Oslo Car Bomb - Breivik BIO

+++ latetest news +++

police looking for second perpetrator

++++++++++

A bomb in Oslo. (finally the smug europeans get theirs!)

Al Qaida
Al Qaeda Al Queda Al Keida Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Qeda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda Al Queda

on every channel. The reasons were:

• Some terrorist mentioned norway once
• Some norwegian newspaper had also printed the muhammed cartoons
• Norway is taking part in the illegal occupation in Afghanistan
• Norway is member of NATO that bombs Libya.
  

ANYTHING to keep up the Al-Queda fear, that justifies USA WARS, and prevents BUSH BLAIR etc to go to jail.

But now a white ANTI MUSLIM racist did it

And more abhorrent than any single muslim terrorist ever. In fact... I think the top ten single terrorists are all white christians or jewish.

To avoid the western hypocrisy (and the inability to put WHITEMAN's crimes into the picture), let turn to

alarabiya
Arabic-language television news channel. Launched on March 3, 2003, the channel is based in Dubai Media City, United Arab Emirates, and is majority-owned by the Saudis.

Last Updated: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:46 pm (KSA) 09:46 am (GMT)

Norway Terror: The Power of One? By Bibhu Prasad Routray

Saturday, 23 July 2011

By BIBHU PRASAD ROUTRAY
Al Arabiya

The Norwegian police have authoritatively dismissed the involvement of the Jihadi outfits in the July 22 explosion in Oslo city centre, which killed seven people and the subsequent shoot out at an annual summer camp in Utoeya, an island at Oslo’s outskirts, which killed 84 people. Police have dismissed the hoax claim of responsibility issued by an Islamist outfit and charged a lone Norwegian national of involvement in both these incidents. The toll at the island shootout may rise further as divers are still searching for bodies in the waters around the island.

Obviously, the conclusions of the police has been backed by the arrest of the 32-year old Norwegian national Anders Behring Breivik, described to be a far rightwing activist with a Christian fundamentalist outlook. His Facebook and Twitter accounts have not revealed any anti-Islamic outlook. Breivik is being tried under Norway’s anti-terrorism laws, maximum punishment under which is said to be 21 years imprisonment.

WIKIPEDIA Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian citizen, and the suspected perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, although it is yet unknown if he acted alone. On 22 July 2011, he allegedly approached a Labour Party youth camp on Utøya island, posing as a police officer, and then indiscriminately opened fire on the adolescents present, reportedly killing at least 84. He has also been linked with the bomb blasts which had taken place approximately two hours earlier in Oslo. He was arrested on Utøya, and is currently in police custody. Following his apprehension, Breivik was characterized by officials as being a conservative right-wing extremist. According to Reuters and the BBC, deputy police chief Roger Andresen described the suspect as a "Christian fundamentalist."

Breivik studied at the Oslo Commerce School, and is described by newspaper Verdens Gang as conservative and nationalist. He is also a former member of the Progress Party (FrP) and its youth wing FpU. According to the current FpU leader Ove Vanebo, Breivik was active early in the 2000s, but he left the party as his viewpoints became more extreme. He expresses his sympathies for Winston Churchill, Geert Wilders and Norwegian anti-Nazi World War II hero Max Manus on his alleged Facebook profile.

According to the newspaper VG, he has no previous history with the police, apart from traffic violations. According to the same source, Breivik has a Glock pistol, a rifle and a shotgun registered to his name. Breivik moved in late June or early July to the rural small town of Rena in Åmot, Hedmark county, about 140 km (86 miles) northeast of Oslo, where he operated a farming sole proprietorship under the name "Breivik Geofarm". It has been speculated that he could have used the company as a cover legally to obtain large amounts of artificial fertilizer and other chemicals for the manufacturing of fertilizer explosives.

... Public broadcaster NRK and several other Norwegian media identified the suspected attacker as Anders Behring Breivik (born 13 February 1979), who had previously expressed right-wing and anti-Muslim views on the Internet, was arrested on Utøya for the shootings and also linked to the Oslo bombings.

Acting national police chief Sveinung Sponheim told public broadcaster NRK that the gunman's Internet postings "suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen. He is reported to have written posts on an anti-Islamic website.

Behring studied at the Oslo Commerce School and is described by newspaper Verdens Gang as considering himself a conservative, nationalist and a one-time Freemason. His social-media accounts identify him as an admirer of anti-Nazi World War II hero Max Manus, along with Dutch politician Geert Wilders as well as social liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill (whom he quoted on his Twitter account before the incident).

Breivik moved in late June or early July to the rural small town of Rena in Åmot, Hedmark county, about 140 km (86 miles) northeast of Oslo, where he operated a farming sole proprietorship under the name "Breivik Geofarm". It has been speculated that he could have used the company as a cover to legally obtain large amounts of artificial fertilizer (6 tonnes according to Reuters) and other chemicals for the manufacturing of fertilizer explosives. END WIKIPEDIA

His interrogation in due course will provide answers to several critical questions like the following:

Whether the twin attacks involved just Breivik and nobody else? Was Breivik being supported by any far-right group in the country? What sort of indirect support mechanism was available to Breivik as he planned and executed the attack to perfection? How did his elaborate planning and assemblage of explosives and weapons manage to go unnoticed by the law enforcement agencies?

