Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: Israeli Diplomat Carrying Large Quantity Of Explosives Arrested In Argentina
23/08/2006
Red Kalki
Last week, (mid August 2006) a very serious event transpired at the Buenos Aires international airport which the local mainstream press did not however bring to the attention of the public. Today, Red Kalki, relying on reliable sources, brings this matter into the open.
On Wednesday 9th August 2006, Ezeiza airport police arrested an important Israeli diplomat carrying a considerable quantity of explosives. The Zionist representative was en route to Chile and was detained minutes before boarding a plane. Despite his protests, airport police arrested him and informed the Argentine interior ministry of the situation which ordered that the situation be contained.
Firstly, it should be noted that the airport police, all ex aeronautical military police, were previously under the control of the Defence ministry and military command. Since the 'Four winds' (drugs) scandal however, control of this unit has passed to political funcionaroes of the Kirchner (Argentine PM) government. For various reasons, the unit is experiencing serious problems, among which is the precarious nature of their job security caused by the many failures of their new bosses in the interior ministry of the Krichner government and the many conflicts between the two.
According to various airport sources, including the members of the airport security unit, a verbal argument erupted between members of the unit and and members of the Krichner government who wanted to free the Israeli diplomat because there was no precedent for this type of arrest, which included the implication that if anything were happen as a result of the release of the bomb-laden Israeli diplomat, the blame would fall on the airport security unit.
Towards the invention of a "third attack"
For years, various reporters and indepdendent researchers have been highlighting the false nature of the "attacks" on the Israeli embassy in Argentina and on the headquarters of AMIA (Argentine Israelite Mutual Association which was "truck bombed" in July 1997 and the blame placed on Hizb'allah)
For example, the online magazine "Libertad de opinion" conducted an exclusive investigation into the Israeli embassy truck bombing in Buenos Aires in July 1997 (blamed on Islamic Jihad) in which it revealed reports submitted to the Supreme Court by engineers who had studied the scene of the embassy bombing and who asserted that there was in fact no truck bomb, that the building was destroyed by an implosion from within the building and that a crater was created before hand to provide evidence for the claim by local Zionist organisations that a truck bomb was the cause.
In May of 1999, the print edition of the same magazine (Libertad de opinion) published another shocking article in which it revealed the clues and questions that led many investigators to dismiss the "Islamic terrorist" hypothesis and to conclude that the the previously mentioned AMIA bombing in July 1997 was also the result of an internal implosion, on this occasion caused by the detonation of a box full of explosives that had been sent to the AMIA building by an Israeli community in Cordoba.
Today, Red Kalki is publishing details of both events so that readers can analyse and come to their own conclusions.
We observe that, despite the powerful interests who attempted to silence these issues, the claims of the 'Libertad de opinion' publication have stood the test of time, to the extent that, today, those who were originally accused of the "attack" have been freed due to a lack of evidence, and instead the ex-judge and Zionist Galeano, the ex-president of the DAIA (Delegation of Israeli Associations of Argentina) and the well know Zionist conman and bank robber, Ruben Baraja, are instead being prosecuted, while employee of the Argentine daily paper Pagina/12 and peddler of Zionist lies, Raul Kollman, is also being investigated.
A few weeks after Israel initiated its new aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, the Delegation of Israeli Associations of Argentina (DAIA) and the Wiesenthal Center, again began to proclaim to the press that a "third attack" in Argentina was in preparation. At the same time, the White House and the Pentagon began to announce results of their supposed investigations over the "latent dangers" in the Tripe Frontier area (area where the borders of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay meet) from the presence of the sizable "Arab Islamic community" there, including the suggestion that "al-Qaeda fighters" were ensconsed there.
With the war in the Middle East already begun, and as Red Kalki explained in our analysis of the conflict, a phenomenon, unexpected by Israel, occurred in the form of a unanimous rejection by the European and Latin-American left of organised Zionism. At the same time, South American governments refused to support Israeli terrorist policies, some through conviction and others in order to not appear as allies of colonialism.
In the particular case of Argentina, large-scale demonstrations by the Arab community took place which provoked the anger of local Zionist representatives, to the point that members of the Olmert government sent missives to the DAIA and the AMIA requesting that, in order to show their absolute and unfailing loyalty to Israel, they travel to Israel to personally express their support for the Israeli policy of unbridled genocide.
From all of this, it became clear to the Israelis that their image had passed from that of the victim to the victimiser. They concluded that the peoples of the world no longer looked upon them with pity but with repulsion, and as such, the Israelis are now desperately seeking to find new ways to re-esablish their role as that of the victim, a role which has always served them well to justify the mafia-like patronage of the US and the US military invasions of Israel's neighbors.
According to sources, a dramatic "attack" is being planned for South America, in order to neutralise the growing rejection of Zionist barbarity among South American governments. During the recent conflict, no South American government desired to come out in favor of Israel, and likewise, none wanted to openly criticise Hizb'allah. Given the existing conditions in the country and the militant awakening of the Argentine Islamic community, to the rest of the world a "third Islamic terror attack" in Argentina might appear quite credible. There also exists the possibility of such a 'false flag' attack in Chile where another large Palestinian community resides. Either of these two countries appear as likely targets, keeping in mind the recent news of the arrest of the bomb-laden Israeli diplomat en route to Chile.
The arrest of the diplomat set off alarm bells in the Casa Rosada (Argentina's 'White House'). Instead of making the arrest public and demanding explanations from Tel Aviv, The Kirchner government chose to maintain a disconcerting silence and allowed the days to pass. Rafael Eldad, Israeli ambassador to Argentina and self-declared Zionist fanatic who has had and has sons in the Israeli military, following instructions from the Israeli government, must surely have intervened in a shameless way in the matter of the arrest of the bomb-laden Israeli diplomat.
What will happen in upcoming months?
This is the important question that Argentine security forces are asking. After the Israeli diplomat debacle; will Tel Aviv call off or push forward with a similar "third attack"?
In the Zionist leadership, we notice something of a tendency towards an absolute loss of control caused by the fact that reality is not conforming to its nefarious plans. In an act of rage and impotence at not having achieved its military aims in Lebanon, in the last few days of the conflict, Israeli war planes dropped tons of bombs on Lebanese houses, hospitals, schools and religious temples, reaffirming in this way the genocidal policies of the Israeli invaders.
At the same time, the Zionist leadership in Argentina shares this irrational hatred and is totally subordinate to the directives of the Israeli government. Given this situation, intelligence analysts from various countries agree that it is very difficult to predict the exact nature of the Zionist plans for Argentina and its neighbors.
We hope that the Argentine government will finally do what must be done - reveal what happened at the airport; provide the complete details of the Israeli diplomat's identity; begin the necessary judicial investigation and demand immediate explanations from the Zionist regime in Israel. The Argentine government must also understand that to continue to cover up such matters, involves clearly forseeable risks to the security of the Argentine people and their country.
We at Red Kalki feel that we have done our duty in informing the citizenry.
Translated from the original by Joe Quinn for Signs of the Times.
Editor's note: See this link for details on the abovementioned attacks on Israeli targets in Argentina over the past 15 years.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: The Right To Return, a Basic Right Still Denied
Palestinian Right To Return Coalition
12/09/2006
- Palestinian refugees represent the longest suffering and largest refugee population in the world today.
- In 2005, there were approximately 7.2 million Palestinian refugees, equivalent to 74% of the entire Palestinian population which is estimated at 9.7 million worldwide.
- The breakdown of the refugee population is as follows:
 |
- During the creation of the Zionist state in 1948, approximately three quarters of a million Palestinians were forced to become refugees. Together with their descendants, more than 4.3 million of these refugees are today registered with the United Nations while over 1.7 million are not. According to The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), one-third of the registered refugees live in 59 U.N.-run camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The majority of the rest live in and around cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and of neighboring countries.
- Approximately 32,000 Palestinians became internally displaced in 1948. Today, these refugees number approximately 355,000 persons. Despite the fact that they were issued Israeli citizenship, the Zionist state has also denied these refugees their right to return to their homes or villages.
- When the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied in 1967, the U.N. reported that approximately 200,000 Palestinians fled their homes. These 1967 refugees and their descendants today number about 834,000 persons.
- As a result of home demolitions, revocation of residency rights and construction of illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian
owned-land, at least 57,000 Palestinians have become displaced in the occupied West Bank. This number includes 15,000 persons so far displaced by the construction of Israel's Annexation/Apartheid
Wall.
- The Right to Return has a solid legal basis:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 affirms: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country."
- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [Article 5 (d)(ii)], states: "State parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination on all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of ... the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country."
- The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights [Article 12(4)], states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."
 |
Moreover, the Principle of Self Determination guarantees, inter alia, the right of ownership and domicile in one's own country. The UN adopted this principle in 1947. In 1969 and thereafter, it was explicitly applied to the Palestinian People, including "the legality of the Peoples' struggle for Self-Determination and Liberation", (GAOR 2535 (xxiv), 2628 (xxv), 2672 (xxv), 2792 (xxvi)). International law demands that neither occupation nor sovereignty diminish the rights of ownership. When the Ottomans surrendered in 1920, Palestinian ownership of the land was maintained. The land and property of the refugees remains their own and they are entitled to return to it.
