Thoroughly Modern Marx

The economic crisis has spawned a resurgence of interest in Karl Marx. Worldwide sales of Das Kapital have shot up (one lone German publisher sold thousands of copies in 2008, compared with 100 the year before), a measure of a crisis so broad in scope and devastation that it has global capitalism—and its high priests—in an ideological tailspin.

Yet even as faith in neoliberal orthodoxies has imploded, why resurrect Marx? To start, Marx was far ahead of his time in predicting the successful capitalist globalization of recent decades. He accurately foresaw many of the fateful factors that would give rise to today’s global economic crisis: what he called the “contradictions” inherent in a world comprised of competitive markets, commodity production, and financial speculation.

Penning his most famous works in an era when the French and American revolutions were less than a hundred years old, Marx had premonitions of AIG and Bear Stearns trembling a century and a half later. He was singularly cognizant of what he called the “most revolutionary part” played in human history by the bourgeoisie—those forerunners of today’s Wall Street bankers and corporate executives. As Marx put it in The Communist Manifesto, “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. . . . In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”

But Marx was no booster of capitalist globalization in his time or ours. Instead, he understood that “the need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe,” foreseeing that the development of capitalism would inevitably be “paving the way for more extensive and exhaustive crises.” Marx identified how disastrous speculation could trigger and exacerbate crises in the whole economy. And he saw through the political illusions of those who would argue that such crises could be permanently prevented through incremental reform.

Like every revolutionary, Marx wanted to see the old order overthrown in his lifetime. But capitalism had plenty of life left in it, and he could only glimpse, however perceptively, the mistakes and wrong turns that future generations would commit. Those of us now cracking open Marx will find he had much to say that is relevant today, at least for those looking to “recover the spirit of the revolution,” not merely to “set its ghost walking again.”

By: By Leo Panitch

see the rest here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4856

I guess we still have something to learn from Marx. Unabashed speculation and no regulation is doomed to collapse, and it what's more, it may well lead to the rise of the global proleteriat and the end of the bourgeoise...We can only hope. Long live the revolution!

Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney has urged the CIA to release memos which he says show harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding work.

His comments follow the publication of memos written by Bush administration lawyers which justified the techniques.

Mr Cheney said that the decision to publish the memos was a mistake.

And it was misleading, he said, because the documents did not include those demonstrating that harsh interrogation delivered intelligence "success".

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is that they put out the legal memos... but they didn't put out the memos that show the success of the effort," Mr Cheney told Fox News.

JUSTIN WEBB'S BLOG
Justin Webb
The real question - of course - is whether waterboarding is justified under any circumstances

Read Justin's thoughts in full

"There are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified. I formally ask that they be declassified now."

The American people should have a chance to weigh the intelligence obtained alongside the legal debate, he said.

Mr Cheney made his comments as US President Barack Obama visited the CIA headquarters just outside Washington.

In a move seen as an attempt to boost morale, Mr Obama told employees that the CIA remained key to protecting the country.

Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge that potentially we've made some mistakes
Barack Obama

Interrogation 'morass' for Obama
Q&A: Water-boarding

Staff had faced a "difficult" few days, he acknowledged, but they had his full support and were key to tackling threats from groups such as al-Qaeda.

Mr Obama said he had had no choice but to release the Bush administration's legal justification for interrogation techniques, which he considers to be torture - and has banned.

"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge that potentially we've made some mistakes.

"That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be president of the United States and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA," he said.

The memos, detailing the range of techniques the CIA was allowed to use during the Bush administration, were released on 16 April.

Quoting one of the memos, The New York Times said water-boarding - or mock drowning - was used on two al-Qaeda terror suspects on up to 266 occasions.

Other methods mentioned in the memos include week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and the use of painful positions.

Mr Obama on Thursday said he would not prosecute under anti-torture laws CIA personnel who relied in good faith on Bush administration legal opinions issued after the 11 September attacks.

But he has been criticised by human rights organisations and UN officials, who say charges are necessary to prevent future abuses and to hold people accountable.

Nice Cheney, nice. Torture works...The memo release was a mistake, but at least the administration could have shown the memos that suggest it works? You are a dark and scary man...

