Tag Archives: peacekeeping

Colo. Springs peaceniks, Unitarians and NAACP fall for latest Africom campaign

Posted on by
Reply

They fell for Darfur and Kony (and Obama!) and now the Colorado Springs social justice community confirms that the city’s national repution for dim-bulbedness doesn’t reflect just its conservatives. Even the dissenting voice in this belly of the US military-judeo-christian-racist beast, is pro-imperial, toe-the-line, neoliberal dumbass. They’re against war and injustice, they even understand illegal war, but cloak it in terms of “intervention” and they stand beside their warmonger neighbors cheerleading for US aggression in Sudan, Libya, Syria, and wherever Pax Americana dictates we bomb in Africa. Where the local armed-forces community might be slow on the uptake regarding a Democratic president’s pandering to transnational corporate needs, the Springs peacekeeping Left will lead the way. On Monday, the usual shepherds of non-confrontational conformity held a vigil for the Lost Girls of Sudan -pardon- Nigeria, echoing the White House call to #bringbackourgirls. Unlike authentic antiwar vigils, this action got press, quelle surprise, from the media war machine! Congratulations AFRICOM-dupes! Nevermind non-American girls lost to US collateral malfeasance, no official hashtag for them, ergo no Springs peacenik campaign that would give a conscience indigestion.
 
Would we care more if the 267 kidnapped schoolgirls were not black? (!) If they were white they wouldn’t be from a country we’re trying to destabilize.

US vexed Swiss will support peace not peacekeeping or peace enforcement

Posted on by
11

In a Dec 2, 2008 diplomatic cable released by Aftenposten, the US ambassador to Switzerland reports that US-Swiss relations “lack the natural intimacy and trust” because, he laments:
 
“U.S. and Swiss soldiers never fought side-by-side in a war, no Swiss town felt an emotional bond to the U.S. for a past liberation or economic assistance program,” which creates the vexing obstacle that the Swiss Army won’t lend their knives to NATO or other USG non-multilateral projects:
 
“The Swiss military is limited by law to participating only in peace support operations (PSOs) — as opposed to peacekeeping or peace enforcement –“ I’ll interrupt here to highlight the distinction which the historically-neutral, tri-lingual, direct-democracy Swiss nation makes, perhaps like the Inuit and their fabled hundred words for snow. Americans are sold only one kind of peace, which has to be kept and enforced. We have only one word for peace and it’s not peace.

Render unto Obama the peace symbol that is Obama’s

Posted on by
3

I’ve always cherished the peace symbol button I wear on my coat lapel, lovingly decorated for me with rhinestones. But I see what it has become, a broach. Time to take it off, not because it’s grandmotherly, it’s pure and simple outrée. PEACE: Yeah, who doesn’t want peace –so what? That the peace symbol has become ubiquitous would have been something to celebrate only a couple years ago when it marked you as an obstinate hippie or wannabe malcontent. Today peace means Pax Obamana: WORLD PEACE imposed by imperial drone, PEACE KEEPING by occupation. The PEACE OF MIND come of military security. The PEACE AND QUIET absent of conscience, PEACEFULLY free of dissonant free speech. When George Bush said he would bring corporate malfeasance into compliance with the law, we thought he would reform their lawbreaking, instead Bush meant he’d change the law. Obama promised peace, the war = peace incarnation, and he intends to bring us into compliance.

“Warrior” drops peacekeeping pretense

Posted on by
3

Wounded Warrior OlympicsCOLO. SPRINGS- Just down the street, all week, the Olympic Training Center hosts the Warrior Games,
a Special Olympics for wounded vets. And there it is.
Not injured peace- keepers, not disabled freedom-bringers, not usurpers of foreign lives and liberty taken down a notch, but Wounded fucking Warriors. I suppose it had a ring to it that trumped showing moral decorum. We’re soliciting slogans for a cross-the-street banner.

BABY KILLING, cost: ARM & LEG
CLEAN CONSCIENCE: PRICELESS
Is that to mean undue disrespect? Just what part of 1.4 million deaths seems out of proportion to you?

If “warrior” is just a word, so is killer. Why not wounded paid-killers? Or wounded not-sorry death dealers?

Again, if disabled veterans need something to keep themselves busy and out of the halls of the VA, they can give back to Iraq or Afghanistan and stop feeding the Department of Defense propaganda machine. A four star general joined the Colorado governor to give props to their uniformed mercenaries. All volunteer, remember. Do they recognize the harm they did? Do they feel like they were duped into the deeds? They’ve got a lot more soul searching to do if they think salvation will come of rolling up and down a basketball court in a wheelchair. Community Service. Figure it out.

