‘Lieberman: Wishing for World War III?’
By Editor ∙ Friends of Lebanon ∙ April 24, 2009
We have already become accustomed to the brazen statements of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. And it is certainly no surprise that Israel considers the US to be firmly in its political pocket. So it is but a mild irritation to read Haaretz reporting that Lieberman, confident that “the Obama administration will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to,” has stated publicly “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions.” (Lieberman: U.S. to accept any Israeli policy decision)
What is most interesting about Lieberman’s first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office is his view of Russia. Lieberman, Haaretz points out, granted his first major interview not to an Israeli newspaper, but to Alexander Rosensaft, the Israel correspondent of one of the oldest Russian dailies, Moskovskiy Komosolets. Courting favour with the Slavic world power?
Russian immigrants are a dominant part of Israeli society. And Russia, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, is ranked number six in “Countries with Largest Jewish Populations.”* Countries ranked 2—5 (US, France, Canada, UK) are already reliable friends of Israel. On the other hand, Russia has in recent years demonstrated an independent character in its foreign relations.
Lieberman is looking for another ally. In his interview, he stated “Russia has a special influence in the Muslim world, and I consider it a strategic partner that should play a key role in the Middle East. I have argued for some time that Israel has insufficient appreciation for the ‘Kremlin factor’; I intend to mend this gap.”
Another openly brazen admission to manipulating others for the sake of Israel. When coupled with another assertion made by Lieberman, though, we begin to see what he means by “key role.” Lieberman proclaimed that Afghanistan and Pakistan are now considered jointly as the greatest strategic threat to Israel. Iran has been downgraded to second place threat, and Iraq falls in third place. Afghanistan and Pakistan “form a contiguous area of radicalism ruled in the spirit of Bin Laden,” says Lieberman, and “are a threat not only to Israel, but to the global order as a whole.”
Now take a good look at the regional map below. And think of President Obama’s recently announced Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) Strategy (27/03/09)—two countries, one challenge, Al Qaida, more American troops, bringing Russia on board—and Lieberman’s cheerful offer of Israel’s role of bringing the US and Russia closer. With the US already having rendered Iraq ineffectual and vulnerable, the envisaged key role of Russia—big, big Russia—would be to assist in crushing Afghanistan and Pakistan as well . . . in order to maintain “global order,” of course.
The Iranian borders would then offer not obstacles, but exploitables. Iraqi, Afghani and Pakistani borders would be under the watchful eye of US/Israel and their would-be partner-Russia. That leaves just Turkey and Turkmenistan. Despite a few public tiffs, Turkey and Israel maintain a working relationship and military cooperation. And as troubled Turkmenistan is of little threat to anyone but itself, this new state of political power would enable Israel to more realistically envisage overwhelming its formerly declared arch nemesis. Once Israel and its partners were able to break Iran, they could, they presume, cut off the lifeblood to Hezbollah in Lebanon, thus killing two birds with one proverbial stone.
Is it over-reaching to imagine such map-sweeping military operations? Consider the size of Hamas. Look at the map again just to keep perspective fresh—right, Hamas is not even on the map. What was Lieberman’s proposal (13/01/09) for quieting this thorn in his side? “We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary.”
What, then, was the secret to US success? After having already killed over a million Japanese 1941—1945, the US was able to set aside its plans for a ground invasion and occupation of Japan because the Japanese surrendered. They relented because the US carried out atomic bomb attacks on the cities of Hiroshima (killing 140,000 Japanese) and three days later on Nagasaki (killing 80,000 more Japanese). Quicker and cheaper than an occupation, says the businessman. Lieberman apparently appreciates the logic. A chilling thought, considering that for all its finger-pointing accusations, Israel is the Middle Eastern power that has maintained nuclear weapons and has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use “disproportionate force.”
