Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 17, 2007
Israel’s Political Mess

Finally war-criminal Lt. Gen. Halutz has resigned as chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force.

Halutz was largely responsible for the bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure in Israels war on Lebanon last summer.

His resignation comes only a few hour after a prosecutor ordered an investigation into Prime Minister Olmert’s handling of the privatization of a state owned bank in 2005.

Olmert’s current approval rating in polls is at 14%. He still has a solid majority in the Knesset, but his resignation and new elections would most probably result in a shift to the far right.

Meanwhile the IDF seems to be out of control.

The political situation is Israel looks very unstable to me. One wonders what plans might exist to divert the public interest from the mess.

Olmert yesterday denied that unofficial peace talks have been held with Syria, but today Haaretz reports that even Cheney was informed of these.

What government would deny attempts to make peace with its neighbors? A government that wants war?

Comments

If it were BushCo and not Olmert, I’d expect Syria to be hit pretty soon.
And such talk “according to the General Staff assessment, Syria and Hezbollah will begin a war this year.” doesn’t make me optimist Olmert or his buddies don’t want to raise the stakes. Seeking excuses for pre-emptive war? Opening peace talk with Syria to lure them into relaxing their security? Is Israel becoming a state ruled by the army at least to a Turkey-like level if not closer to a junta? And shouldn’t Israelis be more worried with their sharply decreasing living standards, thanks to a crashing war economy?

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jan 17 2007 8:58 utc | 1

The disastrous state of affairs within the Israeli government does not bode well at all for Iran. It must be very compelling to Olmert, wavering on the brink of historical irrelevance, to imagine rescuing his pathetic prime ministership by carrying out a “masterful,” “brazen,” and “totally successful” strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities (viz: Iraq 1981 redux) that would “secure his place in history.” That is, unless he learned from the debacle in Lebanon this summer that such adventures do not always have their intended effects at home or, for that matter, abroad… alas, I fear the irresistible temptation may win out in the end, unless political forces in the US put the cabosh on this lunacy.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 17 2007 13:31 utc | 2

on the other hand Bea, it may be inevitable that Israel strikes Iran. Netanyahu is waiting in the wings for the present government to fall and everyone knows what a nutjob he is.
looks like we are back to brinkmanship. only difference is our side is blind and can’t see the other side furiously blinking.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 17 2007 13:34 utc | 3

So we have now two heads of government in the last stages of failed leadership, both wanting to find a way to redeem themselves and save their doomed legacies in one last bold strike. I wonder at which point Tony Blair joins the fun.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jan 17 2007 13:40 utc | 4

What if China decides to go along with this in a tacit kind of way? They actually have little to lose as there is no way the US is ever going to control all the oil in the whole world.
Watching the US afghanistan itself would probably be a great way to pass the next 5 to 10 years if you are Chinese or Russian for that matter. Afterwards, you just pick up the pieces laying around and keep on carrying on.
sucks to be born in the middle east.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 17 2007 13:50 utc | 5

looks like we are back to brinkmanship. only difference is our side is blind and can’t see the other side furiously blinking.
relatively speaking, is this the calm before the storm?

Posted by: annie | Jan 17 2007 16:35 utc | 6

An Informal Diplomatic Surge: Draft Israeli-Syrian Peace Deal Revealed

The Israeli media has been abuzz all day with speculation regarding this new peace plan as it follows a period of intense debate on whether Israel should continue to adhere to the American veto of engaging with Damascus or whether Israel should explore the negotiation option that Syrian President Assad has been suggesting.
Several senior Israeli ministers have argued in favor of the latter.

