Santa Cruz Indymedia :
Santa Cruz Indymedia

In the Other Press

To alleviate the problem of articles from other press sources being reposted on this IMC site, this section allows users to link to articles published elsewhere, and to contribute and read comments on those pieces. Have something interesting to post?


News :: [none]


Why are they all afraid that Israel might have the Bomb?

Could it be they are afraid that Israel might use the Bomb when they are AGAIN attacked by the many Arab nations that have promissed ot distroy the Jews?

Whats interesting to note is that Israel is the one nation in the middle east that is accused of having WMD that has never used one. All the Arab countries that have been accused of having WMD's have actually used these weapons against their own citizens.

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments

News :: [none]

An Israeli perspective on Israel's nuclear capabilities

I'd love to see a world in which no country had nuclear weapons or the need to have them. But to decide to dismantle them country by country obviously could have very unintended consequences depending on who gets dismantled first.

Consider the following by David Meir-Levi, a professor of history and former lecturer at Hebrew University and in Tel Aviv.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is, unfortunately, public knowledge (thanks in part to Vanunu). the reactor is in Dimona. Israel has hundreds of warheads (exact number undisclosed). It is known as the Samson option.....if things get to the point where it looks like the Arabs will really over-run the country (as almost happened in 10/73) then Israel may decide to excercize
the Samson option.....after warning the Arab invaders that it is planning to do so if the Arab armies don't pull their tanks out of Haifa and
Tel Aviv. Israel announced publicly in June of 2003 that there are 3 Israeli submarines in the Arabian gulf, with nuclear warheads. Damascus and Riyadh and Teheran are in their range. Thus even if the Arab nations get off a first strike, and Israel is devastated and half the people
killed.....Israel will still retain 2nd strike capabilities. The point of announcing this is to make it a deterrant. If the enemy does not know about it, it is not a deterrant.

The UN and other (EU) pressure on Israel to go nuke-free when Arab countries and Iran and probably terror groups are ratchetting up their nuclear capabilities is the ultimate hypocrisy. Israel threatens no one, and maintains its nuclear option for desperate last measure use as an ultimate doomsday scenario deterrent.

Iran and Saddam's Iraq and El-qaeda have already threatened openly to use nuclear force against Israel simply because they want to destroy Israel
(i.e., not as a detterent, nor as even a retaliation, but as an aggressive first strike to destroy half the population at one time, and then send in troops to wipe out the other half.

This is what Ali Akhmed Rafsanjani, former president of Iran, said back in the Fall of 2002). Recall that per Rafsanjani, all the Moslems who would die in that scenario are either collaborators with Israel (i.e., Israeli
Arabs) who deserve death just as much as the Jews do, or they are true bona fide Moslems (Palestinians) who will then die as shahid and go straight to heaven and get their 72 virgins (I don't know what the women get).

Rafsanjani also said that even if Israel struck back (per the 3 submarines mentioned above), they could only kill a few million arabs at most (and all of these would be martyrs), and this would not really devastate the Arab nation (the umma of c. 250,000,000). Whereas the same number of Israelis killed would indeed render Israel (with only 5,000,000 Jews) inoperative and
vulnerable to a mopping up action. I suspect that it was Rafsanjani's comments that prompted Israel to go public with its submarine announcement.....not that that really does much good as a deterrant against a mind-set that says: it is ok if 5 million of our people die, as long as we get the 5 million jews too.

Israel has consistently refused to allow any UN monitors to enter and examine its facility.... reason being that UN monitors have proven over and over (1957-1967 in Sinai, 1972-present in Lebanon, and even over the past few years on Hebron) that they willingly collaborate with Arab terrorist forces and Arab governments against Israel. The monitors could be drawn from many different countries of the UN, including Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran.....and the chance that critical information would
get from those UN monitors to their home countries' military planners is just too great for Israel to take.

The UN has been the Arab bloc's playground for anti-Israel propaganda and diatribe for 30 years. This UN bit of street theatre is just part of the
endless Arab war against reality.

david ml

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments

News :: [none]

Got facts, Diana?

Gee Diana--you fling mud without citing a single specific and then accuse me of poor research, not thinking the issue through, and bad writing skills. I am not embarrassed by my coments, nor have you refuted even one statement I have made. And since my comments were more editorial than factual (speculating on whether the Bush administration attacked Iraq to aid Israel)you can disagree without the personal attacks. Generally when someone resorts to name-calling right out of the starting gate, they don't have much of a counter-argument. But then that's for each of us to decide, isn't it. Despite my lack of 6 years of mideast studies, I still don't see where I have mis-stated any of the facts I cited in my argument. Did you find any?

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments

News :: [none]

Re: UN asks Isreal to GO Nuclear Free

None of the countries of the World have the right to rufuse UN Nuclear Weapons Monitors.
Vanunu has great courage and vision for his people to help them stop being a threat to the world.
Come on, get real. 5 million Israelis cannot continue to hold all Arab countries hostage with their 200 nuclear weapons.

