From Eisenhower to Obama: War is Money

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Galilee of its Arab population."

The above statement is attributed to David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of the State of Israel and First Israeli Prime Minister taken from Ben-Gurion, a Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar (May 1948). I am not a historian, but such transgressions aside, it is not too farfetched to suggest that history often repeats itself. Especially when it pertains to presidential politics and nations like Israel, the United States, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Even considering smaller yet significant events ranging from the slaying of Crispus Attucks during the Boston Massacre in 1770 to the signing of the “Southern Manifesto” by Strom Thurman and a hundred plus democratic members of the house, to the operations run by Kermit Roosevelt that caused a coup in Iran in 1959; to even Eisenhower himself and his conundrum regarding Nasser of Egypt inclusive of France, Israel and the Aswan Damn.

This is a week or more after the first Presidential debate and I am willing to bet most black folk are still talking about it. Subsequently, given that most are caught up with that circus called the Presidential debate, truth be told it is immaterial and all that I mention prior are (albeit) past history more important than the debate when we look at the global predicament and war and our relationship with Israel. You see, although the US has laws that require foreign interests to register as foreign agents, these laws are not equally or always applied to all Israeli lobby groups, such as AIPAC.

Unless you have been behind a rock, you would know that besides the criminal industrial complex, the big industry money maker in America is war. Yes, war drives the economy and amounts to more than all of our allocated GDP spent when compared to all other programs in the United States that is if you don’t include international aid in the form of grants to nations like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Even as one reads this, Syria is being attacked inside by NATO funded Al Qaeda “Rebels,” China and japan are at each other throats, Shells fly each and every day in the Sudan and Mali is in the middle of a serious conflict.

For a while now, much has been made in political forums of addressing Iran and their quest to become nuclear sufficient (strangely enough by nations who have nuclear weapons - US and Israel). Meaning that regardless of what is being spoken in public, behind closed doors activities show how involved this issue is in both political and economic capital. The US, via NATO and the Saudi’s are funding dozens of training camps that have been set up to prepare for the fight against President Bashar al-Assad’s military. Both US and Saudi millions and Special Forces expertise are engaged covertly in training Al Qaeda terrorist (FSA Syria's rebels) into a disciplined military force. The FSA or “The Free Syrian Army” didn’t exist until Israel, NATO and the US decided that the powers that be needed a war, a major war, to make money and to topple the Syrian leader as well as the state bank of Syria. In fact the same ploy that is being used to break Iran and their independent state bank via the Libyan blue print for the same is being replicated in Syria.

Seems as if those of us in the West, limited by our ignorance and overshadowed by our obsessive ranting on freedom and democracy, cannot comprehend what democracy would mean to a non-Western world dominated by a belief in Islam. We look at what has happened in Libya and what is currently happening in Syria as being singularly about democracy and the development of a secular ideology that includes a pluralistic society run according to democratic principles while those on the ground see it about something completely different - espousing fundamentalism directed exclusive against western aggression and hegemony.

Another issue of concern is confounded when Middle Eastern Nations question the nationalistic approach of the West to their region. For example, the overt hypocrisy of US leadership under President Obama concerned about repression I Syria and Libya but not Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. They wonder how the US continue to evaluate all issues from state perspectives and a monolithic Islam versus Alawite, Sunni and Shī'ah sects of Islam. On the one hand he supposedly is operating a multi-front war, in secrecy against Al Qaeda {Islamic fundamentalism}, particularly in Africa and the Middle East – as evident by the increase in size of the U.S. military's Special Forces Operation Command and the CIA's strike expansion capabilities in the region in places including Kenya, Uganda, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean off East Africa – while at the same time asserting that they do not desire a conflict with Islam. This albeit our policy pursues wars presently on three fronts: Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and Afghanistan.

We have seen this all before when President Gamal Abdel Nasser's, who had come to power in the 1953 nationalistic revolution in Egypt. Nasser's wanted to construction dam at Aswan, to form a massive lake that would aid to control the annual flooding of the Nile, crucial to Egypt's agriculture, as well as generating vast amounts of electricity. First he was offered economic support by Britain and US to finance the Aswan dam. But then the West backed out.

This led to Britain and France to build up their forces in the Mediterranean, with the secret understand that Israeli troops would move into the Sinai Peninsula. Trying to present a position of peace the European nations asked that both move away from the region and when Egypt disregarded, against the ruling of the UN Security Council and general assembly, Britain and France begin bombing Egyptian airfields. This was under Eisenhower, who although in the open refused to join Britain, France and Israel in an invasion of Egypt, had approved of and knew about such behind closed doors.

Yes the methods of Eisenhower are similar to the methods of Obama presently and well, the role of Israel as agent provocateur is the same – making up a threat that doesn’t exist because a nation attempts to exist in a self-determined fashion. Only difference is that then it was a damn in Egypt and now it is Nuclear power in Iran.

