Contributed by Ahmad
A Must See Video which, in an Orwellian way, is presented by Western Media as Hamas torturing Palestinians. But when you see the people being tortured, they are wearing shirts of Hamas' "Executive Force." So, it is totally the opposite! Black propaganda at its worst. Any one who speaks Arabic can tell that the torturers are Dahlan's thugs. After beating the Hamas people viciously, they force them to chant for Dahlan, "With our lives and blood we will redeem you o Dahlan!" Also at the end they force them to chant,"Hamas is Shiite, Hamas is Shiite!" Which of course is not true, but it is supposed to put Hamas in the Iranian camp; a sleazy sectarian attempt. Is there any doubt that Israel is behind this thug Dahlan?? This is unbelievable duplicity by western media to turn things totally upside down.
Click Here to Watch This Shocking Video
This video can also be seen on the blog Politiquesusa
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Voices of reason and common sense in Ha'aretz
Mahmoud Abbas is a fiction by Israel Harel
George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert looked pathetic giving their "full backing" to the broken-down crutch that is Mahmoud Abbas. Contrary to the talk in Washington, nothing has changed to open a new opportunity for negotiations over a final settlement. It is impossible to hold talks with Abbas, just like it was impossible to hold talks in the past on any kind of arrangement, and certainly not on a permanent settlement. The Hamas victory in the Gaza Strip and the establishment of a "moderate" government in Ramallah do not divide the territory into Hamastan in the Gaza Strip and Fatahstan in Judea and Samaria. This is only another illusion in the basket of Israeli illusions - a fallacy that's part of the same belief that there is an Arab leader (it used to be Yasser Arafat, and now it is Mahmoud Abbas) who wants to sign an agreement with us, and one that entails relinquishing the right of return and recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and Zionist state.
It is not only the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and their leadership who do not recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state with a Jewish and Zionist character, but as a number of recently published documents have revealed, it is a view shared by entities representing the Arab citizens of Israel too.
The Palestinian government sworn in earlier this week is a fiction, even if the United States and Israel support it. In Ramallah, where this fictitious government sits, Hamas won a decisive victory in the last elections: four seats in parliament for Hamas, and only one for Fatah. In Nablus, four seats went to Hamas and two to Fatah. In Hebron: nine to Hamas and none for Fatah. In Jerusalem: four to Hamas and two for Fatah. In the cities of Judea and Samaria Hamas won 30 parliamentary seats. Fatah got only 12.
Given the circumstances, the new government does not represent the Palestinians - only Israeli illusions, and possibly also those of the Americans and the Europeans. The Israel Defense Forces cannot prevent the erosion of Fatah's military power, and it is doubtful whether it is even worth investing efforts in such futility. The experience of recent years proves that our "allies," Mohammad Dahlan among them, are only boisterous characters - corrupt and lacking any real power. They are certainly no ally of Israel.
In any case, Hamas will defeat them, and Israel should prepare well for the confrontation ahead. And in a confrontation of this nature, the various Dahlans would bring no benefit, only a burden.
Abbas' men lost in the fight not because Hamas militants are more brutal or better trained. If Fatah could, it would have adopted the same methods. Hamas won because the vast majority of the Gaza Strip population supports it, and this is first and foremost support for the religious ideology of the movement, which calls for the destruction of the Zionist entity. And as the elections have shown, this call is shared by the vast majority in Judea and Samaria, the area which Israeli analysts and politicians have designated for a Fatah state.
Certainly since the elections, areas A and B have been controlled by Hamas. As the events in the Gaza Strip show, the fact that many countries around the world have opposed the Hamas regime did not weaken support for the group. While in Judea and Samaria, thanks to the "occupation," Israel is able to prevent, and it is important that it prevent, some of the bloodletting, it is unable to prevent the weakening, and even the disappearence of Fatah as a significant force.
It is therefore time to let the truth out: Abbas is a fiction, and he cannot be saved.
Free Barghouti: Haaretz Editorial
One of the leaders of the Palestinian people has been incarcerated for approximately five years now in Hadarim Prison, in central Israel. The time has come to release him. For years, Marwan Barghouti has tried to persuade Israelis to end the occupation through negotiation. He has gone from one Israeli party headquarters to the next, meeting with politicians across the political spectrum. He tried to persuade them in order to preempt the next confrontation.
Barghouti failed, the second intifada broke out, and he himself turned to the path of violent struggle. After going underground for months, during which he still tried to address the Israeli public through its own media, Barghouti was arrested in April 2002 and prosecuted. He was sentenced for five life terms in prison, plus 40 years.
It is doubtful whether arresting and prosecuting him was diplomatically wise, but there is no doubting the political wisdom of releasing him.
During his years in prison, Barghouti has acted to restrain the armed struggle and bolster his people's moderate leadership, using envoys to achieve this goal. Barghouti never left his native West Bank, never took to the habits of power characteristic of the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership in Tunisia. He became a popular leader - especially in the West Bank, and to a lesser degree in the Gaza Strip.
Modern history - including Israel's - has known national leaders who turned to violence and were jailed for years, until they were released to become political leaders who marched their peoples toward independence peacefully. Nelson Mandela is one such example. The leaders of the Zionist undergrounds in prestate Israel are another. Now, Barghouti's turn has come. Environmental Protection Minister Gideon Ezra deserves praise for speaking in favor of releasing Barghouti. Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer did not rule out the possibility either.
Fatah's moderate leadership is in a serious crisis. Israel's interest calls for its consolidation, albeit after outrageous delays, and no one matches Barghouti's ability to achieve that. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's promises in Washington that Israel would be willing to take "far-reaching" measures to assist the Palestinian Authority's emergency government must be backed by immediate action. Releasing prisoners is the first step one should demand of anyone who promises such steps.
The Israeli government should have long since helped Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to govern his people. Among other measures, it should have done this by allowing him to bring home real achievements. Releasing prisoners, Barghouti among them, could serve to change the atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinians in a heartbeat. It would prove the sincerity of Israel's statements regarding its intention to turn over a new leaf and bolster the moderate forces. The issue of prisoners who have been jailed for years holds extreme importance for Palestinian society. Any Palestinian leader who would succeed in bringing about their release will receive instant and widespread public sympathy.
The prime minister's statements must not remain empty words - especially not now, when a practical opportunity for dialogue with a moderate Palestinian leadership has presented itself. Now that Gaza has fallen into Hamas' hands, no effort should be spared in the attempt to salvage the West Bank from extremists. Barghouti as a free leader could greatly assist in achieving that.
George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert looked pathetic giving their "full backing" to the broken-down crutch that is Mahmoud Abbas. Contrary to the talk in Washington, nothing has changed to open a new opportunity for negotiations over a final settlement. It is impossible to hold talks with Abbas, just like it was impossible to hold talks in the past on any kind of arrangement, and certainly not on a permanent settlement. The Hamas victory in the Gaza Strip and the establishment of a "moderate" government in Ramallah do not divide the territory into Hamastan in the Gaza Strip and Fatahstan in Judea and Samaria. This is only another illusion in the basket of Israeli illusions - a fallacy that's part of the same belief that there is an Arab leader (it used to be Yasser Arafat, and now it is Mahmoud Abbas) who wants to sign an agreement with us, and one that entails relinquishing the right of return and recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and Zionist state.
