Marwan Barghouthi: Israel is not a peace partner

October 4, 2009

Bethlehem – Ma’an – Jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouthi called for Palestinians to form a unified campaign of peaceful, popular resistance to Israeli settlements in an interview made public on Sunday.

In an interview from Israel’s Hadarim Prison through his lawyers, Barghouthi said that “there is no Israeli peace partner.

“Anyone who thinks that peace is possible with the current Israeli government and was not possible with the previous governments is being delusional,” he was quoted as saying.

In the interview he also praised caretaker Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s plan to establish a Palestinian state, de facto, in the next two years. He called on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leadership, specifically, to endorse the plan, along with a program of peaceful resistance.

Barghouthi, a Fatah figure thought to have a political base extending beyond his own party, was jailed by Israel in 2002 for militant activity during the Second Intifada. In 2004 he briefly campaigned for the presidency from prison before endorsing Mahmoud Abbas.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

What are your thoughts on the anniversary of the Second Intifada?

I would like to express my deep respect for all Palestinians for their steadfastness, for not giving up their rights, no matter how much suffering they are facing and will face, because there is no compromise on freedom, return, and independence.

Do you think that a third Intifada is on its way?

The question that should be asked is why did the Al-Aqsa Intifada break out? Was it not because of the collapse of the peace process? Because the negotiation reached a dead end? Was it not because of continued settlement and Judaization in Jerusalem? The refusal [of Israel] to end the occupation and accept Palestinians’ rights? And now is there an Israeli partner for peace? The answer is a big ‘no.’ Did the settlements stop?

What is happening now is the height of settlement activity since 1967. In addition there is the Judaization of Jerusalem. First it was one home after another, now it’s one neighborhood after another. I am saying this loudly: anyone who thinks that peace is possible with the current Israeli government and was not possible with the previous governments, is being delusional.

The problem is that there is no leader in Israel either like Charles de Gualle in France who ended the colonization of Algeria, or like De Klerk, the president of Apartheid South Africa who handed over power to Mandela. Israel does not [want] peace and is not ready to end the occupation.

Intifada does not result from a decision by this official or that leader, or this faction or that. It comes from the collective will of the Palestinians. That’s what happened in the First and Second Intifadas.

What is needed now is a popular movement of peaceful resistance to confront settlement, a movement that has the participation of all the leaders, factions, organizations, and the Palestinian Authority. It is clear that the conditions that were in place when the Second Intifada broke out are still in place.

What do [you] think of the New York summit between President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and US President Barack Obama?

Honestly, I hoped it would not take place because the conditions of its failure are clear. It is regrettable that the American stance, as articulated by Obama and welcomed by Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, has begun to evaporate. The Israelis and Americans are the ones who benefited from this summit.

It was important that President Abbas’ refused to resume negotiations before settlements come to a halt, and he should maintain this position. If the negotiations resume with such an [Israeli] government, what will we win?

I urge the Executive Committee of the PLO to insist that Israel commit to the principle of ending the occupation, withdraw to the 1967 borders, recognize Palestinians’ right to self-determination, establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, recognize [UN] resolution 194, stop settlements, and release prisoners as a precondition to hold any negotiations with the Israeli government.

I hope we do not repeat the experience of previous years in which the Israelis took advantage of the negotiations in order to give them cover to continue expanding settlements and mislead world public opinion.

Is is possible to successfully confront Israel’s settlement project?

First, what is needed is a firm and consistent political stance on the basis we already discussed. Secondly, the PLO Executive Committee, with all of the factions, should set a plan and vision for a wide popular and peaceful movement against settlements. We need the Executive committee, the factions, and PLC members to turn up the heat on popular demonstrations.

What is needed from Israel and the US is a decision to end the occupation, not more negotiations. Negotiations have been going on for years and that’s enough. The Palestinian leadership should work to isolate Israel and put it under siege and force it to implement international resolutions.

Prime Minister Salam Fayyad had presented his plan titled “Palestine: Ending the occupation, establishing the state. Have you read this document? What you think of it?

I read the document more than once. I think it’s a good plan. It makes a the argument that ending the occupation is a precondition to establishing the state. But the PLO and the factions should compliment this plan with a blueprint for peaceful, popular resistance.

What are your thoughts on the efforts toward reconciliation and the current Egyptian proposal, especially since you were the one who initiated the national reconciliation document [the Prisoners’ Letter]?

The prisoners’ document was in fact the product of the collective will of the leaders of all the factions inside the prisons. It was an honor for me to participate in it along with the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP and Fatah. It is still the best program for national unity.

