Memo to Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi
By Pat Buchanan • Unz Review • June 28, 2019
“For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end.”
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the “president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran.”
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage from Afghanistan: “When we weren’t in there they started flying planes into our buildings.”
“The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11,” Gabbard replied, “Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That’s why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban.”
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
“Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? ‘Well, we just have to be engaged.’ As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. … We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began.”
By debate’s end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be — not only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century,” and Trump’s seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.
Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.
Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the “troika of tyranny” in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War
U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.
This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall of the People to warn that in this time of “growing global instability and uncertainty,” Russia and China will “deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues.”
Xi presented Putin with China’s new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: “Cooperation with China is one of Russia’s top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level.”
At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II?
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Copyright 2019 Creators.com.
Globalism has failed US middle class, Trump saw it – Putin on MAGA
RT | June 27, 2019
US President Donald Trump’s election victory should be attributed not to some foreign influence but to the fact that many Americans were left behind by globalization and Trump saw it, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said.
“The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up,” Putin told the Financial Times ahead of the G20 summit when asked to comment on the US president’s policies.
“Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this,” he explained, while calling the perceived Russian influence on the US 2016 election “mythical.”
Putin also assumed that globalization could have divided US society – at least in an economic sense. “In the US, the leading US companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and partners — made use of these benefits. The middle class hardly benefited from globalization.”
“The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference,” Putin said. Trump’s “extravagant” policies might be a sign of the US president’s attempts to right some wrongs in accordance with his own “distinct world outlook.”
“He seems to believe that the results of globalization could have been much better for the US than they are. These globalization results are not producing the desired effect for the US, and he is beginning this campaign against certain elements of globalization.”
Putin argued, one of the major problems in the US, but in Europe as well, is that the “ruling elites have broken away from the people.” The elites continue to entertain so-called liberal ideas and seem to be quite happy with the ongoing developments while people are increasingly concerned by such issues as mass immigration, the Russian president believes.
“The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.”
Democratic candidates on Israel/Palestine
By Kathryn Shihadah – If Americans Knew – June 27, 2019
Overwhelmed by the crowd of candidates for President? The issue of justice for Palestinians – in which almost everyone bows to the Israel lobby – is the ultimate litmus test for integrity. Find out where everyone stands. (This guide will be updated often.)
Keep in mind that since Palestinians in Gaza began weekly unarmed demonstrations for their internationally recognized rights on March 30, 2018 through March 22, 2019, Israeli forces killed over 271 demonstrators and injured 29,187 Gazans (6,000 of them children). During that time 2 Israelis were killed and 56 injured. A Timeline of Palestinian and Israeli deaths is here
Democratic Candidates 1-24
1. Michael Bennet (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Yes. I’ve said this before and I believe it: Israel is the one essential country on the planet. I say that because of my family’s history during the Holocaust, and that doesn’t mean Israel’s perfect. Where we have disagreements, we should be able to articulate those disagreements, and I do articulate the disagreements I’ve had with Benjamin Netanyahu over the years.
(Twitter 5/6/19) “We stand behind Israel’s right to self-defense against rocket attacks by terror groups inside Gaza,” he said on Twitter. “Launching rocket attacks against innocent civilians is unacceptable and we mourn the lives lost. A cessation in violence is a necessary step toward de-escalation and stability.”
2. Joe Biden(D)
(Remarks at Saban Forum, 12/7/14)“Send a message to Bibi. I love him.” Even if he drives me crazy, Biden said. The love message came in 2014 a few months after the Gaza slaughter, in which Israel killed 500 children.
(Remarks at Yeshiva Beth Yehuda 75th Anniversary Dinner 11/15/11) About 18, 20 years ago, I was speaking to the Zionist Organization of Baltimore. And I said, I am a Zionist, for I learned you do not have to be a Jew to be a Zionist…[I]t was no surprise to my friends when I was elected to the Senate in a state less than 1 percent of the Jewish — less than 1 percent of the population is Jewish, that I got so deeply involved early on in the Senate with the business of Israel.
(Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference 3/4/13) We opposed the unilateral efforts of the Palestinian Authority to circumvent direct negotiations by pushing for statehood and multilateral organizations like UNESCO. We stood strongly with Israel in its right to defend itself after the Goldstone ReportGaza flotillain 2010, [I spent a lot of time] going to the United Nations directly by telephone, speaking with the Secretary General, making sure that one thing was made clear, Israel had the right — had the right — to impose that blockade.
3. Bill de Blasio (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I believe in the state of Israel…the one true democracy in the Middle East, and they do respect the rights of all people. There’s always more work to be done…it begins with a strong commitment to Israel…I’ve been to Israel 4 times, I’ve spent a lot of time seeing the threats that Israel faces. I firmly believe that we have to defend the state of Israel, and we have to fight against the movements that would undercut Israel, like BDS…The current administration has made a lot of mistakes that have hindered the peace process…
(Remarks at Hampton Synagogue in Westhampton Beach, 8/20/16) I think [BDS – Boycott, Divest, and Sanction is] one of the most ahistorical things I’ve ever seen…Defending Israel is a matter — from my point of view as a progressive — is a matter of being consistent with progressive values.
(Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference, 3/25/19) As a progressive, here’s what I see when I’m in Israel. I see a multi-racial democracy. I see universal healthcare, free college, a strong labor movement. You’ve often heard it said that Israel’s America’s closest ally in the Middle East and a great center of innovation, and although that is true, I’m moved by something more than that. Israel at its core is there to shelter an oppressed people. That is why I am here to make a simple, clear, progressive case for the state of Israel. So here’s a straightforward definition for you. Progressives fight oppression. Progressives shelter those in danger. We embrace inclusion. We fight against exclusion.
4. Cory Booker (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) We have a problem right now in America with the way we are debating issues surrounding Israel and Israel’s security…My commitment right now is affirming Israel’s right to exist and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself against enemies which they have virtually surrounding them, but also to affirm the dignity and self-determination of the Palestinian people.
(Senate floor speech 11/29/18) Mr. President, today I wish to add myself as a cosponsor of S. 720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation in its modified form. I have long and staunchly opposed the BDS movement and associated efforts to unfairly isolate Israel in international forums.
[Secretly recorded meeting with New Jersey AIPAC members 3/26/19) Israel is not political to me. It’s not political. I was a supporter of Israel well before I was a United State Senator. I was coming to AIPAC conferences well before I knew that one day I would be a federal officer. If I forget thee, o Israel, may I cut off my right hand. [Applause]
[Booker assured a questioner he’s always been for more money to Israel:] Unequivocally 100 percent absolutely [yes] to the 3.3 billion [a year]. I have been on the front lines every time an MOU is up to make sure Israel gets the funding it needs. I even pushed for more funding.
5. Steve Bullock (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think that Israel’s a trusted partner, a trusted friend to our country, and will continue to. I think that there have been certainly in the territories there have been challenges with decisions that currently Netanyahu has made…we could get things back on track, work with our allies, and get to a 2-state solution.