It is not only the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and their leadership who do not recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state with a Jewish and Zionist character, but as a number of recently published documents have revealed, it is a view shared by entities representing the Arab citizens of Israel too.
The Palestinian government sworn in earlier this week is a fiction, even if the United States and Israel support it. In Ramallah, where this fictitious government sits, Hamas won a decisive victory in the last elections: four seats in parliament for Hamas, and only one for Fatah. In Nablus, four seats went to Hamas and two to Fatah. In Hebron: nine to Hamas and none for Fatah. In Jerusalem: four to Hamas and two for Fatah. In the cities of Judea and Samaria Hamas won 30 parliamentary seats. Fatah got only 12.
Given the circumstances, the new government does not represent the Palestinians - only Israeli illusions, and possibly also those of the Americans and the Europeans. The Israel Defense Forces cannot prevent the erosion of Fatah's military power, and it is doubtful whether it is even worth investing efforts in such futility. The experience of recent years proves that our "allies," Mohammad Dahlan among them, are only boisterous characters - corrupt and lacking any real power. They are certainly no ally of Israel.
In any case, Hamas will defeat them, and Israel should prepare well for the confrontation ahead. And in a confrontation of this nature, the various Dahlans would bring no benefit, only a burden.
Abbas' men lost in the fight not because Hamas militants are more brutal or better trained. If Fatah could, it would have adopted the same methods. Hamas won because the vast majority of the Gaza Strip population supports it, and this is first and foremost support for the religious ideology of the movement, which calls for the destruction of the Zionist entity. And as the elections have shown, this call is shared by the vast majority in Judea and Samaria, the area which Israeli analysts and politicians have designated for a Fatah state.
Certainly since the elections, areas A and B have been controlled by Hamas. As the events in the Gaza Strip show, the fact that many countries around the world have opposed the Hamas regime did not weaken support for the group. While in Judea and Samaria, thanks to the "occupation," Israel is able to prevent, and it is important that it prevent, some of the bloodletting, it is unable to prevent the weakening, and even the disappearence of Fatah as a significant force.
It is therefore time to let the truth out: Abbas is a fiction, and he cannot be saved.
Free Barghouti: Haaretz Editorial
One of the leaders of the Palestinian people has been incarcerated for approximately five years now in Hadarim Prison, in central Israel. The time has come to release him. For years, Marwan Barghouti has tried to persuade Israelis to end the occupation through negotiation. He has gone from one Israeli party headquarters to the next, meeting with politicians across the political spectrum. He tried to persuade them in order to preempt the next confrontation.
Barghouti failed, the second intifada broke out, and he himself turned to the path of violent struggle. After going underground for months, during which he still tried to address the Israeli public through its own media, Barghouti was arrested in April 2002 and prosecuted. He was sentenced for five life terms in prison, plus 40 years.
It is doubtful whether arresting and prosecuting him was diplomatically wise, but there is no doubting the political wisdom of releasing him.
During his years in prison, Barghouti has acted to restrain the armed struggle and bolster his people's moderate leadership, using envoys to achieve this goal. Barghouti never left his native West Bank, never took to the habits of power characteristic of the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership in Tunisia. He became a popular leader - especially in the West Bank, and to a lesser degree in the Gaza Strip.
Modern history - including Israel's - has known national leaders who turned to violence and were jailed for years, until they were released to become political leaders who marched their peoples toward independence peacefully. Nelson Mandela is one such example. The leaders of the Zionist undergrounds in prestate Israel are another. Now, Barghouti's turn has come. Environmental Protection Minister Gideon Ezra deserves praise for speaking in favor of releasing Barghouti. Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer did not rule out the possibility either.
Fatah's moderate leadership is in a serious crisis. Israel's interest calls for its consolidation, albeit after outrageous delays, and no one matches Barghouti's ability to achieve that. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's promises in Washington that Israel would be willing to take "far-reaching" measures to assist the Palestinian Authority's emergency government must be backed by immediate action. Releasing prisoners is the first step one should demand of anyone who promises such steps.
The Israeli government should have long since helped Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to govern his people. Among other measures, it should have done this by allowing him to bring home real achievements. Releasing prisoners, Barghouti among them, could serve to change the atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinians in a heartbeat. It would prove the sincerity of Israel's statements regarding its intention to turn over a new leaf and bolster the moderate forces. The issue of prisoners who have been jailed for years holds extreme importance for Palestinian society. Any Palestinian leader who would succeed in bringing about their release will receive instant and widespread public sympathy.
The prime minister's statements must not remain empty words - especially not now, when a practical opportunity for dialogue with a moderate Palestinian leadership has presented itself. Now that Gaza has fallen into Hamas' hands, no effort should be spared in the attempt to salvage the West Bank from extremists. Barghouti as a free leader could greatly assist in achieving that.
Preparations for a global war in the Middle-East dramatically accelerated by Imperial High Command
According to the BBC, Ha'aretz, the Jerusalem Post and others Mubarak, Olmert, Abbas and Abdullah will meet this coming Monday in Sharm el-Sheikh to "discuss recent developments between Fatah and Hamas" and "strengthen moderates and to further the Israeli-Palestinian agenda".
That is all very typical of normal war preparations. First, the Imperial High Command leaders meet in the Imperial Homeland (Olmert, Netanyahu consult with the US Nomenklatura bosses), then the Imperial stooges are informed on the decisions taken by the High Command.
Now that the decision has been made not to negotiate with anyone, preparations for war are well under way.
Take a look at this report by Ynetnews:
Netanyahu: Egypt, Jordan key to weakening Hamas
Likud leader says Israel needs Egypt and Jordan to train Palestinian security forces to impose rule of law in Palestinian territories, a step that will help embolden Palestinian moderates like Abbas
Israel needs the help of Jordan and Egypt to bolster moderate forces in the Palestinian Authority against the emboldened Hamas group, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday. Speaking to CNN, Netanyahu said that strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction with the help of moderate Arab countries could be the key to solving the Middle East conflict. "I think ultimately, to resolve the Palestinian problem we'll have to have a regional component. We'll have to have Egypt help in Gaza once the Hamas rule is terminated and we'll have to have Jordan help with the West Bank," Netanyahu told CNN. The radical Hamas group seized control of the Gaza Strip last week, prompting Abbas to dismiss the unity government between Hamas and his Fatah faction. An emergency government of technocrats was sworn-in in Ramallah after Hamas gunmen stormed government buildings in Gaza, emerging as the victor in a prolonged and bloody power struggle with rivals Fatah. Netanyahu lauded Abbas for calling Hamas "murderous terrorists" in a televised address to the Palestinian people on Wednesday night, but lamented that he should have done so in the past when the group waged terror attacks against Israeli civilians. He added that while Abbas might have genuine intentions to fight terror and resume peace talks with Israel, he lacked the means to provide security in the Palestinian territories where Iran and Syria were trying to sow strife. "The third thing is to try to bolster the moderates, the Palestinian moderates primarily by providing security and I would like to see Jordan nearby come in and provide help with security because evidently the Palestinian leadership of Abbas may mean well but it doesn't have the power to handle that type of security," Netanyahu said. The former prime minister warned Israel against unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank, saying that similar withdrawals from south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip emboldened radical groups like Hizbullah and Hamas. "Well, I think it’s actually a sneak preview of what happens when Israel unilaterally walks out of a territory. That's how Hamas politically won," he said. "So we’ve just created an Iranian base at our doorsteps and the same happened before that in Lebanon where we unilaterally walked out there without peace or security arrangements."
