THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Thursday, August 28, 2014


Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Defence Minister, David Johnston, are deliberately misleading the Australian people and more than likely the Australian parliament, by telling us that the government hasn’t been asked to commit to helping the US again in Iraq.

Tony Abbott is following in almost the same footsteps as John Howard did in March 2003 when he kept telling the Australian people and parliament that he hadn’t been asked by Bush to commit to the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ just before the invasion and destruction of Iraq, an event which has led directly to the current crisis in Iraq today.

One would be extremely naïve to believe that Abbott has not already been invited to participate in action against Islamic State forces in Iraq and that invitation was made and accepted when US Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel both visited Australia earlier this month. One would also be extremely naïve to believe the outgoing director of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) David Irvine when he says that Australia’s involvement with the US in Iraq would not further radicalise young Australian Muslims thereby increasing the likelihood of terrorist acts being committed in Australia. Given the history of Australian Muslims participation in the current war in Iraq, it is far more likely that radicalised Muslims will consider committing terrorist acts in Australia when Abbott does join with the US in the fight against Islamists in Iraq.

While as yet no scientific polls regarding Australians opinions about going to war in Iraq again have been released, however, at least one online poll shows that a strong majority, some 75% of Australians, would be against any such action.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014


In an extraordinary and surprising move, Netanyahu has all but unilaterally agreed to a ceasefire in his war against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. By ‘unilateral’ I mean without the support of the extreme right–wing of his cabinet including Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Minister of the Economy Naftali Bennett, Minister of Internal Security Yitzhak Aharonovich and Minister of Communications Gilad Erdan; all of whom were intent on destroying Hamas completely and fully occupying the Gaza Strip permanently and ultimately annexing the territory to Israel.

Hamas and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are, of course, delighted – as is Abbas and the Palestine Authority, who are now enthusiastic about the prospect of having a seaport and maybe even an airport with which to rebuild their country.

But what happens when Netanyahu is gone and the real right-wing Zionists who are in the ‘don’t care what the rest of the world thinks’ camp take over?

The war against Hamas was extremely popular amongst Israelis who wholeheartedly supported bombing the Gaza into submission with a view to full occupation. It begs the question: What next? Will the extreme right bring Netanyahu down and will they then renew hostilities by once more provoking the Palestinians in the Gaza into launching more rockets into Israel by randomly shooting dead Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as they did to get this latest round of carnage going?

I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t believe this is the end of it. I have no idea what Netanyahu has in mind at this stage. I can only suggest that Netanyahu, always sensitive to public opinion despite seemingly able to push affairs right up to the very edge, has backed off due to overwhelming and growing worldwide public support for the Palestinians; or possibly having been threatened by the US who would support a push for the Palestinians to enjoin the ICC if Netanyahu didn’t make peace.

Netanyahu may well have something else up his sleeve but, if he hasn’t, then this could well be the beginning of the end for Netanyahu. And, if that happens sooner rather than later, then it may be a case of ‘out of the frying pan and into the fire’ for both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people if the extreme right replace him.

Saturday, August 23, 2014


It seems that a full-on invasion of the Gaza Strip, Israel’s ultimate endgame plan for the Palestinian enclave, is moving inexorably closer to realisation.

Israel again has called up thousands of reservists and Israel’s Communications Minister and security cabinet member, Gilad Erdan, has announced that Israel is close to being in a position to launch a full invasion. Erdan asked that Israelis be patient.  

Erdan also made it clear that Israel will not be conceding to any of Hamas’s demands inferring that Israel had no even considered any of Hamas’s demands which were put forward for discussion during the ceasefire.

Since it was obvious that Israel was never going to entertain any of Hamas’s demands, Hamas had little choice other than to resume hostilities in order to force the issue. The alternative would be to submit to eternal ghettoisation, oppression and persecution at the hands of the Israelis. Both sides now seem intent on pushing the matter to an ultimate conclusion once and for all.

For the Israelis, the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip and the transfer of the population into the Sinai, Jordan or Lebanon have always been part of the ultimate Zionist endgame. It has never been anything else. Talk of living peacefully side by side with the Palestinians has only ever been an illusion for the benefit of Israel’s Western supporters who continue to plough money into Israel. But the reality is that Israel has never ever had any intention of allowing a Palestinian state to exist. Israel has skilfully manipulated affairs in such a way as to completely fool the West – and particularly the US – for years into believing they only want peace with the Palestinians when all the while they were merely waiting for an opportunity to grab the occupied territories for themselves on the pretext of defending themselves against ‘terrorism’.

For the Palestinian resistance in the Gaza Strip there is now little to lose. They will likely fight on and they will pin their hopes on world opinion and outrage against Israeli atrocities influencing the world’s Western leaders into forcing the Israelis into stopping their war and accepting Hamas’s demands.

There will be no peace for either side any time soon. 

Friday, August 22, 2014


ISIS, or just IS (Islamic State) as they now call themselves, as well as al-Qaeda are, of course, Israel’s arch enemy – as well as much of the rest of the world. But is Israel any better than their arch enemies when it comes to committing crimes against humanity? And, just because Hamas also happens to be an Islamic organisation, can it really be compared with IS or al-Qaeda?

