|
The media are getting all gushy about Herbert Walker Bush breaking down crying during an event honoring his younger son, Jeb.
I'm sorry. I don't feel gushy. I see a doddering disease vector who has personally produced the most despised, hated reviled, so-called human in the history of the planet.
I see a crooked past president who Bill Clinton failed to pursue charges against (Iran Contra), who, because of Clinton's failure to prosecute, was able to help his lying, cheating, chronic failure son go on to become president.
I see the son of a man who was involved in doing business with the Nazis.
No nostalgia.
Not touchy feely, weepy warm fuzzy stuff.
I wonder if he, unable to control himself, for a longer time than one would expect, is starting to slide mental-health-wise.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But we know how fried Reagan was by the time he left the White House. Perhaps he also weeps because he has an idiot, shallow, empty-hearted son who has treated him like dirt.
DIRT. When you have the experience, competence and credentials that George Herbert Walker Bush has, and your son is the President of the USA and ignores you, it has to hurt-- a lot. It has to ache with a deep pain that, probably, year after year, gets heavier and worse.
So when George Herbert Walker Bush, the elder, was speaking about his younger son, the Governor, who surely would have done a better job as president, and who probably does a better job as a son, staying in touch more frequently than the ever two weeks or so that Dubya admits to, it is no wonder that he broke down in tears, probably bittersweet tears.
BITTERSWEET-- sweet, because he probably is proud of his son Jeb, and bitter because he faces the sweetness of his relationship with Jeb, clearly a healthier, smarter, better person than Dubya, which must make the bitter, sour empty relationship with Dubya stand out all the more.
We citizens of the US don't have the sweet part. We just get the bitter part. Dubya's relationship with his father is a metaphor for his relationship with America and the world. He is out of touch, disconnected, arrogant, unwilling to tap the wisdom and intelligence readily available...
And we too weep-- for America, for the thousands of dead soldiers, the tens of thousands of physically maimed soldiers the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their families who will live lives damaged by post traumatic stress disorder, the millions of Iraqis who have to deal with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqis, the thousands of freedom fighters, the people who stand up for democracy who are already being tortured, with new justifications that the dictators have the right, "after all Bush does it."
I pray your tears end soon, Mr. Bush. We're doing all we can to end your frustration at not being consulted by the current president. Soon, your pain should be over. The sooner the better.
On Saturday at 4pm a human rights worker based in Nablus received a call from some fellow HRWs at Huwwara checkpoint, that hundreds of Palestinians including a mother with a sick child weren't being allowed through after the checkpoint had been closed.
When the HRW arrived there were hundreds of people waiting to pass through the illegal Israeli checkpoint. A middle aged woman was pleading with soldiers to be able to pass as she was cradling a sick child who required treatment.
The HRWs attempted to ask the Israeli soldiers the reason for the closure and whether it would be possible for the women and child to pass through, but his pleas were met with stony silence. After further inquiries, the soldiers informed the HRW that if he didn't go away he would be "punished". The woman continued to remonstrate with the soldiers in the presence the HRW, at which point the soldiers wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him.
During the arrest the HRW was lightly injured and his camera was damaged. He was then detained in a small holding cell for an hour before being taken to Ariel settlement police station where he was questioned and detained for a further 4 hours.
Police claimed that the HRW had struck one of the soldiers and asked him to sign a document promising never to visit Nablus again. The aggrieved HRW refused, pleading wrongful arrest and physical abuse. He was then asked to sign a document promising not to argue with Israeli soldiers at Huwwara checkpoint for a period of 15 days, before being released without charge at approximately 10pm.
Huwwara checkpoint is notorious for long unexplained closures, which have become more common of late. In the last few weeks Palestinians have had to spend up to 2 hours waiting to pass through. As well as Huwwara checkpoint, Palestinians have to travel through other permanent and temporary checkpoints on their way to Ramallah, resulting in journey times of up to 5 hours for a journey of 20 miles, if they are allowed through them.
There are currently 72 permanent military checkpoints throughout the West Bank along with at least 25 temporary and flying checkpoints set up randomly by Israeli occupying forces.
Checkpoints can be a major deterrent for Palestinians on any road because of the extensive delays, security searches, as well as physical and psychological abuse by Israeli soldiers.
The checkpoints and Israel's closure policy are often used as a means of enforcing collective punishment on the inhabitants of a certain area, or even the entire population of the Occupied Palestinian Territories .Collective punishment is illegal under international law.
The system of Israeli checkpoints in the Occupied Palestinian Territories violates international humanitarian law as codified in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
Original
Comment on this Editorial
The
unfortunate reality is that Israel's campaign of ethnic cleansing has
never stopped and is now more active
than it has been for decades.
"The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of another ethnic group. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide."
According to this definition, and others including those emerging in the 1990s, following the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, Palestinians have been and remain victims of a determined and unwavering ethnic cleansing policy that began in 1947-48 and continues until today.
However, it is important that when we examine the subject of ethnic cleansing in Palestine, we take into account its various dimensions, one of which is the accompanying racist discourse, which has become part and parcel of Israel's ethnic cleansing policies.
