Sunday, August 12, 2012

Zioconned INDIA MUST Break free of U.S.-Israel shadow...

India should throw its weight behind the aspirations of the Levantines populations and stop subsidising the ZIO-Occupation of Palestine and their criminal Wars made in USA and IsraHell....

The Arab Spring changed the political topography of the Middle East. Stalwart regimes of the old order gave way to democratically elected governments. Since 1979, these old regimes have provided an element of “stability” that favoured the aims of the United States and its local subsidiary, Israel. Despite the deprivation and the prisons for the populations of the region, oil continued to flow and Israel remained unthreatened. Indeed, an annual subsidy from the U.S. exchequer to the Egyptian army provided the monetary gesture for Egypt to uphold its peace agreement with Israel. Absent a threat from Egypt, the Israeli armed forces enjoyed an asymmetrical military advantage over Lebanon (with invasions by Israel in 1982, 1996, and 2006) and over the Palestinian lands (with a sustained occupation of its rump territories since 1967).

No such decisive advantage remains, since a popularly controlled Egyptian army of the near future might not allow Israel such carte blanche. On July 25, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak signalled the shift with a call for confrontation with Iran, “The events of the Arab Spring, which have gradually evolved into an Islamic summer, show that at the ultimate hour of decision we can rely at the moment of truth on ourselves alone.” The old pillars have fallen. The U.S. may no longer be able to bribe Israel’s neighbours to uphold a one-sided peace. Israel seeks new allegiances, including from far-off India.


In the U.S., another Spring blossomed several years ago. After the 1967 Arab-Israel War, a section of the Jewish American population offered its unadulterated support to Israel. This bloc provided the mass base for Washington’s Israel Lobby, which put pressure on the government to back Israel regardless of its occupation of the Palestinian lands. Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism (2012) shows that a new generation of Jewish Americans refuses to give Israel such an unquestioned commitment. A survey sponsored by the old guard found that young Jews want an “open and frank” discussion of Israel’s policies, that “young Jews desperately want peace” and that “some empathise with the plight of the Palestinians.” They now see that the road to peace does not travel through the West Bank Wall, neither via Israel’s violation of the 4th Geneva Convention with the settlement activity.

The shift in attitudes came alongside the coming of age of a young Arab American population, soured by the racism that followed 9/11 and the wars in the Arab lands. It had an ear for the developments in Occupied Palestine, where the Israeli armed forces had ratcheted up the violence from 2000. A conference at Berkeley in 2001 repeated the Palestinian call for “boycott-divestment-sanctions” against Israel. As Omar Barghouti, one of the Palestinian leaders of this movement, noted, it was time to “besiege Israel’s siege.” The BDS campaign flourishes, growing out of the enclaves of the Left into the mainstream. It has begun to pressure U.S. lawmakers on an issue that was seen as settled, namely their loyal support for Israeli policy.

India’s historical support to the Palestinian cause was dampened in the 1990s when the government sought a new equation with Israel as part of the general pro-U.S. foreign policy tilt. Under the BJP-led government (1998-2004), relations between Israel and India hardened, with intelligence cooperation and arms sales as the cement. By 2006, India registered a record purchase of $1.6 billion of defence equipment from Israel. The head of Israel’s Foreign Defense Assistance and Defense Export Department Major General Yossin Ben-Hanan told the Economic Times in 2007 that India was Israel’s biggest customer. Over the course of the past five years, India continued to buy Israeli equipment, although both governments are chary about releasing data.

Israel’s flagging economy has been buoyed by its arms sales sector. The government-owned Israeli Arms Industry (IAI), the Israel Military Industries and the Rafael Arms Development Authority anchor Israel’s 150 defence firms, which collectively employ 60,000 people and earn revenues over $4 billion. India has been buying missile systems, radars and early warning systems, unmanned aerial vehicles and field guns from Israel. On March 8, 2012, the Indian Ministry of Defence banned the Israel Military Industries for 10 years over a 2009 bribery scandal, where Israeli bribes opened doors at the Ordnance Factory Board of India. Selling arms is central to the Israeli economy, and selling arms to India has become essential at any cost.

