DEAD MEN'S SHOES ON TRANSYLVANIA AVENUE.
Dr De Ath. 7th March 2005.
The only argument that would appear to consistently hold water when it comes to justifying U.S. and Western foreign policy in general throughout the twentieth century and up to the present day is that Capitalism, corporate power and profit must prevail at all costs. In pursuit of this objective therefore, it is essential that the electorate be maintained in a mushroom culture and that Socialism be undermined at every turn, particularly within the homeland and in those countries that possess mineral wealth. In the West, our representatives (those who so love to present themselves as public servants) pontificate much on the subject of democracy and the will of the people, yet, one need not look far to see how hollow these laudable protestations are and how casually and selectively they are shrugged off. Consider the fate of the Chilean people in 1973, when they naïvely elected a Socialist government and had the audacity to think they could get away with it, in America's backyard no less! Result: an American supported Fascist coup, a murdered president and thousands of tortured and 'disappeared'. Even when you sit at the Devil's card-table and win, you lose! The murderous ex-general Senator Augusto Pinochet travelled to London in 1998, with the aim of seeking some medical treatment, doing a spot of shopping and popping in on his old chum Margaret Thatcher, only to find himself facing an extradition order for his involvement in the torture and 'disappearance' of Spanish citizens during his reign in Chile. What was the response of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to the renowned Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, celebrated for his success in bringing the Filipe Gonzalez government to book over the running of state death squads in Spain? Completely in keeping with New Labour's "ethical" foreign policy, the U.K. recognised the diplomatic immunity that Pinochet had cloaked himself in and sent the Fascist dictator, unscathed and absolutely ethically, back home to Chile. On humanitarian grounds, of course. After all, we just couldn't help feeling so sorry for the poor chap once he had suddenly developed that life threatening medical condition which seems to unfailingly afflict public figures in awkward situations. New Labour, in the form of Robin Cook when he held the post of foreign secretary, invented the term Ethical Foreign Policy so, they more than any should know how to put it into practice. From the evidence thus far available, in order to qualify as a beneficiary under this Blairite policy, being a murderous serial abuser of human rights it seems is de rigueur. Consider the maintenance of British arms sales to eminent Indonesian Fascist villain General Suharto or similar weapons deals struck by the Blair gang with that supremo amongst Zionist 'estate agents' Ariel Sharon and his regime. One is tempted to imagine the pillow talk between Tone and Cherie, particularly in light of her off-message gaffe when she expressed apparent sympathy and understanding for the Palestinians who, in acts of desperation after seeing their relatives and friends murdered and their homes bulldozed, decide to convert themselves into human bombs in a cry for help. Our E.U. partners in Belgium have been 'unethical' enough to indict Sharon for war crimes, resulting in particular from his complicity during the appalling massacres at the Sabra and Chatila Beirut refugee camps in 1982, leaving 2000 dead civilians (the Palestinian fighters had already made good their exit). 400,000 Israelis demonstrated against their government once they had discovered that the Christian Phalangists (Fascists), who carried out this atrocity, had not only been funded and armed by Israel but actually encouraged by Sharon to do it. Has Sharon's record even so much as raised an eyebrow in the Westminster culture, where private profits take precedence over justice and morality? After all the sanctimonious hot air from the U.K. over Israeli attacks on the Palestinians, our actions bear out a dark and quite different truth. During 1999 for example, U.K., exports to Israel included components for: air-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, bombs, combat aircraft and helicopters and military aero engines, additionally, it supplied casting for combat aircraft, small-arms ammunition and production equipment for small-arms ammunition. In the following year, 2000, the U.K. added to the list by supplying: parts and equipment for combat aircraft and helicopters, components for large calibre artillery ammunition, body armour, components for armoured personnel carriers, general purpose machineguns, components for general use machineguns and equipment for use of general purpose machineguns. It is worth comparing these actions against the Consolidated E.U. and National Arms Export Criteria. Criterion 4: preservation of regional peace security and stability. With the U.K., currently holding second spot in the global arms export stakes at 20% of the market, Blair's central concern at the prospect of terminating such a trade seems to be pragmatically simple: "you would find every other defence industry in the world rushing in to take the place we vacated.". One wonders if he would extend the same degree of pragmatism and quiescence towards the suppliers of arms to the Palestinians. I suppose we will simply have to get real, won't we? Such moral elasticity is apparently the preserve and privilege of today's stalwart, civilised, liberal democracies. After all, what can a poor country do when one of the only major manufacturing industries it has left is arms? Make no mistake, if you sell guns, your print is on the trigger. In a recent television interview covering the subject of Palestinian suicide bombers, serial blunderer Jack Straw, whilst attempting to excuse the actions of the Israeli government ( British arms trade beneficiaries ), even attempted to play the actuary by raising the issue of the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian suicide bombers during the current conflict. When the journalist pointed out to him that ten times as many Palestinians had been killed by Israeli actions, Straw, in one of his typically spluttering efforts to weasel his way out of a sticky situation, accused the interviewer of playing a numbers game (almost as depressingly hilarious as his finding the room "very dark" before realising that he was shaking hands on camera with the fiend Robert Mugabe ). The British public was then treated to the embarrassing sight of their representative on the world stage being brought to a speechless halt when he had to be reminded that actually it had been himself who had raised the issue of the ratio of corpses to nationality in the first instance. The greatest beneficiary of U.K. arms deals has of course been Uncle Sam. Since Britain's self-proclaimed Christian prime minister commenced his watch in 1997, sales of defence equipment by the top six British aerospace companies have increased twofold. B.A.E. business with the Pentagon, for instance, currently exceeds that which it has with the M.O.D., and following its acquisition of G.E.C.-Marconi, the company has climbed to third spot in the world for marketing the tools of death and destruction. With the U.S. defence budget having now practically gone into orbit, it would be rather awkward, it seems, for a man of the cloth like 'nice' Tony not to support George's crusade.