Support the troops? Of Course — Bring them home!

Proud of our boys? You’ve got to be kidding.

Barack Obama Nobel Prizefighter

Posted on by
2

Barack Obama action figure James BondAt what line in the sand will we be able to say for certain that President Obama’s hope bubble is a bust? Half of you are laughing at my naivety, the others are hushing me with your fingers crossed. Will it take a nuclear attack on Iran? More bailout? Less health? For example, when will we know whether Obama will be more a Kissinger Peace Laureate than a Mandela? A decision on Afghanistan? We have it already.

The BBC is reporting that as the US thanked Britain for recommitting forces to NATO in Afghanistan, it assured its British allies that Obama would soon be substantially increasing our own military forces. The announcement is to be made next week, the surge, 45,000 more soldiers. The White House emphatically denies this story, stating that President Obama “had not yet made a decision on troop numbers” and “would make up his mind in the coming weeks.”

And there’s your answer. And we’ve had it for awhile.

I’ll bet as a supporter of Barack Obama, you had made up your mind on Iraq and Afghanistan before you elected the hope candidate. You probably based your support for Senator Obama on the intuition that a young man smart as that had already made up his mind too, certainly on the moral issues.

What does it mean now, that Obama might be still thinking on it?

If Obama had made up his mind, or has, he’s struggling now to make up his mind about how to tell you.

Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan is not ethically complicated. Financially it’s a tough move because you’ve got all those war contractor profiteers who’ve got to be weened cautiously. But there is no intermediary way. So long as the US retains authority, it’s an occupation. So long as one US company is collecting reconstruction funds, the US is serving its own interests. Rationalizations to remain as peacekeepers are just excuses to keep our hand in the till. There is no peacekeeping role for the US. We must get out, and proffer gobs of restitution.

You know who should get the Nobel Peace Prize? The Nobel committee. For their valiant hopeful effort, at the risk of looking foolish. They merit at least a nomination for Time Magazine Persons Of The Year.

“Sovereignty”— But only for Amerika…

Posted on by
Reply

As reported in Talking Points Memo:

Congressional Sovereignty Caucus Launching Next Week
By Eric Kleefeld – June 19, 2009, 5:40PM

A new group is set to launch in the House of Representatives, made up of conservatives set on defending American POWER and interests against encroachment from international institutions: The Congressional Sovereignty Caucus.

Their kickoff meeting will be this coming Wednesday, featuring co-founders Reps. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), plus Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) — and special guests Oliver North, Frank Gaffney and Doug Feith.
Rep. Lamborn declined to comment, but his office did point us to an opinion column he wrote last week, mainly targeted at the nomination of Harold Koh to be the legal counsel to the State Department, in which he explained the importance of American sovereignty.

“Sovereignty is vital for America because we are an exceptional nation,” wrote Lamborn, “one uniquely blessed with a vibrant Judeo-Christian heritage, as demonstrated both through its founding documents and by the witness of history. For any nation, and I believe especially for America, to give up any degree of control of its destiny to transnational bodies is irresponsible and wrong.”

Their first meeting sure will have an interesting line-up. North, for example, covertly sold weapons to the Khomeini regime in Iran and then wore his Marine uniform at a Congressional hearing in order to justify himself. And Gaffney has written opinion columns in which he’s raised suspicions that President Obama might not be a natural-born citizen, or could be a secret Muslim.

Seems some members of the RepubliKlan party can’t be bothered to learn the difference between “Nationalism” which by default would grant EVERY nation equal rights, and “Cold-blooded Imperialism”, such as practiced by North, Gaffney and Feith.

Also the “Founding Documents” which they insist gives Amerika exclusively to Christians.. oops “Judeo-Christians”.

My advice to Jewish Americans, who were deliberately excluded in the “Founding Documents” they mention: Stay clear of these freaks.

The only reason they include Judeo is the same reason as George Bush trying to say how much he really loves Mexican American Culture, and showing off how much Spanish he really doesn’t speak. Political Schmoozing, in other words.

For those unfamiliar with Yiddish, Schmooz is “con job” as practiced by a “Schmiel” (thief) in order to defraud a “Schmozl” who is somebody dumb enough to be Schmoozed.

