Saturday, March 31, 2007

Saudis dismissed US and warned Israel

For years, being a client state of the USA, and under American protection, Saudi Arabia under the rule of the Saudi monarchy has kept its mouth pretty shut about a host of American-Israeli injustice in the Middle-East.

That didn’t mean that Saudis weren’t pissed off as was evident by the 9/11 attackers being mainly Saudis.

And talking about 9/11, remember Anwar Ibrahim’s dear American buddy, Paul?

That’s Paul Wolfowitz, the mastermind of the Project for the New American Century Project, who then became the mastermind for the Defence Department’s plan to invade Iraq when he joined the Bush administration.

For his Iraqi nonsense, Wolfowitz was quietly removed from the Bush Administration and shoved upstairs to become the president of the World Bank, where he has been described as an utter failure in the Bank's role in meeting the needs of poor countries.

Well, the US Senate 9/11 Report clearly spelt out Paul Wolfowitz’s urgings that Iraq be attacked for the 9/11 incident when no such evidence of Iraqi involvement existed. Furthermore it stated that there was “no credible evidence” supporting Paul Wolfowitz’s argument that Iraq was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre.

We know what hell hole Iraq is in today, thanks to people like dear Paul, the wonderful friend (on first name basis) of Anwar Ibrahim.

Anyway, back to the Saudi. King Abdullah has not publicly criticised the US-led military intervention in Iraq before with severity, but in a remarkable about turn, he has told Arab leaders that the US occupation of Iraq is illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settle their differences, foreign powers such as the US will continue to dictate the region's politics.

That’s heavy, coming from the usually obedient Saudis.

Observers said his latest remarks suggest that his alliance with Washington may be on a downward slide.

Then Abdullah opposed the US and Israel embargo of the Hamas led government by calling for an end to the international boycott of the Palestinian Authority. The Saudi King also got the two main Palestinian factions together. This was something that Israel and the US didn’t want because they found that the Saudi-forged coalition of the Palestinians added to the power of Hamas rather than the more compliant Abbas-led Fatah group.

The Saudi King has just cancelled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honour. According to political observers, the Saudi official reason of heavy scheduling was bullsh*t. They said the Saudis were saying to Washington that it bloody well listen to its Arab allies rather than merely imposed decisions on them and always taking Israel's side.

A combination of the horrors in Iraq, the Israeli unmitigated war crimes in Lebanon and Palestine, aided by a biased US, has finally sunk into the Arab heads that the US cannot ever be relied upon to be a fair broker of peace in the Middle East. Even most of the Europeans are resuming their traditional pro-Palestinian stand.

The Saudis have also told Israel in no uncertain terms that unless the Jewish state withdraw to the 1967 borders, there won’t be another chance for peace. It was an ultimatum - take it or leave it, at your peril.

The Israelis are caught in a dilemma of its own making – to refuse to withdraw means it would, despite its regional superpower status, suffer a war of attrition for the next 20, 30 or 50 years, making its survival (economic, financial, social and political) virtually untenable, especially if a future US president like Hilary Clinton may be less supportive than Bush – to withdraw means acknowledging the existence of the Palestine State and Palestinians, thus bringing its own legitimacy as a nation (on Palestinian land allocated by a colonial power) into question.

They say "give a man enough rope ..."

Well. we'll certainly be living in more interesting times vis-a-vis the Israel-Palestine question.


  1. It is irrelevant, but interesting to show...
    UN Watch's speech

  2. Hillel C. Neuer is of course the executive director of United Nations Watch, which in case one doesn't know is the Geneva-based affiliate of the American Jewish Committee, so let's not be unaware of the high sounding titled organisation as nothing more than a Jewish/Israeli lobby.

    UN Watch was established in 1993 by the late Ambassador Morris B. Abram, the former US Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva. Abram was an American Jew who was very involved as President of the American Jewish Committee (1963-1968); Chairman of the National Conference of Soviet Jewry (1983-1988); and Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (1986-1989).

    The claimed role of UN Watch is to speak out against anti-Semitism - the real aim is to protect Israel through highlghting non-Israeli or non-Jewish violations of huamn rights - basically to distract from Israel's war crimes and atrocities.

