Gideon Levy is one of two voices, the other being Amira Hass's, which represent Israel's future consciousness, if it is going to have any...
"It was a pretty quiet year, relatively speaking. Only 457 Palestinians and 10 Israelis were killed, according to the B'Tselem human rights organization, including the victims of Qassam rockets. Fewer casualties than in many previous years. However, it was still a terrible year: 92 Palestinian children were killed (fortunately, not a single Israeli child was killed by Palestinians, despite the Qassams). One-fifth of the Palestinians killed were children and teens - a disproportionate, almost unprecedented number. The Jewish year of 5767. Almost 100 children, who were alive and playing last New Year, didn't survive to see this one.
One year. Close to 8,000 kilometers were covered in the newspaper's small, armored Rover - not including the hundreds of kilometers in the old yellow Mercedes taxi belonging to Munir and Sa'id, our dedicated drivers in Gaza. This is how we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the occupation. No one can argue anymore that it's only a temporary, passing phenomenon. Israel is the occupation. The occupation is Israel.
We set out each week in the footsteps of the fighters, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, trying to document the deeds of Israel Defense Forces soldiers, Border Police officers, Shin Bet security service investigators and Civil Administration personnel - the mighty occupation army that leaves behind in its wake horrific killing and destruction, this year as every year, for four decades.
And this was the year of the children that were killed. We didn't get to all of their homes, only to some; homes of bereavement where parents weep bitterly over their children, who were climbing a fig tree in the yard, or sitting on a bench in the street, or preparing for an exam, or on their way home from school, or sleeping peacefully in the false security of their homes.
A few of them also threw a rock at an armored vehicle or touched a forbidden fence. All came under live fire, some of which was deliberately aimed at them, cutting them down in their youth. From Mohammed (al-Zakh) to Mahmoud (al-Qarinawi), from the boy who was buried twice in Gaza to the boy who was buried in Israel. These are the stories of the children of 5767.
The first of them was buried twice. Abdullah al-Zakh identified half of the body of his son Mahmoud, in the morgue refrigerator of Shifa Hospital in Gaza, by the boy's belt and the socks on his feet. This was shortly before last Rosh Hashanah. The next day, when the Israel Defense Forces "successfully" completed Operation Locked Kindergarten, as it was called, leaving behind 22 dead and a razed neighborhood, and left Sajiyeh in Gaza, the bereaved father found the remaining parts of the body and brought them for a belated burial.
Mahmoud was 14 when he died. He was killed three days before the start of the school year. Thus we ushered in Rosh Hashanah 5767. In Shifa we saw children whose legs were amputated, who were paralyzed or on respirators. Families were killed in their sleep, or while riding on donkeys, or working in the fields. Operation Locked Kindergarten and Operation Summer Rains. Remember? Five children were killed in the first operation, with the dreadful name. For a week, the people of Sajiyeh lived in fear the likes of which Sderot residents have never experienced - not to belittle their anxiety, that is.
The day after Rosh Hashanah we traveled to Rafah. Dam Hamad, 14, had been killed in her sleep, in her mother's arms, by an Israeli rocket strike that sent a concrete pillar crashing down on her head. She was the only daughter of her paralyzed mother, her whole world. In the family's impoverished home in the Brazil neighborhood, at the edge of Rafah, we met the mother who lay in a heap in bed; everything she had in the world was gone. Outside, I remarked to the reporter from French television who accompanied me that this was one of those moments when I felt ashamed to be an Israeli. The next day he called and said: "They didn't broadcast what you said, for fear of the Jewish viewers in France."
Soon afterward we went back to Jerusalem to visit Maria Aman, the amazing little girl from Gaza, who lost nearly everyone in her life to a missile strike gone awry that wiped out her innocent family, including her mother, while riding in their car. Her devoted father Hamdi remains by her side. For a year and a half, she has been cared for at the wonderful Alyn Hospital, where she has learned to feed a parrot with her mouth and to operate her wheelchair using her chin. All the rest of her limbs are paralyzed. She is connected day and night to a respirator. Still, she is a cheerful and neatly groomed child whose father fears the day they might be sent back to Gaza.
For now, they remain in Israel. Many Israelis have devoted themselves to Maria and come to visit her regularly. A few weeks ago, broadcast journalist Leah Lior took her in her car to see the sea in Tel Aviv. It was a Saturday night, and the area was crowded with people out for a good time, but the girl in the wheelchair attracted attention. Some people recognized her and stopped to say hello and wish her well. Who knows? Maybe the pilot who fired the missile at her car happened to be passing by, too.
Not everyone has been fortunate enough to receive the treatment that Maria has had. In mid- November, a few days after the bombardment of Beit Hanoun - remember that? - we arrived in the battered and bleeding town: 22 killed in a moment, 11 shells dropped on a densely packed town. Islam, 14, sat there dressed in black, grieving for her eight relatives that had been killed, including her mother and grandmother. Those disabled by this bombardment didn't get to go to Alyn.
Two days before the shelling of Beit Hanoun, our forces also fired a missile that hit the minibus transporting children to the Indira Gandhi kindergarten in Beit Lahia. Two kids, passersby, were killed on the spot. The teacher, Najwa Khalif, died a few days later. She was wounded in clear view of her 20 small pupils, who were sitting in the minibus. After her death, the children drew a picture: a row of children lying bleeding, their teacher in the front, and an Israeli plane bombing them. At the Indira Gandhi kindergarten, we had to bid good-bye to Gaza, too: Since then, we haven't been able to cross into the Strip.
But the children have come to us. In November, 31 children were killed in Gaza. One of them, Ayman al-Mahdi, died in Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, where he had been rushed in grave condition. Only his uncle was permitted to stay with him during his final days. A fifth-grader, Ayman had been sitting with friends on a bench on a street in Jabalya, right by his school. A bullet fired from a tank struck him. He was just 10 years old.
IDF troops killed children in the West Bank, too. Jamil Jabaji, a boy who tended horses in the new Askar refugee camp, was shot in the head. He was 14 when he was killed, last December. He and his friends were throwing rocks at the armored vehicle that passed by the camp, located near Nablus. The driver provoked the children, slowing down and speeding up, slowing down and speeding up, until finally a soldier got out, aimed at the boy's head and fired. Jamil's horses were left in their stable, and his family was left to mourn.
And what did 16-year-old Taha al-Jawi do to get himself killed? The IDF claimed that he tried to sabotage the barbed-wire fence surrounding the abandoned Atarot airport; his friends said he was just playing soccer and had gone to chase after the ball. Whatever the circumstances, the response from the soldiers was quick and decisive: a bullet in the leg that caused him to bleed to death, lying in a muddy ditch by the side of the road. Not a word of regret, not a word of condemnation from the IDF spokesman, when we asked for a comment. Live fire directed at unarmed children who weren't endangering anyone, with no prior warning.
Abir Aramin was even younger; she was just 11. The daughter of an activist in the Combatants for Peace organization, in January she left her school in Anata and was on the way to buy candy in a little shop. She was fired upon from a Border Police vehicle. Bassam, her father, told us back then with bloodshot eyes and in a strangled voice: "I told myself that I don't want to take revenge. Revenge will be for this 'hero,' who was so 'threatened' by my daughter that he shot and killed her, to stand trial for it." But just a few days ago the authorities announced that the case was being closed: The Border Police apparently acted appropriately.
"I'm not going to exploit my daughter's blood for political purposes. This is a human outcry. I'm not going to lose my mind just because I lost my heart," the grieving father, who has many Israeli friends, also told us.
In Nablus, we documented the use of children as human shields - the use of the so-called "neighbor procedure" - involving an 11-year-old girl, a 12-year-old boy and a 15-year-old boy. So what if the High Court of Justice has outlawed it? We also recorded the story of the death of baby Khaled, whose parents, Sana and Daoud Fakih, tried to rush him to the hospital in the middle of the night, a time when Palestinian babies apparently mustn't get sick: The baby died at the checkpoint.
In Kafr al-Shuhada (the "martyrs' village") south of Jenin, in March, 15-year-old Ahmed Asasa was fleeing from soldiers who had entered the village. A sniper's bullet caught him in the neck.
Bushra Bargis hadn't even left her home. In late April she was studying for a big test, notebooks in hand, pacing around her room in the Jenin refugee camp in the early evening, when a sniper shot her in the forehead from quite far away. Her bloodstained notebooks bore witness to her final moments.
And what about the unborn babies? They weren't safe either. A bullet in the back of Maha Qatuni, a woman who was seven months pregnant and got up during the night to protect her children in their home, struck her fetus in the womb, shattering its head. The wounded mother lay in the Rafidiya Hospital in Nablus, hooked up to numerous tubes. She was going to name the baby Daoud. Does killing a fetus count as murder? And how "old" was the deceased? He was certainly the youngest of the many children Israel killed in the past year.
Happy New Year.
Gideon Levy writes for Ha'aretz, where this column originally appeared."
Read here my article on Israel's targeting of Palestinian children.
29.9.07
28.9.07
Israel's Role In the War on Iraq: Conquer and Divide
"The two authors devote more than 30 pages and a remarkable 175 footnotes to constructing an irrefutable case for an Israeli role in helping plan, and a large lobby role in pressing for, the war. Although they do not claim that the effort to guarantee Israeli security was the sole reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, they demonstrate clearly -- citing public and privates statements by Israeli military and political officials, informed commentary in both Israel and the U.S., and analysis by foreign policy experts -- that "Israeli leaders, neoconservatives, and the Bush administration all saw war with Iraq as the first step in an ambitious campaign to remake the Middle East" in order to "make it a more friendly environment for America and Israel." Israel and the lobby "played crucial roles in making that war happen." Without the lobby and particularly the core of neocon policymakers inside government and neocon commentators and think-tank analysts on the sidelines, Mearsheimer and Walt conclude bluntly, "the war would almost certainly not have occurred" and "America would probably not be in Iraq today."