Those documents also referred to Native Americans as “Savages” and to Black AMERICANS as only being worth 2/3 of a “real” person apiece.
(but of course they weren’t Racists, no sir!)
Ollie North and friends say that Amerika is also destined to rule the world.

Fat chance on that Ollie, and on behalf of the Marines you had MURDERED for political gain during the Beirut Peacekeeping mission, the ones whose killers received cash and weapons from you and your Coward Treasonous Comrades, before and after the murders took place, yeah, THOSE Marines, Ollie… I’ll once again say those same three words, Ollie “Semper Fi… BITCH!”

That goes for local supporters of the Imperialist Terror Regime Ollie and his comrades represent too.

UN, US, and EU all split on how best to continue to plague Somalia?

Posted on by
Reply

pirate obamaUN head against new Somalia force ‘In December, Mr Ban had said few countries were willing to send peacekeeping troops to Somalia, as there was no peace to keep.’ That would be the United States’ fault since they tore the country apart along with the help of Ethiopia’s dictator.

Again ‘the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, warned against sending a UN peacekeeping force to Somalia.’ He was opposing a push by the US controlled ‘UN’ Security Council to gather yet more mercenary troops to occupy Somalia with, now that the Ethiopians have long gone arunning from the havoc they caused while serving George W. Bush.

Why is Barack Obama so eager to continue doing the same wrecking job? Are there now too many underage ‘pirates’ pestering the Buccaneer Emperor for him to pullout from screwing Somalia?

For more coverage, see the BBC’s report… On Board a White Pirate Vessel

Peace flows from the end of a gunboat

Posted on by
Reply

US Institute of Peace
WASHINGTON DC- It’s not the “Department of Peace,” to contrast with the Department of Defense, although some detractors point out that we have the State Department for that, but visitors to DC will find in the NW corner of the National Mall, the US Navy has conceded a portion of its real estate adjacent the Lincoln Memorial for a US Institute of Peace. Dot org, not dot gov. And what do they mean by “Public Education Center?” It’s Pax Americana they’re institutionalizing, aka peacekeeping in the gunboat diplomacy sense of the word.

And sure enough, according to its website:

USIP has been operating on the ground in Iraq since 2004, working with Iraqis to reduce interethnic and interreligious violence, speed up stabilization and democratization, and reduce the need for a U.S. presence in Iraq.

How the US and Georgia violated the South Ossetia peace plan

Posted on by
Reply

map_nato_021120.gifThe Russians have issued a peace plan for Georgia and the US to accept, and SURPRISE!
It’s the same peace plan that was in place before, which the US and Georgia violated by entering and attacking South Ossetia. The peace plan calls for non- aggression in South Ossetia to be monitored by peacekeeping troops. FACTBOX-Peace plan for Georgia: what is it? This peace plan is essentially the same one that the European Union has already proposed and that was already once in place.

However, it is obvious to all that the US and Georgian governments do not feel in the least obligated to abide by this plan since they have already violated it once by unilatrally sending troops into South Ossetia. Further the official US government propaganda mills in the US (the New York Times, Washington Post, George Dubya Bush, Rice, etc.) have made it clear with their continued belligerency that this attack on South Ossetia was only the beginning of the continued US government plan to now constantly attack Russia. They have no desire at all to retreat despite the human suffering their war plans are causing. They want to control the natural resources of Asia for US corporate interests and that is all that counts for them.

It seems clear that this is the new Republican plan to try to advance John McCain’s chances for entering into the White House, too, and since the Democrats share the same foreign policy goals of the Republicans they will not be able to counter the Republican offensive but will instead echo everything the Bush Administration does. The Republican plan is to simply reignite Cold War rhetoric against the nationalist capitalist regime of the country today named Russia, and to attack the Democratic Party for being supposedly weak in this campaign.

Liberal pacifists and academic Left Libertarians in the Peace Movement are also not prepared to do anything against this new neocon propaganda offensive against Russia. They also tag along with the Republicans spewing out constant anti- Chinese and anti- Russia vitriol all on their own. Their mantra has always been merely a call to equally and incessantly blame victims of US aggression alongside the blame they toss out against the US government for causing the chaos and conflict in the world today.

But how can a US Antiwar Movement be built on such a foundation like that? In fact, you hardly see these people active even going through the motions of organizing a US Antiwar Movement. It is all talk and writing for the liberal community that they are engaged in and propagandizing for, and nothing of real organizing an Antiwar Movement. By equalizing responsibility as they do, in fact they expose themselves as being US nationalists themselves despite their criticisms of the US corporate government, simply because who is to blame is not equal at all in the least.

