Comments to Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

Today Charles Krauhammer – a well-known extreme rightist usually advocating war – writes in the Washington Post under the headline “The Iran deal: The anatomy of a disaster”. My comments under the article goes: The day Mr. Krauthammer will write about • sanctions on Israel for its nuclear weapons and international law violations; • anytime/anywhere inspections in all nuclear weapons countries including Israel (does he really believe that any country in the world would accept that?) • the relentless attempts at regional dominance by the U.S. and also look at Israel’s and Saudi-Arabia’s ambitions (i.e. apply a minimum of fairness), • how and why Iran’s status of non-nuclear country promotes a nuclear arms race more than the only nuclear weapons power in the region… – I for one would think Krauthammer was interesting to read. Now he repeats himself, doesn’t do analysis or real commentary but promotes Iranophobia (has he recently visited the country he has such negative views about?). It’s all sadly indicative of the real purpose – not nuclear issues but keeping Iran down forever. If we in the West are getting isolated, not Iran – perhaps he should ask what the reasons could be? It would be great and promote honest debate if Mr. Krauthammer could write about these issues and reveal a willingness and intellectual capability to connect dots and apply a comprehensive analysis of the issues and the region.

Read More →

Comment to Israel’s defence minister in Washington Post

Israel’s defence minister Moshe Ya’alon writes in Washington Post under the headline “Current Iran framework will make war more likely” When I wrote my comment there were already more than 1100 comments – so here it is: “Israel’s defence minister is an echo of PM Netanyahu. Nothing new, Israel’s official views are well-known, beamed out a thousand times more effectively than Iran’s to the world, not the least thanks to leading U.S. free and plural media. What makes you, Mr. Ya’alon, think that this whole discussion can go on forever as if Israel was not the main problem because of its military/militarism and its nuclear weapons? Your military expenditures are about the same as Iran’s, a country with about 10 times more people to defend. While you continue to hold occupied territory and fight wars for it – and you are a military man who mentions what he has been forced to do during war – you omit mention of the fact that Iran has not invaded anyone for more than 200 years. Israel, sadly, pursues law-defying policies and decades long ethnic cleansing instead of taking one step in the direction of trying to live together in a democracy-for-all state. You’ve got more power to change Israel’s policies than most Israelis. Morally – and I take you to be a moral man – you cannot contribute to punishing 80 million people (sanction, bombing threats, agents, propaganda, etc) who have done […]

Read More →

Yet another attack by Zionists on academic freedom

Medialens tells us that the Zionist lobby does it again! Are we surprised? Oh yes, when was it last all Western leaders praised freedom of expression by walking through Paris? Will even one of them now stand up and demand that this conference be held anyhow? What is it the West’s academic community boats about in comparison with other cultures – isn’t it freedom of our universities, the free search for knowledge and the right to express differing opinions on analytical issues – in contrast to politically controlled academic work? Why is it that practically every derogatory terms can freely be used about, say, Russians, Serbs, Muslims, Iranians etc. and their countries without anyone raising an eyebrow? Why do Zionists again and again promote a censorship that undermines the finest principles (ideally speaking) of Western culture in order to stop debates about Israel? And how much anti-Semitism do Zionists risk/want to produce by actions such as forcing this conference to be cancelled?

Read More →

Isn’t it time to boycott pro-Zionist media?

Listen very carefully to the eloquent PM Netanyahu here again giving it full blast thanks to CNN in an interview in which he (again) says nothing new. Why – just why – is his views given coverage again and again and again in Western media? Does the Iranian or other P5+1 get anywhere near the same media coverage (I can’t remember every having seen a Chinese diplomat talk about the Iran deal). And why does this happen with nobody mentioning the nuclear weapons – 200+ – that this state leader commands on the basis of political paranoia and autism? Why is nobody stopping him when he questions the legality of Iran’s nuclear civilian program and talks about terrorism while he as Israel’s leader is responsible for series of violations of international law and state terrorism? If this is the free press it is either knowingly or unknowingly pro-Zionist and Iranophobic or influenced – “bought” in money or other terms – by Israeli billionaires or agents. You can boycott commodites from countries you do not sympathize with – to send a signal. I wonder whether it isn’t time to boycott media that continue to disseminate pro-Zionist propaganda without covering relevant other angles and countries’ views – and do so again and again. If you anyhow watch it, write to the editor and protest the bias. Or stop using the media and let them rcognize that their viewer and visitor figures are […]

Read More →

Iran nuclear deal – a road to peace

Jan Oberg commenting on Iranian President Rouhani: “Tehran abides by commitments, if P5 1 fulfills promises” – YouTube/PressTV http://ow.ly/LbX3d In spite of the deal’s negative sides, Iran has chosen peace to the benefit of the world. In that perspective it is much more than a nuclear deal, it’s – potentially – a road to peace.