(Signatory of Governors Against BDS, an initiative of the American Jewish Committee, 12/17/17, which reads in part:) We, the undersigned Governors, reject efforts to demonize and delegitimize Israel—America’s democratic ally in the Middle East— through the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The goals of the BDS movement are antithetical to our values and the values of our respective states…They malign a trusted ally that, while forced to defend itself against repeated and ongoing attempts to annihilate it, has consistently extended its hand in peace to its Palestinian neighbors and to states across the Middle East and around the world. Significantly, the BDS movement would also undermine peacemaking by suggesting that economic and political pressure on Israel can replace real negotiation…
6. Pete Buttigieg (D)
(Comment on American Jewish Committee podcast after returning from an AJC Mayors’ trip to Israel – recorded 4 days after 60 mostly unarmed Palestinians were killed by Israeli sharpshooters, 5/18/18) “Seeing the way that a country can be on the one hand very intentional, very serious, and very effective when it comes to security and on the other hand not allowing concerns about security to dominate your consciousness,” he said, “I think that’s a very important lesson that hopefully Americans can look to when we think about how to navigate a world that unfortunately has become smaller and more dangerous for all of us.”
(Remark in speech at Indiana University, 6/11/19) “If Prime Minister Netanyahu makes good on his threat to annex West Bank settlements, he should know that a President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won’t help foot the bill,”
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Israel’s human rights record is problematic and moving in the wrong direction under the current rightwing government…I’m very worried, especially with some of the latest talk about annexation of the West Bank, that their government is moving away from peace…
7. Julián Castro (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I believe that Israel, like a lot of countries, wants to do the right thing, that they can get better. I do believe that we need to recognize and respect the human rights of Palestinians…Israel has to choose: it’s going to be a Jewish state or a democratic state…I recognize that [a 2-state solution] has been made harder over the years through the increase in settlements…
(Remark at Castro’s Conversations About America’s Future, Austin TX, 3/10/19) Support Israel, remain strong allies, but recognize the value of Palestinians and that they should be treated in a way that we can support on behalf of the country.
(Tweet 4/8/19) In abandoning our position as a good faith partner in the Middle East peace process, the Trump admin has enabled reckless actions like [West Bank annexation] from Netanyahu. US support for a two-state solution is on the line in November 2020.
8. John Delaney (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think Israel does meet international standards of human rights. I think Israel’s in a very difficult situation, when they’re surrounded by countries who are effectively threatening their existence, and don’t believe they have a right to exist. So I think that puts them in an exceedingly difficult situation in many respects. It’s always in the best interest of Israel to make sure their response to people who are threatening them is as measured and appropriate as possible.
(Remark before a trip to Israel as a candidate for Congress, 7/27/12. The visit included holy sites, Israeli officials and business leaders) After speaking with community leaders, faith leaders, and voters, across the District during my campaign, I came to understand that visiting Israel was necessary to obtain a full and proper perspective on our relationship with our strongest ally in the Middle East. I felt that it was vital to gain a first-hand understanding of the issues. Israel is a force for greater democracy and stability in the Middle East, and we must support its right to exist in peace and security…As a member of Congress, I will work to ensure that the US-Israel partnership remains strong” said Delaney.
9. Tulsi Gabbard (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think that there are some challenges with Israel that need to be addressed. I think that ongoing issues that we continue to see in the conflict between Israel and Palestine are complicated, but there needs to be progress made, ultimately to make sure that both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are able to live in peace and security.
(Tweet following Gaza protest on 5/14/19, in which 60 mostly unarmed Palestinians were killed by Israeli sharpshooters) Israel needs to stop using live ammunition in its response to unarmed protesters in Gaza. It has resulted in over 50 dead and thousands seriously wounded.
(Statement after declining to condemn UN Security Council resolution critical of Israeli settlements, 1/3/17) I know how important our enduring alliance with Israel is,” she wrote. “My vote upholds my commitment to maintaining and strengthening this alliance, as well as my long-held position that the most viable path to peace between Israel and Palestine can be found through both sides negotiating a two-state solution. While I remain concerned about aspects of the UN resolution, I share the Obama administration’s reservation about the harmful impact Israeli settlement activity has on the prospects for peace.”
10. Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
(Statement released after more than 200 rockets were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip, which were in retaliation for Israel’s breaking a ceasefire and killing 14 Palestinians in one night, 11/12/18)The escalation in violence on the Israel-Gaza border is deeply disturbing, and I am relieved that Israel’s missile defense programs were able to avert civilian fatalities from this disgraceful terror attack. I urge calm so the situation does not further escalate, and I still remain hopeful for a long-term, peaceful solution to this tragic conflict. But the only way we will accomplish that is through negotiations that create conditions for safety and economic security — not through rocket attacks or any other acts of terrorism.
(Statement, 1/11/16) Last week, I led a trip with seven of my Senate colleagues to meet with top government officials and military leaders about security concerns in Israel and our other partners in the Middle East. We heard from Israel’s leaders about the constant threat of terrorism they face, and we reaffirmed to them our commitment to supporting and protecting our closest ally and the only democracy in the Middle East.
11. Mike Gravel (D)
(In a piece for Mondoweiss, 6/19/19) [T]he two-state solution is dead, and we have killed it. The signs of its expiration are all around us. More than half a million Israeli settlers live (illegally) in Palestinian territory, and it would be politically, and logistically, impossible for them to be removed peacefully. The increasingly entrenched Israeli hard right—led by toxic figures like Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett—openly advocates annexing “Area C,” which constitutes most of the West Bank…It is also apparent that a two-state solution would likely not be worth the bloodshed and chaos it would cause. So why keep up the charade?
The most obvious and humane path forward is the creation of a secular, democratic, binational state with equal rights for all. That is the model the U.S. government, with its partners in the region, should work toward and publicly highlight as the ideal outcome. This, like any real solution, would disappoint many, both those who want an official Palestinian national homeland and those who want an official Jewish homeland. But this is necessary.
Of course, the sheer power of the Israel lobby in the United States is the main hurdle to such a radical departure from traditional blind support for Israel. Thus the Israel lobby should be restricted; it is time to free American policy from the shackles of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), ZOA (Zionist Organization of America), and other groups…The first step should be mandating that AIPAC register as a foreign lobby under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Next, the U.S. should end military aid to Israel, citing the Israeli military’s complicity in crimes against the Palestinian people. It should call for a gradual demilitarization of Israel and Palestine, and should be clear with the Israeli government that the days of Israel-right-or-wrong are over.
And the U.S. should refuse to take unconstitutional steps to stifle BDS.
It’s time for a mature relationship with Israel, free of the cloying sentimentalities and tired banalities (“Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East”) that infest our political discourse surrounding it. America’s wanton indulgence of the whims of Benjamin Netanyahu and his fellow rightists will only redound to the harm of Israelis and Palestinians years down the line.
12. Kamala Harris (D)
(Statement 1/1/16)The people of the Middle East need a durable peace, and one that protects Israel’s security and interests. In the U.S. Senate, Kamala will be a staunch supporter of Israel.
(1/11/19) So having grown up in the Bay Area, I fondly remember those Jewish national fund boxes that we would use to collect donations to plant trees for Israel,” she said at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2017. “Years later when I visited Israel for the first time, I saw the fruits of that effort and the Israeli ingenuity that has truly made a desert bloom.”
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Overall, yes. I think Israel as a country is dedicated to being a democracy and is one of our closest friends in that region, and that we should understand the shared values and priorities that we have as a democracy, and conduct foreign policy in a way that is consistent with understanding the alignment between the American people and the people of Israel.
13. John Hickenlooper (D)
(Comment after flareup in border violence, 5/7/19) The random rocket fire by Hamas into Israel must stop. My heart goes out to the families of the Israelis killed, and those wounded in these grievous attacks. I call on all parties to show restraint and de-escalate this situation immediately.
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Again, there are instances when you can find in almost every country places where there is disagreement for how they treat people or how they resolve internal conflicts. I continue to look at Israel as one of our strongest allies, they have been partners with the United States for a long time. Our challenge is to build on that foundation and help them be able to move towards that two-state solution that, which again, I think almost every Israeli believes is the ultimate goal.
