Trump Out of Control? Who Flew the Drone?

It would seem that President Trump has no say in American foreign policy.    Israel has taken over completely leaving Trump out of the loop - so it seems.   His advisors, Israeli-firster John Bolton, and Evangelical Pompeo, are a greater threat to America and the world than they are to Iran.

On June 17, 2019,  one of Israel's foremost hasbara media publications, The Jerusalem Post made a bizarre claim.  It stated that according to 'diplomatic sources at the U.N., the United States was assessing plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the [false flag] tanker attack; and that it would be an "aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program."

This report spread like wild fire by conservative and liberal alike.  Anti-war and warmongers both weighing in on the report.  It seems that these days, Israel/its lackeys announce their false flags ahead of time!  Perhaps they feel it will prime and prep the minds of the sheeple with their media arms everywhere.

Unsurprisingly, 24 hours later, Iran spots a drone over its territorial waters headed towards for its territory.  It is inconceivable that after the threatening announcement by the Israeli paper, the Iranian authorities would allow a drone to fly over Iranian territory.  The drone shot down - understandably.  Not long afterward, we are told the drone was a sophisticated American drone.  No doubt, but was it being operated by American forces?

Warmongers are salivating - calling it an "unprovoked attack".   John Bolton is on his way to Israel for fresh instruction.  Media is in overdrive.

If Iran is attacked in any way, their first act of retaliation would be an attack on Israel, the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz, and the American troops in the region.  UAE and Saudi Arabia would not fare any better.

There has never been a more pressing time -- and perhaps the only time -- than the present for the world to stand up to US/Israeli aggression.  

Pompeo’s Tanker Narrative

“I was the CIA director. We lied, We Cheated, We Stole”.  – Mike Pompeo

It appears that Mike Pompeo has a hard time kicking his old habits.  He appears to be as smug about lying as a CIA operative as he is as Secretary of State.  Categorically blaming the Iranians for the recent oil attack tankers has left allies scratching their heads; and perhaps leaving foes thinking: “Thank God my enemy is so stupid”!   

On June 13, 2019, as Ayatollah Khamenei was holding talks in Tehran with Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, two oil tankers carrying oil to Japan were attacked.  As investigations into the incident were just beginning, Pompeo had already concluded his assessment and had it ready for the press.  Much to the audible surprise of the world, and without any proof or supporting documents, he laid the blame firmly at Iran’s feet citing “intelligence”. 

To his relief, in no time at all, US officials claimed that they had managed to get their hands on videos and pictures.  They presented a grainy video alleging to show an Iranian navy boat removing mines from the damaged Japanese ship.  It is easy to understand why the grainy video’s existence was necessary.

Precisely a month prior, on May 13^th,  four oil tankers were damaged in the region.   The United States blamed Iran without any evidence.  Saudi Arabia followed suit.  The rest of the world was skeptical and doubts floated about the about the accuracy of US claims.  This time around, Pompeo was saved by the video – although not for long! The Japanese vessel owner disputed the presence of mines damaging his vessel (as suggested in the blurry video).

Even allies were skeptical.  To enforce its position and allegations against Iran,  the Trump administration made its argument  based on misinterpreting what Iran had said about the oil embargo.   Following Trump’s announcement on April 22^nd that America would not renew US waivers for countries which imported oil from Iran, in essence, imposing an oil embargo, on April 25the Iranian government retorted by condemning America’s illegal demands and stated that no other country could take its share of the oil market.

The Trump team would like us to believe that what Iran meant was the sabotage of the oil tankers.   This is far from true.    Iran was referring to its legal right under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which legally allows it to impede the passage of oil shipments through its territorial waters – the Strait of Hormuz.

While UNCLOS stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage, under the UNCLOS framework, a coastal state [Iran] can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”[i].   

Given Iran’s recourse to international law, American diplomacy at its all time low, and the rally behind Iran – if only verbally – it makes absolutely no sense for Iran to blow up oil tankers and turn the world opinion in favor of  Trump and his the warmongering advisors - Pompeo and Bolton.