A new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows that India remains the world’s largest importer of weaponry. It estimates that over the next 15 years, India will spend $149 billion to buy arms. The U.S. remains the largest arms dealer. The projected increases in India’s arms buying have set in motion frenzy in Israel’s arms sector.

As India increases its purchases from Israel, it underwrites Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian lands. The volume of India’s imports helps Israel’s government-owned arms industry more cheaply manufacture weaponry that is essential for the Israeli army as it smothers Palestinian dreams of freedom in the moth-eaten Palestinian territories.

At the fourth BRICS summit in March 2012, its Delhi Declaration publicly entered the fray regarding Middle East peace. It called upon the countries of the region and the U.S. and Europeans to move toward a settlement of the conflict based on “the universally recognised international legal framework including the relevant U.N. resolutions, the Madrid principles and the Arab Peace Initiative.”

India is torn between the Israeli-U.S. game plan for the Middle East and the BRICS potential. It is, on the one side, trying to distance itself from Iran, building up new alliances with Saudi Arabia and increasing its arms and intelligence links with Israel. India has backed the U.S. policy to isolate Iran, with Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Nirupama Rao indicating that India is to adhere to its path of cutting off oil imports from Iran. As the Israelis and the U.S. move to war with Iran, the Indian public response has been anaemic, notwithstanding the six million Indian nationals who reside in the region (and the untold suffering to Iranians in the event of a war on that country). Seventy per cent of Indian oil comes out of the Straits of Hormuz, and any war on Iran would be cataclysmic for India and for the Global South’s potential to weather the turbulence of the global recession. India has also intimated an affinity with the West’s orientation toward the dangerous situation in Syria.

On the other hand, India tried to work with the BRICS agenda on Libya (it abstained on the U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, authorising force against Qadhafi’s regime). India proposed a U.N. draft resolution on February 18, 2011 that called the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands “illegal” (the first resolution vetoed by the Obama administration). India also participated in the lead-up to the diplomatic conference in Ramallah (West Bank) on illegal settlement activity. On August 5, 2012, the Israeli government refused to allow the delegations from Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia and Malaysia to enter Ramallah for this conference. As a consequence, India and the other Non-Aligned Movement members boycotted the conference. Hanan Ashrawi, on the executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, said in response: “Israel is trying to not just lay a physical siege but also a political siege. We need to be able to move, to breathe, to act as a member of the community of nations. We cannot constantly be under the boot.” The issue of settlements returns to the U.N. in November.


India’s is a hard dance to sustain. It, however, makes sense given the national interests of the ruling sections in India. Their global ambitions move them in the direction of the U.S. and Israel, but the values of the freedom movement and of the non-aligned period of Indian foreign policy, not to mention the question of Indian national interests, pull in another direction. There is no easy arithmetic in the world of international relations, which is precisely why it is necessary for India to stay clear of the binding association with the ossified policy agenda on the Middle East of the U.S.-Israel. As the document Nonalignment 2.0 put it, India should avoid the “escalating rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia,” with the latter aligned with the U.S. and Israel.

India needs to join the new spirit of the Arab lands and throw its considerable weight once more behind the aspirations of the Palestinians. That India subsidises the Occupation is morally indefensible. It is imperative that more pressure be brought on the government to reconsider its web of arms purchases and intelligence agreements with Israel. The largest democracy in the world is ill-advised to stand on the side of colonialism.

(Vijay Prashad is the author of Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (New Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2012) and is on the advisory board of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. Prabir Purkayastha is with the Delhi Science Forum and the Indian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.)....


On August 3rd of this year, something truly remarkable happened at the United Nations: the UNGA passed a resolution formally condemning the Syrian regime and the UN Security Council but which everybody understood was really a condemnation of Russia and China over their triple veto of Western sponsored anti-Syria resolutions. The vote was 133 to 12. The 12 who voted "no" are: Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Considering that Russia, China and Syria were the real targets of the condemnation, it is no surprise that they voted against this resolution. The same goes for Iran which is the main supporter of the Assad regime. All the other countries who voted against this resolution are currently the object of various forms of "active measures" by the US and their "no' vote was expected.