- In 1948, the international community felt a deep sense of responsibility for the mass dispossession, ethnic cleansing and the Zionist transfer policy that began then. United Nations Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, who was later assassinated by a Zionist terrorist hit squad, stated: "It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine" (UN
Doc Al 648, 1948). This remains true today as any Jew, regardless of national origin, can gain automatic citizenship while Palestinian Arabs are denied their right to return to their own homeland.
- Consistent with International Law, The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution
194 on December 11, 1948. Paragraph 11 states: "the [Palestinian] refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."
- UN General Assembly Resolution
194 has been has been affirmed by the UN over 130 times since its introduction in 1948 with universal consensus except for Israel and the U.S. This resolution was further clarified by UN
General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms in Subsection 2: "the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."
- Israel's admission to the UN was conditional on its acceptance of UN resolutions including 194. Denying the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands is a war crime and an act of aggression which deserves action by the international community. The international community can apply sanctions on Israel until it complies with international law.
 |
- The right of refugees to return is not only sacred and legal but also possible. Demographic studies show that 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. Ninety seven percent of the entire refugee population currently lives within 100 km of their homes. Fifty percent live within 40 km. While many live within sight of their homes.
- The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable. International law considers
agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null
and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human
rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution.
- The US is bound by its laws not to fund regimes that violate human rights and basic freedoms. There is no more elemental right than one's right to his/her home and to live in his/her land. The US could use the leverage of the massive financial support it gives to the State of Israel to press for this right.
*Sources:
Dr. Salman Abu Sitta
Palestine Land Society
Badil Resource Center for Refugee Rights
Shaml - The Palestinian Diaspora and Refugee Center
United Nations Relief and Works Agency
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Meanwhile in Baghdad...
By Dahr Jamail
09/12/06 "t r u t h o u t"
I've recently received several emails from Iraq. Some, like the first, have been sent to me from people I know. Others were passed on by my friend Gerri Haynes, who receives emails regularly from friends she made during her several trips to Iraq. I include them here, as the brunt of this piece, because they show the living hell that Iraq has become under US occupation.
Here is an email from a doctor living in Baghdad:
Although I have perfect job satisfaction as a full professor with an MRCP, FRCP, and two more degrees from London and France, things are so unhappy here in Baghdad. There is no quality of life at all. There are no services; we are loaded with garbage as it is not collected more than once every so many weeks. Garbage collectors are also afraid of being killed. We have almost no electricity, no fuel, bad water supply and what is more, you could get killed whether you are Shi'ite or Sunni if you fall into the wrong hands! I nearly got killed on several occasions!
As for our colleagues, nearly none are with me from our class since most have left the country. The last one to leave was Abdul Aal, who left two months ago to Oman. The only one left with me is Khdayyer Abbas, who is a physician in the department of Medicine.
It is not a miserable life; if there is a grade more than miserable, then it will be ours!!! We work no more than three days a week in the university. The medical city, which was elegant and beautiful before the occupation, is now surrounded by garbage, barbed wire and concrete blocks from all directions. We don't spend more than three hours maximum at work so that totals nine hours a week!!! This is the maximum that anyone is working. In the afternoons, most of my colleagues say that they have completely stopped going to their private clinics for fear of death or abduction.
I work no more than one hour and a half hour in the afternoon. I come back rushing to my house after that. We lock our doors and do not leave at all. What about shopping? It is called "Marathon Buying," for I try to spend no more than ten minutes getting all the needed vegetables, fruits and food items. This is on my way back from university, three times a week. I also spend another ten minutes in the afternoon on my way back from the clinic buying car fuel for my home electric generator. It is all black markets now since the lines are so long at the pumps, reaching four to five times the official price. If I need to get it officially, I have to spend the night in line in front of the gas station where people bring their blankets, water, food and sleep in the street in front of the gas stations. Sometimes I speak nicely to the guard of the gas station, presenting my ID and my business card and ask them if I can fill my car out of line. Sometimes they kick me out, other times I am lucky and the guard has some rheumatic complaints, back pain or knee pains, and bingo, I can fill my car out of line with a promise to bring him medicines to where he is. Of course, this is without any physical exam or investigations. If I was really lucky and the stars were on my side that day, then I might even be allowed to get an extra 20 liters of gas for my generator!!!
One month ago there were militia men with their guns storming the dormitories of the resident doctors in the medical city. They were looking for doctors from Mosul or Al-Anbar province. There was a big fuss, and the targeted doctors went into hiding so none were caught. The next day, two of them who were rheumatology post-graduates under my supervision asked me to give them leave to go to their hometowns and not be back except for their exams. I agreed, because they were leaving anyway. They would have been killed if they were caught, not because they have done any crime, but just because they are Sunni from Mosul or Al-Anbar. I believe that many doctors from southern parts of Iraq who were Shi'ites also left the dormitory that day because they feared that they were not safe anymore and it would be their turn with maybe Sunni militia gunmen who will come sooner or later. So everyone left!!!!
That same week, I had prepared a lecture for post graduate doctors in the medical city, and nobody appeared since all the resident doctors had left! Many have come back again, but are terrified. Life has to go on.
The same applies for other hospitals, where services are almost non-existent now. I was in Yarmouk Hospital two days ago. The resident doctor whom I was visiting was living inside the hospital with broken dusty furniture, wood and metal scattered all over. The doors and windows were broken and it looked like an animal barn. I was requesting a death certificate for a colleague, so I went with him to the morgue, where he kept the death registry. Outside the morgue there were bodies of two young men, both shot in the head, lying on stretchers in the open air. The hospital was barricaded behind huge cement walls. The hospital itself has been targeted several times by car bombs. Several months ago, doctors in this hospital declared a one-day strike because they were beaten and wounded by officers of the Iraqi National Guard. The hospitals are frequently raided by militia men who will pull the wounded out of their hospital beds and drag them to where they will be executed.
Attendance of patients to hospitals has dropped tremendously. Before the invasion, we used to see an average of 100 patients in our consultation clinic of rheumatology every single day. We don't see more than 20 nowadays. Don't ask me where the patients disappeared. Many are scared to leave their homes and go to the hospitals. The hospital used to provide medicines for the chronically ill, for diseases like rheumatoid arthritis. We used to have a monthly blood checking available, followed by a month supply of DMRDs. These supplies are now infrequent and blood checking is not done because services are so irregular. So most patients got fed up and decided it is no longer worth it to attend hospitals. Even simple medicines are not available most of the time for patients coming for acute complaints. Many who used to come from towns and cities away from Baghdad for better treatment in the capital city now think it is too risky and dangerous to travel to Baghdad for a follow-up. Patients stop their therapy altogether or depend on local facilities and whatever simple resources they get where they are, regardless of whether it is effective or not.
The financial situation of most families in Baghdad has gone so much down, that many find it is a luxury to treat chronic illnesses, since the priority is for food, fuel and staying alive. This is a small summary of what and how we are living.
Here is an email written on August 10. The woman who wrote it, Souad, holds a PhD and is a DU researcher who recently moved to northern Baghdad due to the security situation. She is a mother of four.
For a while we have been going through very hard times. My oldest brother, a kidney surgeon, died one month ago in a very painful situation. He was a director of a large clinic and was 61 years old. He had a severe stroke in the middle of the night. My brothers took him to Al-Kindy Hospital in the morning, because it is the closest to the area. After long time of waiting, they refused to hospitalize him in the intensive care because as they said they had no time for stroke victims and they had to perform so many amputations because of the explosions and the street fights. They asked my brothers to bring him back on Saturday, when they might have a place in the intensive care. My brother took him to private hospitals, which were very good at one time. Most of them were closed because their specialists had received envelopes saying "You have to leave, or else" with a gun bullet in the envelope. They took him back home, and he died the next morning. This is how much a human being is worth in liberated, democratic Iraq now. He worked all his life to save people's lives, but nobody saved his. We feel outraged and hopeless. We have more than 150 young men get killed every day only in Baghdad, and nobody knows what the Americans in Iraq are up to. The death squads attack Sunni Arabs areas, and when the people fight back to protect their kids and families, the American tanks start bombing the areas with the civilians in them. That proves that these squads are part of occupation plan to control Iraq. About two million people left Iraq this summer. On TV, we see the media making the relation between American and Iran look really tense. In Iraq, the Americans work hand in hand with the Iranian militias to slaughter Iraqis. I don't know when this bloodthirsty president of yours will stop. He is executing Hitler's plans with the Jewish, but this time on Muslims. I wonder what the children and teenagers will do after they see their parents suffering or being killed at the hands of occupation criminals. Excuse me for being so harsh and disappointed, but this is what we are doing every single day of our lives now.
Here is another email from Souad:
I know it is hard to imagine the situation. Baghdad turned into a ghost city this summer. Things are beyond the tolerance of any human being. No electricity, no fuel in the richest oil country to run even small house generators. 90% of the stores are closed because of the kidnappings and explosions. Some of my women relatives couldn't leave the house to their garden for six months. Can you imagine the house-prisons women are locked in here in Iraq these days? Some of them PhD holders. About two million Iraqi have left since June of this year to close-by countries waiting for a miracle to happen. We have no clue what will happen the next day. There is no planning and no reconstruction. Where are all the oil revenues going? Nobody knows. Every single dollar is being spent on security plans, and we have no security.