But tankers were blown up.   What other motivation were there? 

Perhaps NOPEC – No to Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act.   In February, House passed a Bill that would cripple OPEC.   The Bill would prohibit OPEC from coordinating production and influencing prices.  While the Bill was said to provide a useful leverage for the White House, Persian Gulf Arab states sent their warnings to Wall Street. 

On April 5^th, Saudi Arabia even threatened to drop Dollar for oil trades in order to discourage US from passing the NOPEC Bill.  The Saudi threat came on the heels of UAE cautions the prior month that if such bill passed, it would in effect, break up OPEC.  

Perhaps this was the reason behind Saudi Arabia’s lack of cooperation.   After Trump announced his Iran oil embargo, a senior US administration assured the world at large that Trump was confident Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would fill any gap left in the oil market.  He was mistaken. On April 29^th, the Saudi Energy Minister, Khaled el-Falih made it clear that Saudi Arabia would not “rush to boost oil supply to make up for a loss of Iranian crude”. 

After the May 13^th incident, apparently America’s accusations did not carry any weight around the world, but they did have an impact on the jittery Saudis.   On June 3^rd, Bloomberg reported that over the last month, the Saudis  raised their oil production to replace lost Iranian oil.    The oil market was satisfied and America could continue to put pressure on friend and foe to stop buying Iranian oil – there would be no shortages.

What then explains the second tanker incidents of June 13^th?

Perhaps the motive is two-fold.  Firstly, the United States would reinforce its unfounded allegations that Iran is a ‘bad actor’ and discourage and dissuade the international community from cooperation with Iran.  And secondly, the hike in the price of oil as a result of the tanker attacks no doubt sent a sigh of relief to shale oil producers in the United States.  A drop in oil prices would greatly harm or bankrupt US shale-focused, debt-dependent producers.

Not on Trump’s watch. 

Although many states in the US and some countries in the world have banned shale oil production due to its adverse effects on the environment, specifically water, the United States’ goal is to be the biggest producer and supplier of oil depending on its shale oil production.  Currently, according to the latest US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States is a net importer of oil.   With low oil prices, a halt or slowing of shale, the trend would continue to be an importer.

Having Saudi Arabia cower to US demands, demonizing Iran, intimidating allies and non-allies with fear of conflict in the region in order to press further demands on Iran, increase in the price of oil, and the weapons that would be purchased by US allies in the nervous neighborhood, seems like a win-win situation for America.  For now.

---

[i] Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supra note 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1.

Iran: Floods and Locusts

FB friend Valerie Gd posted this comment: "Valerie Gd Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich It is interesting to see that the current flooding and intense rains in Iran have stayed so strictly within the country’s border (or areas near the borders). Not sure where did this weather system come from that it only caused this flood within Iran’s borders. Weather systems usually move through a predicted course act similarly in all areas they go through, but we cannot see this about this weather system. Also, right after this, grasshoppers infested South of Iran, which its said they have come from Saudi Arabia, which is very unusual. Considering both of these “natural phenomena” immediate effect is damage to Iran’s agricultural and livestock production. Put this in perspective with the West’s attempts to reduce Iran oil sales to zero and tighten the financial condition of Iran to prevent them from buying and importing their needs. If we consider one additional event, that last year when the British foreign minister while traveling in Iran threatened that the same mass deaths a result of hunger and unavailability of food [in the early 1900’s] can again happen to Iran if Iran does not change its course of politics within the region and not give up its defense capabilities. I am wondering if these floods and attack by grasshoppers could be something caused unnaturally as a means of war! It is worth researching at the very least!" While it is easy to dismiss such things, we should not. Humans have the science to shift clouds and this has been used rather extensively. As for locusts, well, the tactic of swarming (bees) has been used in the past. "Howard Rheingold cites mobile communications technology as a key enabler: The bees sense each other's buzzing and instinctually move in concert in real time. Text messaging on mobile devices and instantaneous file sharing off the internet via PDAs allows groups of people to receive their instructions, move in unison, nearly instantaneously, without prior planning or forethought. And, the technology allows groups to do so without a central leader. " So a preliminary search indicates the locust behavior has been under study to give them direction. Publication was only 2 weeks ago! I will have to research this in depth when I have better access to books and internet. For now, thanks Valerie Gd. Certainly worthwhile following up.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408114325.htm

One Millions Palestinians to Jordan?