Read More →

Russisk og dansk propaganda – statslige og statslige medier…

Deadline – DR om russisk propaganda – og kun dén. Indslaget er et glimrende eksempel på hvor statsmagten og formodede frie medier taler sammen på en helt indforstået måde. Der spørges ikke om hvad propaganda er i ministerens mund; det nævnes ikke at propganda også kan være fortielse. Det er helt indforstået at vi i vest siger sandheden og at vi nu skal bruge endnu flere millioner på at sige sandheden så russerne kan høre den. Der spørges ikke om USA og NATO eventuelt også bruger “propaganda”. Der stilles et spørgsmål vedr. den russiske ambassadørs artikel, der giver indtryk af at Rusland har truet Danmark med et atomangreb – hvad han ikke har. Kun ét spørgsmål, til sidst, om hvorfor Danmark er så langt fremme i skoene over for Rusland giver et lillebitte modspil – og giver udenrigsministeren anledning til at snakke om de baltiske lande, ikke om hvorfor vi pludselig har fået en slags ny kold krig. Derefter kommer så ikke kun én men to systematiske og forudsigelige Ruslands/Putin-kritiskere – Rachlin o Serebriakov – som Adam Holm selv kommer selv kommer for skade at sige er meget enige. Hvor var den uafhængige medieanalytiker/forsker? Hvor var tabellen over hvor meget Rusland og NATO-landene respektive anvender på “information”? Hvor var oplysninger om hvor stor del af mediebilledet i Rusland, der er direkte statsstyret og hvor meget der ikke er det? Forskellen på russiske statsligt styrede medier og danske frie medier svinder […]

Read More →

P1 Debats politiske tilrettelæggelse omkring missilforsvaret

De fleste mennesker, der lytter til radio eller ser TV, tænker næppe så meget over hvad der også kunne være foregået og med hvilke deltagere. De ser et færdigt produkt, ikke processen – og de tager, nok så forståeligt, stilling til det de ser og hører snarere end til noget andet, de i en forestillingsverden kunne have set eller hørt. Med de sociale medier kan man nu formidle informationer i rollen som mediemenneske og fortælle hvordan det også går til sådan bag kulisserne. Måske lyttede du til P1 Debat på Danmarks Radio nu idag kl 12:15-13:00 om missilskjoldet og den russiske ambassadørs åbne brev? I så fald kan kopien herunder af min korrespondence med P1 Debats redaktør Anne Henderson måske have din interesse. Den dokumenterer at jeg skriftligt blev inviteret til at deltage per telefon, at jeg sagde ja tak men under forudsætning af visse rammebetingelser kunne opfyldes gennem videre samtale – herunder a) at der blev mulighed for at forklare at missilforsvaret kan ses som en del af en større amerikansk atomkrigs-strategi og b) at der må være fair play med mig siddende udenfor studiet specielt når programmet efter min opfattelse allerede da er planlagt med en holdningsmæssig slagside. Den viser endvidere at der gik næsten et døgn inden Hendersons svarer og så pludselig mener at det dér med at sidde på en telefon medførte at man har besluttet at jeg alligevel ikke skal deltage. Vel, læs selv nedenfor.

Read More →

Politikere og medier savner aabenbart enhver ekspertise om missilskjoldet til at modstaa Washingtons salgsteknikker

Åbent brev sendt til 2200 mennesker i Norden herunder 325 danske medieadresser. Af Jan Øberg Dr.hc., forskningschef TFF 21. marts 2015 Missilskjoldet tjener til at gøre det muligt at udkæmpe og vinde en atomkrig – ikke at afskrække fra den Den russiske ambassadørs artikel i Jyllands-Posten kan maaske siges at være bombastisk formuleret men i grunden har han – og ikke udenrigsminister Lidegaard – ret. Ledende medier som f.eks. Danmarks Radio, Ritzaus og Politiken giver baggrund til missilforsvaret som vidner om total mangel paa fagkundskab om strategi og atomdoktriner. I stærk kontrast til hvad vi hører om missilskjoldet – som Danmark nu tilsyneladende skal bidrage til – er det det mest de-stabiliserende indslag i atompolitikken siden 1945. Det kan kun opfattes af Rusland og andre som en provokation. Her er den forklaring som beslutningstagerne næppe har modtaget fra Washington, ministerier eller militære kredse. Den gælder for atomvaaben saavel som for konventionelle: Den klassiske terrorbalance fra 1950-erne handler om at hvis A har kastet sine raketter – inkl atomare – paa B, saa vil B altid have tilstrækkeligt at gengælde med nemlig atomvaaben paa sine fly, ubaade og i siloer, som A ikke har mulighed for at slaa ud i sit første angreb. Det hed “gensidigt sikret ødelæggelse”- MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Den afskrækkende værdi laa i at begge parter vidste at hvis de startede en atomkrig ville deres egne befolkninger dø i millionvis som følge af modpartens gengældelse. Hvad indebærer […]

Read More →

EU agrees on sanctions on Russia – but what about peace?