Russia and China are now engaged by the US government in a very real war of worldwide proportions, and yet the public in the US is not even vaguely aware in the least of what their own corporate dictatorship government has planned for us all. Where will the next new fighting be started by the militarists in the White House? How can they be stopped without total disaster occurring? The future indeed does look grim.

One aspect of interest is how the US government used Georgia to muscle out the interests of all the Western European countries besides the United Kingdom This fighting has been a US power government play to mold NATO as it wants it to be molded, the Europeans be damned. See the Wall Street Journal commentary… Splits Emerge Within EU

Russia should not take any US talk of peace seriously, since the US government’s actions since the fall of the exSoviet Union have made it already clear that the US corporations merely want to beat down Russia with a big stick.

Troubles in Peacekeeping Land, Darfur

Posted on by
Reply

Rwandan troops in Darfur UNITED NATIONS, July 23 — Rwanda has warned that it will withdraw its 3,000 peacekeepers from a U.N.-backed mission in the Darfur region of Sudan if the United Nations refuses to retain an alleged Rwandan war criminal as its second-highest-ranking commander there, according to U.S. and U.N. officials… Rwanda Threatens Darfur Pullout if U.N. Removes General

Yes, How embarrassing to have war criminals in charge of ‘UN peacekeeping’, however there is no word yet if Americans will need to get rid of war criminals George W. Bush and Dick Cheney before the US can continue to direct ‘peacekeeping’ in Darfur? What do you think?

Notice also how according to this Washington Post reportage the US government is asking that the war criminal remain in place as a ‘peacekeeper’ general. Amazing stuff! Wonder what the group ‘Save Darfur’ has to say about this affair?

Remember, too, that the United Nations ‘International Criminal Court’ just charged the Sudanese president, Bashir, with being a war criminal. And now just days later, the press learns that the United Nations troops in Darfur have a war criminal general leading a portion of its command! How easy it is for certain war criminals to lead ‘peacekeeping missions’. The UN has certainly stamped with its approval war criminal Bush’s ‘peacekeeping’ in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today US government is now set to declare war on Sudan

Posted on by
Reply

Darfur
The US and French have moved their troops into Chad and Darfur (around 10,000 UN troops are there now) and this weekend the US is set to use the United Nations once again to set up a war against yet another sovereign nation!

In a crime scene that is reminiscent of how the US government once gave Saddam Hussein the go ahead and permission to attack Kuwait and then later used this Iraqi attack as an excuse to attack Iraq itself, the US is planning to use Sudan’s permission to allow UN troops into Darfur as its beachhead in furthering its attack on the country of Sudan as a whole. President Bashir of Sudan will be accused of war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor in a day or two ahead.

This is what the pro-war ‘Save Darfur’ campaign has wanted all along, to give liberal ideological support for US- Euroepan aggression behind a cloud of ‘humanitarian’ interventionist rhetoric. They have succeeded in their goal 100% but have not succeeded in doing anything other than bringing another disguised US occupation to yet another African country. Instead of helping save Somalia, they have helped enslave Sudan.

We cannot be sure exactly how this coming declaration of US war on Sudan will unfold? What can be known with certainty is, that the US criminalization of another official enemy head of state in their ‘international’ kangaroo court can only be nothing more nor less than a US declaration of war on Sudan’s government.

None of this is for any benefit to the people of Darfur themselves, just like using the Kurds in Iraq has done nothing much to help out the Kurdish nation as a whole. Newsweek in their July commentary DARFUR-A Thin Coat of Blue More than six months after the United Nations formed a peacekeeping force in Darfur, little has happened on the ground gave an honest accounting of what UN troops in Darfur has meant to the people there. Instead of helpers, the area are getting nothing more than US mercenary pawns in the US government’s grand plan of obtaining total global control for its well established Empire.

The US antiwar movement is totally unprepared to today honestly analyze how their own stupidity and national jingoistic mindset has helped get its own government into yet more of African territory. It is a very sad situation. We should never promote ‘humanitarian interventionism’ when our own government is nothing more than just pirates and gangsters. To do so as many ‘peace’ activists did is criminal.

What are our US backed troops in Somalia up to?

