Reporter: This is talking about a deal that the U.S. was cooking up. Reporter: Two top U.S. officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government. Nuland:What do you think? Pyatt:I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now, so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call we want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad he said what he said in response. Nuland:Good. So, uh, I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea. Pyatt:Yeah, I mean, I guess — you think, what — in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this. Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's he's the — you know — what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I, I just think Klitsch going in, he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work. Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step? Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it? Pyatt: No. I think – I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it. Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after. Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks. Nuland: OK, I've now written — oh one more wrinkle for you, Geoff.I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy, Robert Serry, did I write you that this morning? Pyatt: Yeah, I saw that. Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU. Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep. - we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place. Nuland:So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note Sullivan's come back to me VFR, saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing. Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks. Reporter: I'm sorry. Jen Psaki: - as a diplomat. Reporter: If you're saying privately behind the scenes that you're cooking up a deal, and then you're saying publicly that this is up for Ukrainians to decide, those are two totally different things. Click Here To See More reporters asking questions about that private phone call which was secretly recorded and made public thus exposing what U.S. officials are up to behind closed doors. Nuland:You know Matt, as you have made clear again and again in this room, we are not always consistent. Click here to see Matt Lee challenging the vile Victoria Nuland in the video "VILE HYPOCRISY EXPOSED by reporter doing his job." What U.S. officials are up to behind closed doors is in direct contradiction to the public claims made about democracy. People need to hear about whats going on behind closed doors because what goes on is not in the public good, it's for private greed. Please share this video by using the YouTube tools (don't make a copy)
This is part of the transcript for the Press Briefing on Assistant Secretary Nuland's & Ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt's Call
Jen Psaki, Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC
February 6, 2014
QUESTION: … so before we get into the actual substance of this conversation, this call that was recorded and released, can you say whether you – if this call is an authentic recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going to confirm private diplomatic conversations.
QUESTION: So you are not saying that you believe this is a – you think this is not authentic? You think this is a --
MS. PSAKI: That’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m just not going to confirm the specifics of it.
QUESTION: Well, you can’t even say whether there was this call – that you believe that this call – you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call?
MS. PSAKI: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that.
QUESTION: Okay. So you’re allowing for the – you’re allowing the fact that it is authentic.
MS. PSAKI: Yes. Do you have a question about it?
QUESTION: Yes, okay. Yes, I do --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- now, once we get into it. Quite apart from the colorful language that is used in reference to the European Union, the conversation appears to – well, doesn’t appear to suggest, it does – the conversation shows that the United States certainly has – or at least officials within the U.S. Government have certain opinions about certain Ukrainian opposition leaders and others. And I’m wondering how that squares with your repeated insistence that every – all of this is up to the Ukrainians to decide themselves.
MS. PSAKI: It’s not inconsistent in the least bit. It is no secret that Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary Nuland have been working with the Government of Ukraine, with the opposition, with business and civil society leaders to support their efforts, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that at any point, there have been discussions about recent events and offers and what is happening on the ground. And as you know, Assistant Secretary Nuland is on the ground right now continuing our efforts in that regard.
It remains the case that it is up to the Ukrainian people themselves to decide their future. It is up to them to determine their path forward, and that’s a consistent message that we’re conveying publicly and privately.
QUESTION: All right. And I’ve got two more and then I --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- but they should be both brief. Specifically --
MS. PSAKI: On Ukraine or --
QUESTION: Yeah, on Ukraine.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: As related to Assistant Secretary Nuland’s comments about the European Union, do – are the United States and the EU on the same page on what to deal – how to deal with the situation in Ukraine and how best to resolve the crisis?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say, obviously, we work incredibly closely with the EU and with representatives of the EU, and Assistant Secretary Nuland certainly does as it relates to Ukraine. And she’s been in close contact with EU High Representative Ashton. Also, let me convey that she has been in contact with her EU counterparts, and of course, has apologized. But --
QUESTION: What did she apologize for?
