Hasan Afif El-Hasan - For Palestinians there are two Obamas
There are many reasons for Obama’s success in the election of the first black president in the US. High among them is the ruinous legacy of President Bush foreign and domestic policies. The two costly wars and the economy in ruins would have failed any Republican nominee including the war hero and former POW, Senator John McCain. Mr. Obama ran an impressive campaign and he also received help from unsolicited source, Osama Ben Laden. Ben Laden could have released a message threatening the US, reminding the American people of 9/11 terrorist attack and got McCain elected, but he did not. Political analysts called such a Ben Laden message “October surprise”. Ben Laden was the only reason President Bush was re-elected in 2004. Many observers in the US agree that the anti-Viet-Nam war John Kerry could have won the elections in 2004 against the belligerent wartime President Bush if Ben Laden had not provided the “October surprise” only one week before the elections when Kerry was ahead in public opinion surveys. Many Americans who had supported Kerry voted for Bush because of fear from possible Ben Laden terrorist acts. Americans believed Bush would be more capable of protecting them against terrorism. Barack Obama, who had no military background, could have lost the elections to the war supporter and ex-military man, John McCain if Ben Laden sent another threatening tape as he did in 2004. McCain was perceived better in protecting the country from terrorists. Response to fear by electing a hawkish government is common among nations. Israel is a case in point. Majority of Israelis approved and elected the most hawkish Israeli leader, the butcher of the 1982 Sabra, Shatila, Tel al-Za’atar and Dbayyeh massacres, Ariel Sharon, as Prime Minister on February 6, 2001 when the Palestinian Second Intifada broke out. There is no policy difference toward the Palestinians among the major Israeli parties, Labor, Likud and Kadima, or among their leaders Amir Perez, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres or Tzipi Livni. They share a broad common consensus, protecting the Israelis from the Palestinians. Ending occupation and allowing the Palestinians have their own state to settle the historic conflict never been considered. On the other hand, perhaps one important reason the Palestinians voted for the militant Hamas in 2006 legislative elections was to defend them against the Israeli military and the Jewish settlers. I strongly believe the Palestinians have the right to use every legal means to resist occupation, but the Palestinian militants’ attacks on civilian targets in Israel proper played a major role in alienating the Israeli public against a just peace and encouraging them to vote for the militant right-wing parties or ultra-Orthodox factions. The attacks on civilians make it difficult for the Israeli peace advocates to compete against the militant extremists. There are many Israeli organizations that are against settlements and land grabbing, but the Palestinian’s attacks on civilians have not helped them attract enough supporters to influence their government policy. Some Israelis support peace through protests against their government policies and others encourage Israeli soldiers to refuse to participate in murdering, suppressing and humiliating the Palestinians. These include but not limited to “Peace Now” that was established by Israeli reservists in 1983, the “Committee against Home Demolition”, “Rabbis for Human Rights” and “Gush Shalom”. Many Israeli Jews, European and US activists demonstrate with the Palestinian villagers opposing colonizing the West Bank and in the process they risk their lives by praying in the paths of heavy Israeli bulldozers and some had died. Rachael Corrie for one, an American young lady died when an Israel soldier bulldozed her while she was trying to protect a family’s home in Gaza. Tom Hurndall, an Englishman was shot in the head by an Israel sniper and suffered irreversible brain damage; he died from his wounds a year later. Many Israeli activists volunteer to protect the Palestinian farmers against the Jewish violent settlers who attack and intimidate the farmers and set fire to their trees during the olive harvesting season. Small number of Israeli and American Jews and international supporters joined Nihlin villagers protesting the Israeli military bulldozers tearing up the land to make way for the apartheid wall. Palestinian cause needs the Israeli people to choose a government that promotes a just peace and the Palestinians need the sympathy and support of the world opinion. For the Palestinian national cause, Obama’s election will not lead to much change in the status quo if any. Supporting the extreme hard-line Israelis has become a structural strategy in the US and nothing can be done about it. Neither President-elect Obama nor McCain if he had won the elections can change it. That is why people like Ron Paul who opposed foreign aid to Israel or Congressman Denis Kucinich, a critic of US Middle East policy will never have a chance to be nominated by their parties to run for president. Regarding the Palestinian issue, there are two obamas, the old and the candidate, separated by the moment when Obama decided to run for president. The old Obama had Palestinian friends and he sympathized with the Palestinians, but the candidate Obama sided with the hard-line APAC, denied he had Palestinian friends and blamed the persecution of the Palestinians on the victims themselves. He supported Israel’s policy in the occupied land including the Gaza siege and starvation its people in defiance of international laws and moral rules as self-defense and he endorsed keeping Jerusalem united under Israeli rule. He never criticized the settlements, the apartheid wall, the roadblocks and checkpoints. Obama even justified the Israeli 2006 war against Lebanon and the massacres of Lebanese civilians as self-defense. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote that Obama was “unequivocal in his praise for Israel and made it manifestly clear that he would do nothing to change the US-Israeli relationship”. After Obama’s speech to AIPAC convention, Haaretz wrote, “He sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Guiliani”. During his last visit to Israel, Obama spent two days meeting leaders of Israel’s major parties, spent only 45 minutes talking to the Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas with no news conference and refused to visit refugee camps. He expressed deep sympathy with the Israeli victims of the conflict and nothing for the Palestinians. The Palestinians must stop counting on the US government to help them achieve their national goals! Because the US will never side with the Palestinians, they should put an end to the myth that there will be no chance for a peaceful resolution unless the US government intervenes. The Palestinians should find another path to a just peace without the involvement of the US government. They should focus on dealing with the Israeli people directly especially the peace camp. The Palestinians have the power to influence the Israeli politics in favor of just peace if they do the right things to encourage the Israeli people to vote for the pro-peace parties rather than the right wing parties and ultra-Orthodox factions. There are many Israeli organizations and individuals who are against settlements and land grabbing. The Palestinians need the Israeli people to choose a government that promotes a just peace and they need the sympathy of the world public opinion. The Palestinians do not cast votes in the Israeli elections. But they have power to create strong pro-peace parties in Israel if they publicly relinquish the armed resistance and adopt a strategy of peaceful protest and civil disobedience in the occupied West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem similar to South African struggle against apartheid and the Civil Rights movement in the US. Unfortunately, this is not an easy task because many Palestinians have lost patience and faith in their leaders and the endless negotiations. Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights and NGO activists and intellectuals should promote the Palestinian’s civil rights, renounce violence and fight against occupation with peaceful means. Civil society institutions have better chance for mediating between the two peoples. They are insulated from dependence on politicians and less yielding to coercion by extremists. Real peace and genuine reconciliation benefits the Israelis as much as the Palestinians, but peace can be achieved only if Israel ends the occupation. |
|
|
| WAR alert: Obama Advisors Discuss Preparations for War on Iran
On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes. |
|
Barring last-minute glitches, Palestinian political factions will meet in Cairo Saturday in a last ditch-effort to end the two-year rift between the Islamic group Hamas and the American-backed and financed Fatah organization. (It has been announced that the talks will be postponed indefinitely). |
| Judith Butler - Uncritical Exuberance?
Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to “redemption” or that “the country has been returned to us” or that “we finally have one of us in the White House.” Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes (”we are all united”) or that we propose (”he is one of us”), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace “national unity” as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, “I love each and every one of you.” It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his “cross-over” success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by “moral” issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin’s assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if “moral” issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: “I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy.” Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them. Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has “represented” the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say “not black enough” and others say “too black”), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of “unity”: this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force. As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us “set aside” our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of “socialism” proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, “I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway,” there are surely also people on the left who say, “I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption.” I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost? There is no doubt that Obama’s success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi. The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be “represented” by this man, then it follows that who “we” are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it? To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be “redemption” itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love). If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a “crash” a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice. Judith Butler is a philospher, writer and university professor. |
| Winter Patriot - Watching the Defectives
a dream is a wish your heart makes Four years ago, when I started blogging, John Kerry had just conceded George Bush’s “re-election” after a campaign which Kerry never seriously tried to win. Millions of Americans had been illegally disenfranchised by one dirty trick or another. Who knows how many votes had been flipped. Partisan corruption and vicious hacking were rife and visible in Ohio, and Florida, and many other places. Connecting the dots revealed a nation-wide campaign of targeted electoral sabotage. It was Bush’s accountability moment, in which he gained a mandate and earned vast political capital. And it was entirely bogus. Most Democratic-leaning websites moved on, got over it, turned the corner swiftly, and urged their readers to do the same. Only one site was dominated on the day after the election by a debate over who should run for the Democrats in 2008 — Ronald Reagan Jr. or Hillary Clinton. But they all seemed like shams to me, obvious psy-ops — and I quit visiting sites such as Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Democrats dot com, and Alternet, to name just a few. I started hanging, and volunteering, at one of the few blogs which seemed to take the theft or giveaway of the election seriously.