If Breivik is found to have acted on his own, the incidents herald the terror orchestrating capacity of a lone terrorist vis-à-vis the lethality of an organized terror outfit like Al Qaeda and lead one to the conclusion that a self-radicalized (assuming that Breivik was) individual can inflict far more damages than the established terror outfits.

The incident has revealed that few guns in the possession of Breivik did inflict fatalities far larger than his orchestration of a copybook terrorist car bomb explosion using a remote device. This poses fresh challenges to the anti-terror capacities of the states.

Breivik appears to have learnt his lessons both from the Oklahoma city bombing of 1995 and the recurrent shoot outs in schools that take place in several countries including the US and combined them to lethal perfection. In the 1995 attack on the Oklahoma city, Timothy McVeigh, an American militia movement sympathizer, with the help of a handful of co-conspirators had detonated an explosive-filled Ryder truck in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma killing 168 people.

However, to dismiss Breivik as a deranged isolated individual and the attacks as one off incidents would be a serious mistake. Breivik and his possible co-conspirators (if any) are products of a belief system that has some following in Norway and other European countries. This makes the scenario of recurrence of such attacks a valid one.

Irrespective of the negative impact of the incident on the political prospects of the far rightwing parties in Norway, current economic hardships would keep the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry of far right groups alive.

Moreover, if the unrest sweeping across the Arab world and North Africa in particular ends up creating a large displaced population and pushes them into Europe, right wing extremism and consequent terrorism would gain a fresh lease of life by articulating more widespread public apprehension about such Muslim immigration.

The gunman simply parked the car in front of the government buildings and this remained unnoticed for several hours, giving him enough time to reach the island and go on a killing spree. Martin Jay in his column July 22 “Terrorists can also be blond, blue-eyed men” in Al Arabiya was bang on target when he wrote “Norway has laid itself open to a Timothy McVeigh character who I suspect made the car bomb himself and detonated it at a distance with a mobile phone.”

In Utoya island, Breivik went on a firing spree for over an hour in the island, choosing his victims at will, injuring and then killing them with shots on their heads, before the police arrived to confront and arrest him. This poses serious questions on the existing abilities of the police force to respond urgently and efficiently to multi-location terror strikes.

Critically, the vulnerabilities of Norway’s open society were exploited to the hilt by Breivik. There is absolutely no reason that the same, left un-mended, would not be exploited by an organised terrorist outfit like Al Qaeda in future.

This necessitates a drastic reform in the way Norway postures on issues of conflict and terrorism. A specialist in playing a mediating role in world wide terrorism, this nation needs to do a little inward looking to discover the loopholes that allowed a lone radicalized man to inflict a horror of this proportion.

It is time that the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), known for its research findings and recommendations to end insurgency/terrorism in other countries through peaceful means, by promoting ideals like self-determination to take precedence over state sovereignty and also negotiation with terrorists as a conflict resolution technique, spend time and resources on how to mitigate the divisions and emerging radicalization within the Norwegian society.

Norway has two models to choose from to firm up an effective counter-terrorism mechanism -- Indian and American. India has consistently allowed political lethargy, bureaucratic inertia and inter-departmental rivalry to undermine its anti-terror capacities, even after numerous terror strikes. On the other hand, the US has managed to keep its homeland terror free since 9/11 attacks. Most of the US citizens aren’t exactly perturbed about the so-called loss of individual freedom, as long as they are safe from the reach of the terrorists.

(Dr. Bibhu Prasad Routray is an independent analyst based in Singapore and has previously been Deputy Director, India’s National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi and a Fellow (Counter-Insurgency Studies) at the Takshashila Institution. He can be reached at bibhuroutray@gmail.com or on Twitter @BibhuRoutray)

Breivik is described as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.

Further unconfirmed reports have suggested that a second gunman was involved in Friday's shooting rampage on Norway's Utoya Island
The shooting survivors quoted by the VG Verdens Gang (not Murdoch owned) tabloid are convinced that there was a second shooter on the island. They claim that they saw another man shooting at them who was not wearing a police uniform, and that they heard firing from two sides. Their accounts remain unconfirmed.

We still have questions.

Who was helping or even directing the crime? Who benefits?

It is a fact that the power-elites use covertly directed violence to help them push a population into a undemocratic "act now" mode. The norwegian PM said only hours after the bomb that DEMOCRACY will not "crack down" and defeat democracy. BRAVO.. The Europeans have learned their history lessons. google GLADIO ... Germans should remember the Octoberfest bomb, just days before social democrats were to be re-elected. The bavarian police and the dumb bomber were quick to tell the german public about the right-wing background, and thereby negated the left-terror fearmongering that should have fixed the elections in favour of the right-wing, corrupt chancellor challenger.

Yes, your country has these incidents too. What do you think 911 was?

So, here it was a lone-right-wing gunman, unhappy with the "damn socialists"?

When reporters came into oslo-airport after the bombing, norwegians still hadn't introduced passport controls (from EU flights). What a humane country. In the Anglo-american world, humans are insulted for being humans at every hierarchical stop on the way.
If you work hard you can become a millionaire in the USA/UK?
Social upward mobility is largest in Norway. It is also the richest country on earth.

USA STAYS IN IRAQ - ha ha ha

US defense secretary visits Iraq to extract new troop agreement
By James Cogan
14 July 2011

The Obama administration's recently installed defense secretary, Leon
Panetta, flew unannounced into Iraq on Monday to pressure the Iraqi
government to finalise a formal treaty to sanction the continued
occupation of the country by American forces.

