Here is a photo following the recent shootings in Oakland California; it illustrates how military priorities are dissolving national boundaries if not visually but in fact as well. This could easily be Iraq or Afghanistan.
a.s.

Israel and theU.S. are not really interested in "democracy" anywhere in the middle because it upsets the apple cart of established power relations; stability vs. democracy... damn the people; squash the people if they get in the way of stability: the tired refrain of autocrats and America's neocon power brokers.

"Eli Shaked, who was Israel's ambassador to Cairo from 2003 to 2005, in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Nevertheless, it is very much in the interests of Israel, the United States and Europe that Mubarak remains in power."

For Israel, more is at stake than the current so-called "cold" peace with Egypt and a few tens of millions of dollars in trade. "Never before have Israel's strategic interests been so closely aligned with those of the Sunni states as today," says Shaked, referring to Arab countries whose populations are mainly Sunni Muslim, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The recent publication of the US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks showed what he means: Much of the Arab world, and especially Mubarak, sees Shiite Iran and its allies, such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as an existential threat, just as Israel does."
full text: 

Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,742186,00.html

Tunisia and the Real Net Effect: Getting It Right on Protest and Social Media

by Josh Shahryar

In this post on EA Josh Shahryar breaks down the arguments fostered by Evgeny Morozov and other 'new sketics' about the role of social media in regards to the events in Tunisia,

"Morozov, in his "First Thoughts on Tunisia and the Role of the Internet", re-invents the course of  events to fit his pre-set narrative minimising the place of social media in activism. While I may not be a net-positive, I’m not as net-negative as Morozov and Co.

To be up-front and accurate, I’m replying to Morozov's entire article, paragraph by paragraph:

News from Tunisia looks good. For better or worse, many of us will be pondering the role that the Internet played or didn't play in the events of the Jasmine Revolution. Below are some preliminary reflections, which, if you know me well, are likely to change by the end of next week!

The Jasmine Revolution? Really? If we agree from the start that the Wikileaks Revolution is a misleading coinage put forth from the "West", why endorse this term, which suddenly arose far from Tunisia a week ago? Why not let the people who bled for the revolution pick a name for it?

Oh, wait, they have. They spread the news of "Sidi Bouzid", the province where Mohamed Bouazizi's attempted suicide by immolation on 17 December was the catalyst for mass protest. Long before "Jasmine Revolution" made a catchy headline, #SidiBouzid was getting out word that something important was developing in a country which was not often at the forefront of international attention."

I agree with Josh's attempt to deconstruct Morozov's one dimensional arguements which, not all that conincidentally, parallel the opposing view in which social media is seen as some kind of motor of social change. What links these two opposing views is the extent to switch they view events outside of social realities that propell change and how people communicate during times of crisis or social unrest. The American media in particular has shown an great inability to grasp, to get beyond the superficial representations of these events. This arises from the self-censoring nature of the America's media enterprises in which the dominant narrative is linked to the government's geo-political view of itself and its place in the world. It is not that there aren't alternative views to be found in American media but rather that these views are so much on the margins of debate that their place in public discourse is considered invalid.

Twitter, Facebook or whatever other digital intermediaries may arise do not make revolutions anymore than telephones or newspapers. One should extrapolate an exaggerated meaning from the fact that the role of any of these vehicles for communication has more prominence at a particular moment. People, particularly in times of crisis, are unusually adept at inventing or creating means of communicating with one another and circumventing official and censored channels of communication. Western media analysts tend to view these processes of social change (particularly in relation to social media) from an instrumentalist vantage point in which the tools (mobile telephones, computers,the internet) are fostering social change rather the daily realities that describe a specific society. This was glaringly obvious in the manner in which Iran's Green Revolution was being hawked. First off, the revolution did not happen and secondly what was revealed, not surprisingly, was simply a reconfigured image of Iran that has not changed dramatically since the days of the Shah. Americans have been unable to comprehend Iran in the same manner in which they have bought the packaged narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When the pot finally boils over, in Israeli-Palestinian or Iraq for example, don't be surprised at the ignorance of history and the blossoming of catch-phrases to describe events and emotions that have been simmering out of view for those that have not bothered to look behind the veneer of misrepresentation.

