Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy.

.

July 30, 2007

SouthAmerica: The enclosed article published today by The Washington Post said: “…the Bush administration also plans to expand existing military assistance agreements, bringing the packages to $30 billion in U.S. aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt, both over the next 10 years, U.S. officials say.”

There are common superstitions among gamblers such as the association between the number "13" and bad luck.

To Israel the United States is giving away $ 30 billion in military aid – but to Egypt, an Arab country, the US is giving $ 13 billion dollars in military aid – Is it possible that there’s a subliminal wish here from the United States towards Egypt – Could it be that the subliminal message reads “we wish you bad luck.”

Now that the United States will increase the arsenal of many Middle East countries in the coming years by $ 70 to $ 100 billion dollars - I guess Iran will be able to buy also armament from the Soviets to the tune of another $ 50 billion dollars to keep the balance of power going in “Mess-o-potamia.”

This is a wonderful idea to promote peace in that area of the world – since today we don’t have enough problems as it is – distributing around another $ 150 billion dollars of weapons in that area of the world that will go a long way in spreading the chaos even further.

The newspaper articles does not say anything if the Bush administration also will include on these military aid packages some small nuclear devices – that would be a good opportunity for the US to test the new nuclear devices when all these countries start blowing each other up with the new weapons.

Maybe that is what people mean when they refer to "Pax Americana."



PS: If the Egyptians are superstitious they should ask the United States to increase the military aid package to at least $ 14 or $ 15 billion dollars.




*************



“U.S. Pledges Billions in Arms, Aid to Middle East”
Rice, Gates to Discuss Arms Sale Plans with Gulf States, Egypt and Israel
By Robin Wright and Karen DeYoung - Washington Post Staff Writers
The Washington Post - Monday, July 30, 2007

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formally announced today that the United States intends to provide billions of dollars in arms sales and assistance to six Gulf states, Egypt and Israel to boost security against Iran.

Rice made the announcement hours before she and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates left the United States to travel to the Middle East, where they will meet Arab and Israeli leaders to discuss the arms packages, as well as efforts to stabilize Iraq and possibilities for generating new movement in the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The arms sales alone are estimated to be worth about $20 billion, although administration officials said the exact amounts would be negotiated over the next six weeks and then presented to Congress.

In Tehran, the Iranian foreign minister was sharply critical of the proposed arms sales. "America has always considered one policy in this region and that is creating fear and concerns in the countries of the region and trying to harm the good relations between these countries," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran. "What the Persian Gulf region needs is security, stability, peace, prosperity and economic development," he said.

Rice and Gates will meet Arab leaders in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia over the next two days.

The arms sales packages--for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman--are part of a broader U.S. strategy to contain Iran's growing influence in the region. U.S. officials have accused Tehran of meddling in Iraq, mainly by aiding and arming Shiite militias. Administration officials say Iran's involvement has increased, rather than decreased, since the first U.S.-Iran dialogue was launched in Iran two months ago. And there is growing international concern about whether Iran is secretly trying to subvert its peaceful nuclear weapons program to develop a nuclear bomb.

Saudi Arabia would receive the largest amount of weaponry , including upgrades to its fighters, new naval vessels, and Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which turn standard bombs into "smart" precision-guided bombs.

To shore up two other allies in the region, the Bush administration also plans to expand existing military assistance agreements, bringing the packages to $30 billion in U.S. aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt, both over the next 10 years, U.S. officials say.

In a conference call with reporters this morning, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns insisted that Iran was only one factor in the new agreements, saying that it reflected broad U.S. strategic interests in the region. "The primary rationale," Burns said, "is to strengthen [U.S. partners] so they can be strong all issues important to them and to us."

But in describing expanding threats in the region justifying the assistance, he mentioned only Iran. "Iran has worried everybody in the region," Burns said.

"If you travel around the Middle East . . . everyone is concerned by the fact that Iran is arming and funding" terrorist groups, and are worried about Iran's nuclear program.

Burns also emphasized that the aid to Israel and Egypt and sales agreements with the Gulf States "is not a departure for the United States, not a new initiative," and said that existing basing arrangements and status of forces agreements would continue.

In contrast to past objections to big arms sales to Arab countries, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that his government will have no objections to the deals for the Gulf monarchies .

