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?

 

April 13, 2012

CHILL FOLKS:     Teopodong, Teapodong ... sounds like the same 'ol song. But yes,
North Korea did attempt to fire a rocket into space, however, it's believed it failed to exit Earth's  atmosphere.

The #MustacheChickenLittle (#JohnBolton) neo-cons types, are crying fowl that North Korea has fired a rocket that was purported to have contain a satellite. However, Western powers, including the U.S., mobilized their military tracking systems to dissect the signature of the North Korean "Teapodong" scud rocket.  But, the excitement and hubris from Western powers went to pot, when the Teapodong scud rocket sputtered from the launch pad and soon thereafter - fell apart.  Nonetheless, Western powers will demand from the #UN to issue condenmation for this perceived military provocation.

Clearly, this act by North Korea is simply a little-show for its own public consumption and not a credible military threat to any Western power or North Korea's Asian neighbors.  The issue here is an intolerance by Western powers to not allow unfriendly regimes build their own technology.  Have you ever witnessed a young child throw a tantrum? If left alone or not pay attention to such silly act, the child is more likely to stop.  Give it attention and the tantrum will proliferate.

Should North Korea or Iran have the right to build long range missiles? Ideally, all military missiles should be destroyed and all nations with mighty technology should be role models for rouge nations by destroying all military weapons which threatens mankind.  Therefore, we should not be so hypocritical in pointing the finger at other nations, while Western powers, including the US, harbor unlimited offensive military weapons.

PEACE

Jospeh Chez

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.

PRESIDENT OBAMA REPEATEDLY "PUNKED" THIS WEEK BY NEO-CONS.

By Joseph Chez
Sept. 25, 2009

President Obama was elected overwhelmingly by the American people who voted for CHANGE in our foreign policy. However, the opposition has been working diligently and ferociously to co-opt President Obama’s efforts to RESET our government’s policies.

One must wonder why, when world leaders came to the United Nations for talks on climate change this week, much of the conversation in the U.S. media turned to none other than the “specter” of Iran’s nuclear threat on our nation and our allies. Moreover, what appears not coincidental is that out of the blue, up to four separate terrorist plots were uncovered this week, and the media has been having a hay-day with the conspiracies. Yet, two or three of the plots were actually “FBI sting operations” entrapping would-be terrorist. The other, conceivably a potential terrorist, had been under surveillance for quite some time by the FBI and so far, that individual has only been charged with lying to a federal officer. So the question is, why bring the issue of terrorism during this week? Why set red flags and even place the nation’s public places under high alert?

Also this week, General Stanley Mc Chrystal, the top US military commander in Afghanistan met with the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, to make his case for a considerable surge in troops for Afghanistan. Keep in mind however, that such meeting is out of the ordinary as it does not follow chain of command. In fact, General Mc Chrystal had already submitted his assessment report of the war in Afghanistan to the Secretary of Defense last month. Further, it should be noted that the White House had urged the Pentagon not submit Gen. Mc Chrystal’s assessment to the White House until other options were considered by them. And yet, the report was leaked to the media nonetheless. Not surprised, Republicans on the Hill have therefore been raising the anxiety levels and have been painting President Obama as ambivalent on the security issue.

To top it off this week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu also appeared before the UN General Assembly and reminded the world of the historical plight of the Jewish State, but he also sounded the alarm from the imminent nuclear threat to the free world by the tyrannical state of Iran. Coincidentally, today’s revelations of a second Iranian nuclear-enrichment facility came from intelligence sources from the UK and France and this raised the anxiety that Iran, indeed, is working on weapons of mass destructions. But wait a minute! Let’s not forget that faulty intel was passed on to the U.S. government by the Brits back in 2002, which coincidentally, became the “smoking gun” and the corner stone for laying the ground work for the invasion of Iraq. Incredibly, this new information is not entirely new, as the CIA has been aware of it for some time. But nevertheless, President Obama felt obligated to stand in solidarity with France, Britain and Israel and assumed the role as the pseudo leader of the new coalition against Iran. Regrettably, President Obama sternly pointed out to Iran, that it was breaking rules that all other nations must follow. He further gave a clear warning, that if Iran did not come clean by October 1, 2009, there would be consequences. Really Mr. President? Now that you’ve drawn a line in the sand (quick sand that is), what will you have the nation do if Iran does not comply? Have you considered the consequences? Whether we actively stop Iran and bomb its facilities, or if these theatrics will only embolden Israel to attack Iran, yes Mr. President, will you allow haste to overtake reason? Do you realize that residual neo-cons remaining in the Pentagon from the former administration, Republicans at the hill, and AIPAC are setting you up (punked) to finish up what they left undone? Please remember that the American people wanted to stop their madness and voted for CHANGE?

