Pity any nation that has veered from the moral messages of Islam or Christianity

By Martin Love

NORTH CAROLINA - Lawrence Ferlinghetti, 99, and apparently still alive, is an American poet and publisher of books who got his start as an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina, where he majored in journalism and went on to a notable career as both a writer and painter.

 His heyday as a poet was in the 1960s and 70s during the Vietnam War, which he was radically opposed to as he was to so much about the developing state of American polity and mores. Some of his work was prophetic.

A part of one poem in particular from decades ago stands out, and is even more relevant today than it was when it was penned. It’s worth quoting because while Ferlinghetti applied the words to the U.S., it could be well applied to most any nation that, to use an Arabic term that appears in the Holy Qu’ran, has veered off the “Siraat al-Mustaqim”. 

“Pity the nation whose people are sheep
And whose shepherds mislead them
Pity the nation whose leaders are liars
Whose sages are silenced
And whose bigots haunt the airwaves
Pity the nation that raises not its voice
Except to praise conquerors
And acclaim the bully as hero
And aims to rule the world
By force and by torture…
Pity the nation oh pity the people
Who allow their rights to erode
And their freedoms to be washed away…”

These words encompass the mindset and actions of the Trump Administration, which has been in the process of attempting (unwittingly or not) to undermine not just the U.S., but the stability of the entire world and in particular, of late anyway, countries like Venezuela and Iran.

 And it can be argued that Trump (and Pompeo, Bolton, Pence and Abrams) is as responsible as anyone for the recent slaughter of 50 Muslim worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Indeed, the anti-Islam policies of Trump and his largely Zionist-oriented minions arguably helped at the margin to set off the attacks in New Zealand by an Australian “white power” advocate. The language used by the killer in New Zealand actually mirrored some of the language Trump himself has used in the past, calling, for example, “white power” advocates such as were witnessed in a protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, not long ago “fine people”.
  They and the killer in New Zealand are anything but “fine people”. They are bigots but it should be noted that even while such people constitute a significant part of Trump’s electoral “base” along with the faux “Christian” evangelical crowd, they are NOT by any measure representative of the American people as a whole.

  And it should be further noted that Trump himself has no particular intellect or ideology and is not even a “Christian” by any fair definition of the tenets of the faith: he knows no belief whatsoever but a desire to amass power and stay in office, and will grab what power he has from ANY willing group of people capable of giving him what he wants to maintain. Simply look as his decree that the Syrian Golan is Israel’s. No other country in the world recognizes that.

Trumps strategic agenda is NOT a winning strategy in the very longer term, and opposition to the Trump gangsters is mounting in the U.S. at the same time that his “regime change” efforts with regard to Venezuela and Iran (and other nations) seems not to be gaining traction. However, the Democrats and mainstream media in the U.S. for three years have been peddling a lie about Russian involvement and influence in U.S. politics.

 The Mueller report turned up nothing, and no indictments. Thus, Trump has been given a huge boost by the moronic Democrats, one that may make a second term for Trump relatively easy to win…unless the economy craters in the next year. 

Trump has also been isolating the U.S. while Eurasian countries, including Iran, bind themselves tighter together economically under China’s and Russia’s leadership. In addition, Iran seems to be carefully improving its relations with Iraq and Pakistan, as it has already accomplished with Syria and Turkey, creating a huge arc of mutually sympathetic countries across west Asia and beyond. And some European U.S. “allies” are beginning slowly to drift away from obeisance to U.S. diktat and even NATO.

 For example, Italy has expressed its interest in being a link in the Chinese “Belt and Road” economic initiative, much to the horror of the Trumpists, while the Nordstream 2 pipeline binding Germany ever closer to Russia and its ample and relatively cheap supplies of energy is essentially a done deal and no amount of further “official” U.S. anger is going to scuttle the project, already over 70 percent completed.

What is remarkable in the U.S. is that two Muslim females, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, elected to the U.S. House of Representatives last November, are quietly leading the push for real, potential change in the U.S. simply by telling the truth about the dangers and faults of U.S. policies, particularly in the Middle East, as advocated by various powerful lobbies such as AIPAC. This despite continued attacks on both the women, led by the corrupting Zionist lobbies.

The leadership in Congress of both parties are apoplectic about the mere conversations these Muslim women have opened up about malign influences and perceptions, and the prime question has to be WHEN pressure on these so-called “leaders” by average, voting Americans will impact their chances for reelection in 2020. That day is coming eventually.

There remains, however, many, far too many relatively well off and prosperous upper middle-class Americans, whether they consider themselves “liberals” or “conservatives”, who still refuse to believe or act upon the belief that the U.S. is and has been for decades on the wrong track with its foreign policies especially and with its handling of the economy.