Panetta, the former head of the CIA, met with Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and the president of the
autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani. The key issue discussed
was the December 31 expiry of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
signed between the Bush administration and Maliki's government in late
2008.

Barely five months before the SOFA ends, no new agreement has been
reached to legitimise the US military presence in Iraq.

Last Thursday, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral
Mike Mullen, had confidently told journalists in Washington that talks
were underway to finalise a new pact. On Saturday, following a meeting
of Iraqi parliamentary leaders, Talabani had declared they would come
to a consensus within two weeks to extend the American presence into
2012. This was immediately downplayed by Maliki's media advisor,
however. He complained that the meeting had been dominated by
"partisan or religious stances" and no unified position was likely to
be achieved any time soon.

After meeting with Iraqi leaders on Monday, Panetta publicly vented
the frustration he had clearly conveyed to Maliki and others over the
impasse. He told an assembly of US troops in Baghdad: "Do they want us
to stay? Don't they want us to stay? Damn it, make a decision!"

The Obama administration has no intention of removing American troops
at the end of the year. After more than eight years of military
operations and as much as $3 trillion in war-related spending,
Washington is determined to realise the objectives behind the illegal
invasion in 2003—dominance over the country's vast energy resources
and the establishment of a compliant puppet state in the heart of the
Middle East.

Some 46,000 US military personnel are still occupying 53 bases
throughout Iraq, including the strategic Balad air base in the north
and the Ali or Tallil air base in the south. American aircraft also
continue to use the Al Asad air base in the western province of Anbar.

The immediate US objective is to ensure long-term access to these
bases and maintain a garrison of between 10,000 and 30,000 troops. The
military force would complement the political operations of the US
embassy, which dominates Baghdad's central "Green Zone." Larger than
Vatican City, the embassy has its own power plant and a staff of some
5,500 officials, marines, elite special forces units and intelligence
agents. As many as 50 aircraft and helicopters are located within its
heavily fortified walls.

US ambassador James Jeffrey earlier this month requested $6.2 billion
from Congress to cover the embassy's operations in 2012. In subsequent
comments, he stressed the importance of Iraq to the US, highlighting
its energy reserves. He told journalists that Iraq was on a "glide
path" to dramatically increase its oil production. He noted that
"there's no other source of millions of new barrels [of oil] in the
pipeline anywhere in the world."

Moreover, Jeffrey stated, Iraq was "the only source of enough gas for
Europe to become more diversified in energy sources," noting that
"Azeri gas is not sufficient, Turkmen gas is many years off."
Jeffrey's comment underscored US concerns over the growing dependence
of Western Europe on Russian supplies of gas. The war on Libya has
been driven by similar geo-political considerations.

This week, European transnational Royal Dutch Shell announced a $12.5
billion investment in a joint-venture gas production project in
southern Iraq.

Every wing of the Iraqi elite has proven willing to serve these
predatory interests. In various ways, they have all accommodated to
the US invasion in return for a parasitic existence derived from the
oil industry. Iraq is ranked among the four most corrupt countries in
the world, with billions in oil revenue plundered every year, while
unemployment and underemployment is as high as 50 percent and poverty
endemic.

Maliki's government—an unstable coalition of his Da'wa Party, the
Kurdish nationalist parties and the Shiite fundamentalist Sadrist
movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr—is nevertheless nervous about signing
a new agreement and has delayed it as long as possible.

The Iraqi elites are acutely aware that the majority of Iraqis are
bitterly opposed to a continued American military presence. The US
occupation destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, and
fomented ethnic and sectarian conflict in order to divide and rule the
population. Over one million Iraqis have lost their lives and millions
more have been injured or psychologically traumatised. The large scale
resistance that followed the invasion was literally drowned in blood.

There are also signs of escalating unrest over living standards and
democratic rights. Class and social questions are starting to emerge,
undoubtedly inspired in part by the mass upheavals taking place in
Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria.

Protests in the Kurdish north in February demanding democratic rights
were suppressed by the autocratic Kurdish authority. Workers in the
southern oilfields threatened strike action in May until they were
paid substantial wage rises. Unemployed youth have demonstrated in
Basra and Baghdad.

In their comments, Panetta and Mullen both used an upsurge in attacks
on US troops to revive long-standing accusations that Iran is
supplying missiles and other munitions to Shiite-based militias. Three
missiles were fired into the Green Zone as Panetta arrived to hold
talks with Maliki. Panetta declared: "We're very concerned about Iran
and the weapons they're providing to extremists in Iraq. We cannot sit
back and simply allow this to continue ... It's something we're going
to take on head on."

The accusations against Tehran—which it again categorically
denied—feed into the central argument that is being fashioned in both
Washington and the Iraqi establishment: that American forces must
remain to serve as a deterrent to alleged Iranian attempts to dominate
the country. Mullen told a press conference that Iraqi security forces
would face "clear capability gaps" if the US withdrew and Baghdad
would "need help" for years with its air force and intelligence.

Within 24 hours of Panetta's talks with Maliki on Monday, the Wall
Street Journal reported that the Iraqi government had reversed a
decision made earlier in the year not to purchase US F-16 fighter
aircraft. The newspaper claimed Iraq was now moving to purchase
between 18 and 36 of the fighters, in a multi-billion dollar deal that
would "counter Iranian influences and cement long-term ties with
Baghdad after American troops pull out." The deal would include
"parts, spares, training and related weaponry"—requiring an ongoing US
military presence.