Posted by: b | Jan 17 2007 17:21 utc | 7

The Great Game
As in the Japanese game of Go, all efforts in the Middle East by both Israel and America are to ‘surround’ and thus control someone else’s territory. The goal behind seizing territory varies — lebensraum for Jewish families, or sovereignty over sweet crude still in the ground. No matter the goal. Capture the turf and you get whatever is of value there. You win by putting region after region under your control.
Seize control of the State, and then tell that State to control its populace.
In real world terms you establish hegemony. You establish puppet states, protectorates, trade partners, client countries who will not wander from your wish list on pain of punishment.
Israel and America are both pursuing enormous attempts to float unsinkable life rafts in an ocean of Muslims. These are high maintenance projects that could capsize if left to survive on their own merits. If it weren’t for the Holy Land, the Israeli people would have been better advised to establish their own nation in Utah, Paraguay, or Mongolia. But they never will; they wanted Israel and now they want Greater Israel.
If it weren’t for America’s need for Middle Eastern oil, and America’s need for the world’s oil to continue being sold in dollars predominantly, we wouldn’t know or care any more about the Middle East than the Tales of Sinbad. Even after four years of war, America is still not interested in the Middle East, just the oil. We’ve only put six people in the Green Zone who speak Arabic, for Chrissake. Nope, we just want the oil turf, and control of the market. That lets us print mountains of money that other nations have to have, and hold. That lets us run a ruinous annual trade deficit, and ignore a national debt that should have sunk us in the mid 1980’s.
America’s core goal in the Middle East is to carve out our “Syriana” over there, a crescent of docile client states stretching from Lebanon right on through Persia to Pakistan. After that, we want Greater Syriana, which means creating client states up into the Caucasus and Caspian region, so that Russia does not default to being the sole energy superpower in the coming century. After that, we want to dominate the whole planet, and outer space as well. That’s America in the new century, plain and simple.
You score points in the game of Go by taking, by taking territory and by making the population within it your prisoners. It is a game of clever theft, and clever theft in return. You can invest your all in surrounding a territory only to have your opponent — at the very last moment, with one small move — surround your effort and take your all. You ended up carving out a superb territory, only to gift it to your enemy intact and entire.
The Great Game in the Middle East, and in this world at large, is a game of Go, a game of clever theft by turns. It can only be played across the entire board, carving out multiple territories at once, regularly risking everything on the tiniest corners and intersections of interests. None of it is in your control even when it is. What has been carved out can become part of a greater slice of ground later, and then a greater slice again at a later stage.
All ownership is temporary, and all control is relative.
In real world terms, the Great Game is inherently incapable of being over, of ending with this or that result. Victory? Victory is a temporary edge, nothing more. If victory in any area is not exploited, risked, and put into the immediate service of seizing even more ground, then it is effectively surrendered at that point, awaiting only the enemy’s leisure to pluck it from your hand.
Who sees the world this way? Who seizes states and nations and regions as if they were squares on a board? Who lives and breathes in this Extreme Game mode? Who has access to the military and monetary wherewithal to make these kinds of moves? Who takes thrones from kings, and who denies democracies their elected leaders?
Is it the housewives in their kitchens? The farmers in their fields? The cubicle rats in every major metropolis on Earth? Do they launch great offensives upon the cubicles across the way? Who is carving up the planet and denying it to the other carvers for however long they can?
It is the power behind all thrones, all democracies. Capital. Hugely concentrated, massive capital as it seeks to jockey and position itself to advantage. Capital is not money. Money is something you spend, money is a medium of exchange, something to replace the bartering of chickens. Capital is not about dollars, rials, rubles, euros or pesos. It is about parity. It is about not losing ground.
Fitzgerald said it well, “The very rich are not like you and I.” No, they are not. Money is not real to the ultra rich. There is no concept of money to the mega wealthy lords of our planet. There is only the ranking of one fortune compared to another fortune. There is only influence, standing, power. There is only relative wealth to measure at that level of mind boggling affluence. All great fortunes are as far removed from the working man’s concept of money as the moon is from a street lamp.
You can graph fabulous, massive capital. You can show yourself that you are worth more than the GDP of 83 nations and all their inhabitants. But no human mind can actually conceive of that kind of capital in terms of money. It is as meaningless as putting an aircraft carrier in your shirt pocket.