These plans are not new.  In 2003, as a college freshman, I wrote my first article submitted to USC student paper.   It was published by The Trojan, though The Trojan no longer exists and they have the compliant Daily Trojan.

Worthwhile posting the article here.  

p.s. In spite of this, I did not flunk the course!!  A surprise to myself.


" Next on Nabulsi’s assault list were the Palestinian people.  For this purpose, he had a fascist diplomat from Israel. The diplomat, with a poorly made tupe (hair-piece) and a badly stained suit, proudly announced--as if he had come by a brilliant realization--that the Palestinian population should not be allowed to go over 20%, for then it would become 30%, then 40% and so on.  He said that if it exceeded 20%, it would lead to civil war and then gave examples of civil wars in the Middle East, being careful to emphasize that Muslims were always involved:  Lebanon, the 8-year Iran-Iraq war (funny, I always thought that was an interstate war!), Sudan (that one, I thought, was in Africa), Yugoslavia (I guess Europe is now part of the Middle East), Russia (they moved borders lately?).  So I asked this “Diplomat” how he proposed to solve the Palestinian problem, by gassing them, sterilization, or what other method, and, secondly, why he had left out Rwanda in his list of ‘Middle-East’ civil wars? " 

Though now we have the answer!


Academic Freedom – A Double-Edged Sword



So when we have a fascist on campus teaching Middle East politics who invites other like-minded fascists and bigots to the sanctity of our classroom, what are we to do?  Do we sacrifice our graduation deadline and drop the course? Overlook our principles by continuing with the class while becoming a little more silent every day, and in my case, feeling the affects of it on my health and sanity?



The deception that lay lurking under professor Nabulsi’s smile first hit me when he passionately and categorically announced that all terrorists were Moslems.  What an assault on a religion, I thought.   Hello... did he take an amnesia pill that caused him to draw a blank on Timothy McVeigh blowing up half of Oklahoma City?  Maybe Aum Shinrikyo doesn’t factor in – they are, after all, just Japanese terrorists. FARC, in Columbia, are most definitely Christian.  IRA and ETA are Christians too.  Is this man being hateful or just stupid?  I thought I would just correct him this time, after all, he is a professor and I am the undergrad; and it may be that  I had taken courses in terrorism and  he had not.  Not being of a stingy disposition, I would share my information with him and the class.



But then, he moved onto Iran as his next subject of attack.  With confidence, he made the statement that Iran is the “leader of world Moslem fanatics.”  I thought someone ought to let him know that the Taliban were (are) far worse, and were created thanks to the help of the U.S.  Of course, no one can beat the life style of the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.  At least in Iran the women vote, they can hold seats in the parliament, the Noble Peace Prize winner was a woman, and yes, the Iranian envoy to the world economic forum at Davos was the Vice President, a female.  She was no match for the stunning Angelina Jolie, but she was there representing her state as a female politician.  I wonder if Nabulsi knows where Davos is!



I decided to talk to him one on one – in his office.  Didn’t help much.  He thought I only object to the information he is giving out in class because I am afraid that people would realize how bad Iran really is and there would be mounting anti-Iranian feelings.  What an idiot this man is – he really doesn’t know anything.  There’s already plenty of anti-Iranian feeling going around.  In fact, it is considered to be the most disliked country by Americans, at least, according to a recent CNN poll.  But CNN is another story.