On the question of oil as a principal driver in the war, the authors demonstrate that in fact, although the oil industry was clearly happy to obtain lucrative concessions in post-Saddam Iraq, the argument that the industry pushed for the war in order to enhance profits is counter-intuitive..."More
On the question of oil as a principal driver in the war, the authors demonstrate that in fact, although the oil industry was clearly happy to obtain lucrative concessions in post-Saddam Iraq, the argument that the industry pushed for the war in order to enhance profits is counter-intuitive..."More
Spiegel Interview with Sy Hersh: 'The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing'
"Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he's talking about it or not. When he first announced the Surge in January, he described it as a way to bring the parties together. He's not saying that any more. I think he now understands that ethnic cleansing is what is going to happen. You're going to have a Kurdistan. You're going to have a Sunni area that we're going to have to support forever. And you're going to have the Shiites in the South." MORE
26.9.07
Israel lobbying to import nuclear material
I wonder why Haaretz featured this information today. I mean Israel already has 20 nuclear heads or more, and everybody knows it. And nuclear material seems to be available to anybody nowadays, in war and conflict sensitive regions as well as in dictatorships, Pakistan, India, Lybia, etc..., except in Bush's axis of evil.
The only explanation why Haaretz planted the story today in their paper, while the world is buzzing with a possible nuclear attack on Iran, is that such a story may have some immediate impact; provoke fear of a nuclear Israel in the Arab world, normalize Israel's officially hidden nuclear program by exposing it in the context of an Iranian threat, legitimize a nuclear race in the public opinion in the ME, precipitate the race (if there is any, because, in the opinion of many experts, Iran is far from having the bomb), and step up the pressure on the international community regarding Iran by showing Israel's willingness to come forward with its nuclear program.
Israel and Israelis seem to be impatient to get rid of Iran's nuclear program to the point they are ready to start talking about their own by choosing a defencive context at a time Iran is presented to the world as a major nuclear threat. The story, as it is published today, is a perfect example of how the news have become the echo chamber of the governments' spin.
The only explanation why Haaretz planted the story today in their paper, while the world is buzzing with a possible nuclear attack on Iran, is that such a story may have some immediate impact; provoke fear of a nuclear Israel in the Arab world, normalize Israel's officially hidden nuclear program by exposing it in the context of an Iranian threat, legitimize a nuclear race in the public opinion in the ME, precipitate the race (if there is any, because, in the opinion of many experts, Iran is far from having the bomb), and step up the pressure on the international community regarding Iran by showing Israel's willingness to come forward with its nuclear program.
Israel and Israelis seem to be impatient to get rid of Iran's nuclear program to the point they are ready to start talking about their own by choosing a defencive context at a time Iran is presented to the world as a major nuclear threat. The story, as it is published today, is a perfect example of how the news have become the echo chamber of the governments' spin.
24.9.07
The power of satire
When rational discourse becomes impossible, locked in double standards, threats, and guilt, only satire can rescue us from idiocy and bigotry. Thanks to Wolfie and Stef for the links.
"Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman. Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof."
"I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom of speech...
...Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me.
...Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's called leadership."
"Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman. Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof."
"I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom of speech...
...Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me.
...Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's called leadership."
Another well intentioned Jewish Convert to Islam
Thanks to Angry Arab for the link.
"Israel said on Sunday that an Israeli man who has been arrested in Lebanon is not a spy, and his father said the young man converted to Islam several years ago and immersed himself in Arabculture.
"Lebanese officials announced the arrest of Daniel Sharon on Saturday and said they had handed him over for military interrogation because he visited Lebanon frequently.
...Sharon was arrested on Thursday as part of an investigation into the murder of a Lebanese citizen...Media reports said that police in the Merje area, a hotbed of the Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement in Beirut's southern suburbs, were investigating the killing of Moussa al-Shalaani when the probe led them to Sharon.
Al-Shalaani had been shot with a gun belonging to a security officer who had been his roommate. The roommate was summoned for questioning, and maintained he had lost his gun. The roommate also said that at the time of the murder, he had been with a German friend, who was staying at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel in Beirut's luxurious Verdun neighborhood. A hotel employee told the police that Sharon had paid him not to write his full name on any documents.
..."But further investigations into the case showed that Sharon had a friend in the Lebanese security offices who used to facilitate his entries to Lebanon," the source added...A Lebanese security agent was also held for questioning about his relations with Sharon after the two maintained contacts online, said officials.
...The media also reported that Sharon had visited Lebanon 11 times since 2005, once immediately prior to the Second Lebanon War. His last visit began four days prior to his arrest, and he was scheduled to leave on the day of his arrest. Sharon had sent his security-officer friend on trips abroad on several occasions, and in exchange the man had helped Sharon within Lebanon."
Read here 'The Convert Phenomenon'
Read here: Mossad easily operating in the world of radical islamist groups.
"Israel said on Sunday that an Israeli man who has been arrested in Lebanon is not a spy, and his father said the young man converted to Islam several years ago and immersed himself in Arabculture.
"Lebanese officials announced the arrest of Daniel Sharon on Saturday and said they had handed him over for military interrogation because he visited Lebanon frequently.
...Sharon was arrested on Thursday as part of an investigation into the murder of a Lebanese citizen...Media reports said that police in the Merje area, a hotbed of the Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement in Beirut's southern suburbs, were investigating the killing of Moussa al-Shalaani when the probe led them to Sharon.
Al-Shalaani had been shot with a gun belonging to a security officer who had been his roommate. The roommate was summoned for questioning, and maintained he had lost his gun. The roommate also said that at the time of the murder, he had been with a German friend, who was staying at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel in Beirut's luxurious Verdun neighborhood. A hotel employee told the police that Sharon had paid him not to write his full name on any documents.
..."But further investigations into the case showed that Sharon had a friend in the Lebanese security offices who used to facilitate his entries to Lebanon," the source added...A Lebanese security agent was also held for questioning about his relations with Sharon after the two maintained contacts online, said officials.
...The media also reported that Sharon had visited Lebanon 11 times since 2005, once immediately prior to the Second Lebanon War. His last visit began four days prior to his arrest, and he was scheduled to leave on the day of his arrest. Sharon had sent his security-officer friend on trips abroad on several occasions, and in exchange the man had helped Sharon within Lebanon."
Read here 'The Convert Phenomenon'
Read here: Mossad easily operating in the world of radical islamist groups.
21.9.07
Political Assassinations In Lebanon: Elementary my dear Watson ?
I was thinking about the latest assassination in Lebanon. What continues to puzzle me, as much as this assassination and the previous ones, is the reaction of March 14th movement, the movement that is the target of the assassinations after the death of Rafiq Hariri.
The reaction has the following scheme:
- Fingers publicly pointed at Syria;
- Appeal for help from the international community.
Generally, the immediate after murder condemnation comes from the US, president or department of state, never lower than that.
This pattern has been going crescendo at each assassination.
I don't consider this as an approach to finding the truth which should be the normal approach in such situations. I call this a gross instrumentalisation of the assassinations.
I am not including in these reactions the actual huge street protests in Beirut that led to the ousting of the Syrian army from Lebanon after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri that took place before the famous March 14th, 2005 protests, and which included protesters who followed a divergent path since, like general Michel Aoun's supporters.
The protests before March 14th, 2005 against the Syrian presence in Lebanon were mostly genuine, joined by people across the multiple sectarian divides which exist in Lebanon. It is only on March 14th that we saw the emergence of hi-tech politically planned street protests in Lebanon meant to influence, not only Lebanese and international public opinions, but also the course of the political process in Lebanon. And I think the name for March 14th is very adequate in this regard because it is on March 14th, 2005 that some people felt that political assassinations and the following protests are something that can pay off beyond their immediate impact.
What became different also from March 14, 2005 and on is the profile of the Politicians targeted. From high profile like Rafiq Hariri, assassinations started to target either low profile politicians or politicians who are not in the core of the March 14th movement. I will call them March 14th periphery politicians. Of course the Gemayels, a prominent Christian family and militia, were hit by the assassinations. But here again, the Gemayels still are periphery because they have a very low impact within the movement itself. The core of March 14th are Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt, and Samir Gea'gea.
Moreover, the fact that March 14th's core leaders were never interested in alternative explanations, serious investigations on the assassinations that followed Hariri's (even though they asked that later assassinations should be included in the UN commission mandate on the assassination of Hariri), national dialogue or reconciliation, makes their claims, after each assassination, less credible. We are told that Syria is doing the assassinations and we are not told what actions the Lebanese government and March 14th are making to investigate or stop the assassinations other than their constant appeal to the international community. The Lebanese government is showing how much powerless and incompetent it is in stopping a string of assassinations targeting its own majority and want us at the same time to trust it.
I challenge March 14th to come up with a logical explanation for the assassinations other than Syria attempting to reduce the majority of March 14th. But if that's the case why not assassinate this majority at once and in a short time since nobody seems to be able or willing to identify the perpetrators or to stop them ? If nothing can stop them why not do the job in a short time and more efficient way, instead of following the 'Little Thumb' scenario leaving a trail of evidence ? A trail bizzarrely no one from March 14th seems to be willing to uncover or prove to strenghten their accusations ? Why is it taking Syrians so long, more than two years and going on now, to get rid of this 'anti-Syrian' (Pro-US I would say is more accurate) Lebanese 'majority' ?
