303 Israel Primed For War on Iran: Netanyahu Deputy

Israel Primed For War on Iran: Netanyahu Deputy

(1) IDF uses Dogs against Palestinians: Dogs for Jews, by Gilad Atzmon
(2) Attorney seeks to bar Goldstone from US
(3) Vanunu headed back to prison
(4) Israeli policies are no different form Nazi racial laws - Gilad Atzmon
(5) Israel Primed For War on Iran: Netanyahu Deputy
(6) Ahmedinejad accuses US, Israel of planning Iran nuclear attack
(7) Israel Lobby and War on Iran - Stephen Sniegoski
(8) Saudi Prince: Afghans are uniting against US; Iran-Israel unlevel playing field

(1) IDF uses Dogs against Palestinians: Dogs for Jews, by Gilad Atzmon

From: Erooth Mohamed <ekunhan@gmail.com> Date: 16.05.2010 10:46 PM

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/dogs-for-jews-by-gilad-atzmon.html

Dogs for Jews

Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 9:44AM Gilad Atzmon

The Israelis indeed internalised the Shoa experience. Very much like notorious Ivan the Terrible from Treblinka who reportedly unleashed his dog against camp inmates,  the IDF Border Guard employs dogs against  Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli political opposition.

Ynet reported today that Security forces arrived near the village of Dir Nizam accompanied by the Border Guard's canine unit. "They chased us with vicious dogs," one of the protesters said.

Israeli security officials say the new tactic helped spot and detain stone throwers. "The dogs help us apprehend people without hurting them. They are not attack dogs – they are patrol dogs trained to use their sense of smell and vision to conduct short chases, pinning the suspects to the ground until the soldiers arrive."

As usual, the Israeli official lies. Watch this film and judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5irjxfVCNV4

The Border Guard's Dog Unit includes a small number of fighters and Belgian Malinois Shepherd dogs, which are purchased in Europe and go through a prolonged training period alongside an assigned officer. At the end of the day, Israel insists on becoming  a qualified EU Member. Maybe using European dogs is indeed the way forwards for the Israelis.

One protestor told Ynet. "The IDF wants to set dogs on us, which reminds us of a dark time in the history of the Jewish people"  I may as well mention  that nothing in Jewish history is as remotely cruel and vicious as the current Israeli barbarism for the  brutality performed by the Jewish state is a collective  affair. It is committed by a popular army in the name of the Jewish people.

(2) Attorney seeks to bar Goldstone from US
From: Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> Date: 16.05.2010 01:03 PM

By E.B. SOLOMONT

Ex-Justice Department official cites judge’s rulings under apartheid.

NEW YORK – A well-known American Jewish attorney who worked to deport former Nazis from the US is urging American officials to bar former judge Richard Goldstone from entering the country over his rulings during South Africa’s apartheid regime.

In a letter sent to US officials, Neal Sher, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said that recently disclosed information about Goldstone’s apartheid-era rulings raised questions about whether he was eligible to enter the United States. The letter was sent to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Attorney-General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Individuals who admit to acts that constitute a crime of moral turpitude¨are ineligible to enter the US, Sher charged. The recent public revelations, to which Goldstone has reportedly admitted, would appear to fit within this provision. At a minimum, there is ample basis for federal authorities to initiate an investigation into this matter, Sher said.

Goldstone, the author of a report accusing Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, sat as a judge in South Africa during the apartheid regime. He has faced recent charges that he sent 28 black South Africans to their deaths. Goldstone has defended his rulings, saying he was part of the system and had to respect the laws of the land at the time, including enforcing laws he opposed.

In his judicial position, according to Sher, Goldstone was instrumental in effectuating and legitimizing a regime universally known for its widespread human rights abuses.

Sher, formerly director of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations, was instrumental in deporting dozens of Nazi war criminals. He played a major role in placing Austrian president Kurt Waldheim on a watch list of people ineligible to enter the US.

Sher had his own brush with trouble later, when he was investigated for misappropriating funds from the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims.

Source

In the same ‘hard copy’ edition of the Jerusalem Post, the following ad was placed by NGO Monitor attacking the New Israel  Fund…..

