Posts Tagged ‘israel’

Thoughts on a Deeply Troubled Land

Friday, February 12th, 2010

I’ve been interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict since 2007. A few weeks ago I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I wrote this piece in the last few days as a follow-up to my trip.

※ View the Thoughts on a Deeply Troubled Land PDF

screen-shot-2010-02-12-at-1258071

(Can’t read PDFs? See it on Scribd instead.)

For accompanying photographs, see my Israel & Palestine January 2010 photo album.

Jerusalem

And if you are a Facebook friend of mine, you can see my accompanying videos.

N.B.: due to an editing issue the abbreviation GoI isn’t explained. GoI stands for Government of Israel.


Iran

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

I despair at the events that are happening regarding the ‘discovery’ that Iran has built a ’secret’ nuclear station. I first heard this ‘news’ a couple of days ago on BBC Radio 4.

[I don't have enough time to write about the issue of Iran in as much detail as I'd like, so I have written what I can. So, please, make the most of the articles/videos to which I have linked to on this page. I have *starred* 3 links below which I think are essential reading.]

The media and our government - entities which we are meant to believe are reputable or credible - have by in large brought shame upon our country in the last few days.

The situation I see makes me fearful on many accounts:

First, I have not heard the British media spouting propaganda in such a pure and crude way in such amounts for a long time - this is disturbing.

Secondly, how will this ‘event’ escalate in terms of international relations? - what will be the consequences for Iranians and peace.

Thirdly, how much further will the British people’s ‘understanding’ of the world be polluted by what they hear, read, and see. You need only watch to this video to see why I despair at how the media had had an affect on people:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk]

The moral question

It’s really a very simple matter. How is it that Iran cannot develop nuclear power, but Britain, France, the USA, and Israel can already have nuclear power and condemn Iran for trying to get them? How is it that they can punish Iran for trying to have nuclear power (as if it was an evil thing) yet they themselves do nothing to reduce their ‘evil’ possession of this technology? Well, clearly, this moral hypocrisy is the crux.

[I take some of my background understanding of this issue from this video by the independent news organisation, The Real News, produced last year, which you may like to watch later.]

Extraordinary conclusions

You need only type in “IRAN” in a Google News search to see the lies and hypocrisy that are circulated about it. The first article that I found when I did that search was written by a journalist for the AFP based in Jeruslaem, entitled New plant proves Iran seeking nuclear weapons: Israel.  It opens:

Israel on Saturday said the disclosure of a second nuclear enrichment facility in Iran proved the country was seeking nuclear weapons and demanded an “unequivocal” Western response.

Just to remind you that Israel is a terrorist state, *supported in every way (economically, politically, militarily, philosophically)* by the USA, and is the biggest threat to Iran. But the point is this: how is it possible that the main stream media has fallen to such a standard that it’s even possible to publish the sentence I quote above. Israel’s conclusion to the premise is absolutely absurd. I would offer to re-write the sentence for them:

Israel on Saturday said the disclosure of a second nuclear enrichment facility in Iran proved that the country was seeking nuclear power.

… because this is the only sensical conclusion one can draw from such a fact.

Iran is not alone

However, we must remember that it is not just Iran who is in the situation of wanting nuclear power and approaching having it as a reality. Other states too find themselves in the same situation - this is a point expressed in an interview with The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Who wants to have nuclear power? Ask a random British person. They will most likely say Iran, for they are told that Iran wants nuclear power and that it is a threat, but they don’t get told about the other states who also want the same thing.

Iran as the terrorist

Often The Independent or The Guardian make statements or take stances on issues that seems radical or abnormal relative to the norm in the mainstream media (MSM), and this allows for the image that we have an overall balanced MSM. I call this the false contention - for usually, the real dissenting opinion are never present, they are omitted, but instead, some weak or peripheral ideas are used and portrayed as radical to create the impression that dissenting opinion is present in our political system. An example of this is The Independent’s comment on recent events. The Independent’s comment was reported by the *BBC in an article* which tries to paint an image of the variety of opinion within the newspapers regarding recent events. The BBC says that The Independent believes ‘that by “ramping up the rhetoric”, the US and its allies might bring about “real international disaster”‘. ‘Gosh!’, we are meant to think.

The Independent asserts that rhetoric is a problem; but it’s not. The problem is that lies regarding Iran are pandemic.

For instance, ‘to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made’. What was really said was: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. You can *read an explanation* of this lie which has been universal in the media.

I leave you with this video, hopefully it instils some hope, it’s a snapshot from an episode of the BBC’s Question Time:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnysPL9I47o]

P.S. note how the first speaker says ‘they’ and the tone in which he says it.

