AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL NOT AS STRONG

American support not as strong as Israel wears on its lapel.

By

 

                                                                      Joseph Chez

December 5, 2012

If one could percolate all of the conflict in the Middle East, the 9-11 attack on US soil and civil liberties Americans have lost as a result of the fabricated #WarOnTerror , one could see at the bottom of the strainer, the remainder source of the world’s problems, including our own, and that is: our involvement as main arbitrator of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the blind support US gives Israel, and the footprint we have in every repressive regime or kingdom in that part of the world.  The facts notwithstanding, the recent vote at the United Nations favoring the Palestinians cause, truly places the US on the world stage, however, the king now stands naked before the eyes of the world – alone and isolated. So what will happen next to US and Israel?

On November 29, 2012 State Dept Sec. Hillary Clinton officially commented that the UN Vote was “unfortunate and counter-productive.” But just a day after, at a dinner in her honor, she was more sincere; she lambasted Israel for having been “insensitive” to the Palestinian needs – diplomatic language for being “treacherous.”  In the meantime, during the UN vote, it is said that at the Knesset, the Likud and nationalist leaders were somewhat put-off, and were even sarcastic at the UN vote they felt was meaningless.  

Thus, brushing off their shoulders for what had just happened, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with his closest political right wing supporter, Foreign Minister Abigdor Lieberman, announced Israel would began building new settlements outside the E1 area, i.e., building east of Jerusalem, in the area within West Bank proper.  Additionally, the Israeli government immediately issued a public briefing stating it would also be confiscating Palestinian funds from several sources.  These would be some of the several responses the Israeli government would do – and more.  Thus, one can just imagine what Israel was contemplating, after having come out unscathed from a barrage of rickety-rockets from Hamas and with full official support of the European Union and the United States of America, Netanyahu’s regime must have felt untouchable. Moreover, their “Iron dome” was almost impenetrable and this perhaps gave the Israeli government a sense of invincibility.

However, to the surprise of Israel, most of the European nations voted in support of the de facto state of Palestine, with the exception of the Czech Republic.  In fact, they even expected Germany to vote no, but instead, Germany abstained. Nonetheless, despite the overwhelming rebuke, Israel remains unrepentant and unapologetic.

The United States on the other hand, officially remains supportive of Israel’s approach to negotiated peace talks between the two parties.  However, the Obama Administration realizes that both Israel and the US are now lumped together as a team that is isolated from the rest of the diplomatic world.   But, unlike Israel, the US is realistic and recognizes the UN vote was a diplomatic disaster.

For Israel, its modus operandi will remain status quo ante (same as before).  But, is it wise for Israel to continue kicking the can down the road – as Likud party leaders refer to, of their policy of peace talks with the Palestinians?  Can their overconfident attitude and robust US endless supply of weaponry guarantee Israel’s peace and security? The answer is NO – as a great number of nations were so deliberate in their UN vote. Moreover, the dynamics in the area have changed and they do not favor Israel.  Also, keep in mind that Netanyahu’s hope for US president, Mitt Romney, lost – and Republicans, the staunch religious political support for Israel, also lost.  And of greatest concern to Israel, is that 70% of American Jews voted for President Obama and not for the Republican candidate who made Israel’s support the hallmark of his campaign.

So, what these facts in American politics say is that support for Israel may not be as prominent and solid as Israel wears on its lapel.  In fact, the American people may well be fickle, but, they can also be just as pragmatic. Thus, support for Israel can officially change if Israel were to remain obstinate.  Already, criticism of Israel is coming out of previously whispering conversations – the taboo no longer a social constraint.  

Therefore, the most obvious and reasonable  course of action for Israel is to stop the intransigency and undergo UN supervision of peace talks, with the end goal, of adhering to existing UN resolutions  which call for Israel to retreat back to 1967 borders.  Additionally, the US must step back and allow the UN to take the lead in peace negotiations, but it should also not stand in the way in any UN Security Council resolution favoring a Palestinian state, or condemning Israel if the case may arise. For as long as Israel understands that the US can or will use its veto power at the Security Council, Israel will have no incentive to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians or adhere to international law requirements.

Already, several European nations such as France and England, are recalling their ambassadors in Israel for consultations. In diplomatic gesture, it is a slap in the face for Israel, but also for its benefactor, the US.  Many other nations may also follow suit.  In sum, what we do will determine who we are and what we stand for.  Thus, in the face of international scorn we must not stand with the status quo.

 

United Nations approves Palestinian bid, a step before statehood

 

United Nations approves Palestinian request despite deliberate US/Israeli obstruction.

By

Joseph Chez

 

November 29, 2012

It is inconceivable that the role-model of democracy in today’s modern world, the United States of America, has systematically stood in the way of Palestinians creating their own recognized state under the United Nations Charter. Since 1948, when Israel declared itself a nation, the U.S. was first to give recognition to the Jewish state, followed by the Anglo mother-country, the United Kingdom, whose Parliamentary Balfour Declaration became the blueprint for a Jewish homeland,
but also made
it possible for the roots of today’s Palestinian/Israel world issue.

At the behest of the United Kingdom which then had control of much of Arabia, on November 29, 1947 the United Nations passed a resolution partitioning Palestine in what was envisioned to become two states living side by side: one; the state of Palestine; and two, a homeland for a Jewish state.  However, Arabs/Palestinians who lived in what was then known as Palestine in Trans-Jordan, were given no voice to object to Palestine being partitioned and a major portion of their land, be given to Jews – primarily emigrating from Europe. Thus began the conflict in which Palestinians began to fight the British and Jews, who they saw as occupiers.  However, the fractured nature of Arab clans and coupled with facing a heavy hand of a foreign army, Arab/Palestinians could not successfully fight the well-armed British and/or the zeal of Zionist emboldened to establish a Jewish state.  

 

On May 15, 1948, as the  British Mandate was about to end, Jewish settlers declared their independence from British rule and by de facto became a recognized nation, primarily by the say so of England  and its sibling, the United States of America.  Palestinians still living within the new Jewish state, fearing for their lives, fled the area. Thousands more who chose to remain were either killed by Jewish settlers or were forcibly expelled from their own homes and  property - becoming refugees in the thousands - in neighboring Arab lands.

 

However, it must be noted, that as a consequence of the British Balfour Declaration and subsequent UK sponsored United Nation’s partition resolution, Arab objection and conflict against a perceived intrusion of a Jewish state, has continued to this date.  Regrettably, even though the 1947 UN Partition Resolution was to create two states, only Israel has since acquired “state” status while the apportioned Palestinian lands became occupied by Israel. 

