Stephen Lendman

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, the Palestine Partition Plan, granting 56% of historic Palestine to Jews (with one-third of the population), 42% to Palestinians, with Jerusalem designated an international city (a corpus separatum - separate body) under a UN Trusteeship Council. The area included all Jerusalem, Bethlelem, and Beit Sahour, to encompass Christian holy sites.

Resolution 181 called for an Independent Arab state by October 1, 1948, asking:

"all Governments and peoples to refrain from taking any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations," the Security Council to be empowered with "the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation."

However, Israel's 1948 "War of Independence" intervened, creating the Jewish state on May 14, 1948 on 78% of historic Palestine, excluding Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On December 2, 1947, the General Assembly (GA) passed Resolution 32/40 A and B, stating its deep concern:

"that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has been achieved and that this problem therefore continues to aggravate the Middle East conflict, of which it is the core, and to endanger international peace and security."

It reaffirmed "that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be established without the achievement, inter alia, of a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

Urging the Security Council to act promptly on this matter, the GA declared, "commencing in 1978, the annual observance of 29 November as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people."

More »

Bill Van Auken
WSWS

"The cables only underscore how much the US war, aimed at asserting hegemony over Central Asia’s vast energy resources, has only succeeded in destabilizing the entire region and deepening potentially catastrophic tensions."

Diplomatic cables from the US Embassy in Islamabad released by WikiLeaks have exposed the criminal and duplicitous role played by both Washington and the Pakistani government, fueling popular anger against US operations in the country.

The Pakistani People’s Party coalition government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has been among the most vociferous in its denunciations of WikiLeaks’ release of the classified US documents, and for good reason.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry described WikiLeaks as “irresponsible” in a statement issued Monday. A senior diplomat quoted in the Washington Post said that Pakistan was frustrated “over how the world’s sole superpower can’t keep its secrets and confidences and how that makes it so much more difficult to be America’s friend.”

For his part, the US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, drafted a newspaper column published in both English and Urdu, which declared, “The United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential. And we condemn it.”

The cables underscore the extremely tenuous relationship between Washington and a government that is supposedly a principal ally in its “war on terrorism.” The cables indicate US mistrust and even contempt for Zardari and even greater suspicion toward the military and its secretive intelligence arm, the ISI.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Two previous articles explained the sham, outrageous enough to make a despot blush, accessed through the following links HERE and HERE.

No matter for the New York Times, a notorious voice for wealth and power. On November 30, its editorial titled "Haiti After the Vote" endorsed the sham, saying:

Despite elections

"sullied by low turnout, polling-place confusion and accusations of voter intimidation, ballot stuffing and other fraud....international observers from the Organization of American States and the Caribbean Community agree with Haiti's national election council (the Provisional Electoral Council - CEP), which has declared that the election was fundamentally sound."

So did MINUSTAH's head of mission (UN Blue Helmets), Edmond Mulet, calling the election "fairly good....in many ways," his way of endorsing brazen coup d'état rule.

Preval's hand-picked CEP, in fact, rigged the election by banning 15 parties, including by far the most popular, Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas. Doing so violated Haiti's 1987 Constitution.

More »

Kourosh Ziabari

Prof. Robert Jensen

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin.

Jensen joined the UT faculty in 1992 after completing his Ph.D. in media ethics and law in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota. Prior to his academic career, he worked as a professional journalist for a decade. At UT, Jensen teaches courses in media law, ethics, and politics.

In his research, Jensen draws on a variety of critical approaches to media and power. Much of his work has focused on pornography and the radical feminist critique of sexuality and men’s violence, and he also has addressed questions of race through a critique of white privilege and institutionalized racism.

In addition to teaching and research, Jensen writes for popular media, both alternative and mainstream. His opinion and analytic pieces on such subjects as foreign policy, politics, and race have appeared in papers around the country. He contributes to local organizing in Austin, TX, through his work with the Third Coast Activist Resource Center, and the progressive community center 5604 Manor.

Prof. Jensen joined me in an exclusive interview to discuss the latest developments in the Middle East, the prospect of Iran-U.S. relations, the ongoing military campaign of the Israeli regime in Palestine, the biased coverage of the Middle East affairs by the mainstream media and the failure of President Obama in repairing the damaged picture of the United States in the global stage.

Prof Jensen believes that Obama is a less belligerent president than Bush. "Obama recognizes that the United States can’t impose its will on the world in the fashion that it has in the past. Yet Obama is still committed to the maintenance of the empire. No imperial U.S. president or official has ever deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I can’t think of a single head of state who would be deserving," he says.

More »