 Perhaps they are threatened too much by the mere idea of disruptive change. Perhaps they fear losing the advantages and comforts they have enjoyed and amassed. But the next time the financial markets implode and the U.S. economy dives into a deep recession… well, that could be the tipping point when the entrenched oligarchy at the top of the food chain and their entrenched followers finally are discredited and real “democracy” at last returns to the U.S.

Mohamad bin Zayed, Zionist culprit in Mid-East

By Yosra Bakhakh

The Arab media announced a meeting of a United Arab Emirates top security delegation with Tel Aviv officials late last week. The UAE delegation was led by Mahmoud al-Shamsi, head of the UAE's intelligence agency. He was accompanied by four other Emirati security personnel.

This is not the first time such reports have appeared. Last year, the Middle East Eye website reported on the UAE’s security cooperation with Israel, according to which Abu Dhabi inked a contract with an Israeli company to secure the safety of important Emirati oil facilities. The agreement called for installation of a comprehensive regulatory network throughout the UAE, which allowed the authorities to monitor the activities of Emirati citizens and others in public places -- from the moment they would leave home until they returned.

In spite of the reports revealing a new secret agreement and cooperation between Israel and the UAE, once upon a time in the Emirate, Arab honor and ideal were upheld with resistance to Israel. Why has the UAE turned into one of the leading countries seeking relations with the Zionists in the past few years?

Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia

Mohammad Bin al-Mokhtar al-Shanghiti, professor of political ethics at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, blames the Emirate’s new rulers for the change in attitudes towards Israel.
He believes that Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the founder of the modern Emirate, felt he was affiliated with the Islamic and Arab Ummah, and therefore opposed the Zionists early on. However, Emirate’s tendency towards Israel today is proof of its separation from its roots and values.

The new policy towards Israel of Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan’s (MbZ) is derived from ignorance and arrogance. However, that is not everyone’s view in the UAE. Imad Al-Din al-Juburi, a political commentator, believes that the younger leaders of the Arab states in the Persian Gulf such as Mohammed bin Zayed in the UAE and Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia are following in the footsteps of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization. When one of the largest Arab powers, Egypt, decides to make peace with Israel, the movement of the UAE towards Israel is more or less considered natural.

Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel on the pretext of having their occupied lands returned, and the Palestinian authorities came to terms with Israel for the sake of a partial solution to the Palestinian issue. But the UAE's reconciliation with the Zionist regime, which is far from the occupied lands, is none of that.

Interestingly, the UAE has not succeeded in normalizing relations with Israel, but the newly-formed bond between the UAE and Israel has strengthened the Zionist lobby and turned the UAE in to Israel’s tool in the region.

One of the most prominent Zionist lobbies, collaborating with the Emirates, is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, known also as FDD, an anti-Iranian foundation originated from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Letters from the UAE ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, revealed that Abu Dhabi has close ties with the Zionist lobby AIPAC, and during Barack Obama’s presidency, the UAE had made great efforts to prevent any nuclear deal with Iran.

In the past year, the UAE has also taken advantage of this foundation to put international pressure on Qatar. Indeed, the UAE has sold its soul to the devil in the name of democracy. The FDD has been protecting the interests of the Zionist regime and pursuing the objectives of the Likud Party headed by Netanyahu in the Middle East. The foundation’s activities have not been limited to exerting pressure on U.S. officials to oppose a nuclear deal, but it is also trying to impose Netanyahu's view on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict which is in conflict with the two-state concept.

The Emirates, well-aware of the power and impact of the Zionist lobbies in the United States, have been working hard over the past few years to spend millions of dollars on these lobbies to secure their interests in the U.S. Congress. This alignment with Israel by the rulers of the UAE and Saudi Arabia has happened because Muhammad bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman know too well that these institutions have clout. They also want to get closer to this source of power and contribute in planning and determining the policies of the region.

Israel writes script for the crisis and solution

President Barack Obama, wake up. The bloodletting in the holy city of Jerusalem sends you a stream of urgent messages that you should step in and act decisively to fulfil your promise of peace to the land of peacemakers.

As the crisis escalates with the Israeli police shooting any Palestinian, who they think is acting suspiciously in response to knife attacks on Jewish settlers, President Obama must try one last time to make peace between Israel and Palestine before his term ends in 15 months.

But it won’t be easy, given Israel’s hardline stance and the growing chill in the personal relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, especially in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal reached in July this year.

