would produce enough energy to power the U.S. for about 30 years. Energy crisis solved.
  • On a completely baffling scale, a typical supernova explosion will give off about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 megatons of TNT. *cowers in the corner*
  • This coded PAL system was actually proposed long before JFK issued his memorandum on the subject, back in 1953, where it was suggested they be fitted on Polaris submarines, an idea that was never implemented.
  • Today the PAL system has been significantly upgraded using the “Code Management System”, which was fully implemented in 2004 and supposedly overcomes many of the time efficiency problems inherent in the earlier system, while still maintaining the security that is what such a system is all about in the first place.

For 20 Years the Nuclear Launch Code at US Minuteman Silos Was 00000000


Karl Smallwood writes for the wildly popular interesting fact website TodayIFoundOut.com. To subscribe to Today I Found Out’s “Daily Knowledge” newsletter, click here or like them on Facebook here. You can also check ’em out on YouTubeThis post has been republished with permission from TodayIFoundOut.com. Image by rharrison under Creative Commons license.

_________________________________________________________________________

Related articles

Nuke Holocaust 2

| Too bad Israel, Iran nuclear deal: A Victory for Diplomacy!

Iran nuclear deal: a victory for diplomacy ~ Lawrence DavidsonRedress Information & Analysis.

By now most readers know that the five permanent member nations of the UN Security Council – the United States, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom – plus Germany, (referred to as the P5+1) have reached a six-month interim diplomatic settlement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Within this six-month period the P5+1 powers and Iran will seek to conclude a permanent and comprehensive agreement.

Readers may also know what Iran has to do according to the agreement, because most of the Western media have repeatedly listed those terms. Either skimmed over or skipped altogether are those things the P5+1 have to do for Iran. Here is a brief synopsis of the agreement:

The diplomatic deal with Iran

For the next six months Iran has undertaken to:

  • Limit its uranium enrichment programme to the 5 per cent level – the level suitable for nuclear power plant fuel – while diluting its stockpile of 20 per cent enriched uranium to below the 5 per cent level. The 20 per cent enriched uranium was used by Iran for medical treatment and research, but the paranoia of the Western powers in particular caused it to be seen as fuel for nuclear weapons.
  • Hold to present levels the size of its low-enriched (5 per cent) stockpile.
  • Halt efforts to produce plutonium (a particularly efficient nuclear weapons material).
  • Limit its use of present centrifuges and not construct future ones. The centrifuges are the devices that take “uranium gas” and concentrate it into nuclear fuel. It is the through calibration of the centrifuges that the percentage of enrichment is determined.
  • Allow daily inspections of its nuclear facilities.

There are other obligations as well, but these are the principal ones. All of these demands are a reflection of the obsessive conviction of influential and noisy elements in the West, and particularly on the part of the Zionist-influenced US Congress, that Iran is determined to produce nuclear weapons. This obsession has persisted even though Western intelligence agencies repeatedly testified that there was and is no evidence for this assertion. Essentially, this entire affair is the product of unsubstantiated right-wing Zionist anxiety, which in turn has infected pro-Zionist elements in the West.

The fact that this suspicion of Iran has been built up around a fantasy made it easier for Iran to agree to the present deal. They never did plan to build a bomb, so giving up the imaginary programme was giving up nothing. On the other hand, what Iran is worried about are matters of principle. For instance, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has a legal right to enrich uranium. It wants that right recognized. Accepting an enrichment process to the 5 per cent level appears sufficiently face-saving for Tehran to agree to the interim settlement.

So what did Iran get in return?  For the next six months the P5+1powers and particularly the United States have undertaken to:

  • Impose no new sanctions on Iran.
  • Suspend present sanctions on (a) gold and precious metals (b) Iran’s auto sector and (c) Iran’s petrochemical exports. This should give Iran up to 1.5 billion US dollars in revenue.
  • Cease interference with Iranian oil exports at their present levels.
  • Allow for safety-related repairs and inspections for Iranian airlines.
  • Release frozen Iranian funds earmarked to pay the tuition of Iranian students attending colleges in third countries.
  • Facilitate humanitarian transactions (such as Iran’s import of medicine), which, even though not covered in the sanctions, had been periodically made difficult by US government bureaucrats.

It is a sign of just how malicious the West can be that they are willing to make difficult for Iran such things as airline safety, education and medicine.

The managed reporting of the deal

One of the remarkable things about the Western reporting of this very significant diplomatic achievement – after all, the US and Iran have had no formal relations for some 33 years – is that it largely ignores Western obligations under the agreement. Even al-Jazeera America’s coverage was scanty in this regard. Why would this be so?

One can only assume that having harped on Iran as a danger to the West for 33 years, and created an irrational fear of a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons programme, the US government and its media partners had to frame the agreement in a way that put the onus on Iran.

The Obama administration is stuck with the consequences of those 33 years. Iran has long been the centrepiece in a near-hysterical campaign by Zionists and neo-conservatives that portrays the Muslim world as the successor to the old Soviet Union. Communism has been replaced by Islam, and now that the US is supposedly the only real superpower in the world, the message of this campaign is that the United States should act in a pre-emptive way and use its military and economic power to stamp out real and potential threats. This was the doctrine of the George W. Bush administration, and it led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq. This is the doctrine of the American Zionists who are interested in destroying any Muslim power that may someday challenge Israel.

President Obama’s failure to follow this doctrine, at least in the case of Iran, has made him a target for these warmongers. Reporting the interim agreement with Iran in a way that emphasizes Iranian obligations while playing down those of the United States and the West is a tactic to counter the hysteria on the right.

 

It is not the case that Barack Obama is like Neville Chamberlain. It is, however, the case that the neo-cons and their ilk remind one of Adolf Hitler, at least when it comes to manufacturing false scenarios for war and then relentlessly selling them to the public.

 

And hysteria is the operative word here. It betrays itself in ridiculous historical comparisons and vicious name-calling. Take, for example, the hyperbole of Daniel Pipes. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and publisher of the Middle East Quarterly, both sounding boards for the Zionist worldview. In an article appearing in the right-wing National Review, Pipes writes, “This wretched deal offers one of those rare occasions when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid.” This is utter nonsense.

In 1938 the populations of Britain and France wanted peace and their politicians were willing to allow Hitler to act in a warlike fashion towards a third party, Czechoslovakia, in order to get what they thought was “peace in our time”.

Today the Western populations have been brought to a state of high suspicion of Iran which is just barely countered by their being sick and tired of war in the Middle East. That is one of the reasons the deal is proceeding in steps.

There is absolutely no basis for comparison between Munich and the deal just made with Iran. At Munich, Germany was turned loose. In the present deal Iran is not let loose but constrained. After Munich there were no inspectors running around Nazi Germany checking on things. In Iran there is now a small army of inspectors. After Munich no one was telling Hitler that if he didn’t behave, the alternative was war. That is what Obama’s speeches imply. The present deal is, in these ways, the complete opposite of Munich.

What sort of world does Pipes live in that he can misreads the situation so dramatically? It is an Orwellian world warped by Zionist ideology.

Since these ideologues have opened the door to ugly comparisons, let’s get something straight here. It is not the case that Barack Obama is like Neville Chamberlain. It is, however, the case that the neo-cons and their ilk remind one of Adolf Hitler, at least when it comes to manufacturing false scenarios for war and then relentlessly selling them to the public. Then, when they are checked, they display the same exaggerated, temper tantrum-like hysterics as did the fascist leaders of the 1930s. So, if anyone is looking for the real threat to Western or Israeli security (existential or otherwise), it is these ideologically blinkered neo-conservatives and Zionists along with their media allies.

Conclusion

The interim deal with Iran is an act of sanity, and the present American administration, whatever other foreign policy shortcomings it has displayed (and there have been plenty), deserves praise for defying the radical right and pushing it through. As to the deal’s detractors in and out of Congress, they are the warmongers among us and deserve to be exposed as such. They are a danger to the world and to their own country. Keep in mind the words of James Madison: “if tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

________________________________________________________________________

DENUCLEARISE ISRAEL1

EndNut

| Deranged NuttyYahoo: Iran nuclear deal ‘historic mistake!’

Israeli PM Netanyahu: Iran nuclear deal ‘historic mistake’ ~

David Simpson and Josh Levs, CNN.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: The deal made the world ‘a much more dangerous place,’ Netanyahu says
  • NEW: ‘You are not our enemies,’ Israel’s president tells Iranians
  • The countries once enjoyed a “honeymoon”
  • Last week, Iran‘s supreme leader said Israeli officials “cannot be even called humans”

(CNN) — While the EU and the United States cheered a deal that world powers reached with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, Israel was fierce in its criticism Sunday.

“What was concluded in Geneva last night is not a historic agreement, it’s a historic mistake,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters. “It’s not made the world a safer place. Like the agreement with North Korea in 2005, this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place.”

“For years the international community has demanded that Iran cease all uranium enrichment. Now, for the first time, the international community has formally consented that Iran continue its enrichment of uranium.”

The deal, Netanyahu argued, leaves Iran “taking only cosmetic steps which it could reverse easily within a few weeks, and in return, sanctions that took years to put in place are going to be eased.”

“This first step could very well be the last step,” he said.

“Without continued pressure, what incentive does the Iranian regime have to take serious steps that actually dismantle its nuclear weapons capability?”

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes, with no long-term goal of developing a nuclear weapons arsenal.

In an earlier written statement, Netanyahu said the agreement “threatens many countries and of course Israel among them. Israel is not obliged to the agreement.”

“If in five years, a nuclear suitcase explodes in New York or Madrid,” Naftali Bennett, the Israeli minister of trade and industry, said, “it will be because of the agreement that was signed this morning.”

Shimon Peres, Israel’s president, took a different note.

“This is an interim deal. The success or failure of the deal will be judged by results, not by words,” Peres said in a statement.

“I would like to say to the Iranian people: You are not our enemies, and we are not yours. There is a possibility to solve this issue diplomatically. It is in your hands. Reject terrorism. Stop the nuclear program. Stop the development of long-range missiles. Israel, like others in the international community, prefers a diplomatic solution.

“But I want to remind everyone of what President Obama said, and what I have personally heard from other leaders. The international community will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. And if the diplomatic path fails, the nuclear option will be prevented by other means. The alternative is far worse.”

READ: World powers strike historic deal on Iran’s nuclear program

Reaction to deal in Tehran

To be sure, there is no love lost between Iran and Israel.

Iran, which in the past has questioned Israel’s right to even exist, continues to push Tel Aviv’s buttons with incendiary statements.

Israel, which says it has the most to lose if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, has repeatedly warned the West to tread warily when dealing with Tehran.

READ: White House releases deal details

So to find that their greatest ally, the United States, has struck an interim deal with Iran prompted stunned Israeli lawmakers.

“Israel cannot participate in the international celebration, which is based on Iranian deception and the world self-delusion,” Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said.

All three lawmakers stopped short of saying whether Israel would go it alone militarily, if the need arose.

But Israeli officials told CNN’s Ian Lee they would not rule out a strike against Iran — and Netanyahu certainly didn’t mince words. Israel bombed a reactor construction site in Iraq in 1981.

“The regime in Iran is dedicated to destroying Israel and Israel has the right and obligation to defend itself with it’s own forces against every threat,” he said. “I want to make clear as the Prime minister of Israel, Israel will not let Iran develop a nuclear military capability.”

Obama to call Netanyahu

The heightened rhetoric means President Obama has his work cut out for him in appeasing its staunchest ally in the Middle East.

Iran deal ‘important step forward’
Iran nuclear deal reachedPhotos: Iran nuclear deal reachedPhotos: Iran nuclear deal reached

“You can be sure that President Obama will speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu” on Sunday, a senior administration official told reporters.

“Ultimately, we understand why Israel is particularly skeptical about Iran,” the official said, adding, “This is not simply about trusting the Iranian government. There are strict verification measures.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said as the deal was announced in Geneva that Israel and the United States agree that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

But Kerry said none of the world powers represented in Geneva believe that unrelenting sanctions can achieve that goal. He said the deal will make Israel safer by freezing some Iranian nuclear development and removing its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20% purity.

Kerry also said military action, while still an option Obama would preserve, could not permanently solve the problem.

Israeli leaders ‘sleep with one eye open

It’s hard for most Americans to understand why all Israeli prime ministers are said to sleep with one eye open, says Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations.

America, he says, has “non-predatory neighbors to its north and south and fish to its east and west.”

Israel, on the other hand, is a small Jewish state surrounded by antagonistic Muslim neighbors.

“Israel cannot participate in the international celebration, which is based on Iranian deception and the world self-delusion.” – Israeli intelligence minister

“I don’t think Iran wants nuclear weapons to launch a first strike against Israel. But it’s impossible to ignore, let alone trivialize, Israeli security concerns and vulnerabilities in this regard, particularly in the face of Iran’s rhetoric, regional ambitions and support for terrorism over the years,” he said.

Indeed, the verbal attacks have been relentless.

Even as the P5+1 met in Geneva, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei unleashed another volley last week in Tehran.

Khamenei said Israeli officials “cannot be even called humans” and referred to Netanyahu as “the rabid dog of the region.”

Once a ‘honeymoon

What is forgotten in this tense relationship is that it wasn’t always this way.

After the birth of the nation of Israel in 1948, the countries enjoyed a “honeymoon” that lasted until just before the 1979 Islamic revolution, David Menashri, professor emeritus of Tel Aviv University, told CNN last year.

Israel’s ties with Iran were chiefly motivated by “a single word with three letters — O-I-L,” he said.

But the Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran marked a turning point.

The Islamic republic, led by Shiite clerics in the predominantly Shiite nation, saw Israel as an illegitimate state with no right to exist, certainly not amid Muslim nations.

Despite harsh rhetoric, though, then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini “didn’t want to get into a confrontation with Israel,” said Ervand Abrahamian, a professor of Iranian and Middle Eastern history at Baruch College of the City University of New York.

One reason: Israel and Iran had a common enemy in Iraq, a country that fought an eight-year war with Iran. Israel even supplied weapons to Iran to help it fight.

In the years after the Iran-Iraq war, however, Israel began to regard Iran and its support of global terror as a chief threat.

And it watched uneasily as Iran has gained influence in the Middle East since the first Gulf War began eroding Iraq’s power.

Those concerns escalated when international inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at a power plant in Iran in 2003.

In the escalating conflict, the United States has always said it has, in the words of Obama last year, “Israel’s back.”

“The United States has no stake in concluding an agreement with Iran that leaves Israel angry, aggrieved and vulnerable. So, the two sides will find a way to work this through,”Miller said. “But for now, buckle your seat belts. We could be in for one bumpy ride.”

How to enrich uranium into fuel

CNN’s Michael Schwartz and Joe Sterling contributed to this report.

_________________________________________________________________________

NuttyOb2 NuttyYahooMadSo, NuttyYahoo thinks he knows better than the world’s foreign ministers who finally negotiated the breakthrough deal in Geneva, after a ten-year hiatus with Iran.  

How typical. 
Now, watch out for a major false-flag attack from your friendly-neighbourhood ziocolony to sabotage the detente.

Par for the course.
 
Unless it’s cut loose first.
 
 
_________________________________________________________________________
NetanyahuShutEye2

Frankenstein112NuttyDivorce

| Neighbours want nuclear-free zone but Israel sets nuclear precedent!

Israel’s nuclear precedent ~ FARAH STOCKMAN,

THEY BUILT their bomb in secret, under the cover of a peaceful nuclear reactor. After aerial photographs caught them constructing a massive plutonium plant in the desert, they claimed it was just a research laboratory. Under US pressure, they let American inspectors in, but managed to conceal for years what they were really doing.

This may sound like the history of Iran’s nuclear program, but it’s not. It’s the story of Dimona, Israel’s plutonium complex built in the late 1950s with French assistance.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal, constructed despite promises to Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson that the program was purely peaceful, is a taboo subject in both Washington and Tel Aviv. Indeed, Israeli officials never publicly acknowledge what has now become an open secret. But to many in the Middle East, it’s the elephant in the room. Egyptian officials say the key to dismantling Iran’s program is getting the rest of the region to renounce the possession of nuclear weapons.

“Success in dealing with Iran will depend to a large extent on how successfully we deal with the establishment of a nuclear-free zone” in the Middle East, Maged Abdelaziz, Egypt’s UN ambassador, told reporters in 2010.

But that’s a nonstarter. Israelis struggled against all odds to get the bomb. They are not about to give it up now.

Yet, even that history of struggle colors the current debate on Iran.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demands that Iran’s plutonium reactor at Arak be completely dismantled because it has “no peaceful purpose,” he is speaking from experience. Israel had built a similar plant, and engaged in similar deception, at Dimona.

That’s what spooks Israeli policymakers: Iran’s nuclear playbook feels all too familiar.

“When Israel looks at Iran, they see Iran as if Iran is like Israel 50 years ago,” said Avner Cohen, professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and author of “Israel and the Bomb” and “The Worst Kept Secret.”

If you look at things that way, the Iranian bomb feels downright inevitable.

But Iran isn’t Israel, Cohen points out. There are plenty of reasons the Iranian program could turn out differently.

Israel had a much deeper reason to seek the bomb. Surrounded by hostile neighbors bent on its destruction, Israel felt that nuclear weapons were the key to the Jewish state’s very survival. Iran faces no such existential threat.

And, unlike Israel, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is therefore subject to far stricter inspections than Israel ever allowed at Dimona. If Iran does decide to try to start producing weapons-grade fuel, the world is likely to discover it in time to stop it.

And while Johnson’s administration pressed Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, he looked the other way when Israel refused. Drawing attention to Israel’s refusal would have doomed the treaty. Arab countries would have jumped ship. At the end of the day, Americans could live with an Israeli bomb, as long as Israelis didn’t advertise it by testing it. Iran can’t expect the same deal.

“I think Iranians know the world is not going to allow them” to have a nuclear weapon, Cohen said.

Instead, he said, Iran appears to be trying to keep its nuclear options open, inching as close to the ingredients for a bomb as the Nonproliferation Treaty allows, while refraining from actually building one.

Still, nuclear competition in the Middle East is something Israelis have long feared. In the early 1960s, respected Israeli intellectuals warned that a bomb would actually make Israel less safe, because it would trigger a regional arms race that would put Israel at a huge disadvantage. Due to its small size, Israel coudn’t withstand a nuclear attack like its larger neighbors.

That’s just the thing about nuclear weapons: They only make you safer until your enemy gets them. It took less than five years for the Soviet Union to follow the United States into the nuclear weapons age. Israel has maintained its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East for nearly half a century. How long that lasts remains to be seen. Perhaps once it is gone, Israel will support what others have been pushing all along: a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.

________________________________________________________________________

israeli nukes riskA vanunu israeli_nukeA

Nuke Holocaust 2

| FACT CHECK: Israeli claims on Iran nuclear program!

FACT CHECK: Israeli claims on Iran nuclear programBRIAN MURPHY, AP.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP)Israel has said it is ready to stand alone if needed to stop moves by Iran toward possessing nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its atomic program is only for energy and medical applications, has called this scare-mongering that seeks to undermine nuclear talks starting Thursday between Tehran and six world powers, including the U.S.

Israel fears the talks could leave intact the mainstays of Iran’s nuclear network — the ability to enrich uranium and produce atomic fuel.

A look at the claims:

___

CLAIM: At an Oct. 27 meeting of the Israeli Cabinet, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “improvements” in Iran’s nuclear program in the past year would allow it push past the “barrier” of 20 percent enriched uranium — the highest level acknowledged by Iran — to reach 90 percent enrichment within “weeks at most.” Uranium at 90 percent enrichment is close to weapons-grade.

DETAILS: Netanyahu may be talking about the amount of 20 percent material now on hand. This is close to 200 kilograms (440 pounds). Experts say 250 kilograms (550 pounds) would be needed to produce a single bomb by enriching that amount to above 90 percent. There is significant debate over a possible timetable, but many experts say it could be several months or longer, based on the hypothetical scenario that Iran would move ahead with higher enrichment.

Netanyahu also could be referring to the number of centrifuges installed in the past year or upgrades that allow faster production of enriched uranium. Except for a test station, however, none of the new generation machines are running.

___

CLAIM: At the same meeting, Netanyahu said Iran’s planned heavy water reactor in the city of Arak has “no connection with energy for peace, but only for nuclear weapons.”

DETAILS: The heavy water reactor — currently under construction in central Iran — uses a molecular variant of water as a coolant and can use natural, non-enriched uranium as a fuel. Such reactors produce a higher amount of plutonium as a byproduct. The plutonium can be reused in nuclear weapons production, but needs a special extraction and enrichment process that Iran currently does not possess. Iran has not released details on its plans for plutonium, but said the reactor’s main purpose is to produce isotopes for cancer treatment and other medical uses. Iran has said it will allow 24-hour video surveillance at the reactor by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. Similar around-the-clock monitoring is in place at other enrichment and nuclear sites.

___

CLAIM: Israel’s Security Cabinet said Oct. 15 that Iran has “systematically defied” U.N. Security Council resolutions to halt uranium enrichment.

DETAILS: The U.N. Security Council in July 2006 passed the first in a series of resolutions demanding Iran halt its enrichment program. Iran dismissed the resolution and moved ahead with advances in enrichment, as well as the then-secret construction of a new and fortified enrichment facility built into a mountain south of Tehran.

The U.N. measure was taken after concluding that its International Atomic Energy Agency did not have enough information from Tehran on whether its nuclear program was solely for peaceful purposes. The vote opened the way for much tighter sanctions on Iran. Although the provisions of the Security Council resolution remain in place, nuclear negotiators from the U.S. and allies appear to have backed off demands that Iran halt its enrichment efforts. Discussion at the talks has shifted to possibly allowing enrichment — with strict U.N. monitoring — at lower levels need for peaceful reactors.

Iran insists it has the “right” to uranium enrichment because it has signed the U.N.’s Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, which oversees the spread of nuclear technology. Israel, which is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal, has not signed the NPT.

___

CLAIM: The Israeli Security Cabinet statement said Iran has increased the number of centrifuges used in enrichment from 164 in 2006 to more than 18,000.

DETAILS: This is correct but not all are active. Of those 18,000 installed, Iran currently runs more than 10,000 centrifuges, which convert uranium feed stock into nuclear fuel.

___

CLAIM: The Israeli statement notes that Iran’s advances in the technology needed to create nuclear fuel mean that Tehran is also “able to produce nuclear weapons.”

DETAILS: While technically true, this would apply to at least five countries that enrich uranium but do not have their own nuclear arsenal. The list includes Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands.

___

CLAIM: In remarks at the weekly Cabinet meeting Oct. 6, Netanyahu said that “16 countries produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without even one centrifuge,” suggesting those countries obtain nuclear fuel abroad.

DETAILS: The number is correct. The list spans the globe including Canada, Belgium and South Africa.

___

CLAIM: In an Oct. 3 interview with Univision, Netanyahu said Iran has “missiles that can reach Israel” and was “building these long-range intercontinental missiles to reach the United States.”

DETAILS: Iran has claimed its Shahab-3 missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles), which covers much of the Middle East, including Israel. Iran’s aerospace program has reported the launch of satellites and animals to outside Earth’s atmosphere. This has raised Western concerns that the same technology could be used to develop an intercontinental arsenal.

___

Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna, Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this report.