Sacrificial Lambs On The Roadmap To Zion
Israel is a truly unique state. Given the importance of Middle Eastern oil supplies as the driving force of Western Capitalism post the First World War, it is far from coincidental that the Zionists received enthusiastic endorsement for the creation of a Jewish homeland; initially from the U.K. and later from the U.S. in their pursuit of controlling access to the region. Ever since its foundation, Israel has been granted liberty to conduct itself with spectacularly maverick impunity. The Zionist state's racial policy towards the Palestinians owes much to the example set by its old chums in apartheid South Africa, furthermore, if the Persians or any Arab states refused to recognise limits to their international frontiers and built up a clandestine nuclear arsenal, they would be expelled from the U.N. and "bombed back into the stone-age". But, history, of course, is bunk, isn't it? "Mesopotamia.......oil..…..yes, we must have Mesopotamia. Palestine…….the Holy Land…….Zionism..…..yes, we must have Palestine. Syria…….what is there in Syria? Let the French have that.". Thus were the musings of British Prime Minister Lloyd George in Paris 1919. "Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.", the views of Lord `Bloody' ( as he was christened by the Irish ) Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, in Paris 1919 (co-architect, alongside Chaim Weizmann, of the eponymous declaration which gave the British seal of approval to the foundation of a Zionist state in Palestine ). Profound import indeed! Finally, how could one neglect Churchill? On the subject of Zionist gun-running into Palestine, he said in 1921, "We won't mind it, but don't speak of it.". How easily disposed of then were the promises given to the Arabs when we needed them during the First World War to drive back the Turks. Honour, it seems, is a commodity that diminishes with civilisation. Poor Lawrence, he was so dreadfully naïve. Whilst we may like to assume control over the present, unfortunately, we still walk in dead men's shoes. When considering the vast diaspora of the Jewish people and their assimilation into cultures they have settled within, it is worth pointing out that the Zionist zealots who have managed to borrow the ears of Western leaders over the last hundred years or so, and whose views continue to receive a warm welcome in the television studios of the U.S.A., and Europe, actually represent a minority of Jews worldwide. It goes without question that from circa 1250 B.C., when Moses parted the waters and led the Israelites onward to the Land of Milk and Honey, up to the end of the Second World War and Hitler's Final Solution, the Jewish people have drawn an extremely short straw indeed. After escape from slavery under the Egyptians, they have variously been discriminated against, enslaved or murdered by Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans. It was in fact the Europeans, Rome, who brought to an end the Jewish national state and forced them to disperse. From then on, they suffered pogroms during the First Crusade, the Black Death, the Spanish Inquisition et cetera, before finally encountering Stalin and much worse, Adolf Hitler. Interestingly however, one political environment in which the Jews appear to have been accepted much more than in Classical or Christian societies was that of the Arab, Islamic caliphates of the Middle-ages. Despite this tortured past, the Jews have survived, and, in many cases, have risen to considerable prominence throughout western culture today, particularly in the financial sector. There is, of course, nothing coincidental in the Jewish flair with money, in fact, maintaining your assets in liquid capital rather than in bricks and mortar et cetera is a very sensible defence mechanism when living under the constant threat of persecution.