(Interview with Jewish Insider, 6/25/19) We don’t always approve of the decisions of [the] Israeli government but most of us recognize Israel is ally of long standing, one of our strongest allies and even when someone criticizes certain activities of [the] Israeli government, it doesn’t mean we are in anyway diminishing our presence and long term support of the country.
14. Jay Inslee (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I’m a longtime supporter of a democratic Israel, and I believe we have to have a two-state solution. And I would work with all parties to make sure we have that we have that; of justice for people in Palestine and democracy in Israel. And that depends on a two-state solution and I would work with everyone to achieve that. I think that all countries can improve in all respects. Certainly our ability to foster a future for the Palestinian people needs all of us to up our game. I do not believe that the present government of Israel has followed policies, and those policies can improve to encourage the ability and maintain the access of the future to a two-state solution, and we all need to be dedicated to that.
(Signatory of Governors Against BDS, an initiative of the American Jewish Committee, 12/17/17, which reads in part:) We, the undersigned Governors, reject efforts to demonize and delegitimize Israel—America’s democratic ally in the Middle East— through the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The goals of the BDS movement are antithetical to our values and the values of our respective states…They malign a trusted ally that, while forced to defend itself against repeated and ongoing attempts to annihilate it, has consistently extended its hand in peace to its Palestinian neighbors and to states across the Middle East and around the world. Significantly, the BDS movement would also undermine peacemaking by suggesting that economic and political pressure on Israel can replace real negotiation…
15. Amy Klobuchar (D)
In February, The Times of Israel called Klobuchar “the candidate most closely aligned with AIPAC.”
New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Yes [Israel meets human rights standards]. I think Israel, however, under Prime Minister Netanyahu has been doing things that are not helpful to bringing peace to the Middle East. The way that he came out in favor of annexing the Golan Heights, what he has done when it comes to the settlements, the fact that we are not engaging in serious discussions for a two-state solution, our country and the Palestinians and the Israelis, I think that this is setting us back. And so what I would do is to reach out to restart those negotiations again. I think that President Trump has politicized this issue and has not helped in terms of American support for Israel. Israel is our beacon of democracy in the Mideast, and we have a role to play here that is very important and it shouldn’t be politicized the way the Trump administration has politicized it. And when Israel does things that I think are against public policy and international policy, I will call them out on it and I will work with them.
(Tweet following the announcement of Netanyahu’s rightwing coalition, which included radical racists, 2/27/19)This is wrong and has been rightly condemned. To quote the American Jewish Committee, ‘[The views of Otzma Yehudit] do not reflect the core values that are the very foundation of the State of Israel.
16. Wayne Messam (D)
(After returning from an independent trip to the Middle East, 4/8/19) I just recently returned from an independent fact-finding mission to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Hebron, and Tel-Aviv, meeting with top leaders from both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I met with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, a mayor of one of the largest settlements, and the executive director of B’Tselem – a leading human rights organization. I also met with the top negotiator on the Palestinian side who negotiated the Oslo Accords and the first woman elected to the Palestinian National Council…Over and over again, Israeli and Palestinian leaders made clear to me their desire to negotiate directly for peace. And it’s not just high-profile figures like the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset or the top negotiator for the PLO. It’s also the everyday Israeli and Palestinians – the people I met in Ramallah, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv – who quietly shared their hopes for a two-state resolution and fears of what would happen if the region were to disintegrate into an all-out religious war.
There was the Israeli cab driver, so overcome with emotion that he had to pull over, swearing his love for his Palestinian neighbors and describing how their families care for each other. Then there was the Palestinian shopkeeper, who despite living under harsh conditions in the occupied territories, displayed both compassion and understanding towards Israelis. Regular people are suffering and deserve American leadership, not misguided ideology and partisan talking points. The actions of the United States in resolving this conflict should not just reflect the interests of a small minority of right-wing, ideological voices.
We are not truly secure when our long-time friend and dear ally, Israel, feels threatened to the point of occupying and securing land as a permanent solution, instead of peace. We are not secure when the Palestinians – have been fully disenfranchised, undermining effective diplomacy, yet this is what happens when a real estate developer leads an insular negotiations process that prioritizes right-wing voices over all others…We are not secure when 53 percent of Palestinians live in poverty, including over 400,000 children.
17. Seth Moulton (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Israel often does but not always [meet international standards of human rights]. And it’s incumbent on us as an ally to hold them accountable. And I have done that in Congress. I have signed legislation that is sometimes controversial, to say that we will not supply Israel with weapons and goods if they do not uphold standards for the treatment of Palestinian kids in prison for example. Now it’s not that hard for them to do this, and Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East. Now they’re a democracy that we have sworn to protect and we should. But we also have to hold our friends and allies to the same standards that we should uphold ourselves.
(Remark on HR4391, No Way To Treat A Child, 5/27/19) For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has endured despite efforts by leaders within the region and throughout the world to find peace…Despite the challenges, I still believe peace is achievable if parties recommit to negotiations towards a two-state solution that allows both nations to safely live side-by-side.
H.R. 4391 would express a Sense of Congress that any abusive or unnecessarily harsh conditions or treatment of Palestinian children during their detention by the Israeli military is a violation of international law and counter to U.S. and international human rights standards.
H.R. 4391 also prohibits the use of U.S. funds to support any abusive or inhumane detention of children…A 2013 UNICEF report showed that Israeli forces arrest, interrogate, and detain approximately 700 Palestinian children a year. While experiences vary, the Israeli military has been documented subjecting children to harsh and sometimes abusive interrogation methods, without an attorney present, that often include forced confessions signed in Hebrew. America should not support these undemocratic practices. That is why I support H.R. 4391, and I believe it will contribute towards a peaceful resolution to this complex conflict and a lasting two-state solution.
18. Beto O’Rourke (D)
(Explaining why he voted against a House resolution to refute U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning illegal Israeli settlements, 1/5/17) We should be aware of the fact that the U.N. is dangerously preoccupied with Israel…That is of great concern to me—as are other manifestations of this bias, including the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement. There is not enough pressure applied to the Palestinian Authority and those who have leverage with its leadership to refrain from acts of terror, incitement to terror, and the cultural context (including in textbooks) that provides part of the moral underpinning for terror to thrive.
However, the settlement problem is putting at risk the very viability of the two-state solution. And I think that it is in our interest and in Israel’s interest for those settlements to cease if there is to be any hope for lasting peace; and that if settlement construction does not stop, a two-state solution will be unobtainable and Israel will lose the ability to be both a democratic and Jewish state.
19. Tim Ryan (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) You know I think it’s a very complicated relationship that Israel obviously has with Hamas and dealings with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And I think the United States needs to play a much bigger role in trying to resolve that problem. I think the president has been very disengaged and we need to be a neutral broker, but recognizing the importance of Israel and the relationship we have with them for all of the other relationships we have in that region. Well, I think they could do a better job, and I think we all need to participate in the discussion. The United States needs to maintain in some its ability to broker these peace agreements. The problem today is we are not even really trying.
(After traveling to Israel as part of a House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee delegation, 3/30/16) I was honored to have the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss and reaffirm the important strategic relationship between our two nations. I remain committed to using my position on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee to strengthen partnerships with our allies around the globe, including our most steadfast ally in the Middle East, Israel. Touring the Iron Dome battery further emphasized the importance of this relationship, the need for increased collaboration moving forward, and the value of close friends in the region.