Pretty obvious, no? First - he clearly shows that the decision to invade Gaza has already been taken, second he states that a regional repressive structure will be put in place with Israel, Egypt and Jordan all collaborating against the party which the Palestinians democratically elected and third, he clearly repeats that Iran is to blame for all the Empire's problems.
In the meanwhile, the Israeli website DEBKAfile reports that the number of US aircraft carrier battlegroups could grow up to four:
A third US carrier, the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise Strike Group is speeding towards the Persian Gulf
That is all very typical of normal war preparations. First, the Imperial High Command leaders meet in the Imperial Homeland (Olmert, Netanyahu consult with the US Nomenklatura bosses), then the Imperial stooges are informed on the decisions taken by the High Command.
Now that the decision has been made not to negotiate with anyone, preparations for war are well under way.
Take a look at this report by Ynetnews:
Netanyahu: Egypt, Jordan key to weakening Hamas
Likud leader says Israel needs Egypt and Jordan to train Palestinian security forces to impose rule of law in Palestinian territories, a step that will help embolden Palestinian moderates like Abbas
Israel needs the help of Jordan and Egypt to bolster moderate forces in the Palestinian Authority against the emboldened Hamas group, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday. Speaking to CNN, Netanyahu said that strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction with the help of moderate Arab countries could be the key to solving the Middle East conflict. "I think ultimately, to resolve the Palestinian problem we'll have to have a regional component. We'll have to have Egypt help in Gaza once the Hamas rule is terminated and we'll have to have Jordan help with the West Bank," Netanyahu told CNN. The radical Hamas group seized control of the Gaza Strip last week, prompting Abbas to dismiss the unity government between Hamas and his Fatah faction. An emergency government of technocrats was sworn-in in Ramallah after Hamas gunmen stormed government buildings in Gaza, emerging as the victor in a prolonged and bloody power struggle with rivals Fatah. Netanyahu lauded Abbas for calling Hamas "murderous terrorists" in a televised address to the Palestinian people on Wednesday night, but lamented that he should have done so in the past when the group waged terror attacks against Israeli civilians. He added that while Abbas might have genuine intentions to fight terror and resume peace talks with Israel, he lacked the means to provide security in the Palestinian territories where Iran and Syria were trying to sow strife. "The third thing is to try to bolster the moderates, the Palestinian moderates primarily by providing security and I would like to see Jordan nearby come in and provide help with security because evidently the Palestinian leadership of Abbas may mean well but it doesn't have the power to handle that type of security," Netanyahu said. The former prime minister warned Israel against unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank, saying that similar withdrawals from south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip emboldened radical groups like Hizbullah and Hamas. "Well, I think it’s actually a sneak preview of what happens when Israel unilaterally walks out of a territory. That's how Hamas politically won," he said. "So we’ve just created an Iranian base at our doorsteps and the same happened before that in Lebanon where we unilaterally walked out there without peace or security arrangements."
Pretty obvious, no? First - he clearly shows that the decision to invade Gaza has already been taken, second he states that a regional repressive structure will be put in place with Israel, Egypt and Jordan all collaborating against the party which the Palestinians democratically elected and third, he clearly repeats that Iran is to blame for all the Empire's problems.
In the meanwhile, the Israeli website DEBKAfile reports that the number of US aircraft carrier battlegroups could grow up to four:
A third US carrier, the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise Strike Group is speeding towards the Persian Gulf
According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the US naval build-up off the shores of Iran marks rising military tensions in the region, accentuated by last week’s Hamas victory which has endowed Iran with a military foothold on Israel’s southwestern border.
The USS Enterprise CVN 65-Big E Strike Group, the US Navy’s largest air carrier, will join the USS Stennis and the USS Nimitz carriers, building up the largest sea, air, marine concentration the United States has ever deployed opposite Iran. This goes towards making good on the assurances of four carriers US Vice President Dick Cheney offered the Gulf and Middle East nations during his May tour of the region.
The “Big E” leads a strike group consisting of the guided-missile destroyers USS Arleigh Burke DDG 51, USS Stout DDG 55, Forrest Sherman DDG 98 and USS James E. Williams DDG 95, as well as the guided missile cruiser USS Gettysburg CG 64, the SS Philadelphia SSN 690 nuclear submarine and the USNS Supply T-AOE 6.
On its decks are the Carrier Air Wing CVW 1, whose pilots fought combat missions in the Gulf and Arabian Sea during 2006. The Air Wing is made up of F/Q-18 Super Hornet strike craft, the Sidewinders Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-86, the 251st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron MFA, and the Electronic Attack Squadron VAQ 137.
The 32nd Sea Control Squadron VS consists of S-3B Vikings. The Airborne Early Warning Squadron VAQ 3 flies E-2C Hawkeye craft. The Fleet Logistics Support Squadron VRC is based on C-2A Greyhounds.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report Washington is considering deploying the fourth US carrier for the region in the Red Sea opposite Saudi Arabian western coast to secure the three US carriers in the Gulf from the rear as well as the Gulf of Aqaba and Suez Canal.
Taleban spokesman Zabiyullah Mujahed was speaks to BBC: Kabul is next
Transcript: the Taleban in Afghanistan have told the BBC that the group is changing its tactics by targeting the capital Kabul. Taleban spokesman Zabiyullah Mujahed was speaking to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson:
JS: The Taleban led us to expect that there would be a big spring offensive, yet none has materialised.
ZM: I absolutely reject the suggestion that we have been defeated. Our operation continues, and gathers momentum day by day.
We know our power, and compared with last year, we have quadrupled our operations all over Afghanistan.
As for the spring offensive, our leadership had some problems and there was a lull, but then we were able to recover.
JS: What problems?
ZM: Some members of our leadership were killed.
JS: Nato forces say they have infiltrated the Taleban. Is this true?
ZM: The enemy has tried to infiltrate the Taleban ranks, and has targeted our leadership. Thank God, they haven't been too successful.
We are trying to catch their spies. Unfortunately, some have succeeded. But now we are using counter-intelligence to find these people.
JS: Does last Sunday's bomb in Kabul mean that you are shifting your campaign to Kabul?
ZM: With each passing day, taking into account the enemy's tactics, we are changing our own tactics. It is true we are increasing our pressure on Kabul, because Kabul is the capital city and the foreign troops are concentrated there. This is our next main target. God willing, we will be successful.
JS: How important to you is the struggle in Iraq?
ZM: Our enemy is the same, and we are repeating the tactics which they use in Iraq. They have proved effective in defeating the enemy. Our goal is the same - the independence and freedom of our country.
JS: Are you experiencing any problems in getting people to be suicide bombers?
ZM: We have a lot of people who are ready to carry out attacks. The numbers are growing. A lot of people are coming to our suicide bombing centre to volunteer. We have a problem with making sure they attack the right targets, avoiding killing civilians. It takes time to train them properly.
JS: Every suicide bombing kills innocent people. Don't you have a problem getting people to carry out the kind of mass murder we saw here last Sunday?
ZM: Using explosives in war always involves casualties. We do our best in our suicide attacks to avoid civilian casualties. These are our Muslim countrymen, and we are sacrificing our blood to gain their freedom. Their lives are important to us, of course.
But fighting with explosives is out of the control of human beings. As a result, there are casualties. But our opponents also kill ordinary people.