Posted on by
Reply

I know, I know, Tony, we don’t have troops in Somalia so what the Hell are you thinking? Well, GI Joe, we may not have you there at this very minute, but the US government you serve does have paid mercenaries there doing the fighting.

Hey, I’m not talking about Blackwater, though that company of mercenaries is already in Sudan doing …. what? ‘Peacekeeping’? How noble. But I am writing about those other US mercenaries that are doing the fighting of a US war in Somalia, the Ethiopian troops. What are these US government backed troops up to?

Army slit throats in mosque, says Amnesty Now let’s see? The US government says it is not fighting a Neo-Crusade in Muslim lands, but has an Ethiopian army, made up of Ethiopian Christians, supported by America, the Christian Empire, cutting Muslims throats inside mosques! Certainly, America’s war against Somalia must be winning the hearts and minds of Muslims world wide, don’t you think? Dubya and Dick, Donald, and Condi, all so respectful of religious freedom and so careful to not make the Iraq War and all their other wars out to be religiously motivated by Christian zealotry and what not. They love ‘good Muslims’ and all.

So what are our US backed troops in Somalia up to? They’re out their cutting the throats of Muslims in their churches (mosques), that’s what?

Europeans and US intervening in Darfur by way of Chad

Posted on by
Reply

After all those nice stories about how ‘something must be done’, the European Union is sending in its troops to Darfur by way of neighboring Chad. In so doing, it will be propping up a French maintained puppet dictator that is so unpopular, that even some of his own relatives are trying to overthrow him along with much of the population at large. Oh, Go blame it on the Arab horsemen and the Chinese, I suppose?

What is all this Chad, Darfur, and Sudan stuff really about to our Western ears? Does our ruling class now have soft hearts and now are turning to stop bad things going on in the big bad, world? Pretty comical notion I think. ‘Save the Blacks! Save the children!’ What noblesse oblige!

Is this the new compassionate conservatism in action? Oh No…. It’s the liberal Democrats once again! Working with Bush and Sarkozy all together! Oh, and it’s to ‘Stop Terrorism’, too. It’s all part of the ‘Global War on Everybody and Everything’, patent pending in Washington DC office (or is it in Alexander, Virginia?). We got such good ol’ soft hearts, we going to save the world once again.

OK, actually the news is keeping the news away from us on this one. Too early to announce yet. We have short attention spans and need to stay focused on CHANGE and DARFUR. Chad is, well it is, politically incorrect to think about. There will be no Chad displays at the local library quite just yet. Hold your breath! And whatever you do, VOTE! The System need you.

Chad president urges EU force to deploy
Chad’s President Urges European Peacekeeping Force to Quickly Deploy; PM Declares Curfew …so many dead… so much suffering. But as Madelyn Albright would say… ‘It’s worth it.’ The European and US corporations must run Africa for themselves.

The United Nations engages in war in East Congo

Posted on by
Reply

In East Congo, Just like in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Sudan, and Somalia, the United Nations is playing a propaganda role backing up the US government and the Pentagon. But in East Congo , see Brutal peacekeepers: Congo’s election, the UN’s massacre, the United Nations is actually battling the population same as it has done in Haiti.

It’s troops go into battle alongside Congo government forces, and what a sorry war it is waging indeed.

What is the United Nation’s actual record in preventing strife between the Tutsi and Hutu? Pretty horrible. And now once again, this same ethnic divide is the cause of the reopening of the Congo’s on again /off again Civil War. The United Nations directed by Pentagon power from afar has no solution offered to help end this strife, beyond sending in ‘peacekeeping troops’, and ones that often engage in battle themselves, though most often they are behind the front lines support troops for occupation approved of by the US government.

What is needed, as in Sudan and Somalia, is a FULLY funded economic assistance plan that helps out ALL ethnic groups, not just one against another. As long as the United Nations is controlled by the US and European colonizers, we can expect continual outbursts of ethnic violence, not just in Africa, but around the globe. The UN currently is not really doing much more than follow Pentagon lead as directed to do so from D.C., and the Pentagon thrives off using one ethnic group against another. There is no major economic aid being offered to end the warfare in Eastern Congo.

The World Peace Movement should not see the United Nations as its friend in the effort to stop all the wars being waged by our US government. It just isn’t, and East Congo is yet another example of how ‘peacekeeping troops’ just don’t keep the peace, but instead even engage in the war.