UN Rapporteur On Torture: Obama’s Pledge Not To Pursue Torture Prosecutions Of CIA Agents Is Not Legal

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/19/obama-violated-int-law/

When President Obama released the four of the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) Bush-era torture memos last week, he issued a statement promising not to pursue torture prosecutions against CIA agents who relied on the memos to justify their use of torture tactics on terrorist suspects in U.S. custody. (Notably, Obama left open the possibility of prosecuting the torture architects.) “[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,” Obama said.

But in an interview with the Austrian newspaper Der Standard, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Manfred Nowak, explained that Obama’s grant of immunity is likely a violation of international law. As a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is obligated to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens that are believed to have engaged in torture:

STANDARD: CIA torturers are according to U.S. President Obama not to be prosecuted. Is that decision supportable?

NOWAK: Absolutely not. The United States has, like all other Contracting Parties to the UN Convention Against Torture, committed itself to investigate instances of torture and to prosecute all cases in which credible evidence of torture is found.

Indeed, Article 2 of the convention on torture explains that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” can be used to legally justify torture. Further, the convention states that an “order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.”

Nowak explained that by invoking the OLC’s memos as justification for the actions of CIA agents against terrorist suspects in U.S. custody, Obama is acting contrary to U.S. obligations under the treaty:

STANDARD: In other words, by making this announcement, Obama has violated international law?

NOWAK: Correct. It is a violation of binding international treaty law in this case, because this is an international law convention — and it provides unequivocally that states are not merely obligated to make torture a crime, but also to prosecute any incidents of which credible evidence can be found.

In announcing his decision to release the OLC memos, Obama also suggested that he is not inclined to conduct a full investigation into the government’s use of torture. Nowak, however, said the he believes that such an investigation ought to be Obama’s highest priority. “Most importantly, there should be a comprehensive investigation undertaken by an independent body. Whether by a special investigatory commission created by Congress or by a special investigator — there are different approaches,” Nowak expalined.

Role-playing games pioneer dies

Dave Arneson, one of the co-creators of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-play game, has died of cancer at 61 in a hospice in St Paul, Minnesota.

His two-year battle with the disease ended on Tuesday when he passed away peacefully, his daughter said.

Arneson created the game famous for its oddly shaped dice in 1974 along with the late Gary Gygax.

"The biggest thing about my dad's world is he wanted people to have fun in life," said his daughter Malia.

Arneson and Gygax developed D&D using medieval characters and mythical creatures and it was a worldwide hit, particularly among teenage boys.

It eventually was turned into video games, books and films.

Pioneer

"I think we get distracted by the everyday things you have to do in life and we forget to enjoy life and have fun," Malia Weinhagen told the Associated Press.

"But my dad never did. He just wanted people to have fun."

D&D, described by AP as "the quintessential geek pastime", spawned copycat games and later inspired a whole genre of computer games that is still growing in popularity.

"[Arneson] developed many of the fundamental ideas of role-playing: that each player controls just one hero, that heroes gain power through adventures and that personality is as important as combat prowess," said a statement from Wizards of the Coast, which produces D&D.

The company noted that Blackmoor, a game Arneson had been developing before D&D, was the "first-ever role-playing campaign and the prototype for all [role-playing game] campaigns since".

Arneson met Gygax, who died in March of last year, at a games convention in 1969.

He is survived by his daughter and two grandchildren.

from: BBC.co.uk

Dealt a critical hit too early. Thanks for the fantastic fun.

Indian in record chilli attempt

An Indian mother is set for an entry into the Guinness World Records after eating 51 of the world's hottest chilli in two minutes.

Anandita Dutta Tamuly, 26, gobbled up the "ghost chillis" in front of visiting British chef Gordon Ramsay in the north-eastern state of Assam.

Ms Tamuly told Associated Press she "felt terrible" - because she had managed 60 in an earlier local event.

Mr Ramsay tried a chilli but said "it's too much" and pleaded for water.

He is in Assam for a television shoot of a global food series.

'Awestruck'

Guinness World Records accepted in 2007 that the ghost chilli was the world's spiciest at more than one million Scoville units, the measure of spiciness, twice the heat of its closest rival.

A standard green chilli has about 1,500 units.

The chilli record took place on Thursday in Jorhat, 300km (200 miles) north-east of state capital, Guwahati.

Ms Tamuly told AP she used to eat the chilli as a child "while children of my age roamed the village to look for berries".