JS: Do you care about the lives of the people you kill?
ZM: Of course it's regrettable for us. But I can tell you, that no fighting is possible anywhere in the world without this. During the Soviet invasion we lost a million and a half people, all of them innocent.
But the important thing for us was to gain our freedom and independence.
JS: People in Nato say they will have a big presence here for 30 years.
ZM: When they came to Afghanistan, they had big objectives. They wanted to occupy the country and root out the Taleban and extend their control throughout our country in a short period of time.
But we are certain we will win, because for us independence is important. For the Nato forces, the lives of their soldiers are important.
There will be a big fuss in the Western parliaments, asking that their sons should not be killed in Afghanistan. This means we will defeat them.
Have We Forgotten 2003 Already? Statement on H Con Res 21 by Ron Paul
This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.
Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the U.S. thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.
source: Scott Horton's Stress Blog
US Congress calls on the UN to charge the President of Iran for inciting genocide: only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich vote 'no'
Nevermind that this is all based on a falsified translation of Ahmadinejad's words, nevermind that the UN itself had condemned Zionism as a form of racism for many years, nevermind that Iran poses absolutely no threat to anyone in the region - the US Congress has covered itself in shame and disgrace yet again.
After cheering on Israel for its "continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties" during the war in Lebanon last summer, after congratulating Israel on its illegal conquests, Congress now call on the world to condemn the President of Iran and "reaffirms the unwavering strategic partnership between the United States and Israel and reasserts the steadfast commitment of the United States to defend the right of Israel to exist as a free and democratic state" (nevermind that it is the last self-declared ethno-religious state on the planet whose internal policies similar to the South African Apartheid according to Desmond Tutu).
Only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich had the courage to actually vote "no" to this kind of propaganda.
Oh boy - talk about a psychological preparation for war!!
(I am sure that Olmert and Netanyahu are satisfied with the results of their efforts)
Ok - so the case is clear now. Here is how all this will be packaged:
Thus the Empire has "no choice" but to "shoulder its responsability" and "historical mission" to engage into a "defensive war" since the nobody else has the will or the means to do so.
That cowardly and sold-out Congress would have done better to openly declare war on Iran. The result would have been the same, but at least that would have been somewhat more honorable.
As for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich - they will go down in history as examples of integrity and courage in the face of a general decline in courage of an entire political class.
Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide... (Introduced in House)
110th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. CON. RES. 21
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 513 (Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
H CON RES 21 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 20-Jun-2007 12:29 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, As Amended
BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel
---- YEAS 411 ---
---- NAYS 2 ---
---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 11 ---
---- NOT VOTING 8 ---
After cheering on Israel for its "continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties" during the war in Lebanon last summer, after congratulating Israel on its illegal conquests, Congress now call on the world to condemn the President of Iran and "reaffirms the unwavering strategic partnership between the United States and Israel and reasserts the steadfast commitment of the United States to defend the right of Israel to exist as a free and democratic state" (nevermind that it is the last self-declared ethno-religious state on the planet whose internal policies similar to the South African Apartheid according to Desmond Tutu).
Only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich had the courage to actually vote "no" to this kind of propaganda.
Oh boy - talk about a psychological preparation for war!!
(I am sure that Olmert and Netanyahu are satisfied with the results of their efforts)
Ok - so the case is clear now. Here is how all this will be packaged:
- Iran is a rogue state, part of the axis of evil, whose President is guilty of calling for genocide.
- The UNSC has expressed its concern at Iran (fully legal and NPT compliant) civil nuclear program and imposed (illegal) sanctions (in violation of the NPT in fact).
- Iran also is repsonsible for the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza.
- The US Congress has expressed its repeated utmost outrage and concern at Iran's alledged actions
- If no action is taken, another "Holocaust" - this time a nuclear one - will happen in Israel to whom Iran poses an existential threat
Thus the Empire has "no choice" but to "shoulder its responsability" and "historical mission" to engage into a "defensive war" since the nobody else has the will or the means to do so.
That cowardly and sold-out Congress would have done better to openly declare war on Iran. The result would have been the same, but at least that would have been somewhat more honorable.
As for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich - they will go down in history as examples of integrity and courage in the face of a general decline in courage of an entire political class.
-------
Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide... (Introduced in House)
HCON 21 IH
January 9, 2007
Mr. ROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Whereas the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly referred to as the `Genocide Convention') defines genocide as, among other things, the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group, and it also prohibits conspiracy to commit genocide, as well as `direct and public incitement to commit genocide';
Whereas Article 4 of the Genocide Convention provides that individuals committing any of the listed genocidal crimes shall be punished `whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals';
Whereas 133 Member States of the United Nations have ratified the Genocide Convention and thereby pledged to prosecute those individuals who violate its criteria for incitement to commit genocide, as well as those individuals who commit genocide directly;
Whereas 61 years ago the United Nations was founded to prevent another Holocaust, the Nazi genocide carried out during World War II that resulted in the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe, from happening ever again;
Whereas Article 2, Section 4, of the United Nations Charter, to which Iran has agreed as a Member State of the United Nations, requires all Member States of the United Nations to `refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state';
Whereas, on October 27, 2005, at the World Without Zionism Conference in Tehran, Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be `wiped off the map', described Israel as `a disgraceful blot [on] the face of the Islamic world', and declared that `[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury';
Whereas, on December 12, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed a conference in Tehran questioning the history of the Holocaust and said that Israel would `soon be wiped out';
Whereas, on December 14, 2006, incoming United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that Iran's calls for Israel's destruction and its dismissal of the Holocaust are `unacceptable', and expressed concern about the regional and global security implications of Tehran's nuclear program;
Whereas, on August 3, 2006, in a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that the Middle East would be better off `without the existence of the Zionist regime', called Israel an `illegitimate regime' with `no legal basis for its existence', and accused the United States of using Israel as a proxy to control the region and its oil resources;
Whereas Iran funds, trains, and openly supports terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad among many others, that are determined to destroy Israel;
Whereas, on December 14, 2001, the President of Iran's Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, threatened Israel with nuclear attack, saying, `[i]f one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything [in Israel], while it will merely harm the Islamic world';
Whereas Iran has aggressively pursued a clandestine effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons; and
Whereas the longstanding policy of the Iranian regime is aimed at destroying the democratic State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and the most important strategic ally of the United States, which is confirmed by statements such as those made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Council President Rafsanjani, demonstrating the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran: Now, therefore, be it
- Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
- (1) condemns, in the strongest terms, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's offensive remarks, contemptible statements, and reprehensible policies aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel;
- (2) calls on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Article 2, Section 4, of the United Nations Charter;
- (3) further calls on the United Nations Security Council and all Member States of the United Nations to consider measures to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which would be both a dangerous violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a potential means to the end of carrying out President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel; and
- (4) reaffirms the unwavering strategic partnership between the United States and Israel and reasserts the steadfast commitment of the United States to defend the right of Israel to exist as a free and democratic state.