And yet.

Take a closer look at this amazing official voting record:
In favor: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.

Against: Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Burundi, Ecuador, Eritrea, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam.

Absent: Cambodia, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kiribati, Malawi, Philippines, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
I don't know about you, but this leaves me speechless and, frankly, in shock.

First shock: Argentina and Brazil did not even have the courage to abstain! Second shock: Ecuador's Rafael Correa did not have the courage to vote "no". Third shock: Iraq and Serbia actually supported this resolution. Finally, while not quite a shock, but South Africa's vote is a great disappointment considering the role this country attempted to play during the US/NATO war on Libya. Put differently, not a single BRICS country had the courage to stand by Russia and China.

Looking at this list I was reminded of the prophetic words of the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II who in his diary wrote the following words:" I am surrounded by cowardice, treason and lies". I always thought that this was an excellent summary of the 20th century, but it appears that the 21st century begins on exactly the same basis.

There is no way to put a positive spin on this: there are currently only 3 poles of resistance to the US Empire on this planet: two big powers (Russia and China), acting independently, but clearly in coordination with each other, then a much weakened "Shia alliance" lead by Iran (which Iraq just betrayed), and the Latin American alliance of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia. That's it (no offense to anybody, but Zimbabwe, Myanmar or the DPRK are not countries which anybody would want as an ally anyway).

The rest of the planet has basically submitted to the orders of Uncle Sam, at least symbolically.

Of particular disgrace is the vote of all the Arab countries (only Algeria dared to abstain) and of the Muslim countries. Truly, we are living in a world of cowardice, treason and lies. To these three characterizations, I would normally add "stupidity", but in the case of this resolution I just don't believe that this result can be explained away by stupidity. This is not stupidity, this is a act of planet-wide prostitution to, and collaboration with, an Empire who does not even bother to try to present a fair, honest or otherwise respectable facade to its military interventions.

A few days after the false flag attacks of 9/11 Dubya famously said: " Either you are with us, or with the terrorists". A little over a decade later the vast majority of the governments represented at the UN has responded "we are with you!!". Because, of course, this vote had absolutely nothing to do with Syria, Assad, human rights or even Israel. This was a vote to "get back" and, basically, threaten Russia and China by a show of (imperial) force. Remember Hillary's words to the "Friends of Syria" conference in Paris?
“I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price
Hillary demanded a price, and the Arab League delivered it.

But the real question now is whether these threats will be effective in deterring Russia or China in the future. I personally am rather confident that they will not: both Russia and China are strong enough (economically, politically and militarily) to dare to defy Uncle Sam openly.

The situation of the Latin American Resistance is much worse: Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua are all fragile economically, politically and even militarily, and they clearly do not enjoy the support of the rest of the regimes in Latin America who, unlike the people themselves, are either too frightened or too corrupt to dare to defy the US.

As for the Shia, Iran and Hezbollah are very powerful politically and militarily, but they are also increasingly isolated in a Middle-East dominated by the Zio-Sunni-US alliance.

Another Russian Tsar, Alexander III, father of Nicholai II, once famously declared "Russia has only two allies: her the army and her navy". Of course, that was in the 19th century. Nowadays, Russia has four more allies: her Air Force, her Strategic Rocket Forces, her Aerospace Defense Forces and her Airborne Forces. That's about it but that is also probably enough.

The same goes for China which also has another powerful ally: Wal-Mart & Co. The real question is can Russia and China be real, trustworthy and useful allies for those countries who dared to defy the US? What will Russia and China do to help as much as can countries such as Bolivia or Nicaragua who are taking a huge risk in their open defiance of the Empire?