 

To this date, Palestinians living in what is quasi recognized Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, have lived under occupation and in virtual life in prison. And yet, much to the displeasure of the community of nations, against the subjugation of Palestinians by the Jewish state, numerous UN resolutions have been passed requiring Israel to abide by International Law and to end the occupation – but to no avail. Israel has thumbed its nose at the numerous UN resolutions and has kept a tight grip on the freedoms of Palestinians. This situation of course could not have happened if it were not for Israel’s mighty American benefactor, whose veto power at the UN Security Council has systematically killed any chance of dispute against Israel.  Accordingly, since Palestine has never acquired state status, Palestinians have had no standing before the jurisdiction of the United Nations. In fact, it has been the diplomatic strategy of England, the United States of America and Israel, to keep Palestinians from acquiring any form of recognition from the United Nations. This is because if Palestine has no state status, it can not bring its grievances before the world body. Thus, Palestine as a stateless occupied land - will remain in limbo.

 

Increasingly however, nations of the world have begun to recognize the malevolent actions of the state of Israel, despite the relentless and successful campaign by the United States, England and Israel to discredit Palestinian grievances or, label any angry Palestinian reactions, as those of terrorist. So I am reminded of a recent CNN interview of an Israeli government functionary who was attempting to explain the terrorist acts of Hamas in Gaza, as a mutual threat to the freedoms of Israelis and Americans… For which the CNN reporter asked of the Israeli: “so what would you do, if you were under occupation?”

 

A greater question is what’s in it for the U.S. in giving cover for the misgivings and lawlessness of the state of Israel? Why stand in the way of Palestinians achieving statehood? The answer is simple but still, enigmatic. There are three ways in which to approach this question; religiously, politically or of economics:

 

As absurd as it is stupid, the US describes itself as a Judeo-Christian nation and thus, bound by such dogma, Christians have evangelized US foreign policy.  Yes, the Christian ethos is so strong in current politics that government cannot ignore the biblical damnation if it does not come to the aid of Israel. In fact, many American believers now describe themselves as Christian Zionists, committed to the security of Israel. (The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah …All who lift it will surely hurt themselves… Zechariah 12:1-14)

 

Politically, American Christians have become a feared block of voters which pick and choose politicians. The once comical “Jesus freaks” or “moral majority” are no longer the laughing block but instead, have permeated into every corner of public life. It is no wonder thus, that expressing allegiance to Christian values is the American litmus test. To this end, Christians demand a forceful presence in Congress, but also preach politicians for an unquestionable mighty arm force, for the greatness of the country and for the defense of Israel.  Additionally, Jewish Americans also have a dynamic influence in American politics.  So strong is their reach, that Congress dares not cross certain boundaries when it concerns Israel. AIPAC you may say - gives politicians life or oblivion.  In addition, Israel has played the religious angle to its favor.  We now know that AIPAC/Israel recruited GW Bush for president and delivered – if he were to only take out Saddam Hussein, a mortal enemy and imminent threat to Israel. More currently, AIPAC/Israel also lobbied for would be US President, Mitt Romney, if he were to also, attack Iran.  Interestingly, Mitt’s Mormonism had him rooted in biblical ties with Israel. So what happened with Barack Obama winning the presidency? He vowed to the same litany of, in defense of Israel.

 

Economically, the U.S. consumes one third of the world’s hydrocarbons even though it has one sixth the world’s population. Conveniently, the Middle East is awash in petroleum, thus giving the US a need for controlling interest of the oil spigot in the region. Presently, Saudi Arabia is considered the number one oil producing nation, and of course, the mighty one and only extracting oil company in Saudi Arabia is ARAMCO (ArabAmericanCompany).  However, through out the region there are also many other nations rich in oil in which the US has a footprint. Regrettably, many of the Middle Eastern nations have royal families or worse, dictatorial regimes which keep much of the oil profits but keep their population in check. To this end, the U.S. is in a tight spot and reverts to propping up those repressive regimes in order to keep the oil flowing – to the US. Needless to say, the region is imminently important to the economic well being of the nation.  But why watch Israel’s back? Geo-politically, Israel is positioned strategically in the region for the US to intervene in the event of oil disruption from competitor nations or would be aggressors.  Moreover, the US has the most influential industrial military complex, framed in such a way that it becomes a revolving door for massive weapons systems to be sold to the Pentagon, retiring generals becoming CEOs of military/aero space companies, generals becoming lobbyist in Congress, Congress buying more weapons systems, the Pentagon unnecessarily decommissioning weapons systems and then transferring those systems to Israel, and thus, resulting in Israel pressuring Congress for more military hardware aid.  Congress therefore, feels the heat from AIPAC/Israel and approves more weapons systems ordered by the US military complex. One might then ask, if the US Congress and the American military complex truly have the security interest of the country in mind, or if it is plain dollars and nonsense – in defense of Israel?  

 

Regardless, the US feels compelled to embrace the social, political, religious and military ties that bind the US with Israel. Israel on the other hand, fully understands this American weakness and exploits the American tightly-wound religious/political undergarment and does not miss the opportunity to squeeze the Americans where it hurts, at their option and at the appropriate time. 

 

Consequently, as the world becomes impatient with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, sectors within the community of nations want the United Nations to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli issue, although governments are keenly aware that the United States and England have a disproportionate influence in world affairs and within the UN, for which resolution after resolution against the occupying state of Israel, goes down to defeat.  Moreover, the United States of America has forcefully assumed the role of arbitrator concerning the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  The Europeans on the other hand, have followed in such endeavor, but have demurred to the process as set by the United States and England.  Thus the question rises; why would Israel’s benefactor lead the discussion in arbitration in this critical matter and isn’t there a conflict of interest?

 

To avoid the conflict of interest perception, The United States and Israel have done the obvious, i.e. to propose a series of peace talks between the parties in order to achieve the goal of a two state solution – in theory. Accordingly, the US has sponsored a number of prominent peace talks in which the two parties are urged to resolve the issues and ultimately come up with a suitable and mutually peaceful two-state arrangement.  The folly of such conceptual trap however, is that Israel’s vision is to keep the land they have occupied, as they assert, that it is the promised land given by God to the Jews.  And by God, they aim to keep it that way.  Thus, the Camp David Accord of 1978, the Madrid Talks in 1991, the Oslo Accord in 1993, The Taba Agreement 1n 1995, the Wye River Memorandum in 1998, Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of 1999, the Camp David Summit in 2000, and the most recent in 2003 being the Quartet of the UN, US, EU and Russia - promoting the Road Map for Peace talks – have all been framed to give the illusion of progress, although requiring the Palestinians to meet certain unattainable goals before Israel would agree to give up any occupied territory. Thus it was foreseeable that each and every agreement has failed as it was designed to do so.  Furthermore, the United States has consistently argued that it is not for the United Nations to resolve the issue but that the two parties must mutually agree to a resolution – which is the same recipe for failure.