For the past two or three weeks I’ve restrained my impulse to rip into the multitudes of fast-asleep Obama supporters. No matter how many times their man has betrayed their interests, they have never wavered in support of the dream their hearts made. Today they are still celebrating. Personally I have been asking myself questions like: When Bush ran in 2000, he described himself as a uniter, not a divider, and he promised a humble foreign policy. Look what he’s done since then. As a Senator, Obama has supported Bush’s agenda in many ways over the years, and has been steadfast in his refusal to have anything to do with holding Bush or even his minions accountable for their gross crimes against humanity and their obvious, gloating treason against the USA. As a candidate, Obama has pledged allegiance to Israel, promised to escalate the war crime in Afghanistan, threatened to attack Pakistan, and issued thinly veiled threats of a nuclear attack against Iran if the Iranians keep trying to develop civilian nuclear power. If Obama exceeds his campaign rhetoric by an extent comparable to the precedent set by Bush … or even if Obama manages to keep his promises … well … nobody wants to finish that statement, do they? And yet the world celebrates. [Read more about Obama and his actual policies here; thanks to Grimblebee (who reads Counterpunch so I won't have to).] As a frequent guest-blogger at a strongly pro-election-integrity site, I saw my role as a provider of context. So while the other bloggers were writing about illegal caging lists and interchangeable memory cards, I was talking about Pakistan and propaganda and torture, China and death squads and the history of American intervention in foreign countries, political assassinations, 9/11, and so on… In my view, the mechanics of the electoral system could be perfect: every eligible voter could be allowed to vote, and all the votes could be counted and tabulated accurately — but it wouldn’t matter a bit if the voting public didn’t know whom to vote for, or against, or why. As I see it, the only possible “salvation” for our “democracy” would involve at least three things: a reform of the electoral system; a re-construction of the educational system, including an insistence on reality-based news media; and a popular understanding of the nature and uses of state-sponsored, false-flag, and/or bogus terrorism. And I tried to promote an awareness of these needs, especially the latter one, until eventually my work there was greeted with a fervor midway between disdain and contempt. One of my fellow guest-bloggers at said electoral-integrity site was an attorney from the state of Washington named Paul Lehto. Paul occasionally writes something and sends his mailing list links to it. And I happen to be on Paul’s mailing list. So sometimes I read what he writes. And sometimes I respond to Paul’s writings. And sometimes I have sent him links to writing of my own. I have never had any indication that he has ever clicked on any of my links, or that he gives a dried fig about anything I might think or say, yet I remain on his mailing list. And today (or perhaps yesterday — or maybe even tomorrow, depending on where you happen to live) Paul sent me a link to a new post at Democratic Undergound in which he quotes a piece from the French paper, Le Monde. The French writer, Robert Solé, writes:
Forget that 9/11 has led America and the world to genocide and disaster. Forget everything that makes this worldwide good news slightly less than pure joy. The French editorial sums up all the emotion of the day for Paul Lehto, apparently. Lehto writes:
The subsequent comments at DU amplify the points I would have liked to make, but in an unintentional, ironic way. mmonk adds:
tilsammans remarks:
here_is_to_hope writes:
understandinglife adds:
denese wrote:
bleever had the best angle:
All of this proves what I was saying four years ago better than anything I could have written since. It helps to explain why my services are no longer deemed valuable in certain places, and why they are no longer available there either. It hints at an explanation of why my readership, and the chatter on my comment threads, fell through a hole in the floor shortly after I started writing about Barack Obama — and applying the same BS-detector to him that I use on all the other political figures I write about. And it shows the same willful ignorance I was trying to alleviate, especially about 9/11. More than anything else, the “terrorist attacks” of September 11, 2001, gave America carte blanche to wage endless war against defenseless people anywhere in the world, anytime at all, for reasons false or true — exactly as they were intended to do! Take it from a French writer who fell for both that dirty tick and the obvious lies of the Obama campaign; from DU posters who still weep with joy; from a seer of bookends who thinks Obama’s election will provide a magical escape from the post-9/11 trauma … the world is once again uniting behind a fork-tongued snake, but this time it’s a rich white nigger who claims racism is not endemic in America, mostly because his brand of lying politics demands it, but also because his gilt-edged career path just happened to bypass it. I won’t link to any of the blogs where my former readers are dancing with joy. But I do congratulate them on their success. They now own a multitude of ongoing crimes against humanity, not one of which their champion wishes to end (although Obama says he wants to move the Iraq war crime to Afghanistan). They can now sing and dance and cry their tears of joy, on the highway to hell. Will the election of Barack Obama prove to be another 9/11-like event? Will it unite the world behind the United States just long enough for the US to launch another endless series of attacks against another tiny defenseless country? One wouldn’t even want to suggest such a thing — especially around the defectives! The world weeps with joy as it unites behind a willing and eager war criminal. It’s so cute. SOURCE: Winter Patriot |