I read the Egyptian proposal. It was sent to me through my lawyer Khader Ishqerat. I welcome this proposal. I am calling on all the national and Islamic factions to seize this opportunity to hold a comprehensive national dialogue to sign an agreement before the end of October, along with an urgent announcement of a date for new elections for the presidency, parliament, and PNC members, along with an end to media incitement, and political arrests. The factions must also release prisoners and turn a new page in relations on new bases of national partnership and pluralism, with regular elections.

When do you expect a prisoner exchange deal

We are following up with the media reports about this issue. We hope that a prisoner exchange will be carried out, in which all the prisoners will be released. The list submitted by Hamas did not exclude anyone and we support this firm stance.

Syria rescinds Abbas invitation amid UN controversy

05/10/2009 16:09

Bethlehem - Ma'an - Syria turned away President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday, reportedly over his decision to delay a vote over South African justice Richard Goldstone's report on the Gaza assault last winter.

The president was originally scheduled to arrive in Damascus on Tuesday, following a brief state visit to Yemen that began on Sunday.

The Qatari network Al-Jazeera reported on Monday that Abbas' trip was suddenly called off in light of Syria's outrage over the Palestine Liberation Organization's decision in Geneva on Friday to stall debate on the report.

The wildly unpopular move led the UN Human Rights Council to delay approval for the Gaza fact-finding mission's results until March 2010 at the earliest.

Meanwhile, the Paris-based news agency AFP quoted a Palestinian official confirming that Damascus had "postponed" the visit, although the anonymous source insisted it had nothing to do with the Gaza report.

The real reason Syria pushed off the trip, the official said, was because of a "surprise" state visit from Saudi King Abdullah. The source did not mention whether there were plans to reschedule.

In any case, Damascus was outraged about the UN postponement, which, according to a number of reports, was ordered by Abbas at the behest of the United States and other Western powers seeking to protect Israel from international criticism.

"Syria was surprised by the request of the Palestinian National Authority [PNA] to postpone taking action," reported SANA, the Syrian state news agency.

It added, "Syria finds it strange that the PNA could go for delay, cutting short many Arab, Islamic and international efforts to take appropriate measures to put the report's recommendations into effect."

According to a government source quoted in the Syrian newspaper Al-Watan, Damascus "opted to cancel the visit... out of respect for the blood of martyrs and victims in Gaza, which Israel attacked for 23 days."

While the PA "markets itself as a defender of its people in the face of Israeli aggression," the official added, "Instead of seeking direct condemnation of Israel, the [Palestinian] Authority whitewashed the blood and corpses of innocent children, women and elderly civilians."

The independent newswire Champress quoted an official source as saying, "Damascus is preoccupied with a number of concerns at the moment, which may not allow us to accommodate Abu Mazen's [Abbas'] visit."

It said observers viewed the cancellation a result of "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' blatant rejection of the positions of Syria, and his policies toward the Goldstone report."

Meanwhile, the president touched down in the Yemeni capital of Sana'a on Sunday, and was previously scheduled to arrive in Damascus on Tuesday to meet Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad and other senior officials, as well as Palestinians.

He was not expected to meet with Khaled Mash'al, Hamas' Damascus-based leader in exile, who sharply criticized the PA leader on Friday for the UN controversy.

Back in Palestine, several hundred Palestinians turned out for a demonstration in Ramallah.

Israel minister feared UK arrest

Mr Yaalon was military chief of staff
at the time of the Shehadeh attack

October 5, 2009 - BBC

Israeli minister and former military chief Moshe Yaalon cancelled a UK visit because of fears of arrest for alleged war crimes, his office says.

Pro-Palestinian groups in Britain want him to face trial over the 2002 killing of a Gaza militant, in which 14 others died, at least eight of them children.

Mr Yaalon took legal advice and wanted "to avoid playing into the hands of anti-Israel propaganda", an aide said.

A similar attempt last week failed to get Israel's defence minister arrested.

Mr Yaalon, who is vice prime minister and strategic affairs minister, had been invited to attend a charity dinner held by the Jewish National Fund's UK branch.

But his spokesman, Alon Ofek-Arnon, confirmed that the foreign ministry's legal team had advised against it.

Israeli media reported that the advisers believed Mr Yaalon would not be accorded diplomatic immunity - in contrast to Defence Minister Ehud Barak who visited the Labour Party Conference in Brighton without interference.