Next on Nabulsi’s assault list were the Palestinian people.  For this purpose, he had a fascist diplomat from Israel. The diplomat, with a poorly made tupe (hair-piece) and a badly stained suit, proudly announced--as if he had come by a brilliant realization--that the Palestinian population should not be allowed to go over 20%, for then it would become 30%, then 40% and so on.  He said that if it exceeded 20%, it would lead to civil war and then gave examples of civil wars in the Middle East, being careful to emphasize that Muslims were always involved:  Lebanon, the 8-year Iran-Iraq war (funny, I always thought that was an interstate war!), Sudan (that one, I thought, was in Africa), Yugoslavia (I guess Europe is now part of the Middle East), Russia (they moved borders lately?).  So I asked this “Diplomat” how he proposed to solve the Palestinian problem, by gassing them, sterilization, or what other method, and, secondly, why he had left out Rwanda in his list of ‘Middle-East’ civil wars? 



His answer was: “You misunderstood me, the Israeli population will also grow,” and “I left out Rwanda because I was talking about the wars in the Middle East, Rwanda is in Africa.”  Boy, he must have been told by Nabulsi that we are really dumb in that class.



A couple of days after the “diplomat’s” visit, Nabulsi walked in proudly and announced that “the diplomat did not have a solution for the Palestinian problem.”  He gave a whole bunch of statistics, compared the Palestinians to the French Canadians, and gave us his “solution” which entailed sending those Israeli Arabs who would fight for their fellow Palestinians out of Israel and into the West Bank.  I later found out that his “solution” comes from a book he has us read, and this little man takes credit—if you can take credit for bigotry—for other people’s ideas.



Of course, he is careful to cover his bases by always saying this is my opinion.  And as long as the students are not denied the chance to voice their opinion, then the school has done its part.  But there is more to it than that.  Is the school not responsible for selecting decent professors who are not only qualified, but have the moral capacity to teach.  Where is common decency and humanity?  At what point does the expression of one’s ideas infringe upon the right of others? 



We are here to learn values and become problem solvers.  I really don’t care if a Jew, a Moslem, Hindu, black or white is being attacked, it just shouldn’t happen.  Instead, we should all put on our armor, waxed with high morals, and fight bigotry and defend the least privileged link in the human chain.  The strong don’t need our support; it is the weak and down-trodden that need protection.  If we let go of this principle, we lose sight of humanity.  What this man is teaching in his lectures, as I tried to explain through the appropriate channels (which fell on deaf ears) is social Darwinism.  Survival of the fittest may work for some, but it is a very lonely concept. We can do better.



The silver lining is that this professor was a last minute substitute.  Let’s hope this is his last teaching assignment.  My message to him: Nabulsi, snap out of it, get a life, but not here.  Apply for a job at Fox.  Your racist bile doesn’t belong in the academia.

A Cathedral and a Mosque Engulfed in Fire; One Ravages the Past, the Other Threatens the Future

The world reacted with shock to the fire that engulfed the Notre Dame Cathedral. A symbol of Paris,   this 13^th Century architectural marvel is home to precious historical religious relics and artwork;  made even more famous throughout the world  by Victor Hugo’s famous novel, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.


World leaders were quick to react to the tragedy of this fire.  News headlines around the world brought this disastrous incident to every living room around the globe and nations commiserated with the French.  The inaudible sigh of relief was palpable when the structure was saved and with it, the history that laid within the walls.   The past was not lost. 


But another fire may well stop the future. Concurrent with the fire that ravaged Notre Dame, another historical place of worship, the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem fell victim to a fire of an unknown origin.  The Mosque which was completed in 705 CE, is the third holiest site in Islam.  But its fate is not shared by Moslems alone – it touches us all.


The world can be forgiven for their ignorance of this tragedy - and the importance of al Aqsa.  The media simply dismissed it, as it does with all things that must be kept from the general public. This is not the first fire that was left unmentioned by mainstream media (MSM). A previous fire set to the Mosque by a zealous Australian Christian in 1969 failed to capture headlines. Indeed, the threats to al Aqsa Mosque have accelerated over the years to a point of no return.  Given that the fate of this Mosque holds the fate of us all, how can the media be forgiven for their deafening silence?