The Wall Street Journal editorial on Wednesday demanded that the Obama
administration and the Maliki government rapidly settle the question
of a new status of forces agreement, in order to block "Iran's designs
on Iraq."

The editorial declared: "America's continued troop presence can fill
in security gaps and provide a stabilising influence in Iraq and the
region. The US has kept troops in South Korea and Japan for six
decades after the end of the wars there, and a similar presence in
Iraq might be as salutary... A long-term security relationship with
Iraq can best ensure that the sacrifices made in the last decade
aren't squandered."

The Journal editorial sums up the designs of the American ruling
elite—it intends Iraq to remain a de-facto US colony for decades to
come.

follow the money - Turkey is doing some

BERİL DEDEOĞLU
b.dedeoglu@todayszaman.com

Turkey's purification

To claim that we are witnessing an ongoing process of cleansing in Turkey will not be wrong. This purification means getting rid of the tutelage regime. Through this process, Turkey will be saved from institutional, legal and intellectual impasses standing in the way of establishing a modern and democratic state, governed by rule of law.

During the entire history of the republic, the dominating system narrowed the influence of civilian political life and restricted liberties. This system persisted for a very long time, thanks to the Cold War. The nation was encouraged to support the military tutelage regime to the detriment of civil liberties because they were frightened by the Soviet threat, the Westerners' imperialist aims and the risk of the country becoming divided and falling into civil war. These kinds of impositions are useless in today's world and that's why the old system is being dismantled. The first step of the purification targeted the military and militaristic circles who have occupied the forefront since the republic's early years. These circles were always busy elaborating coup plans and creating conditions which were driving people to accept these coups. Most of their misdeeds have now been uncovered. As all political systems have an economic dimension, changing the old system was bound to provoke change in the country's economy. In modern democratic states, economic life is shaped according to the dynamics of a liberal economy, so in such countries there is no place for prosperous classes or circles directly created by the country's regime. That's why the second phase of Turkey's purification is targeting the old system's moneymaking methods. When a country's regime is not transparent, competitive and free, citizens have no way of knowing who is getting the biggest slice of the cake. Besides, those who want to maintain an authoritarian regime must not only have the arms under their control, but also monetary and material sources. That's why, once the political dimensions of the old system is exposed, the economic one must be brought to light too. What happened in Italy remains the most memorable example in this context. There, the eradication of Gladio was followed by match-fixing probes. Almost the same thing is happening now in Turkey. The authoritarian structures have shielded many economic sectors and nobody was able to really monitor the flow of money. We are talking about colossal sums of money when we talk about football and while the system is becoming more transparent, the shield protecting the sport is also becoming more permeable. This doesn't mean that the current match-fixing probe is connected to the Ergenekon case. However, both exist thanks to the efforts of making the system more accountable, participatory and transparent. The third leg of the purification must concern elected officials who support the old system. Some politicians occupy their posts thanks to democracy, but they keep supporting the authoritarian actors. Those who are opposed to transparency and openness and those who have benefited from the tutelage regime politically and economically until now have not yet been totally exposed. We feel that their turn is coming slowly but surely. Nevertheless, the purification processes carry the clues about the new system too. Dismantling procedures shouldn't be marked by mistakes which may cast doubt on the establishment of a totally democratic system. Excessively long trials, a legal system suspected of having double standards, discriminatory and intolerant declarations may provoke interrogations about the future. Let's hope that Turkey's purification process ends successfully, with swift convictions for the guilty ones and just punishments which will satisfy the public conscience.

9/11 truth in NEWSPAPER

The PRINT edition of THE NATION in Pakistan published this:

Inside job: Seven questions about 9/11

By JIM FETZER just now

the impossible photo. hollow aluminium tube hits steel, but no debris, no crumpling.

As a former Marine Corps officer (1962-66), who spent his 35-year career offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning to college students, it troubles me when my government appears to be lying to the American people. On this 4th of July, therefore, I want to share with you some of the questions that have arisen in my mind about the events of 9/11, which have been used to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at enormous cost in lives lost and resources expended. I don't claim to have all of the answers, but here are some of my questions-seven for the 4th of July!

(1) The early explosions

In their study, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job", Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong (one an engineer, one a numerical analyst) present evidence that there were enormous explosions in the sub-basements of both of the Twin Towers prior to the impacts of any planes on those buildings. They used extremely reliable data from a geological laboratory run by Columbia University and radar and FAA data to come to the conclusion that those explosions occurred 14 and 17 seconds before those planes hit the towers.

My first question, therefore, is how were those 19 terrorists able to arrange these explosions, which drained the water from sprinkler systems that would have otherwise extinguished the rather modest office fires that remained after the jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs? I have given this a lot of thought and I can't figure out how they did that.

(2) The impossible entry

We have all seen the footage of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower, which is the only reasonably distinct video coverage we have of any of the four plane crashes. There are plenty of copies of the Michael Hezarkhani video (1...2...3), which was taken more or less from the side, and still others of the Evan Fairbanks video, which was taken looking straight up the side of the South Tower. I have been puzzled, when I have taken a closer look, the plane actually enters the buildings without crumpling, without losing its wings or tail, and with no bodies, seats, or luggage falling to the ground.