"We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderates states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran," Olmert told a weekly cabinet meeting Sunday.

In the 1980s, Israel tried to quash the Carter administration's attempts to sell F-15 warplanes and AWACS-- airborne warning and control system -- aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

To balance the Arab sales package, annual military aid to Israel will increase from $2.4 billion to $3 billion, and President Bush last month pledged to maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge" in the volatile region.

Rice and Gates are hoping to press their Sunni Arab allies to do more to persuade Iraq's Sunnis to reconcile with Iraq's Shiite-dominated government.

Despite U.S. appeals, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states have refused to support the Shiite-dominated government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and have instead provided support to Sunni militants there. Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia refused to allow Maliki to visit.

Burns denied that there was any quid pro quo involved in the arms packages, which he described as strategic moves separate from U.S. goals in Iraq.

But, he said, "it stands to reason that given the fact that Iraq is the number one American foreign policy interest globally . . . we want our friends to be supportive not only of what the United States is doing, but of the Iraqi government itself. We've made that point repeatedly."

Burns sought to separate the democracy agenda Bush outlined in his second inaugural address from an expansion of the U.S. military relationship with undemocratic regimes in the region. There was no contradiction, he said, since "we never suspended our military assistance to Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States . . . We have been constant supporters of their national security."

While he said the sales package to Riyadh and the others would likely total in the billions of dollars, Burns declined to specify a figure, saying that details would be worked out and presented to Congress sometime in September.

Rice will also travel to Israel and the Palestinian Authority to discuss President Bush's announcement this month that the United States will convene a meeting of major players in the Middle East to try to jumpstart the peace process.


.

 

.

July 31, 2007

SouthAmerica: Since the goal of spreading “Democracy” around the Middle East went so well, now the Bush administration is moving fast to implement a new project – the new goal is to spread “Stability” in that area of the world - $100 billion dollars of military aid stability.

By the time the Bush administration is done with the new project we will have plenty of “Instability” to go around for everyone in the entire Middle East. No country will be spared from this new project – the Bush administration even created a catchy name for the project: “Run for Your Life.”



**************



“US arms race policy destabilizing Mideast”
Tue, 31 Jul 2007
By Ali Asghar Pahlavan
Press TV, Tehran


The United States is determined to push forward the wrong policy of arms race in the Middle East as the Bush administration has announced the multibillion-dollar aid and weapons sales packages to Saudi Arabia and the littoral states of the Persian Gulf.

According to the latest editions of New York Times and Washington Post, the deal was announced ahead of a joint weeklong trip to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The purpose of the trip was to discuss various military issues including proposed extension and enlargements of foreign aid to Israeli and the Egyptian governments.

The packages, which are to be renewed next year after approval by the US Congress in fall, display Washington's irreversible commitments to its allies in the region.

Washington has been attempting to deceive the Persian Gulf states by providing unfounded information, stressing that the Islamic Republic of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities pose a serious threat to the security of the Arab nations.

It is evident that the extensive arms sales to the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf region will jeopardize Iran's national security, as the US leaves no stone unturned to accelerate its pressure on Iran.

The current US policy to arm the Middle East Arab countries could eventually foment hostilities. The arms deals have unprecedented dimensions, which could not only engulf the region but also extend to the whole world.

For the last several decades, the US and other imperialist forces have been plundering the natural resources of the Middle East nations through purchasing state-of-the-art weaponry from the West.

Some analysts believe that the arsenals return the petrodollar to the West in a U-turn without threatening their interests.

The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan experience shows that it is the international terrorism, which endangers the interests of regional states.

Can the Persian Gulf Arab states maintain their interests and security with precision-guided air-based weapons in the current critical situation?

Meanwhile, in a show of pessimism, the Zionist regime has worked to block the deal, which requires congressional approval.

Israel fears that the closer relations envisioned between Israel and Riyadh might never happen, and that Saudi Arabia may experience an Iranian-style Islamic revolution.

Gates recently told the Israelis that moderate Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia could obtain weapons from elsewhere, for instance Russia.

Political pundits believe the US is making strenuous efforts to reassure the Persian Gulf states apparently worried by Iran and the war in Iraq that Washington is committed to the oil-rich region and the arms sales is proof that it will stand by them.