Saad Hariri, as smart as he is, came up with this explanation of the latest assassination: Syria killed Ghanem in retaliation to the recent Israeli bombing of Syria ! Recognising hereby that March 14th are Israel's implicit allies while at the same time launching a not so implicit appeal to Israel to retaliate for Ghanem by striking Syrian territory. Lebanese Politicians were always good at one thing, not dialogue, not politics, not serving the people, not even war; they were always good at asking for foreign help. And the help comes now right away in the form of foreign interference from the US calling on opposition MPs who were going to boycott the presidential elections to reverse their decision.
The press release of the US embassy in Beirut reads:
"We hope that the shock of MP Ghanem's murder will persuade those Members of Parliament who were threatening to use a boycott of the presidential elections to honor the memory of their slain colleague by showing up for presidential elections as scheduled."
In all this we are left only with Holmesian logical deductions to untangle the mystery behind these assassinations if we reject the Syria hypothesis, at least for the assassinations that took place after Hariri died. But the Lebanese government and March 14th don't want us to resort to logic, they want us to swallow whatever they say as absolute truth without even attemting to shed a single light on this 'truth'. A Holmesian deduction one can make of the assassination pattern after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005 is that, even though we still aren't sure who killed Rafiq Hariri, it is clear that subsequent killings are different (I wrote about this when Pierre Gemayel was assassinated) and they have some of these goals or all of them at once:
Maintaining the outrage against Syria alive;
Preventing any internal dialogue in Lebanon and preventing any reasonable alternative to confrontation;
'Cleaning' the peripehry of the March 14th movement from potential challengers to its core or potential shifters. This is on the internal level where we are witnessing something bearing some resemblance to the Ten Little Indians scenario.
On the external level, regional and international, the pattern, as glanced at from Saad Hariri's remark, is nothing else than a build-up to more wars in the region and more divides. To Which March 14th are applauding, as if Lebanon and Lebanese did not already suffer from this dirty game before.
"...it is clear that the Arab region is undergoing yet another round of internationally-sponsored violence and perhaps even partition, redrawing the regional map along the line fantasized by some neocons. The objective of such policy is to establish a string of "pro-US" (and neoliberal) regimes across the region and punish the "bad guys," those state (e.g., Iran, Syria) or non-state (e.g., Hizbullah, Hamas) actors who reject Pax Americana and Israeli regional hegemony."
Elementary, my dear Watson.
The reaction has the following scheme:
- Fingers publicly pointed at Syria;
- Appeal for help from the international community.
Generally, the immediate after murder condemnation comes from the US, president or department of state, never lower than that.
This pattern has been going crescendo at each assassination.
I don't consider this as an approach to finding the truth which should be the normal approach in such situations. I call this a gross instrumentalisation of the assassinations.
I am not including in these reactions the actual huge street protests in Beirut that led to the ousting of the Syrian army from Lebanon after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri that took place before the famous March 14th, 2005 protests, and which included protesters who followed a divergent path since, like general Michel Aoun's supporters.
The protests before March 14th, 2005 against the Syrian presence in Lebanon were mostly genuine, joined by people across the multiple sectarian divides which exist in Lebanon. It is only on March 14th that we saw the emergence of hi-tech politically planned street protests in Lebanon meant to influence, not only Lebanese and international public opinions, but also the course of the political process in Lebanon. And I think the name for March 14th is very adequate in this regard because it is on March 14th, 2005 that some people felt that political assassinations and the following protests are something that can pay off beyond their immediate impact.
What became different also from March 14, 2005 and on is the profile of the Politicians targeted. From high profile like Rafiq Hariri, assassinations started to target either low profile politicians or politicians who are not in the core of the March 14th movement. I will call them March 14th periphery politicians. Of course the Gemayels, a prominent Christian family and militia, were hit by the assassinations. But here again, the Gemayels still are periphery because they have a very low impact within the movement itself. The core of March 14th are Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt, and Samir Gea'gea.
Moreover, the fact that March 14th's core leaders were never interested in alternative explanations, serious investigations on the assassinations that followed Hariri's (even though they asked that later assassinations should be included in the UN commission mandate on the assassination of Hariri), national dialogue or reconciliation, makes their claims, after each assassination, less credible. We are told that Syria is doing the assassinations and we are not told what actions the Lebanese government and March 14th are making to investigate or stop the assassinations other than their constant appeal to the international community. The Lebanese government is showing how much powerless and incompetent it is in stopping a string of assassinations targeting its own majority and want us at the same time to trust it.
I challenge March 14th to come up with a logical explanation for the assassinations other than Syria attempting to reduce the majority of March 14th. But if that's the case why not assassinate this majority at once and in a short time since nobody seems to be able or willing to identify the perpetrators or to stop them ? If nothing can stop them why not do the job in a short time and more efficient way, instead of following the 'Little Thumb' scenario leaving a trail of evidence ? A trail bizzarrely no one from March 14th seems to be willing to uncover or prove to strenghten their accusations ? Why is it taking Syrians so long, more than two years and going on now, to get rid of this 'anti-Syrian' (Pro-US I would say is more accurate) Lebanese 'majority' ?
Saad Hariri, as smart as he is, came up with this explanation of the latest assassination: Syria killed Ghanem in retaliation to the recent Israeli bombing of Syria ! Recognising hereby that March 14th are Israel's implicit allies while at the same time launching a not so implicit appeal to Israel to retaliate for Ghanem by striking Syrian territory. Lebanese Politicians were always good at one thing, not dialogue, not politics, not serving the people, not even war; they were always good at asking for foreign help. And the help comes now right away in the form of foreign interference from the US calling on opposition MPs who were going to boycott the presidential elections to reverse their decision.
The press release of the US embassy in Beirut reads:
"We hope that the shock of MP Ghanem's murder will persuade those Members of Parliament who were threatening to use a boycott of the presidential elections to honor the memory of their slain colleague by showing up for presidential elections as scheduled."
In all this we are left only with Holmesian logical deductions to untangle the mystery behind these assassinations if we reject the Syria hypothesis, at least for the assassinations that took place after Hariri died. But the Lebanese government and March 14th don't want us to resort to logic, they want us to swallow whatever they say as absolute truth without even attemting to shed a single light on this 'truth'. A Holmesian deduction one can make of the assassination pattern after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005 is that, even though we still aren't sure who killed Rafiq Hariri, it is clear that subsequent killings are different (I wrote about this when Pierre Gemayel was assassinated) and they have some of these goals or all of them at once:
Maintaining the outrage against Syria alive;
Preventing any internal dialogue in Lebanon and preventing any reasonable alternative to confrontation;
'Cleaning' the peripehry of the March 14th movement from potential challengers to its core or potential shifters. This is on the internal level where we are witnessing something bearing some resemblance to the Ten Little Indians scenario.
On the external level, regional and international, the pattern, as glanced at from Saad Hariri's remark, is nothing else than a build-up to more wars in the region and more divides. To Which March 14th are applauding, as if Lebanon and Lebanese did not already suffer from this dirty game before.
"...it is clear that the Arab region is undergoing yet another round of internationally-sponsored violence and perhaps even partition, redrawing the regional map along the line fantasized by some neocons. The objective of such policy is to establish a string of "pro-US" (and neoliberal) regimes across the region and punish the "bad guys," those state (e.g., Iran, Syria) or non-state (e.g., Hizbullah, Hamas) actors who reject Pax Americana and Israeli regional hegemony."
Elementary, my dear Watson.
19.9.07
September 11th, the Iraq War, and the Unregulated Security Business
"Blackwater is the most notorious example of this secretive, unregulated business sector. Founded in 1997 by Erik Prince, the Christian conservative beneficiary of a multi-million-dollar inheritance and a former Navy SEAL, the firm currently has about 2,300 mercenaries stationed in nine countries, of which about 1,000 are stationed in Iraq. There are another 20,000 Blackwater employees in reserve.
By its own description, Blackwater strives to achieve an honorable goal: "to support security, peace, freedom and democracy everywhere." In the firm's early days, however, their actual achievements lagged far behind that lofty creed.
Then came Sept. 11, 2001. Shortly after the terrorist attacks, Prince told the conservative news channel Fox News, "I've been operating in the training business now for four years and was starting to get a little cynical on how seriously people took security." He added that "the phone is ringing off the hook now."
The callers included the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the US Department of State and the Pentagon. Soon Blackwater had secured government contracts worth almost a billion dollars -- often without any competition. The company's headquarters in the marshes of North Carolina soon mushroomed into the world's largest military base, complete with shooting ranges, ghost cities to train urban combat, an artificial lake and a runway.
Blackwater's main client is the US Department of State --- the company has been protecting US diplomats in Iraq since 2003. The firm also provides bodyguards for Congressmen and women visiting Iraq."
"Above the Law?
It was not the first time that Blackwater -- or one of the hundreds of other security contractors in Iraq -- made the headlines. Indeed, individual firms have been sent back to the United States, usually without facing any penalties for misdeeds. Each time, the storm settled again soon afterwards. And each time, the mercenaries continued their patrols. They have long become indispensable, the "whores of war." That, in any case, is what Katy Helvenston -- the mother of Blackwater employee Scott Helvenston, who was killed in Fallujah in 2004 -- called them. Helvenston believes the company's stinginess and greed is partly to blame for her son's death.
But today, no one in Iraq can do without private security contractors any more -- neither the US military nor the diplomatic corps."
..."Iraq's government is not formally authorized to discipline security firms like Blackwater or even banish them from the country. Backed by Washington, Blackwater's men operate in a legal gray zone. They are immune to Iraqi law -- and at the same time they are largely left in peace by US courts should they be sent home."
By its own description, Blackwater strives to achieve an honorable goal: "to support security, peace, freedom and democracy everywhere." In the firm's early days, however, their actual achievements lagged far behind that lofty creed.