The following email is from Rizgar Khosnow, who is a Kurdish man with US citizenship and author of the book, Nothing Left But Their Voices. Khosnow lives in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, where most people in the US are led to believe things are so much better than the rest of Iraq. This first email is from August 12:
We have been stuck at home this summer because it is so hot here and we have very little electricity. Things are not that great here. As I have said in the past, I am considered wealthy here and I am just barley keeping my head above water. Believe it or not, I am spending $600-700 a month in gas alone! This gas I use to run my two generators, at different times in the day, and I must use them to run lights and fans. The rent is getting so ridiculous that the president of Kurdistan came on TV last night and said that he will do something about the rent increase that is going on here.
Three years ago, I rented a furnished home for $100 in the city of Arbil. Now, I pay $1500 a MONTH without furniture! My next door neighbor rented his home for $3,500 a month. Things are extremely bad here. The rich are robbing the poor. I wish I knew how people here are living when their monthly salaries are no more than $200 a month! Last year, a gallon of gas cost 25 cents and now the same gallon cost $6.00.
Here is another email from him:
I am glad that you are trying your best to get the word out. I feel that we need to let all Americans know what is going on. I have moved to my new home and it has taken me one week to do so. I have help from three of my relatives who are staying with me till I finish everything, and we still cannot seem to complete all that work that is needed. You will not believe how difficult things are here and how much I needed to do in my new home. Things are not easy here. At the new home we have electricity one hour a day. I have now bought another generator, now I have three of them, to give me power to run lights and fans. We also have not had water for three days so I had to buy water worth $20 a day! That is life here even for the well-to-do like myself!
Here is another email from him:
It is true what is going on is horrifying, but there is even more happening every day that goes by. Since I am moving from my current home to a new home, my cousin told me that he will come to Arbil and help us move. He lives in Baghdad. He called this morning and told me that he cannot make it because of the curfew that is going on in Baghdad. There is absolutely nobody going out of their home at any time.
It was supposed to be for two days but now it will be one full week. The curfew is only in the Sunni areas. That means the Shi'ites will still have their weapons to kill more Sunnis as they wish. Yesterday, some 20 or so soldiers entered all the homes in my cousin's area. They entered my cousin's home to search for weapons. It was a very scary and unpleasant experience for my relatives. Let me tell you what that means for people too scared to leave their houses now.
They have no food; only water, bread and some rice. Since there is no electricity, they cannot store food. We all know that Iraqis go to the market on a daily basis to buy food or they have to stay hungry for a week. Since there is no electricity, some areas have large private generators that they turn on for at most five hours a day to give each home enough power to run two fans and few lights- each home usually gets 4 to 5 Amps. They usually charge a lot of money for this service, and even that is not working this week, because the owner of the generator is not allowed to turn it on and he cannot even leave his home. Anyone needing medicine is out of luck. No government offices are open. Anyone needing to go to the hospital must wait for a week! Simply put, Iraq is nothing but a large prison.
Here is an email from him on August 19:
I do have a lot to say and I wish to get the word out. No American can imagine what is going on here at this time. It seems that the sad stories never end here. Just a few weeks ago, my cousins, the five of them brothers, were warned that they would be killed if they did not leave their homes in the Sunni areas of Baghdad. They all packed their bags and moved to Egypt with their families. The brothers will return to Kurdistan to work with me in the next couple of months once they set up their families in Egypt. This is the life in Iraq, and Bush and Rice keep telling us that we are "making progress in Iraq." What a bunch of bull - -
Here is an email from him on August 28:
I have concluded that there is no way on earth that Iraq will recover, as one country, in the next ten to twenty years. We need a new generation here if we are going to see any kind of peace. There have been so many killings here that there is no way one will forgive the other. I personally know many people in Baghdad who are waiting for the right time to seek revenge on others that have hurt them. There has been so much hurt here that you can never imagine it.
Iraqis have given up on peace in Baghdad especially. There is no hope. What you see on TV is propaganda and controlled by the USA and is absolutely not true. There is no such thing as "reconciliation" between Iraqis. There has been too much blood spilled and Iraqis are VERY well known not to forget and forgive.
Here is a letter I received from a WWII veteran named Jack Cross who had asked me if I had figures of the tonnage of bombs dropped by US warplanes in Iraq. I include it here to underscore the fact that those responsible for creating the living hell that Iraq has become are war criminals and should be treated as such. I include it here for those currently serving in the US military as an example of what true honor looks like:
I am 84 years old, and I flew as a navigator on B-25s in the campaign that drove the Germans out of North Africa - from Cairo to Tripoli. Then, returning home I undertook pilot training as a student officer. I then transitioned in B-29s, flying from Tinian as a co-pilot on the last ten missions against Japan. I was in the air when the atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and I participated in the total destruction of Aomori on the northern tip of Honshu.
Realizing how ignorant I really was, I returned home and entered the University of Chicago and spent several years getting my AB, MA, and PhD there. After this I served for a while in Air Force Intelligence in Washington in a relatively new "targeting division," then transferred to the CIA where, in the Materials Division of the Office of Research and Reports, I spent about seven years as an analyst, rising from a GS7 to a GS11 before quitting in disgust after sitting in on some of the early planning sessions in which the overthrow of Mossadegh [democratically-elected prime minister of Iran, 1951-1953] was planned.
Over the years, as I reviewed my experiences, I have come to realize that I was a participant in war crimes myself, as were so many others - and just how difficult it is to face that reality. Because we were all such heroes of the "good" war. Retrospect, however, shows me that there are no good wars. War is an abomination, a failure of our humanity, and a neglect of our better natures.
I sit here knowing that every major city in the world has been carefully targeted and the international armaments industries of all the major powers have become the most important things in supporting the economies of the countries of the world. I know that the electoral process has been corrupted by diabolical power brokers and realize just how ignorant - in the sense of not knowing anything about the structure (or mal-structure, if you will) of our governments - the people are, or their believing in an innate goodness of man despite all the evidence to the contrary. I cringe before the monsters that the Pentagon and its Air Force have become.
I cringe knowing that all political parties are completely complicit in these developments. I wish I could see some hope. But unless and until the people turn these Republicans out of office and Congress mounts serious investigations of all levels of corruption in the Bush administration and act on their findings, I am very pessimistic about the future. Unless these investigations are carried out and the findings are laid bare for the entire world to see just how nefarious this administration has been - and because this bunch of people know just how serious all this is to their own survival - I am very pessimistic about the future.
No, I don't think we will be able to get the figures for the number of bombs and missiles we have used in this Iraqi war crime, nor will we know what will be used in Iran. It has become important to these people for us not to know these things.
Comment on this Editorial
Ponerized
US Student: "Palestinians welcomed me with open arms into their homes and shared with me what little that they had"
Central Michigan Life
September 13, 2006
Even an impending war couldn't stop Cody O'Rourke from volunteering.
He recently spent three weeks in the West Bank rebuilding a family's demolished home.
O'Rourke, a 25-year-old senior from Gladwin, became interested in traveling to the region after a friend shared a story with him about the struggles of the Palestinian people.
This was his second trip to the region in less than two years.
During this trip, hostilities between Lebanon and Israel had grown worse, but O'Rourke went ahead with his plans despite the danger.
"I was a bit nervous," he said. "But I knew that I had to go anyway."
O'Rourke was greeted by locals with a mixture of distrust and excitement when he arrived in the West Bank.
"The response from the Israeli Defense Forces was usually poor and unwelcoming," O'Rourke said.
"But there are many Israelis who want to try to work with the Palestinian people so that they can share peace."
Palestinians welcomed O'Rourke with open arms into their homes and shared with him what little that they had, he said.
For an American traveling in the region, the dangers are high.
"People were probably suspicious of (O'Rourke) at first," said Apler Dede, temporary faculty in the political science department. "People perceive (Americans in the region) as a negative thing - they think it could be part of a larger conspiracy theory. People in the region are usually suspicious of people from the west, especially Americans."
Many in the region learn about America from films and news reports, so meeting an American often creates a stereotype conflict, Dede said.
"I was trying to understand the United States from Hollywood movies," said Dede, who is from Turkey. "I never had a chance to understand America - imagine what it's like to try to understand the U.S. from seeing movies."
In order to blend in with his surroundings, O'Rourke said he made up various stories to tell the IDF if they became suspicious of his activity in the region.
"(The IDF) don't like internationals traveling around the West Bank," he said.
Plans were changed abruptly when the site where O'Rourke was building a home came under fire from the IDF, who exchanged rubber bullets and tear gas with locals.
"The first house we were trying to build was in a southern part of Anata," O'Rourke said. "We had to stop building because it was being built in an area where the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier was going up."
Building the house proved to be the most difficult task for O'Rourke, he said.
"We had no power tools," O'Rourke said. "The house was made mostly out of cement, so we had to mix most of it by hand."
Three weeks in a war zone hasn't deterred O'Rourke's interest in the area, he said.
"I am planning to go back next summer and spend the entire summer there working with some kids at the Hope Flowers Al-Amal School, which is a school that teaches nonviolence in their regular curriculum," he said.
Despite the dangers present in the region, O'Rourke said people should remain interested in helping.
"(They shouldn't) let fear sway their decisions," O'Rourke said. "Don't let the fear of not getting enough money, or being hurt, or detained, or kidnaped influence your decision, but rather, the simple will to help people."
Comment on this Article
Sources: Hamas-led cabinet to resign within 48 hours
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-14 19:06:39
GAZA, Sept. 14 (Xinhua) -- The Hamas-dominated Palestinian cabinet led by Prime Minister Ismail Haneya would resign within 48 hours, well-informed sources said on Thursday.
