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

Rick Santorum, an evangelical Christian at the gates of the US Presidency

Feb. 22, 2012
By
Joseph Chez

It is written that in the ancient lands of Canaan, the Romans crucified an unassuming and peaceful individual named Christus, a man for which many in such time and place, believed this man to be, the son of God.  And out of this held belief, Christian theology gave rise to one of history’s greatest social influence upon old world empires as well as present day societies.  For the Roman Empire however, the rise of Christianity soon became a problem as “Christians” saw the laws of their God as superseding those of the state.  Even today, such held beliefs by Christians have not changed. And thus the question remains; which entity, church or state, will finally prevail?

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.

SARAH PALIN STEALS THE SHOW FROM KIM JONG IL

July 3, 2009

By

Joseph Chez

For the last couple of weeks, the media has made my briefs tied up in knots as tension has been building up leading up to North Korea's alleged missile firing over Hawaii - to take place on July 4th. But then came Michael Jackson's demise and the focus, 24-7, sure put a damper over the fireworks on the Pacific. Now, Sarah Palin says she "won't do it from the governor's desk" and resigns as governor of the State of Alaska. So, if not from your desk, where Sarah? This is so exiting!

But one thing is clear, the national media is predictible: it goes with the flow, picks and chooses, and feeds upon frenzied celebrity or political speculation. On the other hand, Kim Jong Il and Sarah Palin can sure steal the spotlight - at will. Their panache is simply that; empty rethoric and little substance.

So what's the nexus between Kim Jong Il and Sarah Palin? In order to stay relevant, both political leaders need the spotlight, or without controversy, they would be relegated to diminimus status. Sarah Palin keeps on rambling arguing that the United States needs a strong defense in order to defend itself from its enemies such as North Korea. On the other hand, Kim Jong Il thrives politically on red meat from American politicians such as Sarah Palin.

Yet, one things is for sure; that North Korea will again test fire missiles over the Pacific on or about the 4th of July, as they did so last year. But don't sweat it Hawaii. Ua Mau ke Ea o Ka Aina i Ka Pono... Poi anyone?

Sara Palin however, keeps dropping political bomb shells, but only to stay afloat politically. Or better yet, to keep building her political status, so she may perhaps be seen as the savior of the republican party, if not "this land, blessed with resources and water." "And with prayer and consideration" may she make more speeches and lead the republicans into 2012. "You bet yaa!"

However, it would no longer be funny, but a page straight from Revelations, and a bad situation for Kim Jon Il, or Kim Jong son, if Sarah was to get a hold of the foot ball in 2012. No Sarah!. That is not the presidential Blackberry!

IRAQ: SOVEREIGNTY DAY

JUNE 30, 2009 SOVEREIGNTY DAY IN IRAQ

By

Joseph Chez

ALL ROADS LEAD TO BAGHDAD ... so goes the saying. And surely , on the road again, the United States went to war via Baghdad in March 19, 2003. This June 30, 2009 however, American troops have been relegated to the outskirts of Iraqi cities and towns.

Today, Iraq celebrates a day which the Maliki government labeled, "sovereignty day". From the confines of the walled and heavily fortified "green zone", the Iraqi government has declared this day an official holiday. Outside the walled government, the Iraqi people rejoice and celebrate what many say is "Independence Day". Yes, independence day from the American invasion which has lasted 6 years and has caused at least 1, 320,110 Iraqi deaths. But, is the celebration a blessing for the Iraqis or a curse? What does it mean for the United States?

It is an indisputable fact that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not to bring democracy to that nation, or to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Instead, the war in Iraq was ill- conceived with sinister plots to make it look like Saddam Hussein was somewhat connected with the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Further, the neo-cons, which were chuck full in the Bush Administration, effectively attempted to make us fear further attack from Iraqi WMD's or the "smoking gun" of nuclear and biological Iraqi weapons - which interestingly enough, never existed. Yes, George W. Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Condi Rice, Donald Runsfeld, Douglas Feith, James Woolsey, John R. Bolton and the Joe Liebermans will go down in our history as the morons whose ulterior motives mislead the nation.

