this should have been the opening statement in the article (not the concluding sentence), followed by factual, useful, actionable information. for example, how is avg. joe sixpack affected by us being an israeli colony, and our leaders committing high treason in the name of israel. something that he can see is true and affecting his life to a major degree.

instead, what we get in these pages is froth, froth, froth and more froth. it’s not about real change making, it’s about careers of the writers. i don’t see any new and useful information here.

Obama the hawk?
Lee Sustar explains that Barack Obama’s hard-line speech at the AIPAC conference wasn’t just pandering to the pro-Israel lobby, but a statement of his real position on foreign policy issues.
June 11, 2008
IS BARACK Obama to the right of George W. Bush on Israel-Palestine?

That was the question across the Arab and Muslim world following Obama’s declaration of support for an “undivided” Jerusalem at the annual meeting of the main pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington.

As Obama said to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on June 4:

Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

This hawkish statement contradicts official U.S. policy. Under the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords of 1993 that launched an Israeli-Palestinian “peace process,” the fate of Arab and mainly Muslim East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East war, is to be decided through “permanent status” negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders. Since then, the Palestinian Authority has insisted that East Jerusalem must be the capital of the Palestinian mini-state envisioned under the Oslo agreement.

By appeasing the Israeli–and U.S.–right wing with his comments on Jerusalem, Obama was signaling that his administration wouldn’t change the course set by George Bush.

That means further construction of the apartheid wall in the West Bank to Palestinians into ghettos, more carve-ups of the West Bank to consolidate Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and continued support for the genocidal combination of sanctions and military strikes aimed at Gaza, one of the world’s most densely populated areas.

This isn’t speculation. Obama spelled it out for the AIPAC audience:

I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat–from Gaza to Tehran.

Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade–investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.

Obama’s blank check for Israel is part of a plan to ensure that the Middle East remains thoroughly militarized under U.S. domination, even if some U.S. troops are shifted out of Iraq.

The primary target is to be Iran, which Obama accused of accelerating a nuclear weapons program. “Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran–it is precisely what has strengthened it,” he said. “It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in.”

In other words, very, very slowly.

THAT’S A lot of saber-rattling from a man often billed as an “antiwar” candidate. Apologists for Obama claim that he “had” to throw out red meat to AIPAC in order to appease the Israel lobby and shore up Jewish votes for the November election.

But Obama didn’t have to go nearly so far in order to curry favor with AIPAC. While Obama certainly wants to bury memories of his once-friendly relationship with people like Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah and Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi, he could have accomplished that by other means–as he showed in his disposal of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his former church.

No, the explanation for Obama’s hard-line stance lies elsewhere. He’s running to become the leader of the world’s most powerful and vicious imperial power, and he must demonstrate that–despite his past as a community organizer–he’s sufficiently ruthless for the job. His audience isn’t AIPAC, but the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Thus, Obama has staked out a right-wing stance not only on Israel, but against Cuba. As historian Greg Grandin pointed out, Obama recently met with right-wing Cubans in Miami and denounced Bush for neglecting Latin America and allowing “demagogues like Hugo Chávez” to step “into the vacuum.”

“He even raised the specter of Iranian influence in the region, pointing out that ‘just the other day, Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits,’” Grandin wrote.

Obama also made it clear that he would continue the U.S. policy of building up Colombia’s right-wing government as a militaristic agent of the U.S. in the region. He pledged to “support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe havens across its borders,” endorsing Colombia’s deadly attack on rebels in Ecuador’s territory in March, an action that was condemned by virtually all Latin American governments.

So much for “change.” If elected, Obama may try to downsize and repackage the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But when it comes to aggressively pursuing U.S. imperial interests, there’ll be no retreat unless resistance at home and abroad compels it.
http://socialistworker.org/print/2008/06/11/obama-the-hawk

Obama the hawk?
Lee Sustar explains that Barack Obama’s hard-line speech at the AIPAC conference wasn’t just pandering to the pro-Israel lobby, but a statement of his real position on foreign policy issues.

June 11, 2008

IS BARACK Obama to the right of George W. Bush on Israel-Palestine?

That was the question across the Arab and Muslim world following Obama’s declaration of support for an “undivided” Jerusalem at the annual meeting of the main pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington.

As Obama said to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on June 4:

Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

This hawkish statement contradicts official U.S. policy. Under the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords of 1993 that launched an Israeli-Palestinian “peace process,” the fate of Arab and mainly Muslim East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East war, is to be decided through “permanent status” negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders. Since then, the Palestinian Authority has insisted that East Jerusalem must be the capital of the Palestinian mini-state envisioned under the Oslo agreement.

By appeasing the Israeli–and U.S.–right wing with his comments on Jerusalem, Obama was signaling that his administration wouldn’t change the course set by George Bush.

That means further construction of the apartheid wall in the West Bank to Palestinians into ghettos, more carve-ups of the West Bank to consolidate Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and continued support for the genocidal combination of sanctions and military strikes aimed at Gaza, one of the world’s most densely populated areas.