20. Joe Sestak (D)
(Interview with Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, 5/19/10) I strongly support Israel’s security, having visited Israel more than half a dozen times during my naval career. I believe that Israel serves as a vital ally to the United States and that the unique U.S.-Israeli friendship must be preserved and strengthened for generations to come. It is also my firm belief that the successful negotiation of a two-state solution will advance Israel’s security in the region.
The settlements dispute [details here] should not have occurred between the United States and Israel, two stalwart allies. The way it was handled by both nations has not helped bring about a positive engagement. The United States must keep in mind that if Israel does not feel secure, then it is less willing to take risks for peace, and we must continue to ensure that Israel’s security in the region is our No. 1 goal.
Sestak, a retired Navy admiral and 2-term Democratic Pennsylvania congressman, criticized Israel’s blockade of Gaza. He then ran in a Senatorial primary bid against Arlen Specter, the Israel partisan who had just switched from Republican to Democrat. The Dem establishment, including Obama, backed Specter, but Sestak won the primary. Conservative pro-Israel groups spent millions targeting Sestak, who then narrowly lost the general election to Republican Pat Toomey…
(2/24/08) I am proud to have visited Israel at least five times and to have seen firsthand the courage and steadfast resolve of its people. Throughout Israel’s nearly 60-year history, Israelis have fought overwhelming odds to reestablish the birthplace of the Jewish People, and today it remains the only democracy in the Middle East. Surrounded by challenges on all sides, Israel is steadfastly working towards its goals of peace and security.
21. Eric Swalwell (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Israel is a country that needs to work with the Palestinian people to find a two-state solution. I support putting the US back into the UN Commission on Human Rights. I support increasing aid to the Palestinian people. And I’m going to fire Jared Kushner on day one, because he has no business being on the job of seeking a two-state solution or finding peace in the Middle East. It requires serious scholars and a serious leader committed to making it happen. That’s what I’m going to do on day one.
I would like to see Israel not conduct any further settlements into the West Bank. I don’t oppose any geographical changes in either region, Israel and the Palestinian area, until we have a two-state solution. So I would press both sides; for the Palestinians to sort out who speaks for them, whether it is the PA or Hamas, and for the Israelis to negotiate and have a partner on the other side to seek that two-state solution. But I’m more interested in the future, I’m not going to go back into the past, because the future depends on a stable and secure Middle East.
22. Elizabeth Warren (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think that Israel is in a really tough neighborhood. I understand that. They face enormous challenges, and they are our strong ally. We need a liberal democracy in that region and to work with that liberal democracy. But it is also the case that we need to encourage our ally, the way we would any good friend, to come to the table with the Palestinians and to work toward a permanent solution. I strongly support the two-state solution, and I believe that a good friend says to the Palestinians and to the Israelis: come to the table and negotiate. The United States cannot dictate the terms of a long-term settlement for the Palestinians and the Israelis, but what it can do is urge both of them to go there and to stay out of the way — to let them negotiate the pieces that are most important to them for a lasting peace.
(Remark after 2nd week of Great March of Return, 4/12/18. Over 30 mostly unarmed Palestinians had been killed by Israeli sharpshooters.) I am deeply concerned about the deaths and injuries in Gaza. As additional protests are planned for the coming days, the Israel Defense Forces should exercise restraint and respect the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest.
(Letter from Warren and 9 other Senators to PM Netanyahu, 11/29/17) We write today to urge your government not to demolish the Palestinian village of Susiya and the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar. The displacement of entire communities would be an irreversible step away from a 2-state solution, and we urge your government to abandon its efforts to destroy these villages.
(Also read this – Warren voted $225 million to Israel while it was in the midst of its 2014 invasion of Gaza. This year she cosponsored legislation to give Israel $38 billion.)
23. Marianne Williamson (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think there are many countries including the Untied States that behaves in ways that don’t always meet international standards of human rights. As president of the United States I would have an equally robust commitment to both the legitimate security concerns of Israel and the human rights of the Palestinians and the economic hopes and opportunities and dignity of the Palestinian people.
(Remarks during CNN interview, 4/14/19) With me as president, they will know that they have in the United States a president who listens deeply and totally hears; the leaders of the Palestinian authority will know I listen very deeply. In me, you would have a president who says those settlements are illegal. I would rescind the president’s affirmation of sovereignty of Israel over the Golan Heights…[My] love for Israel is second only to my love for the United States…The alliance of the United States with Israel is extremely important. It should be extremely important to all of us. If I’m president of the United States, the world will know, our greatest ally is humanity itself.
24. Andrew Yang (D)
(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Israel is a very very important ally of the US. Certainly, some of the actions that are being taken there are deeply problematic and run afoul of some of the standards we’d like to see countries meet. I’d hesitant to say they are in violation of those standards.
… and one lone Independent
Bernie Sanders (I)
The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to protest for a better future without a violent response. I’m extremely concerned by reports that President Trump plans to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel. There’s a reason why all past U.S. administrations have avoided making this move, and why leaders from all over the world, including a group of former Israeli ambassadors, have warned Trump against doing it: It would dramatically undermine the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, and severely, perhaps irreparably, damage the United States’ ability to broker that peace. What the U.S. should be doing now is bringing adversaries in the Middle East together to seek common solutions, not exacerbating tensions in this highly volatile region.
Israel is not, cannot, just simply expand when it wants to expand with new settlements. I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate. I happen to think that those expansions were illegal.
I think most international observers would say that the attacks against Gaza were indiscriminate and that a lot of innocent people were killed who should not have been killed. Look, we are living, for better or worse, in a world of high technology, whether it’s drones out there that could, you know, take your nose off, and Israel has that technology. And I think there is a general belief that, with that technology, they could have been more discriminate in terms of taking out weapons that were threatening them.
(3/21/16) To my mind, as friends — long term friends with Israel — we are obligated to speak the truth as we see it. That is what real friendship demands, especially in difficult times…But it is important among friends to be honest and truthful about differences that we may have…I am here to tell the American people that, if elected president, I will work tirelessly to advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend to Israel. But to be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but to the Palestinian people, where in Gaza unemployment today is 44 percent and we have there a poverty rate which is almost as high. So when we talk about Israel and Palestinian areas, it is important to understand that today there is a whole lot of suffering among Palestinians and that cannot be ignored. You can’t have good policy that results in peace if you ignore one side.
(5/06/17) If a two-state solution fails, Takruri asked Sanders, would he support “one-state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and equal citizenship?” “No, I don’t,” he said. “I mean, I think if that happens, then that would be the end of the state of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist.”
Sanders has gone back and forth on Palestine. Unless his progressive base pushes him, he may continue to straddle the fence.
Kathryn Shihadah is staff writer for If Americans Knew. She blogs at Palestine Home.
RELATED READING:
WATCH: Elizabeth Warren supports Israel during its 2014 invasion of Gaza
JTA: Klobuchar’s meeting with Jewish Dem funders, Dear Abby grandson
Joe Sestak, early Democratic critic of Israel, announces presidential run
Presidential candidate offers a bold plan for Israel/Palestine
Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances
WATCH: Candidates pledge support for Israel in AJC Global Forum videos
US Approach to Palestine-Israel Peace Unveiled at Manama Workshop ‘Counterproductive’ – Moscow
Sputnik – June 27, 2019
Bahrain hosted a two-day forum on 25-26 June, which sought to encourage rich Arab countries to invest in Palestinian projects as part of US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century”.
Russian Foreign Ministry on Thursday lambasted the US approach to the Palestine-Israel settlement presented at a workshop in Manama, Bahrain.