So yes, the road to Baghdad has been costly. In terms of human casualties, the United States has suffered 4,319 dead U.S soldiers and 31,368 wounded. In US tax dollars, just in Iraq alone, the cost is rapidly reaching the one trillion dollar mark.

On the other hand, one can argue that "Iraqi Freedom" has created a democratic government - NOT. For despite elections that have taken place and a semblance of decreased violence, the American supported government will cease to exist once we have exited the country. Civil war will ensue and in the end, a strong "caliphate" will again control the fractured nation. And needless to say, American control or influence will cease to exist. So what was the point. I see, the neo-cons can celebrate the alleged liberation of Iraq, while the Iraqis today, celebrate the exiting of foreign invading forces from their cities.

In sum, the event horizon is upon us and the sobering facts become undeniable.

Lesson: before we get on the road, we should know its history, its potholes, and where it may lead us to.

IRANIAN SOCIAL REVOLUTION TO THE U.S.: AMEND YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT OF YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS

JUNE 23, 2009

By

Joseph Chez

Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to protect the right of today's citizens to use and bear today's digital-electronic technology in order to defend themselves and their freedom from government infringement?

At one point in history, swords were the method of choice by tyrannical governments or kingdoms in order to suppress dissension from its people. Thus, dissidents resorted to the use of words and ideas for which swords were impotent to stop or destroy. Ergo, the argument became that the pen was mightier than the sword.

Immediately after the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the concern turned to giving the citizenry protections from oppressive governments. Thus, in 1788 the United States Constitution was ratified which provided for many of our present rights and protections. Yet, the new nation realized the Constitution needed to be amended in keeping pace with changing times. Consequently, in 1791, the United States Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights which included " the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and that such right could not be infringed by the government (Second Amendment). In part, the 2nd Amendment was meant to give the citizenry a right to use and bear arms in order to protect themselves and families from a potentially oppressive government. it was reasoned that by having a well regulated armed militia, the citizenry could equalize their power against the power of a potentially well armed and oppressive government.

Today however, in a 21st Century social revolution scenario, the world takes note that citizens in Iran are effectively using today's latest technology to keep informed and to inform the world of their quest for freedom. With the help of today's computer technology i.e., www., e-mail, Twitter, MySpace, and Utube, the Iranian dissidents appear to be changing today's paradigm of a social revolution in today's modern world. But more importantly, the "cell" phone, as opposed to a land line phone, is clearly the rising star of the Iranian revolution. This is because the Iranian regime has effectively blocked the world-wide web, so the young Iranian dissidents have skillfully used their cell phones to document this historic event, their efforts for freedom as well as the government's heavy hand.

And yet, there is a flaw; cell phones being used in the United States of America as well as in Iran, carry within their SIM card, mother board or memory card, special technology required by their respective government's internal security. This special tracking technology was created by Nokia-Siemens as a device to give governments the ability to control all cell phone traffic analysis. With this technology, government in the United States as well as in Iran, are able to track any and all phone conversations, intersect specific phone calls and their contacts, store information, triangulate the callers location, as well as shut down the use of cell phone transmission if necessary.

In fact, the United States federal government required this technology to be imbedded in every cell phone in this country as part of the Patriot Act. Since then, our government has been able to track and intersect your and my cell phone conversations. The danger however, is that this technology clearly "infringes" on tenets of our constitutional freedoms. Further, while we have come to depend greatly on computer technology for such things as the right of assembly, political speech, and other individual needs, such present technology appears to be today's modern tool for maintaining our freedoms. Regrettably, our government has also taken steps to take control of those freedoms - at will.

Therefore, WHEREAS, our United States Constitution is a living document, in order to maintain and protect our personal freedoms of today, it becomes necessary to amend the 2ndAmendment to include the right of citizens to own and use, without fear of persecution or interference, present digital and electronic technology, and this right will not be abridged or infringed by the local, state or federal government. .........

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

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

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