This isn’t speculation. Obama spelled it out for the AIPAC audience:

I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat–from Gaza to Tehran.

Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade–investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.

Obama’s blank check for Israel is part of a plan to ensure that the Middle East remains thoroughly militarized under U.S. domination, even if some U.S. troops are shifted out of Iraq.

The primary target is to be Iran, which Obama accused of accelerating a nuclear weapons program. “Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran–it is precisely what has strengthened it,” he said. “It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in.”

In other words, very, very slowly.

The U.S. certainly wouldn’t pull back from the region under an Obama administration. “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,” Obama said, echoing Hillary Clinton’s notorious comment that the U.S. would “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. He added: “Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes, there are no alternatives to confrontation.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

THAT’S A lot of saber-rattling from a man often billed as an “antiwar” candidate. Apologists for Obama claim that he “had” to throw out red meat to AIPAC in order to appease the Israel lobby and shore up Jewish votes for the November election.

But Obama didn’t have to go nearly so far in order to curry favor with AIPAC. While Obama certainly wants to bury memories of his once-friendly relationship with people like Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah and Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi, he could have accomplished that by other means–as he showed in his disposal of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his former church.

No, the explanation for Obama’s hard-line stance lies elsewhere. He’s running to become the leader of the world’s most powerful and vicious imperial power, and he must demonstrate that–despite his past as a community organizer–he’s sufficiently ruthless for the job. His audience isn’t AIPAC, but the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Thus, Obama has staked out a right-wing stance not only on Israel, but against Cuba. As historian Greg Grandin pointed out, Obama recently met with right-wing Cubans in Miami and denounced Bush for neglecting Latin America and allowing “demagogues like Hugo Chávez” to step “into the vacuum.”

“He even raised the specter of Iranian influence in the region, pointing out that ‘just the other day, Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits,’” Grandin wrote.

Obama also made it clear that he would continue the U.S. policy of building up Colombia’s right-wing government as a militaristic agent of the U.S. in the region. He pledged to “support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe havens across its borders,” endorsing Colombia’s deadly attack on rebels in Ecuador’s territory in March, an action that was condemned by virtually all Latin American governments.

So much for “change.” If elected, Obama may try to downsize and repackage the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But when it comes to aggressively pursuing U.S. imperial interests, there’ll be no retreat unless resistance at home and abroad compels it.

A group of high-profile Australians has issued a statement that has been described as a ‘call to arms’ to avoid the dangerous effects of climate change.
The group, which includes some of the country’s leading scientists, population and health experts – as well as politicians – is calling for an urgent response to global warming.
They say global warming is accelerating at a greater speed than previously thought and the window of opportunity for avoiding severe consequences is rapidly closing.
Climate scientist Professor Barry Brook from the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the Adelaide University says the statement followed a climate change conference in Canberra this week.
“It was climate scientists and earth scientists, those who study climate change and its impacts on the planet, being together with a really wide diversity of other groups,” he told AM.
“But also people who [work] with the humanities and the effect it’s going to have on everyday people and on society, and how we might cope with it, and what a future world under greenhouse warming might look like – how we can actually move this issue forward, and take the steps to solve it. And it’s pretty urgent.”
He says the most important theme coming from the statement is that global warming is happening much faster than expected.
“The first key message is we really haven’t got much longer to go before the problem is taken out of our hands,” he said.
“What I mean by that is, climate change continues to unfold, but some of the effects of it, the impacts of climate change are accelerating – there’s no doubt about it.
“They’re happening quicker than scientists had anticipated five or 10 years ago, or even a couple of years ago.
“One good example is the arctic ice in the summer, it continues to melt at a record rate, the arctic is getting hotter. Now once that happens on a large scale then there will be nothing we can do to stop the warming continuing.
“The other thing was, there are a lot of opportunities available now to massively reduce our green house gas emissions, and do so in a very cost-effective way. And there is no reason why we need to continue to stall.
He said one example is energy efficiency.
“It tends to be called a no-brainer because it’s the sort of measure you can implement across society that uses less electricity, saves society money and also cuts our greenhouse gas emissions,” he added.
The statement also says that the obstacles to change are not technical or economic, that they are political and social.
“We mean that the technologies to do this are available. The technologies to implement energy efficiency and also to really scale up rapidly our use for renewable energy such as solar and wind,” he said.
“They’re available, so the technical know-how is there. It’s not even an economic argument.
“So the argument is, it’s social, it’s about people understanding and recognising the problem and seeing what an advantage it is.
“For instance, for Australia to be a first mover on this and actually grasp the opportunities that are available to us to make drastic cuts quickly – that’s a social thing.
“And it’s also political because it requires some decisions from our political leaders to lead the way, and implement polices – such as the mandatory renewable target, and the emissions trading scheme.
“But much more than that, in order to really get this going as quickly as is necessary,” he added. ABC