MS. PSAKI: For these reported comments, of course.
QUESTION: So you’re not confirming that the comments are accurate? She’s --
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to speak to a private diplomatic conversation, Arshad, but I’m obviously speaking to the content of the reports.
So she’s been in touch with them, and clearly, we’ve been working closely with them on what should happen on Ukraine, what should happen – what kind of package that – as you know, as we’ve been discussing in here, we can discuss for a government once it’s formed. And if we have frustrations, we express those privately as well, but it’s important to note how closely we work with them and how aligned we are on this issue.
QUESTION: Do you know who she apologized to? Was it Catherine Ashton or --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that level of specificity, just that she’s been --
QUESTION: All right. And then my last one on this is: Your colleague at the White House made mention – pointed out quite obviously – or made a point of noting that an aide to a Russian – a senior Russian official was, if not the first, one of the first to draw --
MS. PSAKI: Was the first, yes.
QUESTION: -- draw attention to this.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Well, I believe that – if you don’t know who posted the thing on YouTube, correct?
MS. PSAKI: That’s a fair point, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So that would be the first drawing of attention to it, correct, the actual posting of the video with the audio in it, right? But among the first, if not the first, was this aide to Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin tweeting about it.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you think, does the U.S. Government believe, that Russia was behind this bugging and release? And if you are not willing to go that far, are you concerned at all that officials in the Russian Government seem to be wanting to point – to draw attention to this?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly we think this is a new low in Russian tradecraft in terms of publicizing, posting. I don’t have any other independent details about the origin of the YouTube video. You’re right. This has clearly happened overnight and is relatively new. But this is something they’ve been actively promoting, posting on, tweeting about, and certainly that we feel that represents a new low.
QUESTION: But do you think that --
QUESTION: Well, what do you mean – can I follow up, please?
MS. PSAKI: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: What do you mean by this is a new low in Russian tradecraft? Tradecraft is a word typically that refers almost exclusively to espionage activities. Are you saying that you regard this as an act of Russian espionage, that this conversation was recorded and broadcast?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly, if it was recorded and broadcast, that that would be that – that it would be violating a private conversation.
QUESTION: But you said this is a new low in Russian tradecraft.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: That means you think that the Russians, in fact, recorded and made available this broadcast.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I just stated, I don’t have any independent or new information on that, but obviously, they promoted this and were the first to tweet about it, so that’s what I was noting.
QUESTION: So that’s your suspicion, that you didn’t – I mean, you said this is a new low in Russian tradecraft. That implies that you believe it is their responsibility.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I was pretty clear in answering Matt’s question that I don’t have any independent information on the origin of the YouTube video, but obviously, they were the first ones to post on Twitter about it, which is an indication. But again, I don’t know – I don’t have any independent --
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: So when you’re --
QUESTION: And then – wait, sorry, can I keep going?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Because they’re – look, the Russians have repeatedly accused the United States Government of interfering in Ukraine’s politics.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The U.S. Government has, to some degree, made reciprocal claims about Russia. Does not the fact that U.S. diplomats purportedly are discussing who should and should not be in a Ukrainian government hint at some possibility of U.S. interference here?
MS. PSAKI: Absolutely not. There – it should be no surprise that U.S. officials talk about issues around the world. Of course we do. That’s what you do, that’s what diplomats do, and discuss especially issues where we’ve been closely engaged. The Secretary met with the opposition this weekend. He stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. It’s up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward. But it shouldn’t be a surprise that there are discussions about events on the ground.
QUESTION: This was more than discussions, though. This was two top U.S. officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government, and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal. This is more than the U.S. trying to make suggestions. This is the U.S. midwifing the process.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Elise, you’re talking about a private diplomatic conversation. Those happen all the time. Of course as part of private diplomatic conversations, there are discussions about what involvement the UN can have, what involvement or engagement should happen on the ground. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Of course, these things are being discussed. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s up to the people on the ground, it is up to the people of Ukraine to determine what the path forward is.