Haneya had planned to hand the letter of resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday evening, but Abbas, who was to meet visiting French foreign minister at his Ramallah headquarters could only travel to the Gaza Strip on Friday, said the sources on condition of anonymity.
The move was part of preparations for forming a new Palestinian government with the participation of Fatah, paving the way for the resumption of badly-needed Western aid.
Many world donor countries have cut off direct aid to the Palestinians since Hamas came to power after its victory in the January elections.
Though many portfolios would be re-designated, Abbas confirmed on Wednesday that Haneya is the one that would be asked to form and lead the 11th Palestinian coalition government.
Comment on this Article
Military court halts release of Hamas officials following appeal
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent
Last update - 14:29 14/09/2006
An Israeli military court on Thursday suspended the release of 20 Hamas legislators and ministers detained by Israel following an appeal by the military prosecutor.
Instead, the court will hold a hearing next Monday on a possible extension of their administrative detention.
The deputy president of the IDF court, Judge Ronen Atzmon, ordered the release of the 20 last Tuesday, and voiced rare criticism of their detention.
In his decision to free the politicians, Atzmon questioned the timing of the arrests, noting that the men were permitted to run for office and serve in the Palestinian government for months before their detentions.
"There is evidence upon which the charges are apparently based," he said, but added that the officials should be released until their trial begins. Only then would it be possible to request their detention until the end of legal proceedings, he said.
The 20 were arrested in the wake of the abduction of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants on June 25.
The court on Thursday rejected the arguments of the detainees' lawyers, who said they enjoyed diplomatic immunity and that the arrests contravened the Geneva Convention.
Comment on this Article
Children detained in Israeli jails
Maan News
Sep 14, 2006
The Palestinian Prisoner Society has appealed to local and international human rights organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and children's organizations, to intervene immediately for the release of two boys currently being held in the Talmond Prison.
The children suffer from difficult psychological conditions in their detention.
Muhammad Othman, 11, and Rafeeq Al Aishih, 13, are from the Our At Tahta region outside the city of Ramallah. They were beaten during their arrest two weeks ago, before being transferred to an Israeli military outpost and forced to sign statements under threats and further beating.
The Israeli authorities have, since the beginning of the Al Aqsa Intifada in September 2000, arrested more than 5000 child detainees. 350 of them, between the ages of 11 to 18, are still detained in several Israeli prisons and investigation centers and are exposed to almost daily attacks by their captors.
Comment on this Article
Amnesty International report: Hezbollah guilty of war crimes
By Yossi Melman
Haaretz Correspondent and DPA
14/09/2006
Amnesty International has accused Hezbollah of "serious violations of international humanitarian law, amounting to war crimes" during the recent Lebanese war.
In a report published in London Thursday, the human rights group condemned the "deliberate targeting" of Israeli civilians by Hezbollah.
The report states that 43 civilians, including seven children, were killed in these Hezbollah attacks.
In meetings with Amnesty International, Hezbollah had argued that its rocket attacks on northern Israel were a reprisal for Israeli attacks on civilians in Lebanon and were aimed at stopping such attacks.
In its report Amnesty rejects the Hezbollah claim by pointing out that international law forbids the targeting of civilians and reprisals.
During the month-long conflict, Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into northern Israel, killing 43 civilians, seriously injuring 33 others and forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians to take refuge in shelters or flee, the report said.
Approximately a quarter of all rockets were fired directly into urban areas, including rockets packed with thousands of metal ball bearings.
"The scale of Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians make it all too clear that Hezbollah violated the laws of war," Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan said in a comment on the report.
"The fact that Israel has also committed serious violations in no way justifies violations by Hezbollah. Civilians must not be made to pay the price for unlawful conduct on either side."
Combined with its earlier publication on Israel's targeting of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, the latest findings underlined the urgent need for the United Nations to establish a full and impartial investigation into violations committed by both sides.
The Amnesty report on Israel was severely criticized in Israel and by Jewish groups abroad, who accused the human rights organization of bias. These same critics maintain that Amnesty should have waited and issued the two reports simultaneously.
Haaretz learned that the decision on the timing of the reports' release was made in London, which did not please officials of Amnesty at the Israel office.
The director of the Amnesty International office in Tel Aviv, Amnon Yarden, will present Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav with a copy of the report Thursday.
Comment: So it's okay for Israel to invade Lebanon, destroy much of the country's civilian infrastructure, and murder thousands of civilians, but Hezbollah is the one condemned for killing 43 Israeli civilians?? Obviously, Amnesty International believes that Israeli lives are far more valuable than Lebanese lives.
Comment on this Article
Lebanon: Israel encroaching on our soil with new fence
By The Associated Press
KAFR KILA, Lebanon - United Nations peacekeepers asked Israel's army yesterday to pull down a new barbed-wire barrier that Lebanon says encroaches on its territory. However, Israel denied that the fence was on Lebanese soil.
Meanwhile, the handover of south Lebanon continued, with Lebanese troops taking control of a large border zone for the first time in three decades. Israel, whose forces in Lebanon now number a few thousand, said on Friday that it expected to pull all of its troops out within two weeks.
UN peacekeepers inspected the disputed barrier - two coils of barbed-wire that Lebanon says were unfurled some 15 meters inside Lebanon, just across from the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Saniora protested the encroachment, and a spokesman for the UN mission in Lebanon said that the peacekeeping force had asked Israel's army to remove the barrier.
But the Israeli military said that it was repairing the fence along the route set down in a 2000 UN resolution. The fence is not inside Lebanese territory, it said, so there is no reason to remove it.
At the border, a new dirt track controlled by Israelis could be seen running between the tall border fence and the barbed-wire coils laid inside a field.
"The Israeli soldiers moved in and began unfurling their wire in the middle of my land," said farmer Mahmoud Sheikh. He said that the incident occurred three days ago, and that the troops had waved him off as he tried to intervene.
New barriers have been put up in several places, including the Khiam plain and the town of Ghajar. The barriers enclose an area about 15 meters deep and three kilometers wide, Lebanese Army and UN officials said.
Some 10 kilometers away from the contested stretch of fence, Lebanese soldiers in a long column of old jeeps and armored vehicles took control of a 200-square-kilometer zone around Houla, near the border, for the first time in decades.
Children clapped their hands, women threw rice and men waved yellow Hezbollah baseball caps to greet some 300 soldiers. A Lebanese officer commanding the deployment said that because the army has not been in the zone for decades, "we've been studying maps and aerial photographs to find our way."
"We're overjoyed to have them all here," said the mayor of Minni Hayam, Salah Jaber. "Finally, the sovereignty of Lebanon is restored here."
Also yesterday, some 175 French soldiers landed in Lebanon, bringing the number of UN peacekeepers to nearly 3,750.
Under the UN resolution that ended the conflict, 15,000 UN peacekeepers are to secure a buffer zone with Israel in south Lebanon, supporting an equal number of Lebanese troops.
The resolution also calls for disarming Hezbollah. But most soldiers being deployed in the south are conscripts, who are deemed no match for the highly trained guerrillas, and many also say they support Hezbollah.
"Hezbollah are our brothers," said Assem Shouri, a soldier deployed in the southern town of Tibnine. "If ever there's a problem with Israel and I'm asked to disarm them, I'd leave the army and join Hezbollah."
In Berlin, Germany's cabinet approved the deployment of warships to the eastern Mediterranean as part of the peacekeeping force. Parliament, which must also approve the deployment of up to 2,400 navy personnel, is to vote on it next week.
Comment on this Article
One month on, uneasy truce holds in battle-scarred border villages
Clancy Chassay in Aita al-Shaab
Thursday September 14, 2006
The Guardian
In the dusty, broken village of Aita al-Shaab, where almost every house bears scars from the battle between Israel and Hizbullah, the war still lingers a month after it officially ended.
Israeli tanks and bulldozers roam back and forth across the border at night, locals say, while Hizbullah fighters patrol the thick green hills above the village. The sound of Israeli drones is familiar to the people of southern Lebanon, who report daily over-flights.
According to Alexander Ivanko, spokesman for the UN interim force in Lebanon (Unifil), there have been more than 100 recorded ceasefire violations by Israeli forces in the last month. These have been mostly over-flights and incursions by tanks, troops and bulldozers. Mr Ivanko said that 24 Lebanese civilians - including four men from Aita al-Shaab - had been detained at gunpoint by Israeli troops. All were later released.
In addition to the incursions, there have also been a number of shooting incidents - described by the residents of Aita al-Shaab as "intimidation fire".
Gunfire fears
Some locals have moved to escape the gunfire on the edge of the village, a few hundred metres from the site where two Israeli soldiers were abducted on July 12, sparking a 34-day conflict that left more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians dead. Wafa Srour, 21, said: "The bullets were coming very close to the house, so we moved to a friend's house close to the centre of town."
Last night the Israel Defence Force said it had kept to the requirements of UN resolution 1701, which ended the conflict, and 80% of territory had been "transferred" to Unifil. Israel reserved the right to continue "intelligence surveillance" while the two captured Israeli soldiers were still held, it said.
Like the Israeli forces, Hizbullah has not withdrawn from the battlefield. Within minutes of the four Aita al-Shaab residents being held by Israeli troops last Friday men from the village took up position in anticipation of a possible battle. They wore Hizbullah's trademark black T-shirts and combat trousers.