NIF Funds Groups Attempting to Erase Israel’s Jewish Framework

(3) Vanunu headed back to prison

By JTA

Sunday, May 16, 2010       3 Sivan, 5770     

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/05/12/2394770/vanunu-sent-back-to-prison

Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in prison for leaking Israel's nuclear secrets, is going back to jail, according to information released late Wednesday.

Vanunu, who was released in 2004, will return to jail for three months after refusing to perform community service for contacting a foreigner without authorization, a violation of his parole. He was arrested last December on suspicion that he had met with a Norwegian national.

A panel of Supreme Court justices decided Tuesday to return Vanunu to prison after the former technician at the Dimona nuclear plant was denied his request to serve his community service in Arab eastern Jerusalem. He told the judges that he worried about being attacked in west Jerusalem by angry Israelis.

Vanunu was jailed in Israel for discussing details of his work as a Dimona technician with the British Sunday Times. He reportedly revealed Israeli nuclear secrets and gave the newspaper photographs of the plant's operation.

Under the terms of his parole, Vanunu also is prohibited from leaving the country or approaching foreign embassies.

(4) Israeli policies are no different form Nazi racial laws - Gilad Atzmon

From: Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> Date: 15.05.2010 04:40 AM

On my way to Athens

by Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/on-my-way-to-athens-by-gilad-atzmon.html

Q: Why do you oppose your Jewish and Israeli identity?

GA: I do not oppose Jewish or Israeli identity. I oppose any possible form of Jewish politics and indeed any identity politics. The reason is simple. Since Jewish identity is racially orientated, every permutation of Jewish politics is racist to the bone and I am obviously against racism. In fact, Israel and Zionism was originally an attempt to rescue the Jew from racist politics and racial political orientation. Zionism invented the Jewish  nation. (or: Jews as a nation).  Early Zionists attempted to present the Jews as a people amongst other people instead of a distinct race. This idea looked fine on paper, yet, the reality of the Jewish state proves that Israel is the most radical form of Jewish chauvinism. The Israeli legal system is totally discriminatory toward non Jews. Israeli policies are no different form Nazi racial laws. 

Q: What was it that hurt you so much as to state publicly that you fight the Israeli in you? Don’t you feel that this is a harsh statement to make? A statement that shows anger?

GA: Yes I am indeed angry. Watching 1.5 million Palestinians being starved in Gaza makes me angry. Watching the IDF throw bombs and white phosphorous on elders, women and children who seek shelter in an UNRA compound makes me angry. Watching the Israeli air force flatten Lebanon in 2006 made me angry. Watching the holy land get sliced by a gigantic separation wall makes me angry. Transforming Palestine into a Jewish bunker makes me angry. Meeting dispossessed Palestinian refugees who cannot even visit their land makes me very angry. Realising that 1.5 million Iraqis lost their life because of a Zionist global war designed by Ziocon Wolfowitz makes me furious. Zionists advocating the Killing of Muslims in the name of moral interventionism freaks me out. Watching AIPAC promote more wars and violence makes my blood boil.

Q: Don’t Israelis or Jews have the right for a national homeland, a safe homeland that is?

GA: Strictly speaking the answer is NO. If the Jews ever had a right for a national home, they lost this right a long time ago. As we know Zionism celebrated the Jewish national revival at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Would you allow a bunch of Italian lunatics to invade your home in Athens just because they are convinced that your dwelling was once part of the Roman Empire? They could claim that your home was a property of their Roman forefathers. Clearly, Italians wouldn’t get away with it, but Zionists did, at least for a while.

There is no right for a racist state that celebrates its tribal symptoms at the expense of others. There is no room for Israel amongst the nations.

Q: What concessions have to be made for Palestinians to live free and prosper?

GA: Pretty simple. Israel must become a state of its citizens. At the moment a Jew in Brooklyn enjoys more rights in Palestine than a Palestinian who was born on the land.

Q: Why should Israelis cut down on armaments? Is it not the case that the increase in military equipment is due to their sentiment of insecurity, as they are surrounded by Arabs?

GA: It doesn’t matter anymore whether Israel cuts down on armaments. Israel’s defeat is inevitable. In 2006 the entire Israeli military was humiliated by a small paramilitary organization namely the Hezbollah. In 2009 Israel didn’t achieve any of its military objectives in spite of the massive deployment of IDF units and the collective punishment of civilians by using extreme military measures against civilians including WMDs. The Israelis employ more and more force, they entangle themselves in more and more colossal war crimes, the legitimacy of the Jewish State is a matter for historians. The doomed fate of Israel is written on the wall.