In as much as the world has caught on to the Israeli/US deception, Palestinians have realized that peace negotiations with Israel is but a hoax and therefore, have decided to go the route of United Nations recognizing Palestine as a state.  However, the US and Israel continue to argue that the only way for a two state resolution, is not through the UN but to go back to the peace table and both parties reach agreement.  But, since the Palestinian Authority sees no viable peace alternative with Israel, on this date of November 29, 2012, Palestinians will have made their bid for elevated status before the United Nations General Assembly.  At the same time, Israel’s government has threatened to annex Samaria and Judea if Mahmoud Abbas makes the bid before the UN. Worse, the current Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman has also threatened to do away with any and all Palestinian government officials, as it has been the unofficial Israeli government policy to assassinate Palestinian leaders.

 Today, history is at a crossroads, but even in the last minutes of the Palestinian presentation before the United Nations, the United States, at the behest of Israel, continued to discourage Palestinians from having the United Nations intercede in the process of Palestine gaining recognition as a future state.

 Thus, this date of November 29, 2012, the United Nations with an overwhelming majority of 138 nations voting in favor of Palestinians, to 9 abstaining or against, voted to grant Palestine elevated status, a closer step before acquiring full nation status. And yet, the question remains why the United States of America, the role model it portrays to be, has chosen to side on the wrong side of history?

 

LIBYA’S KADAFI FLY ZONE COMING TO AN END, OR SHOULD IT?

By

Joseph Chez

(3-22-11)

Our national moral values are currently being questioned:
For weeks freedom fighters in Libya have asked for help from the West, but more so, from the United States. And yet, the specter of granting democracy to those who for a lifetime have not experienced it, is overwhelming to conceive – so goes the discussion on American television, the West Wing of the White House, and in the halls of Congress. In fact, the reluctance for interference in the Arab civilian uprising is simply just, an abundance of diplomatic caution. The caveat of course, is that while it would be to the benefit of our nation to get rid of Kaddafi, in like circumstances, we would also have to give support to the social uprising in Bahrain or in Saudi Arabia – which of course, it would then be to our economic detriment and perhaps more pressure on Israel to truly make peace.

However, to no one’s surprise, the stink of oppressive regimes in the Middle East has been tolerated by western powers, if not whole-heartedly sustained by them. Furthermore, it should be noted that the world today, bears witness to historic events sweeping the Arab world. More specific, we’re seeing the Arab world waking up from a long standing stupor and subjugation from oppressive dictatorial control and or, desert kingdom’s paternal abuse. But, to the surprise of the West, Arab grass root awareness and desire, has inflamed the yearning for representative democracy. Thus, the entire Middle East is aflame with great expectations for freedom. So what is the West to do now?

For decades, the West has used its military and economic stronghold through out the Middle East under the pretext of spreading democracy, but how unlikely, the multitude of people in the Middle East have always known what is hypocrisy and what is convenient to the West. “Enough is enough, the dictators have got to go” has been the cry in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Iran, but not limited to, and now Libya.

Reluctantly, Western powers such as the UK, France, and the U.S. have been a little bit late in getting their feet wet in these grass-root uprisings. What? Oppose the local governance which supplies our oil? Go against those who keep the Israeli-Palestinian issue from public scorn? Or, better yet, jeopardize Arab monies from stuffing our national treasury, our banks, or our wallets?

Therefore, finding ourselves in a geo-political quandary, the political discussion in the U.S. has been a concoction of disarray and frankly, totally unexpected political posturing. On the one hand, democrats known for opposing war and intervention are divided on whether to help the Libyan anti-government forces. In fact, there has even been a call by a democratic congressman to suggest impeachment of the President. And on the other side of the political isle, the neo-con republicans are strongly criticizing the president for not having been more forceful on this issue and they would like a robust military response. Perhaps they would like to see another “shock and Awe” scenario in Libya or just may be, they see an opportunity to turn on a few Middle Eastern regimes of which are not friendly with the US or Israel.

Thus, considering the political mine fields present, president Obama has opted for a “modest contribution” and waited until the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution (Resolution 1973) which allowed for the intervention in Libya in order to protect civilians. As a consequence, the very next day, the French and the UK jumped in and began to impose a “NO fly zone” against Kaddafi’s beleaguered, but blood thirsty nonetheless, arm forces. The U.S. however, was in fact involved thereafter or during the initial phase, but its kinetics has been played down. But, as a result of our half-witted response, even one of our F-15 fighter jets went down due to mechanical or just plain battle fatigue.

However, despite our conflicting interest in the Middle East, the question should not be whether we should or should not intervene in Libya. What our country is facing this moment in history is a moral imperative; whether a tyrannical and madman dictator, Moammar Kaddafi, should be allowed to kill civilians in mass, simply to remain in power? The answer is simple; if our nation stands for freedom and adheres to its own principles, we must not dither when it concerns human rights, and democracy. To do otherwise, is to cave in to immoral diplomatic turpitude and hypocritical self- national-interest. So yes, get the fly-zone of gad-fly Kaddafi out of the lives of the Libyan people. The aforementioned notwithstanding, the moral imperative goes further; in like circumstances, we must apply our principles the same – including with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, but not limited to – Israel.

MUBARAK, THE EGYTIAN STORM IS UPON YOU!

By


Joseph Chez

In the spirit of the Egyptian storm God, Seth, the Egyptian people will gouge the eye of the 30 year reign of “dictator” Hosni (Horus) Mubarak. However, the world should know that democracy is not the sole understanding or privilege for western societies. The fact that primarily, the United States of America, England, and other European powers as well as other Middle East regional fiefdoms, have given official recognition, tacit approval of Mubarak’s authoritarian 30 year rule, or provided direct military support for this tyrant, it is clear that the people of Egypt have decided that enough is enough. The thunderous voice of the Egyptians today echoes the cries of Tunisians, Libyans, Syrians, Jordanians, Yemeni, Kuwaiti, Saudi, et al. Yes, the cry for freedom and democracy, just like a desert storm is thundering and blowing winds of change.