According to the ministry, the US stance on the issue appears ‘counterproductive’.
The ministry lamented the fact that the issues of relaunching direct Palestine-Israeli negotiations as well as the creation of an independent Palestinian state within its 1967 borders were excluded from the talks in Manama.
On Wednesday, the two-day meeting concluded in Bahrain’s capital Manama. The forum focused on the economic aspects of the initiative developed by the United States to resolve the Middle East conflict, which the media dubbed the “deal of the century”.
Representatives of the Palestinian Authority boycotted the forum, viewing it as an attempt to bribe them.
The Palestinians have been seeking diplomatic recognition for their independent state on the territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which are partially occupied by Israel, and the Gaza Strip.
The steal of the century: stolen land, stolen water, stolen images
By Bill Law | MEMO | June 27, 2019
Jared Kushner and Benjamin Netanyahu must have considered it the longest of long shots but what if the Palestinians by some wild stretch of the imagination had called their bluff on the “deal of the century”; what if they had suddenly decided to turn up in Bahrain for the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop this week?
To guard against any such thing happening, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, wrote a deliberately offensive and insulting opinion piece on 24 June that the New York Times was happy to publish. “What’s wrong with Palestinian surrender?” mused Ambassador Danon. “Surrender is the recognition that in a contest, staying the course will prove costlier than submission.” Having backed the Palestinians into a corner from which they could only say no, Kushner then had Danon stick the knife in.
The message, in all its arrogance, was clear: if you don’t take what is on offer, it is going to get a hell of a lot worse. However, we know we have made it impossible for you to take what is on offer, so guess what? The two state solution is well and truly dead; the path to a greater Israel is secured; welcome to the new reality of Palestinian Bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza. And, oh yes, we promise to throw cash at you, $50 billion; that’s a lot of dosh, if you do what is commanded of you. If you don’t, well that money is off the table.
While many commentators have rightly attacked the New York Times for publishing an openly racist and hate-mongering piece, they may have missed the larger significance of what is happening at speed in the killing of the two-state solution. The day before the Danon article, US National Security Advisor John Bolton accompanied the Israeli Prime Minister to land overlooking the Jordan Valley, the most fertile region of the West Bank. Nearly 90 per cent of the valley has been allocated to Israeli settlements and agriculture, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and international law.
A smiling and nodding Bolton, wearing a baseball cap bedecked with the US and Israeli flags, looked on as Netanyahu argued that the Jordan Valley offered what he called “the minimal strategic depth and height for the defence of our country,” whatever that means. Those who said that restoring the valley to the Palestinians was a prerequisite to peace just didn’t get it, the Israeli Prime Minister argued. No, restoring land to its rightful owners was not going to bring peace; “It will bring war and terror.” So, according to Netanyahu, a just and fair settlement that righted an historic wrong would lead to war. Yet another example of truth turned on its head and a lie declared as truth.
Bolton, resembling one of those bobble-head figures that are given out at American sports events, said that he wished more Americans could come and see for themselves how the Jordan Valley “affects Israel’s critical security position.” He was keen to assure Netanyahu that, “President Trump will take the concerns you have expressed so clearly very much into account.”
It was all eerily reminiscent of another visit that happened in March of this year. On that occasion, Netanyahu was accompanied to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights by the senior Republican senator and Trump ally Lindsey Graham. Graham promised to return to the Senate and “start an effort to recognise the Golan as part of the state of Israel, now and forever.” And so it came to pass, with Netanyahu unveiling a large plaque on the Golan on 16 June announcing the site of a new settlement to be built: in Hebrew and in English it proclaimed that this is now “Trump Heights”.
One could say that it was tacky beyond all belief or you could take the view that in the Trumpian age of impunity, if you are Benjamin Netanyahu you can get away with just about anything. No doubt the Israeli leader was emboldened to massage the presidential ego by the statement made a week earlier by the US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman. A bankruptcy lawyer who in a previous career had worked for the Trump Organisation (and presumably knows a thing or two about dodgy real estate deals), Friedman had declared that, “Under certain circumstances I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”
There you have it: in the eyes of Kushner, Netanyahu, et al, the path to peace lies through the annexation of what is left of most of the West Bank, including its most valuable agricultural asset, the Jordan Valley. It goes without saying, therefore, that Kushner’s Peace to Prosperity document has something to say about real estate and the settling of land claims. It is right there on page 19: “Project one, Property Ownership Resolution: Enhance court capacity to quickly and effectively resolve property disputes and contested-ownership claims.”
So the game is this: annex as much as possible using the guise of pursuing a peace deal; declare those lands and buildings already annexed as legally belonging to Israel; and then go to court to decide who gets whatever is left over. And, of course, you can guess whose courts and whose judges. Peace to Prosperity doesn’t say anything about it, but I think we know the answer.
Read the document a little further on and it gets worse. There is a whole section devoted to agriculture. It sounds wonderful until you reflect that the most valuable agricultural asset is already off the table. True, there is a water irrigation project to help sustain Palestinian farmers, but guess what? The Israelis already control West Bank aquifers including those in the Jordan Valley where they have drilled deep bores circumventing and cutting off Palestinian wells and requiring the Palestinians to buy their own water back from Israel.
Meanwhile, back in Manama, the Israelis had broken through longstanding taboos and met with senior and some not so senior representatives of Arab states. Bahrain’s Foreign Minister told an Israeli interviewer, “We do believe that Israel is a country to stay, and we want better relations with it, and we want peace with it.” That is something that would have been unthinkable before the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House. It is the Israelis and not the Palestinians who are being embraced, and Arab protestations in public about support for a two state solution sound increasingly feeble and unconvincing.
Reading Kushner’s document I was struck by the illustrations and photos of smiling Palestinians, and I wondered if these people give permission for their images to be used. Odd if they had, given the awful way that Kushner and his father-in-law have treated them. Not surprisingly, though, it turns out that no such permission was given; the pictures were lifted from, among other sources, USAid videos about an agricultural project several years ago and from a joint Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation project. USAid to the Palestinians has, of course, been cancelled by Trump, but that didn’t stop the lifting of the photographs.
Stolen land, stolen water, stolen images. The steal of the century. And the world sits back and lets it all happen. No wonder Jared Kushner is looking smug.
Monsters Walk the Earth. Why These Three Countries Are the Real Troika of Evil
By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 27, 2019
There are monsters among us. Every day I read about an American “plan” to either invade some place new or to otherwise inflict pain to convince a “non-compliant” foreign government how to behave. Last week it was Iran but next week it could just as easily again be Lebanon, Syria or Venezuela. Or even Russia or China, both of whom are seen as “threats” even though American soldiers, sailors and marines sit on their borders and not vice versa. The United States is perhaps unique in the history of the world in that it sees threats everywhere even though it is not, in fact, threatened by anyone.
Just as often, one learns about a new atrocity by Israelis inflicted on the defenseless Arabs just because they have the power to do so. Last Friday in Gaza the Israeli army shot and killed four unarmed demonstrators and injured 300 more while the Jewish state’s police invaded a Palestinian orphanage school in occupied Jerusalem and shut it down because the students were celebrating a “Yes to peace, no to war” poetry festival. Peace is not in the Israeli authorized curriculum.
And then there are the Saudis, publicly chopping the heads off of 37 “dissidents” in a mass display of barbarity, and also murdering and dismembering a hapless journalist. And let’s not forget the bombing and deliberate starving of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians in Yemen.