|
|
| Adib S. Kawar - An Open Letter from an Uprooted Palestinian to Obama
We take the opportunity to congratulate you for being elected for the presidency of the presently mightiest military power and thus most influential political post in the world. We are sure that a man of your caliber and intelligence who was able to overcome the doubt to achieve a big victory in spite of the old inherent prejudice against electing an Afro-American to lead the American people during at least the coming four years. Mr. President Elect, we are sure that you are aware that your emulator to the post, as is evident, requested the outgoing president not to openly extend support to him in the presidential election campaign, though they belong to the same political party, because he was afraid that Mr. Bush’s reputation would smear his and strongly affect his chances of winning the post as a Republican candidate; which had actually strongly contributed to his failure, which is simply a result of the foolish, both internal and international, policy the outgoing regime had followed, which caused unprecedented global tragedies, especially as a result its directly waged wars - as is the case against Iraq and Afghanistan - and threat to wage other wars, and indirectly by supporting the rogue states, the outstanding example of which is the Zionist state of Israel, with its continuous wars against the indigenous Arab population of Palestine, and other Arab states especially during the 2006 war against Lebanon, and Israel’s role in the devastating war against Iraq. Also its continuous pressure on your nation to wage a war against the far away Iran on the pretence of developing atomic energy, forgetting that it is indeed Israel that is the only state in the region with an atomic bombs arsenal. We are sure that one of the main causes of the failure of your competitor, Mr. McCain, who against the will of the vast majority of the American people, declared that the occupation of Iraq should be eternal. We are sure that you are aware that these wars destroyed Iraq as a people and as a land, as well as its contribution to the destruction of the American economy, and its contribution to the present financial crisis. Dear Mr. President Elect, we may convince ourselves to understand what drove you to give that unlimited support to the Zionist state of Israel during your election campaign, which is now in the past, and expect that a man of your caliber and intelligence would understand where the interest of his nation on the international arena stands, it is not with the Zionist state of Israel which had always been liability to your nation rather than an asset. Just only from the point of the support you received from the Jewish/American/Israelis in term of votes, which was one out of four in your favor!!! Dear Mr. President Elect, your slogan during your election campaign centered on CHANGE, and your biggest achievement should be your policy and plan towards the Zionist state of Israel, which stole the land, the fortunes, past and future of the indigenous population of Palestine, and it is trying to complete the colonization of the 22% unoccupied in 1948, and uproot those Palestinians still living in their homes and on their lands. The six-decades-old Palestinian tragedy should end by allowing the uprooted Palestinians to practice their Right of Return to their land and homes as per UN Resolution 194 and to live in a democratic secular state in historic Palestine. Before you initiated your election campaign you denounced the colonization of the occupied West Bank and other Zionist atrocities; so now being elected to the presidency of the United States with the big support of all freedom loving peoples of the world especially, contrary to Zionist forces, by Arabs and Americans of Arab origin, it is high time to practice the change you promised. It was unfortunate that while we were closing this letter addressed to you, we received the following news release: “Chief of Staff Mr. President Elect, we are afraid you should worry that with an ultra Zionist handling the secrets of the White House, there shall be a foreign state sharing with you your decision-making and the secrets of your great nation. It seems that our worries are justified, namely the outgoing regime’s international policy of double standards shall continue, that is you shall proceed with the policy that resulted in the loss of your competitor the race to the White House, and probably continue with the policy of waging wars just to serve a foreign entity. News came also today that the Zionist entity is pushing your new regime to wage a new war against Iran. The lessons Americans should have learned from the chain of wars the administration that preceded yours had always ended with tragedies not only for the countries they attacked, but also to the United States of America too. Sincerely |
Palestine Think Tank Daily Digest 09 Nov 2008
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment