Exclusive: Hillary Clinton wants the American voters to be very afraid of Donald Trump, but there is reason to fear as well what a neoconservative/neoliberal Clinton presidency would mean for the world, writes Robert Parry. By Robert Parry Consortium News May 11, 2016 For centuries hereditary monarchy was the dominant way to select national leaders, More
“For anybody that cares about press freedom or democracy, this should concern them,” said Muhawesh. “This has set a very dangerous precedent on our press freedom.”
Only a single democratic state will promote “human rights and…reconciliation and justice”; there is no other way. You cannot make 78 percent of historic Palestine off-limits to Palestinian refugees (or their descendants) who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and have been granted the right of return under international law. You cannot divide “such a small piece of land…into two countries.”
Chomsky: One informative discussion, in Business Week (Feb. 12, 1949), recognized that social spending could have the same "pump-priming" effect as military spending, but pointed out that for businessmen, "there's a tremendous social and economic difference between welfare pump-priming and military pump-priming." The latter "doesn't really alter the structure of the economy." For the businessman, it's just another order. But welfare and public works spending "does alter the economy. It makes new channels of its own. It creates new institutions. It redistributes income." And we can add more. Military spending scarcely involves the public, but social spending does, and has a democratizing effect.
Muhawesh: Those [attacks] that took place in Beirut, Baghdad, Turkey, and, of course, against the Russian airliner. They made the news barely and, if they did, for example, when ISIS attacked southern Beirut, the media dehumanized the entire population by calling it a Hezbollah stronghold.
Beeman: The idea of rejecting the JCPOA because of what Iran might do in the future despite any evidence, represents fantastical thinking that, once more, has no relevance to the actual Iranian nuclear program.
Swanson: Perhaps they even heard the shout of honesty in the line: "Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood."
Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, is supporting many of the same terror groups the United States claims to be fighting in its so-called “war on terror.” By Mnar Muhawesh Mint Press News September 23, 2015 U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, left, meets with Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdul Aziz, right, at Al-Salam More
Chomsky: In considering this matter, it is instructive to examine both the unspoken assumptions in the situation and the questions that are rarely asked. Let us consider a few of these assumptions, beginning with the most serious: that Iran is the gravest threat to world peace.
When a new, left coalition government came to power last fall, its Green Party members insisted that the relationship with Saudi Arabia conflicted with Sweden’s values, as well as with the image it wants to project abroad. Political commentators on both the left and right asked the obvious question: How did providing arms to a More
The U.S., further, is the top profiteer from rising conflict across the Middle East, accounting for $8.4 billion in exports to this region in 2014, compared to $6 billion the previous year. Meanwhile, U.S. allies in the expanding war against ISIS are boosting their weapons imports significantly.
Parry: Netanyahu’s reference to “Iran’s aggression” was curious since Iran has not invaded another country for centuries. In 1980, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – at the urging of Saudi Arabia – invaded Iran. During that bloody eight-year war, Israel – far from being an enemy of Iran – became Iran’s principal arms supplier. Israel drew in the Reagan administration, which approved some of the Israeli-brokered arms deals, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986.