White House officials say the money and the proposed weapons sales are considered to increase military might at a time of uncertainty in the Middle East.

At the same time, the ongoing sectarian violence and genocide in Iraq threaten to spill outside Iraqi borders and inflame a confrontation between the Shia and Sunni Muslims elsewhere in the Mideast.

All this preplanned ruse has been orchestrated by the United States and its allies to divert the Muslims' attention from their real enemy, the Zionist regime of Israel.

Some Arab governments are attempting to convince the Muslims that the Zionists are no longer the Muslims' enemies.

The West's ultimate goal is to mobilize Sunni Muslims against their Shia brethren and to wage an endless war in the Islamic world.

The Zionist regime is the only country, which benefits most from this crisis-ridden situation as they achieve their longstanding objectives after six decades of instigating Muslims against each other.

Following the failure of the 'New Middle East Plan' in Iraq, by resorting to arms sales, the US has stepped up efforts to sow seeds of dissension among the Muslim states of the Persian Gulf.

This is the same political approach adopted by the US after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran when it armed Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

This act led to a long and appalling war with countless victims remaining on both sides. It also emboldened Saddam to march into Kuwait in 1991 and counter US interests.

Experts opine that the White House military adventurism in the Middle East is highly dangerous as it imperils the interests and security of all regional countries and the US, which is responsible for escalating tension in the region, will pay back for its intervention in the internal affairs of the Middle Eastern states.


Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=17957&sectionid=3510303


.

 

.

August 3, 2007

SouthAmerica: American politicians are getting so silly, and they are so naïve.

I wonder if there is a “Jackass” in Washington who thinks that there is a nuclear weapons option against Pakistan.

You have to be pretty stupid if you think that the use of nukes it is an option that the US has against Pakistan.

The basic rule for a country to the use nukes it is very simple: you just nuke a country such as Japan in 1945 - a country that did not have the capability to retaliate in kind.

But you don’t nuke a country armed with nukes – that’s a no, no…..

Today the United States has a policy of “preemptive attack” against other countries – and we have Iraq to show that the United States means business.

In the other hand, we have a current senator – a candidate for president – going around saying that he might nuke Pakistan.

Are you crazy?????????????

Common sense tells me that when you have a policy of preemptive attack against other countries – it is “not a good idea” for anyone in that country to go around saying that they are going to nuke a country that it is also armed with nukes.

Let me review again what is going on: Today we have a policy of “preemptive attacks” by the US government combined with threats by a current American senator to nuke another country – this is the type of things that it does not mix too well.

What makes this thing even more incredible is that you are threatening a country such as Pakistan with a nuclear strike.

That kind of talk would scare many countries around the world – even the Soviets.

But here we are talking about Pakistan, where radical Moslems are willing to blow themselves into pieces to accomplish their goals.

Americans think that they can intimidate with their Blah, Blah, Blah about nuking any specific country – but here we are talking about Pakistan a country where people are willing to blow themselves up into pieces for their religious causes.

Since Pakistan knows that they have only one chance to strike on their preemptive nuclear attack – they probably would send many nuclear warheads towards India trying to destroy the cities where are located India’s global internet service industry. They probably send a few nukes in the direction of Baghdad to try to damage the US armed forces.

That would be the only chance that Pakistan has for the preemptive nuclear attack before their entire country is annihilated by the incoming US nukes.

Pakistan has between 80 and 100 nuclear warheads – since that preemptive attack would be the only chance for Pakistan to launch their nukes – the question is how many nukes can Pakistan launch against various targets before Pakistan started being destroyed by the incoming US nukes?

Pakistan is certainly capable of launching at least 10 or more nuclear warheads against the Strait of Hormutz.

And here we have only a few possible scenery for the macho guys in Washington D.C. to think about. I am sure the Pakistanis have many more ideas that they must be kicking around in case they need it when the time comes.


***********



“Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive”
By: Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Published: August 3, 2007

Senator Barack Obama found himself on the defensive again yesterday about his views on foreign policy, this time over a comment he made about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

During an interview with The Associated Press, Mr. Obama, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, initially ruled out using nuclear weapons in the region as part of the effort to defeat terrorism and root out Osama bin Laden.

