Left I on the News  

Feb. 22, 2012:

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” said Ayatollah Khamenei.

“There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

“If nations are allowed to independently make progress in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace, science, technology and industry, there will be no room left for the tyrannical dominance of world powers,” said the Leader.

He's only the "Supreme [religious] Leader" in a country where religion plays an integral part. Why would we pay any attention to what he says? A better question, to which we know the answer, is "why not?" Because if we did, there would go the U.S./Israeli push to (re)install a subservient government in Tehran.

Two reactions to the recent massacre of 16 Afghans by an American soldier remind us of the nature of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan (and elsewhere). In the New York Times, we are told regarding the relatively mild reaction to the slaughter in Afghanistan itself:

Americans have had a lot of practice at apologizing for carnage, accidental and otherwise, and have gotten better at doing it quickly and convincingly.

As Glenn Greenwald puts it so perfectly:

I don’t mind admitting that I beamed with nationalistic pride when I learned of our country’s impressive evolution: our nation’s government is so practiced in “apologizing for carnage” that it’s becoming a perfected art.

And two days ago, Secretary of Defense [sic] Leon Panetta let slip this comforting thought (emphasis added):

War is hell. These kinds of events and incidents are going to take place. They've taken place in any war. They’re terrible events. And this is not the first of those events, and it probably won't be the last.

And despite the almost certain knowledge that "it probably won't be the last," Panetta assures us that he has no intention of avoiding that inevitability:

"I do not believe that there is any reason at this point to make any changes with regards to our strategy and for the process of drawing down."

Of course he doesn't. It won't be his wife and children who are slaughtered, and it won't be his son who comes home and murders his family and then kills himself.

Two (or quite likely three) more victims of the illegal invasion of Iraq, this time in in Gilroy, CA. American soldiers may no longer be dying in Iraq, but they (and others) are still dying right here at home. Utterly tragic, and utterly avoidable. And the tragedy continues in Afghanistan, with every new victim - Afghan, soldier, or yet another family member or innocent bystander right here at home. OUT NOW! Not "soon." NOW!

I've just finished reading an unbelievably powerful novel entitled "Mornings in Jenin" by Susan Abulhawa. You can read all the history books and articles that you want, and completely understand the history and plight of the Palestinian people. You can be in complete intellectual support of such things as the "right of return." But nothing will make you understand that history in your bones, make you feel it in your gut, like reading this fictional, but all too real, account of one Palestinian family's history, as it spans the pages of time from 1941 through 2002.

All of the key events in modern history - the Nakba of 1948, the 1967 war, the 1973 Israeli assault on Lebanon and the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, and so on through the massacre of Jenin in 2002, are here. All of them (perhaps improbably, but this is after all a novel) impacting on the lives of this one family. And really, not so improbably, because just like every Iraqi now has a family member or a close friend who was either killed or in some way affected by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, so too is it likely that every Palestinian has a family member or a close friend who was affected by not just one of the key events in Palestinian history, but several of them.

The reader feels deeply, personally, the pain which is inflicted on the characters in the book; one feels deeply, personally, the different possible responses - rage and revenge on the one hand, impotence and drawing inward on the other. No matter how much history you know, no matter how many facts you know, this book will deepen your understanding of that history. And on top of all that, the book is written beautifully, with a lyrical style that makes reading every page a delight.

To sum up: read this book.

Here's how strange the reporting on Syria gets - this reporter was killed yesterday in Homs, evidently by Syrian government shelling. Here's what she said on Anderson Cooper's show last night: "There are no military targets here. There is the Free Syrian Army. Heavily outnumbered and out-gunned." No military targets? What exactly does she think the out-gunned, but still obviously armed, Free Syrian Army is?

Or so we can conclude from the latest AP reports from Syria:

...the regime struggled to extinguish major pockets of dissent with intensive shelling.

Activists said at least 26 civilians were killed Friday, many of them in the rebellious central city of Homs, where shells slammed into rebel-held residential areas.

So Syria is trying to crush "dissent" and is killing only "civilians," or so say "activists," by which we mean "people trying to overthrow the current Syrian regime," not exactly an unbiased source. But as I have before, let's take those statements as true. Quite possibly those killed were "civilians," as in "not members of the armed forces." But were they armed? The "activists" and AP don't bother to tell us. But if they weren't, and if they weren't actively using those arms, how exactly were these areas being "held" by the rebels? With picket signs? A long length of yellow caution tape marked "Syrian forces do not enter"? We know better, and so does AP. They're just hoping that the question won't even occur to most of their readers.

Almost unbelievable (but all too believable). AP not only reports the absurd claim that it was the Syrian government that employed suicide bombers to kill its own security forces, but reports it above and more prominently than the Syrian government claim that it was the rebels who were responsible. They then continue to report on the assault on Homs, where the only hint that there is an actual two-sided battle going on (and not just a "government assault") is the claim that the population there is "restive." Yes, "restive" and well-armed.

President Obama yesterday:

President Barack Obama said the U.S. has a "very good estimate" of when Iran could complete work on a nuclear weapon.

Technically speaking, there is a "c" there - "could" and not "would." But even with that caveat, the rest of the sentence - "complete work on a nuclear weapon" - conveys a very clear (and completely false) message to the American people - Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, the only question is when will they be finished. After all, you wouldn't talk about "completing" something that you not only haven't started, but aren't even planning on doing.