Furthermore, Egyptians as well as other peoples of the Middle East decry the West’s position that stability of the region or peace for Israel rest upon the need for oppressive Arab regimes to exist and prosper - in spite of the tight reign on the people. Accordingly, the civil discontent of Egyptians, as well as from other Arab peoples now question the hypocrisy of the West’s explanation that democracy is a process rather than a fair and representative ballot choice of the masses. But wait, Western powers have been eerily quiet so far into the storm for freedom. Instead, those knee-deep in mea culpa can only give benign diplomatic language; they do not directly ask for Mubarak to step down but merely affirm the close and friendly ties with the Mubarak regime. President Obama on the other hand, squeamishly began with a simple demand for freedom to Tweet for the Egyptian people. But just today, Feb 1, 2011, President Obama was more demanding and asked for a smooth transition of government and affirmed the universal rights for democracy and freedom for the Egyptian people. And yet, he could not utter a more direct position in behalf of the U.S., asking for this dictator to step down. This may be why Mubarak has taken a stern position of not resigning until the end of his term ending in September 2011. Thus, Obama’s careful calculated diplomatic mush must therefore be for fear of Mubarak Wiki-liking that Egypt was the destination for U.S. victims of rendition and torture, or that Egypt and Jordan were staging areas for western forces to invade other Arab nations.

What is not a secret to the world is the fact that the U.S. has annually given the Mubarak regime 1.5 billion of U.S. dollars in the form of credit so this tyrant could purchase US and British made security armament. But it should be noted that such armament was certainly not for defense against any out side potential enemy, but rather, for internal civilian control. In addition, much of that foreign aid for security has also filled the pockets full of dollars for all of Mubarak’s internal security cronies. The other 200 plus millions in US aid earmarked for the benefit of civilians, actually never trickled down to the Egyptian on the street. Instead, those millions indeed helped for lavish living abroad for Mubarak’s family and friends, as well as maximizing the bank accounts in Swiss banks of those Egyptians close to the dictator.

Currently, a stand-off continues and Mubarak is not blinking, as Western nations are being a bit squeamish at what type of government may result in the end. Their fear is that a theocratic government replacing the Mubarak regime may in fact pose a great danger to the safety of Israel, the model of democracy for that region – as the West believes. However, it must be noted that Israel is very much a democracy, but immensely religious. And further, while the US, being Israel’s grandest benefactor and personal safety guarantor, pursuit of religion by Arabs is deemed by the West as connected with terrorism. Is this a double standard?

So, into the storm and the Egyptian people thundering their demands, what do they really want? For starters, they want democratic principles in their daily lives as well as economic reform that benefits the people. They want the freedom to choose their leaders, whom ever they may be. They want a popular elected leader – not a dictator, king or pharaoh. And certainly, they do not want the West to dictate whether a fair and popular election is agreeable with the White House, 10 Downing St, or Tel Aviv. Conveniently, the Mubarak regime has been a willing lackey for Western powers for the last 30 years and as a consequence, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have not moved and inch. The road to peace is designed that way, with approving Arab leaders no doubt. However, the nature of things favors what is only right; history is on the side of the Egyptian people as well as for other Arab nations willing to challenge the status quo.

So, President Barack Obama, it is time to take as stand and be on the right side of history. The Egyptian people are questioning our resolve to stand up for democratic principles – and demand that we mean what we say. You must therefore be clear on the issue, and ask for this dictator to step down.

As for you Hosni Mubarak, it is time for you to leave Egypt. You have dishonored the consent of the Egyptian people and you have betrayed the trust of the nation. If you choose to stand your ground and carry out more injustice upon the Egyptian people, know that the storm is upon you and you will be judged.

IRAQ: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED OR MISSION DENIAL.

By


Joseph Chez

August 31, 2010

This day marks the official end of U.S. combat involvement in Iraq, but is it over – and, was it necessary?

President Obama will go before the nation on national TV today and attempt to summarize the beginning and the end of war hostilities in Iraq. However, he will walk a fine line in not taking credit for a perceived success, but he will also not excuse the nation for a historic blunder in having invaded a sovereign nation under the guise of national security when in fact, such nation had nothing to do with the attack on U.S. soil on 9-11.

However, Republicans on the political right are openly taking credit for the war with Iraq and further reinvigorate their previous claims of Iraq having posed a direct and imminent threat against our national security. And yet, history has noted the blunder of such war against Iraq, a war which was premeditated and justified with distorted facts and dishonorable acts. Today, neo-cons will call it a “conservative victory” in Iraq, despite the dishonest reasons for the war.

So yes, the Republicans should be allowed to take credit for the blundering international piracy and discredit to our nation. They should take credit for the 4, 220 US soldiers killed in the war, plus, the 31,911 soldiers injured.

On the other hand, President Obama has done little to change the course of hostilities in the Middle East and in fact, continued what President Bush started. So, can he take credit in this drawdown of forces in Iraq, or should he also be an accomplice to the deceit of the war. I therefore argue that despite the drawdown President Obama must also take blame for taking the baton from former President Bush and having pursued the same failed policy, in like-manner and with the same fervor.

And yet, today President Obama will carefully muddle through, in explaining that U.S. involvement in Iraq is coming to a close. But, is it? No it is not. Fifty Thousand US troops will still remain in Iraq under the guise of being non-combat forces. Furthermore, we leave behind a behemoth US presence in that country, from private security forces, to the biggest US embassy ever built anywhere in the world. We also leave a government which is simply not Iraqi home-grown, but is a carefully planted cadre of Iraqi officials who were carefully seeded by the U.S. Government.

Thus, what may be perceived as an end of US involvement in Iraq, it is not! While neo-cons in this country see a victory, is it not. How can anybody make a claim that while we invaded the wrong country, oops, we continued until we vanquished? And after 7 years of war, casualties in Iraq continue with no end in sight. It seem to me that we are making it look like a win, when in reality, we are leaving Iraq quietly and without fanfare – because, it was a big blunder from the beginning and, we leave a country in disarray and ripe for political and sectarian conflict. Regrettably, we also leave a country whith a military that was trained by the US, but sadly, will in the future; pose a bigger security problem regionally and against US security interest.

The truth Mr. President…………

STATUS QUO ANTE PREVAILING IN US FOREIGN POLICY. DID SOMEONE FORGET TO PUSH THE RESET BUTTON?

By
Joseph Chez

The attempted terrorist attack on Xmas day is of course regrettable and troubling. However, we should be asking ourselves why such animus towards the United States of America continues? Did we not get another leader that promised change and the resetting of American foreign policy? Today, the hostilities in the Middle East continue and we are in constant panic at home because of attempted terror attacks on the country. I therefore argue, that having voted for change, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Perhaps, the reset button has yet to be pushed?