The problem I have is that, as a student of physics in high school and college, I learned that the impact of a moving plane impacting with a stationary building should create the same effects as those of a moving building impacting with a stationary plane. We would not expect a car crashing into an enormous tree to disappear into the tree. My question is, absent the suspension of the laws of physics on 9/11, how could this occur?

(3) The sizing problem

Perhaps because of my military background, I have found the Pentagon attack of special interest. The Department of Defence originally released five frames instead of any of the more than eighty (80) videos that would have captured exactly what happened. Although three of those videos have subsequently been released, none of them shows more about the crash than those original five, four of which show the spectacular fireball, the other the somewhat obscure image just above the gate mechanism that is conveniently labelled "plane". It looked too small to me. So I asked a friend of mine-who is better at these things than am I-if he could size the image of a Boeing 757 to the tail shown in the frame that the Pentagon had released. Imagine my surprise when it turned out that Flight 77 should have been more than twice the size of the plane in the Pentagon's own frame. So my third question is, why isn't the plane in the image the size of a Boeing 757?

(4) The lack of debris

Although many Americans are unaware, the hit point on the Pentagon is on the ground floor. There is a hole about 10 feet high and 16-17 feet wide, which is surrounded by a chain-link fence, two enormous spools of cable and a pair of cars, where there are unbroken windows beside and above the opening. What we do not see is an enormous pile of aluminium debris, broken wings or the tail, bodies, seats or luggage. Remarkably, not even the engines were recovered from the crash site - although a part of a compressor, which was too small to have come from a 757 and too large for a cruise missile - was later reported to have been found. Even more striking to me, however, is this photo of the civilian lime-green fire-trucks as they extinguish the fires.
Since these fire trucks arrived after the crash and spent fifteen minutes or so putting it out, I have been struck by the clear, green, unblemished Pentagon lawn. It looks so smooth, I expect Tiger to appear with his caddy to practice his game. My question, therefore, is, why is there no debris on the lawn?

(5) The planted fuselage

Later, of course, debris would start showing up. Since there was none even as the fire trucks were extinguishing the fires, it has to have come from somewhere. It would have been difficult to have had officers and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn without being observed, so it has occurred to me that perhaps it was dropped from a C-130, which was circling the Pentagon that morning. That's my best guess. I am open to other possibilities, but I haven't been able to think of real alternatives. One piece of debris has been used to cement the case for the crash of Flight 77.

One of the oddities about this debris is that it shows no signs of having been exposed to those fireballs and includes a piece of vine. Another student of the Pentagon, James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off panelling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." My question is, how did this piece of fuselage wind up on the Pentagon lawn?

(6) The dumpster fires

As though that were not disturbing enough, I was also puzzled why, later in the day, when rumours were circulating that the Capitol might be next and the members of Congress rushed out onto the steps of the building, when they looked across the Potomac, they witnesses billowing black clouds of smoke.
That struck me as rather odd, since the lime green fire trucks had put out the modest fires long ago. When I took a closer look, I discovered that these black clouds of smoke were not coming from the Pentagon itself but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the building.

When I was still living in Duluth before my retirement in June of 2006, another student of the Pentagon came by and showed me forty-four (44) more frames of the same thing, where you could actually see light between the dumpsters and the building. So my question is, why was it necessary to fake fires coming from the Pentagon if a plane had actually crashed there?

(7) The absence of interest

Since I have been unable to discover the answers to questions like these - where I actually have many more - it has dumbfounded me that nearly ten years after the fact, the mass media, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN has shown no interest at all in addressing them. Here are three examples of why it seems to me these questions should be burning issues in every major media outlet in this country, where we are confronted only by silence:

(a) Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission, have long since published WITHOUT PRECEDENT: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION (2006), in which they explain their frustration at the lack of cooperation from the administration, citing especially the fact that the Pentagon provided three different accounts of the events of 9/11, not a very reassuring indication that they got everything right. And this report is not from a "conspiracy theorist" but from the co-chairs of the 9/11 inquiry.

(b) A former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in three administrations, Dr Steve Pieczenik, has revealed not only that Osama bin Laden actually died on or about December 15, 2001 (as David Ray Griffin, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE (2009) explained), but that he had been told by a high-ranking general that 9/11 was a "false flag" attack, which was done by the government in order to arouse the American people to support wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. And this guy earned his Ph.D. at MIT.

(c) And Alan Sabrosky, who earned his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan and is a graduate of the US Army War College, has explained that 9/11 was conceived by neo-cons in and out of the Department of Defence who wanted to advance the proposals of Project for the New American Century by taking advantage of the demise of the Soviet Union to expand the power of the sole remaining superpower by creating an empire around the world, but worried that Americans would not support those wars absent "a new Pearl Harbor". Now I cannot claim to know for certain that what we are being told by Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean, Steve Pieczenik, and Alan Sabrosky is true. I can tell you that it is consistent with my own research and that of others with whom I have been in collaboration since founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth. In case you may think that I am one of those "conspiracy theorists" myself - where I have done a lot of research on JFK as well as on 9/11 - just ask yourself whether my six questions deserve answers and why the American media has been ignoring them in the land of the free and home of the brave. –Veterans Today

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online//International/08-Jul-2011/Inside-job-Seven-questions-about-911

Moon is made of green cheese - jewish lobby

Moon is made of green cheese

In the US Congress,
Netanyahu can declare that
The Moon is made of green cheese
And get a standing ovation.