In the capitalist system, a nation’s capital and governance gradually flows upward into the hands of a very few people, usually those who monopolize the Central Banks, which are present in every developed nation in the form of privately held, for-profit investment corporations. The control of each nation’s economy, through the control of its money, allots a daily percentage of profit from every single money transaction within that economy unto those capital investors at the very top.
Like the House Rules at every casino in the world, the odds are stacked in favor of the casino. Just a bit. Just a little bit. That’s all it takes. Let the games be played for an hour or for a century, the outcome is a mathematical certainty — the House wins.
In the globalized capitalist economy we currently enjoy, a little bit of interest on every bit of currency in circulation goes to the Central Bank of your country with every venture of capital into the system. The loan brings back interest on top of the loan, and this little bit of interest accrues to the ultra wealthy who made the loan. At the top of the lending pyramid is your national banking system’s top bank. The Bank of England. The Federal Reserve. The Bank of Nigeria. Your nation’s highest bank.
That bank does not belong to your nation, or to your government. It belongs to fabulously wealthy, private, individual investors, hailing from every country of the world, through their stock holdings in banks and corporations and investment funds which own the actual Central Bank stock in your nation. These individuals were born into these mega fortunes, and trained to manage them (or hire competent management) through their lifetimes. These individuals are of no importance; they are just placeholders for their fourscore years on Earth. When they die, they turn to dust like the rest of us, and their fortune turns over to the next in line.
This is how capital is amassed, into mountains of money a million miles high, and then passed on to the next generation. It has been accruing for centuries, but with the emergence of the global economy in the most recent few decades it has come into its own as the true power behind all thrones.
These vast, vast private fortunes drive economies, which drive politics and statecraft, which ostensibly govern the world for the benefit of the inhabitants. These capital mountains are intertwined in all their activities and goals, and they seek the one thing all capital seeks which is growth. What, truly, is a sovereign nation state to this network of one percent of humanity who control well over 51% of all wealth? Nations are squares on a board, and their control is up for grabs.
When does a Go game end? Well, the game pieces are unlimited, but the game board is usually 19 by 19 squares. There is a physical limit of space, and so the game ends with either that limit being reached, or the exhaustion of the players. Unlike the real world, the game of clever theft is not carried to absurd lengths.
In real world terms, the physical world is limited in resources and territory. The planet Earth is a spaceship, after all, tumbling along through space. When someday a single corporation owns every accessible atom of the planet, and rules the lives of every creature upon it, the Great Game will have ended. That is the logical result of globalized capitalism. The House wins, in the end, everything.
Long before that occurs, most likely during the lifetimes of people walking around today, the world will turn from this course by existential necessity. You cannot let clever people have everything, to run as they feel will benefit themselves and their fortune. It is only during this transitional period we call the Post Industrial Age that such an absurdly unbalanced and ungovernable power center is permitted to exist, or to hide in plain sight.
Toward the middle of this century, the tiny thefts performed upon our daily human transactions by the usury of capitalists will be recognized as the debt slavery that it is. Usury is a parasitic practice for the benefit of the parasite.
Massive capital is a marvelous tool of civilization. It has always been the power of kings, and the power behind kings. Amassed capital comes from everyone alive and working and buying and selling and existing. It does not need to flow into a few private hands; it can just as easily flow from everyone to a centrally managed national or even world fund. Pyramids were built with it in the past. Wars were fought with it. Men went to the moon with it. We will colonize other planets with it.
We will save ourselves, and this planet with it.
Massed capital is perhaps the greatest tool humankind ever invented.
But it will be restricted to power games between the ultra wealthy few human beings who claim to own it, and own nations, until such time as it is recognized as the common lifeblood of every terrestrial creature, and not the property of fortunate vampires who guard an immortal treasure taken drop by drop from us all.
That day is coming as inevitably as the end of a Go game. One fine morning, everyone will recognize that there is no point in continuing a game of clever theft to absurd lengths. As massive capital pushes human lives further and further from their own space, and their own resources, everyone will realize that there finally is nowhere left to move.
Game over.
It is at that point that human civilization will begin.