    Hillel Neuer admitted that the role of UN Watch is to speak out against what it sees as anti-Semitism at the UN and an anti-Israeli bias so let's not be forgetful of who the so-called UN Watch is affiliated to - it's not unlike another Israeli lobby organisation called MEMRI, which pretends to be an independent analyst of ME affairs but spend all its time badmouthing Arabs, in particular Palestinians,through cherry picking of news adverse to Arabs, as had UN Watch.

    In your link, obviously UN Watch hzs cherry picked the worst news of non-Israeli human rights violation, with the aim of MASKing the war crimes and human rights violation of a racist government, that of Israel.

    It does not in any way hide nor ameliorate Israel's war crimes and inhumane brutalities zgainst the Palestinians and Lebanese.

  3. haha, Israel is not angel, but others yes? And all the facts stated there is true or false? The executive director might be cherry picking, but everyone else no? And the president's respond which show the intolerant attitude towards the speech do highlight the human right's freedom of speech?

  4. typical of pro-Israeli (or even Israeli) blokes like you to put words into others' mouths - did I say others are angels?

    As for freedom inclduing freeedom of speech, have the Israelis extend that to Palestinians, or for taht matter, anyone who speaks against the war crimes of Israel? Even President Jimmy Carter (let alone minor personalities such as academicians and human rights activists) was attacked by Jews for speaking out against the racist behaviour of Israelis.

    But the point you have avoided but can't deny is the brutal atrocities of Israel, against a people the Zionists stole land from - that's what this posting is about.

    And the obscenity of the crimes is that they were committed by Israelis who dared to exploit the sufferings of Jews in the Holocaust. Today Israelis are no different to the Nazis who murdered their fellow Jews. The world no longer needs to owe the Israelis anything.

  5. aiyoyo, ktemoc, just because someone post the video like that and straight away you tagged him/her as pro-israel, very constructive discussion indeed. It reminds me of any dissenter of holocaust will be labeled as: anti-semite. What difference does it make here?
    Nobody has to be pro-israel to see that UN Watch is actually doing nothing, especially Darfur. The president don't have to say "thank you" for the guy's speech, but he threaten to dismiss any similar speech in the future. Hmmm, that sounds similar to whatever others did to Jimmy Carter?
    Argue the arguement, stop looking at who is talking (or profiling, labelling, tagging), and that's why the Lady of Justice is blindefolded.

  6. But the point is Israelis and Zionist Jews always used the same tactic to hide (or even justify) Israeli atrocities gainst Palestinians or Arabs. They resort to affairs unrelated to their war crimes, like Darfur to distract, deceive and disguise the issue of their own, or to say, "what's the difference?".

    Darfur, Rwanda, Nanjing, etc should be discussed separately on their own, and not thrown in by Zionists to disguise Israeli Nazi-like crimes. That's what you have done (borrowing a line from a Zionist propaganda machine), that's what my response has been about. Let's talk about Israeli atrocities or rebut that!

    Incidentally, has anyone ever heard Israeli condemn other war crimes, those that aren't against Jews?

    To Israelis and Zionist Jews (and their supporters), the only crime would that against Jews - for example, it's OK for Menachem Begin begin to massacre the women and children of Deir Yassin (and claimed it was for YHWH), it's OK for Sharon to be responsible for what happened at Sabra & Shatila, it's acceptable for Olmert to maliciously destroy Lebanon without any military tactical/defence justification.

    Are people aware that the so-called Children of the Nazi-created Holocaust collaborated with Nazi-like white Apartheid South Africa, even borrowing from the Afrikans, and establishing an even worse form (as if a 'worse form' could be possible, but yes, Israel made that possible) the program of Bantustan-isation?

    What would their spirits of their Holocaust forefathers say about Israelis consorting with a Nazi-like organisation (the Afrikans) and borrowing their ideas to perpetuate racist confinement of Palestinians in ghetto-like prison?

    Their European kinfolk were sealed by Nazis in racist ghettos; they seal the Palestnians in the Gaza and parts of the West Bank (parts which they haven't yet stolen) - great stuff, those Nazi-Israelis. Heil Israel! Seig Heil!