Neocon propagandist Jonathan Tobin, writing today in Commentary magazine, would have you believe that Israel are, as usual, the victims, while Hamas and the other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fighting for their freedom are terrorists who need to be treated with the same contempt as IS and al-Qaeda.

The reality, as anyone with even an iota of a sense of logic and compassion can see, is that Israel that also behaves in such a way that the carnage and death they bring to civilians in the Gaza Strip has the same result that the carnage and death that IS and al-Qaeda bring down upon the peoples they choose to ravage. The only difference between them is the weapons and methods they choose to commit their crimes. IS and al-Qaeda us small arms and knives to kill their victims whereas Israel use aircraft and tanks to pump bombs and shells into their hapless victims.

Zionist propagandists and their neocon allies attempt to equate Hamas with IS and al-Qaeda are plainly falling on deaf ears in the West as the enormous protest rallies and marches in support of the Palestinian cause demonstrate.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014


Natan Sharansky, an Israeli intellectual, extreme right-wing neocon Zionist and ex-deputy prime minister of Israel, has written an article published in the Washington Post in which he says: “The pictures of destruction and mourning in Gaza that have filled media around the world for the past several weeks have been very painful and sad to view. One would be hard-pressed to find an Israeli who does not sympathize with the suffering of Gaza’s victims.”

Is he nuts?

Did he miss the stories about Israelis taking grandstand seats in Israel overlooking the Gaza Strip to watch the place being bombed? Did he not hear about the cheers that went up from the Israelis watching the bombings every time there was an orange ball from a bomb detonating followed by a huge explosion as the sound of the detonation caught up with the sight of it?

‘One would be hard-pressed to find an Israeli who does not sympathize with the suffering of Gaza’s victims’?

Really? Who does this nutjob think he’s kidding?

Saturday, August 16, 2014


Neoconservative propagandist Max Boot, writing in the UK magazine Spectator, says:

With more American (and, one hopes, allied) eyes on the ground, it will be possible to call in more air strikes with greater effectiveness, as occurred in Afghanistan during the autumn of 2001. Western commandos such as Seal Team Six, Delta Force and the British and Australian SAS should also expand operations to carry out the kind of intelligence-driven leadership targeting that was an important part of the 2007-2008 surge. (Bold is my emphasis.)

Well, we know there are already American ‘advisors’ on the ground in Iraq and more are on the way, that much we have already been told, but there has been no announcement from any of America’s allies about any UK or Australian special forces being deployed on the ground in Iraq. Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott, however, has offered to send ground forces if asked to.

Max Boot has been around the traps for a very long time and has over the years developed a strong network of US administration and defence department insider sources so, when Boot writes that special forces – including Australian SAS – should expand operations in Iraq, one wonders if Boot hasn’t let the cat out of the bag by inferring that they should expand on the numbers that are already there. Knowing the Abbott government’s propensity not to ‘discuss military operational matters’, one shouldn’t be too surprised to find that Australian SAS units may already be in Iraq.

Thursday, August 14, 2014


If either of Netanyahu’s right-wing political rivals for the Prime Minister’s job had been leading Israel over this last year or so, what would be the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank today?

A future potential Israeli leader is the extreme right-wing Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party which is devoted to creating a Greater Israel that includes all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and excludes any possibility of there ever being a Palestinian state. Bennett is currently Minister of the Economy in Netanyahu’s cabinet.

Another contender is the even more extreme right-winger Avigdor Liebermann, the controversial leader of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party and currently Foreign Minister in the Israeli government. He is also a past Deputy Prime Minister.

Had either of these two rivals of Netanyahu been Prime Minister of Israel during the past year or so we would be looking at a vastly different Middle East today.

During the recent conflict Liebermann said that Israel will eventually need to reoccupy the Gaza Strip and ‘overthrow’ Hamas saying that “the occupation of Gaza and the overthrow of Hamas is a process that would take more than four months”. Naftali, a little less brash than Liebermann, nonetheless is adamant about obtaining a positive Israeli ‘victory’ over Hamas saying that the Israelis should continue until the Gaza Strip is ‘demilitarised’, a euphemism for occupation which is the only way Israel can ever hope to permanently keep Hamas out of the Gaza Strip.

Both Liebermann and Bennett are strong Greater Israel Zionists and support increasing settlements in the West Bank as well as building new ones in the Gaza Strip with a view to eventually annexing both territories to Israel.

The difference between the Liebermann-Naftali attitude and Netanyahu’s is that neither Liebermann nor Naftali make any secret about what they envisage for the future of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Netanyahu on the other hand, who actually wants the same thing, is far more politically pragmatic about these issues given that, as prime minister, he needs to tread a fine line between the reality of needing US support militarily and politically and knowing that the US will not support an invasion and full occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In other words, Liebermann and Naftali are both of the ‘We don’t care what the world thinks’ faction of Israel’s extreme right-wing as opposed to Netanyahu who very much cares what the rest of the world thinks of his actions because he needs to rely on their support for all that he does.

Liebermann and Naftali, if they had their way, would simply go ahead and fully occupy the territories at the slightest excuse, while Netanyahu will only do so when he feels he has the US on his side and has a big enough casus belli to do it.