Then came Sept. 11, 2001. Shortly after the terrorist attacks, Prince told the conservative news channel Fox News, "I've been operating in the training business now for four years and was starting to get a little cynical on how seriously people took security." He added that "the phone is ringing off the hook now."
The callers included the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the US Department of State and the Pentagon. Soon Blackwater had secured government contracts worth almost a billion dollars -- often without any competition. The company's headquarters in the marshes of North Carolina soon mushroomed into the world's largest military base, complete with shooting ranges, ghost cities to train urban combat, an artificial lake and a runway.
Blackwater's main client is the US Department of State --- the company has been protecting US diplomats in Iraq since 2003. The firm also provides bodyguards for Congressmen and women visiting Iraq."
"Above the Law?
It was not the first time that Blackwater -- or one of the hundreds of other security contractors in Iraq -- made the headlines. Indeed, individual firms have been sent back to the United States, usually without facing any penalties for misdeeds. Each time, the storm settled again soon afterwards. And each time, the mercenaries continued their patrols. They have long become indispensable, the "whores of war." That, in any case, is what Katy Helvenston -- the mother of Blackwater employee Scott Helvenston, who was killed in Fallujah in 2004 -- called them. Helvenston believes the company's stinginess and greed is partly to blame for her son's death.
But today, no one in Iraq can do without private security contractors any more -- neither the US military nor the diplomatic corps."
..."Iraq's government is not formally authorized to discipline security firms like Blackwater or even banish them from the country. Backed by Washington, Blackwater's men operate in a legal gray zone. They are immune to Iraqi law -- and at the same time they are largely left in peace by US courts should they be sent home."
On The Israel Lobby Again
"Representative Jim Moran on the power of AIPAC, May 2007.
TIKKUN: What do you think the reasoning is for the Democrats who voted against the amendment requiring that the president get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran?
MORAN: Well, AIPAC strongly opposed it. In fact, Rep. Murtha, Rep. Obey, and myself wanted it in the supplemental. We had it in and then the leadership had to take it out because AIPAC was having a conference in Washington, and insisted with the leadership and many of the members with whom they have close alliances. Yesterday, AIPAC had an amendment to recommit the whole Armed Services Bill in order to add language requiring America to develop missile defenses jointly with Israel, to share all its missile defense technology with Israel. That passed overwhelmingly. There were only thirty members—that’s less than 10 percent—who voted against sharing all our missile technology with Israel. It received about 400 votes in favor of it. I was one of the thirty. My feeling was that it wasn’t just the incendiary language that Israel is under immediate attack and we need to protect it from another Holocaust, it was also the idea that the solution to Israel’s security is a militaristic one. I would urge you to read the Congressional record for the debate on the recommital. It put our loyalty to Israel in terms of complete military support. My feeling is that both America and Israel have acted in counterproductive fashion and have undermined their security by focusing exclusively on military capability.
That was a key vote yesterday. It was phrased by many as an “AIPAC vote.” As a result, it prevailed approximately 400 to thirty.
TIKKUN: In your estimation, how does AIPAC get that power?
MORAN: AIPAC is very well organized. The members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it’s a two edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every member knows it’s the best-organized national lobbying force. The National Rifle Association comes a close second, but AIPAC can rightfully brag that they’re the most powerful lobbying force in the world today. Certainly they are in the United States. Not in Europe, obviously. Most people that are involved in foreign policy especially look at a broad range of issues and consider a person’s entire voting record. AIPAC considers the voting record only as it applies to Israel.
TIKKUN: Where is the national interest, then? What happens to those who think that the best interest of the United States is to live in peace with the world? Certainly the American people feel a very strong revulsion towards this war in Iraq. Why doesn’t that translate into policy?
MORAN: You’ve touched on a quandary, and it particularly applies to the Jewish American community. Jewish Americans, as a voting bloc and as an influence on American foreign policy, are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as much as Jewish Americans. But, AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful—most of them are quite wealthy—they have been able to exert power.
The reason I don’t hesitate to speak out about AIPAC’s influence—notwithstanding the fact that I’ll be accused of being anti-Semitic every time I suggest it—is that I don’t think AIPAC represents the mainstream of American Jewish thinking. I think that, in fact, if you were to sit down with Jewish families in the United States, far more would agree with your philosophy of reconciliation, in acting in a manner consistent with Torah, and they believe in tikkun. AIPAC doesn’t believe in tikkun, judging from their policy proposals, but nevertheless, they have the Congress pretty… well [pause] “controlled” may be too strong a word, but their influence is dominant in the Congress—and their attitude is the opposite of Tikkun’s and the NSP’s. They support domination: not healing. They feel that you acquire security through military force, through intimidation, even through occupation, when necessary, and that if you have people who are hostile toward you, it’s OK to kill them, rather than talk with them, negotiate with them, try to understand them, and ultimately try to love them. That’s what Tikkun and the NSP is all about: healing, mending, reconciling, understanding, and love, which is why I think you are on the right path.
And yet the Congress seems to be going in the opposite direction, investing more money in the military than we invest in anything else, to dominate the world through our military, to impose our foreign policy through our military, to deal with all our security threats in a militaristic manner. It is a profound difference, and what you are suggesting through your magazine, and through your philosophy, is wholly at odds with the foreign policy and defense policy that we are implementing. This Administration is more militaristic than the Congress itself. My own personal view is that’s run by the people who don’t have the courage to stand up and be gentle and express the goodness of people. They strut on the world stage, suggesting that nobody can mess with them because they’re all-powerful. Of course, they gain their strength through the use and abuse of soldiers and military families that support them.
TIKKUN: Have you heard anybody in the Democratic Caucus present a scenario trying to convince other members of the caucus about why a strike at Iran would be a rational policy for either country?
MORAN: A strike at Iran is argued as necessary because of Iran’s potential threat to Israel. No one’s suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States, any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the United States. It’s a threat to our ally, and those in the Likud Party, and AIPAC, who agree pretty consistently with Likud, feel that the best way to eliminate a threat is to destroy it, and they want America to use its military might to eliminate that threat.
TIKKUN: Are there people who say that in the Democratic Caucus? In a meeting where you’re sitting together and saying “How do we vote on a bill to prevent the president from making war with Iran without having authorization from us?”
MORAN: Normally it’s said in somewhat veiled language. If you look at the debate that took place even yesterday, you can see language that pretty much says the same thing in the words of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen or Duncan Hunter or Tom Lantos. Tom Lantos has moderated his views somewhat. Mark Kirk introduced the resolution on Iran.
They make it clear that we should be prepared to enter into military conflict with Iran. There are several debates that took place on the issue yesterday. I’m sure you could get in online at the Congressional Record. May 16th and May 17th. You’ll find the debate, and you’ll find what’s being said is quite striking with regard to America’s need to be prepared for a military confrontation with Iran, notwithstanding that it’s 70 million people, that it used to be an ally, that it was a strong democracy until they elected Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the oil revenue, because most of the profit was being given to the American and British interests instead of the Iranian interests. So the British and the Americans had him executed and then imposed the Shah of Iran who imposed a philosophy that we liked. But did so with oppressive tactics. This caused the counter-reaction of the Ayatollah Khomeini coming in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, and that’s put the religious extremists in power.
America’s had a direct role in Iran’s fortunes, and we continue to believe that we can tell Iran what to say and do. I personally take great umbrage at the way Iran treats dissenters today. But that’s a relatively small number of people in sensitive positions in the religious and military factions. The majority of Iranians are very young—I think almost two thirds are under the age of twenty-five years, so it’s a very young population—and most of them want to be liberated from this repressive religious regime and be able to be part of a modern world. It’s a very well educated population, and for the vast majority of America’s existence, Iran has been our ally. The present enmity could be turned around if we could take an approach of negotiation, sound reconciliation, and trying to find areas of agreement, instead of trying to emphasize those areas of disagreement. Obviously, we need to protect Israel, but the more we brandish swords and threaten Iran, ironically, the more of a threat Iran becomes to Israel, because Israel is seen as a surrogate power of the United States. We are inextricably tied since our policies are seen as identical. I think that the attitude we’re taking is entirely wrong; nevertheless, it’s the reality, and we’ve got a long way to go before the Congress would turn around and embrace the kind of approach that you and a few other enlightened people are suggesting.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is the editor of Tikkun Magazine and the national co-chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives."
TIKKUN: What do you think the reasoning is for the Democrats who voted against the amendment requiring that the president get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran?
MORAN: Well, AIPAC strongly opposed it. In fact, Rep. Murtha, Rep. Obey, and myself wanted it in the supplemental. We had it in and then the leadership had to take it out because AIPAC was having a conference in Washington, and insisted with the leadership and many of the members with whom they have close alliances. Yesterday, AIPAC had an amendment to recommit the whole Armed Services Bill in order to add language requiring America to develop missile defenses jointly with Israel, to share all its missile defense technology with Israel. That passed overwhelmingly. There were only thirty members—that’s less than 10 percent—who voted against sharing all our missile technology with Israel. It received about 400 votes in favor of it. I was one of the thirty. My feeling was that it wasn’t just the incendiary language that Israel is under immediate attack and we need to protect it from another Holocaust, it was also the idea that the solution to Israel’s security is a militaristic one. I would urge you to read the Congressional record for the debate on the recommital. It put our loyalty to Israel in terms of complete military support. My feeling is that both America and Israel have acted in counterproductive fashion and have undermined their security by focusing exclusively on military capability.
That was a key vote yesterday. It was phrased by many as an “AIPAC vote.” As a result, it prevailed approximately 400 to thirty.