But the villagers say local fighters will not violate the ceasefire. "Sayyed Hassan [Nasrallah, the Hizbullah leader] has said that is what is best for Lebanon, so that is what they'll do," said Fatmeh Srour, 19, Wafa's sister. She said many in the village believed Israel was trying to provoke them. "They were trying to take us back into war by shooting at everything, but we remained steadfast."
The Srour sisters lost their brother, Mohammed, in the fighting. "He was a brave warrior; he fought hard in two battles before he was martyred," Fatmeh said. Her husband, a Hizbullah fighter, was on patrol in the next village. "Every time we see the boys holding their heads high, it makes us feel proud."
Many villagers lost relatives in the conflict, either Hizbullah fighters or civilians killed by missiles. Many houses have been shredded beyond recognition and conditions are difficult, with many villagers suffering infections from contaminated well water. Aid workers have set up a clinic and are working with Hizbullah officials to distribute supplies. A small medical camp has been set up by the Iranian Red Crescent.
As well as bringing tinned food in the days after the ceasefire the UN delivered tents, but most families prefer to live in the remains of their homes. According to the UN, the Italian contingent has carried out some limited de-mining operations and the French have been involved in engineering, but now they remain in their bases citing "logistical problems".
Compensation
Most residents are too loyal to criticise Hizbullah, but one family said it felt abandoned by the party, which runs the local council. The family got the standard $12,000 (£6,400) compensation from Hizbullah for its destroyed house but was then told it was on its own. "What are we supposed to do when winter comes and we do not yet have a new house?" asked the grandmother.
Few in the village are reassured by the Lebanese army's deployment. Kalamia, 59, recalled a previous visit. "I remember back in the 70s, the last time the Lebanese army was here," she said. "There were about seven soldiers stationed here and when the Israelis came over the hill and down into the village not a single soldier even raised his gun. They don't have the weapons to defend us, it's all for the cameras."
Talk of the UN met with a similar lack of enthusiasm. "We don't know them and they don't know us - so how can their be any real trust between us? They will not stand against the Israelis; they are Europeans that are coming now," said Kalamia. Villagers had seen UN troops roll through the village without stopping a few days earlier. "They have come and gone before, it's the same old story. Whether they're here or not, it doesn't make any difference to us," said Fatmeh Srour.
In neighbouring Rmeish, the mood is different, with young people strolling through relatively unscathed streets. A largely Christian village, it escaped much of the fighting and its people are happy to see the Lebanese army and UN forces providing extra protection.
Nearby Bint Jbeil, where the bloodiest battles were fought, is the first of four southern towns to benefit from a planned $300,000 reconstruction project funded by Qatar. The Lebanese army deployed to the town nearly two weeks ago, but the residents still complain of Israeli harassment. "It's not a ceasefire yet because the Israelis have not stopped their firing," said Ibrahim Bassi. "The big test for the Unifil is whether they can stop the violations."
Back in Aita al-Shaab, a man recited the opening verse of the Qur'an over a freshly laid gravestone. As the sun slipped over the hill into Israel, an explosion rang out across the lush green hills of the border.
Comment on this Article
Former IDF chief: Soldiers were sacrificed for spin
By Jonathan Lis, Eli Ashkenazi and Ari Shavit
Haaretz Correspondents
14/09/2006
Former chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon believes the prime minister and chief of staff should resign, and the defense minister should be replaced for mismanaging the war in Lebanon.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with Haaretz which will be published in Friday's Magazine, Ya'alon condemned the decision to launch the ground operation at the end of the war, in which 33 soldiers died.
"That was a spin move," Ya'alon said. "It had no substantive security-political goal, only a spin goal. It was meant to supply the missing victory picture. You don't do that. You don't send soldiers to carry out a futile mission after the political outcome has already been set. I consider that corrupt."
You are saying a very serious thing. Thirty-three soldiers were killed in that operation. Were they killed to achieve a spin?
"Yes. And that is why people have to resign. For that you don't even need a commission of inquiry. Whoever made that decision has to assume responsibility and resign."
Does the prime minister have to resign?
"Yes. He can't say he didn't know. He can't say that. Even if he was not an army person in the past and was not prime minister or defense minister, he knows how one goes to war. This is not the way to go to war. And he knows how a war is managed. This is not the way a war is managed. Going to war was scandalous, and he is directly responsible for that. The war's management was a failure, and he is responsible for that. The final operation was particularly problematic, and he was directly involved in that. He was warned and did not heed the warnings. Therefore, he must resign."
And the chief of staff?
"The chief of staff failed in the management of the war. He gave the political echelon the feeling that he had the capability, which in practice he did not have, to bring about a political achievement by means of an extremely aggressive military operation.
"He entered the war without defining it as a war, and maybe without understanding that it was a war. He did not understand the implications of the measures he himself adopted. He did not mobilize the reserves in time, and did not open the emergency depots in time, and did not activate the high-command base.
"He managed the war from his office. He imposed missions such as Bint Jbail without any discussion and without consulting with the command about the consequences and implications. He created lack of clarity that rattled the forces in the field, caused a loss of trust and generated chaos. He did not give the commanders in the North backing. He did not build a structure that would help him overcome his weakness in the land sphere. He managed the campaign arrogantly and shallowly."
Must the chief of staff resign?
"Yes. He should have resigned immediately after the conclusion of the campaign."
And the defense minister?
"The defense minister should be replaced. There is a certain justice to what he says about being new and not having time to learn and not even hearing that there were rockets in Lebanon. But the responsibility is on his shoulders in his very agreement to take the job. Both he and the person who appointed him are responsible for appointing an inexperienced person to a sensitive post, without taking into account that within a short time he would have to manage a crisis. There is no doubt the leadership team that was created here was perceived by Hezbollah as weak and inexperienced. Nasrallah may have been taken by surprise at the aggressive reaction by the prime minister, defense minister and chief of staff, but in the end he was right in his assessment that this team was incapable of managing a war properly."
Ya'alon still denied any intention of entering politics, but his denial sounds fainter than before. "Today I don't think politics is my way to exert influence," he said.
Comment on this Article
Israeli president grilled on sex allegations
AFP
Wed Sep 13, 2006
JERUSALEM - Israeli President Moshe Katsav was grilled by police for a fifth time over allegations of sexual harassment in a growing scandal that threatens to end his career.
Katsav was questioned by police investigators for six hours at his Jerusalem residence, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP.
"Police questioned President Moshe Katsav for six hours on Wednesday. He is suspected of obstructing justice, perjury and illicit phone-tapping" in connection with the allegations, Rosenfeld told AFP.
"The police also questioned seven women who have been employees of Katsav in the course of his various public duties, but some of this testimony cannot be used in evidence against him," he added.
Rosenfeld said Katsav would be questioned again later on a date yet to be set.
Israeli media on Wednesday night quoted a presidency official who did not wish to be named as saying Katsav completely rejected the allegations against him.
"It is a baseless plot hatched a long time ago by a group of criminals who want to strip him of his post," the official was quoted as saying.
"He will continue to fight these false allegations until the truth is known and justice is done," the official was reported as adding.
The 61-year-old Iranian-born head of state was last week grilled on two consecutive days by police, following two earlier sessions in August.
The married father of five faces allegations that he forced at least two women employees to have sex with him by abusing his position of authority and suspicions that his office granted illegal pardons to prisoners.
Katsav, who could yet be forced to resign, has denied the allegations against him and rejected calls that he step down pending the investigation.
A parliamentary committee Wednesday agreed to accept a request from Katsav that his duties be suspended for a day on Thursday so that he would not have to preside over the swearing-in of nation's first female head of the supreme court.
"In this way, President Katsav wants to avoid any controversy that his presence can create in current circumstances," his spokeswoman Hagit Cohen said on Sunday.
The Katsav case is the latest blow to hit Israel's leadership, with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government steering its way through public anger over failings of its 34-day war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Comment on this Article
"Axis of Evil"
Who was behind the attack on the US embassy in Syria?
By Joe Kay
13 September 2006
On Tuesday, Syrian officials foiled an attack on the American embassy in Damascus. Three of the attackers were shot and killed, while another was captured by Syria. Three Syrian security agents were wounded, along with ten civilians and a Chinese diplomat.
Syria has initially fingered a little-known group called Jund al-Sham, an organization that reportedly has ties to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
In evaluating an event such as the failed attack on the US embassy in Damascus, it is necessary first of all to ask the question, "Who benefits?"-or, in this case, "Who would have benefited?"
Who could possibly have an interest in attacking the American embassy? The attack failed because of the intervention of the Syrian forces, combined with the apparently primitive character of the explosives used by the attackers. If it had succeeded, however, the most likely consequence would have been a sharp increase in pressure directed against Syria by the United States government. This would have played into the hands of sections of the American establishment who have been pushing for military actions against Syria and/or Iran.
In an article in Time magazine posted yesterday, Scott Macleod noted that, while the Syrian regime has come into conflict with the US, it would have no interest in seeing the attack carried through. "Assad's regime knows that could be a casus belli for a US military strike on Syria," he wrote. "Relations have been tense for years. The US recalled its ambassador in Damascus after Syria, despite its denials, was implicated in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in February 2005." The assassination of Hariri itself is highly suspicious, and it is not possible to rule out Israeli or US involvement in that incident as well.
What seems least likely is that the attack on the American embassy was simply the product of a few individuals, motivated purely by hatred of the United States and American policy. Of course this cannot be entirely eliminated as a possibility, but it is in the nature of such organizations as Jund al-Sham that they are heavily infiltrated and are extremely susceptible to the manipulations of this or that outside power.
Both American and Israeli intelligence agencies have a long history of manipulating these groups. Jund al-Sham was reportedly established in alliance with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with funds provided by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1999. At the time, the US was still doing deals with the Taliban and the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan as part of its efforts to secure a gas pipeline through the country.
Since its founding, Jund al-Sham has shown little interest in the United States, directing its attacks mainly against the Syrian government because of the latter's secular orientation. It has also targeted Syria's ally, Hezbollah.
In considering the events of September 12, 2006, it should be recalled that the attacks five years ago were carried out by individuals, known by American intelligence agencies to be members of Al Qaeda, who were allowed to freely enter and exit the United States, take flight training classes and purchase one-way, first class tickets on major airlines-all in the face of mounting intelligence indicating that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack airplanes and attack the United States. It is almost certain that sections of the American intelligence and political apparatus were aware of an impending attack but decided to let it take place-in order to establish a pretext for carrying out important US policy goals.
During the past several weeks, there have been several events to remind us of the extremely useful role that Al Qaeda plays in furthering the interests of American imperialism. In a number of his speeches leading up to the September 11 anniversary, Bush reproduced statements, supposedly from Osama bin Laden, declaring Iraq-conveniently enough-to be the centerpiece in the struggle for the "Islamic caliphate." This of course is quite useful for the US government, which would like to continue to portray the brutal occupation of Iraq as part of the "war on terror," and would like to continue to link this occupation, in spite of all contrary evidence, to the attacks of September 11.
Then, shortly before the anniversary, a new tape emerges depicting Osama bin Laden greeting some of the September 11 hijackers prior to the attacks: Another convenient reminder that the "war on terror" continues.
The Democrats occasionally denounce the Bush administration for failing to capture or kill bin Laden. They do this in order to present themselves as the more consistent advocates of the "war on terror." No one bothers to suggest that perhaps the main reason he has not been captured or killed is that he continues to be a very useful asset of the Central Intelligence Agency. It was the CIA, after all, that fostered him in the 1980s as part of the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Now there is an attack on Syria, apparently organized by a similarly shady and amorphous outfit with ties to bin Laden. It comes at a time of increasing crisis within the American political establishment. The occupation of Iraq is in deep crisis. Democratic and Republican commentators alike are calling for more American troops to deal with the Shia militias in the south and the Sunni organizations in the west. Israel's invasion of Lebanon has been a debacle, and only served to increase the prestige of Hezbollah and strengthen the hand of Iran in the region.
Major divisions are beginning to emerge between Europe and the US over Iranian policy, with the EU-bolstered by the US-Israeli disaster in Lebanon-seeking to make its own accommodation with the regime in Tehran. At the same time, there is growing opposition and skepticism within the United States, as broad sections of the population are beginning to reject the whole fraud of the "war on terror," and the President's speech on the fifth anniversary is striking largely in its completely unreal and unbelievable rhetoric.
There is a significant section of the US ruling elite that considers the only "solution" to these problems to be a massive escalation of US aggression-including attacks on Iran and Syria and the complete militarization of American society. In the furtherance of these aims, an attack on an American embassy in Syria would be quite convenient indeed.
This is not to suggest that the attackers on Tuesday were themselves working for sections of US intelligence. Individually, they were likely motivated by a combination of anger over American intervention in the Middle East, combined with the reactionary ideology of Islamic fundamentalism. Such actions are organized more tangentially, and the individuals who are directly involved have no idea who is manipulating them. The extremely bungled character of the operation-which failed to even penetrate the embassy walls-suggests that those involved in the direct planning were highly inexperienced.
Whether or not it could serve as a casus belli for attacking Syria, the attack would-and even it its failure still does-allow the administration to argue that the war on terror is not over, thereby justifying the administration's policy and Bush's speech on Monday. It also allows them to step up pressure on Syria.
Indeed, aside from the obligatory remarks of appreciation for Syria's actions in foiling the attack, this was the main tenor of administration comments on Tuesday. "Stop harboring terrorist groups, stop being an agent in fomenting terror," White House spokesman Tony Snow declared. "Work with us to fight against terror, as Libya has done-that's the next step for Syria." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the attacks demonstrated that terrorists can still attack diplomatic facilities anywhere, in spite of "an extraordinary effort" to prevent them.
Of course one cannot rule out other possibilities to US involvement, and there are many possibilities. However, in such cases one is entitled to speculate.
Comment on this Article
Syria Says US Behind Attack On Own Embassy
Ryan R. Jones
All Headline News Middle East Correspondent
September 13, 2006
Jerusalem, Israel - Senior Syrian government official have accused the US of being behind Tuesday's assault on its own embassy in downtown Damascus.
A Baath party official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told WorldNetDaily, "We in the government are 100 percent sure America was behind this attack, which is not the same as other attacks by Islamic groups."
He explained, "Only the Americans can succeed in carrying out an attack just 200 meters from President [Bashar] Assad's residence in the most heavily guarded section of Syria."
The official charged that Washington had orchestrated the attack to "prove Syria is filled with terrorists and to put us in a weak position" in order to extract political concessions. Following the attack, Bush administration officials said they hoped the incident had convinced Damascus of the dangers of Islamic terror and the need to cooperate with the West against the phenomenon.
The US and several of its European allies have repeatedly demanded over the years that Damascus close down the local offices and training camps of several organizations hostile to Israel and the West.
The identities of those who attacked the US embassy Tuesday have not been revealed. Three of the gunmen were killed by Syrian guards during the assault. A fourth was reportedly captured.
Comment on this Article
Annan: Iraq invasion "a real disaster"
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-14 02:49:16
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- Most leaders in the Middle East think the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and its outcome were a "real disaster" for the region, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday.
"Most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have been a real disaster for them," Annan, who returned from a trip to the region late last week, told a press conference at the UN headquarters.
"They believe it has destabilized the region," said the secretary-general. "It cannot stay and it cannot leave."
Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until Iraq improves while others, such as Iran, said it should leave immediately.
Iran had offered to help the United States leave but did not go into details, Annan added.
The UN chief's two-week tour to the region, with the focus on rallying support for Security Council Resolution 1701 ending the monthlong Israel-Hezbollah conflict, also took him to Iran, currently locked in a bitter nuclear standoff with the West.
Comment on this Article
U.S. denies saying Iraq war causing "disaster"
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-14 06:57:33
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- The United States rejected on Wednesday the saying that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has caused "a disaster" for the Middle East region.
"I'm not going to engage in a further disputation with the secretary general of the United Nations, but we disagree with the characterization," White House spokesman Tony Snow said, while acknowledging "sectarian violence" in Iraq.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who visited the Middle East recently, told reporters earlier in the day that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath were "a real disaster" for the region.
"Most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them," Annan said. "They believe it has destabilized the region."
Comment on this Article
Poland to send 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-14 20:06:03
BEIJING, Sept. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Poland will send an additional 1,000 troops to join the NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan in response to NATO's call for reinforcements, said its defense minister.
"As of February next year, over 1,000 Polish soldiers are going to be serving in Afghanistan," said Polish Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski Wednesday evening in Washington, according to media reports.
"It will be a mechanized battalion that will be stationed at Bagram, where 100 of our soldiers are. We are going to take part in operations primarily in the eastern part of Afghanistan."
Polish defense ministry spokesman Leszek Laszczak said, "Poland will increase its contingent in Afghanistan. We will send 1,000 additional troops from February."
The soldiers will do a one year tour of duty, starting February 2007, Laszczak added. He also said a Polish general will become a deputy commander of the International Security Assistance Force(ISAF).
Last week, leading NATO military commanders called for 2,000-2,500 additional soldiers to plug shortfalls in the alliance's force in Afghanistan, which has met strong resistance from the resurgent Taliban guerrillas along Afghanistan's southern border.
But a NATO spokesman said on Wednesday member countries had failed to respond to the military commander's call for reinforcements.
NATO nations currently have around 18,500 troops in Afghanistan with other non-NATO countries contributing a further 1,500 to the ISAF.
The alliance has asked for the soldiers to be available immediately, and it was not clear whether the Polish contribution would plug the gap.
Sikorski and Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski are in Washington for talks with U.S. leaders.
The country is the first to commit extra troops to the NATO force. It also has around 900 soldiers stationed in Baghdad.
Comment on this Article
IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran
By Mark Heinrich
Reuters
Sep 14, 2006
VIENNA - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.
The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.
Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.
The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.
It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.
"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.
The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.
Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.
The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."
Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.
"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations.
Comment on this Article
Iran wants to return to IAEA framework
www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-14 19:21:17
VIENNA, Sept. 14 (Xinhua) -- Iran claimed on Thursday to have fully cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and said it wanted to return to the IAEA framework, one day after the U.S. threatened to urge the UN Security Council to use sanctions to back diplomacy.
Speaking at the meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors, Iranian Ambassador to the Agency Ali Asghar Soltanie said that Iran's nuclear program and activities were "exclusively for peaceful purposes."
The Iranian diplomat hit out at the U.S. for describing sanctions as acts of diplomacy in the same way it had called its "unilateral military invasion" of Iraq an act of "multilateral diplomacy." He added that the decision to refer Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council was based on "ridiculous motivation."
Comment on this Article
Iran calls for negotiations; France warns of split over nuclear issue
by Michael Adler
AFP
February 14, 2006
VIENNA - Iran has called on the United States to be patient in the standoff over its nuclear activities and said negotiations should begin without preconditions and delay.
But French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy warned that Iran was trying to divide the international community in order to pursue its uranium enrichment activities, referring to the process which makes nuclear reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.
"If the international community were to become divided, Iran would continue" its enrichment work, Douste-Blazy charged in an interview to appear in the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles.
Douste-Blazy called for a sustained effort to engage Tehran in dialogue and warned that otherwise there would be "a growing drive -- on either side -- towards confrontation, (and) the international community would split."
Six world powers have proposed Iran talks on a package of benefits if it first suspends enrichment.
In Tehran, foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said: "The United States only needs to be a little patient to prove its honesty on welcoming talks under the current circumstances."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in Dakar that he doubted the United Nations Security Council would impose sanctions over his country's nuclear program, which Western countries fear aims to build atomic weapons.
"We are supporters of dialogue and negotiation and there is no reason for sanctions," Ahmadinejad told journalists.
In Vienna, Iran's ambassador to the watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh urged the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors to use its influence to help "commence the negotiation, without any precondition and without further delay."
Soltanieh challenged the US ambassador to an "open-ended" debate on Washington's call for UN sanctions over Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.
"I am fully prepared ... (for) a debate with the US ambassador in order to prove ... that allegations are baseless and the Islamic Republic of Iran is (the) victim of neglect, discrimination and double standards," Soltanieh said.
Soltanieh's challenge echoed Ahmadinejad's call in August on US President George W. Bush to debate. US officials refused this, calling the offer a public relations gimmick.
Soltanieh said that Washington's presenting sanctions as diplomacy was equivalent to describing "unilateral military invasion in Iraq as 'multilateral diplomacy.'"
US ambassador Gregory Schulte had Wednesday told the IAEA board, which Thursday wrapped up a meeting that had begun Monday, that "Iran's refusal to suspend and its refusal to cooperate is a choice of confrontation over one of negotiation."
Schulte and European speakers urged Iran to choose negotiations over UN sanctions, but said the key to this was Tehran first suspending enrichment.
EU-Iran talks stalled Thursday, when a meeting planned between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was postponed. Their aides met in Geneva Thursday.
Soltanieh said there was "no problem. The only thing is both sides (need) to find the best appropriate time and venue.
"Therefore everything is on the right track."
Solana and Larijani had held talks described as "constructive" last weekend in Vienna, raising hopes this would lead to negotiations with the six world powers, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.
The United States, which charges that Iran is engaged in secret work to make nuclear weapons, is pushing for Security Council sanctions against Iran for failing to honor a Council resolution that set an August 31 deadline for Tehran to halt enrichment.
Larijani had offered to consider a temporary halt in uranium enrichment in talks with Solana in Vienna last Saturday, diplomats said.
But they noted that this was only an offer to consider a halt, not to implement it, and that there were conditions attached such as the UN ceasing action against Iran which made it unacceptable to the West.
Comment on this Article
Psychopathy in Action
SPIEGEL Interview With Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Victory Would be a Fata Morgana"
SPIEGEL Magazine
September 12, 2006
Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a global uprising against inequality.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?
Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.
No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous exaggerations and distortions of reality.
SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?
Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people - on the contrary.
With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy.
SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?
Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.
SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.
Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.
SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?
Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends.
SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?
Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality - notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.
SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years?
Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken.
Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.
SPIEGEL: Is complete victory, as demanded by the president, actually possible?
Brzezinski: That depends on your definition of victory. If we act intelligently and form the necessary coalitions, the appeal of terrorism may diminish and limit its capacity to find sympathizers or even would-be martyrs. Then it will probably gradually fade away. If, however, we envision victory as the equivalent of a Hitler shooting himself in the bunker, that will not happen. This is precisely why the whole analogy with the war is so misleading. It is not helpful for making the public understand that we are dealing with a long-term problem in a very volatile region, the solution of which depends on mobilizing moderate forces and isolating fanatics.
SPIEGEL: What advantages does President Bush see in his war rhetoric?
Brzezinski: First of all it helped him get reelected - a nation at war does not dismiss its commander in chief. Secondly it enhances his ability to exercise his executive powers on a scale no other president before him has done. This of course brings risks with it, such as the infringement of civil rights. And, it gives him the claim that he can use the U.S. Armed Forces as he wishes, even without congressional sanction involving a declaration of war.
MORE FROM SPIEGEL SPECIAL
DER SPIEGEL
SPIEGEL special No. 6/2006 - International Edition
September 11, 2001
Five Years Later
* Order your copy now
SPIEGEL: Is there an inherent danger for democracy?
Brzezinski: In the long run, yes. However, democracy is ingrained so deeply in the psyche and fabric of American society that such a threat could only arise if such a president were able to implement such policies over a prolonged period of time. But Bush cannot be reelected. Therefore it will all be over in two and a half years.
SPIEGEL: European politicians have never accepted the concept of a war on terror. Furthermore, there are fierce differences concerning interrogation techniques or prison camps such as Guantanamo. Given such diverse opinions, how can the United States and Europe cooperate at all?
Brzezinski: This is exactly what makes it so difficult to deal with the problem collectively. However, realistically one also has to take into consideration that there is, in a quiet way, extensive cooperation, especially among our police forces. But precisely this cooperation reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an operation against criminal behavior. Although I share Europe's criticism about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the mistreatment and even torture of prisoners, Europeans should in their indignation not lose sight of their own past - not the Germans, but also not the French, who have had extensive experience in the Algerian war.
SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States extricate itself from its own trap?
Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don't go, are probably the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have.
SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind?
Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves, it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East.
SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway.
Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor.
SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more violent than it is already.
Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated violence in their country much better than Americans from several thousand kilometers away.
SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there is an initial escalation of violence?
Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial tutelage to resolve their problems.
SPIEGEL: In reality, isn't the president worried that Iraq will fail to become the model democracy he envisages after the Americans have left?
Brzezinski: That's for sure, and therefore any attempt to seek his definition of victory is pure fantasy. Still, there will be a government dominated by Kurds and Shiites, and some Sunni elements. That in itself is already an improvement compared to the regime of Saddam Hussein and therefore at least a partial success.
SPIEGEL: Are you sure that a religious civil war can still be prevented?
Brzezinski: Of course I cannot be sure. But was de Gaulle sure when he decided that it would be fine for France to end the Algerian war? Everybody around him warned him of the terrible consequences of his decision.
SPIEGEL: Are you not afraid that such a religious conflict could ignite the whole region?
Brzezinski: Quite the contrary. The longer we stay the more likely it will ignite. The fact is that we have been there for three years and the situation today is a lot worse than it was then. At least logically, there is some evidence to support my proposition.
SPIEGEL: Bush presented the "axis of evil" to the world. Did he not make it all too easy for himself by simply attacking the least dangerous part of this axis?
Brzezinski: Yes, Iraq was not dangerous. North Korea and Iran seem to presently be very calculating. However, Iran is a genuinely historic nation that has to play an important role in the region. My guess is that Iran will find some form of accommodation with the rest of the world, at least easier to achieve than for North Korea.
SPIEGEL: If negotiations with Iran fail, will America intervene militarily?
Brzezinski: There are some members of the administration who favor that. However, in view of the experiences in Iraq I consider it more likely that the government, together with its allies, will impose significant sanctions, which then have to be given a few years to show effects, which makes it highly unlikely that Bush will be the one to undertake such a dangerous course of action.
SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of such an attack?
Brzezinski: The Iranians have a number of options open to them. Among them is the destabilization of Iraq and the western part of Afghanistan as well as the everpresent option of activating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They could cut down oil production, damage the Saudi oil production and threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz - with all the devastating consequences for the world economy. They could of course also accelerate the production of weapons of mass destruction, which then quite possibly would lead to renewed and more comprehensive military attacks - a vicious circle.
SPIEGEL: You said that the United States needs solid European counsel to avoid an unrealistic view of the world. Is Europe even in the position to give such counsel?
Brzezinski: In the Middle East, the United States is unintentionally slipping into the role of a colonial power, repetitive of extensive European experiences. A combination of self-interest, a sense of mission and an arrogant ignorance resulted in Americans doing what they do right now. Because Britain and France have had the same experiences in the past, they have a better sense for the fact that the American course in the Middle East is a political mistake and, in the long run, also dangerous for America. In the short run, it damages America's principles and its international legitimacy.
SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that this is the kind of advice the British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivers to Bush?
Brzezinski: It is what he should deliver. But I think the British made a decision after the Suez crisis in 1956 to never again collide with the United States and to achieve an alternative source of global influence by becoming America's closest partner.
SPIEGEL: There is fear in Europe that Bush could return to unilateralism should he regain his freedom of action in foreign policy.
Brzezinski: For that, he would miraculously have to achieve his phantom-like victory. But that recedes ever farther. It is exactly like it was with the Soviets, who used to insist that the victory of socialism was just over the horizon, overlooking the fact that the horizon is an imaginary line which recedes farther as you walk towards it. Moreover, in two and a half years he will no longer be president, and no successor will want to embrace the slogans and demagoguery of the past three years.
SPIEGEL: Are there any conditions under which America could lose its current political supremacy?
Brzezinski: One would only have to continue the current policies and, also, in future not give a serious response to increasingly louder complaints of global inequality. We are now dealing with a far more politically active mankind that demands a collective response to their grievances from the West.
SPIEGEL: Is your demand to eradicate global inequality not as illusionary as Bush's demand that America free the world from evil?