Mr. President, before we can make a case before the world against Iran, we first must understand whose interest we are serving. Would it be in our interest to go to war again? Does the industrial-military complex stand to gain from this project, or is AIPAC’s influence simply too much to overcome? I am certainly not an apologist nor sympathetic for the Iranian regime, but Mr. Ahmadinejad does have a point when he argues, that they have the right to pursue a nuclear program just like any other nation, whether it’s the US, the UK, France or Israel. In law, there is a legal maxim which states that, in like circumstances, the law applies the same.

In closing however, I have to remind our President that the neo-con’s agenda is not ours and they must not be allowed to take the reigns of your administration, for they had their turn and their smoking gun was only a hoax.

We must not waiver in the pursuit for peace Mr. President.

OBAMA MAY HAVE THE LAST WORD IN THE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS

Sept. 22, 2009

By Joseph Chez

Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1996 reflecting the hawkish attitude of Israel and Netanyahu's own personal promise to derail any peace talks with the Palestinians. He however partially failed, given that the world body wants to resolve the issue of the Palestinian question of a two state solution.

Comprehensive talks on the Israeli/Palestinian issue were taken up by the Madrid/ Oslo Peace Accord beginning in 1991. However, subsequent agreements have followed without success. This may be because Israel has not necessarily been on board, but has felt pressured to participate. Thus, primarily for those reasons, Israel has made it difficult for the Palestinians to meet much of the requirements as called for in the Madrid/Oslo Peace Accord, or subsequent agreements, such as the Hebron Agreement, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David,The Beirut Summit and most recently, the Road Map for Peace. But despite the core issues of discord - final borders, Jerusalem and the right of return of displaced Palestinians - the most contentious issue has been the continued building of Jewish settlements in contested Palestinian land.

Since July 2002, the United States, Europe, the United Nations and Russia have actively pushed the Road Map for Peace, but with little success. In contravention of previous accords or Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, Israel continues building illegal settlements under its understanding of "natural growth." Israel in addition, has tightened its security in occupied Palestinian land and consequently, Palestinians have suffered in ways which have been deemed "inhuman" by the U.N. General Assembly. Of course, Israel claims its right of self defense and continues to reciprocate attacks on its people by Palestinian insurgents.

In 1996, when Netanyahu was first elected, he initiated the reciprocal policy of retribution against Palestinian or Arab attacks on Israel. His political ticket for election then was for Israel not to participate in the peace process with the Palestinians. Unofficially, the State of Israel has since continued the same doctrine to this day, although, the tit-for-tat military responses against the Palestinians have been "disproportionate" as labeled by the latest United Nation's findings.

On the verge of CHANGE of US policy, President Obama was elected and took office in 2009. Consequently, Israel felt it no longer had the exclusive support of the U.S. and therefore, a coalition of the extreme right, once again, elected Benjamin Netanyahu in April 2009 as Israel's Prime Minister. Regrettably, Netanyahu's political platform was no different this time than in 1996.

President Obama, well respected and with high world popularity, has felt confident in the resolution for peace in the Middle East. However, Benjamin Netanyahu has remained steadfast in his stance of no peace negotiations with the Palestinians or cutting back on settlement building. In fact, as President Obama was calling for an immediate cessation of illegal settlements in contested Palestinian lands, newly elected Netanyahu argued that "natural growth" must continue. To this day, the US government has tacitly accepted that fact.

Today, the first meeting since their election, President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington and it was more than obvious that President Obama showed his frustration with the lack of movement on the peace process. Accordingly, President Obama has asked for the Palestinians to take more concrete measures to assure the security of Israel, while at the same time, he has asked for Israel to provide greater freedom for the Palestinians as well as restrain on continued settlement activity. In sum, President Obama has stated that, " despite all the obstacles, the history, despite the mistrust, we must find a way forward... We can not continue with the same pattern of talking tentative steps forward and then stepping back". He also emphasized that peace negotiations must be given the opportunity to succeed and that even though, it would not be easy, that it was absolutely critical for all parties, including the world.

The question remains however, is whether, despite the hawkish and unyielding Benjamin Netanyahu, will President Obama succeed in his efforts to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - over the contested piece of holy land? Is President Obama greater and more influential than any previous prophet? After all, the road to peace has been mired by insurmountable obstacles and endless delays which places any prospect for peace - distant and unattainable.

And yet, while the hawk is resolute in its position against peace and a two state solution, the dove may just have the final word: The United States of America will now recognize the legal and complete political sovereignty of the State of Palestine with borders pre-existing 1967, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242, 252 and subsequent United Nations measures, thereof.

Peace.

Dr. Kissinger's NY Times Op-Ed, a throwback to the past

August, 9, 2009
By Joseph Chez

Dr. Kissinger, tear down the wall of distrust; don't take out misinformation from the attic.
It's time we stop playing neo-con childish and supremacist games in the world political arena. To say the least, Dr. Kissinger regrettably still lingers in the mind-set of the cold-war era and such malarkey must be relegated to where it belongs: in the waste basket of history's proven ill-fated policies.

First of all, former President Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea to bring back the two released journalist is a start in the right direction, a direction in which the United States of America becomes an equal member of nations, instead of acting as the self-appointed policeman or arbitrator of the world.

Additionally, this act of quasi-governmental diplomacy by Pres. Bill Clinton will not create a precedent for future scenarios, as wrongly perceived by the right-wing of our nation. Dr. Kissinger, the "falling dominoes theory", the Viet Nam era U.S. foreign policy doctrine against the communist specter of the past, which you and your like-minded friends supported, has been debunked by history.

In fact, President Barack Obama must seize on this historic opportunity to break the ice with N. Korea and communicate a more realistic diplomatic approach; indicating our intentions of upholding the sovereignty of any nation, regardless of its type of governmental or economic form. For although, we may not wish N. Korea to obtain more nuclear feasibility, it should be up to the United Nations and its members, collectively, to render judgment on the acts of nations.
We must remember that neo-cons have it wrong when they argue that a strong defense brought the Soviet empire to and end. Baloney, what truly brought down the Soviet empire, was it's people demanding to have Western sneakers, Levy jeans, music and a more modern Western lifestyle - NOT a silly statement such as President Reagan's, "Mr. Gorbachev , tear down this wall." So let's bring in the North Koreans to the world market and put sneakers and levy jeans on Pyongyang, let's have a beer with Kim Jong Il -shall we.

In sum, we must end our impetuous behavior as a nation and begin a dialog with our neighbors, regardless of mutual differences. It is simply foolish for the United States of America not to have constructive talks with its perceived enemies.

IRAN: WHERE IS THE UNITED NATIONS ON THIS ISSUE?

In the annals of history, Tyranny is short lived.......

The Iranian people are taking a cue from the history of struggle for freedom and will not accept less. This in response to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who gave recognition to the election results and thereby giving its blessing to Ahmadinejad as the winner. Additionally, the supreme Ayatollah also gave a stern warning to the opposition to accept the election results - or else. But reports from within Iran already report a quasi atmosphere of martial law in place.