QUESTION: But you’re clearly trying to influence what they decide. I mean, one of the quotes is – and this is attributed to Ambassador Pyatt: “I think you reaching out to him” – Klitschko – “helps with the personality management among the three, and it gives you also a chance to move fast and all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down. And he explains why he doesn’t like it." That’s not – that’s not oh, let them figure this out. That’s gee, let’s try to do this so that he won’t decide he doesn’t like this plan.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, it’s not a secret that we’re engaged with what’s happening on the ground. I mean, the Secretary met with the opposition this weekend. He also met with the foreign minister. As part of those discussions, you engage with what’s happening, what the recommendations are. They’re going to choose to do it or they’re not. But that’s, of course, what you discuss in any meeting or conversation regardless.
QUESTION: I want to go back to --
QUESTION: But the bottom line here --
QUESTION: He does actually --
QUESTION: -- is that you do have an opinion about what certain people should – what role certain people should – what role you think is best for certain people to play, correct? I mean, you do have – that is an opinion of the United States. It doesn’t mean that you’re going to foist that or force it on the people of Ukraine, but you do have an opinion, correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I would caution everybody --
QUESTION: Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: One moment. We’re talking about a couple of minutes from a recorded call.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: That doesn’t reflect every conversation that’s happened --
QUESTION: No.
MS. PSAKI: -- every debate that’s happened, every internal conversation that’s happened.
QUESTION: No, you’re right.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: You’re absolutely right. But you do have – here is a case where an official – two officials are talking about a preference for what one opposition or several opposition leaders should do, whether they should be in or stay out of the government; is that not correct? So you do have an opinion about what you think would be best.
MS. PSAKI: Well --
QUESTION: And I’m not sure that that’s so --
MS. PSAKI: I’m not --
QUESTION: -- that’s bad --
MS. PSAKI: We have opinions about a range of issues.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: That shouldn’t be a surprise.
QUESTION: So here’s my – so I would just then – so when you get a question --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- about whether you think it would be good or bad for Politician X or Y in Country X or Y to run for office, for any office, I don’t think that it is honest for you to say no, we don’t have an opinion and that’s completely up to the people of Country X.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, there’s a --
QUESTION: And I specifically mean in this case I’m talking about Egypt.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, let me just --
QUESTION: Because you do have an opinion.
MS. PSAKI: -- make one comment here. There is a difference between private discussions that happen in the interagency process, in the building, and what we convey publicly as a U.S. Government. And we have a responsibility to convey what our position is. Of course, you’re discussing a range of options on a range of issues.
QUESTION: But if --
MS. PSAKI: That’s what you do as --
QUESTION: But I’m sorry --
MS. PSAKI: -- as a diplomat.
QUESTION: If you’re saying privately behind the scenes that you’re cooking up a deal, and then you’re saying publicly that this is up for Ukrainians to decide, those are two totally different things. I understand that diplomatic discussions are sensitive and you don’t want everything to come out, but those are two totally different – totally different positions.
MS. PSAKI: Elise, what do you think happens behind closed doors when people are discussing issues internally through the interagency --
QUESTION: This is not discussing issues. This is talking about a deal that the U.S. was cooking up with --
MS. PSAKI: I think I would disagree with you. I think you’re overstating and overqualifying a couple of minutes from a privately recorded phone call.
QUESTION: I want to go back to the issue --
QUESTION: So it was a privately recorded phone call now?
MS. PSAKI: I’m done, Arshad. Next?
QUESTION: I want to go back to the issue of your divergences with Europe --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- and what to do about Ukraine.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I mean, obviously, the language that Assistant Secretary Nuland used suggests a fairly high degree of frustration. So what is behind that? What is it that you want to be done that the Europeans are not falling in line with?