How easy it is though for the repressed to slip into the shoes of the repressor. After all, they are better versed than most in the techniques involved. How easy too for the terrorist to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No, not just the now dead leader of the stateless and persecuted Palestinian people, ponder awhile also upon Menachem Begin, whose skills as 'property speculator' for the Zionist cause came to the fore when he became Commander-in-chief of the Irgun Zvai Leumi Jewish terrorists and later Prime Minister of Israel. Terrorism, a word that trips off the tongues of both the linguistically challenged leadership of the Capitalist West and its largely semantically ignorant, born again Christian electorate with such self-righteous alacrity. The fact is that almost every state with a seat at the United Nations probably owes its existence to the application of terror at some stage or other during its history. Israel is certainly no exception. The Zionist state accepts no restrictions on the limits to its borders; surely the most fundamental criterion of all for access to a seat at the U.N.. Nor has Israel signed any nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and therefore, the way has been left clear for it to develop and expand an arsenal of an estimated 200 nukes. The Iraqis, however, did sign up, and must now be wondering why they ever bothered to do so. In 1981, due to fears that Israel's nuclear weapons' superiority could be cancelled out by the development of an Arab bomb, Israel unilaterally attacked Iraq destroying a nuclear site outside Baghdad. Whatever happened to the policy of deterrence, much vaunted during the Cold War? Oh dear, I am forgetting, aren't I? Nukes in the hands of Islamic-Arab-semites would be nukes in the wrong hands, wouldn't it? Now that the irritating Mordechai Vanunu (the Israeli nuclear technician responsible for exposing what Israel was up to) has been locked up yet again for talking to journalists, I imagine we won't be hearing too much about nukes in the right hands, Zionist-Jewish-semites. It is hard to imagine what new information a man who has spent the last eighteen years behind bars, mostly in solitary confinement, could pass on. Obviously, Sharon and his henchmen in the 'Justice Dept' are going to have to conduct a thorough review of prison security. The duplicitous leaps of the imagination required that enable us to classify certain nukes as good and others as bad are best summarised by the former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Richard Butler, a man who was obviously driven to distraction by the West's levels of double-speak. "I flinch when I hear American, British and French fulminations against weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the fact that they are the proud owners of massive quantities of those weapons"……. "My attempts to have Americans enter into discussions about double standards have been an abject failure"……. "What America totally fails to understand is that their weapons of mass destruction are just as much a problem as are those of Iraq"……. "Even with highly educated and engaged people……. I sometimes felt I was speaking to them in Martian, so deep is their inability to understand.". While on the subject of nationhood and the darker side of physics, it is worth noting that the Israeli right were at pains to win the endorsement of, and in so doing malign the reputation of, Albert Einstein. Not only was Einstein a giant of the scientific community and a Jew, but also an eminent Socialist. Besides his various writings in support of this cause, he also articulated his feelings on the subject of Zionism, perhaps best illustrated in a letter to the Times on the 4th of December 1948 to which he was a co-signatory. The letter addressed the visit of Menachem Begin to the U.S.. "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the Freedom party. …….a political party closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist right wing chauvinist organization in Palestine. …….Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties, they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trades unions. …….This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism and misrepresentation are means, and a leader state is the goal. …….It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts.", Einstein et al 1948. The Fascists in Israel have always been keen to utilise Einstein's image to sanitise their cause. In 1952, following the death of Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann, Einstein was offered the post, he declined. The Jewish right still manage however to sully Einstein's name. Even to this day, the website of the American Institute of Physics maintains that Einstein "was a strong supporter of Zionism.". Nor is the pernicious influence of the Zionist right limited solely to academic institutions. Consider the background of Richard 'Prince of Darkness' Perle, to name but one of George Bush's gurus. R. Perle Esq: Civilian, member of various right wing think tanks, member of boards advising government on matters of public policy and defence, ex-Assistant Secretary of Defence, current chair of the Defence Policy Board, Ex-Director of the Jerusalem Post, et cetera. In addition to having access to classified U.S. security data, the 'Bringer of Light' has been wiretapped by the F.B.I. discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli Embassy. In 1987 Rich suffered a setback on his ascent of Mount Zion when some pesky journalist revealed that whilst he had been in public service, he had also been in the employ of an Israeli weapons firm. Oh dear! His response to the accusation cleared everything up just dandy though. How, after all, could there possibly be any suggestion of a conflict of interests over his receipt of a salary to represent the good people of the U.S.A. at the same time as having his nest feathered for also representing the interests of an Israeli weapons company? Particularly when one takes into account the fact that, at the time in question, he was between jobs on his rise to becoming Assistant Secretary of Defence. How misguided one can be in questioning the rectitude of so upstanding a citizen. Throughout Dubya's first term, Richard Perle was frequently invited to express his opinions on the B.B.C's Newsnight programme, and clearly, given the respect shown to him by such bastions of journalistic credibility as Jeremy Paxton, all this sleazy stuff about his reputation is now firmly in the past. There is, in general, a deep-seated 'politically correct' skew throughout the B.B.C's Middle