“We will not rest until we find all who were involved and are held accountable” is what President Obama said in a response to Al Qaeda’s claim for the Xmas day attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. bound passenger plane. Interestingly, the President’s warning to the terrorist was given with much bravado and unyielding determination. In fact, it was reminiscent of the same bravado given by former President George W. Bush as he addressed a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001- in which he unequivocally gave a stern warning to the 9-11 culprits and gave his “justice will be done” speech. So what’s wrong with this picture? Certainly, it is not what we say in repudiating the terrorist acts or warning the enemy for what it may do in the future, but simply, the bravado in our responses which is simply chest beating – which does nothing to resolve the core issues between our national security and the terrorist’s grievances. Thus, responding in a cowboy-swaggering behavior does little to inflict fear on the enemy and in the end, does not provide significant security for the country. Further, such assurance of finding “all involved” and holding them accountable is rather a tall order to fulfill, given that in the last nine years, the prime suspect and mastermind of the 9-11 attack, Osama bin Laden, has yet to be found. Further, the ones currently held in detention, the majority have been released (or about to be released) due to unfounded ties to terrorism. We therefore must ask, is the military option the answer to our national security, or, is it the cause of our problem?

Further, why carry on with the same unilateralism and preemptive militaristic mentality - which prevailed during the Bush Administration? Was it really necessary to start a clandestine war in Pakistan which now is in full bloom? Was it necessary to preemptively make strikes in Yemen this last week – which of course set a course of events in motion on Xmas Day – as claimed by Al Qaeda? Will Somalia be next? And how many generations will the war on terror continue into the future?

On November 4, 2008, the majority of the Americans people, who had concluded that the Bush policies on the war on terror were ill-fated and counter-productive, decisively and prudently chose a new national leader in hopes of changing the course of the country. President Obama was thus elected, as he had promised a new beginning in terms of foreign policy, inter alia. However, many now question why President Obama’s promises have fallen short and change has been mistranslated to mean, more of the same, as during the Bush Administration.

We should not forget that during the eight years of the Bush Administration, the model for the war on terror became of global reach and its doctrine was one which promulgated a practice of unilateralism and preemption - against any and all which we deemed a potential enemy. President Obama on the other hand, began with extending a hand to the world, especially the Muslim world, and promised better relations. And yet, the aggressive military campaign that prevailed during the Bush Administration continues - unabated. Moreover, President Obama appears to have taken the baton from Bush and expanded the global U.S. military reach and has created a whole new war theater, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. This last week (Dec. 17) the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes against what was believed to be Al Qaeda training camps, in Yemen. But then again, just across the Gulf of Aden, is Somalia – another Al Qaeda stronghold. And last but not least, the young terrorist that attempted to blow up the Northwest Airline, Flight 252 on Dec. 25th, originated from Nigeria –another of many radicalized Muslim African regions. So where do we stop?

We therefore must conclude that our nation’s state of affairs under President Obama’s Administration is status quo ante, same as before. And as he stated today, that “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat extremist who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan, or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. Homeland.” Thus, we must presume that the war on terror will continue, using Bush’s terminology - way into the event-horizon.

But hold on Mr. President, did you not mean to push the reset button, thus changing the course of events and pave the way for peace? Or, did you mean to reinvent yourself while in office and deceive those who placed so much hope in you to become president? With all due respect Mr. President, you are taking us further into a path of self destruction. Yes, we can stop. Yes, we should take a big breath and reflect. Let’s take this opportunity to stop all hostilities and you will find that the kinetics of war will stand down. Further military responses will only cause an untold number of attacks on the country and perhaps around the world. The alternative may be that we continue to live under further fear of terrorist attacks as well as live under the heavy hand of domestic security. What more are we to expect; more personal intrusion, cavity searches for everyone, at every public gathering, and are we to also embrace even more erosion in our civil liberties? No Mr. President, I did not vote for that.

Already, the political right in the country is publicly calling for no further political correctness, which is code for – just tell it like it is- and perhaps call for the internment of anyone who does not look Anglo-Saxon. There is historical precedence for this you know. Even more frightening, is the neo-cons who are calling for the expansion of the war on terror – to reach Yemen, Somalia, Iran, N. Korea and beyond. Thus, are we prepared for what may result from failure to reset? Mr. President, I distinctly remember not voting for the status quo. I voted for Change.

THE WORLD MOONSTRUCK - GIVES NOBEL PEACE PRIZE - BUT GREAT EXPECTATIONS REMAIN

THE WORLD, MOONSTRUCK – GIVES NOBEL PEACE PRIZE – BUT GREAT EXPECTATIONS REMAIN

By
Joseph Chez

Today, October 9, 2009, the world woke up surprised to hear that President Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, had been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. In a day of historical markers, scientist struck the moon in hopes of finding a substance that would give hopes for human exploration of the heavens, but their findings are yet to be examined for desirable findings. Likewise, the world is yet not all convinced that President Obama merits the coveted international Nobel Peace Prize Award.

In response to his Nobel Peace Prize selection, President Obama stated his appreciation but said, “I am both surprised and deeply humbled … I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather, as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations.” And he went on to say that he honestly did not believe he deserved to be in the company of predecessors receiving such award. He thus accepted the award as a call to action to change the status quo, but regrettably, he also stated that the United States needed to confront a ruthless adversary who threatened the United States and our allies.

World reaction was quick and skeptical. The Moslem world has reacted with criticism of the continued US confrontation in their part of the world. Europeans, who also joined us in celebration of his inauguration as President, have also shown displeasure at President Obama’s seemingly about face in not immediately bringing peace. In the US, his critics across the political isle laughed and ridiculed this event. But that is to be expected, as lately, his political adversaries have mocked all his efforts to help the economy, provide health care for all Americans, or bring the two wars in the Middle East to a desirable conclusion.

I, a staunch supporter and activist of the once presidential candidate, also feel uneasy about this award. I concur with the President’s assertion that he does not deserve to be in the same category of Nobel Peace Prize recipients - at least not yet. For although I truly believe that citizen Barack Obama is a peaceful person and one who has great aspirations for peace, as President now, he has caved in to politics and not followed principle.

It is true that the state of affairs in our country and US foreign policy abroad is a daunting task. Changing minds and entrenched US Government policy can not be changed over night. However, it appears to me, as well as to millions in this country and around the world, that our President is compromising his core principles for the sake of pragmatic politics. In fact, President Obama was overwhelmingly elected with a mandate to end the war, in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. And yet, there is continued talk of continuing the war until an eventual victory. In his meeting today with his national security advisors and with pentagon commanders, plans are being drawn for troop increases.
So just like the skeptical world, I would like for President Obama to assert his leadership as Commander in Chief and decide for himself, that what is best for the country and for the world, is for an immediate cessation of the war. Trying to appease the political opposition is simply counter productive and a betrayal of one’s convictions.