It is truly a troika of evil, an expression favored by US National Security Advisor John Bolton, though he was applying it to Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, all “socialist” nations currently on Washington’s “hit list.” Americans, Saudis and Israelis have become monsters in the eyes of the rest of the world even if in their own minds they are endowed with special privilege due to their being “Exceptional,” “Chosen by God” or “Guardians of Mecca and Medina.” All three countries share a dishonest sense of entitlement that supports the fiction that their oppressive and often illegal behavior is somehow perfectly legitimate.
To be sure not all Americans, Saudis or Israelis are individually monsters. Many are decent people who are appalled by what their respective governments are doing. Saudi citizens live under a despotism and have little to say about their government, but there is a formidable though fragmented peace movement in slightly less totalitarian Israel and in the United States there is growing anti-war sentiment. The discomfort in America is driven by a sense that the post 9/11 conflicts have only embroiled the country more deeply in wars that have no exit and no end. Unfortunately, the peace movement in Israel will never have any real power while the anti-war activists in America are leaderless and disorganized, waiting for someone to step up and take charge.
The current foreign policy debate centers around what Washington’s next moves in the Middle East might be. The decision-making will inevitably involve the US and its “close allies” Israel and Saudi Arabia, which should not surprise anyone. While it is clear that President Donald Trump ordered an attack on Iran before canceling the action at the last minute, exactly how that played out continues to be unclear. One theory, promoted by the president himself, is that the attack would have been disproportionate, killing possibly hundreds of Iranian military personnel in exchange for one admittedly very expensive surveillance drone. Killing the Iranians would have guaranteed an immediate escalation by Iran, which has both the will and the capability to hit high value targets in and around the Persian Gulf region, a factor that may also have figured into the presidential calculus.
Trump’s cancelation of the attack immediately produced cries of rage from the usual neoconservative chickenhawk crowd in Washington as well as a more subdued reiteration of the Israeli and Saudi demands that Iran be punished, though both are also concerned that a massive Iranian retaliation would hit them hard. They are both hoping that Washington’s immensely powerful strategic armaments will succeed in knocking Iran out quickly and decisively, but they have also both learned not to completely trust the White House.
To assuage the beast, the president has initiated a package of “major” new sanctions on Iran which will no doubt hurt the Iranian people while not changing government decision making one iota. There has also been a leak of a story relating to US cyber-attacks on Iranian military and infrastructure targets, yet another attempt to act aggressive to mitigate the sounds being emitted by the neocon chorus.
To understand the stop-and-go behavior by Trump requires application of the Occam’s Razor principle, i.e. that the simplest explanation is most likely correct. For some odd reason, Donald Trump wants to be reelected president in 2020 in spite of the fact that he appears to be uncomfortable in office. A quick, successful war would enhance his chances for a second term, which is probably what Pompeo promised, but any military action that is not immediately decisive would hurt his prospects, quite possibly inflicting fatal damage. Trump apparently had an intercession by Fox news analyst Tucker Carlson, who may have explained that reality to him shortly before he decided to cancel the attack. Tucker is, for what it’s worth, a highly respected critic coming from the political right who is skeptical of wars of choice, democracy building and the global liberal order.
The truth is that all of American foreign policy during the upcoming year will be designed to pander to certain constituencies that will be crucial to the 2020 presidential election. One can bank on even more concessions being granted to Israel and its murderous thug prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring in Jewish votes and, more importantly, money. John Bolton was already in Israel getting his marching orders from Netanyahu on the weekend and Pence was effusive in his praise of Israel when he spoke at the meeting in Orlando earlier in the week launching the Trump 2020 campaign, so the game is already afoot. It is an interesting process to observe how Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson contribute tens of millions of dollars to the politicians who then in turn give the Jewish state taxpayer generated tens of billions of dollars in return. Bribing corrupt politicians is one of the best investments that one can make in today’s America.
Trump will also go easy on Saudi Arabia because he wants to sell them billions of dollars’ worth of weapons which will make the key constituency of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) happy. And he will continue to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran and Venezuela to show how tough he can be for his Make America Great audience, though avoiding war if he possibly can just in case any of the hapless victims tries to fight back and embarrass him.
So, there it is folks. War with Iran is for the moment on hold, but tune in again next week as the collective White House memory span runs to only three or four days. By next week we Americans might be at war with Mongolia.
UAE says no proof Iran hit tankers in clear rebuttal to US-Saudi claims
Press TV – June 26, 2019
The United Arab Emirates says there is no “clear, scientific and convincing” evidence to assign blame for the recent tanker attacks off its coast in the Sea of Oman, splitting with the United States and Saudi Arabia, which hold Iran responsible for the suspicious acts.
UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan said Wednesday that his country was not able to pin the attacks on any country because an investigation had failed to find enough proof.
“Honestly we can’t point the blame at any country because we don’t have evidence,” bin Zayed said during a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Moscow.
“If there is a country that has the evidence, then I’m convinced that the international community will listen to it. But we need to make sure the evidence is clear and precise and scientific and convincing for the international community,” he added.
Last month, four tankers were subjected to what Abu Dhabi called “acts of sabotage” outside the tiny Persian Gulf sheikhdom’s territorial waters near the Strait of Hormuz.
A joint investigation by the three countries concluded that a “state actor” was most likely behind the incident in May but stopped short of singling out any country.
Another pair of tankers — one of them Japanese — were attacked in the Sea of Oman earlier this month.
Bin Zayed’s statements indicate the UAE’s break from the official standpoint of the US and Saudi Arabia, both publicly blaming Iran for the two instances of tanker attacks without providing any evidence.
The claims by Riyadh and Washington come amid heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf region as a direct result of America’s interventionist policies.
Tensions have been running high between the two countries since Trump’s decision in May last year to abandon the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions on Tehran as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at forcing it to renegotiate a new deal that addresses its ballistic missile program and regional influence as well.
The US has also sent warships, bombers and additional troops to the region in the wake of the suspicious tanker attacks in the Sea of Oman, which it has similarly blamed on Iran without providing evidence.
Iran, however, has remained steadfast on its position. The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps shot down a US spy drone last week, prompting Trump to consider and quickly back out of retaliatory strikes.
Lavrov said that Moscow would try to persuade the US and Iran to start dialogue. Iran has made it clear that it would not negotiate with the US under pressure.
‘UAE wants tensions to be dialed down’
The Emirati foreign minister said that he discussed the US-Iran tensions with Lavrov to see how the maritime routes can be kept open in the wake of such “subversive operations.”
“Expanding international cooperation to protect ships in waterways was discussed,” the UAE official said.
He asserted that the UAE did not want “more turbulence and … more worries” in the region.
“We are in a region that is tense and important for the world and we don’t want more tension,” said Sheikh Abdullah.
The Emirati top diplomat said his country was still working with the US and other regional countries to build what he said was going to be a global coalition to protect oil shipping lanes in the region.
The remarks came a day after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo set off on a tour of the Middle East, which included a stop in Abu Dhabi, to form a “global coalition” against Iran.
A senior State Department official said Monday that the US Navy was building a “proactive deterrence” program that would be funded by a coalition of nations that want to protect their oil tankers in the region.
Bin Zayed said the project was going to involve regional and other “(oil) exporting and importing” countries.
NSA Again Exposed For Unauthorized Collection Of Americans’ Phone Records
By Tyler Durden – Zero Hedge – 06/26/2019
Yet again, the National Security Agency has been exposed for “accidentally overcollecting” call-record metadata of millions of Americans. According to a WSJ report that relied on documents obtained by the ACLU, the NSA received metadata records from an unnamed phone company that the agency hadn’t been authorized to collect.