"This is a campaign whose goal is to de-legitimise the state," Mr Yaalon said in remarks quoted by Haaretz newspaper.

Allegations against Mr Yaalon date back to July 2002, when an Israel Air force jet dropped a one-tonne bomb in a densely populated area of Gaza to assassinate senior Hamas figure Salah Shehada.

The attack was part of Israel's policy of "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants it blamed for plotting attacks against it.

At the time, the army expressed regret about the deaths of the 14 civilians in addition to Mr Shehada and said they had come about as the result of faulty intelligence.

Britain has adopted the legal principle of "universal jurisdiction", under which domestic courts in countries around the world can try war crimes suspects, even if the crime took place outside the country and the suspect is not a citizen.

Palestinian campaigners sought Mr Barak's arrest last week, in connection with Israel's controversial military operation in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, but judges declined to hear the case.

A UN report by international prosecutor Richard Goldstone accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. Israel rejected its findings.

Galbraith Was Ordered to Cover Up Karzai Fraud

Fired Envoy: One in Three Karzai Votes Was Fraudulent

by Jason Ditz, October 04, 2009

Former US Ambassador Peter Galbraith, who was fired from his role as second ranking official at the UN Mission to Afghanistan last week, says he was ordered by mission chief Kai Eide to cover up the extent of the voter fraud by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

UN Mission's Kai Eide

Galbraith says his public falling out with Eide was a result of repeated orders by Eide to keep secret data that the mission had gathered regarding the enormity of Karzai’s voting fraud. Eide reportedly told Karzai after the vote that he supported the president’s re-election campaign.

Among the data was evidence that almost one in three votes for Karzai was actually fraudulent. Though ample evidence of widespread fraud has since come to light, the UN mission, which was charged by the Security Council to ensure the fairness of the elections, has been reluctant to press for more than cursory recounts and some from the mission have indicated a preference to not have a run-off between Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, a virtual certainty if the fraudulent votes were discounted.

Abdullah Abdullah attacked the trustworthiness of the UN investigation into the fraud following the revelations, though he stopped short of calling for Eide’s ouster.

Undaunted by the growing evidence against him, and likely bolstered by reports that the Obama Administration has decided he will remain in power regardless of what the investigations determine, Karzai attacked the continuation of the investigations, saying that the delay in declaring him winner harmed the nation.

Source

US Climate Change Bill Promotes Nuclear Industry

"A new era for the nuclear industry"

Obama energy adviser Carol Browner announces mandates
that will result in a new generation of nuclear power plants.
Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Aletho News
October 5, 2009

The new Democratic climate change bill , introduced in the Senate by Barbara Boxer and John Kerry, contains more advantages for nuclear power than even the legislation which passed in the House of Representatives last June. Included are waste management, financing and loan guarantee arrangements, regulatory risk insurance, as well as R&D and training programs. Joseph Lieberman is understood to be preparing the fine print for the bill which is presently "short on details". The bill however does describe a "new era for the nuclear industry." Other vital findings include:

(6) even if every nuclear plant is granted a 20-year extension, all currently operating nuclear plants will be retired by 2055;

(7) long lead times for nuclear power plant construction indicate that action to stimulate the nuclear power industry should not be delayed;

(8) the high upfront capital costs of nuclear plant construction remain a substantial obstacle, despite theoretical potential for significant cost reduction;

The push for a new generation of nuclear power plants finds bi-partisan support, Democrat Barbara Boxer has said that a higher cost for carbon–which would make coal-fired plants less attractive and nuclear plants more attractive–would do the trick [in making nuclear power competitive], while Republican Lamar Alexander has said "let's start building a hundred nuclear power plants." Ever one to make extreme positions seem moderate, John McCain says the Democrats' bill falls far short, and he wants more incentives for building new nuclear plants, beyond aid the industry already gets and the advantages for nuclear under a cap and trade plan.

Unlike their political leaders the public is increasingly skeptical about the need for "climate" legislation. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that 30 percent of the public considered global warming to be one of the top priorities for governmental action, placing it 19th out of the 19 options surveyed in the January 2009 survey. Barack Obama's top energy adviser, Carol Browner does not see a high likelihood of legislation being passed this year. Undeterred by popular will the EPA said on September 30, that it will require newly built or modified industrial facilities that produce more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year to use “best available [carbon] control technologies and energy efficiency measures.” Thus directly mandating the costlier nuclear energy whether the Congress passes a climate change bill or not. An increased cost to ultimately be borne by rate payers. The expense of nuclear energy could be viewed as another military related financial drain on America since a vibrant civilian nuclear industry is vital for the ongoing development of new nuclear weapons.