TIKKUN: In your estimation, how does AIPAC get that power?
MORAN: AIPAC is very well organized. The members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it’s a two edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every member knows it’s the best-organized national lobbying force. The National Rifle Association comes a close second, but AIPAC can rightfully brag that they’re the most powerful lobbying force in the world today. Certainly they are in the United States. Not in Europe, obviously. Most people that are involved in foreign policy especially look at a broad range of issues and consider a person’s entire voting record. AIPAC considers the voting record only as it applies to Israel.
TIKKUN: Where is the national interest, then? What happens to those who think that the best interest of the United States is to live in peace with the world? Certainly the American people feel a very strong revulsion towards this war in Iraq. Why doesn’t that translate into policy?
MORAN: You’ve touched on a quandary, and it particularly applies to the Jewish American community. Jewish Americans, as a voting bloc and as an influence on American foreign policy, are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as much as Jewish Americans. But, AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful—most of them are quite wealthy—they have been able to exert power.
The reason I don’t hesitate to speak out about AIPAC’s influence—notwithstanding the fact that I’ll be accused of being anti-Semitic every time I suggest it—is that I don’t think AIPAC represents the mainstream of American Jewish thinking. I think that, in fact, if you were to sit down with Jewish families in the United States, far more would agree with your philosophy of reconciliation, in acting in a manner consistent with Torah, and they believe in tikkun. AIPAC doesn’t believe in tikkun, judging from their policy proposals, but nevertheless, they have the Congress pretty… well [pause] “controlled” may be too strong a word, but their influence is dominant in the Congress—and their attitude is the opposite of Tikkun’s and the NSP’s. They support domination: not healing. They feel that you acquire security through military force, through intimidation, even through occupation, when necessary, and that if you have people who are hostile toward you, it’s OK to kill them, rather than talk with them, negotiate with them, try to understand them, and ultimately try to love them. That’s what Tikkun and the NSP is all about: healing, mending, reconciling, understanding, and love, which is why I think you are on the right path.
And yet the Congress seems to be going in the opposite direction, investing more money in the military than we invest in anything else, to dominate the world through our military, to impose our foreign policy through our military, to deal with all our security threats in a militaristic manner. It is a profound difference, and what you are suggesting through your magazine, and through your philosophy, is wholly at odds with the foreign policy and defense policy that we are implementing. This Administration is more militaristic than the Congress itself. My own personal view is that’s run by the people who don’t have the courage to stand up and be gentle and express the goodness of people. They strut on the world stage, suggesting that nobody can mess with them because they’re all-powerful. Of course, they gain their strength through the use and abuse of soldiers and military families that support them.
TIKKUN: Have you heard anybody in the Democratic Caucus present a scenario trying to convince other members of the caucus about why a strike at Iran would be a rational policy for either country?
MORAN: A strike at Iran is argued as necessary because of Iran’s potential threat to Israel. No one’s suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States, any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the United States. It’s a threat to our ally, and those in the Likud Party, and AIPAC, who agree pretty consistently with Likud, feel that the best way to eliminate a threat is to destroy it, and they want America to use its military might to eliminate that threat.
TIKKUN: Are there people who say that in the Democratic Caucus? In a meeting where you’re sitting together and saying “How do we vote on a bill to prevent the president from making war with Iran without having authorization from us?”
MORAN: Normally it’s said in somewhat veiled language. If you look at the debate that took place even yesterday, you can see language that pretty much says the same thing in the words of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen or Duncan Hunter or Tom Lantos. Tom Lantos has moderated his views somewhat. Mark Kirk introduced the resolution on Iran.
They make it clear that we should be prepared to enter into military conflict with Iran. There are several debates that took place on the issue yesterday. I’m sure you could get in online at the Congressional Record. May 16th and May 17th. You’ll find the debate, and you’ll find what’s being said is quite striking with regard to America’s need to be prepared for a military confrontation with Iran, notwithstanding that it’s 70 million people, that it used to be an ally, that it was a strong democracy until they elected Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the oil revenue, because most of the profit was being given to the American and British interests instead of the Iranian interests. So the British and the Americans had him executed and then imposed the Shah of Iran who imposed a philosophy that we liked. But did so with oppressive tactics. This caused the counter-reaction of the Ayatollah Khomeini coming in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, and that’s put the religious extremists in power.
America’s had a direct role in Iran’s fortunes, and we continue to believe that we can tell Iran what to say and do. I personally take great umbrage at the way Iran treats dissenters today. But that’s a relatively small number of people in sensitive positions in the religious and military factions. The majority of Iranians are very young—I think almost two thirds are under the age of twenty-five years, so it’s a very young population—and most of them want to be liberated from this repressive religious regime and be able to be part of a modern world. It’s a very well educated population, and for the vast majority of America’s existence, Iran has been our ally. The present enmity could be turned around if we could take an approach of negotiation, sound reconciliation, and trying to find areas of agreement, instead of trying to emphasize those areas of disagreement. Obviously, we need to protect Israel, but the more we brandish swords and threaten Iran, ironically, the more of a threat Iran becomes to Israel, because Israel is seen as a surrogate power of the United States. We are inextricably tied since our policies are seen as identical. I think that the attitude we’re taking is entirely wrong; nevertheless, it’s the reality, and we’ve got a long way to go before the Congress would turn around and embrace the kind of approach that you and a few other enlightened people are suggesting.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is the editor of Tikkun Magazine and the national co-chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives."
France's New Hawks
"On French radio on Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that it is time to "prepare ourselves for the worst" and indicated that he was talking about a possible war with Iran.
The remarks are simply the most recent indication that France under new President Nicolas Sarkozy is turning its back on the almost reflexive anti-US stance of his predecessor Jacques Chirac."
"Kouchner's remarks elicited a forceful reaction from the UN's chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, on Monday. "I would not talk about any use of force," he said, speaking outside an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna. Any use of force would have to be authorized by the UN Security Council, he said. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he said, in a reference to the US's argument that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
"I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy," ElBaradei said. "We need not to hype the issue." In a recent SPIEGEL interview (more...), ElBaradei warned that the next few months would be crucial for deciding if the Iran dispute moves "in the direction of escalation or in the direction of a peaceful solution."
Craig Murray about Israel's Nukes
"As the mad brinkmanship proceeds in the Middle East, it is worth bearing a few things in mind.
There is only one country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it is a highly aggressive racist state that visits untold misery on its neighbours and illegally occupies their land. It is called Israel."
Kanishk Tharoor: Europe risks irrelevance if it does'nt soften its approach to Iran.
Political cartoon from the French blog Grozbulles showing Kouchner with US military in the background,with the following caption: 'I am designated to replace Tony Blair as the new official European spokesperson for George Bush.'
The remarks are simply the most recent indication that France under new President Nicolas Sarkozy is turning its back on the almost reflexive anti-US stance of his predecessor Jacques Chirac."
"Kouchner's remarks elicited a forceful reaction from the UN's chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, on Monday. "I would not talk about any use of force," he said, speaking outside an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna. Any use of force would have to be authorized by the UN Security Council, he said. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he said, in a reference to the US's argument that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
"I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy," ElBaradei said. "We need not to hype the issue." In a recent SPIEGEL interview (more...), ElBaradei warned that the next few months would be crucial for deciding if the Iran dispute moves "in the direction of escalation or in the direction of a peaceful solution."
Craig Murray about Israel's Nukes
"As the mad brinkmanship proceeds in the Middle East, it is worth bearing a few things in mind.
There is only one country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it is a highly aggressive racist state that visits untold misery on its neighbours and illegally occupies their land. It is called Israel."
Kanishk Tharoor: Europe risks irrelevance if it does'nt soften its approach to Iran.
Political cartoon from the French blog Grozbulles showing Kouchner with US military in the background,with the following caption: 'I am designated to replace Tony Blair as the new official European spokesperson for George Bush.'
18.9.07
Yesterday's Federal Byelection in Outremont, Canada
I was away from the internet and from this blog for the last two days. Below is a link to what was my first political concern over the weekend and up until monday.
Canada's federal byelections.
Analysis by a grassroot activist who was on site during the last two weeks of the campaign. Bumpy road ahead for the Canadian liberals, their leadership, and Canada as we know it.
Canada's federal byelections.
Analysis by a grassroot activist who was on site during the last two weeks of the campaign. Bumpy road ahead for the Canadian liberals, their leadership, and Canada as we know it.
14.9.07
Sarkozy: Going Ugly Early
"Sarkozy had promised to expel 25,000 illegal immigrants from France by the end of 2007. But Hortefeux, who is head of the newly created Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, is struggling to meet the target, with only 11,000 having been shown the door in the first seven months of the year. "I want numbers!" Sarkozy told the minister in a meeting last month, according to Le Point magazine. "It's a campaign commitment. The French are expecting this from me," he was reported as saying.
...Tensions have also been raised after a parliamentary commission on Wednesday approved introducing DNA tests for family members of immigrants already in France. The measure will now be included in a sweeping immigration law to be debated by parliament next week, aimed at toughening visa requirements. "No subject should be taboo," Hortefeux told reporters on Thursday."
Sarkozy is the son of Hungarians who emigrated to France after the end of WWII. And his wife boasts about not having one drop of French blood in her veins. May be she should pass the test, who knows ?
Geneticians and former members of the national council for Bioethics on France's emerging infamy.
Read here my article : Sarkozy and the popular science of genes.
And here: Les Politiques de l'exclusion
...Tensions have also been raised after a parliamentary commission on Wednesday approved introducing DNA tests for family members of immigrants already in France. The measure will now be included in a sweeping immigration law to be debated by parliament next week, aimed at toughening visa requirements. "No subject should be taboo," Hortefeux told reporters on Thursday."