Another common denominator was economics. Then, it pertained to vital shipping routes today; it deals with the Middle East, West Africa as emerging vital oil-producing, mineral rich zones including arable farmland. Then after the US denied funding Egypt, they went to Russia for military support which was granted. Today, the same is happening in Syria, Iran and also Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan-Russia ties are growing under Russian President Vladimir Putin’s who is expected to make the first visit by a Russian president to Pakistan ever supposedly to sign multiple MOU’s (Memorandums of Understanding) on development and investment in the steel and energy sectors of Pakistan. Syria’s central role in the Arab gas pipeline is also a key to why Israel, NATO and the US wants Assad out, in addition to having a direct path to Iran (just as the Taliban in Afghanistan because they are in the way of the Unocal pipeline).

Guess what I am saying, to repeat myself is that without war, America’s economy would already be in the grave as opposed to on its death bed. War is good economics, no matter if it is in the Middle East, China, the Far East or Africa. The question is will we be able to make money before we realize we may not have the financial ability to carry out such efforts? As we speak, The United States military has secretly sent a task force of more than 150 specialists to Jordan be in place in case the turmoil in Syria expand into a wider conflict.

Unfortunately, it is a fallacy to think or believe that America can be taken out of economic crisis via more and more wars given that the most productive part of the US economy has been moved offshore in order to increase corporate profits and capital gains to equity owners. It is not the American people who are at the center of such policy efforts, like I said; historically it is the war machine and the oligarchy of private interests. More wars that we can only afford to pay with debt is trouble. It is just like having a gallon of gasoline, and pouring a half gallon of water into it doesn’t change the fact of how much gasoline remains. Borrowing more debt, quantitative easing, or printing more loot is the same thing as the above example. It is an invisible tax that just steals tax payer’s money through inflation. Simply because basic math wins out in the end and shows that because the act of printing money doesn’t create any more jobs than one already has.

Now, in light of Obama’s “neoliberalism, the federal government is just borrowing more loot from itself, loot it doesn’t have because the Federal Reserve can print as much as it wants and buy government bonds with the new money it has printed. Such practices in concert with America’s "Ad hoc global 'counter-terrorism' efforts that began under President George W. Bush. The way I think it, this means that what can be anticipated in the future is that either the Obama Administration or Romney Administration will in my estimation, by 2013, have the U.S. at war with Iran just because it is the penchant of Israel and its nuclear program will be used as a reason for this attack. Although it is well know that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. We already see posturing visa via Turkey being used as a NATO proxy to get to Syria on a direct path to Iran. As well as evidence that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is slowly evaporating before our eyes apart. Although we say we desire the impossible dream of secular Islamic or secular Islamic states all across the region that includes a pluralistic society run according to democratic principles, it won’t happen, now given what has manifested in Syria as I stated earlier.

For decades, the Americans indulged and propped up pro-Western dictators in the interests U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Over the last 18 months, four of these dictators have fallen to pro-democracy uprisings, leaving U.S. strategy cold war-esque. And since we broke and can’t make loot via cold war, we will continue to engage in efforts to spark wars around the world, for whatever reason even if they are as petty as what transpired in Egypt and France and Britain – even if we have to adopt the position of David Ben-Gurion, and use terror just to accomplish such.

Why Obama Needs To Let Israel Fight For Themselves

“As President of the united States, I don’t bluff.” These were the words of President Obama, sounding as bellicose as the neocons of the prior administration and prior. I guess to take a lyric from a song from Sesame Street and replacing lulu with Be Be, “Be Be’s back in town. Not to mention I’m sure it was to impress Mr. Netanyahu, Israel and the AIPAC Zionist lobbyist who vote he will definitely need for a second term.

The statement from my perspective was disappointing and demonstrates the president, as Bush, do not understand history nor evince the capacity to learn from it as if re-election is the paramount of all things. As it stands we have sanctions already in place against Iran and an oil embargo, why do we need to purport military action as our only form of redress? Who are we to ask another nation on behalf of Israel to not pursue nuclear ambitions? Israel has nuclear weapons and we as a nation are the only one to us them on another nations, thus it seems logical that one would expect Israel to use them before Iran or even the United States.

Israel is not and never has been honest in its announcement it affirms the necessity of Palestinian self-determination. Even at the end of the Reagan years when the PLO accepted UN resolutions 242 and 338 – recognizing Israel’s right to exist within the 1967 borders. But still, Israel continues on its unilateral imperialistic religious intolerance and militaristic attacks against the good faith of Palestine and the diplomatic process.