Like the wars in Somalia/ Horn of Africa, this war in East Congo/ Rwanda/ Burundi is easily as deadly as the regional strife has been in Sudan, and the UN is having little positive role to play in actually stopping the slaughter. Nothing will until economic stability is actually created, but that is not part of the United Nations activities nor is it part of what the bi-partisan US government wants to do in Africa. The US government just wants to play one ethnic group off against the other to better control the continent.

Israel obstinate

Posted on by
Reply

PLOMore nations gave formal recognition to the PLO, a terrorist group, than to Israel. Thus more people thought the Palestinian Liberation Organization had a “right to exist” than did Israel, a chunk of Arab land appropriated to make a Jewish State. To date Israel has rejected 70 UN resolutions against its actions. I think it bears repeating them, lest typifying Israel’s behavior as illegal, be dismissed as a rant.

# 1. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947): the 1947 Partition plan of Palestine and the creation of Israel.
# 2. General Assembly Resolution 194 (1947): Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
# 3. Resolution 106 (1955): condemns Israel for Gaza raid.
# 4. Resolution 111 (1956): condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.
# 5. Resolution 127 (1958): recommends Israel suspend its no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem.
# 6. Resolution 162 (1961): urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.
# 7. Resolution 171 (1962): determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.
# 8. Resolution 228 (1966): censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.
# 9. Resolution 237 (1967): urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
# 10. Resolution 242 (1967): Israel’s occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
# 11. Resolution 248 (1968): condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
# 12. Resolution 250 (1968): calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
# 13. Resolution 251 (1968): deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.
# 14. Resolution 252 (1968): declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.
# 15. Resolution 256 (1968): condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.
# 16. Resolution 259 (1968): deplores Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
# 17. Resolution 262 (1968): condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.
# 18. Resolution 265 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.
# 19. Resolution 267 (1969): censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.
# 20. Resolution 270 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.
# 21. Resolution 271 (1969): condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
# 22. Resolution 279 (1970): demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
# 23. Resolution 280 (1970): condemns Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon.
# 24. Resolution 285 (1970): demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
# 25. Resolution 298 (1971): deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem.
# 26. Resolution 313 (1972): demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
# 27. Resolution 316 (1972): condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
# 28. Resolution 317 (1972): deplores Israel’s refusal to release.
# 29. Resolution 332 (1973): condemns Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon.
# 30. Resolution 337 (1973): condemns Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty.
# 31. Resolution 347 (1974): condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
# 32. General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974): affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine to self-determination without external interference and to national independence and sovereignty.
# 33. Resolution 425 (1978): calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
# 34. Resolution 427 (1978): calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# 35. Resolution 444 (1979): deplores Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.
# 36. Resolution 446 (1979): determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 37. Resolution 450 (1979): calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
# 38. Resolution 452 (1979): calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
# 39. Resolution 465 (1980): deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.
# 40. Resolution 467 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon.
# 41. Resolution 468 (1980): calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.
# 42. Resolution 469 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians.
# 43. Resolution 471 (1980): expresses deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 44. Resolution 476 (1980): reiterates that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are null and void.
# 45. Resolution 478 (1980): censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
# 46. Resolution 484 (1980): declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.
# 47. Resolution 487 (1981): strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility.
# 48. Resolution 497 (1981): decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
# 49. Resolution 498 (1981): calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
# 50. Resolution 501 (1982): calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
# 51. Resolution 509 (1982): demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.
# 52. Resolution 515 (1982): demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.
# 53. Resolution 517 (1982): censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
# 54. Resolution 518 (1982): demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
# 55. Resolution 520 (1982): condemns Israel’s attack into West Beirut.
# 56. Resolution 573 (1985): condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
# 57. Resolution 587 (1986): takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.
# 58. Resolution 592 (1986): strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
# 59. Resolution 605 (1987): strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# 60. Resolution 607 (1988): calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 61. Resolution 608 (1988): deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
# 62. Resolution 636 (1989): deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# 63. Resolution 641 (1989): deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# 64. Resolution 672 (1990): condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# 65. Resolution 673 (1990): deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
# 66. Resolution 681 (1990): deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
# 67. Resolution 694 (1991): deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# 68. Resolution 726 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
# 69. Resolution 799 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
# 70. Resolution 1397 (2002): affirms a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders.
# 71. General Assembly Resolution ES-10/15 (2004): declares the wall built inside the occupied territories as contrary to international law and asks Israel to demolish it.

What’s Australia doing occupying East Timor?