Vanunu has great courage and vision.
In addition, you are mistranslating the word virgins, it means dates (food) nourishment for soul and body. JEEZZZ......

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments

Commentary :: [none]

Re: Green Strategy 2004-2008

Re: Green Party convention to the real world: Drop Dead!

Alternative Presidential Candidates:

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments

Commentary :: [none]

Re: Green Strategy 2004-2008

Hey! The URL's aren't hyperlinking. What gives SC indymedia?
Here are the full posts that don't hyperlink.

Green Party convention to the real world: Drop Dead!
by Joaquin Bustelo 28 Jun 2004
After two rounds of voting, virtually unknown Green apparatchik David Cobb barely won the Green Party presidential nomination in Milwaukee
The demogreen "realo" faction at the stacked "electoral college" Green Party Convention in Milwaukee has voted to deny Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo its ballot lines by nominating shamefaced Kerry supporter David Cobb for President.

Cobb is a paunchy, balding, middle-aged white lawyer with absolutely no claimed connection to social or protest movements. He says he discovered the evils of the two-party system in 1996, which doesn't prevent him from back handedly supporting Kerry today.

Over the past few months Cobb ran a stealth campaign in which he held virtually no public meetings or rallies -- not that he could draw any sort of crowd had he tried.

Instead, he focused on lining up green apparatchiks and delegates by pissing in their ear about how Nader was taking money from racists, on the one hand, and would refuse to share his list of contributors with the greens, on the other.

A playpen parody of the rules the Democrats and Republicans use for nominating delegates, including allocating representation to states with absolutely NO functioning green party units --facilitated the coup by the anti-Nader faction.

Even taking this into account, however, the success of Cobb's campaign for the nomination must be chalked up largely to Nader. After having put the party on the political map and won for it ballot lines all over the country, in 2004 Nader has consistently refused to accept responsibility for the party's course nor even tried to influence it in a positive direction.

Faced in the fall of 2003 with hostility from the Green Party tops to another run for the presidency, Nader decided to explore running as an
independent. Subsequently he rebuffed a draft-Nader movement in the Greens, saying he would not accept the Green national nomination even if it were offered.

After much prompting, he said he would take the Green's endorsement, provided the Greens first decided not to nominate anyone, thus facilitating the job of the demogreens in imposing straightjacket, undemocratic rules at the convention to prevent the options before the convention --backing Nader, nominating Cobb, or abstaining-- from being debated and voted against each other.

He waited until the eve of the convention to announce his choice of Peter Camejo as his vice-presidential candidate after having assured people privately for months that the California Green was his choice. Nader did not even bother to appear at the Milwaukee convention, preferring instead to do campaign events in Oregon.

Nader's tactics in relation to the greens are often ascribed to his supposed lone wolf individualism. Others speculate that he simply --and consistently-- miscalculated, that he is tone deaf or politically clueless.

However, there is another interpretation that makes sense. And that is that as a result of his long association with the Greens and his discussions with the national leadership last fall, Nader came to see that, at least as currently configured, dominated by a middle-class "realo" faction in the leadership, the Greens are becoming an obstacle to the emergence of a much more vigorous alternative to the two party system, and he decided to place no obstacles in the way of their self-destruction, at least as a *national* party, to clear the way for something better in the future.

And the truth is that the middle-class social layers that provided the base for Nader's previous runs and the Greens have succumbed to an "Anybody but Bush" hysteria, making them totally unfit to serve as a core around which to structure an independent political movement.

It is in this context that Cobb won support among hardcore non-ABB green activists by not talking too much about helping Kerry and instead bamboozling party activists miffed with Nader with a cock-and-bull story about Cobb running a party-building fall campaign.

Cobb will now give those honest Green organizers he hoodwinked an object lesson in why you should not act like a sect, counterposing your own narrow group interests to the way the masses have decided to express themselves politically, no matter how sore you are at someone like Nader.

And that is because pretty much ALL the new people interested in building an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans are ALREADY supporting Nader, and ALL the ones who WILL be won to such a perspective will be convinced by Nader and Camejo.

The most political among them will be angry at the Greens for squandering a couple of dozen ballot lines on the likes of David Cobb.

And should they by chance hear this nonentity pimping for a Kerry vote, that anger is likely to turn into fury and rage as they realize that the essence of Cobb's campaign --the Green Party's campaign-- is simply a pro-Democrat maneuver to deny the maximum number of people in the maximum number of states a chance to vote for Nader.

I guess some Greens imagined that at this convention they were deciding on who would challenge the Democrats and Republicans in the fall.

That is simply not true. That decision was already made by a whole series of historical factors and initiatives by various groups and individuals, and how masses of people responded.

There is one --and only one—real challenge on a mass scale to the Democrats and Republicans in the presidential race that is before the country.