Sarkozy is the son of Hungarians who emigrated to France after the end of WWII. And his wife boasts about not having one drop of French blood in her veins. May be she should pass the test, who knows ?
Geneticians and former members of the national council for Bioethics on France's emerging infamy.
Read here my article : Sarkozy and the popular science of genes.
And here: Les Politiques de l'exclusion
12.9.07
Jean Bricmont on Why Bush Can Get Away With Attacking Iran
That's the Guy. I love everything he writes. One of the last few remaining true rational academics and a committed public intellectual.
"All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us."
Relevant links:
Another proxy war with Iran ? Israel hit Missiles in Syria-The US pleased-story stinks.
A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
"All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us."
Relevant links:
Another proxy war with Iran ? Israel hit Missiles in Syria-The US pleased-story stinks.
A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
11.9.07
Adam Pearlman Gadahn, ex mossad agent and a Jew who converted to Islam, is behind the latest Bin Laden video
Adam Pearlman, the Jewish Mossad agent who once wrote stinging essays condemning Muslims as "bloodthirsty terrorists", has been singled out as the creator of the suspicious "new" Osama Bin Laden video.
From the Telegraph
"American spy chiefs were quick to name Adam Gadahn, the head of al-Qaeda's English language media operations, as the author of large sections of bin Laden's broadcast.
Last October, the 28-year-old "loner" became the first American charged with treason since 1952, for appearing in a succession of al-Qaeda videos under the guise of "Azzam The American"
On this blog: The convert phenomenon
Thanks Dr. Nasir Khan
From the Telegraph
"American spy chiefs were quick to name Adam Gadahn, the head of al-Qaeda's English language media operations, as the author of large sections of bin Laden's broadcast.
Last October, the 28-year-old "loner" became the first American charged with treason since 1952, for appearing in a succession of al-Qaeda videos under the guise of "Azzam The American"
On this blog: The convert phenomenon
Thanks Dr. Nasir Khan
September 11th, Bush, Petraeus, and The Spin From Iraq
"The general's campaign in the Senate will continue Tuesday, on the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. He will appear in the morning before the foreign affairs committee, in the afternoon before the military committee, and finally Wednesday before the press. The talk in the White House is of "closing arguments."
The date for Tuesday's appearance was selected completely consciously. Bush's strategists probably know that each senator will refer to 9/11 today and thereby help to link the 2001 attacks and Iraq together in people's minds -- despite the lack of any proven connection."
Spiegel interview with US military historian Gabriel Kolko: "The US will loose war regardless what it does"
SPIEGEL: How would you describe the situation of the Bush White House today? What options does it have?
KOLKO: The Bush Administration suffers from a fatal dilemma. Its Iraq adventure is getting steadily worse, the American people very likely will vote the Republicans out of office because of it, and the war is extremely expensive at a time that the economy is beginning to present it with a major problem. The president's poll ratings are now the worst since 2001. Only 33 percent of the American public approve of his leadership and 58 percent want to decrease the number of American troops immediately or quickly. Fifty-five percent want legislation to set a withdrawal deadline. In Afghanistan, as well, the war against the Taliban is going badly, and the Bush Administration's dismal effort to use massive American military power to remake the world in a vague, inconsistent way is failing. The US has managed to increasingly alienate its former friends, who now fear its confusion and unpredictability. Above all, the American public is less ready than ever to tolerate Bush's idiosyncrasies.
SPIEGEL: What went wrong? Was the war doomed from the very beginning? How can the US military and the US government which is spending $3 billion per week in Iraq be losing the war?
KOLKO: ... Political conflicts are not solved by military interventions, and that they are often incapable of being resolved by political or peaceful means does not alter the fact that force is dysfunctional. This is truer today than ever with the spread of weapons technology. Washington refuses to heed this lesson of modern history.
Also, Juan Cole's lenghty analysis on how the present situation in Iraq will affect US politics for a long time to come and block any reasonable alternative to stagnation in a state of war or escalation.
The date for Tuesday's appearance was selected completely consciously. Bush's strategists probably know that each senator will refer to 9/11 today and thereby help to link the 2001 attacks and Iraq together in people's minds -- despite the lack of any proven connection."
Spiegel interview with US military historian Gabriel Kolko: "The US will loose war regardless what it does"
SPIEGEL: How would you describe the situation of the Bush White House today? What options does it have?
KOLKO: The Bush Administration suffers from a fatal dilemma. Its Iraq adventure is getting steadily worse, the American people very likely will vote the Republicans out of office because of it, and the war is extremely expensive at a time that the economy is beginning to present it with a major problem. The president's poll ratings are now the worst since 2001. Only 33 percent of the American public approve of his leadership and 58 percent want to decrease the number of American troops immediately or quickly. Fifty-five percent want legislation to set a withdrawal deadline. In Afghanistan, as well, the war against the Taliban is going badly, and the Bush Administration's dismal effort to use massive American military power to remake the world in a vague, inconsistent way is failing. The US has managed to increasingly alienate its former friends, who now fear its confusion and unpredictability. Above all, the American public is less ready than ever to tolerate Bush's idiosyncrasies.
SPIEGEL: What went wrong? Was the war doomed from the very beginning? How can the US military and the US government which is spending $3 billion per week in Iraq be losing the war?
KOLKO: ... Political conflicts are not solved by military interventions, and that they are often incapable of being resolved by political or peaceful means does not alter the fact that force is dysfunctional. This is truer today than ever with the spread of weapons technology. Washington refuses to heed this lesson of modern history.
Also, Juan Cole's lenghty analysis on how the present situation in Iraq will affect US politics for a long time to come and block any reasonable alternative to stagnation in a state of war or escalation.
Israel's unexpected Spinoff from a holocaust trial
JERUSALEM, Sept. 5 — It was one of Israel’s dirty little secrets. In the early 1960s, as Israelis were being exposed for the first time to the shocking testimonies of Holocaust survivors at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a series of pornographic pocket books called Stalags, based on Nazi themes, became best sellers throughout the land.
Read under the table by a generation of pubescent Israelis, often the children of survivors, the Stalags were named for the World War II prisoner-of-war camps in which they were set. The books told perverse tales of captured American or British pilots being abused by sadistic female SS officers outfitted with whips and boots. The plot usually ended with the male protagonists taking revenge, by raping and killing their tormentors."
The correction at the end of the article has to be absolutely read...
Read under the table by a generation of pubescent Israelis, often the children of survivors, the Stalags were named for the World War II prisoner-of-war camps in which they were set. The books told perverse tales of captured American or British pilots being abused by sadistic female SS officers outfitted with whips and boots. The plot usually ended with the male protagonists taking revenge, by raping and killing their tormentors."
The correction at the end of the article has to be absolutely read...
10.9.07
Israel Harrassing Palestinian expats into renouncing their citizenship
Link found on Angry Arab
"A new rule was adopted by Israel in March, stating that citizens of other countries who are of Palestinian heritage may be designated as Palestinian residents and forced to leave the country through Jordan, even if they possess round-trip airline tickets and, as in the Yacoubs' case, U.S. passports. For the Yacoubs, that means an 18-hour wait at a border checkpoint, forfeiting their return-trip tickets and buying new tickets at a cost of about $16,000.
Bedier, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the family was told the problem could be solved if they signed a paper renouncing their Palestinian heritage and all future intention to become Palestinian citizens.
The Yacoubs immediately contacted U.S. State Department officials, who were sympathetic, but told the family it was Israeli policy."
"A new rule was adopted by Israel in March, stating that citizens of other countries who are of Palestinian heritage may be designated as Palestinian residents and forced to leave the country through Jordan, even if they possess round-trip airline tickets and, as in the Yacoubs' case, U.S. passports. For the Yacoubs, that means an 18-hour wait at a border checkpoint, forfeiting their return-trip tickets and buying new tickets at a cost of about $16,000.
Bedier, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the family was told the problem could be solved if they signed a paper renouncing their Palestinian heritage and all future intention to become Palestinian citizens.
The Yacoubs immediately contacted U.S. State Department officials, who were sympathetic, but told the family it was Israeli policy."
9.9.07
Terror and The War Against Terror: The Convert Phenomenon
In July, Germany's interior minister, Wolfgang Shaüble, shocked everybody by stating that his country should consider the targeted assassination of suspected terrorists (that's what I call the Israelisation of western society). He had just met in a convivial way with Michael Chertoff, the US secretary of Homeland security, and felt that he was ready for the mission Chertoff seems to have suggested to him, protecting Germany from imminent terror attacks...
Then in August, Shaüble made headlines again when he suggested that his country might spy on the computers of anyone whom it suspects being involved in terror.
Germans were voicing opposition to such measures when terrorists struck home, just as Chertoff predicted, or were going to strike but were prevented from doing so. More deadly than Madrid and London as it seems... Terrorists in this case, as in every failed attempt since 9/11, were converts ! Labeled Homegrown terrorists, not to be confounded with immigrants which are a far more dangerous breed !
There is one interesting aspect to the phenomenon of converts in terror plots; these are interface people and can be easily manipulated by both sides. They can be manipulated by radical islamists. But they can also be easily manipulated by others who want to prove that Islam is a radical religion. The convert phenomenon is an interesting one and is surely one to understand and follow closely in my opinion because it proves in the first place that true Muslims cannot be easily radicalised and that only newcomers, those who don't understand the religion, are vulnerable to radicalisation. And many people, on both sides, have interest in radicalising 'Muslims'.
Read here the profiles for the Muslim converts of the 2006 transatlantic flight bomb plot between London and the USA.
Read here about the converts of the 2006 failed Toronto plot.