“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” he said, pausing before he added, “involving civilians.”
But then he quickly said: “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

Later in an interview on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, sought to clarify the remark about nuclear weapons, saying he was asked whether he would “use nuclear weapons to pursue Al Qaeda.” "I said no one is talking about nuclear weapons,” Mr. Obama said. “I found it was a little bit of an off-the-wall question.”

His remarks about removing nuclear weapons as an option in the region drew fresh attacks from Democratic rivals who had already questioned his foreign policy experience.

American officials have generally been deliberately ambiguous about their nuclear strike policies.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, declined to say whether she agreed with Mr. Obama’s initial statement.

“I’m not going to answer hypotheticals,” Mrs. Clinton said.

She added: “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, another Democratic contender, said in a statement: “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”

Mr. Obama, who is seeking to buttress his credibility on foreign policy, delivered a hawkish address this week in which he said he would dispatch American troops to destroy terrorist camps in Pakistan if the country failed to act.

The speech came after a weeklong back and forth with Mrs. Clinton over whether they would agree to meet with the leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. Mr. Obama said he would, while Mrs. Clinton said she would not, causing ivals to question his readiness to become commander in chief.

Mr. Obama, however, has sought to use the difference as part of his efforts to re-emphasize diplomacy and bring change in Washington.

The Obama campaign later issued a statement that expressed confidence that “conventional means” would be sufficient to take down Al Qaeda targets and surprise that “others would disagree.”


.

 

.

August 3, 2007

SouthAmerica: There are many other scenarios that can be considered by the type of damage that Pakistan can achieve with its nukes before they go down.

When Americans are talking about using nukes against Pakistan then you are placing that country into a suicidal mode. That means that there will be no tomorrow for the Pakistanis and all they can do is try to do as much damage as possible before they are destroyed.

Remember Pakistan has a border with China and Pakistan can hit China with many of its nukes. The idea is not to kill the Chinese people, but to force the Chinese government to use immediately its $ 1.3 trillion dollars in foreign currency reserves to rebuild their country after a nuke attack.

What would be the consequences to the US economy if 10 or 20 Pakistani nuclear warheads hit the Strait or Hormutz (the Strait of Hormutz it is in reaching distance from Pakistan) and at the same time another 20 nuclear heads hit parts of China – What that would do to the international stock markets? Could that nuke attack trigger a US dollar complete meltdown?

Only someone who is “Brain Dead” still would think that the nuclear option it is a real option available for the United States to use against a country such as Pakistan.

Basically when you see on television a talking head or anyone else who is saying that the US should keep its options open regarding the use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan – then you know one thing for sure that person is a real “Jackass”.

It does not matter if he is a General or a well known politician – for all practical purposes that person is a “Jackass”.


.

 

.

August 15, 2007

SouthAmerica: It is a good thing that the Bush administration considers the surge in Iraq to be a great success.

I hate to see what a “failure” would look like.



***********



“Death toll rises to 200 in bombings, mortar attacks near Mosul”
Wed, 15 Aug 2007
Earth Times

Baghdad - The death toll from a series of bombings and mortar shelling that ripped through a northern Iraqi district overnight outside of Mosul, killed more than 200 people and wounded 200 others, according to the latest figures reported by pan-Arab broadcaster al-Arabiya and local press reports. The apparently coordinated bombings rank easily among the worst terrorist attacks in Iraq since a US-led coalition toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.

According to the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI), a curfew on vehicles was imposed in the town of Sinjar, where the attacks happened, and it will remain in effect until further notice.

The initial death toll reported on Tuesday evening was 20. However, a few hours following the attack the figures soared to at least 175 slain. Most the victims were said to be women and children….


.

 

It seems like the only way the US will get something positive done with iraq is the next president. And who knows how much she ... or he will do. (notice I said she).

Hopefully they will have enough guts to do what it takes to do the right thing.

Many people dont realize that a civil war is going on in Iraq atm and it will get worse when the US leaves. As if the US could hold it back thou; it will go on and on until it works itself out.

I dont wish my tax dollars to be used for the american military to be a police force in a foriegn land and have our men and woman be put in harms way for naught.

 

.
November 17, 2008

SouthAmerica: The Jewish lobby in the United States will be stronger than ever in the new Barack Obama administration, since Rahm Israel Emanuel will be an influential member of Obama’s close circle of advisers.