In 2006, the Israeli government began work on an exact replica of the Hurva synagogue on its original site.  The rebuilding of the Hurva is designed to usher in the rebuilding of the Third Temple.  Rabbis were tailored for the special kind of garments they would be wearing in a "rebuilt temple" – the ‘end of time’.  But the Mosque still stands in the way of building the Third Temple – for now. [i]

It took four years to complete the work on Hurva.  When presidential candidate, Barack Obama  promised AIPAC an undivided Jerusalem in 2008, the building of the Hurva synagogue was well on the way -- which signaled continued future attacks on the al-Aqsa Mosque to make way for construction of the Third Temple.  

In 2009, Israeli news headlines reassured Israelis that “Netanyahu would build the Third Temple”.  Soon after, in 2010, JTA reported that "Our Land of Israel" party had put posters on 200 city buses in Jerusalem showing an artist's rendition of the Third Temple on the al-Aqsa Mosque site with the slogan, "May the Temple be built in our lifetime."

Donald Trump deliverance on Obama’s promise has made these fanatics more hopeful.  How could they not be with  Senator Broxon telling a cheering crowd “Now, I don’t know about you, but when I heard about Jerusalem — where the King of Kings where our soon coming King is coming back to Jerusalem, it is because President Trump declared Jerusalem to be capital of Israel”.


And how do we ignore Benjamin Netanyahu taking ownership of Jerusalem stating that the Bible, the holy book for Jews and Christians, had justified it.    Should we then be surprised that rabbis sent a letter of gratitude to Trump, praising him for “fulfilling prophecies”.  


In March, as Israeli elections were approaching, it was reported that “The Israeli Third Temple” party had gained traction.   And while the mainstream media can ignore the latest fire that broke out at the al Aqsa mosque on April 15,  can we afford to ignore the blazing headlines of the same day:  “END OF THE WORLD: Jerusalem third temple ‘fulfils Biblical prophecy’ of the end times” and other Israeli news ushering in the building of the Third Temple and the ‘end of times’?


Some may take comfort in the fact that this is all sheer madness, but one cannot ignore the insanity of which we were warned of by Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army who in 1999 reported his findings in the “Counterproliferation papers, Future Warfare Series No. 2, USAF Counterproliferation Center”.  This fascinating report, among other things, sounded the alarm over the probability of Gush Emunim, a right- wing religious organization, or others, hijacking a nuclear device to “liberate” the Temple Mount for the building of the third temple.   This is powerful insanity with insane powers enabling it.


Is the world ready to embrace this madness and accept this fate at this juncture?  Are you?

---

[i] Tom Mountain.  Preparing for the Third Temple Jewish Advocate.  Boston:Aug 22, 2008.  Vol. 199,  Iss. 34,  p. 9 (1 pp.)

Media and Trump Victory

Shortly after Donald Trump secured the Presidency,  an Iranian media outlet asked me what contributed to his win.  In light of the Guardian piece today, it is worthwhile posting my interview here.

Trump’s Victory 

As surprising as Trump’s victory may have seemed, it would be a mistake to attribute this win to a single issue, just as it would be wrong to ignore the players behind the scene. 

The ideology among those who supported Trump was not uniform or unanimous.    Trump found support among those who opposed the social changes which contradicted their social and religious values foremost abortion and LGBT.  His main supporting block, the Evangelicals, even overlooked his character flaws such as his numerous marriages and womanizing.  Their support of Trump was due to his pro-Israel, pro-settlements and his anti-Islam stance.  Added to the mix was the undeniable racism of some of his supporters.  The White supremacists and the Christian Supremacists (embodied in his Vice President Mike Pence) were a solid block.    