Nevertheless, the whole world
Accepts the 1967 lines
As the basis for the
Border of peace
Between Israel and Palestine.

Ad published in Ha'aretz, May 27, 2011







Secretary Clinton and Gates are not in the audience

"If benefits of peace are so clear, why has peace eluded us?"

The Israeli prime minister received 29 standing ovations from Congress during his address; at President Obama's last State of the Union he got 25

In Israel they say that the occupation devoured Israeli politics so that everyone is beholden to the settlers, well the same thing is happening to American politics and today it was evident.

The thinking world feels shattered by Netanyahu's performance in Congress today laying claim to the West Bank as the ancestral Jewish homeland-- and the Congress's prostrate acceptance of his rightwing declarations.

"In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers," he said to a standing ovation-- I even saw John Kerry standing. "We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo."

And Netanyahu got the same standing ovation when he said, crazily: "Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians."

No wonder David Welna of NPR has quoted John Mearsheimer as lead analyst in his piece tonight-- a breakthrough by the gobsmacked media. Writes a friend: "With this speech Netanyahu becomes the right-wing politician of most serious national stature in America. He put a lot of work into the words, and the delivery. It was necessary to have some understanding of (a) history, (b) politics, and (c) character in order to see through it. The distortions were everywhere. But I doubt that 20 members of Congress were equipped to notice them. There must have been a dozen standing ovations. He has taken Hamas off the table, put the peril of Iran back on the table, and bound the U.S. to Israel under the sign of power and providence."

Our president is overseas, and his spokesman Ben Rhodes was afraid to contradict Netanyahu in any way today. This is power of the lobby in our politics




SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU TO A JOINT MEETING OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.txt

 Speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a Joint Meeting of the United
                                    States Congress
                                      May 24, 2011

I am deeply honored by your warm welcome.        And I am deeply honored that you
have given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.

Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time we were the new kids in town?

And I do see a lot of old friends here. And I do see a lot of new friends of Israel here.
Democrats and Republicans alike.

Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel.
We stand together to defend democracy.      We stand together to advance peace.    We
stand together to fight terrorism.  Congratulations America, Congratulations, Mr.
President.  You got bin Laden.   Good riddance!

In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability.  In a region of
shifting alliances, Israel is America's unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-
American.    Israel will always be pro-American.

My friends, you don't need to do nation building in Israel.   We're already built.  You
don't need to export democracy to Israel.   We've already got it.  You don't need to
send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You've been very
generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you
all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel's
security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.

Support for Israel's security is a wise investment in our common future.  For an epic
battle is now unfolding in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great
convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The
tremors have shattered states and toppled governments. And we can all see that the
ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of
freedom and opportunity. Millions of young people are determined to change their
future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand
dignity. They desire liberty.

These extraordinary scenes in Tunis and Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in
1989. Yet as we share their hopes, but we also must also remember that those hopes
could be snuffed out as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened
then.  The brief democratic spring in Iran was cut short by a ferocious and
unforgiving tyranny.   This same tyranny smothered Lebanon's democratic Cedar
Revolution, and inflicted on that long-suffering country, the medieval rule of
Hezbollah.

So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray
that the peoples of the region choose the path less travelled, the path of liberty.  No
one knows what this path consists of better than you.        This path is not paved by
elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when
limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not
men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.

Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a
region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel
stands out.  It is different.

As the great English writer George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once
established, the Jewish state will "shine like a bright star of freedom amid the
despotisms of the East."  Well, she was right.  We have a free press, independent
courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates. You think you guys
are tough on one another in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset.  Be my
guest.

Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for
their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of
Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the
Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic
rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that.       Of those 300 million
Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of
Israel!

This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle
East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.

Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long
for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East.

Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium, and said that democracy must start to
take root in the Arab World. Well, it's begun to take root.  This beginning holds the
promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity. For I believe that a Middle East
that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.

But while we hope and work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces
oppose this future.    They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy.            They oppose
peace.


Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people.
It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It subjugates
Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.

When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear
weapons.   Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the
greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: A militant Islamic regime
armed with nuclear weapons.

Militant Islam threatens the world.  It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will
ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and
progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could
exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise.

A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would
give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a
clear and present danger throughout the world. I want you to understand what this
means. They could put the bomb anywhere. They could put it on a missile. It could be
on a container ship in a port, or in a suitcase on a subway.

Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking
their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered,
Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the
annihilation of the Jewish state.

Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on
the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of
outrage.  In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met
with utter silence.  It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn
Israel for defending itself against Iran's terror proxies.

But not you.  Not America. You have acted differently. You've condemned the
Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You've passed tough sanctions against Iran.
History will salute you America.

President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons.  He successfully led the Security Council to adopt
sanctions against Iran.  You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words
and deeds are vitally important.

Yet the Ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003,
when it feared the possibility of military action. That same year, Muammar Qadaffi
gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran
believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. This is
why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never
permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

As for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take
calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the
Holocaust.   When we say never again, we mean never again.          Israel always reserves
the right to defend itself.

My friends, while Israel will be ever vigilant in its defense, we will never give up on
our quest for peace. I guess we'll give it up when we achieve it.      Israel wants peace.
Israel needs peace. We've achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan
that have held up for decades.

I remember what it was like before we had peace.        I was nearly killed in a firefight
inside the Suez Canal. I mean that literally. I battled terrorists along both banks of the
Jordan River. Too many Israelis have lost loved ones. I know their grief. I lost my
brother.

So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days. The peace with Egypt and
Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle
East.

This peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who
remain committed to peace.

The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they're not enough. We
must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I
publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state
alongside the Jewish state.

I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the
leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.

This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to
give up parts of the Jewish homeland.      In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are
not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India.  We are not the Belgians in the
Congo.

This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the
idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a
vision of eternal peace.  No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old
bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a
peace in which they will be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens.  They should
enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own
state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative
can flourish.

We've already seen the beginnings of what is possible.      In the last two years,
the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves.  Prime Minister
Fayad has led this effort. I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation.

We've helped the Palestinian economy by removing hundreds of barriers and
roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. The results have been nothing short
of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It's growing by more than 10% a
year.

Palestinian cities look very different today than they did just a few years ago. They
have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks.  They even have e-
businesses.  This is all happening without peace.    Imagine what could happen with
peace. Peace would herald a new day for both peoples. It would make the dream of a
broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility.

So now here is the question.    You have to ask it.  If the benefits of peace with the
Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us?      Because all six Israeli Prime
Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state.
Myself included.    So why has peace not been achieved?  Because so far, the
Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a
Jewish state alongside it.

You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It
has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is
about.  In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and
an Arab state. The Jews said yes.  The Palestinians said no.     In recent years, the
Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a
Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.     And I regret to say this: They
continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after
terrorists.  And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one
day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

My friends, this must come to an end.  President Abbas must do what I have done.         I
stood before my people, and I told you it wasn't easy for me, and I said… "I will
accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people
and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."

Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this
conflict must come to an end.  That they are not building a state to continue the
conflict with Israel, but to end it.  They will convince the people of Israel that they
have a true partner for peace.   With such a partner, the people of Israel will be
prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far
reaching compromise.

This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred
since 1967.  The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines,
reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.

These areas are densely populated but geographically quite small. Under any realistic
peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national
importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.

The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations.     But we must also
be honest.  So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone
serious about peace.  In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements
will end up beyond Israel's borders.    The precise delineation of those borders must be
negotiated.  We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as
President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4,
1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.

We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent
and prosperous. President Obama rightly referred to Israel as the homeland of the
Jewish people, just as he referred to the future Palestinian state as the homeland of the
Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the
Jewish state.  Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if
they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem
will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.

As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all
faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the
united capital of Israel.  I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I
believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found.

This is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace.      But
you know very well, that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is a peace
you can defend.

So peace must be anchored in security. In recent years, Israel withdrew from South
Lebanon and Gaza.  But we didn't get peace.       Instead, we got 12,000 thousand rockets
fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas.        The
UN peacekeepers in Lebanon failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry.           The
European observers in Gaza evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of
the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be
than a minute.   I want you to think about that too.   Imagine that right now we all had
less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket.      Would you live that
way?  Would anyone live that way? Well, we aren't going to live that way either.

The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size.
Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world.    Mr. Vice President, I'll grant you
this.  It's bigger than Delaware.  It's even bigger than Rhode Island. But that's about
it. Israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.

Now here's a bit of nostalgia. I first came to Washington thirty years ago as a young
diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: There is an America beyond
the Beltway. But Israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for
strategic depth.

So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel's security that a Palestinian state be fully
demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along
the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to
protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels.     For
in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be
there tomorrow.

And when I say tomorrow, I don't mean some distant time in the future.         I mean --
tomorrow. Peace can be achieved only around the negotiating table.         The Palestinian
attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It
should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end.

I appreciate the President's clear position on this issue. Peace cannot be imposed.  It
must be negotiated.    But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.

And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel's
destruction and to terrorism.   They have a charter.  That charter not only calls for the
obliteration of Israel, but says 'kill the Jews wherever you find them'.     Hamas' leader
condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior.  Now
again I want to make this clear.  Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate
peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of
peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government
backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda.

So I say to President Abbas:  Tear up your pact with Hamas!        Sit down and negotiate!
Make peace with the Jewish state! And if you do, I promise you this.        Israel will not
be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United
Nations. It will be the first to do so.

My friends, the momentous trials of the last century, and the unfolding events of this
defending freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of
liberty. All peoples who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your
great nation.  Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who
have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds, in ancient and
modern times alike.

I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you,
representatives of America, Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for
Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the
world. May God bless all of you.   And may God forever bless the United States of
America.


Bibi and the Yo-Yos

28/05/11


IT WAS all rather disgusting.

There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world's only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos, applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu.

It was worse than the Syrian parliament during a speech by Bashar Assad, where anyone not applauding could find himself in prison. Or Stalin's Supreme Soviet, when showing less than sufficient respect could have meant death.

What the American Senators and Congressmen feared was a fate worse than death. Anyone remaining seated or not applauding wildly enough could have been caught on camera – and that amounts to political suicide. It was enough for one single congressman to rise and applaud, and all the others had to follow suit. Who would dare not to?

The sight of these hundreds of parliamentarians jumping up and clapping their hands, again and again and again and again, with the Leader graciously acknowledging with a movement of his hand, was reminiscent of other regimes. Only this time it was not the local dictator who compelled this adulation, but a foreign one.