Rahm Israel Emanuel who is also a dual Israeli / US citizen was born in Chicago on November 29, 1959.

You can bet that Israel will have a priority status and the United States a secondary role when Rahm Israel Emanuel thinks about any issues that involve these countries.

The Jewish lobby will have a powerful ally right at the top of the United States government in the next 4 years.


*******


March 25, 2007

SouthAmerica: It is interesting The Economist magazine choice of a title for an article on their magazine about the Jewish lobby – “Leviathan”.

The Christian interpretation of “Leviathan” is often considered to be a “demon” or natural monster associated with “Satan or the Devil”.

Some biblical scholars considered “Leviathan” to represent the pre-existent forces of chaos.



***


Regarding the actual article The Economist said that today the Jewish lobby in the United States can count with the help of - “…The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate.”

From all the people I have seen on television for a long time “Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser” is the one person that has the best understanding of what is happening in Iraq, and the Middle East. Zbigniew Brzezinski has a better understanding, and he has grasped the severity of the sectarian civil war in Iraq - he has a much better understanding than the entire gang of the Bush administration put together.




***************



“Taming Leviathan”
Mar 17th 2007
The Economist - print edition
These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby


This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears.

They heard from the four most powerful people on Capitol Hill—Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner from the House, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell from the Senate—as well as the vice-president (who called his talk “The United States and Israel: United We Stand”) and sundry other power-brokers. Several first-division presidential candidates held receptions.

The display of muscle was almost equalled by the display of unnerving efficiency. There were booths for “congressional check-in”, booths for “delegate banquet troubleshooting”, and booths full of helpful young people.

The only discordant note was sounded by a group of a dozen protesters—Orthodox Jews in beards, side-curls and heavy black coats—holding up signs saying “Stop AIPAC”, “Torah forbids Jews dictating foreign policy”, and “Judaism rejects the state of Israel”.

The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the “soundest” on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place.

Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest—run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat—even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in.

Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for years—there are probably about 3.5m of them—and who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money.

But so far their performance has been unimpressive. James Zogby has been promising a breakthrough for his Arab American Institute for 20 years. CAIR remains marginal. Arab-Americans are badly split between Christians (63%) and Muslims (24%). They have also been late in taking to politics. Between 1990 and 2004 Arab-Americans donated $788,968 to candidates and parties, compared with $56.8m from pro-Israeli groups.

AIPAC's ace in the hole is the idea that it represents Jewish interests in a country that is generally philo-Semitic.

But liberal Jewish groups retort that it represents only a sliver of Jewish opinion. A number of more liberal groups have started to use their political muscle—groups such as the Religious Action Centre of Reform Judaism, Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum. These groups scored a significant victory over AIPAC by persuading Congress to water down a particularly uncompromising bit of legislation, the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act, which would have prevented any American contact with the Palestinian leadership. This accomplishment led to a flurry of speculation that George Soros might try to institutionalise this successful alliance by creating a liberal version of AIPAC.

It has yet to materialise. And it is doubtful whether Mr Soros, a left-wing Democrat who has little sympathy with Israel, would be the best patron for such an organisation. But the growing activism of liberal Jewish groups underlines a worrying fact for AIPAC: most Jews are fairly left-wing. Fully 77% of them think that the Iraq war was a mistake compared with 52% of all Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of Jews voted for the Democrats in 2006, and all but four of the Jews in Congress are Democrats.

Dissenting voices

An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people—politicians and policymakers as well as academics—to ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's?

Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as “acting increasingly on behalf of Israel”.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could “be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state”. Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a “sense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressed”.

The biggest challenge facing AIPAC is how to deal with this changing climate. Its members have been admirably honest about their mission in life. They boast about passing more than a hundred bits of pro-Israel legislation a year. But they are too willing to close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias when people ask whether this is a good thing.

America needs an open debate about its role in the Middle East—and AIPAC needs to take a positive role in that debate if it is to remain such a mighty force in American politics.

Source: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1410647&highlight=Israeli+lobby#post1410647

.

 

.


December 31, 2008

SouthAmerica: It is a disgrace what the Israeli air raids are doing to the Palestinian territory of Gaza – and once again they have killed hundreds of people, including many women and children.

The Brazilian government should break diplomatic relations with Israel immediately if they don’t stop this carnage.

.

 

You are a man of honor.