    As for arguing/debating, am I not extending the courtesy to you and your postings; have I not the right to put my points to rebut your tactics? Are you suggesting that I must not debate against your arguments?

    Unlike a certain local Zionist I don't 'ban' visitors for having different views nor do I delete their postings (unless they are writing something libellous or seditious against the law of the country).

  7. ktemoc, the point is HRC is not only about Israel, and looking at the composition of the membership countries, Kofi Annan also addresed his concern (see HRC Decemeber 3rd HRC sessions for it).
    I never denied that Israel is a bad bad guy. But singling out Israel in 8 pronouncements for the 4 sessions in the past 9 months, whereas the situations in Darfur, Sri Lanka, Thailand, women and child right's violation, I am just wondering is this guy making a point, regardless of his background? What HRC has done?
    And as for war crimes, if now Israel said something about Darfur, few reactions can be predicted: 1) Israel is not far off better, 2) Sudan is closely related to Islam, and what do you expect Israel to say?
    Thank you for letting me to post, which operate under the presumptions of freedom of speech. For those who banning the dissent, it is bad for them. And I am curious to know who want to be zionist in Malaysia? :P Ktemoc,
    I am just an ordinary chap from Malaysia, and fyi, I don't get any money from any zionist operation or propaganda machinist :P And the reason why I post that video (which unfortunately linked to the so-called propangandist) is I am "amused" by the HRC president's respond to UN Watch's fellow. As simple as that, believe it or not. Isn't it freedom of speech/expression is one of the main component in human right bill? If you do not practise it in HRC already, where else do you expect to?

  8. I am not surprised that thr president of the HRC told Neuer off, because he knew that UN Watch didn't raise the issue of Darfur because it was concerned. UN Watch is only concerned about one country, full stop, and f**k the rest of the world including Darfur.

    And the cheek of Neuer to drop human rights names and talk about the original philosophy and aims of the movement when his country (or spiritual country) has been one of the most disgraceful violators of human rights.

    It's not just brutalities and atrocities but deliberate humiliation of the Palestinian people, every day, every week and month of the year, year in, year out.

    The aim is political, to break the spirits of the Palestinians so that they would consider migrating away into neighbouring nations for good, thus providing a form of voluntary 'ethnic cleansing' of the West Bank, to give the Israelis their desired Lebenstraum, a concept derived from Adolf Hitler.

    The Israelis want all of the West Bank or the Hebraic holy land of Judea and Samara. Annexing it means inheriting nearly 5 million Palestinians, an undesired situation and in fact threatenting to its Jewish identity. Chasing the Palestinians away through continuing atrocities and buggering humiliation means a sanitised West Bank, cleansed of Arabs, for the sole occupation of Jews.

    Of course the idea of Lebenstraum was borrowed from Adolf Hitler, which was why I said the Israeli practice of Bantustan-isation has been and is far worse than that of the white Afrikans, who at least allow the blacks to live in their Bantustans.

    Heil Israel!

  9. One doesn't have to be A Jew or Israeli to be a Zionist. Please be more understanding, everybody wants to go to heaven. I'm sure you do too.

    Isn't it stated in some old holy book that God promised special terms to those who show support to his blue eye boys. And how's a good christian suppose to answer God and Jesus if he doesn't give whole hearted support to the Jews.

    It's nothing personal. I'm sure more of them don't hate the Palestinians. They just want to go to heaven and if that means some people have to suffer then too bad.

    Sweet Heaven

  10. quote
    They just want to go to heaven and if that means some people have to suffer then too bad.

    I don't know what to say about letting people suffer in order to get admitted to heaven!!!

    Isn't it stated in some old holy book that God promised special terms to those who show support to his blue eye boys. And how's a good christian suppose to answer God and Jesus if he doesn't give whole hearted support to the Jews.

    written by Israelis?

    If anyone wants to go to heaven, they better start speaking up for some of the oppressed, namely yesterday's Jews (of Europe's WWII period) and today's Palestinians and the pulverised severely downtrodden Iraqi civilians.