Q: ?Do you believe that Jewish people still feel unwanted, even though so many decades have passed since the Holocaust?

GA: It is hard for me to talk about Jewish people, for I do not know all Jews. However, Jewish politicians  always emphasize the fear of anti Semitism. All forms of Jewish politics present different methods of raising barriers between Jews and others, Zionism is there to separate the Jew from the Goy, the Bund (Jewish socialists) is also there to separate the Jew from the working class, the Jewish left is there to set a tribe of chosen people amongst peace lovers.

Q: Could Israelis and Palestinians live in peace?

GA: Not in a million years. The notion of peace and reconciliation are foreign to the Israeli ideology, politics and Identity. When an Israeli says Shalom, they do not mean peace, they actually mean ‘security for the Jews’. This self-centric mode was identified by Christ 2000 years ago. Love your neighbour and turn the other cheek was Jesus’ lesson. Israel on the other hand seeks collective gratification through revenge. According to the Jerusalem post 94% of Israeli Jews supported the 2009 IDF air raids against Palestinian civilians. There is no way to describe the fact above other than as an extreme form of lethal tribal barbarism.

For Israelis to live in peace, a metamorphic shift of consciousness is needed instead of a political shift.

Q: ?In what way can the “Ship to Gaza” help resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict?

GA: It is not there to resolve the conflict. It is there to first of all: Bring necessary aid to the people of Gaza. Secondly: It is there to raise media and public awareness of the ongoing colossal Israeli war crimes against humanity.

I would add that since the Palestinians are at the forefront of the war against modern evil. The Free Gaza is not just a humanitarian effort, it is actually a call from humanity, it is there to remind us all what humanism stands for.

Q: You are the founder of the “Orient House Ensemble”. What is it mainly about?

GA: Initially I wanted to Palestinise some Jewish tunes. I naively believed that if we play Israeli and Jewish tunes about homecoming implementing Arabic scales, Jews and Israelis may open their heart to the Palestinian cause. In fact some Jews and Israelis have  followed our line of thinking. However, many people in the UK and around the world realized what we tried to achieve. Our message wasn’t a break through in Israel but we found many attentive ears around the world. We are playing together for almost 10 years. We do not have any plans to stop.

Q: How can the Greek people stand up against the imminent new reality?

GA:   I travel all over the world and I can reassure you that the Greeks are at the very forefront of supporting Palestine. To oppose Israel is an ethical priority. All we have to do is to say what we believe and not to shy away from saying it loudly and proudly.

(5) Israel Primed For War on Iran: Netanyahu Deputy

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 11.05.2010 06:54 PM

By REUTERS

Published: May 10, 2010

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6492H420100510

HERZLIYA, Israel (Reuters) - Israel is primed for a war on Iran, a deputy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday, in a rare break with his government's reticence as world powers try to talk Tehran into curbing its nuclear plans.

By spearheading assaults on guerrillas in neighboring Lebanon and Palestinian territories, the Israeli air force had gained the techniques necessary for any future strikes on Iranian sites, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon said.

"There is no doubt that the technological capabilities, which improved in recent years, have improved range and aerial refueling capabilities, and have brought about a massive improvement in the accuracy of ordnance and intelligence," he told a conference of military officers and experts.

"This capability can be used for a war on terror in Gaza, for a war in the face of rockets from Lebanon, for war on the conventional Syrian army, and also for war on a peripheral state like Iran," said Yaalon, a former armed forces chief.

Israel, which is assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and launched a similar sortie in Syria in 2007.

But its veiled threats against foe Iran have been questioned by some independent analysts who see the potential targets as too distant, dispersed, numerous and well-defended for Israeli warplanes to take on alone.

Israel's leaders rarely use the term "war" while publicly discussing how to deal with Iran, in whose often secretive uranium enrichment, long-range missile projects and hostile rhetoric the Jewish state sees a mortal threat.

Officially endorsing efforts by U.N. Security Council powers to step up sanctions against Tehran, which denies having hostile designs, Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials usually speak obliquely of a need to "keep all options on the table."