According to the report, it’s unclear how the overcollection occurred, but the incident took place after the NSA said it had purged hundreds of millions of metadata records it had amassed since 2015 in a separate overcollection episode.
For those who aren’t familiar with the concept, “Metadata” include the numbers called or texted and the associated time stamps, but not the contents of the conversation.
The documents didn’t make clear how many records had been collected by the NSA since October. The NSA’s media relations chief, Greg Julian, refused to comment on this specific episode, but referred to the prior overcollection episode – which resulted in the NSA deleting an entire database of collected metadata – where the NSA had collected information it hadn’t been authorized to collect.
Essentially, the agency blamed the incident on service providers who incorrectly interpreted the NSA’s request.
“While NSA lawfully sought data pertaining to a foreign power engaged in international terrorism, the provider produced inaccurate data and data beyond which NSA sought,” Julian said.
The company began delivering those records to the NSA on Oct. 3, 2018 through Oct. 12, when the agency asked it investigate the “anomaly.”
Exposure of the incident has predictably provoked outrage from lawmakers, who have been railing against the NSA’s surveillance programs since they were first exposed by former contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Former lawmaker Pat Toomey, now an ACLU staff attorney, said the incident is just the latest reason why the NSA metadata-collection program, launched in the aftermath of 9/11 as part of the Patriot Act, should be discontinued.
“These documents only confirm that this surveillance program is beyond redemption and should be shut down for good,” Patrick Toomey, an ACLU staff attorney, said in a statement. “The NSA’s collection of Americans’ call records is too sweeping, the compliance problems too many, and evidence of the program’s value all but nonexistent. There is no justification for leaving this surveillance power in the NSA’s hands.”
The House Judiciary Committee has already started weighing which expiring Patriot Act provisions will be renewed, and according to several lawmakers, the phone surveillance program likely won’t be reauthorized.
“Every new incident like this that becomes public is another reason this massive surveillance program needs to be permanently scrapped,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, a longtime critic of the program. “But it is unacceptable that basic information about the program is still being withheld from the public.”
Only 19% of Americans want military strike on Iran
RT | June 25, 2019
Less than one quarter of Americans want the US to take military action against Iran, a new poll has found, amid rising tensions between Tehran and Washington.
The Hill-HarrisX survey revealed that 19 percent of voters want the US to launch a “limited military strike” on Iran — an action which the Trump administration said it considered but ultimately backed away from last week.
A more hawkish five percent of voters said they wanted the US to outright declare war on Iran, while another 19 percent of voters said they were unsure about what the US should do next.
The majority of respondents (58 percent), however, said they would prefer a non-military response to Iran’s shooting down of an American drone last week, which Tehran said had entered its airspace.
Forty-nine percent said they would like the US to “seek a negotiated solution” to the recent hostilities, while nine percent were less enthusiastic about engagement and feel the US should “do nothing.”
Broken down by party, only 16 percent of Democrats favored a military response, with 67 percent saying they wanted peaceful negotiations.
Republicans were more hawkish in their views, but only marginally. Thirty-one percent of GOP voters said they would like to see a limited military strike or declaration of war. Fifty percent said they would prefer a peaceful resolution.
Voters over the age of 65 were most reluctant to see the US go to war, with 60 percent against it. Some age groups were more open to a military response, but a majority in all age groups wanted to avoid conflict.
The poll results strengthen arguments made by some Trump supporters and sympathizers that launching military action against Iran would be unpopular with his base and could cost him during the 2020 election.
Trump campaigned heavily on the promise that he would end US regime change wars and conduct US foreign policy on an “America first” basis — a promise which many would view as broken if he entangled the US in a new military conflict in the Middle East.
Some of Trump’s top advisers, including National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have long-advocated for military engagement against Iran.
Trump has so far opted for non-military response to Iran, hitting Tehran with cyber attacks, fresh sanctions and employing a policy of “maximum pressure” designed to force Iran to submit to US demands.
The Economic Entrails at the Heart of the ‘Deal of the Century’
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 25, 2019
It is nothing new to say that the ‘Deal of the Century’ is – and always was – in essence an economic project. Indeed, it seems that its political ramifications are viewed by the White House as little more than the ineluctable consequences to an a priori economic architecture, already in the process of being unfolded.
In other words, it is the economic facts on the ground that are intended shape the political outcome — an attenuated political landscape that anyway has been minimised by Trump’s pre-emptive removal of key pieces of any Palestinian negotiating leverage.
The financial squeeze on the Palestinians is well attested. On the one hand, the Palestinian Authority (historically dependent on Saudi subvention) is gently slipping into bankruptcy; whilst Gaza is held in virtual abject dependency through the drip-feed of subventions channelled into Gaza by Qatar, with Israeli permission — the size of this latter monthly ‘lifeline’ subvention being carefully adjusted by Israel according to what it judges to be the norms of (generally Hamas) ‘good conduct’.
So, on the one hand there is the financial siege that is intended to make the Palestinians pliant to the ‘quality of life package’ which the ‘deal’ is supposed to bring — the Bahrain summit later this month being its shopfront. But there is another less well recognised side to the Deal which is summarised in the title to a McClatchy article entitled, White House sees Egyptian energy forum as a ‘roadmap to Middle East peace’.
In a later piece, McClatchy publishes the newly declassified map of the US East Mediterranean energy ‘roadmap’. And here the fuller picture becomes clear: the US sponsored ‘gas forum’, “according to three senior administration officials, that map [the] declassified one, obtained by McClatchy – has motivated members of the [US] National Security Council to prioritize the formation of a gas forum in the Eastern Mediterranean that would simultaneously boost and entangle the economies of several countries that have been at odds for decades”.
Well, let’s translate that little euphemism: ‘boost and entangle’. What that formula translates into is — the means to integrate Israel into the economic regional sphere is firstly, through energy. Yet, it is not intended to integrate Israel alone into this Egyptian economic sphere, but also to make Jordan, the PA (and maybe even Lebanon), too, partially dependent on Israeli energy – alongside putative partners, Italy, Greece, and (the Greek-linked part) of Cyprus — with the US offering to help flesh out the structure of the ‘gas forum’ with U.S. expertise.
This is the heart of ‘the deal’. Not just political normalisation for Israel into the region, but the making of economic dependency of the Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians (and possibly – but not so likely – Lebanon) on the US East-Med gas ‘hub’.
Source: McClatchy
And, inevitably there is a sub-plot to all this, (as McClatchy notes):
“On this front, the administration enjoys support from unlikely allies. Eliot Engel, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee … said the Mediterranean gas forum project was a strategic opportunity for the U.S. to stymie Russian influence efforts over local energy resources. “I think that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and Russia can’t and should not be able to control the situation,” Engel stated”.
So, the US Administration is pursuing two bipartisan congressional efforts to ‘stymie’ Russia in the region: One is a bill promoting energy partnerships in the Eastern Mediterranean; and a parallel bill which threatens to sanction European firms supporting the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline taking Russian gas into Germany.
There are however, two obvious big ‘catches’ to this notion of both ‘stymying’ Russia, whilst simultaneously normalising Israel economically into the region. The first, as Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute notes, [is the notion that] the area’s underlying geology could help Europe offset, or even replace, its dependence on Russian gas “seems farfetched at the present level of discoveries. Several more giant fields like Leviathan or Egypt’s Zohr would have to be found before this reality changes”:
“The idea that East Mediterranean energy could impact on the European energy balance in such a way as to dent Russian market share is a fantasy – Europe’s thirst for gas is so huge, and Russia’s ability to provide that gas is so great, that it’s a wild dream to even hope we can achieve it given the limited reserves discovered thus far,” Henderson said. “Hoping you can find gas is not the same as finding gas”.