The present administration, the way I see it may get the nation in a quandary if it continues to play “Charles Atlas” for it is not Israel who is having sand kicked in its face. They continue to build settlements and close Palestinian schools in the name of self-preservation and Zionism before truthful dialogue. All US Presidents in the recent decades have confronted this. Just review the relationship between Yitzhak Shamir and George Bush – it was Bush who pointed out in concert with James Baker the obstacle with expansion and new settlements in the occupied terror to peace.

The Palestinians only had about 20 percent of their homeland left after 1948 and live in less area given the settlements are connected by a maze of roadblocks and military checkpoints. For more than forty years Israel has ruled the West Bank in such a manner that has created a system of Zionistic apartheid. In 2008, they waged war against the Palestinian people again, from the way I see it, to shift attention from them dealing with the real issue. Although not simple, the fact remains that Israel interest and US interest do not intersect let alone coincide. They ignore the reality of any solution that will require a Palestinian state and capital in East Jerusalem with folks who meanwhile take over the West bank giving praise to the beliefs of a psychopathic killer Baruch Goldstein.

Then here at home, if it aint the ADL it is AIPAC who would rather take the position of Be Be Netanyahu than a sitting President of the United States of America. This is treason to me and maybe they should replace the “A” with an “I” and go to Israel. Last I looked they were not fighting two wars or shoulder to shoulder with US service personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Obama should forget even trying to convince this group of non-Americans and Israel of anything. Their interest as I have stated are not US interest. Moreover the stuff we do to try and show them support are not doing any good for America. Even our Joints Chief of Staff has gone on record as saying the manner in which the state of Israel deals with Palestinians motivates the Muslim world to ferment anti-US sentiment.

Obama, you need to be hard on Israel. Wee not their sugar daddy. We say we have their back regardless but as an African American man, I know guilt by association. I know that I am not going to jail for a rapist or a murderer even if my friend. We need to take the same position. We need to tell them not to start a war straight up or hit them with sanctions, cut off all streams of our funding to them and better yet, tell them no more tanks or jets. We cannot trust Israel as history has demonstrated inordinate times.

If Israel goes ahead with airstrikes, Iran will hit us also (another reason supporting their position is not in US interest). And If I were the President, no secret the US would come before them and if they did send jets to strike Iran, I would shoot them down via a no fly zone.

A lot of US don’t read and would not remember how they tried to bait us into a war before. In 1967, the USS Liberty was attacked by unmarked Israeli jets and ships and resulted in the deaths of more than 30 US service men, but this was covered up by Lyndon B. Johnson. I would not be surprised if the tried to do the same again and blame Iran.

Please Mr. President, do not fall into the trap of doing Israel’s dirty work for them. In the end, it will be our economy and the blood of our young men and women who pay for their insolence. Military spending is already draining our economy and fighting for a Jewish state, when we in policy deplore Islamic states, is undemocratic in principal if it ignores the Christians and Muslims who occupy that same nation state also.

Obama’s Actions Purport Issues of American Jewish Lobby More Important Than Those of African American

One of the most prescient events of the Obama administration just occurred recently. It was not his vitriolic debt ceiling debate with the Tea Party leaning congress nor was it his recent jobs proposal and his impending standoff with the same house body. It was the loss of the New York 9^th district congressional seat vacated by Anthon Weiner. Many consider this a referendum for the democrats and more importantly the Obama’s administration policy and views on Israel.

Obama is losing support among Jewish voters due to perception of his insufficient support of Israel. Namely his pressure on Israel to halt further development of its West Bank settlements, something that Zionist and Jewish extremist are vehemently opposed to. They specifically reject the idea that the United States should ever pressure Israel over anything. Just because Obama did so was more than enough to confirm their belief he's anti-Israel. It all started when Obama called for a re-instatement of the 1967 borders and support for a future Palestinian state.

Although this is an underserved criticism, truth be told, there will never be a negotiated settlement as long as the current leadership exist in Israel and among US Jewish advocates, not to mention American has never been a neutral party to these negotiations. The US Jewish lobby will never allow the US government to champion freedom for the Palestinian people. Especially from supporters from New York, which has more Jewish residents than anywhere on earth next to Israel?

One thing is obvious, the response to the assertions that Obama’s lack of attention toward Israel by the American Zionist lobby, inclusive of fellow democrats like Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, obtained greater value and attention from the president than similar assertions made within the African American community. The American Jewish lobby is greeted with open arms when such idealism is fostered. But when African Americans even suggest the need for similar attention, it is down played based on the premise that ethnic, cultural and racial specific remedies are not needed as much as in time past.

How so one may query? After the New York loss, the White House appointed an "outreach" director to improve relations with the Jewish community. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other Jewish organizations have been getting all of Obama’s attention as of late, including the President giving a speech a few months ago at AIPAC’s annual policy conference. I cannot recall of such an effort and openness extended to the African American community addressing our concerns. He even spoke asking for the freedom of hikers held in Iran but no open word for Troy Davis.