Two other senior Israeli officials said U.S.-led diplomatic pressure should be given a chance. But they voiced misgivings.

"I believe that, by the middle of June, there will be international sanctions that will be watered down, with very low chances of being effective," Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a closed-door parliamentary committee, according to a spokesman.

"With that said, there is nevertheless importance to such sanctions, because the delay has only served Iran," he said, adding: "It is very possible that there will be other, more effective sanctions by a specific set of European countries."

Dan Meridor -- another deputy prime minister who, like Yaalon and Barak, belongs to Netanyahu's inner council -- sought to play down Israel's particular interest in having Iran reined in, calling it a global challenge.

"If in the end of the day, Iran does get nuclear, in spite of what America says and wants, this will have grave implications for world order, the balance of power and the rules of the game," Meridor told foreign journalists in Jerusalem.

In his address to the Fisher Institute for Air & Space Strategic Studies, Yaalon said Israel was in a proxy war with Iran due to its sponsorship of Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas and the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.

"There is no doubt, looking at the overall situation, that we are already in a military confrontation with Iran," he said. "Iran is the main motivator of those attacking us."

(6) Ahmedinejad accuses US, Israel of planning Iran nuclear attack

By Jessica Elgot

THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE May 4, 2010

http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/31315/ahmedinejad-accuses-us-israel-planning-iran-nuclear-attack

British delegates walked out of a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the United Nations, in which he attacked the US and Israel's nuclear programmes at a session on nuclear proliferation.

The US Department of Defence used the same meeting to call for transparency about nuclear arms – revealing it has 5,113 nuclear weapons currently in its arsenal.

Delegates from the UK, US, France, Hungary, New Zealand and Holland at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference left the room as Mr Ahmedinejad denied that Iran was building nuclear weapons.

A spokeswoman for the Board of Deputies said that they were greatly encouraged by the walk out by the British delegates and that they had made clear their concerns about Iran to the Foreign Office before Britain attended the meeting.

Mr Ahmedinejad said: “The United States has threatened to use nuclear weapons against other countries, including my country. The Zionist regime, too, continuously threatens other Middle Eastern countries.”

He called nuclear weapons “disgusting and shameful” yet appeared to criticise the UN for encouraging the use of nuclear power and for allowing a double standard in nuclear weapons programmes in the West.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Iran had to be held to account for continually misinforming the world about its nuclear developments.

Mrs Clinton said: "It has defied the UN Security Council and the IAEA and placed the future of the non-proliferation regime in jeopardy, and that is why it is facing increasing isolation and pressure from the international community."

She revealed the huge nuclear arsenal held by the United States, in a move which she said would improve transparency and encourage other states to do the same.

She said: "So for those who doubt that the United States will do its part on disarmament, this is our record, these are our commitments and they send a clear unmistakable signal."

No Israeli representatives attended the conference, as Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

Many of the other speakers at the conference called for tougher sanctions against Iran and condemned Western companies who conduct business with the country.

(7) Israel Lobby and War on Iran - Stephen Sniegoski

From: israel shamir <israel.shamir@gmail.com> Date: 25.04.2010 07:23 AM

Israel Lobby and War on Iran

by Stephen Sniegoski

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/24/israel-lobby-and-war-on-iran/

In his Foreign Policy blog, Stephen Walt, co-author of "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," is trying to determine why US leaders are planning to impose more sanctions on Iran or adopt even more drastic military measures.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/20/more_hype_about_iran

Walt observes that Iran does not threaten the US in any real way and leaves the question unanswered. Of course, Walt could find the reason if he looked at the title of his co-authored book. And if he really could not come up with this answer, he should undergo a medical examination for memory loss.

Everyone familiar with American politics knows the immense power of the Israel lobby, but they also know it is not safe to discuss its power publicly. In a review of Walt's faux predicament, Justin Raimondo points out:

"This lobby unites the broadest coalition in American politics, ranging from the left wing of the Democratic party all the way to the furthest reaches of the ultra-right, not to mention including the bipartisan political establishment in Washington."