Yes Mr. President, we can close Guantanamo with a simple presidential edict; we can call an end to our retribution against our 9-11 enemies; yes, we can force Israel to accept an independent Palestinian State; and through diplomatic means, we can even persuade Iran and North Korea to give up pursuit of nuclear weapons. So Mr. President, peace has to be earned – but not through compromising efforts for peace or continuing your predecessor ways. Quoting an unlikely character, Richard M. Nixon, at his inaugural address, he stated: “The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker.”
“This honor now beckons America…” Thus, the nation and the world wait for your affirmation and deeds for peace. We congratulate you nonetheless, but we reserve our great expectations.

IRAN, AT THE MERCY OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION FOR FREEDOM

IRAN, AT THE MERCY OF
SOCIAL REVOLUTION FOR FREEDOM

By Joseph Chez

Freedom is a natural course in human events……….

Since 1979 the West has crudely and unjustifiably reviled the people of Iran as nothing more than an Islamic nation with militia types – a nation not too friendly towards the West. In fact, Iran has been so reviled, that it has been considered a pariah, if not a thorn on the side of Israel and the United States of America. The former Bush Administration so deemed and labeled the country, as one of the “axis of evil” nations of the world. Iran has further been singled out by the Anglo-American and Israeli forefront for the last two or three decades and consequently, has suffered stringent economic, social and political sanctions. The reasons for sanctions were perhaps deemed justified at one point, as the Anglo-American petroleum interests were cut off from that country. But whether justified or not, the people of Iran have been viewed by the West as being antagonistic towards democratic ideals – western style that is. Surprisingly, today, the western world is stunned by human events in this Islamic nation and is baffling the experts and its critics.

In 1979, when the Iranian people toppled Mohammad Reza, the “Shah of Iran”, a self-proclaimed king and favorable to British and American interests, the Iranian people spoke loudly and deliberately, but in an ironic twist of history, two of its 1979 revolution Islamic young students are now rivals in a quest to lead the Iranian Islamic Republic. On the ballot were two prime candidates for the presidency; one, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; the other, the rival reformist, Mir-Houssein Mousavi. This time however, the Iranian people, tired of a despot leader and a closed society, the Iranian people went to the polls en masse this last Sunday (June 13, 2009) and voted for fundamental change. Regrettably, the next day, their hopes and aspirations for change were dashed as the incumbent president was declared the winner in an election that was seen by the Iranian people as rigged.

The mass demonstrations and civil unrest by the Iranian people shows us that no nation has a monopoly or “the” cornerstone for democratic values, but rather, it is the nature of the power of the human spirit and the aspiration for freedom which brings about change. Therefore, the Iranian people have taken to the streets with demands for a fair election and not a pre-selection. The masses of discontented Iranians have therefore taken the Iranian clerics by surprised, but more so, the West is incredulous, confused, but supportive. This time, the unexpected uprising of common folk Iranians was not spurred by U.S. military special-opps, the CIA, UK’s MI6, or the Israeli Mossad. Instead, the Iranian people did not take a cue from Western ideals for democracy, but were driven by the only recourse in human events; when tyranny rules, there is a natural desire for freedom. Therefore, the Iranian people should know that they have the support of every family of nations in your quest for justice, transparency, freedom of expression, and rule of government by the consent of your people. It is your fight, you way, it is your destiny.

President Obama, you sir, also deserve much respect for your practical restraint on the outcome of the contested election, unlike the neo-cons in this country, which are currently salivating for an opportunity to take advantage of the critical situation in Iran. One can only imagine if George Bush and Chaney were at the helm of our government- presumably, in defense of our national security and that of Israel, this would be the right time in which to unleash our democratic values. Notwithstanding, the West should not confuse the Iranian social revolution as total support for your unfair foreign policy in the Middle East or sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran, for such western counter productive foreign policies only hurt those who yearn for freedom.

Intervention from the outside only seeds the next struggle for freedom.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE

.....Whereas the United States of America believes in equality and justice for all of mankind, the people of the United States of America declares its support and recognition for the independent State of Palestine effective June 1, 2009.

Mankind remains hopeful. However, the Prime Minister of Israel will soon meet and greet President Barack Obama in Washington D.C. We know of course that the main topic of conversation will focus on the world's point of origin for its primary geo-political problem; the Israeli continued occupation of Palestinian territory and world efforts to bring about a two-state solution. Yet, once again the new Israeli leader comes to Washington to get its credentials legitimized and receive a nod and a wink of the eye. But, will President Obama follow the failed pattern of a failed foreign policy for the Middle East? Of course, President Barack Obama has publicly indicated that he hopes and supports for a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. On the other hand, the new Israeli leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for "strong measures" and containment of the Palestinian people. Conveniently however, he has also avoided supporting a two-state solution.

Since 1967, Israel has occupied land, in clear and defiant posture to the United Nation Security Council's Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw to pre-5 June 1967 lines. Still, each and every Israeli government, with the aid and abetting of the United States, has made little effort to abide by the UN Resolution. Instead, the process has been set up to deceive the world, by mock-trials placed on the Palestinians to see if they will meet certain criteria - before concrete peace talks could began. The requirements placed on previous agreements, were so insurmountable, they were conceived and designed to make any and all efforts for peace doomed for failure. In other words, the road to peace has had the look and feel of a mirage. Consequently, nothing changes in respect to resolving the issue of occupied lands or abiding by international law or UN mandates.

This time, Benjamin Netanyahu, on his subsequent second post as prime minister for Israel, again leads a far-right Israeli government. His agenda is a no-holds- bar against the Palestinians; "harsh measures and containment" he has said. Should we surprised? After all, it has been Israel's policy to only withdraw to pre 1967 lines, if and when the State of Israel felt safe and its boundaries were secured. Thus, under such pretext, Israel's only concern has been to retain and annex much of the territories it now occupies since June 1967.

Clearly, President Barack Obama without equivocation, must invoke its own posture for a two-state solution and not be drawn into a deceptive peace process as did his predecessors. Of much concern, is PM Netanyahu's support from the extreme right in Israel. His foreign minister , Avigdor Lieberman has made no secret of wanting to ethnically cleanse Israel and occupied lands of all Arabs. This should send chills to every decent American. Thus, continued complicity with Israeli deception can only be counter productive to the safety and stability of the entire world.