As for the Middle-East, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iran and Hezbollah are becoming isolated and even surrounded by a very effective Zio-Sunni-US alliance and that if we can rest assured that Iran will stand by Hezbollah, it is absolutely essential that Russia and China now fully support Iran at least politically and economically.

Turning back to the situation in Syria, it is hard to judge the dynamics on the ground: it appears that the regime has succeeded in kicking the insurgents out of Damascus and (most of) Aleppo, but that really means very little. My overwhelming feelings is that Assad, like all Baathists, is first and foremost a looser and while I hope that Iran, Russia, China and Hezbollah can avoid the worst possible outcome (a repetition of the disgraceful collapse of the Gaddafi regime, but this time in Syria), I don't really see any scenario whose outcome I could qualify as "overall positive". One way or another, this (last) Baathist "lion" will be defeated as easily as the rest of the Arab (pseudo-Muslim) secularist "lions" (Saddam, Gaddafi). My only hope - I am not holding my breath - is that somehow a real Syrian patriot can be found to replace him and beat back the US/NATO/al-CIAda puppets running the insurgency. I hope that I am wrong, but things have just gone too far and, frankly, it is just not realistic to hope that the Syria could stand up to almost the entire planet (as shown by the vote at the UNGA).

Unlike many others, I have always considered Syria as a huge liability in the Resistance front against Israel or the ZIOCONNED US Empire. Assad and his despicable and cowardly MAFIA showed their true face when he and his henchman ASSEF SHAWKAT assassinated a valiant Lebanese Hero, Mr. Elie HOBEIKA January 24th 2002, on behalf of the most infamous White House Murder INC, and in full coordination with CIA and MOSSAD... Then, in 2008 Assef SHAWKAT murdered Imad F. Mugniyeh in order to alleviate the pressures of STL...thinking that they will be off the hook for good...LOL...., and when he accepted to torture suspects rendered by the US CIA. Yes, Assad did help Hezbollah, but for exactly the same reasons as the House of Saud helped the Wahabis: to obtain legitimacy, while at the same time covertly collaborating with the USA. Whatever may be the case, I think that we have to assume that most of the Middle-East will be partitioned into two camps: overly pro-USA (like Jordan) and covertly pro-US (Sunni/Takfiri regimes), and both camps can be expected to be vehemently anti-Shia.

I would argue that both Russia and China have a huge stake in not letting the Shia camp collapse if only because only the Shia forces have the potential to be real regional allies. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that should Iran and Hezbollah be sufficiently weakened, the Zio-Sunni-US will immediately turn to other parts of the world to "liberate" such as the Caucasus, the Chinese provinces of Xinjiang, Gansu, or Ningxia, Russian regions such as Tatarstan or Bashkiria. Traditional Sunni Muslim countries such as Kazakhstan - a key partner to both Russia and China - or Tajikistan would also be threatened. Russia and China should therefore pursue an aggressive policy of support for traditional (non-Salafi/Wahhabi/Takfiri) forms of Sunni Islam internally and for strong support of Shia Islam externally. Such a policy would combine doing what is morally right with enlightened, pragmatic self-interest. In this context, any attempts to stir-up anti-Muslim feelings in Russia or China should be vehemently denounced for what they really are: doing the bidding of the US/NATO/Israeli Empire.

And what about the 133 prostitutes who voted with the Empire? Well, the one good thing about prostitutes is that they are for sale. As long as Russia and China are strong every single one of these prostitutes can be bought, if not always actually, then at least potentially. Yes, right now things do look bleak, but the US Empire is still undergoing a slow-motion collapse economically, while Russia and China are almost ideally complementary to each other, and potentially far more powerful even than the US and EU combined.

Finally, consider this: this infamous resolution was rather ambiguously worded anyway (they always are) and other than some backslapping in the White House, it carries really no meaningful consequences for anybody. So while this was a much needed exercise in imperial hubris for Hillary it hardly amounts to any real "price" to pay for Russia or China. Bottom line: after being thoroughly humiliated as the UN Security Council, the US spent a great deal of political capital getting a "feel-good" resolution adopted at the General Assembly.

Who really cares?