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/20/the-making-of-american-foreign-policy/

Raimondo, I believe, goes a bit far in claiming that neocons had a major impact on shaping American foreign policy globally. I would limit their major impact to the Middle East, which since 9/11 has been the fundamental area of US concern. And, with this caveat, I would agree with Raimondo that "The present administration, for all its talk of 'change,' has continued to operate within the same paradigm." Once the US began to pursue the neocons' Middle East war agenda, it has become politically difficult to get off that track.

While neocons stood out in the push for war with Iraq, the full Israel lobby and Israel itself, though supportive of that war, stayed mostly in the background. The role of Israel is far more overt in regard to Iran. "Here," Raimondo writes, "the power of the Israel lobby is rearing up to its full height, with Israeli government officials openly calling on the nations of the world – i.e. the United States – to commit acts of war against Iran: impose sanctions, set up a blockade, and effect 'regime change' by whatever means. And Israel's amen corner in the US is echoing this call, with the drumbeat for war getting louder by the month."

Raimondo holds that the force preventing an attack on Iran is the American people. "Our leaders," he writes, "are afraid of the public reaction if it should ever come to war, and so the President and his administration are caught in a vise, pressed by fear of the Lobby on one side, and fear of their own people on the other." I must admit that I have less faith in the wisdom of the American people than Raimondo and fear that the administration, if it truly wanted war, could come up with an incident to generate the necessary public support.

What then prevents Obama from going to war? First, I think it is apparent that Obama would not attack Iran if it were not for outside pressure, but he is a rather weak reed to oppose the Israel lobby. Without substantial support, Obama, like almost all politicians, would cave in to the demands of the powerful Israel lobby.

The traditional foreign policy establishment, however, opposes such a war because it would be harmful to the American national interest, especially because it could lead to a cut-off of Middle Eastern oil that would send the industrial world into an economic tailspin. It is this thinking that prevails among the unelected individuals in the national security/foreign policy sectors of the federal government. I might add, however, that few members of the traditional foreign policy establishment dare to mention that the Israel lobby is pushing the country to war. These people have important positions and thus have much to lose (and probably a few skeletons in their closets), and don't believe that they are sufficiently powerful to withstand a smear attack by the Israel lobby and its minions in Congress and the media.

(The Israel lobby's hounding of former ambassador Chas Freeman when he was nominated chairman of the National Intelligence Council in 2009 is an example of the difficulties of one who openly opposed the Israel lobby.)

Obama must realize, however, that opposing the Israel lobby on an issue it deems vital could spell political death for any politician. This could certainly be the case for Obama in his current politically precarious position. Not only could the Democrats suffer extensive losses in the 2010 congressional elections, but Obama could be defeated in 2012 by the appropriate Republican opponent. General David Petraeus, for example, who is very much in the neocon camp, but not branded as a right-winger, would especially be difficult for a weakened Obama to defeat.

On the other hand, as Raimondo writes, war might serve "the interests of a politically beleaguered, increasingly unpopular President or party to divert public attention away from domestic problems by launching a campaign of fear." War especially would be seen as a viable option if Obama's popularity were to fall to such a low level that only something drastic could save him; wars certainly unite a country, a least for a short period, behind the leader.

So while war with Iran is not a certainty, neither is it unlikely. As Ron Paul points out, the Iran sanctions legislation now in Congress would be major step toward war.
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/23/sanctions-on-iran-is-an-act-of-war/

(8) Saudi Prince: Afghans are uniting against US; Iran-Israel unlevel playing field

From: Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> Date: 17.05.2010 04:24 PM

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article54062.ece

Turki Al-Faisal calls on Obama to push for Middle East settlement

By MICHEL COUSINS | ARAB NEWS

Published: May 15, 2010

RIYADH: In an attack on US policy in the Middle East, former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Turki Al-Faisal on Saturday said President Obama had until September to push for a settlement of the Palestinian issue.

If nothing happens by then, then the US president has to make "the morally decent" gesture and recognize Palestine as a sovereign independent state, he said.

Prince Turki also attacked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for sending out "confusing signals" on nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East, describing them as "unacceptable."

He also said that the US had lost "the moral high ground" it had acquired after 9/11 in the Middle East because of its "negligence, ignorance and arrogance."