President Obama made a genuine effort for peace during the early days of his first term. He probably underestimated the power of the Zionist Lobby, which opposes a Palestinian state. His first foreign call from his White House office after he took oaths in January 2009 was to Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas. Indicating he meant what he said, he visited the Middle East within months of becoming the President. He appropriately titled the famous speech he made at the Cairo University in 2009 ‘A New Beginning’. The hope-stirring speech showcased his determination to find a peace deal acceptable to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. He was not unaware of the failures his predecessors suffered in their efforts to make peace.  Yet amidst standing ovation from an ecstatic crowd, he described the Palestinians’ plight as “intolerable”, though in the same breath he said the US bond with Israel was unbreakable and called on the Palestinians to abandon resistance to Israeli occupation through violence. In a bold declaration, seen as a departure from the policies of his predecessors, Obama told Israel that settlement building in occupied Palestinian territories should stop. 

“… There can be no progress towards peace without a halt to such construction”. … Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s,” Obama assured the region’s peace-starved people. 

His peace intentions won him the Nobel Peace Prize, just months after he took office. But a term and a half later, he cuts a sorry figure on the Palestinian issue. Israel has gone on with business as usual, building settlements in occupied territories, while paying little or no heed to Obama’s repeated don’t-do-it pleas. After his reelection in 2012, Obama launched a new peace initiative with an April 2014 deadline. Numerous visits to the region and shuttle diplomacy by Secretary of State John Kerry drew a blank, because of tough conditions placed by Netanyahu. 


A member of Israeli security forces faces Palestinian protesters throwing stones during clashes in the West Bank city of Bethlehem. AFP

With Zionist hardliners shooting down his peace initiative, what Obama, in response, could do was to snub Netanyahu by not meeting him during the United Nations General Assembly sessions. Last month, Obama pulled out Secretary Kerry and UN envoy Samantha Power from the UN hall when the Israeli leader addressed the world body.

Netanyahu knows that in the US, the system is more powerful than the president, and as long as the Zionist lobby led by the mighty America-Israel Public Relations Committee has the system – which includes Congress -- under its control, Israel has little to worry about and Netanyahu does not give a damn about decisions made by the White House.

In what was seen as a snub to Obama and his peace initiative, Netanyahu was reelected in March this year on the strength of a promise he made in the closing days of his campaign that there could be no Palestinian state while regional violence and chaos persisted. 

Netanyahu’s reelection shut the door on Obama’s peace efforts. Yet, unable to turn a blind eye to the escalating violence, the Obama administration on Wednesday, in what appears to be a half-hearted announcement, said Secretary Kerry would travel to the region “in the near future”. But whether Kerry will succeed is a big question. Already, State Department remarks on the current violence which could trigger a third Intifada – uprising – have infuriated Israeli hardliners. State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters this week there were “credible reports” Israel was using excessive force against Palestinian protesters. 

As violence soars in Jerusalem and other parts of the occupied territories and in Israel, an opinion poll published last week found that 73% of Israelis wanted a harsher response to the attacks by Palestinian youths. Needless to say, Israeli troops resort to collective punishment, bulldozing several houses in a suspect’s village. 

The recent violence follows months of tension between the Palestinians and hardline Israelis, who, with state patronage, have been asserting the Jewishness of the Temple Mount al-Aqsa mosque, which the Muslims regard as the third holiest mosque in Islam.  The Palestinians say hardline Jews enter the al-Aqsa mosque premises and provoke them by holding Jewish prayers. The Jews say they want to rebuild the Temple and restore it to its original glory. 

The Palestinians fear that they will soon lose control of al-Aqsa mosque in the same manner they lost control of the Hebron mosque where Abraham, revered by both the Jews and the Muslims as the great patriarch of monotheism, is believed to have been buried. The Israeli occupying force decides on the days on which Muslims can pray at the Hebron mosque.

For centuries, the Muslims prayed at the Temple Mount while the Jews said prayers at the Temple wall over the cliff.  This unwritten agreement survived even after Israel captured Jerusalem in the 1967 war.  

With the Palestinians being left to their own fate while Arab leaders are now more interested in fomenting troubles in places like Libya and Syria, the writing is on the wall that soon Israel will have full control of the Temple Mount. If the Muslims lose the right to worship in al-Aqsa, the situation could lead to further radicalisation of the Muslim world and more violence, and the world will have to deal with a much bigger terrorist problem. 

Some world leaders are urging Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to bring the situation under control. But he is old, ineffective and does not enjoy much public support. 

With the Obama administration having little clout over Israel and the United Nations being just a bystander, Israel is in a position to write the script of the crisis and also the solution to it.  The ideal solution for the current crisis is to bring the Temple Mount site under United Nations control until a final solution emerges. But that is only wishful thinking, given Israel’s grand scheme to annex the whole of Palestine and more Arab lands.