Munich has unsettled portions of the political establishment in the US—to some extent because it is seen, with good reason, as part of a disturbingly critical trend (Fahrenheit 9/11, Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana, etc.) But Munich sticks in the craw of the right-wing for reasons of its own.

Its critical approach to Israeli policy no doubt makes the ‘pro-Israel crowd’ uneasy, and so it should. The suppression of such criticism is one of the more repellent features of the media and entertainment industry in America.

To suggest that the Palestinians have been victimized and oppressed for decades, that they have a tragic story that needs to be told, or simply that they live and die like other human beings—these are well-kept secrets in the US.

However, there is an even more general concern fueling the hostility toward the Spielberg-Kushner work.

Munich is a film with definite artistic and ideological limitations. It does not offer anything terribly new, much less radical, on the Israeli-Palestinian question. It adopts a generally liberal, pacifist view.

Where it genuinely contributes is in the horrifying colors with which it paints the deaths of the squad’s targets, including those who may or may not have carried out terrorist acts.   more »

Former president Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said today Iran will get "with wisdom its rights with respect to its nuclear program," IRNA reported.

"The arrogance and its allies will be regretful if they obstruct the Iranian nation's access to the latest science, said Rafsanjani in his second sermon to a large group of worshipers at the auspicious Eid-ul-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) congregational prayers at the Tehran University Campus. "We cannot give up our rights," he added.

The Expediency Council Chairman dismissed the wide-scale hue and cry launched by the western political, military and economic circles against Iran since Tuesday after Tehran started nuclear research activities.

Calling as "heavy and unprecedented" the anti-Iran propaganda, Rafsanjani said, "In the age of democracy, the natural right of a country, which wants to make use of the latest sciences, is subjected to assaults."

He said the motive behind assaults on Iran goes beyond opposition raised against nuclear programs of the country. "The root cause of these assaults lies in the colonialist nature and policies of the West, whose plan is to keep countries backward."

Rafsanjani said the main motive behind their attacks is to punish a country which has stood on its own and has been able to gain access to the latest science and technology and broken the talisman of ignorance.   more »

The 2003 U.S. aggression against Iraq has taken Western “progressive” élites, particularly those on the Left by surprise, not because of the violent and criminal nature of U.S.-orchestrated terror against the Iraqi people, but because of the instant rise of the Iraqi Resistance against the unprovoked military and economic against Iraq.

While meddling in the affairs of other distant peoples has been a conspicuous feature of the “progressive” élites, their interference in the affairs of the Iraqi people is disturbing and contributing to the suffering of the Iraqi people.

As most people know, the invasion of Iraq was an illegal act of aggression, in violation of international laws and the UN Charter. The ‘Supreme International Crime’ the Nuremberg judges found, was that of unprovoked aggression, because it contains ‘the accumulated evil’ of all war crimes.

However, despite all this, Western élites, supported by the mainstream media continue to describe the Iraqi Resistance against the Occupation as “insurgency” in order to justify U.S. “counter-insurgency”.

The Iraqi Resistance is not an “insurgency”. Insurgency is an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a legitimate and constituted government by force, such as the Contras, a U.S. proxy terrorist gang used against the legitimate government of Nicaragua in the late 1980s.

There is nothing legitimate about the U.S. Occupation and its puppet government in Iraq. The Iraqi Resistance has the support of most Iraqis.   more »

In his new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, Jean Bricmont denounces the use of the human rights pretext to justify attacks against countries in the South. He is a pacifist and a committed intellectual.

How is it that a professor of theoretical physics has just written a book on imperialism?

J.B. I have always been interested in politics, if only passively. I really became involved in 1999 during the war against Yugoslavia.

The humanitarian reasons invoked by the United States left me puzzled. I was also shocked by the lack of opposition from the left, even some of the extreme left, to this aggression.

The book is also a reaction to the attitude of certain political militants claiming to be of the left. In the name of human rights they legitimize aggression against sovereign countries. Or they moderate their opposition so much that it becomes only symbolic.   more »

In a similar way, journalistic performance consistently traces a path around the issues that would land them in trouble with owners, parent companies, advertisers, potential future employers, and key news sources.

Thus we find that even normally honest and rational British journalists find fault with the American press, but not with the British press. Or they find fault with the right-wing but not the ‘liberal’ media. Or they find fault with the BBC but not their own newspaper. This pattern cannot be random and it cannot be the product of ignorance or instinct.

Robert Fisk, who is employed by the Independent, famously declared:

"I don't work for Colin Powell, I work for a British newspaper called The Independent; if you read it, you'll find that we are."

But the Independent is quite obviously no more independent from corporate power than General Motors, for the simple reason that it is corporate power.

It is not independent from its own corporate need to maximise short-term profits in dependence on advertisers. This is obvious, undeniable, but all but unthinkable in our society.   more »

US BOMBS PAKISTAN: THE SOUL OF A NATION IS FATALLY WOUNDED

This incident is yet another evidence that Musharraf has made Pakistan a big loser after September 11 with the misconception that it had no option except bending backwards to the US demands.

His mantra: Pakistan had no option. It either had to join the US aggression or invite Bush’s wrath. Had Musharraf hesitated, the Americans would have clobbered Pakistan’s military and ‘strategic’ assets and allowed India to attack.

By siding with Bush, Pakistan has been saved from American anger and its own “extremists.” It has also been able to break out of its isolation and rejoin the international mainstream.

However, do we see any signs of such successes? Did the United States spare Pakistan? Are not our troops and people dying? The “president's house” might be safe, but are the rest of our homes in Pakistan safe from the American aggression? No one cares to answer a simple question.

What would Pakistan have lost if it had chosen to negotiate the fine print of our cooperation with the US? Even America’s European allies—with the exception, of course, of Britain—took some time to make up their minds before rushing in with offers of help.   more »

13 JANUARY

Bush & Alito: Birds of a Feather Torture Together

Using LSD ['Acid'] For Therapeutic Purposes

Impeach Bush! Movement Goes Mainstream

Support for Iran as It Challenges Israeli & US Domination in the Middle East

America Adores Israel but Loathes Arabs

The Break-Up of Iraq

Holocausts & Censorship: The Jewish Lobby & "McCarthyism"

America's Delusions of Imperial Grandeur