Atul Lahkar, a local chef, told the Times of India that Ms Tamuly also "smeared seeds of 25 chillies in her eyes in one minute with the crowd simply awestruck".

The previous record for eating was held by a South African with eight jalapenos in a minute.

Guinness World Records has not yet formally confirmed the record.

Ok, wow. I mean wow. That chili is about 2-3 times hotter than habanero or scotch bonnet peppers (and about a quarter of law enforcement pepper spray!). That is fucking hot! I am in awe.

Now, what surprises me is that the previous record was only 8 jalapenos in 1 minute. Please, I could do that...and have. That can't be right. I guess I should have made my stab at Guinness early. I am not likely to beat the new winner. Ms. Tamuly, I salute you and your teflon-coated gut.

Are reactionary conservatives literally this fucking Nuts

I think so...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Raul Castro Meets With Visiting U.S. Lawmakers

All Things Considered, April 7, 2009 · Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri is one of six lawmakers who met Monday with Cuban President Raul Castro. Cleaver says that Castro indicated he wants to begin talking with the U.S. government about normalizing relations between the two nations.

by The Associated Press

NPR.org, April 6, 2009 · President Raul Castro met Monday with seven visiting members of the Congressional Black Caucus, his first face-to-face discussions with U.S. leaders since he became Cuba's president last year.

State television showed images of Castro, who holds the rank of four-star army general, wearing a business suit instead of his trademark olive-green fatigues and sitting down with Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, and other members of the American delegation behind closed doors.

An official communique read on the air noted that the U.S. representatives had held meetings in recent days with the head of the Cuban parliament and the country's foreign minister, but provided no details of what was said when they met with Castro, or how long the meeting lasted.

The lawmakers are in Havana to talk about improving U.S.-Cuba relations amid speculation that Washington is ready to loosen some facets of its 47-year-old trade embargo against the island.

The meeting came as Fidel Castro said Cuba is not afraid to talk directly to the United States and that the communist government does not thrive on confrontation as its detractors have long claimed.

In a column published in state-controlled newspapers earlier Monday, the 82-year-old former president also praised U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, saying the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "is walking on solid ground" with a proposal to appoint a special envoy to reshape U.S.-Cuba relations.

Fidel Castro wrote that "those capable of serenely analyzing the events, as is the case of the senator from Indiana, use an irrefutable argument: The measures of the United States against Cuba, over almost half a century, are a total failure."

Though they share a strong and mutual distrust of Washington, both Castro brothers have said for decades that they would be willing to talk personally with U.S. leaders. Fidel repeated Cuba's desire for dialogue in the column, saying direct negotiation "is the only way to secure friendship and peace among peoples." Currently, the countries do not have formal diplomatic relations.

"There is no need to emphasize what Cuba has always said: We do not fear dialogue with the United States," he wrote. "Nor do we need confrontation to exist, as some foolish people think. We exist precisely because we believe in our ideas and we have never feared dialogue with the adversary."

Suffering from an undisclosed illness in a secret location, Fidel Castro was succeeded by the 77-year-old Raul as president in February 2008.

Lawmakers in both houses of the U.S. Congress have proposed a measure that would prohibit the president from barring Americans from traveling to Cuba except in extreme cases, effectively lifting a travel ban that is a key component of the embargo.

Lee has said many of the representatives, who arrived in Cuba on Friday and are scheduled to leave Tuesday, support the travel legislation.

Democratic Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina said Monday that Fidel Castro's column made it "clear that both countries can exist without either dialogue or adversity to each other."

"But wouldn't it be so wonderful," he added, "if we struck a dialogue and found the things that were mutually advantageous and mutually of interest to our two countries and stopped the historical divisions that have separated us [though we are] so close geographically?"

Check the audio from NPR here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102851833

Whoohoo! Let's move. End that dumbass embargo. Jesus, you would think after 50 years of no positive effect it would be time to drop the sanctions and open up travel. We are the only country that keeps such a stupid and pointless set of restrictions on the country. And for fuck's sake, we have cordial relations with way, way more repressive countries--Egypt, China, god Israel is about 1000 times more brutal (at least to the Palestinians) and these countries receive the VAST majority of US foreign aid every year. So...that repression seems like it's not the reason.

New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ

The Obama DOJ channels Cheney/Addington in seeking to have a new lawsuit against Bush officials dismissed.