EU agrees Russia sanctions to stay until Ukraine peace terms met (Reuters). Exactly as expected. If the EU can make a conflict-resolution mistake, rest assured that it will! Minsk is not a peace agreement – but at Reuters they don’t know the difference between a ceasefire and a peace agreement. The looming catastrophe is exactly that there is no follow-up to Minsk II, no process for conflict-resolution, the future structure of Ukraine, nothing on UN peacekeeping, reconciliation, confidence-building and peace. These sanction are the only known follow-up and only signaling: We don’t trust you damn Russians! NATO knows only military saber-rattling, EU only sanctions – nobody knows peace. What a Europe! What a danger to all of us having to live with the long-term consequences of such peace illiteracy! I’ve written a longer piece on what I believe would be a much safer policy – with absolutely no indications of an interest from the local or international media.

Read More →

TFF PressInfo # 313: Ignore the 47 irresponsible US Republican senators

By Farhang Jahanpour & Jan Oberg, TFF Board members Read the whole text “Ignore the 47 irresponsible US Republican senators – here” Now that Iran cannot trust the U.S. – what must be done to secure a nuclear deal? NATO and EU friends of the US as well as the other negotiating powers must come forward. Iran must be assured that a deal is a deal. “It must no longer be considered acceptable that decision-makers in Washington can continue, without paying diplomatically, to violate international law by threatening war and create such circumstances that war breaks out and threatens the lives of millions of people for not one good reason.”

Read More →

About the nuclear negotiations with Iran

Iran’s FM Zarif: “Any deal with P5 1 would cover all issues” I agree with the foreign minister and point out how a-symmetric this conflict is. I believe also that historic mistrust should have been dealt with before technicalitites. Then I ask how on earth it could be better for Israel if there is no deal than if there is one – as PM Netanyuahu argues and will say in the U.S. Congress in a couple of days. I finally point out that the U.S. position on sanctions is counterproductive.

Read More →

Olof Palme – murdered today 29 years

Olof Palme – murdered today 29 years ago • Wikipedia A politician who willed a better society, to whom politics was a calling – working for justice, international law, nuclear disarmament, against big countries bullying small countries, a person who made Sweden stand ut. Then. And it was the Palme Commission on Common Security that broke the ice towards the end of the Cold War with the idea that we can only be sure together with the other side, not against the other side. That was 1982. As relevant today as then – think Ukraine! I met him twice – the first time to criticise him for Swedish arms exports. The second for an hour-long lunch in which he constantly asked me questions about peace, nonviolence, peace research and alternative defence – and I did not get a chance to ask him a single of all the questions I had prepared… A rare combination of intellectualism and curiosity, vision and passion, self-confidence and humility – so sadly missed in today’s political world.

Read More →

Europe’s 9/11 moment ?

I believe this is going to be an iconic image of something that will be a turning point in Europe and, likely too, the generalised West. Is this the 9/11 moment for Europe? Whether intended or not, the government leaders marching in Paris today will tomorrow begin a special ‘war on terror’ in Europe – clamping down on all of […]

Read More →

Fogh Rasmussen efterlader en verden i kaos

Interview med Jens Malling – Publiceret i Arbejderen Efterlader en verden i kaos Anders Fogh Rasmussen træder tilbage som Natos generalsekretær i dag efter fem år på posten. Aggressivitet over for Rusland og hykleri når det gælder Irak har ifølge fredsforsker Jan Øberg kendetegnet hans sidste år i spidsen for organisationen. Et udtryk for Vestens moralske forfald, mener han AF JENS MALLING ”Verden er et mere usikkert sted nu, end da jeg trådte til”. Så klart udtrykte den afgående generalsekretær Anders Fogh Rasmussen sig efter Nato-topmødet i Wales i september, ifølge DR. Med situationen i Mellemøsten fuldstændig ude af kontrol samt en dødsensfarlig og eskalerende konfrontation med Rusland over Ukraine kan udtalelsen virke som fornuftig selverkendelse. Den rækker dog ikke længere end at Fogh Rasmussen i interviewet med det samme bruger de to konflikter som argument for et endnu stærkere Nato. Han dvæler ikke ved, at den organisation han på femte år står i spidsen for – samt enkelte medlemslande – kan siges at have en væsentlig del af ansvaret for den tragiske udvikling i både Ukraine og Irak. Men det mener fredsforsker Jan Øberg at generalsekretæren bør gøre. ”Natos ekspansion i Østeuropa – og særligt den planlagte indlemmelse af Georgien og Ukraine – er den væsentligste årsag til at Rusland omsider viser tænder. I Kreml opfattes Nato-udvidelse som en alvorlig sikkerhedspolitisk trussel. Putin har sagt stop og prøver at sætte sig imod, at organisationen inddæmmer Rusland fra Baltikum til […]

Read More →

☮ ☮ World Peace Day on Sunday! ♫♥

☮ ☮ World Peace Day on Sunday! ♫♥ This is the incredible peace symphony by Beethoven that PLAY FOR RIGHTS performs in the Bern Cathedral, Switzerland, Sunday night with my saying a few words about global ethics and positive peace in between the movements. There are many ways to celebrate peace – just being against wars is not enough. We run on merrymaking and mindfulness Sunday evening. In the big or small way: Please do something for peace too, everyone who reads this!

Read More →