H CON RES 21 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 20-Jun-2007 12:29 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, As Amended
BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Democratic | 217 | 1 | 9 | 4 |
| Republican | 194 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 411 | 2 | 11 | 8 |
| Ackerman Aderholt Akin Alexander Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Bachmann Bachus Baird Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bean Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd (FL) Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson Carter Castle Castor Chabot Chandler Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Coble Cohen Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Lincoln Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly Doolittle Doyle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Ellison Ellsworth Emanuel Emerson Engel English (PA) Eshoo Etheridge Everett Fallin Farr Fattah Feeney Ferguson Filner Flake Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Frank (MA) Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Giffords | Gillibrand Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hall (TX) Hare Harman Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hinojosa Hirono Hobson Hodes Hoekstra Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Inglis (SC) Inslee Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jindal Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (OH) Jordan Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Klein (FL) Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) LaHood Lamborn Lampson Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Marchant Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCaul (TX) McCollum (MN) McCotter McCrery McGovern McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Rodgers McNerney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Tim Murtha Musgrave Myrick | Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Neugebauer Nunes Oberstar Obey Olver Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pearce Pence Perlmutter Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reyes Reynolds Rodriguez Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Salazar Sali Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Saxton Schakowsky Schiff Schmidt Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Sestak Shadegg Shays Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Souder Space Spratt Stearns Stupak Sutton Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Taylor Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Tierney Towns Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walberg Walsh (NY) Walz (MN) Wamp Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Wexler Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (OH) Wilson (SC) Wolf Woolsey Wynn Yarmuth Young (AK) Young (FL) |
| Kucinich | Paul |
| Abercrombie Baldwin Blumenauer DeFazio | Gilchrest Hinchey Jones (NC) McDermott | Miller, George Stark Wu |
| Becerra Conyers Cubin | Davis, Jo Ann Marshall Ortiz | Sullivan Walden (OR) |
B'Tselem to Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip: Bring to Trial Those Responsible for War Crimes
Statement of B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:
How to help B'Tselem
This last week, intense fighting erupted between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip. According to various estimates, approximately 160 people, including many children and civilians who were not participating in the fighting, were killed in the course of these clashes. This wave of violence ended with a victory for Hamas, who took control of all the bases of power in the Gaza Strip and established a separate leadership there.
During the events of this week, both parties committed severe violations of customary international humanitarian law, acts that constitute war crimes. These included summary execution of people identified with the opposing party, some of whom were civilians not involved in the fighting. In some of the cases serious abuse was reported to have preceded the summary executions.
According to media reports, on June 10, 2007, members of Hamas captured 28-year old Muhammed a-Sawirki, who apparently belonged to the Fatah-affiliated Presidential Guard and threw him to his death from a high-rise building in Gaza City , with his hands and legs bound. In response, armed Fatah men kidnapped Sheikh Muhammed A-Rafati, an imam identified with Hamas, and shot and summarily executed him. In another incident that occurred on June 11, 2007, Hamas members surrounded the home of Jamal Abu al-Jidyan, from the Fatah leadership in the northern Gaza Strip, firing missiles and mortars that injured Abu al-Jidyan .When his neighbors tried to bring him to the nearby hospital, Hamas men captured Abu Jidian and shot and summarily executed him. On June 14, 2007, in an incident that was broadcast on the Hamas television station in Gaza , Samih al-Madhun, a leader of Fatah's military wing, was captured in the a-Nuseirat refugee camp. al-Madhun was then strapped to the hood of a car and the nearby crowd stabbed him in every part of his body until he was died.
Another serious phenomenon that occurred in the course of the fighting was deliberate attacks on hospitals and their use as military targets. For example, on June 10, 2007, Fatah members shot mortars and grenades at the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City , where armed Hamas men had barricaded themselves, and the Hamas men fired back from inside the hospital.
International humanitarian law recognizes several fundamental rules that apply to all states, organizations or individuals taking part in fighting, without regard to the nature of the conflict in the framework of which the fighting is taking place (international or internal). Among these rules is the absolute prohibition on summary execution of non-involved civilians, or of combatants who have been captured or laid down their weapons, and the absolute prohibition on committing any act of cruelty toward a member of one of these groups. These rules also grant special protection to hospitals and medical personnel, and forbid attacks on the latter. Acts of this nature are defined as war crimes under international law and impose personal criminal responsibility on those involved in their commission.
B'Tselem calls on the Palestinian leadership of Hamas in the Gaza Strip to investigate each incident that occurred during the fighting with Fatah that raises a suspicion of a war crime having been committed, including those noted above, and to bring the suspects to criminal trial.
In addition, B'Tselem warns against illegal injury to people or institutions affiliated with Hamas in the West Bank , whether through acts of revenge by individuals or groups identified with Fatah, or in the course of arbitrary arrests by the Palestinian Authority. Preliminary signs of such acts have appeared in the last few days, and the security forces of the Palestinian Authority bear the responsibility to use all means at their disposal to prevent such attacks.
B'Tselem also reminds the Israeli government, which has effective control in the West Bank, that it bears overarching responsibility for the human rights of all people in the West Bank, including for acts committed by agencies operating with Israel 's agreement, including the Palestinian Authority.
About B'TselemHow to help B'Tselem
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Neocon's response: blame it all on Iran
Looks like the Israelis do not want to release Barghouti, or at least so says Avi Dichter, the Israeli "Security Minister": "Barghouti is certainly a prominent figure in Fatah and in the West Bank, and maybe also in general Palestinian society. But this man built his status on our backs and with our blood". Besides the usual bizarre "blood thing" which seems to affect so many Israelis, the man has got a good point: Barghouti certainly has a long track of fighting Israel. Moreover, Dichter added that Barghouti could not be released "as part of an experiment where we will say 'maybe it will help and maybe it won't". Again - I can only agree with him: it is unclear whose bidding Barghouti would do if freed. At least Abbas is a puppet in the Karzai/Siniora mold, whereas Barghouti could prove a far more independent figure. And that is precisely why the Israelis should release him: because he has credibility, because he is popular, because he has the stature to negotiate with all the parties involved.
The fact that Dichter finds this as a reason not to release him simply shows that the Israelis are not interested in serious negotiations.
So what's next?
As Tony Karon explained it so well on his blog, the "Abbastan plan" is based on a fundamental series of fallacies and has no chance of succeeding. The Israelis probably understand that. In fact, some are already preparing for phase two which is to blame its failure one somebody else: Iran and Syria (under this scenario, Syria is really an Iranian pawn in the hands of Iran). Here is how this logic works:
Everything in the Middle East is connected. (...) With the Hamas takeover of Gaza, we have growing evidence that fundamentalist Muslim groups in the territory are funded by Syria and Iran. We do the best we can to maintain legitimate authorities in the Middle East, but the radical Islamic movement, backed by Syrian compliance and Iranian funding, will stop at nothing to achieve its goals. It is important, when focusing specifically on one particular country or situation, to remember how increasingly connected the region is becoming and to keep in mind the powers supporting the destabilization agenda. (...) The US, Israel and Europe will continue to support the Lebanese government's authority, because it has no other option. If they were to stop, Lebanon would easily become another Gaza. (...)
Typical Neocon kind of logic: since Hamas took over Gaza, Iran and Syria simply must be involved. Anyone the Empire supports is "maintain legitimate authorities", what the other side does is "stopping at nothing to achieve its goals". Should any country or region slip away from Imperial control, Syria and, even more so, Iran should be held responsible. If the Imperial High Commands lets go of Lebanon it will become another Gaza (which makes sense as in both cases the "wrong" party has been democratically elected, in the former Hezbollah, in the latter Hamas).
"Blame it all on Iran" is clearly at the core of this strategy. Hence Netanyahu's trip to the USA to talk to US Presidential candidates to get US support on an even more hysterically anti-Iranian policy.