MS. PSAKI: I think I just answered this. I mean, obviously, we work very closely with the EU and specifically on this issue in recent weeks, as given how much prominence it’s received but how important it is, a priority to us and a priority to the EU. So we’ve been in close discussions with them, we’ve been working closely with them. These reported – this discussion is about events that happened days and days ago, so just remember that for contextual purposes.
QUESTION: Just last week --
QUESTION: Well, last week is not really days and days. I mean, it is days and days ago, I suppose --
MS. PSAKI: Technically, it’s days and days ago.
QUESTION: It’s not like it’s ancient history. This is very recent.
QUESTION: But she says – she says – I’m not going to repeat what she said, but she’s obviously angry with the European Union. So despite the fact that you might be discussing this at a level, what is it that was making her angry with them?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I wouldn’t overanalyze one – a couple of words that were used on a phone call as to having larger meaning about some sort of ongoing issue. There are, of course, moments in every diplomatic relationship where you have small frustrations, where you agree, you disagree, you work through the issues, you talk about what the best step to take is, and that certainly has been the case here, which should be no surprise. And that’s why you have debates about what to do next on challenging issues.
QUESTION: So I wondered whether it went to the heart of the issue of sanctions, for instance, because I know the United States has been talking about and possibly preparing another level – a level of sanctions if things go drastically wrong in Kyiv.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is this perhaps a track in which your European allies are not in agreement with you?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think it’s – I would defer to them on what their views are on that, but it’s not an indication of that at all, and as you know, that wasn’t even discussed. So you know what our position is – it’s that we’re open to considering sanctions. That hasn’t obviously moved forward, or nothing has changed about our view right now. But this isn’t an indication of anything more than that.
QUESTION: Not discussed in this reported phone call, you mean?
MS. PSAKI: Correct.
QUESTION: I’d like to go back to the Russian involvement. While you did – while you were talking about the statecraft and the idea that this Russian assistant of the deputy prime minister tweeted out, you said that you didn’t have any solid evidence that the Russians were involved, but you did say that there’s – that the fact that the Russians were so quick to have this video and tweet it out, that it’s an indication of their possible involvement. Is that what you’re saying?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think that is an indication that they’re promoting it – I mean, not just an indication. It’s evidence that they’re promoting a privately recorded phone call.
QUESTION: Not that they’re promoting it, but that they had a hand in obtaining it.
MS. PSAKI: As I said, and this hasn’t changed, I don’t have any independent information about who posted the YouTube video. So --
QUESTION: But you believe the fact that they had it early and are promoting it so much is an indication of their possible involvement in obtaining it. Is that what you’re saying?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have any more information on it, Elise. I will let you all draw your own conclusions, but I don’t have anything in addition about the source of the YouTube video. But obviously, they were the first to post it on Twitter.
Go ahead. Or do we have any more on Ukraine? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just one thing. You did say that this was a conversation that happened days and days ago. Where was Secretary – Assistant Secretary Nuland?
MS. PSAKI: This was an issue being discussed days and days ago, as you know, in terms of who would or wouldn’t join the government. But go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, we’d seen the conversation was actually a few days ago as well because events have now moved on from the report --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Sure.
QUESTION: -- the events that are referred to in the conversation. I wondered if you could tell us where Assistant Nuland was when this conversation was made. Was she in Ukraine?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any information on that. She obviously is in Ukraine now. She wasn’t there before yesterday. So --
QUESTION: But I think the conversation goes back several days, to last week, as Matt mentioned.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more information on where it took place.
QUESTION: Can I just ask – unless you want to --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: How pervasive is – do you think the sentiment that Toria has apologized for – how pervasive is that within the State Department, within the Administration?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think it is at all.
QUESTION: Is it going to be the new rallying cry of the EUR Bureau or of the State Department itself?
MS. PSAKI: Well --
QUESTION: Are you going to get t-shirts made with this phrase on it?