Poverty played a big role.  It was the poverty and lack of jobs and opportunities that triggered anti-immigration by many of his supporters.  At a time of declining living standards, the number 1 culprit is perceived to be the immigrants ‘who take jobs

away’.  While the previous administration presented a picture of job and economy 

improvement, an independent academic study (2015) found that America was in economic decline.  

Some of the report’s finding made interesting comparisons such as America’s child poverty levels are worse than in any developed country anywhere, including Greece, and eastern European nations such as Poland, Lithuania and Estonia.   Median adult wealth was ranked 27^th behind Cyprus, Taiwan and Ireland, and life satisfaction ranked America 12^th (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2622722)

These ongoing elements prompted Trump supporters to vote for someone outside of Washington.   This gives an interesting twist to the role the media played in the election.

During the campaign, Donald Trump was front and center in the mainstream media.   The more the media marginalized him, the stronger his base grew.   I continue to ponder over and question media’s role.   It would appear that they tried to marginalize Trump.   A very old video in which Trump suggests groping women was ‘dug up’ and aired continuously.  What has baffled me is the fact that those who looked for and exposed this tape failed to expose the interview tape of Donald Trump aired on September 11, 2001 immediately after 911 in which he states  

clearly that there must have been demolition material in the basement. (bombs)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w

Revelations of this video would have ended his candidacy, but it was not revealed.  Further, his promotion and endorsement and support of Netanyahu in 2013 was not aired either https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm5Je73bYOY  Though perhaps this latter was less consequential had it been aired, it would demonstrate to the ‘intellectuals’ looking for an ‘isolationist’ candidate who would not support wars to think twice about Trump and the continuity of US policies.

We have to ask why the media and anti-Trump faction did not find and reveal

reveal these videos (I had seen them prior to the elections).

Attention must also be drawn to social media.   We live in a world where social media, especially Twitter and Facebook have been behind color revolutions (generally referred to as Arab Spring).   Twitter diplomacy was first coined in 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_diplomacy) it was actually used against Iran in 2009.  Those tweets attributed to Iranians  inside Iran in the aftermath of the 2009 elections were traced back to Israel.  (“Wired Magazine” “Iran: Before You Have That Twitter-Gasm…). 

What is important to remember about Trump and his ‘Twitter Diplomacy’ is the fact that it was promoted by the mainstream media (as with all other cases where twitter is used for an agenda).

In the interest of brevity, it must be concluded that Trump owes his win to the disenfranchised, the poor, the jobless, the racist, and yes, the media!

Netanyahi: "Israel not a state of all its citizens"

Could Benjamin Netanyahu be more clear?

"Israel is not a state of all its citizens."   "According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people - And only it.".

This reminded me of an incident at college in 2004 when I was an undergrad.  I wrote a piece on it and at the time, USC had a very progressive individual who was editor of "The Trojan".  My piece was published, but "The Trojan" has long ceased being printed though the very lightweight and superficial  "Daily Trojan" continues.....

Netanhay's words prompted me to look back at my 2004 essay (reprinted here).


Academic Freedom – A Double-Edged Sword



So when we have a fascist on campus teaching Middle East politics who invites other like-minded fascists and bigots to the sanctity of our classroom, what are we to do?  Do we sacrifice our graduation deadline and drop the course? Overlook our principles by continuing with the class while becoming a little more silent every day, and in my case, feeling the affects of it on my health and sanity?



The deception that lay lurking under professor Nabulsi’s smile first hit me when he passionately and categorically announced that all terrorists were Moslems.  What an assault on a religion, I thought.   Hello... did he take an amnesia pill that caused him to draw a blank on Timothy McVeigh blowing up half of Oklahoma City?  Maybe Aum Shinrikyo doesn’t factor in – they are, after all, just Japanese terrorists. FARC, in Columbia, are most definitely Christian.  IRA and ETA are Christians too.  Is this man being hateful or just stupid?  I thought I would just correct him this time, after all, he is a professor and I am the undergrad; and it may be that  I had taken courses in terrorism and  he had not.  Not being of a stingy disposition, I would share my information with him and the class.