In the meantime, in the UK the government has finally held the first meeting of the cross-governmental working group established to implement the recommendations of the All-Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. Yes, anti-Semitism is considered as a major issue for the UK and I bet you that as soon as the aggression against is unleashed this goup who, according to one of its members, "will play a vital role in addressing the disturbing rise in anti-Semitism in the UK" will have its hands full. Besides, all UK politicians are "poodles" for the USA anyway, so the Empire can count on their political support for an agression in Iran as long as UK troops are not committed (which I do not believe they will be).
The new French President, Sarkozy, who is a typical Neocon, and his Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, also Neocon, can both be expected to be fully loyal to the Imperial High Command. They will make some pious statements about the poor civilians, Kouchner is particularly good at looking outraged, but that will be about it. No truly disloyal behavior to be expected from those two.
Russian and Chinese reactions are wholly irrelevant as nobody in the Empire really cares what they will have to say (as shown by Dubya's plan to deploy missile defenses in Europe against Putin's strenuous objections).
So will the oil lobby in the USA prevent the war with Iran?
A while ago a wrote a piece about the struggle between the "old Anglo" lobby and the "new Neocon-Israeli" lobby. I predicted that the Anglos would not regain power. Several months later, I am even more certain of that. Even though the US public opinion is largely opposed to Imperial policies (both inside and outside the USA), the Neocon/Israeli faction has a total control over three key institutions: the White House, Congress, the US corporate media. In another piece I wrote:
So why do I still bet on the Neocons winning? Because as long as they control the corporate media and the Imperial Senate they can “manufacture consent” in the general public. No matter how totally idiotic, a “Persian Gulf of Tonkin” deception will be unanimously greeted by the US corporate media and the Imperial Senate with a standing ovation (think Pelosi here). So I say that they will try to get the Anglos on board with some promises. If that don’t work - they will just trigger a crisis and bypass the old Anglo guard altogether.
It appears that the events in Gaza, far from making the Neocons think over their policies, will actually strengthen their resolve to strike at Iran which will be blamed for everything: the rout in Iraq, the defeat in Afghanistan, the mess in Lebanon, the Hamas liberation of Gaza and, of course, for being an "existential threat" to Israel.
Anyone in his right mind would realize that the defeat of the IDF in Lebanon last summer at the hands of a rather small group of Hezbollah fighters (less than 2000) and the political fiasco of Fatah clearly shows that all the assumptions made by the Imperial High Command have been fundamentally mistaken. Yet, the Neocons appear determined to press on for "more of the same, only worse".
Unlike many other observers I have always felt that while the Neocons are cunning, they are not smart at all. They are, in fact, totally incapable of defining a viable long-term strategy, so they literally run from one fire to another making the situation worse with each "response" they come up with. The Neocons are phenomenally arrogant and their contempt for all others will eventually lead to their downfall as it has lead to the downfall of so many other arrogant and ideologically-driven politicians in history.
The responsibility for making the Neocons realize how deeply mistaken they are about pretty much everything will thus probably fall upon Iran. Just like Hezbollah turned Beit Jbeil into "Nasrallahgrad", I am willing to bet that Iran will turn out to be the Imperial graveyard. The price to pay for it will be huge however: a bloodbath for sure, and possibly even a (one-sided) nuclear war.
The fact that Dichter finds this as a reason not to release him simply shows that the Israelis are not interested in serious negotiations.
So what's next?
As Tony Karon explained it so well on his blog, the "Abbastan plan" is based on a fundamental series of fallacies and has no chance of succeeding. The Israelis probably understand that. In fact, some are already preparing for phase two which is to blame its failure one somebody else: Iran and Syria (under this scenario, Syria is really an Iranian pawn in the hands of Iran). Here is how this logic works:
Everything in the Middle East is connected. (...) With the Hamas takeover of Gaza, we have growing evidence that fundamentalist Muslim groups in the territory are funded by Syria and Iran. We do the best we can to maintain legitimate authorities in the Middle East, but the radical Islamic movement, backed by Syrian compliance and Iranian funding, will stop at nothing to achieve its goals. It is important, when focusing specifically on one particular country or situation, to remember how increasingly connected the region is becoming and to keep in mind the powers supporting the destabilization agenda. (...) The US, Israel and Europe will continue to support the Lebanese government's authority, because it has no other option. If they were to stop, Lebanon would easily become another Gaza. (...)
Typical Neocon kind of logic: since Hamas took over Gaza, Iran and Syria simply must be involved. Anyone the Empire supports is "maintain legitimate authorities", what the other side does is "stopping at nothing to achieve its goals". Should any country or region slip away from Imperial control, Syria and, even more so, Iran should be held responsible. If the Imperial High Commands lets go of Lebanon it will become another Gaza (which makes sense as in both cases the "wrong" party has been democratically elected, in the former Hezbollah, in the latter Hamas).
"Blame it all on Iran" is clearly at the core of this strategy. Hence Netanyahu's trip to the USA to talk to US Presidential candidates to get US support on an even more hysterically anti-Iranian policy.
In the meantime, in the UK the government has finally held the first meeting of the cross-governmental working group established to implement the recommendations of the All-Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. Yes, anti-Semitism is considered as a major issue for the UK and I bet you that as soon as the aggression against is unleashed this goup who, according to one of its members, "will play a vital role in addressing the disturbing rise in anti-Semitism in the UK" will have its hands full. Besides, all UK politicians are "poodles" for the USA anyway, so the Empire can count on their political support for an agression in Iran as long as UK troops are not committed (which I do not believe they will be).
The new French President, Sarkozy, who is a typical Neocon, and his Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, also Neocon, can both be expected to be fully loyal to the Imperial High Command. They will make some pious statements about the poor civilians, Kouchner is particularly good at looking outraged, but that will be about it. No truly disloyal behavior to be expected from those two.
Russian and Chinese reactions are wholly irrelevant as nobody in the Empire really cares what they will have to say (as shown by Dubya's plan to deploy missile defenses in Europe against Putin's strenuous objections).
So will the oil lobby in the USA prevent the war with Iran?
A while ago a wrote a piece about the struggle between the "old Anglo" lobby and the "new Neocon-Israeli" lobby. I predicted that the Anglos would not regain power. Several months later, I am even more certain of that. Even though the US public opinion is largely opposed to Imperial policies (both inside and outside the USA), the Neocon/Israeli faction has a total control over three key institutions: the White House, Congress, the US corporate media. In another piece I wrote:
So why do I still bet on the Neocons winning? Because as long as they control the corporate media and the Imperial Senate they can “manufacture consent” in the general public. No matter how totally idiotic, a “Persian Gulf of Tonkin” deception will be unanimously greeted by the US corporate media and the Imperial Senate with a standing ovation (think Pelosi here). So I say that they will try to get the Anglos on board with some promises. If that don’t work - they will just trigger a crisis and bypass the old Anglo guard altogether.
It appears that the events in Gaza, far from making the Neocons think over their policies, will actually strengthen their resolve to strike at Iran which will be blamed for everything: the rout in Iraq, the defeat in Afghanistan, the mess in Lebanon, the Hamas liberation of Gaza and, of course, for being an "existential threat" to Israel.
Anyone in his right mind would realize that the defeat of the IDF in Lebanon last summer at the hands of a rather small group of Hezbollah fighters (less than 2000) and the political fiasco of Fatah clearly shows that all the assumptions made by the Imperial High Command have been fundamentally mistaken. Yet, the Neocons appear determined to press on for "more of the same, only worse".