________________________________________________________________________

Nuke Holocaust 2

| Nun faces up to 30 years in prison for protesting at nuclear weapons facility!

Nun faces up to 30 years in prison for protesting at nuclear weapons facility ~ theguardian.com.

District judge denies appeal of Sister Megan Rice, 83, and two other activists, citing their intent to ‘disarm’ Oak Ridge.

Sister Megan Rice

Sister Megan Rice before the start of her trial in Knoxville, Tennessee, last May. Photograph: J Miles Cary/AP

An octogenarian Roman Catholic nun, jailed for breaking into a nuclear weapons facility in Tennessee, is facing up to 30 years in prison after losing her plea for the most serious charge to be dropped.

Sister Megan Rice, 83, and two fellow peace activists staged a non-violent protest to symbolically disarm the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons facility, home to the nation’s main supply of highly enriched uranium, in July. They were initially charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison, but felony charges quickly followed. They were eventually convicted of interfering with national security and damage to federal property.

This week, a judge denied a motion to acquit them of interfering with national security under the sabotage section of the US criminal code, which carries the harshest prison sentence of up to 20 years. Rice and her two fellow activists, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, a carpenter, and Michael Walli, 68, a veteran, now face up to 30 years in prison, although the ruling by district judge Amul Thapar, in the eastern district of Tennessee, suggests their sentences will be more lenient than the maximum allowed.

The three describe themselves as ‘Transform Now Plowshares’, a reference to a passage in the bible, Isaiah 2:4, which states: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

They are currently in the Irwin County detention center, Georgia, awaiting their sentence.

In his ruling denying the so-called Rule 29 motion, Thapar writes: “The defendants are entitled to their views regarding the morality of nuclear weapons. But the defendants’ sincerely held moral beliefs are not a get-out-of-jail-free card that they can deploy to escape criminal liability.”

Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University-New Orleans who works pro bono for the three, said “everybody is disappointed” by the decision. “We believe really strongly that they did not do anything that could be constituted as sabotage or violating the national security of the US. The prosecution admits that national security was not damaged. Their theory is that even though it wasn’t damaged, the protesters intended to.”

However, he said he took heart from the judge’s acknowledgment that the non-violent nature of the protesters and their characters would be taken into consideration at sentencing.

The New York Times described the break-in as he “the biggest security breach” in the nation’s atomic history.

The protesters argue that while they entered the plant with the intention of causing some symbolic damage, including painting slogans on buildings, their non-violent behaviour and peaceful natures could not be interpreted as trying to interfere with national defence. They argued that no reasonable jury could have found intent to cause harm, that the government had failed to prove any intent, and that their non-violent actions did not actually damage national defence.

However, in his ruling dated 1 October, the judge cites the defendants’ phone calls made while in custody, including one in which Rice said the three entered Y-12 to “begin the work of disarmament”; Thapar argues this was evidence that they acted to frustrate the plant’s mission to store and enrich uranium. The mission, he says, was among “activities of national preparedness”.

At one point in the ruling, the judge refers to the sabotage charge and asks the question: “But what about the fact of the defendant’s non-violence – does it make sense to deal as harshly with non-violence protesters as with foreign saboteurs?” He concludes that, the court must interpret the criminal statute by its terms and “cannot fashion case-by-case exceptions of sympathetic defendants”. He goes on to say the defendants’ non-violence will be relevant at sentencing.

The court must account for both the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics” of the defendants, he says. He also dismissed the defendants’ Rule 33 motion, requiring a retrial based on the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct.

Ralph Hutchinson, co-ordinator for Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling. He said he spoke to Rice after the ruling and she told him: “We’re fine, we’re fine, it’s all good.”

Hutchinson said: “We did not expect the judge to rise to the occasion. The judge did say, though, he felt constrained by the technical language of the law and suggested he is not going to be overly harsh at sentencing.”

Sentencing is scheduled for 28 January next year.

________________________________________________________________________

unconstitutional-the_war_on_our_civil_liberties_poster

 

cost-of-freedom-500x500

chomsky Freedom freedom2