Posted by: Antifa | Jan 17 2007 17:26 utc | 8

@b #7
Putting this together with what you posted about Kuwait, is it possible that certain Middle Eastern parties are pushing back, in their own ways, against the neocon tornado? It certainly is an embarrassing (for the US and Israel) and very well-timed disclosure (with Condi right there in the region) about the Syrian-Israeli talks.
If so, one can only hope this trend picks up steam in the coming weeks before it is too late.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 17 2007 17:27 utc | 9

Barkeep, I’ll have whatever Antifa’s having.

Posted by: beq | Jan 17 2007 17:49 utc | 10

One fine morning, everyone will recognize that there is no point in continuing a game of clever theft to absurd lengths.
That is, there are any homo sapiens still around on that day.
Antifa, thanks for the great and thought-provoking post.
Toast to Antifa…

Posted by: Bea | Jan 17 2007 17:55 utc | 11

toast to antifa, it’s never too early in the morn to drink what antifa serves up.

Posted by: annie | Jan 17 2007 18:12 utc | 12

Excellent analysis Antifa, though I’ve got a bad feeling the board will be broken long before we get to take it back.

Posted by: aubanel | Jan 17 2007 18:42 utc | 13

Antifa, WOW!
That is the most thorough analysis that I have read in a while.
There is some hope though – I want to remind people that Latin American leaders, temporarily at least free of US interference, are coming together more and more, co-operating on many different levels, and are talking about a new model for their countries and example for others. Chavez is the most prominent example. I will not point to a specific article, but here is a good site with general news. Chomsky is very happy with the progress being made.
Latin America News Review

Posted by: Owl | Jan 17 2007 21:10 utc | 14

antifa…AWESOME

Posted by: Ben | Jan 17 2007 22:50 utc | 15

Stratfor’s take on the Israeli-Syrian leak is that it is simply an attempt to sow doubt and discord between Iran and Syria ahead of the spring offensive… just another piece of infowar. Factoid – 1/3 of Israel’s water supply comes from the Golan Heights.
Antifa – nice rant. What I’m not clear on is how the “System of the World” of capital will transition from the present circumstance, in which individual dynasties however flawed control it, to one in which it is controlled by everybody and so nobody. It appears to me that the current system wasn’t “intelligently designed” but was rather evolved – and did so by balancing the competing demands of rewarding risk and innovation via wealth concentration with fostering (or perhaps only just permitting) a civil society via wealth distribution… Certainly, in this evolution it has eclipsed the model of management by bureaucrat or technocrat. How?

Posted by: PeeDee | Jan 17 2007 23:13 utc | 16

Antifa-
That qualifies for “Post of the Year” awards. I especially like the metaphor. But, like PeeDee, I believe that the trenchant analysis kind of veers off into wished-for, but unsubstantiated, prognosis towards the end. Small fault, as our sympathies are with you all the way.

Posted by: Bob M. | Jan 17 2007 23:29 utc | 17

It might be more appropriate to comment on Antifa’s analysis in the open thread, however I’m going to raise two relevant points here.
Antifa, please don’t construe this as a criticism of your overall thesis — excellent in my opinion.
But there are more than six translators in Iraq, it’s just that they are contractors. I read yesterday that there are some thousand private translators in Iraq. It must be so. One could argue that they should formally be part of the military … but the translators are there.
Now, as for the off-topic part. I came across an interesting bit of history regarding central (private) banks and the fact that they are unnecessary. The argument posits that the government can control the lending and spending of money (that it prints itself) without yielding that role to private banks that create money by lending with interest.
The government itself can analyze the economy and add to the money supply by contracting out public works, paid for in currency, and as necessary lending money at interest to banks and individuals. It can also shrink the money supply using similar means.
A Canadian Prime Minister was elected on this platform in 1935, WL McKenzie King:
“The Liberal Party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. The Liberal Party declares itself in favour of the immediate establishment of a duly constituted national bank for the control of the issue of money in terms of public needs. The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social, and industrial needs of the Canadian people.”
The problem of interest and its corresponding guarantee of ever-expanding debt, and the government-bank solution, are well explained on the Michael Journal. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“…money would be nothing but the reflection, the exact financial expression, of economic realities: production would be expressed in assets, and consumption in liabilities. Since one cannot consume more than what has been produced, the liabilities could never exceed the assets, and deficits and debts would be impossible.
In practice, here is how it would work: the new money would be issued by the National Credit Office as new products are made, and would be withdrawn from circulation as these products are consumed (purchased). (Louis Even’s booklet, A Sound and Effective Financial System, explains this mechanism in detail.)”
I think this idea is well worth discussing …

Posted by: jonku | Jan 17 2007 23:37 utc | 18

Thanks, Antifa. Great antidote to that American myth that any one of us could be a lottery ticket away from being one of the PTB.
Followup exercise: how many examples can we come up with of benevolent or positive uses of capital (wealth), knowing that some examples have illthy sides as well (exploration of the moon, reliable power grids, Swedish health care).
How did the examples on the list come about (benevolent ruler or popular movement) and how can we encourage more wealth and less illth? Does that kind of power always corrupt the ring-bearer?