MS. PSAKI: You all know Toria pretty well. You may know the story of how she lived on a Russian boat for about eight months when she was 23, and she learned how to perfect perhaps certain words in a couple of languages, so perhaps it speaks to that more than a pervasive viewpoint.
QUESTION: So it’s her fault that she worked on a Soviet fishing vessel that she uses such language?
QUESTION: They taught her to cuss?
QUESTION: Are you – wait, are you suggesting that she has a – you’re not suggesting that she has a predisposition against Russia?
MS. PSAKI: No, I was suggesting that she learned Russian curse words and curse words on the fishing boat.
QUESTION: This was in English.
QUESTION: But this was in English.
MS. PSAKI: She – I was making a joke --
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- about her learning curse words on a fishing boat.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Just one other thing. Is there any concern in the Department that if there is a Russian hand in this, that her – that Assistant Secretary Nuland’s relationship with the Russians, which – and Russia is part of her portfolio now – is going to be hurt? I recall when she was sworn in, the Secretary told a little story about how Foreign Minister Lavrov had said to him that he was glad that he finally got rid of that Nuland woman --
MS. PSAKI: I was there for that. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- and the Secretary replied – said he replied to Lavrov saying, “No, I didn’t fire her. I promoted her.”
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So there seems to be a little bit of tension there. Are you concerned that this alleged Russian hand that you are suggesting is going to make things worse?
MS. PSAKI: No, I don’t think that’s our view at all. This is – and Toria has been working on issues related to Russia, as you know, for many, many years, and she is the last person who is to be naive about areas where we agree and disagree and concerns we have and things we can work with them on, and I don’t think this will impact our relationship moving forward.
QUESTION: All right. And then the – my last thing, and then just --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- first to your reference to her working on this trawler. Are you trying to suggest that she has the mouth of a sailor here?
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t want to say that in case her mother reads the transcript, but those of us who know her – (laughter) --
QUESTION: Mothers sometimes watch it live. (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: That’s true.
QUESTION: Her mother is a big fan of Arshad’s, actually.
MS. PSAKI: I heard she’s a big fan of Arshad. (Laughter.)
To sum up the main point the article is saying: If the police had arrested Tamerlan Tsarnaev for his involvement in a triple homicide in 2011 and he went to jail for those killings then he would have not been able to have perpetrated the Boston bombings in 2013 because he would been in jail. That is what is meant by "Could solving this case have prevented the Boston Marathon bombings?"
Source URL: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/02/25/waltham-murders-boston-marathon/
Jeralyn correctly observes that the media is making a comparison of the Michael Dunn case with the Zimmerman case:
"The case is in the national news because of comparisons to the George Zimmerman case. I don't see the connection. Zimmerman was reacting to being punched in the nose, and thought Martin might have been reaching for his (Zimmerman's) gun. Dunn wasn't physically attacked, he thought someone in the car had a gun. (There were four young men in the car.) Dunn didn't have his gun on his person, he had to get it from the glove compartment. Dunn shot at the vehicle several times, including as it was driving away from the scene" - By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News Far to many people have been mislead by the media and have assumed the media correctly reported the Zimmerman case. See Zimmerman video and others
I agree, it is a shame Alternet published William Boardman's deceptions. Key facts expose how dishonest and deceptive his history is.
In practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine. 67% of the population had a right to reject a recommendation for dividing up their land into 7 zones.
NOTE: This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State. SEE Sources for the Israeli/Palestinian situation 1947-1948 http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
"The Zionists were by far the more powerful and better organized force, and by May 1948, when the state of Israel was formally established,about 300,000 Palestinians already had been expelled from their homes or had fled the fighting, and the Zionists controlled a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish state that had been proposed by the UN.Now it'sthenthat Israel was attacked by its neighbors - in May 1948; it'sthen,afterthe Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilans had been forced out,not before." p132Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
zzz05, I didn't omit what you claim. Did you not see where I wrote: "67% of the population had a right to reject a recommendation for dividing up their land into 7 zones." The UN Plan was a recommendation and an unjust one what the overwhelming majority of the population was against and rightly so. You don't care about democracy do you? WHo are you to suggest that a UN recommendation to cut up the land into 7 zones was "something that had been done and cannot be changed?" And as I point out, it is a total distortion to claim that the Jews accepted it since the plan proposed an Internationally Administered Zone that would have included Jerusalem. In addition, plan proposed 3 sections for a "Jewish State" and 3 sections for an Arab State and did not authorize or call for ethnic cleansing being perpetrated.