Requirements for energy sources that are actually renewable will amount to little more than shallow symbolism as their costs will remain higher yet than that of nuclear. Under the House bill wind and solar will see some mandated growth but still make up a tiny fraction of US energy generation. The lack of interest in renewable energy is made clear by the recent slashing of the already minuscule funding for wave and tidal energy research.

Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobby, justifies the claim on public largess solely on the imperative of reducing Co2, the weaker "energy independence" rationale being absent from his response to the bill:

"The U.S. nuclear energy industry supports the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 in a way that minimizes negative impact on the economy and consumers of electricity. We appreciate the fact that Senators Kerry and Boxer recognize that nuclear energy is a critical component of any strategy to reduce carbon emissions. The nuclear energy industry appreciates their efforts, along with those of Senator Carper, to articulate the strategic value of nuclear energy in this global challenge."

As with other major pieces of legislation under consideration by the current Congress, the financial industry is a central actor, venture capitalists “are ready to pour multibillions of dollars into clean energy” if Congress passes “some kind of bill that talks about energy independence and climate change,” Boxer said.


Related articles:

(Nuclear) Energy bill moves to the Senate

- July 9, 2009

Dr. Chu's Energy Bait and Switch

- June 13, 2009

The sources used by The Liberal Media

By Glenn Greenwald
October 4, 2009

Here are some of the sources which David Gregory cited today during Meet the Press:

The question is how much leverage does the U.S. really have? Charles Krauthammer, critical of the approach, saying . . . "This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb." Is this a cat and mouse game?

And there on Twitter is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and he posts this. He says, "President Obama fails to get the Olympics while unemployment goes to 9.8% Iran continues nuclear program."

But first, news about Iran in this morning's newspapers. The New York Times reports they may be closer now to producing a nuclear weapon than originally thought.

Those are the Liberal Media's sources: Charles Krauthammer's column on Iran, Newt Gingrich's Twitter feed, and the latest flagrantly fear-mongering, irresponsible, Saddam's-shopping-for-yellowcake piece from The New York Times' new Judy Miller/Michael Gordon team, causing that paper to reprise its 2002 role in leading the beating of war drums (Gregory also quoted from Peggy Noonan, Tom Friedman and John McCain). And on every topic, Gregory's questions to Obama aide Susan Rice were grounded -- as Gregory's questions typically are -- in neoconservative dogma and sounded like they were lifted from the pages of The Weekly Standard (Afghanistan: "why wouldn't the president immediately grant the request of his commanders to fully resource this war of necessity"?; Iran: "what is the deadline for Iran to either put up, to negotiate away its nuclear potential or face consequences?" U.N.: "Recently during the U.N. General Assembly Meeting in New York, Americans saw this kind of parade of anti-Americanism. . . . You once said that the U.N. is imperfect but it is also indispensable. When you look at that showing, what is the indispensable part?"). To summarize: escalate in Afghanistan; bomb Iran; and pull out of the U.N.

Reviewing the Sunday news shows and newspapers creates the most intense cognitive dissonance: a nation crippled by staggering debt, exploding unemployment, an ever-expanding rich-poor gap, and dependence on foreign government financing can't stop debating how much more resources we should devote to our various military occupations, which countries we should bomb next, which parts of the world we should bring into compliance with our dictates using threats of military force. It's like listening to an individual about to declare personal bankruptcy talking about all the new houses and jewels he plans on buying next week and all the extravagant trips he's planning, in between lamenting how important it is that he stop spending so much. That would sound insane. And that's exactly how our political discourse sounds.

*******

And on a related note, the discussion I had earlier this week on Laura Flanders' GRITtv with Jeremy Scahill regarding the establishment and independent media can be viewed below [and I will, I believe, once again be on Dylan Ratigan's MSNBC program tomorrow morning at some point discussing Iran, with an attempt to incorporate all of the helpful technical suggestions made by commenters here last week]:

UPDATE: Obama's National Security Adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, denies The New York Times' report that Iran's nuclear program is more advanced than previously believed; stands by the 2007 NIE conclusion that Iran ceased work on a nuclear weapons program back in 2003; and affirms that, as part of the ongoing negotiations, "Iran has taken positive steps," steps he deems "very significant." There are certainly some factions inside the U.S. Government eager for a confrontation with Iran (the ones feeding David Sanger and William Broad their NYT script), but there are also significant figures in the administration who realize what a disaster such a confrontation would be for the U.S.