Notwithstanding, many sectors of opinion believe that the issue of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is unsolvable and thus, peace unattainable. Driving this premise is of course, far-right religious groups in the United States and in Israel. But, is a two-state solution difficult, or peace attainable? The answer is relative to the willingness to truly wanting peace and a Palestinian state along side the Israeli state. In my view, peace can only be accomplished when an independent Palestinian state is established. There should be no pre-conditions set by Israel or the United States, and UN Resolution 242 must be enforced. Jerusalem can be divided in to two sectors and either or both parties can choose to make their portion - their capital. A major concession by by Israel could be that it accepts the Arabs not accepting Israel as a state- as it would matter little since the world body, the UN, would give its full recognition. On the Arab side, Palestinians could concede to a "no right of return" for former Palestinians who previously owned land and were illegally driven out by Israeli authorities -and became refugees. Of course, there should be a just compensation for these Palestinians who lost their legal property.

Further, it is ironic that in the United States, its people democratically toppled the far-right Bush government, but only to have a far-right government elected in Israel. Consequently, President Obama and its Israeli counterpart now find themselves diametrically positioned - at opposite ends of the issue. So what President Obama must do? He must remain resolute on his judicious views and convictions - but also realize that PM Netanyahu is willing and able to continue the deception for peace. And yet, there is hope. For in the State of Israel, there are still voices of reason, sensibility and peace seekers. Yesterday, Shimon Peres, a former prime minster of Israel, went before AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group in the U.S. which lobbies in behalf of the State of Israel) and touching on the issue of peace, he said it best, "I only have one question, WHY NOT NOW"?

In 1948, when the Jewish state declared its independence, the United States of America was the first to recognize Israel's sovereignty and thus - the State of Israel was born. Today, 60 years later, the insurmountable Israeli/Palestinian problem can and should be resolved. In fact, putting aside deception and religious obstacles, the United States of America can just as easily put an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by simply, not just giving support to the peace process, but by officially proclaiming recognition for the sovereignty and independent State of Palestine - and peace will follow. Yes we can.

Joseph Chez

ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST MR. PRESIDENT?

Last night, President Obama held his first national news conference and he was very eloquent and confident. However, despite a prevailing spirit of change in this new administration, he failed to answer the question posed by the "first lady of the press", White House correspondent, Helen Thomas. She asked, Mr. President, "do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?" Of course, it's been the policy of the United States government not to confirm or deny any fact of existing nuclear weapons dead center in the Middle East. Consequently, President Obama skirted Helen's question and stated that "he did not want to speculate". So he said, " what I know is this, if we see a nuclear arm's race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, every one will be in danger...". But Mr. President, we do understand the sensitivity of the issue and the nuance of diplomacy. What we do not understand, is that your omission of the facts or not answering the questions about existing nuclear weapons in the Middle East does nothing to change the status quo in the Middle East. Why should known facts of our involvement in such issue continue to be shrouded in mystery or a cover-up? After all, our country is knee-deep in the middle of the issue.

Helen's question was of course designed to call into question why our government remains adamantly protective of one state in the Middle East which has a huge existing arsenal of nuclear weapons - which should be of concern to the entire world. Her question perhaps, was also meant to debunk the hyper scrutiny of Iran's infant nuclear research and development.

The fact is, the state of Israel is a major nuclear power rivaling perhaps known major nuclear countries such as France or England. Regrettably however, the United States has long been protective of Israel unjustifiably, but has also been bias when there is any attempt to enforce any United Nations inquiry or resolution against Israel.

Notwithstanding, I am sure Helen knew the answer to her question; that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons - enough to pulverize the entire Middle East. In fact, its territory is dotted with nuclear research or assembly facilities. For example, in the north west part of Israel, the Rafael and Yodefat facilities assemble missile ballistic systems that carry nuclear weapons. In Eilabum, also in the north east of Israel, this is where you find Israel's second largest nuclear facility. This is where all of the tactical nuclear shells and land mines are kept. To the south east of Israel, we find Israel's main nuclear depot, at Dimona. At this facility, the largest facility in Israel, most nuclear weapons are assembled and stored. Therfore, it should be known that Israel has for the last 30 years been producing no less than 40 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year. Keeping in mind that it only takes about 4 kilograms to make a weapons-grade nuclear bomb. So you do the math and get an idea of how many plutonium base nuclear bombs Israel has. Additionally, Israel also has up to 100 lithium-6 deuterium base thermal-nuclear bombs.

Currently however, there is much concern in the intelligence community because Israel is closely working with India in an attempt to obtain India's new tritium technology in order to develop more sophisticated and more efficient nuclear weapons. So this may explain why there was a terrorist attack in Mumbai India by an alleged Pakistani group. Mmmmm? An arms race in that region, with Israel, India, Pakistan and the U.S. as the major players?!

Yet Mr. President, it is time that we take off the cloak of deception and let the people know the facts about Israel's monstrous arsenal of nuclear weapons. It is time Mr. President that our government let its people know that each nuclear facility in Israel is defended by American defense missile systems. It is time that we own-up to the fact that our government skirts international convention by conducting illegal research and development of more sophisticated nuclear weapons in Israeli facilities.

As far as Iran being a nuclear concern, yes it is. Although, their technology is simply infant and diminimus. Their recent rocket carrying a satellite into orbit, well, in reality, it is equivalent to when the Russians sent their Sputnik satellite into orbit in 1957 - still rather crude and does not pose an immediate threat. However, within 5-10 years, there will be enough nuclear weapons in the Middle East to pose a mutual assured destruction- with our help. So this is where you come in Mr. President; under your government of change, we must change the course of history by not allowing anybody in the middle east, including Israel, to bring about a foreseeable Armageddon.
Helen, I hope the above answers part of your question......

Joseph Chez

ISRAEL USES CHEMICAL WEOPONS IN GAZA

A massacre unfolded in late December 2008 and continued through January 20, 2009 in the Gaza area of the Middle East. Israel, under the pretext of the Bush doctrine invaded the Palestinian territory of Gaza. According to the United Nations, only a few Israeli casualties resulted while several thousand Palestinians were wounded and or killed. Astonishingly, the world watched in horror as innocent men, women and children were corralled - with no exit for cover or safety - while Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) blanketed civilian areas with bunker-busting bombs that crumbled buildings similar to the bombings of cities like Dresden or London during WWII.

The storm of death in Gaza also obliterated homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship and even United Nations sponsored food- warehouses. Further, our country did little to stop the bombardment and instead, held that Israel had the right to defend itself. In fact, in the last month of his presidency, president Bush gave the wink and the nod, allowing for Israel to use chemical weapons - with full knowledge that those weapons would likely hurt innocent civilians in Gaza.