My comment was clear and you misrepresented it. I gave a link to more details (synch as this: Zionists immediately started seizing land, even land beyond what the UN partition set for the proposed Jewish State. Attacks were from both sides but were instigated by the Zionists seizing land and a reaction to the aggressive ethnic cleansing under way. After the massive ethnic cleansing and expansion beyond the UN suggested boarders, Arab states responded INTO THE AREAS THAT WERE TO BE FOR THE UN PROPOSED PALESTINIAN STATE. Also, Jordan had an agreement with Israel to prevent a Palestinian State so Jordan invaded the West Bank. ) here: http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
I posted this comment over at Fox News:
"You should be informing readers that the Iranian nation's will is for right to peaceful nuclear energy and not to make a nuclear bomb. You are misleading people." Someone called "wta1019" asked: "Well how do you permit such things when they have publicly called for the destruction of Israel? Do you take a chance with something that serious?" This is my reply: @wta1019Before we get into more misinformation how about we deal with the fact that Fox News is deceiving readers about what the Iranian nation's will is and what the tweet is referring to? How many times does Iran have to say they don't want a nuclear weapon before people stop acting like a comment or tweet is talking about a nuclear bomb? http://youtu.be/lwzDFpQvtas The media doesn't do a good job reporting some things like remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, where he said, 'We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.'" And Ahmadinejad has explained that his solution is voting against having Zionist regime, changing Israel into a truly democratic state IS "the destruction of Israel" BY DEFINITION, "It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." The media is misinforming you. And NBC News doesn't do much better. They leave it to only the last sentence in their article to explain: "His remarks on Tuesday appear to be an effort to convince hardliners within Iran who claim the nuclear deal tramples on Iran's enrichment rights." And even that doesn't explain the context of peaceful nuclear energy. The Fox News story is deceptive and their last paragraph doesn't directly address what the Rouhani's tweet is referring to: "Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that key elements of the arrangement were included in a "secret," unpublished document. According to the report, the private agreement includes details pertaining to a joint commission that would oversee the implementation and Iran's "right" to pursue nuclear research." In fact, Fox News drives the misconception by saying things like "The brash statement, which is sure to rile those in Congress pressing for additional sanctions," and "Rouhani's latest statement could fuel concern in Congress that Iran feels less pressure now to both comply with the deal and pursue a comprehensive agreement."
Eric Alterman: ... it was drummed into me that I should do what’s best for Israel. I was at the Center for Jewish History not long ago where I heard Ruth Wisse, the Yiddishist professor at Harvard who happens to be the Martin L. Peretz professor, instruct a group of young Jewish journalists that they should think of themselves as members of the Israeli army. That in Israel young people have to serve in the army – well, they didn’t have to serve in the army, but they should think of themselves as members of a Jewish army, supporting the Jewish people, supporting Israel, putting aside their intellectual qualms and concerns about things. Like Lieberman. Now it so happens that because so few people are willing to say this, and there’s certainly good historical reasons for this, I end up being quoted by Walt and Mearsheimer as the only person saying, I am a dual loyal Jew and sometimes I’m going to actually go with Israel, because the United States can take an awful lot of hits and come up standing. Whereas if Israel takes one serious bad hit it could disappear. So there’s going to be some cases where when Israel and the United States conflict I’m going to support what’s best for Israel rather than what I think is best for the United States.