Source

Colombia says 'no' to US bases

Amid reports of a deal reached for the establishment of US military bases in Colombia, the country's foreign minister says there is no need for more American personnel

Press TV - October 4, 2009 15:44:31 GMT

In an effort to reassure other South American countries, Foreign Minister Jaime Bermudez told the BBC that Colombia seeks only "information, technology, intelligence" in the form of military cooperation with the US.

"We don't need personnel, we need more information, technology, intelligence - that's the key issue… Those who fight best in Colombia are our own soldiers. We don't need American soldiers to do this."

"We are not going to have American bases in Colombia. Today we have 71 military personnel from the US," Bermudez said.

His remarks come as South American nations feel threatened by what is considered as 'suspicious intentions' of their northern neighbor.

He, however, said while it is important for his country to stay in good relation with its neighbors, especially Venezuela, Colombia appreciates US help.

The minister said the US has been helping Colombia in fighting "narco-traffickers and terrorists."

The Business of Lobbying in American Politics

By Karin Friedemann
October 04, 2009

A lot of aging leftists invite us to march in the streets. Some say, “Mass action will defeat the empire.” Will protesting stop war? Everyone who has been paying attention probably already knows that marching on Washington will not even disturb President Obama’s breakfast.
In fact, by causing havoc on the streets we actually distract the public’s attention from the real crimes taking place like AIPAC’s lobbying of Congress to bomb this or that country or like Haliburton’s pocketing of our tax money. Americans and their politicians need to understand that invading other countries hurts America. This approach is the only way to get the anti-war movement into the mainstream and away from the fringes of society.

The Israel Lobby has made sure the Zionist perspective permeates American discourse from grammar school through the highest levels of government. No child is too young for brainwashing.

An official diverging one iota gets 
his knees shot metaphorically. Holocaust Studies in the public school curriculum can start as early as Pre-K. Anyone that wants to discuss the role the Holocaust plays in US policy-making is an insane Holocaust denier. The Israel Lobby makes no distinction between national, transnational, and international politics.

Obama told AIPAC, “... the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and 
forever.” As long as Zionist subversives dictate to Obama, patriotic Americans will not make much headway in attempting a direct effort to change US policy. Activists need to change tactics by focusing on the danger that 
the Israel Lobby represents to the American political system and by attack-ing the discourse on which the Israel Lobby stands.

The pro-Israel lobby operates on every level of American society. Holocaust propaganda serves to shield the most privileged group in America from just criticism of many of its members and of its collective conduct—especially in relation to the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people and the destruction of America’s Constitutional liberties.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was one of the main proponents of the Patriot Act, which monitors the reading history of library patrons. Zionist organizations are heavily involved with Homeland Security and they use book banning and far worse methods to squelch criticism of Israel. While there is no limit to the amount of hate speech against Muslims or Christians that is tolerated now in the western world, the mere suggestion that Muslims and Christians should have equal rights with Jews in the Holy Land, or that the Hollywood version of the Holocaust is not entirely accurate, have in recent times resulted in the deportation, imprisonment, and even assassination of the speakers, writers, or publishers, and in the banning of their books or films because of Zionist pressure on western governments to abandon the principle of freedom of expression.

How about a turn-around in rhetoric? Instead of trying to make Americans care about Arabs—too hard—we need to increase their awareness that the Jewish Lobby is undermining American democracy and costing taxpayers money. Since activists can destroy a movement if they dwell upon who the good guys are (there are various opinions), we should concentrate on what we can all agree on: The Lobby needs to be stopped. That’s the only way to stop war and war taxes. The Israel Lobby is the enemy of all Americans. I would suggest a public rhetoric campaign against all Israel lobbyists suggesting prison. It should be social suicide to participate with Hillel or other pro-Israel organizations training future lobbyists.

There are plenty of ways to address this issue in town meetings, parent-teacher conferences, and other mundane ways. Causing a huge stir at a Martin Luther King school assembly or sending a mass mailing to all the high school students will create a lot more word-of-mouth grassroots pressure than a protest in DC, which doesn’t even get discussed. We are at war because we allowed our country and our minds to be taken over by Zionists and other opportunists. We refused to take responsibility for our country or for our children’s education.
Every town has a web of pro-Israel groups that work together to undermine American democracy to promote their personal interests. Pro-peace advocates need to identify the Zionist individuals who are pushing their agenda in the local school system. As soon as you start engaging in anti-Israel activism, all the Israel lobbyists will come crawling out of the woodwork to try and discredit or stop you.