Still, the world can only watch the events unfold in Iran from the sidelines - for now. But it should be noted that the Ahmadinejad regime and cleric stronghold on the country truly needs outside intervention to solidify their control of its people and thus justify any means to further squelch any civil unrest. Consequently, the United States of America should resist any pressure from the political right who is fervently pushing for tougher language against Iran. The Israeli government has even criticized the United States for not responding with stronger language. However, any intervention from the U.S. would be counter productive and would not help the circumstances of the Iranian people.

What is needed is for the United Nations to issue a strong declaration, warning the Iranian government, including clerics, that they will be held personally responsible for the safety of the civilian population and for the opposition leader.

In the meantime, the ayatollahs and present regime sympathizers in Iran, should head the warning of history; there is a prize to pay for freedom, but there is an even greater charge for tyrannical figures - as they usually pay with their lives.

For neo-cons in the West, who just last year were sarcastically commenting, "bomb, bomb, bomb,.. bomb, bomb Iran", their present support for the people of Iran is simply disingenuous, if not just cheap political tricks. However, the Iranian people as any other peoples of the world, deserve to be free. And regardless what finally results, your acts of bravery in the face of tyranny makes us all humble.

Joseph Chez

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

PIRATES, OBAMA WALKS SOFTLY BUT HE CAN TALK TURKEY

"Signals passed to set the stage.............. about surprise these men were sage".

So goes the U.S. Navy Seals theme. Thus, game day came and Commander and Chief, President Barack Obama, cool and collected gave the order to brave men to "set the stage". What followed is kinetic action with resolute precision from U.S. Navy Seals. Game day saved the day, with Captain Richard Phillips freed and three gnarly pirates met their fate.

Thus, let no one question our resolute intentions, and while President Obama would rather communicate and/or negotiate, he can also talk turkey. In fact, no one can argue that we first put our boot in their butt, for our US Navy personnel from the Bainbridge ship were so gracious, that when the teen pirate asked to come on aboard to make a phone call, we indeed agreed and went further; we provided medical care for his wounded hand. That's okay because part of being American, is to show that we still care. In the end however, coming on board for this teen pirate - indeed saved his life. His comrades on the other hand, were not so lucky, they got what they deserved.

Still, the Mersk Alabama hostage situation was successfully resolved. A second American Flagged ship, the Liberty Sun, was subsequently ambushed - unsuccessfully I might say. However, what should we do next time these lawless bums try or do hijack one of our ships?

It should be known that piracy in the high seas of the Indian Ocean is not new, but actually flourished within the last couple of years. In fact, many ships from many countries have already been victims of this pirate scourge and millions of dollars and Euros have been paid to these low-life sea urchins. And sadly, up to 200 mariners from various countries are still held hostage - waiting for ransom monies to be paid.

So what's the cry some have said. Let's just bomb them all to hell - they dare say. Let's bomb them from where they came, other say. In reality, these lawless urchins do have a point of origin and are significantly organized. For the most part, these pirates originate for the failed society of Somalia - a country located off the coast of the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and Indian Ocean. However, complicating matters is that Somalia is a country in name only, as it has no real government. Consequently, countries whose citizens or flagged ships have been hijacked or crews held hostage, can not go to Somalia and scour for the culprits. The fear is real, as one can only envision another "Black Hawk Down" scenario. You've seen the movie right? In that movie, the United States made it its own business to go after some warlord thug, but paid dearly - and nothing changed. So, lets learn from our own past mistakes or those of others, and this time - it should be a concerted military effort in which we do not touch down in Somalia, but under the auspices of the U.N., a multi-national force patrols those vast oceans and takes appropriate and deliberate action when necessary.

But, let's not allow or nationalistic feelings get the best of us and take up the helm, for as in the U.S. Navy Seals, Rambos are not effective and usually end up dead heroes. Let's instead navigate these waters - cool and collected and when necessary, we'll talk turkey.

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

THE AUDACITY OF HOPE

As much as it is a TIME of hope and pride for our country, it is much more for history; a time to reset nature's hope for peace around the world. It is a time in which the United States of America can rejoin the families of the world as an equal and not as the first among the many.

Congratulations Mr. President, Barack Obama.

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