But Russia is no one’s fool. With a long, difficult history stretching back nearly 500 years, the Russians have proven their ability to endure. They haven’t succeeded by catering to someone else’s interests. By way of example, Russia may have recently purchased surveillance drones from Israel, but it is also still considering selling a strategic air-defence system to Iran, despite Israel’s clear objections to the deal. Said one Israeli official on the Russian rejection of conditions, “the Russians don’t make promises of this kind.” The Russians will, however, stand their ground.
Even as the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism drew criticism from some (primarily from the Israeli camp), Russia accepted the position of vice-chair of the Preparatory Committee working on the declaration and the conference’s agenda. Russia maintained its high profile participation, regardless of the boycotting actions taken by others. As Andrei Podoplekin, political scientist at the leading Russian school Pomor State University, said, “This is a way for Russia to show that it can be an independent player. By agreeing to participate and serve as a moderator at an event boycotted by others, it proved that it could act independently, most importantly from the Western states.”
Where does Lebanon fit into all this? As always, there is a political and military tug-of-war. Four months ago, for instance, Moscow gave 10 MiG-29 fighter jets to Lebanon, free of charge, as assistance in building the Lebanon Army. The New York Times was quick to characterise the gesture as a “slap to the United States.” Not to be outdone then, the US has announced (14/04/09) that it “will provide the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with twelve Raven unmanned aircraft in the coming months.” This comes with a training course, “funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), [and] is one part of the comprehensive, robust U.S. military assistance program to Lebanon.
It must be remembered, though, that the Obama administration has confirmed that the world financial crisis would not jeopardise its promise of $30 billion in military aid alone to Israel over the next 10 years. In 2007 the US had announced that it would continue military aid to Egypt at $13 billion from 2009 to 2018, and would increase military aid to Israel by 25% — $ 30 billion from 2009 to 2018. US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, who signed the memorandum of understanding governing the aid package, stated the aid would
“allow Israel to plan its defense expenditures in a way that’s rational, in a way that takes into account its own appreciation of its situation in this region. So we look at this region and understand that a secure and strong Israel is in the interest of the US.”
As the Jerusalem Post paraphrases, this means that “there were no strings attached to the aid – no special annexes – and that it was not dependent on Israeli policy. Burns underlined that the aid was coming at a time when Iran ‘is resurgent,’ and was both seeking nuclear weapons and expanding its conventional power in the region. He said Iran and Syria were funding and arming terrorist organizations fomenting violence in every part of the Middle East, be it Hamas, Hizbullah or Shi’ite groups in Iraq.” Perhaps Burns, back in August 2007, didn’t think Afghanistan would hold out as long as it has, or that Pakistan would be a nice addition to the target list.
On 22 April 2009, Foreign Minister Lieberman cemented another “strategic partner”: Egypt. Despite tensions due to Lieberman’s past offensive statements regarding Egypt, diplomatic relations seem to be improving between the formerly warring countries. Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman met with PM Netanyahu, President Peres and FM Lieberman. According to Israeli media, Lieberman “repeatedly stressed his appreciation of Egypt as a strategic partner.”
Meanwhile, relations between Egypt—Palestine and Egypt—Lebanon have been strained. Perhaps that is what a “strategic partner” is for: reinforcement of Israel’s game plan. Perhaps that is what Lieberman has in mind as he courts such a partnership with Russia. Stack up the friends on one side, the enemies on the other. But in the end, you don’t get a gang war. When you add billions of dollars worth of weaponry, you get world war.
The irony is, though, that amid all the massive global players in this drama, the sticking point for Israel is that it has never been able to defeat Lebanon. Israel has tried and tried to pound Lebanon into submission and has failed, no matter how many strategic partners it stacks up. Look at the map again. You need a magnifying glass to see the two of them. Yet the world seems intent on setting their agendas by what transpires there. A bit ridiculous, really.
Russia is not apt to fall for Lieberman’s lure. Again, Russia is no one’s fool. It has been less than a year since Russia resolutely quashed an aggression by Georgia—backed by US-Israel—to overtake South Ossetia. Israel may now be anxious to have Russia as a partner; however, it is highly unlikely that Russia will find itself needing Israel as a partner. And Russia does stand its ground.