Once you know who these individuals are, then you will be able to protest directly to the local leadership and law enforcement specifically about those who are personally responsible for pushing Americans to die for Israeli interests. You probably know where they live. If Americans started talking to their neighbours we could probably stop this insanity.


Karin Friedemann is a Boston-based writer on Middle East affairs and US politics. She is Director of the Division on Muslim Civil Rights and Liberties for the National Association of Muslim American Women

First Order of Business for Post-Lisbon EU: Appoint War Criminal As President

By James Corbett
The Corbett Report
4 October, 2009

Major media outlets from the BBC in Britain to RTE in Ireland are now reporting that the Yes side scored a resounding victory in Ireland's vote Friday on the EU Lisbon Treaty. With the treaty's ratification, the obstacles preventing the total federalization of the EU superstate are now removed.

As the Daily Mail reported earlier this week, one of the first orders of business for the post-Lisbon EU will be to appoint Tony Blair as the first President of the European Union. This move has been fully expected ever since Tony Blair's highly suspect conversion to Catholocism two years ago. Of course, the many laudatory pieces (and even the adversarial ones) we are likely to read about Mr. Blair in the coming weeks will signally fail to mention that he has been accused of numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity including:

- Continuing economic sanctions imposed on Iraq from 1990 until its invasion at the hands of his government in 2003 that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

- Conspiracy to join with another power in a war of aggression (the supreme international war crime).

- High treason in manufacturing a case for war (including the infamous Downing Street Memo).

- Participating in a political and military coalition with the U.S. in Iraq that deployed contravened weapons like white phosphorus.

Of course, the Irish electorate has not only allowed Blair to become the President of the EU. According to the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, which has compiled a list of 13 Facts About the Lisbon Treaty, they have also created a self-amending treaty that will no longer allow national vetoes on key issues like tax harmonization, crime, transport, energy and public health and services. As the head of the National Platform Anthony Coughlan explained in a pre-vote interview on the significance of the treaty: "It [Lisbon] would establish a kind of European Federation which would in effect have all the powers of a traditional state. And this new EU Federation would then sign treaties with other states in all areas of its powers and would have its own voice at the United Nations and its own foreign minister and its own diplomatic service and so on." Listen to the interview in the audio player below:

Now that the EU has "won" by forcing the Irish public to vote on the Lisbon Treaty until they got it "right," liberty-minded people the world over will have the uncomfortable experience of watching the expansion of this vast new tyrannical superstate headed by unaccountable bureaucrats. Of course, given that the EU has been frustrated in its attempts to undermine national sovereignty again and again and again when the people are actually given a chance to have their say, we can only hope that the entire EU enterprise has been so discredited now that the political opposition to this rising EU Federation will continue to rise.

The coming weeks and months will be the most critical for the creation of this pumped-up regional superpower. One can only hope that the European citizenry will redouble their efforts to stop the inevitable power grabs before it is solidified because the consequences for the entire world if this Nazi-inspired and Bilderberg organized regional monstrosity is created are simply too ghastly to contemplate.

Israel shuts down Al-Aqsa mosque, turns violent

Press TV - October 4, 2009 - 14:21:47 GMT

Israeli police have fired tear gas at Palestinians protesting the closure
of Al-Aqsa holy compound (Temple Mount) in the occupied Jerusalem.

Israeli security forces beefed up security in the Old City Sunday and denied entry to the compound where the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock shrine are located, said Adnan al-Husseini, the Palestinian-appointed governor of Jerusalem.

"The situation is very tense in the Old City," Husseini said.

An Israeli police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, also confirmed that the compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, had been "shut to visitors."

Some 150 Palestinians protested the closure of the site, hurling stones and bottles at riot police.

Palestinian medical officials said nine people were treated for minor injuries including tear gas inhalation. Israel said one policeman was hurt by a rock.

Israeli police claim that the decision to close the site was made following calls, spread on the Palestinian media on Saturday evening and throughout the night, to "come protect the Mount."

Many Jewish visitors are also expected to flock to Jerusalem during the holiday of Sukkot, particularly to the Old City and the Western Wall.

Last week, 30 people were injured in similar clashes near the Al-Aqsa mosque, as Palestinians warned of a possible new uprising.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem during a 1967 aggression and later annexed it. The status of the city is among the thorniest issues of the peace process with the Palestinians, underscoring the reality that any Palestinian state should include the city as its capital.