Obama and Change

Friday, April 10th, 2009

I have always been enormously cynical about Barack Obama. In the UK, it is fair to say, we get less involved with ‘emotion politics’ than in the USA. In the UK, I think most of us are more discerning about political hype. We prefer to indulge more in British quietism. At election time, I always thought those who ‘weeped’ at the thought or sight of Obama, the new Holy incarnation Yes-We-Can man, really should just grow up.

Obama on stage, election campaign

What ‘change’?

Obama ran his campaign on ‘change’. The main-stream media have said that Obama has started making ‘radical’ changes to the country; it’s not true. I never believed there would be change. His advisors and close political allies are too similar to those of previous administrations’ for him to affect ‘radical change’, even if he wanted to.

  • Obama’s National Security advisor, James Jones said “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger”. Henry Kissinger is the man who was largely responsible for the bombing to death of 600,000 civilians in Cambodia between 1969 and 1973, and he is wanted for questioning in France, Chile, and Argentina. (Hitchens)
  • The United States, of course, has a Defence Secretary - which ironically would be better titled War Secretary, for the USA has been on the offensive, rather than the defensive for so many decades. Obama’s Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, served in the same position under George W. Bush, the former Republican President - the administration which of course supported torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the general degradation of international law.
  • Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel is an “Irsael-first” Zionist who served in the Israeli army and opposes meaningful justice for the Palestinians -  an injustice that is at the root of many Muslim people’s loathing of the USA and a catalyst that spawns jihadism - (jihadism: the most obvious recipient of the US’ offensive). (Pilger) The israeli army is opposed on every level to justice for the Palestinians. Recently it was confirmed that Israeli army troops were wearing T-shirts which:
    1. “show[ed] a child in the cross-hairs of a rifle with the slogan: ‘The smaller they are, the harder it is.’”
    2. “portray[ed] a pregnant woman in the cross-hairs and the words: ‘1 Shot 2 Kills.’”
    3. “depict[ed] a soldier blowing up a mosque and Palestinian women weeping over a gravestone.”
    (Metro, 23rd March 2009)
    This is the army that Emanuel served under.

Political inertia

Witnessing political inertia in the USA, it has always seems unlikely that Barack Obama can affect the ‘radical’, ‘real’ change that the media talk of. The US political system allows war criminals like George W. Bush to be harboured, and accept those like Tony Blair into its heart - only recently did Tony Blair share a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama (Pilger).

The system is incapable of moving to a place where proper justice can realised, justice executed upon the most important figures like George W. Bush. I think real change will come. Eventually. It won’t happen just because a new President’s elected, however, for that is not enough of a ‘re-evolution’ - especially if the same figures (e.g. those I listed above) are still at the heart of the system.

Moreover, politicians know what to say, they know how to lie. We know Barack Obama has the most advanced and experienced transition team and is a master orator. All successful politicians, Obama especially, know ‘what to say’ to ‘lure’ individuals in to an argument or ideology (to gain consensus and support). The new article from MediaLens.org focuses on this subject of luring in, and talks about this “art of political seduction - Clinton, Blair and Obama know all about these ‘lures’.”.

Political lying

“Play up your divine qualities; affect an air of discontent with worldly things; speak of the stars, destiny, the hidden threads that unite you and the object of the seduction. Lost in a spiritual mist, the target will feel light and uninhibited.”
(MediaLens, 9th April 2009)

Obama and Divinity

Obama was portrayed as “divine” by the media (or at least they played along with the intentions of Obama’s campaign agents). That’s why I earlier called him a ‘new Holy incarnation’, for he quite literally did “play up … divine qualities”.

A few days ago, I was watching Obama in Turkey where he engaged in a half-hour Q&A session with students, under the watch of the press, watching on the almighty ‘as-soon-as-we-get-any-updates-we’ll-let-you-know’ BBC News 24. For a while I was captivated by his ability to perform oratorically, to lure and seduce his audience (both on screen and in the room). For a moment there, I was lured in myself.

I had to do a reality check, ‘has there actually been real change?’. Well for starters, some of Obama’s first executive orders that (supposedly) close down the US’ secret prisons worldwide, also give the CIA authority to carry out renditions, abductions and transfers of prisoners in secret without the threat of legal obstruction. As the Los Angeles Times explains, “current and former intelligence officials said the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role.”! (LA Times)

The Politics of Bullshit

During the campaign time, Obama spoke many times of Clinton’s lies about her own political record. Yet has more recently “name[d] ‘my dear friend’, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State”! (DailyMail) At least at one point in time then he was a liar (assuming he wasn’t at some point born again into a new understanding of Clinton).

I am left at the conclusion that Barack Obama is an almighty, great lurer (even, liar) who has set a new precedent at manufacturing the “politics of bullshit”, as John Pilger calls it.

Truth is what is required to affect change in the US, truth is re-evolutionary. Obama, is not as truth-telling as he needs to be if he is to bring real change:

“In the time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act”
George Orwell


The Obama and Change poll: vote now