Posted by: catlady | Jan 18 2007 1:21 utc | 19

Wonderful post, Antifa. I pray that the day that the game is over comes in my lifetime.

Posted by: Dena | Jan 18 2007 2:59 utc | 20

All right, all right. To put a harder edge on that rosy future I ended with, the decision this global community of nations has to make is to take deficit financing and money supply out of private hands. Central Banks are the epitome of the globalized usury system, they being the controllers of national currencies, and therefore of national economies over the many decades.
But Central Banks are the symptom, not the problem.
The Big Brass Tack is fractional reserve banking. To wit — a banker has a million bucks of real money he gathered from various investors. Under current legal systems, he may lend out ten times this amount to interested parties, at interest. He does not have ten million bucks, but he is allowed to lend out nine million dollars that he made up on the spot.
Wouldn’t you like to make up money with a fountain pen and a loan contract? Tough. You can’t. Only the bank can.
Nine million completely imaginary dollars are put out on the street, at minimal risk to the bank. He knows how to qualify his borrowers, and he knows no one is going to come and get their money back, because it’s a big granite building and the Bank President wears a suit and is a member of the Chamber of Commerce. Everyone has faith in his honesty and ability to earn himself and themselves some interest.
Fast forward a year. That banker has earned ten times the interest you might have expected him to earn on one million real dollars, such that even after paying his expenses and taxes and all, his bank starts the new year with real reserves of 1.2 million.
He can then begin the new year by making loans of 12 million dollars, fully 90% of it imaginary. Fast forward another year, and he has real reserves of 1.5 million, and so he gets to loan out fifteen million imaginary. Fast forward ten years, and he has 2 million in real reserves, and loans of 20 million imaginary go out. Fast forward a century of Central Banking, and that banker’s grandson is sitting on a billion dollars of real money reserves, and ten billion in imaginary money loaned out. The bank’s pile just gets bigger with every passing day of compound interest in action.
How did the bank increase its real reserves? By putting more money on the street than it really had, than really existed, than was backed by genuine production of real assets or labor or resources. This issuing of imaginary dollars increased the money supply on the street, which had the effect, over each year, of reducing the value of the real money in people’s pockets by the amount of the bank’s increase in reserves.
This is the vampire effect of fractional reserve banking. It is an act of open fraud upon the masses, siphoning the value out of their money by the manipulation of it. Over time, capital accrues massively into the possession and control of these lenders of imaginary dollars.
They get fabulously wealthy. Wealthy to the point where they can manipulate the marketplace, manipulate the economy to their advantage (the so-called business cycle of boom and bust), manipulate the government, industry, international relations, foreign wars, the works. Nothing is beyond their reach. Nothing.
Political power is just the clothing on economic power, and these Central Banks have the economic power, both by their massive wealth and by their ability to manipulate the economy by manipulating the amount of money on the street — simply by changing the amount of money they loan out, or decline to loan out.
There being Central Banks in every nation of the modern world, getting this nation or that nation to nationalize its Central Bank or outlaw fractional reserve banking would probably just lead to warfare, as the Central Banks of other powers would quickly arrange a coup or war to topple the wayward nation that took its money back from the bankers.
It has to be a global sized decision, when it comes. It will come only from people refusing to participate in the system. Great numbers of people refusing. More people than all the imaginary money in the world.

Posted by: Antifa | Jan 18 2007 4:35 utc | 21

You mean….You mean….Kick the money changers from the temple?????

Posted by: pb | Jan 18 2007 5:40 utc | 22

Helena Cobban has a nice post up.
http://tinyurl.com/s636y
Washington’s shaky political house in Baghdad

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jan 18 2007 5:49 utc | 23

Jimmy Carter WaPo OpEd: A New Chance for Peace?