Unlike many other observers I have always felt that while the Neocons are cunning, they are not smart at all. They are, in fact, totally incapable of defining a viable long-term strategy, so they literally run from one fire to another making the situation worse with each "response" they come up with. The Neocons are phenomenally arrogant and their contempt for all others will eventually lead to their downfall as it has lead to the downfall of so many other arrogant and ideologically-driven politicians in history.
The responsibility for making the Neocons realize how deeply mistaken they are about pretty much everything will thus probably fall upon Iran. Just like Hezbollah turned Beit Jbeil into "Nasrallahgrad", I am willing to bet that Iran will turn out to be the Imperial graveyard. The price to pay for it will be huge however: a bloodbath for sure, and possibly even a (one-sided) nuclear war.
Isma'il Haniyah: 'We are the legitimate government'
Some people accuse Hamas of having carried out a coup d'etat in the Gaza Strip. How do you reply to that?
I reply to them with a question: a coup d'etat against whom? Against ourselves? We embody legitimacy. We are the legitimate government, resulting from a democratically elected parliament. Why take control of Gaza by force?
Following the signing of the Mecca inter-Palestinian agreements, which permitted the formation of a national unity government, a propaganda war was launched against Hamas. Fatah has behaved with certain security services as though they were a militia affiliated to it. Once they were deployed in the streets, the services setup roadblocks, arrested and killed people because of their membership of a party, because they wore beards. They behaved like pirates. Then they opened fire on the Council of Ministers and fired a rocket at the prime minister's residence. It was necessary to put a stop to this security disorder. Calm will return and I think that the security situation will be much better than before. Now there will be only one legitimate weapon. We will make discipline and law reign in Gaza. It will thus be easier to secure the release of British journalist Allan Johnston. His kidnappers will heed us more.
What are your intentions?
My government will continue its work. As a for our programme, it is clear. We want the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, that is, in Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The PLO remains in charge of negotiations on this point. We pledge to abide by all the agreements reached, signed by the Palestinian [National] Authority. We want the establishment of a reciprocal, comprehensive, and simultaneous truce with Israel.
Will you proclaim a state in Gaza?
No. Gaza belongs to the entire Palestinian people, and not only to Hamas. We reject any idea of separation between the Palestinian territories, between East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, which are inseparable. Separation is not on the agenda and will never be so.
The EU has expressed his support for President Mahmud al-Abbas. What do you expect from it?
We thank the EU for the help given to the Palestinian people. We hope to preserve and develop these relations. We hope that Europe will continue its efforts for a lifting of the embargo. But we hope above all that it will help the Palestinians to achieve their legitimate national aspirations - the establishment of an independent state.
I reply to them with a question: a coup d'etat against whom? Against ourselves? We embody legitimacy. We are the legitimate government, resulting from a democratically elected parliament. Why take control of Gaza by force?
Following the signing of the Mecca inter-Palestinian agreements, which permitted the formation of a national unity government, a propaganda war was launched against Hamas. Fatah has behaved with certain security services as though they were a militia affiliated to it. Once they were deployed in the streets, the services setup roadblocks, arrested and killed people because of their membership of a party, because they wore beards. They behaved like pirates. Then they opened fire on the Council of Ministers and fired a rocket at the prime minister's residence. It was necessary to put a stop to this security disorder. Calm will return and I think that the security situation will be much better than before. Now there will be only one legitimate weapon. We will make discipline and law reign in Gaza. It will thus be easier to secure the release of British journalist Allan Johnston. His kidnappers will heed us more.
What are your intentions?
My government will continue its work. As a for our programme, it is clear. We want the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, that is, in Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The PLO remains in charge of negotiations on this point. We pledge to abide by all the agreements reached, signed by the Palestinian [National] Authority. We want the establishment of a reciprocal, comprehensive, and simultaneous truce with Israel.
Will you proclaim a state in Gaza?
No. Gaza belongs to the entire Palestinian people, and not only to Hamas. We reject any idea of separation between the Palestinian territories, between East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, which are inseparable. Separation is not on the agenda and will never be so.
The EU has expressed his support for President Mahmud al-Abbas. What do you expect from it?
We thank the EU for the help given to the Palestinian people. We hope to preserve and develop these relations. We hope that Europe will continue its efforts for a lifting of the embargo. But we hope above all that it will help the Palestinians to achieve their legitimate national aspirations - the establishment of an independent state.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Carter blasts US policy on Palestinians
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
DUBLIN, Ireland -- Former President Jimmy Carter accused the U.S., Israel and the European Union on Tuesday of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' new government in the West Bank while denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was addressing a human rights conference in Ireland, also said the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' 2006 election victory was "criminal."
Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas' moderate Fatah movement.
Hamas fighters routed Fatah in their violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last week. The split prompted Abbas to dissolve the power-sharing government with his rivals in Hamas and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the West Bank.
Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the Gaza Strip represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."
"All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there's no effort from the outside to bring the two together," he said.
The U.S. and European countries cut off the Hamas-led government last year because of the Islamic militant group's refusal to renounce violence and recognize Israel. They have continued to send humanitarian aid to Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations.
In the latest crisis, the U.S., Israel and much of the West have been trying to shore up Abbas in hopes that the West Bank can be made into a democratic example that would bring along Gaza.
During his speech to Ireland's annual Forum on Human Rights, the 83-year-old former president said monitors from his Carter Center observed the 2006 election that Hamas won. He said the vote was "orderly and fair" and Hamas triumphed, in part, because it was "shrewd in selecting candidates," whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.
Far from encouraging Hamas' move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.
"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.
"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.
Carter said the U.S. and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" - but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its "superior skills and discipline."
The Imperial High Command appears to have taken the decision to invade Gaza (updated!)
Ha'aretz reports that a former top Shin Bet official calls for the release of Barghouti from jail while the Fatah Central Commitee has decided to cut off all contacts with Hamas; the Zionists decide to use their nuclear weapons - no, not the actual nukes, but their political equivalent: "Mr Oi Vey" aka Elie Wiesel and his ability to scream "Holocaust" every time the "Jewish state" is in political trouble. Israeli pundits are calling for a declaration of war on Lebanon. In the meanwhile, Israeli tanks are entering Gaza to "protect the crossing" into Egypt while DEBKAfile "reports" that Katsyusha rockets are being shipped into Gaza and implies that Syria sides with Hamas.
Olmert is telling American Jewish organizations that he will never negotiate with Hamas, and is seeking UN and EU support to "isolate Hamas".
(Being the nice guy that he is, Olmert also takes the time for a photo op in the Big Apple)
Finally, an editorial of the LA Times declare that the emergence of "Hamastan" between Israel and Egypt is an unqualified disaster for the world". One can only logically conclude that any and all measures taken to protect the world from this "unqualified disaster" are, well, kosher, I suppose.
(How exactly the ousting of Fatah by Hamas in Gaza is an "unqualified disaster for the world" is anyone's guess)
Sure looks to me like we are about to see yet another grandiose "defensive action" by Israel with the full support of the "international community" in defense of "human rights, democracy, progress and humanity"...