Jane Eisner: Can you imagine a time where you would feel that dual loyalty and go with Israel?
Eric Alterman: I just said, there are many occasions.
Chomsky Exposes Israel's Crimes, Hear Facts the Media isn't making the public aware of. See Hope and Prospects http://tinyurl.com/hopesandprospects PASS VIDEO ON: Tinyurl.com/IsraeliCriminalAggression
Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime. The editors of the London Guardian are quite right to say that "If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a NATO taskforce would today be heading for the Somali coast."
It is worth bearing in mind that the crime is nothing new. For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats in international waters between Cyprus and Lebanon, killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes bringing them to prisons in Israel including secret prison/torture chambers, sometimes holding them as hostages for many years. Israel assumes that it can carry out such crimes with impunity because the US tolerates them and Europe generally follows the US lead. Much the same is true of Israel's pretext for its latest crime: that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that could be used for bunkers for rockets. Putting aside the absurdity, if Israel were interested in stopping Hamas rockets it knows exactly how to proceed: accept Hamas offers for a cease-fire.
In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement. The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreeement on November 4, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket. Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead on December 27. Evidently, there is no justification for the use of force "in self-defense" unless peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case they were not even tried, although — or perhaps because—there was every reason to suppose that they would succeed. Operation Cast Lead is therefore sheer criminal aggression, with no credible pretext, and the same is true of Israel's current resort to force.
The siege of Gaza itself does not have the slightest credible pretext. It was imposed by the US and Israel in January 2006 to punish Palestinians because they voted "the wrong way" in a free election, and it was sharply intensified in July 2007 when Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup, installing Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan. The siege is savage and cruel, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of long-standing Israeli plans, backed by the US, to separate Gaza from the West Bank. These are only the bare outlines of very ugly policies, in which Egypt is complicit as well.
BTW, the preceding statement was part of a longer interview for an Egyptian weekly which you can read online (see link below) BUT, the Egyptian weekly edited this out, Chomsky's mention of Egypt's complicity in Israel's crimes.
And largely the press in the US really isn't better than this. Along with the other topics he deals with, Chomsky writes about the press's poor performance in his latest book Hopes and Prospects. See the link in the video info.
Link to the Egyptian weekly's Chomsky interview:
http://bit.ly/cN5v41
"One of the world's major intellectual voices and a leading critic of Israel, Noam Chomsky has sided with the powerless throughout his career, while at the same time reminding the powerful of the inconvenient truths they would rather forget. He spoke to David Tresilian in Paris."
http://tinyurl.com/hopesandprospects
PASS IT ON: http://tinyurl.com/IsraeliCriminalAggression
Joel Kovel, author ofOvercoming Zionism, talks with Amy Goodman about Zionist pressure which caused University of Michigan Press to drop his book from distribution. Only after fellow academics and civil libertarians led a campaign to get the book published did University of Michigan Press overturn their decision and agree to continue the distribution of Kovel's book.
Joel Kovel, author of Overcoming Zionism, said, "What we don’t have is any kind of real debate on this subject in our country at this time ... basically these Zionist repression groups have had pretty much a free hand ... that’s why I wrote the book. I mean, I wanted to -- I disregarded all the taboos, that you're not supposed to talk about Israel in any depth in this country."
[The distributor dropped his book after receiving threatening emails from a Zionist pressure group.] "They panicked this summer when they dropped my book. I mean, they were pressured by this Zionist watchdog team." [But the Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism
was able to convince them to continue distributing it.] "We have a committee forming, Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, codz.org. [UPDATE: Link apparently expired]And we’re planning a conference and all. But the committee leapt into action, and we were amazed at just how eloquent and, you know, basically fed up a lot of people were with being intimidated by these kinds of tactics. They just want to suppress an open discussion of this subject. ... I grew up in a very conventional Jewish home, except for the fact that there was a lot of division on this subject, so I think from an early age I learned to take a certain distance from it and to think critically about it."
Posts