Like Russia, Lebanon, for all its faults, knows how to stand its ground as well. Every Lebanese child knows the politics of being Lebanese. Every adult has lived through the wars and the global chicanery. Who else but Lebanon could manage to defeat Israel and then still rake in $1 billion total post-2006 conflict assistance and $410 million post-2006 in military aid from America, Israel’s favourite ally? The Lebanese might just be more clever than Lieberman is counting on.
Lebanon will not be intimidated. Syria will not be schmoozed. Russia cannot be reduced to what Lieberman has dubbed the ”Kremlin Factor,” as though he fancies himself a Jason Bourne. Lieberman stated that he intends to mend the gap between the Knesset and the Kremlin. But a gap is mended at both ends. In half a century, Russia has weathered wars far worse than those plotted by Lieberman. If Russia decides to adjust its alliances, it will do so not at the behest of tiny Tel Aviv, but when and if it chooses, on its own Russian terms.
*Please note that it is Israel’s own insistence on distinguishing people by their faith, Jewish or otherwise, that necessitates the topic. FOL prefers to view people as individuals—not as representatives of a particular religion.
Why is the US govt. shipping weapons to Israel?
Or any country, for that matter.
Thanks to Brenda, from Friends of Lebanon, for the heads-up on the following.
Online Action Center: Ask Secretary Clinton Why the US Continues to Deliver Arms to Israel
Despite strong evidence of the misuse of U.S. weapons against civilians in Gaza, Amnesty International recently revealed that the United States sent a massive new shipment of arms to Israel. The Wehr Elbe, a ship controlled by the U.S. Military Sealift Command, docked and unloaded several thousand tons of arms on March 22 at the Israeli port of Ashdod. Ask State Department officials why the United States would deliver these arms to Israel. » Background Information
Click on the link to fill out the form letter.
AP taking tedious measures to defy nature
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a business doing what it can to stay above water; but the lengths to which some of those “too big to fail” outfits will go with their partners and patrons can be drastic bordering on mad, with or without the benefit of direct government aid.*
Earlier today, WhatReallyHappened.com’s Mike Rivero linked to a story — “A.P. Seeks to Rein in Sites Using Its Content” — and added this well-put comment:
AP stood side by side with the US Government in selling the lies that led to war in Iraq. For that reason I prefer to not link to AP any longer and I am having my software engineer working on a system to go through our database and erase every article that has AP as a source (it’s a small percentage as it turns out).
What is going on here is that AP’s revenues are drying up because their primary customers, TV news and newspapers, are being abandoned by their audiences, precisely because they were all party to the lies of the US Government.
AP simply wants to co-opt the audiences the blogs have built over the years.
Many times when I link to an AP story it is to point out the lies and deceptions. I cannot imagine that any contracts entered into with AP to license their content will allow such unrestrained critiques.
So in the end, and I am certain most other news aggregator sites will agree with me, the simplest and easiest solution is to simply avoid all AP stories entirely.
After all, we need to move forward into the new and more truthful, not return to the past lies and deceptions.
In most cases, DetainThis uses notes ([1][2][3]) citing inactive URLs to each AP story being dismantled. Lately, Yahoo! News links have been used to activate the titles of AP reports being critiqued. But the best way is to link to the AntiWar.com news wire. If DetainThis provides a link to an AP story on Yahoo!, Google, the NYT, or other, it will be because the story couldn’t be found on the AntiWar wire. Here’s hoping that, in the wake of AP’s latest round of drastic business moves, it will still be possible to get breaking news off any site not beholden to, or worshipful of, the State.