East news reporting and commentary, nowhere is this more in evidence than in the sanctimonious posturing of the B.B.C. Newsnight gang. One simply has to contrast the intonation patterns, the content selection in the questions and the general quality of discourse employed by Wark, Essler et al when interviewing representatives from the Palestinian side of the divide as compared with those representing Israel. For the sake of appearances, Israeli officials are always asked, politely of course, to justify their violence and repression before moving on to matters of more import. When a Palestinian official is interviewed however, no matter what premise has been used to bring about the invitation to appear on the show, and no matter how unrelated it may be to the current violence, the representative is invariably bludgeoned with questions concerning Palestinian murderers to such an extent that there is rarely any time to discuss other matters. This was graphically illustrated by the stupefying arrogance of Gavin Essler on the Tuesday 30th of November 2004 broadcast. Apparently, the public was to be treated to information and informed comment on the subject of who was likely to come out on top in the Palestinian Assembly post the death of Arafat. Essler, however, paid scant attention to this issue preferring instead to spend most of the time playing and replaying a Hamas video of the last moments of a suicide bomber. The Palestinian guest thankfully gave even better than he got, such officials must be well used to this type of treatment by the Newsnight hacks. The occasion was even more illuminating because Essler let his guard down and revealed his hand. He seemed to be at constant pains to express his confusion at why such a seemingly well-educated Palestinian should wish to die for a political cause. "But he was an educated man ……. why would an educated person do such a thing …….etc.," he harped on. Two issues arise from this. Firstly, it is well known that a number of the suicide bombers have been educated individuals, so, why should this fact be made into such a focus for his questioning instead of emphasising the fact that the man had simply reacted to the repression he had had to live with on a no doubt daily basis for years? And secondly, how would the self-righteous Mr.Essler explain the implications contained in his questions to those volunteers, whom he presumably regards as uneducated, who went to die in the trenches during the First World War? So, only the uneducated are stupid enough to die for a cause? I imagine it must be quite embarrassing for such superannuated anchors on this intellectually pretentious programme, a B.B.C. news and comment flagship no less, to have to associate with the uneducated and interrupt the line of their designer suits with Aunty Beeb's standard issue Remembrance Day poppies. Such attitudes, towards the education and devotion to self-sacrifice of those abused by the machinations of their masters prevalent on the B.B.C's newsnight programme find their reflection in the latest and potentially much more corrosively significant gaffe of U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The master of the "unknown unknowns" is always worth waiting up for. Now, his unknowns are becoming so known that he is finding it necessary to blame his own employees, frontline U.S., troopers, for his own shortcomings. Following his attendance, along with Cheney's, at Karzai's enthronement in Kabul, his address to American troops in Kuwait, awaiting their dispatch to Iraq, must have left taxpayers and the fabric of the American military aghast. To the tumultuous applause of the gathered troops (as was broadcast by the U.K's Channel 4 on the 8th of December 2004), a member of their ranks had the gall to ask his 'Don' why it was that he and his comrades had been reduced to scavenging rubbish dumps for essential equipment. Having initially suggested that the problem was the fault of both producers of equipment and the slothfulness of military commanders to get what was needed where it was needed when it was needed, he got down to brass tacks. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later date.", Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defence Secretary (Kuwait, 8/12/04). It is hard to imagine U.S. servicemen or women, whether by professional vocation or having volunteered in order to get myself off the dole queue in some deprived part of the States, feeling anything other than depressed and disillusioned by such remarks. Indeed, it would be easy for an American trooper to hear: 'You aren't what we really want, but you will have to do for now, and since we can't find anything better, you'll just have to put up with what I decide to supply you with. So shut the fuck up!'. The military personnel on the ground in Iraq are firstly, not stupid and secondly, experiencing the consequences of their political masters' decisions first hand. They live and work cheek by jowl with the mercenary carpetbaggers of private security operators who are in receipt of salaries many times that which the honest regular trooper gets. This gang of outlaws constitutes the world's largest private army with employees estimated to be receiving in excess of $2,000 per day. Such mercenaries are the types of individuals that the political elite of the U.S.A. employ to protect themselves with when in Iraq in preference to expressing faith in the regular armed services. Not only that, but it seems that the regulars are now having to take orders from these overpaid, overweight and over-armed carpetbaggers. Why should members of the armed services have to face courts marshal for following instructions to torture Iraqis from the goons working for private security firms, who have immunity under the laws of the new regime in Iraq? Rumsfeld has, on a number of occasions, openly flouted the Geneva Convention, but, like it or not, the U.S. military is covered by it. Therefore, the actions of the mercenaries that he employs fall into the category of straightforward criminal law. "Unlawful combatants" if you will. Consequently, they should be prosecuted for murder, kidnapping and torture within the context of the criminal legal system and face the sanctions available to it, such as the death penalty. To have stood up and asked so embarrassing a question of Rumsfeld, and additionally to have received the support of his colleagues as he did ( and quite possibly that of his superiors too ), reflects not just an individual's courage but a military culture apparently heading towards mutiny. Rumsfeld's response will have done little to quell discontent in the ranks.