Read the following interview with terror expert Edwin Bakker on the convert phenomenon.
"SPIEGEL ONLINE: In your research, you've pointed out a growing participation of converts in terrorist acts -- so-called homegrown terrorists. Two of the three suspects arrested in Germany on Tuesday are such converts. Where do they enter the equation?
Bakker: In general, whatever their belief, converts are over-achievers; they're overcompensating for the fact that they did not see the light before. So, they tend also to be more susceptible to radical ideas, whether political or religious.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Have you found that there is a trend of people converting directly to Islamism or even jihadism?
Bakker: Yes. If you're not born and raised in a Muslim family where, for instance, your uncle was a scholar or you had contacts with the imam, you only know the basics. You have no critical questions because you don't really have an understanding of Islam. Anyone with a beard and a strong voice and certain symbols can look very convincing. So, with converts and sometimes with people whose parents are not very religions, they are more easily caught by these radical ideas. There's another element, too: a lot of them get their information from the Internet. But if you look at the Islamic literature available on the Internet -- in German or Dutch or Danish -- it's radicals who do all the translation. It's unbelievable."
Then in August, Shaüble made headlines again when he suggested that his country might spy on the computers of anyone whom it suspects being involved in terror.
Germans were voicing opposition to such measures when terrorists struck home, just as Chertoff predicted, or were going to strike but were prevented from doing so. More deadly than Madrid and London as it seems... Terrorists in this case, as in every failed attempt since 9/11, were converts ! Labeled Homegrown terrorists, not to be confounded with immigrants which are a far more dangerous breed !
There is one interesting aspect to the phenomenon of converts in terror plots; these are interface people and can be easily manipulated by both sides. They can be manipulated by radical islamists. But they can also be easily manipulated by others who want to prove that Islam is a radical religion. The convert phenomenon is an interesting one and is surely one to understand and follow closely in my opinion because it proves in the first place that true Muslims cannot be easily radicalised and that only newcomers, those who don't understand the religion, are vulnerable to radicalisation. And many people, on both sides, have interest in radicalising 'Muslims'.
Read here the profiles for the Muslim converts of the 2006 transatlantic flight bomb plot between London and the USA.
Read here about the converts of the 2006 failed Toronto plot.
Read the following interview with terror expert Edwin Bakker on the convert phenomenon.
"SPIEGEL ONLINE: In your research, you've pointed out a growing participation of converts in terrorist acts -- so-called homegrown terrorists. Two of the three suspects arrested in Germany on Tuesday are such converts. Where do they enter the equation?
Bakker: In general, whatever their belief, converts are over-achievers; they're overcompensating for the fact that they did not see the light before. So, they tend also to be more susceptible to radical ideas, whether political or religious.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Have you found that there is a trend of people converting directly to Islamism or even jihadism?
Bakker: Yes. If you're not born and raised in a Muslim family where, for instance, your uncle was a scholar or you had contacts with the imam, you only know the basics. You have no critical questions because you don't really have an understanding of Islam. Anyone with a beard and a strong voice and certain symbols can look very convincing. So, with converts and sometimes with people whose parents are not very religions, they are more easily caught by these radical ideas. There's another element, too: a lot of them get their information from the Internet. But if you look at the Islamic literature available on the Internet -- in German or Dutch or Danish -- it's radicals who do all the translation. It's unbelievable."
8.9.07
HRW's reports on the July 06 Israeli Agression on Lebanon: Complacency and Prejudice
Yesterday, Friday, Human Right's Watch executive director Kenneth Roth was speaking on Radio Canada's As It Happens about HRW's reports on the July 06 Israeli Lebanese war. He said both sides, Israel and Hezbollah, targeted civilian populations. More than 1000 civilians died in Lebanon while only 43 of the 163 Israeli casualties were civilians.
At the question that why HRW stopped short of accusing Israel of war crimes while it accused Hezbollah of war crimes, when both are accused of targeting civilians, Mr. Roth gave this quite silly answer: "War crimes are attributed to individuals. The Israeli army high commanders were not involved in issuing the orders for the bombings that killed Lebanese civilians, only army personnel and individuals at low command positions were. And the orders for bombing Israeli civilians were issued by the Hezbollah highest military authorities."
So either Mr. Roth is suggesting that Israel's bombing of Lebanese civilians was an error, which his report clearly rules out, or he is suggesting that only low level army personnel in the Israeli army committed war crimes, therefore exonerating the high level and the state of Israel, while not even accusing the low level of war crimes, leaving it to the Israeli army to instruct such an accusation or not. We know this tactic since the Abu Ghraib scandal...I have difficulty understanding Mr. Roth. There are many contradictions in his conclusions...
And how Mr. Roth knew that the Israeli bombings of Lebanese civilians were issued at a lower level ? Well Israel's army high command told him and he believed them. And he seems to have drawn the conclusion for the Hezbollah out of his pocket. Because, frankly, the distinction Mr. Roth is making of levels of command can apply to any army versus militia. When Hezbollah will be able to organise fully in an army with nultiple levels of command to hide who is making the real commands for operations on the ground, they will get rid of any accusation of war crimes then...
Mr. Roth said also that they had a very constructive discussion with the Israeli military command (not with the Israeli government whom he accused of denial... this is also quite surprising coming from Mr. Roth by the way because we all know that the July 06 war was entirely directed by the Israeli government and not by the army and that this was a major factor in their defeat) while, on the other side, Hezbollah threatened to demonstrate against the report if HRW were to make a press conference about it in Beyrouth. Which means that making a way for discussion with HRW might spare you a war crime accusation, for diplomacy sake...
Mr. Roth got it quite wrong. he questioned the wrong people. He did not go high enough in his investigation about the orders of bombing Lebanese civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure, the Israeli and the US governments...He had soft talk with the low level command of the July 06 war, the Israeli army...
That's the organisation who is defending Human Rights. Don't you feel vindicated and secure when this organisation bows to zionist pressure, does not investigate high enough in the hierarchy, makes diplomatic talks with an army who is known for its horrible human rights record, and takes prejudice as a base for its conclusions ? I mean why on earth do they need to investigate when at the end what prevails is complacency and prejudice ?
At the question that why HRW stopped short of accusing Israel of war crimes while it accused Hezbollah of war crimes, when both are accused of targeting civilians, Mr. Roth gave this quite silly answer: "War crimes are attributed to individuals. The Israeli army high commanders were not involved in issuing the orders for the bombings that killed Lebanese civilians, only army personnel and individuals at low command positions were. And the orders for bombing Israeli civilians were issued by the Hezbollah highest military authorities."
So either Mr. Roth is suggesting that Israel's bombing of Lebanese civilians was an error, which his report clearly rules out, or he is suggesting that only low level army personnel in the Israeli army committed war crimes, therefore exonerating the high level and the state of Israel, while not even accusing the low level of war crimes, leaving it to the Israeli army to instruct such an accusation or not. We know this tactic since the Abu Ghraib scandal...I have difficulty understanding Mr. Roth. There are many contradictions in his conclusions...
And how Mr. Roth knew that the Israeli bombings of Lebanese civilians were issued at a lower level ? Well Israel's army high command told him and he believed them. And he seems to have drawn the conclusion for the Hezbollah out of his pocket. Because, frankly, the distinction Mr. Roth is making of levels of command can apply to any army versus militia. When Hezbollah will be able to organise fully in an army with nultiple levels of command to hide who is making the real commands for operations on the ground, they will get rid of any accusation of war crimes then...
Mr. Roth said also that they had a very constructive discussion with the Israeli military command (not with the Israeli government whom he accused of denial... this is also quite surprising coming from Mr. Roth by the way because we all know that the July 06 war was entirely directed by the Israeli government and not by the army and that this was a major factor in their defeat) while, on the other side, Hezbollah threatened to demonstrate against the report if HRW were to make a press conference about it in Beyrouth. Which means that making a way for discussion with HRW might spare you a war crime accusation, for diplomacy sake...
Mr. Roth got it quite wrong. he questioned the wrong people. He did not go high enough in his investigation about the orders of bombing Lebanese civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure, the Israeli and the US governments...He had soft talk with the low level command of the July 06 war, the Israeli army...
That's the organisation who is defending Human Rights. Don't you feel vindicated and secure when this organisation bows to zionist pressure, does not investigate high enough in the hierarchy, makes diplomatic talks with an army who is known for its horrible human rights record, and takes prejudice as a base for its conclusions ? I mean why on earth do they need to investigate when at the end what prevails is complacency and prejudice ?
6.9.07
Israel accused of indiscriminate attacks during Lebanon war
Israel was accused today of firing indiscriminately during last year's war in Lebanon in a report by Human Rights Watch that challenged the country's claim that the high number of civilian casualties resulted from the militant group Hizbullah deliberately shielding itself among the Lebanese population.
In a 249-page investigation, its most detailed inquiry into the war, the New York-based rights group said its research showed that even though Hizbullah was also guilty of serious violations of the laws of war, there was no evidence that the militant group systematically fought from among civilians.
In a 249-page investigation, its most detailed inquiry into the war, the New York-based rights group said its research showed that even though Hizbullah was also guilty of serious violations of the laws of war, there was no evidence that the militant group systematically fought from among civilians.
Taking George Seriously (not W.)
Do you regret being friendly with Saddam Hussein?
I regret using words that, with scissors and paste, could be endlessly used by my enemies. I was never a friend of Saddam's. I was an opponent of Saddam's when Britain and America were his best friends and I used to demonstrate outside the embassy in London when businessmen and ministers were going in and out selling him weapons. But I just believe it is immoral to kill people's children because you don't like their dictator, especially when you helped put that dictator in power in the first place.