—————
* Although The Associated Press hasn’t received a bailout or other direct form of federal aid, it doesn’t mean AP doesn’t benefit from government largess. This blog maintains that AP indirectly receives U.S. government aid by way of AP’s 100+ bureaus in 90+ countries being in the general vacinity of untold numbers of the Pentagon’s hundreds of military installations across the globe. Remove the security zones (U.S. colonial outposts) and AP bureaus lose a measure of physical security and job security (instant access to U.S. officials, war zones, etc.). Imagine how the news gathering industry would shift once AP and other major empire-apologists have to compete for official access with other, unembedded, uncensored journalists. And then there’s the W. Jerusalem bureau, which sits in the middle of Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory (IOPT), surrounded by tens of thousands of militant Zionists who dispossess, brutalize, and imprison hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who violently retaliate yet get portrayed as the aggressors by AP et al. Remove the occupation army’s outposts and its censors and suddenly the territory ain’t so friendly to the pro-U.S. (or not-pro-Israeli-enough, to the Zionists occupiers) news bureau. But here’s the real kicker: billions per year in (unconstitutional and immoral) U.S. federal aid helps to sustain the Israeli occupation army and the colonists it protects, including some AP staffers; therefore, it can be said that the W. Jerusalem AP bureau is beholden to the U.S. government for its high level of security in the West Bank. When it comes to reporting U.S. and Israeli affairs, this is a huge reason, among others, why AP’s reportage never flatly asks: Is it constitutional?
‘Zionists: We hate you because you are evil, not because you are Jewish’
By Khalid Amayreh ∙ Palestine Think Tank ∙ April 1, 2009
I have been under fire of late from two diametrically opposite quarters. (more…)
AP Self-sacrifice at the Israeli Altar
Editors at the W. Jerusalem bureau of The Associated Press are so preoccupied with appeasing the Israeli censors that they sometimes make the most self-degrading mistakes in their news-wire reports.
Keep in mind that this is the 163-year-old news organization that has ostensibly set such high standards of journalistic excellence that they are “the world’s largest and most trusted source of independent news and information”; for, would a trusted editor or bureau chief allow the following discrepancy to occur from one report to the next, within a matter of hours and across multiple copy revisions?
Israel launched its Gaza offensive on Dec. 27 in an attempt to halt rocket fire and weaken the territory’s Hamas rulers. More than 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 900 civilians, were killed in the war, according to a Palestinian human rights group. Thirteen Israelis were also killed.
["HRW: Israel's white phosphorous use indiscriminate," 3/25/9]
Israel launched the 22-day air and ground offensive in Gaza on Dec. 27 in an effort to halt years of militant rocket fire by Hamas on its southern communities. The offensive caused an estimated $2 billion in damage and killed nearly 1,300 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, Palestinian officials have said, while at least 13 Israelis died.
["UN says little progress made on key Gaza issues," 3/26/9]
Besides the obvious difference in Palestinian casualties, there are other problems.
— From the beginning of the offensive, Israeli officials gave mutiple and disparate reasons for the invasion, including regime change. So why does AP state, as fact, that their intentions were to “halt years of militant rocket fire”? Every pertinent report since the start of Operation Cast Lead has uncritically repeated that official line.
— If it’s so vital to mention Israel’s reason for launching its invasion, then why not account for Hamas’ reason for launching rockets? The years-long Israeli-Egypt-US-EU blockade of Gaza constitutes war crimes and causes the death and stunted growth (infants, children) of innumerable everyday Palestinians in Gaza, due to malnutrition and lack of proper medical care and sanitation. That and daily aggressions against non-combatant Palestinians in the West Bank have been consistently cited by Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups. AP doesn’t report it, even if it’s “according to Palestinian . . .”
— If the Palestinian death figures of “more than 1,400 Palestinians” in the first report are “according to a Palestinian human rights group” — and if, in the second, only “Palestinian officials have said” that “nearly 1,300″ Palestinians were killed — then who gets credit for the matter-of-factly stated figure of “[t]hirteen Israelis” or “at least 13 Israelis” killed? This obvious double standard in source-citing is inexcusable.
But this brand of “independent news and information” is the rule and not the exception: AP’s editors regularly trip over themselves on their way to the Israeli altar and, indeed, the altar of the American empire-state and all its co-dependents.