But then, he moved onto Iran as his next subject of attack.  With confidence, he made the statement that Iran is the “leader of world Moslem fanatics.”  I thought someone ought to let him know that the Taliban were (are) far worse, and were created thanks to the help of the U.S.  Of course, no one can beat the life style of the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.  At least in Iran the women vote, they can hold seats in the parliament, the Noble Peace Prize winner was a woman, and yes, the Iranian envoy to the world economic forum at Davos was the Vice President, a female.  She was no match for the stunning Angelina Jolie, but she was there representing her state as a female politician.  I wonder if Nabulsi knows where Davos is!



I decided to talk to him one on one – in his office.  Didn’t help much.  He thought I only object to the information he is giving out in class because I am afraid that people would realize how bad Iran really is and there would be mounting anti-Iranian feelings.  What an idiot this man is – he really doesn’t know anything.  There’s already plenty of anti-Iranian feeling going around.  In fact, it is considered to be the most disliked country by Americans, at least, according to a recent CNN poll.  But CNN is another story.



Next on Nabulsi’s assault list were the Palestinian people.  For this purpose, he had a fascist diplomat from Israel. The diplomat, with a poorly made tupe (hair-piece) and a badly stained suit, proudly announced--as if he had come by a brilliant realization--that the Palestinian population should not be allowed to go over 20%, for then it would become 30%, then 40% and so on.  He said that if it exceeded 20%, it would lead to civil war and then gave examples of civil wars in the Middle East, being careful to emphasize that Muslims were always involved:  Lebanon, the 8-year Iran-Iraq war (funny, I always thought that was an interstate war!), Sudan (that one, I thought, was in Africa), Yugoslavia (I guess Europe is now part of the Middle East), Russia (they moved borders lately?).  So I asked this “Diplomat” how he proposed to solve the Palestinian problem, by gassing them, sterilization, or what other method, and, secondly, why he had left out Rwanda in his list of ‘Middle-East’ civil wars? 



His answer was: “You misunderstood me, the Israeli population will also grow,” and “I left out Rwanda because I was talking about the wars in the Middle East, Rwanda is in Africa.”  Boy, he must have been told by Nabulsi that we are really dumb in that class.



A couple of days after the “diplomat’s” visit, Nabulsi walked in proudly and announced that “the diplomat did not have a solution for the Palestinian problem.”  He gave a whole bunch of statistics, compared the Palestinians to the French Canadians, and gave us his “solution” which entailed sending those Israeli Arabs who would fight for their fellow Palestinians out of Israel and into the West Bank.  I later found out that his “solution” comes from a book he has us read, and this little man takes credit—if you can take credit for bigotry—for other people’s ideas.



Of course, he is careful to cover his bases by always saying this is my opinion.  And as long as the students are not denied the chance to voice their opinion, then the school has done its part.  But there is more to it than that.  Is the school not responsible for selecting decent professors who are not only qualified, but have the moral capacity to teach.  Where is common decency and humanity?  At what point does the expression of one’s ideas infringe upon the right of others? 



We are here to learn values and become problem solvers.  I really don’t care if a Jew, a Moslem, Hindu, black or white is being attacked, it just shouldn’t happen.  Instead, we should all put on our armor, waxed with high morals, and fight bigotry and defend the least privileged link in the human chain.  The strong don’t need our support; it is the weak and down-trodden that need protection.  If we let go of this principle, we lose sight of humanity.  What this man is teaching in his lectures, as I tried to explain through the appropriate channels (which fell on deaf ears) is social Darwinism.  Survival of the fittest may work for some, but it is a very lonely concept. We can do better.



The silver lining is that this professor was a last minute substitute.  Let’s hope this is his last teaching assignment.  My message to him: Nabulsi, snap out of it, get a life, but not here.  Apply for a job at Fox.  Your racist bile doesn’t belong in the academia.