Brzezinski: Achieving equality would indeed be an illusionary goal. Reducing inequality in the age of television and Internet may well become a political necessity. We are entering a historic stage in which people in China and India, but also in Nepal, in Bolivia or Venezuela will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition. That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the next decades.
SPIEGEL: You call it a "global political awakening."
Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world.
SPIEGEL: The Islamic countries as well?
Brzezinski: Not really in the same way. It is a turbulent, multi-directional process which, however, is a challenge to global stability. If the United States, Europe and Japan, but also China, Russia and India cannot find a mechanism for effective global collaboration, we will slide into a growing global chaos, which will be fatal to American leadership. Therefore I consider the American leadership role vulnerable, but irreplaceable in the foreseeable future.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you for speaking with us.
The interview was conducted by Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo.
Comment: Zbigniew Brzezinski is the man who plotted the strategy of arming the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He might say he had a certain role to play in creating the scenario we see playing out in the Middle East and Central Asia.
He also used his connections to stiffle the publication of Andrew M. Lobaczewski's book Political Ponerology, all the while telling the author that he would use his connections to ensure its publication.
In other words, the man is a player.
Comment on this Article
War Pimp Kissinger warns of possible "war of civilizations", promotes "New World Order"
AFP
Wed Sep 13, 2006
WASHINGTON - Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that Europe and the United States must unite to head off a "war of civilizations" arising from a nuclear-armed Middle East.
In an opinion column in the Washington Post, the renowned foreign policy expert said the potential for a "global catastrophe" dwarfed lingering transatlantic mistrust left over from the
Iraq war.
"A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one," Kissinger wrote.
"The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces.
"Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear-armed Middle East."
Kissinger wrote that the big threat lay in the erosion of nation states and the emergence of transnational groups.
Iran was at the centre of the challenge, he said, with its support for Hezbollah, radical Shiite groups in Iraq and its nuclear program.
Washington must accept that many European nations were more optimistic about talks designed to convince Iran to halt uranium enrichment -- a process Tehran denies is aimed at making weapons, he wrote.
But in return, he said, Europe should accept the process must include a "bottom line" beyond which diplomatic flexibility must not go and a time limit to ensure talks did not become a shield for "developing new assaults."
In the article, Kissinger, national security adviser for former president Richard Nixon, and secretary of state for Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford, warned the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah was still dangerous, after its month-long conflict with Israel.
"Hezbollah's next move is likely to be an attempt to dominate the Beirut government by intimidation and, using the prestige gained in the war, manipulating democratic procedures," he said.
He concluded by noting that observers wondered whether, after the Cold War, trans-Atlantic ties could survive the loss of a common enemy.
"We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe. It cannot be done alone by either side of the Atlantic. Is that realization sufficient to regenerate a common purpose?"
Comment:We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe.
Well, you knew this one was coming, and who better to deliver it than Kissinger?
Comment on this Article
Blair attacks Europe's "mad anti-Americans"
By Paul Majendie
Reuters
Sep 13, 2006
LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a withering attack on Thursday on what he called "mad anti-Americanism" among European politicians.
Blair, U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally in the so-called war on terror, said the world urgently needs the United States to help tackle the globe's most pressing problems.
"The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved," Blair said, spelling out his political vision in a pamphlet published by The Foreign Policy Center think-tank.
"The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in," he said.
Blair, accused by critics of being Bush's poodle who slavishly follows Washington's line, sought to stifle a revolt in his ruling Labour Party last week by promising to quit within a year after almost 10 years in office.
His popularity has tumbled in opinion polls after government scandals over sleaze and mismanagement were compounded by controversy over the wars in Iraq and Lebanon.
As he did during the Iraq War, he sided squarely with Washington over the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas, angering Arab nations and European allies by refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.
Responding to those who have criticized the White House, Blair said in his pamphlet: "The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved."
"We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them," he added.
Laying out his vision for countering extremists, he said: "We need to construct an alliance of moderation that paints a future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian, Arab and Western, wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other."
Blair, returning from a trip to the Middle East, said the stand-off between Israel and the Palestinians remains "a -- perhaps the -- genuine source of anger in the Arab and Muslim world, going far beyond anti-Western feeling."
"The issue of even-handedness rankles deeply," he acknowledged.
Blair pledged to making Middle East "an absolute priority for the rest of my time in office."
But analysts believe his efforts are unlikely to break the logjam there, nor restore his reputation. His trip smacked of an attempt to burnish his reputation as his career draws to a close, they argue.
"He is not as instrumental as he needs to be, or would like to believe he is," said Rosemary Hollis, a Middle East expert at British think-tank Chatham House.
Comment:
Dear Tony,
Remember all those people who were booing you recently with torches and pitchforks in hand because you're still in power?
Well, why do you think that any of them - or anyone else for that matter - will actually listen to a single word you say?
Comment on this Article
38 US Reps for Bush Impeachment Review
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor and National Correspondent, Atlanta Progressive News (September 12, 2006)
(APN) ATLANTA - US Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) became the 38th Member of the US Congress officially listed as a supporter of H. Res. 635, a bill which could lead to recommendations to impeach President Bush.
The bill, sponsored by US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for impeaching President Bush over misleading the public on the need to go to war; retaliating against public officials who disagree with him; and encouraging torture.
US Rep. Rothman actually had indicated his support since March of 2006, but a clerical error led to his name not being listed until late last week, the Congressman's Communications Director, Kimberly Allen, told Atlanta Progressive News. This would be a second time a clerical error has occurred related to this bill.
US Rep. Rothman recently pledged his support at a constituent panel on leaving Iraq, "If Not Now, When?"
"The only body that has the power to impeach the president is the House of Representatives. The effort, if I may be so bold, is to take back the House," US Rep. Rothman said, according to The Bergen Record Newspaper of New Jersey.
"Rothman, building on one audience member's suggested metaphor, likened the war, and its aim of finding weapons of mass destruction that were never recovered, to an unresolved car theft," The Bergen Record said.
"Imagine if you will, if the police and prosecutor, they refuse to charge you with a crime," Rothman said, according to The Bergen Record. "You did it, but they refuse to charge you. What do we do as a society? We replace the police and the prosecutor."
"This November, you can get a new prosecutor and a new police force and charge with a crime and have a trial... We will hold all those hearings, including one in which we look at whether an impeachable offense occurred," US Rep. Rothman said, according to The Bergen Record.
"A number in the audience were very passionate that President Bush should be impeached. They even went so far as to say that he was responsible for war crimes ... and what would I do about it," Rep. Rothman said according to The News-Leader Newspaper in New Jersey.
"Having served on the House Judiciary Committee when President Clinton was going to be impeached for having sex with someone other than his spouse ... that was, in my opinion, an abuse of power and a violation of our Founding Fathers who allowed for an impeachment only for treason, high crimes or other misdemeanors," Rothman said, according to The News-Leader. "I'm reluctant to join any frivolous effort to impeach President Bush without clear evidence of bribery, treason or high crimes or misdemeanors."
"The president's Republican majority said they will not convene any such hearings in regards to President Bush. A number of us in Congress supported the holding of hearings to determine if there was evidence for an impeachment hearing," Rep. Rothman said according to The News-Leader.
9% of US Congress now supports the impeachment review, including 18% of Democrats, 100% of Independents (1 out of 1), and 0% of Republicans.
The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (9), New York (6), Illinois (3), Massachusetts (3), Minnesota (3), Georgia (2), New Jersey (2), and Wisconsin (2).
The current 38 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR).
An Atlanta Progressive News analysis has found that, interestingly, 30 of the 38 total co-sponsors are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. However, only 30 of the 62 members of the Caucus have signed on.
Atlanta Progressive News is calling out the other 32 self-described progressives who have not signed on. They are Reps. Becerra, Bordallo, Corrine Brown, Sherrod Brown, Carson, Cristenson, Cleaver, Cummings, DeFazio, DeLauro, Evans, Frank, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Tubbs Jones, Kaptur, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lantos, Markey, McGovern, Miller, Holmes-Norton, Pastor, Rush, Serrano, Slaughter, Thompson, Udall, Watson, Watt, and Waxman.
In the US Senate, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John Kerry (D-MA), and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are currently the three co-sponsors of US Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill, S. Res 398, to censure President Bush. US Sen. Menendez told Atlanta Progressive News recently that several Senators are closely considering the censure resolution.
In the last couple months, there have not been any new cosponsors to either resolution. The most recent activity involves US Rep. Rothman's cosponsoring of H. Res 635; although his office is characterizing Rothman's position on an impeachment review as not new.
Atlanta Progressive News has provided near-exclusive-and during many times, exclusive-coverage of the progress of H. Res 635.
A few months ago, H. Res 635 was discovered by the corporate media.
While the corporate media has yet to give serious treatment to the grounds for an impeachment review, they have given voice to Republican scare tactics that, "Oh no, if Democrats take back the House, it will be impeachment hearings!" we paraphrase.
US Rep. Conyers has been in an ideological tug of war in the meantime.
Many progressives have criticized Conyers for not doing enough, saying the time has come for outright impeachment proceedings.
One commenter on ConyersBlog accused the Congressman of essentially appeasing progressives with his bill to make it look like something was being done about Bush's apparent lies, even accusing Conyers of being a secret agent of Republicans.
Meanwhile, Republicans have highlighted Conyers's likely upcoming promotion to US House Judiciary Committee Chairman as part of their fundraising efforts, while current Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has distanced