Posted on by
Reply

East Timor, remember it? It was the cause celebre of liberal minded world imperialist do-gooders for quite some time, and now much forgotten. Liberals in the English speaking world demanded that East Timor be split off from West Timor and the rest of Indonesia, and then established as a new ‘nation’.

Never mind that the off shore oil under the poor Third World nation of Indonesia’s control would then go into the hands of Australia. Never mind that this tiny new political structure would not be independently viable or sustainable, economically, politically, or socially outside of Austrlain government directive.

Now where are some of the liberals today? Do they support Australian troops out of East Timor? No. In fact most have totally forgotten about East Timor after it got captured as a new satellite of Australian imperialism, a junior imperialism tied in with British and American imperialisms in their region. People in East Timor are half starved and unemployed, and have their Lilliputian pseudo ‘nation’ occupied now with Australians, and not Indonesians as before. And the Australian liberal socialist group called Democratic Socialist Party that campaigned for Australian imperialism to ‘liberate’ the 1/2 of an island from Indonesia is not pressing for Australian troops to come home from East Timor now, but rather is pressing for more ‘humanitarian’ interventionism into other parts of Indonesia, to split yet more islands away from that country into Australian government control.

What’s Austrlalia doing occupying East Timor? Under the pretense of peacekeeping, they are supporting one side against another in a civil war there. Time to get these Australian troops out and back home where they belonged all along.

US sinking into Somalia once again?

Posted on by
Reply

Incredible as it may seem, the US appears to be moving back into destabilizing the Horn of Africa once again. It’s like there are not enough problems in the Congo, Sudan/ Chad, Rwanda/ Burundi regions of conflict already for Bush, so the US must provoke reopening conflict in the Horn of Africa/ Somalia zone, too! See AFP article- Eritrea accuses US of masking invasion of Somalia with peacekeeping plan

The last 2 US administrations have absolutely destroyed the credibility of the UN as being a body that functions independently of the Pentagon. Most of the world does not see either NATO or the ‘UN peacekeepers’ as anything other than pure extensions of US militarism, and for good reason, too. UN cooperation with the US bombing and dismemberment of Yugosalvia, UN cooperation in the US destruction of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, UN cooperation in accepting Israeli Apartheid and its terrorism of the Occupied Territories as norm, UN carrying out the continuation of the US invasion of Haiti, and UN acceptance and complicity of the US-Israeli destruction of Lebanon all have led to nobody still believing that this is a neutral world association anymore. Not that it ever seemed to be that so much, to the majority of the world outside Europe and the Anglophile countries.

It’s time to dump the UN and reestablish a new world body of nations totally outside the control of the US government. The current United Nations is a totally spent organization politically. Not even moving its adminstrative offices out of New York City could ever reestablish any of its credibility at this point. A better name for the UN in its current state would be the United Imperialist Nations (UIN). Except that even the word ‘united’ no longer can be considered to apply, as the imperialist countries continue to develop fissures in the post WW2 alliance amongst themselves.

As to the US via the UN in Somalia? What a disaster this appears to be in the making.

All the news fit to be shown to Americans

Posted on by
Reply

Simultaneous editions of NewsweekThis September has been the most fatal month for Canadians in Afghanistan. The number of Canadian soldiers killed peacekeeping for NATO has been accelerating of late and now stands at 37. It would stand to reason that Afghanistan would make the news.
 
Amy Goodman’s Independent Media in a Time of War examined the difference between the Iraq war coverage on CNN versus CNN international. Not the difference between Fox-News and the BBC, just the difference between in-house news departments of the same company.
 
What explains the decision to have a different cover story in this week’s domestic issue of Newsweek? Losing Afghanistan everywhere else, Annie Liebowitz: My Life In Pictures here.
 
The War in Afghanistan has become the forgotten war, due in large part because it is also kept an invisible war.
 
It serves to remember that regardless of the occasional expose, our press is neither unvigilant nor asleep. More precisely, their vigilance attends to guarding we don’t lose our sleep.
 
I have to remind myself, after reading any story critical of the war, that our press is not critical. The Wall Street Journal are terrible Neocon war mongers. The Washington Post, cynical war mongers. The Los Angeles Times, bandwagon war mongers. The New York Times, gatekeeper war mongers. Fox, MSNBC, of course cheerleader war mongers. CBS, ABC, war monger wannabees. Disney, war monger profiteers.
 