Prince Turki, who now heads the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, was speaking in Riyadh at a symposium to mark the 35th anniversary of Arab News. The event was also attended by diplomats and Saudi business figures as well as Prince Faisal bin Salman, chairman of Arab News' parent company, the Saudi Research and Marketing Group (SRMG), Khaled Almaeena, editor in chief of Arab News, and other leading SRMG figures.

In his hard-hitting speech, the prince said that there had to be a UN resolution guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Iraq to prevent some of its neighbors from trying to seize parts of the country. He accused Iran in particular of having territorial ambitions there. He also accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki of trying to hijack the recent elections. On Afghanistan, he said the policy there had to shift from nation building to destroying the terrorists.

He added that a UN resolution on Iraq's territorial integrity is the only way of thwarting the "sinister" designs of those of its neighbors intent on exploiting its conflict to their own advantage. The "forces of evil" are still very much alive and active within the country, he said.

Making a grim prediction of upcoming events in Iraq, he asked his audience to imagine what would happen "once internal strife and fighting escalates." Making matters worse has been the "deliberate effort on the part of the incumbent Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki to hijack the result of the elections and deny the Iraqi people their legitimately elected government."

The consequences, he said, would be more bloodshed and potential civil war. He said there has to be international guarantees ensuring Iraq remains a functioning sovereign state. The alternative would be "regional conflict on a scale not seen since the Ottoman-Safavid wars of the 17th and 18th centuries."

It was the Obama administration, however, that bore the brunt of his criticism. Prince Turki said President Obama had proved eloquent in his vision of a two-state solution of the Palestinian issue, but this was not enough. He has to be "equally eloquent" in implementing it. The US has to be the "Big Bear pushing us all" — Israelis and Arabs alike — to make it happen, he said. "It is not enough to talk the talk. He has to walk the walk."

If there is no resolution by the September deadline set by the Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo earlier this month, the US should recognize the Palestinian state "and then pack up, leave us in peace and let the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese negotiate directly with the Israelis." From Obama there must be "no more platitudes, good wishes and visions, please."

In Afghanistan, the prince called on the White House to likewise change its policy. "The inept way in which the US has dealt with President Karzai beggars belief." The result is that both sides are resentful of each other with a "sour taste in their mouths." The aim has to be to destroy the terrorists, then withdraw and leave the Afghans to sort their country out themselves.

"The US should hunt down the terrorists on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border, arrest them or kill them and get out and let the Afghans people deal with their problems," he said.

A continuing US presence only fuels the conflict. "As long as GI boots remain on Afghan soil they remain targets of resistance for the Afghan people." The Taleban of today, he said, were not the same a decade ago. They are no longer exclusively Pashtun warriors. "They are now any and every Afghan of whatever ilk who raises arms against the foreign invaders," he said.

By declaring them the enemy "America has declared the people of Afghanistan enemy," he warned.

On Iran, the prince said that the international community's stance over its nuclear ambitions has been on the wrong footing since the start; the "reset button" needs to be pushed. The stick and carrot approach will not work and there has to be a level playing field, he said. "You cannot ask Iran to play on one level while you allow Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to play on other levels."

He was highly critical of the way in which the US has handled the nuclear issue and its wider regional implications, singling out Hillary Clinton in particular. She has damaged efforts to make the Middle East nuclear-weapon-free when — following the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in New York at the beginning of the month which supported the idea — she said that the conditions for such a zone do not as yet exist.

"I hope President Obama, who has made universal disarmament his goal ... will find the way to correct his secretary of state's nullification of making our area free of weapons of mass destruction," the prince said.

The speech is not the first occasion that Prince Faisal has criticized the Obama administration. In May last year, in an interview with the German press agency DPA he said that President Obama had said "all the right things" about the Palestine issue, but "what we need now is some action." Last September, he labeled Obama's talk about energy independence as unrealistic "demagoguery." However, on Saturday diplomats and others attending the symposium were in agreement that it was the most hard-hitting to date. There were noticeable deep intakes of breath in the halls when he referred to American "arrogance."

On a lighter note, responding to a question about reported efforts by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to whip up anti-Saudi sentiment, he was decidedly unperturbed. He said that Lieberman had done more to serve the Arab cause than any other Israeli — a reference to Lieberman's extreme political views and the distaste with which they have been received, particularly in Europe.