I don't trust Hamas' ability to put up a good defense against the invasion of Gaza. I might be mistaken here, but I still have no reasons to believe that Hamas forces have received adequate training in urban warfare in what will be a very, very difficult environment. Also - if the Israelis act fast enough there will not have been enough time to prepare Gaza for the invasion. Unlike Grozny which had been built with extremely solid Soviet-era buildings and unlike Lebanon where Hezbollah had made extensive defensive preparations, Gaza is, as far as I know, very poorly buit and probably has little or no underground fortifications.
The scariest thing is that, unlike what happened in Fallujah, the Hamas fighters in Gaza do not have the option to withdraw as Gaza is totally surrounded by land, air and sea.
The best option for the Hamas fighters is thus to blend as much as possible among the rest of the population. Alas, that likely choice will certainaly result in a bloodbath once the Israelis and, even worse, the Fatah goons come in (I am rather confident that the terror the latter will heap on the Gaza residents in revenge for the recent humiliation of Fatah would have made any SS Totenkopfverbande proud).
All this reminds me of the leadup to the massacres of Sabra and Shatila.
UPDATE:
After meeting with Olmert, Bush has declared that Hamas "made the choice of violence".
In the meantime, Netanyahu is leaving for the USA to convince the US leaders to "increase the pressure on Iran."
By now I would say that all the "indicators and warnings" are clearly pointing towards an invasion of Gaza. This is insane, but it appears that the Imperial High Command has made the choice of trying to crash Hamas by force.
Olmert is telling American Jewish organizations that he will never negotiate with Hamas, and is seeking UN and EU support to "isolate Hamas".
(Being the nice guy that he is, Olmert also takes the time for a photo op in the Big Apple)
Finally, an editorial of the LA Times declare that the emergence of "Hamastan" between Israel and Egypt is an unqualified disaster for the world". One can only logically conclude that any and all measures taken to protect the world from this "unqualified disaster" are, well, kosher, I suppose.
(How exactly the ousting of Fatah by Hamas in Gaza is an "unqualified disaster for the world" is anyone's guess)
Sure looks to me like we are about to see yet another grandiose "defensive action" by Israel with the full support of the "international community" in defense of "human rights, democracy, progress and humanity"...
I don't trust Hamas' ability to put up a good defense against the invasion of Gaza. I might be mistaken here, but I still have no reasons to believe that Hamas forces have received adequate training in urban warfare in what will be a very, very difficult environment. Also - if the Israelis act fast enough there will not have been enough time to prepare Gaza for the invasion. Unlike Grozny which had been built with extremely solid Soviet-era buildings and unlike Lebanon where Hezbollah had made extensive defensive preparations, Gaza is, as far as I know, very poorly buit and probably has little or no underground fortifications.
The scariest thing is that, unlike what happened in Fallujah, the Hamas fighters in Gaza do not have the option to withdraw as Gaza is totally surrounded by land, air and sea.
The best option for the Hamas fighters is thus to blend as much as possible among the rest of the population. Alas, that likely choice will certainaly result in a bloodbath once the Israelis and, even worse, the Fatah goons come in (I am rather confident that the terror the latter will heap on the Gaza residents in revenge for the recent humiliation of Fatah would have made any SS Totenkopfverbande proud).
All this reminds me of the leadup to the massacres of Sabra and Shatila.
UPDATE:
After meeting with Olmert, Bush has declared that Hamas "made the choice of violence".
In the meantime, Netanyahu is leaving for the USA to convince the US leaders to "increase the pressure on Iran."
By now I would say that all the "indicators and warnings" are clearly pointing towards an invasion of Gaza. This is insane, but it appears that the Imperial High Command has made the choice of trying to crash Hamas by force.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Is Israel really contemplating an assault on Gaza?
I don't put much faith in this article in the Sunday Times, nonetheless, here it is:
Israel plans attack on Gaza
ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.
The part about "expecting tougher than Hezbollah" is clearly nonesense. In 33 days the Israelis could not take Beit Jbeil, aka "Nasrallahgrad", (for details, see this article and this one) right across the Israeli-Lebanese border (see map here). I expect the Israelis to take control of most of Gaza in less than 48 hours, at least as far as terrain is concerned. Its the Israeli objective and exit strategy which is unclear to me.
Sure, entering Gaza will provide a pious cover for the inevitable bloodbath and reprisals which will ensue and it will provide Olmert with a much needed "victory", at least for a while. Also, it will allow the Israelis to test yet again one their favorite theories that "the Arabs only understand violence" and, no doubt, the IDF can heap terror "Jenin-style" unpon the 1,4 million terrorized civilians currently surviving in the Gaza Gulag. So in terms of feel-good for the Israelis, an invasion of Gaza looks good.
The problem is that short of massacring all combat-age males (which in Palestine begins at age 7 and ends at death) in the Gaza Strip this will most definitely not eliminate Hamas. Not only that, but it will also further increase the hatred that so many Palestinians feel for Fatah (whose thugs will, no doubt, come in on the heels of the IDF soldiers and commit even more atrocities than their Israeli patrons).
I hope that cooler heads will prevail over that kind of folly but as long as Olmert is in power (not to mention Dubya in the White House) that kind of report will continue to worry me.
Israel plans attack on Gaza
ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.
According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.
Barak, who is expected to become defence minister tomorrow, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armoured divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas.
The Israeli forces would expect to be confronted by about 12,000 Hamas fighters with arms confiscated from the Fatah faction that they defeated in last week’s three-day civil war in Gaza.
Details of the plan emerged as Fatah forces in the West Bank stormed Hamas-run buildings, including the parliament in Ramallah, where they tried to seize the deputy speaker.
Israeli officials believe their forces would face even tougher resistance in Gaza than they encountered during last summer’s war against Hezbollah in south Lebanon.
A source close to Barak said that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive “Hamastan” on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable.
“The question is not if but how and when,” he said.
How exactly the IDF proposes to indentify and either kill or capture 12'000 Hamas fighters in the midst of 1,4 million people crammed into 130 square miles (that's a density of about 10,500 people per square mile) is unclear to me. Also - using two armored divisions in this highly urban environment just seems unlikely to me (unless just manpower, light armor and a few tanks only are drawn from these divisions).The part about "expecting tougher than Hezbollah" is clearly nonesense. In 33 days the Israelis could not take Beit Jbeil, aka "Nasrallahgrad", (for details, see this article and this one) right across the Israeli-Lebanese border (see map here). I expect the Israelis to take control of most of Gaza in less than 48 hours, at least as far as terrain is concerned. Its the Israeli objective and exit strategy which is unclear to me.
Sure, entering Gaza will provide a pious cover for the inevitable bloodbath and reprisals which will ensue and it will provide Olmert with a much needed "victory", at least for a while. Also, it will allow the Israelis to test yet again one their favorite theories that "the Arabs only understand violence" and, no doubt, the IDF can heap terror "Jenin-style" unpon the 1,4 million terrorized civilians currently surviving in the Gaza Gulag. So in terms of feel-good for the Israelis, an invasion of Gaza looks good.
The problem is that short of massacring all combat-age males (which in Palestine begins at age 7 and ends at death) in the Gaza Strip this will most definitely not eliminate Hamas. Not only that, but it will also further increase the hatred that so many Palestinians feel for Fatah (whose thugs will, no doubt, come in on the heels of the IDF soldiers and commit even more atrocities than their Israeli patrons).
I hope that cooler heads will prevail over that kind of folly but as long as Olmert is in power (not to mention Dubya in the White House) that kind of report will continue to worry me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