That challenge is the Nader-Camejo ticket.

That ticket has the support of 10-20 MILLION people; that is what it means to get 5%-8% support among all adults in the public opinion polls.

By nominating Cobb, the Greens have decided that the appropriate way to address Nader's mass base is with an upraised middle finger.

Indeed, in reporting on this decision the bourgeois press has been unanimous in reading it this way: "Green Party snubs Nader"; "Green Party decides not to back Nader"; "Greens reject Nader endorsement."

Moreover, the choice is seen, clearly and unambiguously, as pro-Democrat.

Re: Green Party convention to the real world: Drop Dead! by ... 28 Jun 2004

Re: Green Party convention to the real world: Drop Dead!
by John Thielking
pagesincolor (nospam) 01 Jul 2004
A related link:

Alternative Presidential Candidates
by John Thielking
Email: pagesincolor (nospam) 01 Jul 2004
Modified: 08:37:57 PM
Comments are invited about the alternatives to Bush/Kerry in 2004. Note that in CA at least, Kerry is ahead of Bush by some 15%, so CA is a safe state to vote the alternative candidates.
Nader is not likely to be on the CA ballot.

Since the Revolutionary Party is such a new party, have you considered endorsing or supporting an established party presidential candidate such as David Cobb of the Green Party? Note that he supports withdrawal of US troops from Iraq but does not mention putting the UN in their place (unlike the Peace and Freedom Party Candidate Leonard Peltier who apparently ,according to Steve Argue, supports putting the UN in charge of security for Iraq). The platform statements of Cobb and the Green Party are fairly sparse and not too detailed. The national Green Party ten points seem to be better than the CA version because the CA version is too vague. See

and for more information. It would be interesting to pin Cobb down on his limited statements about withdrawing troops from Iraq (and Afghanistan). Did he go into more detail at the convention?

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments

News :: [none]

No one kills themselves for food

Mis-translating virgins!! That's a laugh! The Arabs must be laughing their heads off on how gullible some of the leftists are.

The last I heard, each country has a choice whether it will sign onto the world's non-proliferating nuclear treaty.

As for Israel threatening the Arabs---ha again!
The Arabs have attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 ---not the other way around. It is the Arab countries which are threatening Israel.

Israel has not issued any statements threatening a nuclear attack. But the Arab countries, of which some parties would be ready to commit the 2nd Jewish holocaust, are prevented from their "final solution" simply because they believe Israel has nuclear weapons.

A side-note on Vanunu. Did you know he was born in Morocco and is not Jewish? He's a Christian.
Perhaps he doesn't have the same kind of conviction to protecting the Jewish people from harm as other Israelis do.

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments

News :: [none]

The Barrier is already saving lives

This report is from the Israeli government and was distributed on July 5, 2004. It documents the number of Israelis killed or wounded in attacks originating from the West Bank for 2003 and 2004. The data is further divided by those areas that are behind the completed portions of Israel's controversial security fence and those who were in areas where the fence has not yet been completed. The results are better than anyone could have imagined. So far, for 2004 there have been NO DEATHS and NO ONE INJURED for those areas where the fence has been completed. I don't like the wall/fence/barrier. I wish there was no need for it. I would greatly have preferred a politial and negotiated end to the conflict, but I realize the need for it exists to save lives. Perhaps some day the barrier can come down. I really think it is up to the Palestinian people to vanquish the terror groups that are operating within their midst and cynically recruiting their own children to be used in propaganda wars against Israel.

For peace activists who pray for a day when the violence will end, this should be good news. A passive resistance method does seem to be working to end the violence. Furthermore, with the fence up, many of the IDF checkpoint within the West Bank can be dismantled allowing Palestinians more freedom of movement within their communities.

I welcome anyone to post any data that refutes this data or can show that this data is in error.

Message from the Israeli Government:

The Anti-terrorist Fence Saves Lives

In recent months there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of attacks by Palestinian terrorist organizations, statistics show.

Attacks in 2003: for areas protected by a completed fence -- 46 deaths 221 wounded
for areas unprotected -- 89 deaths 411 wounded

Attacks in 2004 (Jan - June '04 only)
in areas protected by fence -- 0 deaths 0 wounded
in areas unprotected by fence -- 19 deaths 102 wounded

This trend does not arise from a lessening of the desire of the terrorist organizations to perpetrate attacks, or from an effort by the Palestinian Authority to prevent them, but only from Israel's decision to construct an anti-terrorist fence and its war against the the terrorist organizations and their infrastructure.

It is especially significant that, wherever the fence has been completed, the terrorist organizations have not succeeded in crossing it.

The security fence is fulfilling its only purpose: saving lives.

The lives of many Israelis have already been spared as a direct result from the establishment of the anti-terrorist fence.

(sorry for the multiple postings of this article--but the original article--though very timely--was hidden after only 4 days)

Open article in new window...

View/Add Comments


No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event


Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software