Glenn Greenwald

Apr. 06, 2009 |

When Congress immunized telecoms last August for their illegal participation in Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, Senate Democratic apologists for telecom immunity repeatedly justified that action by pointing out that Bush officials who broke the law were not immunized -- only the telecoms. Here, for instance, is how Sen. Jay Rockefeller justified telecom immunity in a Washington Post Op-Ed:

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Taking them at their word, EFF -- which was the lead counsel in the lawsuits against the telecoms -- thereafter filed suit, in October, 2008, against the Bush administration and various Bush officials for illegally spying on the communications of Americans. They were seeking to make good on the promise made by Congressional Democrats: namely, that even though lawsuits against telecoms for illegal spying will not be allowed any longer, government officials who broke the law can still be held accountable.

But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.

There are several notable aspects to what happened here with this new court filing from Obama:

(1) Unlike in the prior cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush theory of state secrets -- in which the Obama DOJ was simply maintaining already-asserted arguments in those lawsuits by the Bush DOJ -- the motion filed on Friday was the first response of any kind to this lawsuit by the Government. Indeed, EFF filed the lawsuit in October but purposely agreed with Bush lawyers to an extension of the time to respond until April, in the hope that by making this Obama's case, and giving his DOJ officials months to consider what to do when first responding, they would receive a different response than the one they would have gotten from the Bush DOJ.

That didn't happen. This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.

(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "soverign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying. As EFF's Kevin Bankston put it:

This is the first time [the DOJ] claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA.

Since EFF's lawsuit is the first to sue for actual damages under FISA and the Wiretap Act, it's arguable whether this immunity argument applied to any of the previous lawsuits. What is clear, though, is that the Bush DOJ, in any context, never articulated this bizarre view that all claims of illegal government surveillance are immunized in the absence of "willful disclosure" to the public of the intercepted communications. This is a brand new Obama DOJ invention to blanket themselves (and Bush officials) with extraordinary immunity even when they knowingly break our country's surveillance laws.

(3) Equally difficult to overstate is how identical the Obama DOJ now is to the Bush DOJ when it comes to its claims of executive secrecy -- not merely in substance but also tone and rhetoric (at least in the area of secrecy; there are still important differences -- no sweeping Article II lawbreaking powers and the like -- which shouldn't be overlooked). I defy anyone to read the Obama DOJ's brief here and identify even a single difference between what it says and what the Bush DOJ routinely said in the era of Cheney/Addington (other than the fact that Bush used to rely on secret claims of national security harm from Michael McConnell whereas Obama relies on secret claims filed by Dennis Blair). Even for those most cynical about what Obama was likely to do or not do in the civil liberties realm, reading this brief from the Obama DOJ is so striking -- and more than a little depressing -- given how indistinguishable it is from everything that poured out of the Bush DOJ regarding secrecy powers in order to evade all legal accountability.

Don't take my word for that. I mean: really, don't. Instead, I'm going to excerpt just a few of the key passages from the Obama DOJ's brief to convey a sense of how absolute is the Obama administration's claims of executive power and secrecy rights -- remember: all advanced in order to demand that courts not consider any claims that the Bush administration broke the law in how it spied on Americans (click on images to enlarge):

Obama DOJ Brief - Page 2:

Obama DOJ Brief - Page 12:

Obama DOJ Brief - Page 13:

Obama DOJ Brief - Page 15:

Obama DOJ Brief - Page 16:

Obama DOJ Brief - Page 18:

Every defining attribute of Bush's radical secrecy powers -- every one -- is found here, and in exactly the same tone and with the exact same mindset. Thus: how the U.S. government eavesdrops on its citizens is too secret to allow a court to determine its legality. We must just blindly accept the claims from the President's DNI that we will all be endangered if we allow courts to determine the legality of the President's actions. Even confirming or denying already publicly known facts -- such as the involvement of the telecoms and the massive data-mining programs -- would be too damaging to national security. Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."

What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior. As EFF's Bankston put it:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This is the Obama DOJ's work and only its work, and it is equal to, and in some senses surpasses, the radical secrecy and immunity claims of the Bush administration.

-- Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/

Happy Cheese Weasel Day!