Recently fans are rallying around Keith Olbermann and his recent tirades against this administration. I agree we should support his speaking out, but Olbermann’s got a long way to go before he atones for his full throttle support in the lead-in to war.

Over 250,000 Iraqis are dead as a result of our invasion. Afghanistan too continues to suffer terrible civilian casualties. Our press supported both ventures and continues to support them.

Rules of engagement for Lebanon peacekeepers

Posted on by
Reply

Concerned nations await clear rules of engagement before agreeing to send soldiers to keep peace between Israel and Lebanon. Israel has opposed ceasefire terms because they would inhibit Israel’s opportunity to deal blows to Hisb’Allah. Here are perhaps peacekeeping orders the Israelis could approve:

Do not fire your weapons unless you are fired upon. Shoot Muslims at will.

Mel Gibson in vino veritas

Posted on by
Reply

Was Mel Gibson speaking his mind when he was pulled over for drunk driving? No doubt he was. In Vino Veritas. It wouldn’t be in Latin if it weren’t true. Discounting some of the vociferous hyperbole owed to his drunken ego, were Gibson’s comments anti-Semitic? How low is the bar for what is anti-Semitic? Gibson didn’t say he hated Jews.

Gibson’s Passion Spiel was held to be anti-Semitic because it portrayed the Jews as responsible for Jesus’ death. Who did kill Christ, if it even matters? Who betrayed him, who complained about him to the Romans, who passed up their chance to have him freed? Is it a matter of biblical interpretation? Whose? Is it anti-Semitic to bring it up because the subject is still too inflammatory after 2000 years? It’s water under the bridge, it’s not water evaporated to nowhere.

I think Gibson’s alcoholic state released sentiments a lot of us are feeling as we watch Israel unleash wave after wave of bombs upon captive Lebanese masses, while our media fiddles.

Polite people are cautioning everywhere, a Jew is not the same as a Zionist. Specifically, ordinary Jews should not be blamed for Israel’s inhumanity.

Well… why are all the Jews on television speaking in support of Israel? Why are newspapers focusing on the dozen Israeli victims and not the hundreds of Palestinians and Lebanese?

A Jew who does not repudiate Israel, is as guilty as a Zionist. He may not be a Zionist, but wouldn’t he equal a Zionist?

2. Media
How about, just for the immediate time-being, and I know this might sound anti-Jewish, while Israel is killing UN observers and refugees, while Israel is breaking humanitarian laws and refusing to consider a cease-fire, how about we stop asking Jewish pundits on television to explain both sides of the conflict? How about we disqualify all Jewish Center For Peace spokesmen if they are going to persistently proclaim Israel’s moral authority?

You wouldn’t ask a Dixicrat to officiate an NBA game.

Do we need Jewish American think-tank/lobbying-groups weighing in on Israel’s right to commit mass war crimes in Lebanon? Everywhere you look, all the experts/supporters are Jewish or US senators. What is up with that?

Kofi Annan makes an emergency outcry about Israel deliberately targetting a UN peacekeeping observation post, and Jewish pundits question his report.

They reply: “Of course Israel would not do that. How absurd. Why would Israel do that?” But the media talking heads do not take them up on this question:

“Why indeed?”
 
How about: because the observation post might have witnessed Israel doing something too dastardly for words. More dastardly than targeting refugees or ambulances or hospitals or civilian residences or what else.
 
The Arab-Israeli conflict has already seen civilian massacres perpetrated by Israel accompanied by the bombing of the U.N. forces meant to protect those civilians. Qana was the site of a civilian cum U.N. massacre before it was yesterday’s massacre.
 
How indeed did Kofi Annan know the attacks on the U.N. observers were deliberate? Because the Israeli forces kept firing, even as further U.N. troops attempted to rescue the victims. 		  Ambulance given Israeli treatment

 
ADDENDUM 8.03
Today Mel Gibson’s outburst and subsequent apology is being co-opted by the Jewish Lobby. With the tide of American public opinion rising against the Zionist drives to exterminate their Arab neighbors, Mel Gibson was giving voice to popular sentiment.

When Gibson immediately espressed his remorse for what he’d said, and asked for forgiveness, prominent Jewish spokesmen stepped in to offer that forgiveness. Even President Bush echoed their response.

Thus all of us who may have doubted Israel are forgiven and invited back into the fold. The error was not Israel’s bombing of a four-story building full of children in Qana, the error was our doubting the righteousness of Israel defending its own.