In the civil societies of Western Europe and North America, random violence is an often daily occurence. This can be violence that is systematic and directed at a specific person or the target can be arbitrary simply aimed at large groups of people. Whether the act of violence has specific political overtones - overtly expressed - or is an act of desperation or despair - as in the Columbine shootings - these violent actions emanate from a strong nihilistic thread that has entrenched itself - in varying degrees - across the global social landscape. Outside then of specific military theatres such as Iraq or Afghanistan or Gaza, and even then, in environments where information is easily manipulated ot controlled, the actual source or cause of the violence becomes indeterminate.

In a society where political forms of 'control' are standard, as in China, violence does not provide a lever for establishing social boundaries or modes of behaviour. Such a social instrument is unnecessary. In contrast, say for example in the United States or England, the threat of violence, now more pervasive than ever, becomes more overtly a vehicle for exercising social controls and regulating behavior. While initially we could view these developments as subtle and less obvious, now they have become more overt and explicit. The only way to counter the perceived threat to a society's internal stability is by defining and regulating normal behavior; anyone whose actions - or words - stray from this band of normality is subject to disappearance. Therefore becomes not unusual for governments or their agents to utilize acts of violence as a means for exercising more intensifies control. The agent provocateur has a long history.

In this context, outside of various electoral processes, non-violence becomes the only means for challenging established assumptions and engaging in an overt and direct form of political discourse. The Ghandhian form of non-violence was successful precisely because it challenged the veneer of a civil society which was little more than a dominion loaded with ideological pretenses and routines that masked the brutality of colonialism.

The forms of non-violent action now have more creative possibilities than previously particularly as they represent only element - perhaps the most substantial - in a much broader social reality in which mass actions interface with new forms of communication and information dispersal. Of course, as we see in the non-violent protests taking place in East Jerusalem and Occupied Palestine, authorities easily and willing interpret these actions as 'potential acts of violence' as those utilise the most brutal methods to seek to nuetralise their effectiveness.

Zombie Economics and Just Deserts: Why the Right Is Winning the Economic Debate

"Economist Paul Krugman recently decried "zombie economics," policies advocated by "free-market fundamentalists [who] have been wrong about everything yet now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever." I share his chagrin, but suggest that the problem is that Krugman was wrong to also assert that "economics is not a morality play." In fact, I believe that defeating the zombie-like resilience of laissez faire capitalism will require directly refuting the moral belief in the inherent fairness of free market outcomes"

FROM MICHAEL EDWARDS:
Why social transformation is not a job for the market
" It has always been civil society and gov- ernment that have pressed businesses to do these things; and to exercise their influence effectively, both government and civil society need to be strong and independent. Only then can they exert sustained pressure for accountability and act from a different set of values and priorities. Otherwise, “organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy,” as Matt Taibbi puts it. It’s the difference that makes the difference to society. In fact, real transformation will occur when business behaves more like civil society, not the other way around."

In a recent article in the NY Review of Books Paul Krugman and Robin Wells conclude their rticle by stating that,"If progressives want to rebound, they’ll have to fight." Well yippee! And who are they going to fight with and where? The problem with 'progressives' fighting in the U.S. is that they have been going round in circles for years - if not decades. Like Krugman/Wells progressives have good ideas and even some worthy visions of how society should be but sadly, progressives, tied to that one trick pony of the democratic party, can do little more than shout and stammer and not much will change - has it since Johnson was forced out of office? The problem is progressive have voices but no power; their ideas are forever tied to the tail of the Democratic donkey and, alas, that donkey and going anywhere it doesn't want to go - when you tie your fate to a party of opportunists and corporate shills what do you expect... What would have been truly progressive of Krugman/Wells would have been a declaration to launch a new progressive political party (not a Nader Edsel) and ask fellow progressives to join and them.

Israel launches strikes, warns on Gaza | Reuters

A blatant misrepresentation of facts in this short Reuters piece; wasn't Hamas elected? Hamas is hostile to Israel which defines itself as a secular democratic state?

"Israel ended 38 years of Gaza occupation in 2005 but it began blockading the strip in 2007 after Hamas Islamists hostile to the Jewish state seized power from Palestinians prepared to negotiate peace with Israel."

These lines were just too good to be true but indeed the man that wrote them truly believs in them:

Only business can put Obama back on top