I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.
Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress.

Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

Posted by: b | Jan 18 2007 8:40 utc | 24

Whos is vetoing peace talks? Bush/Cheney or Olmert – or both?
The denial / Assassination of a peace initiative

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could have said that he had no idea about the covert channel for talks with Syria in which Alon Liel and other Israelis participated. Perhaps his bureau officials forgot to report to him about the meeting with the European mediator.
..They know that, in any case, Olmert can’t talk to the Syrians because of the veto imposed by U.S. President George W. Bush, or that Olmert doesn’t want to move closer to Syrian President Bashar Assad because of the veto of Minister for Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman.

But the prime minister did not make do with: “I didn’t know about it.”
Yesterday morning, Olmert already knew that everything was nonsense. Liel had been speaking to himself, the Syrian representative was daydreaming and the European mediator never existed. It appears that Olmert wanted to assassinate this peace initiative, and quickly.

It’s common to think that Israeli political leaders are running away from the Syrian so as not to anger the Americans; after Bush placed Assad in the Axis of Evil, how is it possible to demand that Olmert bring him out?
The key role played by American citizens Geoffrey Aronson and Ibrahim Suleiman in the eight meetings raises doubts as to whether Bush is the reason – or just the excuse – for the Israeli refusal to negotiate. American intelligence was not unaware of the visits of the two Americans, and if the decision-makers in Washington were interested in making the meetings fail, they would have found a way to do so.

Posted by: b | Jan 18 2007 12:43 utc | 25

getting this nation or that nation to nationalize its Central Bank or outlaw fractional reserve banking would probably just lead to warfare…..It will come only from people refusing to participate in the system. Great numbers of people refusing. More people than all the imaginary money in the world.
how long can imaginary money prop up society? what percentage of the population not able to earn a living wage might bring about this refusal?
does the cumulative debt of society gradually amassed by non living wages equal the imaginary money?

Posted by: annie | Jan 18 2007 15:54 utc | 26

those questions pertain to antifa’s #21 post

Posted by: annie | Jan 18 2007 15:55 utc | 27

The assassination of a peace initiative, by Akiva Eldar

In the best-case scenario, there was a communication failure among the professional staff. In the worst case, the politicians turned their backs on an important document and gave up the chance to begin formal negotiations with Syria on the basis of the key understandings, which would not have been achieved without the blessing of official Damascus.
When official Jerusalem turns such meetings into a joke, Syria won’t be able to lag far behind. Does anyone expect that when Olmert says he has nothing to do with this document, Assad will adopt it and announce he has given up any desire to dip his feet into Lake Kinneret?

Posted by: Bea | Jan 18 2007 17:41 utc | 28

Interesting development in this context:

Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz will consider limiting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s authority as Olmert faces a criminal investigation in connection with the Bank Leumi affair, Mazuz’s deputy said. Olmert is suspected of improperly promoting the interests of two businessmen during the 2005 bank privatization.

Source is Stratfor’s news wire… presumably it’s elsewhere as well. Would that be his authority to authorise a nuclear strike?

Posted by: PeeDee | Jan 18 2007 22:07 utc | 29

Antifa’s post is inspiring.. Yet.. practically everybody in the “West” profits from what Antifa calls massive capital.
The oil flows, cars are driven, the transport of salad and DVDs chugs along, doctors take care of people, homes are large, prestigious, or ratty and disgusting, but have roofs, heating in the cold, and usually a water point inside.
People in the Congo don’t have that.
Fortunate vampires are not just men in suits who ‘smoke cigars’, corrupt politicians, sell arms and warm bodies, and so on, they are you and me, me and you, and we are not about to give those advantages up.
How human civilization will begin is left in the shade. Will the Congolese decide they love to scrabble in the heat and dust or mud to furnish their far away brothers with precious minerals? Or will they take up arms, yet again, against whatever enemy is there? Or will the US give them a pile of money and satellite dishes, good baby care? What? Then what? Nah, that can’t be it…
Or, once the apocalypse has hit, will humans become sophisticated systems analysts, balancing their interest with those of others in a fair way? Take ecology into account? Act, all of them, like loving sacrificial grandmothers? Would that do any good?
What is the scenario?
I’m irritated.