Those who know history can remind those who don't know or care, that the world united into a League of Nations to stop future chemical weapons such as those used during WWI . Can the world still then tolerate the use of chemicals as used in crematories in WWII or in Gaza today? Yet, it should be known that in Gaza, Israel consistently and deliberately used phosphorous bombs. Those fluffy fire works that blanketed the Palestinian cities in Gaza were indeed chemical weapons. These chemical explosives exploded overhead and caused mist to rained down on the population. But on the ground, as the mist came in contact with the population, human flesh of the young and old blistered and burned. As the mist was inhaled, lungs irritated and burned. For small children and weak-elderly, such chemical contact only proved fatal.

But where were you when these atrocities were happening? Should we really care? A good program on TV you say? Not my problem? They were the bad guys you say? We know of course, that President Bush has had a biblical connection, veiled with the fact that Israel and its US lobby placed him in office, and therefore, he had an agenda that allowed him to accept and be complicit with such atrocities. However, what was President-elect Obama's excuse in not forcefully calling a halt to the atrocities? He was not yet president?

At one time, the world stood uncommitted and allowed Nazi Germany to exterminate 6 million human beings, until we decided to intervene, but it was too late for those 6 million. In January 2009, the Bush Administration blocked a United Nations resolution forcing Israel to stop the bombings. Regrettably, Secretary Rice of the U.S. Department of State went before the world body to personally argue for a no cease fire. President Bush on the other hand, publicly blamed Hamas for the collateral damage of the Israeli bombardment. Washing his hands of any responsibility, President-elect Obama also remained silent. He simply stated, that there was only one president at a time.

Not surprisingly, long before President Bush's term came to a close, the order went out to the Pentagon to rid itself of unusable or no-longer-needed sophisticated armament, such as missile defense systems, tanks, bunker-busting bombs, and helicopter gun ships. Thus began the emptying of US warehouses of war material, which was shipped to, you got it, the state of Israel. Now Israel has enough weaponry, U.S. made, to kill more innocent civilians. For you and I however, if we were to supply a weapon to an individual who would commit a lethal act, you bet, you or I would be complicit in the crime, tried and convicted for the act.

But now, we have a newly elected president of our nation, President Barack Obama, who is the hope of our future and messiah for peace. So what does he have to say now about the atrocity of civilians with American weapons? Incidentally, Israel stopped the hostilities in Gaza immediately before our new president took the oath of office. Yet, the question remains; why did President-elect Obama stand silent during the Israeli massacre of innocent civilians in Gaza, and what will he do now that he is president?

Mr. President, take inventory and don't let Pentagon officials or neo-cons determine our foreign policy. You are now in charge. Keep in mind that the audacity of silence is complicity.

Joseph Chez

CLOSE GUANTANAMO U.S. FACILITY AND RETURN TO CUBA

The American people voted for change and the Guantanamo stain was a big factor. Why? Undeniably, Delta Camp in Guantanamo Bay Cuba became a moral disaster for the reputation of our nation. This is because the prison or detention camp, was deliberately set up by the Bush Administration outside U.S. borders for the specific reason of circumventing U.S. Law. However, the thought of naming the detainees with convoluted terms such as "non-combatants" and thus, believing they would not be covered by either U.S. law or International convention, was sadly, a sloppy and goofy attempt that failed. Instead, the world saw GITMO, the giddy way of calling the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, as an illegal prison camp which violated the norms of U.S. law as well as international law. Moreover, the reports of inhumane treatment in many cases were further illegal acts under international convention. Thus, what has resulted from this GITMO fiasco is a moral issue for our nation's reputation, but additionally, a definite stain on the virtue of our law. Recognizing that the Guantanamo detention camp had become an overwhelming disapproval with the American people, no less with the entire world, (now) President Barack Obama promised he would immediately close GITMO. But when? Just yesterday, January 22, 2009, he signed a presidential order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp within one year. But Mr. President, how can we accept the stain of an illegal premise for a whole year? Surely, there should be caution, but what is prevailing is uproar by the right and neo-cons to the extreme. The main argument is that if they are let out, they will return to harm us. Correct. They will come back, but only to file suit against our government in our courts for unlawful detention. For those not released, we should submit them to the process of our legal system. What do we have to fear? That our legal system is worthless?
Imagine if you will, what if the value of our U.S. dollar only had value within our borders? Conceivably, our dollar would be worthless. Nobody outside the US would accept our currency and thus, no US goods would be bought, and we would not be the power that we are. In like circumstance, the law applies in this same concept. My point is, that our legal system is the greatest concept conceived by mankind and its value will withstand any test, including determining the guilt or innocence of those in detention at Guantanamo Bay.
We know however, that the Bush Administration precisely did not want to have these detainees processed by our laws because most of the detainees were either tortured, victims of rendition, or the charges could not be substantiated even in traffic court. For such reasons, the Bush Administration set up a new military tribunal system that was designed deliberately so detainees could not present witnesses, present evidence in their behalf, or demand to see evidence to support the charges.
In many cases, individuals detained in Guantanamo were merely picked up in various areas of the Middle East simply because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Others were merely accused by enemy warlords, or for as little as receiving a cash reward. But in more sinister situations, middle eastern individuals, whose names were similar to names on a US government presumptive terrorist list, were detained at many parts of the world, even though, the only connection to the war on terror, was that they were Muslim or had a middle eastern name.
So yes! The Guantanamo Bay Delta Detention Camp should be immediately dismantled and closed. And every individual within the camp should immediately be given their habeas corpus, which is a right to secure a speedy relief from an unlawful detention+.+ Which brings me to the second most heard argument against releasing those detainees; that because much of the evidence against many of the prisoners has been compromised or is top secret, such nonsense holds no water. For if evidence has been compromised and the prisoner is still believed to be a bona fide suspect, under our present legal system, the prosecution can present other verifiable evidence against the subject. And if no such evidence exist, release them.
For those who we can prove their alleged guilt, lets bring them to the proper federal jurisdiction. Yes, in the mainland an not in Guantanamo or in CIA field detention camps which dot many areas of the world. What you say? Our laws and legal protections are not for non-citizens? Remember what I said about the value of our money. If our money does not bear value to the outside world, it is worthless. Hence, the same applies to our laws.
In sum, lets take this opportunity to redeem this shameful act of our former government under the Bush Administration, and let's close the dammed camp. It's an embarrassment, it is unlawful and immoral. And by the way, there is no strategic reason for us to maintain the lease of Guantanamo Bay Cuba, as that is also a shameful reminder of the Monroe Doctrine which bullied Latin America. And for those who may not know, Guantanamo Bay is not U.S. property. We forced a lease onto the Cuban people in a shameful act. Thus, we should close GITMO and return Guantanamo Bay to the rightful owner - Cuba.
Joseph Chez