In short, an Egyptian ‘hub’ serving exports, might only ‘work’, as matters stand, through patching some of the smaller East-Med discoveries – together with a large Israeli contribution – through pipelines into the two Egyptian gas liquefying plants near Port Said and Alexandria. But LNG availability globally is high, prices are hugely competitive, and it is by no means certain that ‘the hub’ can be commercially viable.
And here is the main catch: Geo-politics. Anything aimed at integrating Israel into the region is bound to be sensitive. So, whilst US officials are optimistic about Egypt’s leadership of their ‘gas forum’ in the wake of President Sisi’s April meeting with Trump – Egypt – a mainstay to the separate US Iran confrontation plan – shortly afterward the visit, rather notably withdrew from the strategic military alliance the Trump administration was trying to build to confront Iran: The Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), to the consternation of US officials.
When it comes to energy deals, however, even having a treaty with Israel does not put an end to public sensitivities about rapprochement with Israel, Henderson notes. Notwithstanding any ‘peace treaty’, many Jordanians still oppose the prospect of using (Israeli) Leviathan gas to provide for large-scale electricity generation, beginning early next year. Amman has tried to deflect such anger by calling the supplies “northern gas” or “American gas”, emphasizing Noble’s role in producing it.
But here is the other side to the issue: Clearly, Egypt does not want to be a part of any anti-Iranian US-led alliance (MESA). But equally, why should Egypt – or Jordan, or for that matter, or any other member of the ‘gas forum’ – wish to be tightly aligned with an US anti-Russian strategy for the region? Egypt may have signed up to the US ‘gas hub’ project. But at the very same time, Egypt also was signing a $2 billion contract to buy more than twenty Russian Sukhoi SU-35 fighter aircraft. Do ‘hub’ members really judge an Egyptian ‘hub’ to be a rival to Russian gas in Europe?
Probably not: For ultimately, the idea that a putative energy hub can ‘stymie Russia’ indeed is fantasy. The EU shows, for example, no particular interest in the US supported $7 billion mooted pipeline linking the eastern Mediterranean through Cyprus, to Greece. The undersea terrain is too problematic, and the cost too high.
Israel too, hopes to find more gas (of course). But the deadline for bids on nineteen of its offshore blocks has been pushed back to mid-August – seemingly reflecting a lack of investor interest. For now, the oil majors seem more tempted by the Cypriot blocks – up for bid.
But politics again: being a part of America’s ‘gas forum’ in which the Nicosia (i.e. the Greek-linked) government is a key member, explicitly places the forum and its members on a potential collision course with Turkey, who will not readily yield on its ambitious claims on the East Med basin (it has just announced that it will establish naval and air bases in Northern Cyprus). Nor will Lebanon, either. Sisi and Erdogan share a mutual, personal dislike, but will the others wish to be drawn into that quarrel?
Russia anyway, seems not greatly interested in the production possibilities of the Mediterranean Middle East. Rather it is focused on a pipeline corridor stretching from Iran and Iraq to Europe via Turkey or (eventually) Syria.
In sum then, the Kushner – Trump ‘Deal’, in respect to the integration of Israel into the regional energy economy seems destined to draw the same skepticism and distrust, as does the ‘Deal’s’ other parts.
‘Dialogue at gunpoint’: Bolton says Iran’s ‘silence’ is DEAFENING while it’s actually pretty vocal
RT | June 25, 2019
US National Security Advisor John Bolton has said that defiant Iran stays silent over meaningful talks with Washington, when, in fact, Tehran repeatedly argued that a barrage of threats and sanctions has made talks impossible.
Bolton blamed Iran for avoiding dialogue with the US during his visit to Jerusalem on Tuesday.
“As we speak, American diplomatic representatives are surging across the Middle East, seeking a path to peace. In response, Iran’s silence has been deafening.”
The official insisted that Washington “has held the door open for real negotiations,” and all Iran needs to do is to “walk through that open door.” Bolton explained that by doing so Iran must fulfill a laundry list of demands put forward by the US, including the one to “completely and verifiably” eliminate its “nuclear weapons program” and end “malignant behavior worldwide.”
Iran, meanwhile, has been anything but silent about the prospect of negotiating with the US. The country had consistently maintained that it is ready to talk if Washington refrains from issuing threats and slapping new sanctions on Tehran.
Iran stands ready for dialogue, given that it goes on “equal footing and mutual respect,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in January. The minister often blamed Bolton and other foreign policy hardliners at the White House for pushing President Donald Trump from peaceful solutions towards a more bellicose stance.
The Islamic Republic also made it clear that meaningful talks cannot go in hand with the Trump administration’s strategy of applying “maximum pressure” on Iran. On Monday, the US announced plans to blacklist Zarif along with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in retaliation to Iran downing a US drone it claims violated its airspace last week. Tehran responded by saying that sanctions against the nation’s top leadership effectively close “the path of diplomacy” and do not create the right atmosphere for talks.
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani put it more bluntly, saying that the new sanctions are a sign of Washington’s “desperation” and “the White House actions show it is mentally retarded.”
“You [the Americans] call for negotiations. If you are telling the truth, why are you simultaneously seeking to sanction our foreign minister, too?”
The promise to enact new sanctions shows that the US is “lying” in the offer of talks with Tehran, Rouhani stressed.
Moscow, whose senior security official Nikolai Patrushev met with Bolton on Tuesday, had also blasted the new round of US sanctions on Iran. The restrictions “negate all of the repeatedly-sent signals that Washington is open and ready to engage in dialogue,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said.
“You can’t have dialogue at gunpoint, literally and figuratively speaking.”
All the recent diplomatic maneuvers by the US have been “aimed at mobilizing an anti-Iranian front,” Ryabkov stated.
The decades-long row between Tehran and Washington escalated dramatically last year when the US unilaterally abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, while accusing Iran of secretly violating the agreement. Iran denied this, and the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in its latest reports had confirmed that the nation was following the deal.
Featured Video
False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How 1960’s French Nuclear Tests Are Still Claiming Lives in Algeria
Sputnik – 15.02.2018
On February 13, 1960, France carried out its first nuclear test in Algeria’s southern Reggane region. According to official statistics, 17 nuclear tests were carried out in total over the next 6 years. The area remains affected, and local scientists say that radioactive contamination has caused genetic mutations and irreversibly changed the region.
There are no official statistics on the number of victims. The only figures can be found in the records kept by the French representative of the local church, which lists 42,000 victims of nuclear tests. Three years ago, the French Ministry of Defense issued a statement, putting the number at 27,000 people. The victims include French soldiers as well as local Algerians who lived in the surrounding areas. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US-‘Israel’ alliance faces growing rupture after midterms
- GOP’s Crushing Midterm Loss Could Reshape US Political Landscape – Analyst
- Midterm loss gives Congress power to rein in US war on Iran
- Midterms Were ‘Vote of No Confidence’ in GOP, But Iran Has No Illusions About Democrats – Marandi
- Israeli Soldiers Inadvertently Prove Their Own Genocidal Guilt
- Ukraine arrests woman who exposed Azov battalion’s ‘torture chamber’
- Did Israel lose the midterms?
- How Iran defeated Trump’s Israel First GOP
- De-escalating the conflict: What the OSCE, the UN, and Europe are (not) doing to prevent war
- Desperate For A Renewed Iran War, Israel Dusts Off The WMD Deception.
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