Unknown to most, April 3rd is Cheese Weasel Day, the holiday where the Cheese Weasel brings dairy goodness to all the good boys and girls in the tech industry. While the origins are murky, it seems to have started around 1992 when a weasel was spotted carrying a Kraft Single. This, they assumed, must be the Cheese Weasel, and therefore, that it must be Cheese Weasel Day. What was the weasel going to do with the cheese? He must be off to put it under the keyboards of good tech workers everywhere.

The practice of the holiday seems to spread through word of mouth. I first heard of it when I showed up to work on April 3rd many years ago and a fantastic spread of exotic cheeses was laid out in the middle of the office. It wasn’t until a few hours later, after the food coma had started to wear down, that I started to think about the legend, “The Cheese Weasel leaves cheese under the keyboards of good tech workers… cheese under the keyboards… keyboards.” I looked, and there was a cheese single, still wrapped. I wonder how long it would have lasted had I not found it.

The holiday does seem to be growing. Each year, more and more sites show up with a reference to the holiday or the song (yes, there is a song). One site even offers Cheese Weasel Day (CWD) ecards. The methods of celebration vary. Some prefer to celebrate with the best cheeses and freshest baguettes, while others eschew that practice and insist on keeping with the tradition of cheese food singles.

(from: http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/04/03/happy-cheese-weasel-day-2/)

I'm Still looking for my cheese, it has to be here somewhere.

Livni condemns new Israel leaders

Israel's former chief peace negotiator says the way the new government is talking shows it will not be a partner for peace with the Palestinians.

Tzipi Livni's criticism follows the rejection by her successor as foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, of recent US-backed efforts towards a peace deal.

"What happened is that the government announced that Israel is not relevant, is not a partner," she said.

New PM Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged to seek peace but has not detailed how.

Ms Livni's centrist Kadima party came narrowly ahead of Mr Netanyahu's right-wing Likud in the February election, but he was asked to form a coalition as right-leaning parties predominated.

From today, Israel has announced that it is not a partner Tzipi Livni

In his speech on Wednesday, at a foreign ministry handover attended by Ms Livni, the ultra-nationalist Mr Lieberman said Israel was not bound by the Annapolis accords agreed with the Palestinians and the Bush administration in November 2007.

He said the only legitimate document was another US-sponsored deal, the Road Map peace plan of 2003, because he said it was ratified by the Israeli government and the UN Security Council.

First test

In an interview with Israeli army radio, Ms Livni said hardliners had avoided peace efforts in the past with the "pathetic excuse" that there had been no partner on the Palestinian side.

COALITION MEMBERS Likud: 27 seats, 15 ministers Yisrael Beiteinu 15 : 5 ministers Labour: 13 seats, 5 ministers Shas: 11 seats, 4 ministers Jewish Home: 3 seats, 1 minister United Torah Judaism: 5 seats Analysis: Israel's unwieldy government

"From today, Israel has announced that it is not a partner," she said.

"The remarks do not represent Israel, the remarks hurt Israel," she added, and urged Mr Netanyahu to disavow them.

Correspondents say Mr Netanyahu has softened his opposition towards the Palestinians since his last premiership in the 1990s.

However, they add, the appointment of Mr Lieberman has angered Palestinians and raised international concerns because of his hard-line positions on the peace process and his manifesto which was widely seen as racist against Arabs.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Mr Lieberman's remarks were the first test for US President Barack Obama in the Middle East.

"He has slammed the door in the face of the US and the international community," he said.

No land for peace

US state department spokesman Gordon Duguid would not be drawn into commenting on Mr Lieberman's views when he briefed reporters in Washington.

Instead, he stressed Mr Netanyahu's stated commitment to achieving peace and said the administration would work closely to advance that cause.

Analysts say the Road Map never got off the ground because both sides accused each other of failing to meet their obligations.

Israel said the Palestinian Authority had not clamped down on militants, while Palestinians said Israel ignored a freeze on settlement activity on occupied territory.

Annapolis was designed to get over that hump by jumping directly to final status talks on Palestinian independence.

However, Annapolis too got stuck and had made little apparent progress by its initial deadline of the end of 2008.

After his speech, Mr Lieberman went further in a TV interview, saying he also opposed withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights as part of peace negotiations with Syria.

He said he was "very much in favour of peace with Syria - but only on one basis - peace in return for peace" and not, by implication, a land-for-peace deal.

Syria says the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967, must be returned in full if there is to be peace between the two countries.

Alas...