I regret using words that, with scissors and paste, could be endlessly used by my enemies. I was never a friend of Saddam's. I was an opponent of Saddam's when Britain and America were his best friends and I used to demonstrate outside the embassy in London when businessmen and ministers were going in and out selling him weapons. But I just believe it is immoral to kill people's children because you don't like their dictator, especially when you helped put that dictator in power in the first place.
3.9.07
A Conversation with Seymour Hersh
Link found on Angry Arab.
It Will All Fall Down: A Conversation with Seymour Hersh
From Adbusters #73, Aug-Sep 2007
DC: With your story on Lebanon about the US and Saudi Arabia supporting Sunni jihadists, including Fatah al-Islam, we then see the Lebanese army start to fight Fatah al-Islam in a refugee camp in Lebanon. What happened there?
SH: Look, I’m not being querulous but it doesn’t matter what I think. What obviously happened is that, assuming I was right, there’s a pattern here. If you go back two decades, when the war against Russia was being fought in Afghanistan, the Saudis convinced us that they could control the Salafis – Osama Bin Laden, etc. – and we overtly and knowingly aided them and it ended up biting our ass. So it’s not illogical to conclude that one of the things that happened is that people we thought we could control, we could not control. So, right now we are helping the Lebanese army fight people that we indirectly helped support. As usual, it’s complete madness.
DC: You met Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon some time ago. Is fear of him and his popularity their reason for supporting Sunni jihadists at this point?
SH: Sure. Of course.
DC: He’s been branded as a terrorist by the West and the media. What was your impression of him?
SH: I think in Europe he is seen much differently. The Germans certainly negotiated with him; the French do. In fact, Hezbollah was invited by the French government to a conference that may or may not take place on the whole Lebanese crisis. I hear it was delayed because of American protests. So basically this is an American point of view. I think the Brits even have a difference of opinion. And I don’t think there’s any question that, whatever he may have done two decades ago, today he’s certainly playing it responsibly, and his response to the crisis most recently has been pretty interesting, supporting the Lebanese army, etc. So his record speaks for itself. He’s also probably the most influential man in the Middle East right now.
DC: More so than [Iranian president] Ahmadinejad?
SH: Oh my God yes. I don’t think there’s any question. All the popularity polls show, particularly after the war against the Israelis, he was number one in the hit parade. I don’t know if this is true, but I think Ahmadinejad even wanted Hezbollah to come visit him publicly in Tehran at one point in the last six months. He wouldn’t do it, maybe for reasons as simple as his own security. But, he’s quite an imposing figure. And he’s somebody that, were we in the real world, we’d be dealing with. But we’re not in the real world here in Washington DC.
...DC: How do you see the media environment changing since that point (since the My Lai massacre story ) ?
SH: That’s a big question. Basically, it’s a little shocking to me that the mainstream press has so completely missed the story of this war in Iraq and this presidency. I think when we look back on this era we’re going to be very critical of the press. They really missed one of the great moral issues of our time, just as they missed Vietnam for many years. So it’s really pretty sad.
DC: Where do you see some good journalism happening right now?
SH: Dana Priest in the Washington Post did some good stuff. There’s a kid named Nir Rosen who does some good stuff and has spent a lot of time out there. There are a lot of good journalists out there doing stuff, not all of them necessarily where we can see it. My old newspaper, the New York Times, is basically a huge disappointment to me, not only because of Judith Miller but because they continue to flack for the war. And that’s sort of depressing. After all those years I spent there I am a little astonished that they haven’t figured out a way to be more critical of Bush.
It Will All Fall Down: A Conversation with Seymour Hersh
From Adbusters #73, Aug-Sep 2007
DC: With your story on Lebanon about the US and Saudi Arabia supporting Sunni jihadists, including Fatah al-Islam, we then see the Lebanese army start to fight Fatah al-Islam in a refugee camp in Lebanon. What happened there?
SH: Look, I’m not being querulous but it doesn’t matter what I think. What obviously happened is that, assuming I was right, there’s a pattern here. If you go back two decades, when the war against Russia was being fought in Afghanistan, the Saudis convinced us that they could control the Salafis – Osama Bin Laden, etc. – and we overtly and knowingly aided them and it ended up biting our ass. So it’s not illogical to conclude that one of the things that happened is that people we thought we could control, we could not control. So, right now we are helping the Lebanese army fight people that we indirectly helped support. As usual, it’s complete madness.
DC: You met Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon some time ago. Is fear of him and his popularity their reason for supporting Sunni jihadists at this point?
SH: Sure. Of course.
DC: He’s been branded as a terrorist by the West and the media. What was your impression of him?
SH: I think in Europe he is seen much differently. The Germans certainly negotiated with him; the French do. In fact, Hezbollah was invited by the French government to a conference that may or may not take place on the whole Lebanese crisis. I hear it was delayed because of American protests. So basically this is an American point of view. I think the Brits even have a difference of opinion. And I don’t think there’s any question that, whatever he may have done two decades ago, today he’s certainly playing it responsibly, and his response to the crisis most recently has been pretty interesting, supporting the Lebanese army, etc. So his record speaks for itself. He’s also probably the most influential man in the Middle East right now.
DC: More so than [Iranian president] Ahmadinejad?
SH: Oh my God yes. I don’t think there’s any question. All the popularity polls show, particularly after the war against the Israelis, he was number one in the hit parade. I don’t know if this is true, but I think Ahmadinejad even wanted Hezbollah to come visit him publicly in Tehran at one point in the last six months. He wouldn’t do it, maybe for reasons as simple as his own security. But, he’s quite an imposing figure. And he’s somebody that, were we in the real world, we’d be dealing with. But we’re not in the real world here in Washington DC.
...DC: How do you see the media environment changing since that point (since the My Lai massacre story ) ?
SH: That’s a big question. Basically, it’s a little shocking to me that the mainstream press has so completely missed the story of this war in Iraq and this presidency. I think when we look back on this era we’re going to be very critical of the press. They really missed one of the great moral issues of our time, just as they missed Vietnam for many years. So it’s really pretty sad.
DC: Where do you see some good journalism happening right now?
SH: Dana Priest in the Washington Post did some good stuff. There’s a kid named Nir Rosen who does some good stuff and has spent a lot of time out there. There are a lot of good journalists out there doing stuff, not all of them necessarily where we can see it. My old newspaper, the New York Times, is basically a huge disappointment to me, not only because of Judith Miller but because they continue to flack for the war. And that’s sort of depressing. After all those years I spent there I am a little astonished that they haven’t figured out a way to be more critical of Bush.
2.9.07
Israel working to prevent any viability for a future Palestinian state
Much has been said about Israel's right to exist. Nothing has been said about Israel's right to co-exist either with a Palestinian state or in a binational state with Palestinians. In other words, while Israel is enjoying the status of an internationally recognized state built on a stolen land, nobody is preoccupied with the future of the Palestinians who live as refugees or prisoners in an apartheid like pieces in what remains of their land.
Two recent reports highlight the uncertainty, if not the impossibility, of a future Palestinian state, following facts created on the ground by the state of Israel which accelerated since 2000; the settlements in the west bank cutting Palestinian villages and communities from each other, and sometimes villagers form their own orchards, and the network of roads reserved only for the Israelis. Now that the international community is showing, a bit late, some worry about the continuity of the west bank itself which became totally compliant and dependant on Israel (let's not mention the continuity between the West Bank and Gaza and what to make of Gaza ?), and therefore the viability of a future Palestinian state, Israel, following the Sharon doctrine of 'continuity through transportation', is planning some future roads for those compliant Palestinians. The future viability of a Palestinian state will depend for example in some cases on a 16 meters road between Betlehem and Ramallah, controlled by Israel...
French philosopher Régis Debray who went on an official mission to Israel and Palestine lately wrote a pessimistic report about the viability of a future Palestinian state to the French government. You can find excerpts from his report in the August French edition of Le Monde Diplomatique: "Palestine, a policy of deliberate blindness or how the world backed itself into a corner." Debray sometimes resort to irony and sarcasm to describe the state of neglect and the contempt in which the prospects for peace and existence for Palestine and the Palestinians are held by the international community and Israel.
The main question therefore is not Israel's right to exist, not even Israel's right to co-exist, because obviously Israel decided not to coexist. The main question is: what does Israel intend to make of the Palestinians ?
Two recent reports highlight the uncertainty, if not the impossibility, of a future Palestinian state, following facts created on the ground by the state of Israel which accelerated since 2000; the settlements in the west bank cutting Palestinian villages and communities from each other, and sometimes villagers form their own orchards, and the network of roads reserved only for the Israelis. Now that the international community is showing, a bit late, some worry about the continuity of the west bank itself which became totally compliant and dependant on Israel (let's not mention the continuity between the West Bank and Gaza and what to make of Gaza ?), and therefore the viability of a future Palestinian state, Israel, following the Sharon doctrine of 'continuity through transportation', is planning some future roads for those compliant Palestinians. The future viability of a Palestinian state will depend for example in some cases on a 16 meters road between Betlehem and Ramallah, controlled by Israel...
French philosopher Régis Debray who went on an official mission to Israel and Palestine lately wrote a pessimistic report about the viability of a future Palestinian state to the French government. You can find excerpts from his report in the August French edition of Le Monde Diplomatique: "Palestine, a policy of deliberate blindness or how the world backed itself into a corner." Debray sometimes resort to irony and sarcasm to describe the state of neglect and the contempt in which the prospects for peace and existence for Palestine and the Palestinians are held by the international community and Israel.
The main question therefore is not Israel's right to exist, not even Israel's right to co-exist, because obviously Israel decided not to coexist. The main question is: what does Israel intend to make of the Palestinians ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006