Obama distances himself from affirmative action or programs designed to assist selected racial or minority groups yet seems to jump when certain aspects of his electorates’ cries foul. This even when he avoids any direct confrontation with issues of race that impact African Americans. Yes he uses his political capital openly to confront the needs and fears of Jews regarding Israel. Both, the concern for Israel and the disparate economic hardship of African Americans are long standing issues, but if an African American points out this lack of attention, he is considered selfish and less American but the American Jewish person doing the same is not.

We can speak of disproportionate levels of poverty and unemployment, and the impact that disparities in incarceration promulgate havoc, pain and suffering in our community, yet Obama policy tends to compartmentalize minority unemployment with solving the unemployment issues of all while forgetting that similar approaches in the past only make the rich richer, tend to make our economic conditions worse and supports merely the trickle down economic approach that Bush, Clinton and Reagan implemented and collectively African Americans argued against.

Especially with respect to mass incarceration, where I suspect the president will do little or ever mention this in the overarching discussion of what is best for America, let alone us African Americans who are the only ones stigmatized and gathering more and more decreased opportunity as a consequence of this injustice, socially and economically.

The position of the Obama administration implicates social and racial inequality as issues of an old world while conveniently ignoring that ethnic and cultural and gender specific remedies are necessary at times. He did such with regards to “don’t ask don’t tell” although he changed his belief while he was a senator that gays should be able to get married just as heterosexuals. He did this when he signed his equal pay for women executive order without a flip flop. Now he attends to the concerns specifically for Jewish Americans, while ignoring the specific concerns of African Americans.

Obama ignores racial politics and many of us give him a pass because he looks like us, when democratic progressives of the past attacked them head on. Seems they were more aware of the black and white reality – whites crated the black codes and enslaved us, not the other way around.

Politically, Obama is a throwback. He knows what he needs to win and serve those needs first. After all, many of his positions suggest that he understands he will get our vote regardless if he promotes our issues politically or not, because he knows we will vote for him because he is black (a reflection of our shallow preference for symbolism over substance). This is similar to the beliefs that produced the concept of separate but equal. Unfortunately such reflects a dysfunctional democracy, one that suppresses and disenfranchises some groups at the expense of others.

I know many in the Jewish lobby will call me an anti-Semite (I am not) and that many African Americans will call me a hatter. I call it objective. As Aldous Huxley once wrote, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” I know we give Israel tons of money and have for decades, I just wonder what could be done here in the US with that money, especially in deserving African American communities disproportionately immolated by poverty, incessant high unemployment and unbelievable rates of incarceration.

200,000 settler's

For the record, I actually wrote this the same day I wrote the previous post. And as well many of you know that I frequent the subject’s of Asia (the middle east and Israel) and assorted topics. While running for President, Obama indicated that he would continue to be supportive of Israel in the same manner of prior administrations. Strange this is that the current agreement on the table via the Annapolis accord suggest a two state solution. However, from a historical perspective this implies that he would not attempt to force a two state solution on the Zionist government nor will he be willing to negotiate with presupposed terrorist.

But this aint gonna really work since Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu stated Israel's viewpoint in a satellite broadcast to attendees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC, America's pro-Israeli lobby) annual conference. When Obama addressed the same group before his election, in Chicago last March, Mr. Obama spoke of "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy” and that the US “must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.

From the way I see it, this is contra to a two state solution for such support would only help Israel maintain its military edge over all those in the Gaza area. For the Idea of a two states solution is endorsed by most of the world. Although Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t speak of such and only says that he does not desire to govern the Palestinians. Not to mention in order to do such, it would require for Israel to stop expanding settlements in the West bank/ Gaza regions. But this won’t happen because the number of Jewish settlers on the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is almost 300,000.

In Memphis we got an old saying, scared say ya scared. Its ontological disposition describes actions in the form of being hesitant often always evince uncertainty. The prime Minister don’ and likely won’t talk about ending settlements or a two state solution. This means that He and Obama got to bump heads. And remember, former president George W Bush also wanted two states and the folks we give all them tanks and planes to said ok – but didn’t. So did Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice – but the didn’t. Obama is going to have to have King Kong size testicles if he plans to push this because as they prepare to meet – new settlements are going up now. He needs to tell them what they are "illegal outposts" set up without formal government permission.

So my advice to you Mr. President is not to fall for the okie doke, for we know they will talk all day about Iran, and nuclear weapons, but won’t mention the settlements and a Palestinian state. Truth is to do such would mean that more than 200,000 settlers would have to be removed. Question is does Obama or is Obama willing to carry a big stick and talk loudly? I have my opinion you tell me yours.