The most depressing part of it was that there was not a single lawmaker – Republican or Democrat – who dared to resist. When I was a 9 year old boy in Germany, I dared to leave my right arm hanging by my side when all my schoolmates raised theirs in the Nazi salute and sang Hitler's anthem. Is there no one in Washington DC who has that simple courage? Is it really Washington IOT – Israel Occupied Territory – as the anti-Semites assert?

Many years ago I visited the Senate hall and was introduced to the leading Senators of the time. I was profoundly shocked. After being brought up in deep respect for the Senate of the United States, the country of Jefferson and Lincoln, I was faced with a bunch of pompous asses, many of them nincompoops who had not the slightest idea what they were talking about. I was told that it was their assistants who really understood matters.

SO WHAT did the great man say to this august body?

It was a finely crafted speech, using all the standard tricks of the trade – the dramatic pause, the raised finger, the little witticisms, the sentences repeated for effect. Not a great orator, by any means, no Winston Churchill, but good enough for this audience and this occasion.

But the message could be summed up in one word: No.

After their disastrous debacle in 1967, the leaders of the Arab world met in Khartoum and adopted the famous Three No's: NO recognition of Israel, No negotiation with Israel, NO peace with Israel. It was just what the Israeli leadership wanted. They could go happily about their business of entrenching the occupation and building settlements.

Now Netanyahu is having his Khartoum. NO return to the 1967 borders. NO Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. NO to even a symbolic return of some refugees. NO military withdrawal from the Jordan River - meaning that the future Palestinian state would be completely surrounded by the Israeli armed forces. NO negotiation with a Palestinian government "supported" by Hamas, even if there are no Hamas members in the government itself. And so on – NO. NO. NO.

The aim is clearly to make sure that no Palestinian leader could even dream of entering negotiations, even in the unlikely event that he were ready to meet yet another condition: to recognize Israel as "the nation-state of the Jewish people" – which includes the dozens of Jewish Senators and Congressmen who were the first to jump up and down, up and down, like so many marionettes.

Netanyahu, along with his associates and political bedfellows, is determined to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by all and any means. That did not start with the present government – it is an aim deeply embedded in Zionist ideology and practice. The founders of the movement set the course, David Ben-Gurion acted to implement it in 1948, in collusion with King Abdallah of Jordan. Netanyahu is just adding his bit.

"No Palestinian state" means: no peace, not now, not ever. Everything else is, as the Americans say, baloney. All the pious phrases about happiness for our children, prosperity for the Palestinians, peace with the entire Arab world, a bright future for all, are just that – pure baloney. At least some in the audience must have noticed that, even with all that jumping.

NETANYAHU SPAT in Obama's eye. The Republicans in the audience must have enjoyed that. Perhaps some Democrats too.

It can be assumed that Obama did not. So what will he do now?

There is a Jewish joke about a hungry pauper who entered an inn and demanded food. Otherwise, he threatened, he would do what his father did. The frightened innkeeper fed him, and in the end asked timidly: "But what did your father do?" Swallowing the last morsel, the man answered: "He went to sleep hungry."

There is a good chance that Obama will do the same. He will pretend that the spittle on his cheek is rainwater. His promise to prevent a UN General Assembly recognition of the State of Palestine deprived him of his main leverage over Netanyahu.

Somebody in Washington seems to be floating the idea of Obama coming to Jerusalem and addressing the Knesset. It would be direct retaliation – Obama talking with the Israeli public over the head of the Prime Minister, as Netanyahu has just addressed the American public over the head of the President.

It would be an exciting event. As a former Member of the Knesset, I would be invited. But I would not advise it. I proposed it a year ago. Today I would not.

The obvious precedent is Anwar Sadat's historic speech in the Knesset. But there is really no comparison. Egypt and Israel were still officially at war. Going to the capital of the enemy was without precedent, the more so only four years after a bloody battle. It was an act that shook Israel, eliminating in one stroke a whole set of mental patterns and opening the mind for new ones. Not one of us will ever forget the moment when the door of the airplane swung open and there he was, handsome and serene, the leader of the enemy.

Later, when I interviewed Sadat at his home, I told him: "I live on the main street of Tel Aviv. When you came out of that plane, I looked out of the window. Nothing moved in the street, except one cat – and it was probably looking for a television set."

A visit by Obama will be quite different. He will, of course, be received politely – without the obsessive jumping and clapping – though probably heckled by Knesset Members of the extreme Right. But that will be all.

Sadat's visit was a deed in itself. Not so a visit by Obama. He will not shake Israeli public opinion, unless he comes with a concrete plan of action – a detailed peace plan, with a detailed timetable, backed by a clear determination to see it through, whatever the political cost.

Another nice speech, however beautifully phrased, just will not do. After this week's deluge of speeches, we have had enough. Speeches can be important if they accompany actions, but they are no substitute for action. Churchill's speeches helped to shape history – but only because they reflected historic deeds. Without the Battle of Britain, without Normandy, without El Alamein, those speeches would have sounded ridiculous.

Now, with all the roads blocked, there remains only one path open: the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations coupled with nonviolent mass action by the Palestinian people against the occupation. The Israeli peace forces will also play their part, because the fate of Israel depends on peace as much as the fate of Palestine.

Sure, the US will try to obstruct, and Congress will jump up and down, But the Israeli-Palestinian spring is on its way.

Uri Avnery