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 19 2007 16:32 utc | 30

here’s an article from last week on how chavez is using “massive capital” to eradicate poverty
Chavez Vows to Cut Venezuela Debt, Use Reserves in Social Fund

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today vowed to trim his nation’s debt and funnel $8.7 billion of its international reserves from the central bank to a social spending fund as part of his plan to implement socialism in the oil-rich country.
“We could pay our entire foreign debt with the reserves we have if we wanted to — that’s one of our strengths,” Chavez said in an annual address to the legislature today.
The use of central bank reserves to fund social spending projects echoes a pledge Chavez made this week to strip the central bank of its autonomy, calling bank independence a “neoliberal” concept counter to his vision for Venezuela. Lawmakers have also said the government plans to use international reserves to finance the nationalization of the country’s largest and publicly held telephone, power and oil companies.
Venezuela’s soaring oil income has allowed it to accumulate about $56 billion in international reserves in the Central Bank in two separate spending funds, Fonden and Fondespa. They were created by Chavez to finance social and infrastructure projects as part of his so-called Bolivarian revolution.

Posted by: b real | Jan 19 2007 16:43 utc | 31

Here is an excellent Haaretz opinion piece by Meron Benvenistiformer Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, well-known for “telling it like it is” in Israel. The piece refers to an incident this week in which B’Tselem the Israeli Human Rights Organization videotaped an abusive exchange between a Palestinian resident of Hebron and her Jewish settler neighbor that was shown widely on Israeli TV, ostensibly shocking the public.
Implement Which Law?
~ Snip

The annexation for Jews alone has created a dual system under which rule of law is determined based on an individual’s or a community’s national identity. The “local” population is subject to only the original law, as amended in thousands of military injunctions. The right to choose is reserved for Jews. When it’s convenient, they are Israeli citizens in every way. When it’s less convenient, like when it comes to matters of higher education and especially infrastructure planning, they are subject to the local law. The latter lags behind the Israeli law, and therefore allows for manipulations.
The confrontation between the female settler and the Palestinian woman from Hebron was a clash between two parallel worlds: The Jewish woman possesses all the rights of a citizen of a free country, who is entitled to the protection of its security forces. On the other side is a woman from an occupied people, who is also entitled to protection. However, the army of the occupation forgot long ago that under international law, its role is to protect the “protected population.” The army has become the settlers’ militia and views the local people as hostile elements.
It’s easy to condemn the vulgarity of the settler from Hebron, and it’s easy to dismiss the Jewish enclave there as a gang of violent thugs. But they are only weeds that sprout from the rotten ground of the cruel regime that prevails beyond the Green Line. It’s a regime based on ethnic discrimination and separation, double standards and an absence of the rule of law.

I will post a link to the videotape in question later if I can find one.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 19 2007 19:41 utc | 32

And continuing from the previous post:
For anyone who is interested, I’ve just discovered a collection of other B’Tselem videos about life in the occupied territories here. And they also have a photo archive here.

Posted by: Bea | Jan 19 2007 19:41 utc | 33

And another follow-on to the story of the Hebron settlers:
Chairman of Yad Vashem (Israel’s National Holocaust Memorial) calls actions of Hebron Settlers reminiscent of pre WW-I anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe

Lapid, a Holocaust survivor who lost his father to the Nazi genocide, said in a weekly commentary on Israel Radio that the acts of some Hebron settlers reminded him of persecution endured by Jews in his native Yugoslavia on the eve of the second world war.
Bitter persecution
“It was not crematoria or pogroms that made our life in the diaspora bitter before they began to kill us, but persecution, harassment, stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and scorn,” he said.
“I was afraid to go to school, because of the little anti-Semites who used to lay in ambush on the way and beat us up. How is that different from a Palestinian child in Hebron?”

Posted by: Bea | Jan 22 2007 14:09 utc | 34

Grrr… WW-II, not WW-I, in #34…

Posted by: Bea | Jan 22 2007 14:11 utc | 35