Any act of collective punishment - whether ethnic cleansing or genocide or any other - is often preceded and or adjoined by a racist discourse that dehumanizes the victim and justifies the crime on baseless grounds, a concoction of lies and fibs that may appeal to national or religious psyches, but fails the test of law, morality or basic human norms and expectations.
Without such discourse, which depicted the original inhabitants of Palestine as cancerous, subhuman and a nuisance in the face of civilization and progress - as defined by the founders of the Zionist movement - it would not have been possible to carry out a systematic campaign of murder and ethnic cleansing in 1947-48, which saw the killing of an estimated 13,000 Palestinians, the forcible eviction of 850,000 and the depopulation and subsequent destruction of nearly 500 villages and localities. Without such a racist discourse it would have been difficult, to say the least, to carry out scores of preempted massacres, including Deir Yassin, Tantoura, Abbasiyya, Beit Daras, Bir Al-Saba', Haifa and so forth.
Were it not for a decided campaign of institutionalized racism that occurred on such a large scale and which is maintained until today, it would have been impossible and implausible to gun down scores of innocent people after lining them up against the crumbling wall of the old Tantura mosque in May of 1948, or to bulldoze the home of a crippled man in Jenin in April 2002 without giving his mother the chance to evacuate him. Or to describe as a "great success" the killing of 14 civilians, including children when a one-ton Israeli bomb slammed into their apartment building in the Zeitun neighborhood in Gaza in July 2002. Or the wanton murder of 19 people, most of them women and children of the same extended family in Beit Hanoun earlier this November. But according to Israeli officials, every other method has been tried, and failed. "With murderous, bloodthirsty terrorism that wants to wipe you off the map, you have to respond accordingly: Wipe it out," as Ben Caspit commented following the brutal massacre of Beit Hanoun.
But if what purely motivates Israel is the fear of its own annihilation, then, how can the Zionist state's morally flexible supporters explain Israel's continuous colonization of the West Bank and Jerusalem? According to a 2004 Foundation for Middle East Peace report, the total settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has neared 420,000: 220,000 settlers in the West Bank and 200,000 in East Jerusalem. Expectedly, the number stands at a much higher figure.
New settlements are being erected while existing settlements are ever-expanding. According to a recent report drafted by the PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department, Israel approved tenders for 690 new settlement units in two major east Jerusalem settlements: Ma'aleh Adumim and Beit Illit. The housing units could accommodate up to 2,800 new Jewish settlers.
If the idea was indeed to shield Israel from Palestinian attacks, then why is 80 percent of the wall being built on ethnically cleansed Palestinian land? Why encircle the Palestinian population of the West Bank from east and west, and those of Qalqilia from all directions? Why do thousands of Palestinian schools kids have to stand for hours in front of their gated villages to acquire permission from an Israeli soldier to allow them access to their schools and back?
Ethnic cleansing is indeed back on the Israeli political agenda, as Avigdor Lieberman, an Israeli politician who has for long advocated the ethnic cleansing of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, was recently appointed as Israel's new deputy prime minister. One of his early ideas since the new post, aside from sending Palestinians packing, was the killing of the entire leadership of the elected Palestinian government. "They...have to disappear, to go to paradise, all of them, and there can't be any compromise," he told Israeli radio last week.
The unfortunate reality is that Israel's campaign of ethnic cleansing, though it might have changed tactics and pace throughout the years, has never stopped and is now more active than it has been for decades. It's also clear that the adjacent racist discourse that made such a policy sustainable for six decades is also at work, making advocates of war crimes heroes in the eyes of most Israelis.
Moreover, amid unabashed American backing of such policies and almost total silence or helplessness of the international community, Israel knows that the success of its colonial project in the West Bank is dependent on the element of time.
What's even more disheartening is the fact that Palestinian infighting is distracting and wasting energies that should be put to work to provoke and sustain an international campaign against Israeli atrocities. Infighting over governments that have no sovereignty, the lacking of any national cohesion or consensus or a clear political program that unifies Palestinians at home and in diaspora around one political and national agenda, will certainly ensure the success of the Israeli program and further contribute to the racist discourse that sees Palestinians as incapable of taking on the task of leadership and self-determination.
-This article is based on a speech delivered by the author at a London conference entitled: "Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine: Methods and Consequences" and broadcast by Al-Jazeera television.
-Ramzy Baroud's latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press) is available at Amazon.com and in the United States from the University of Michigan Press.
Comment on this Editorial
Bush? Lie? Never!
Iraq Study Group to call for troop withdrawal
Peter Walker
Wednesday December 6, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
A much-anticipated US report on future policy in Iraq will recommend the withdrawal of all American combat troops from the country by early 2008, as well as diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria, US media reported today.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) is due to release its report later today, a day after the new secretary for defence, Robert Gates, told Congress he did not believe the US was currently winning the war in Iraq.
ABC News said it had received leaked extracts of the 142-page ISG report, titled The Way Forward: A New Approach, and containing a raft of recommendations, some of them contrary to current US policy.
Among the 79 separate conclusions is that Washington should shift the "primary mission" of its troops in Iraq towards a supporting role.
"It's clear the Iraqi government will need US assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities," ABC quoted the report as saying.
"Yet the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq.
"The most important questions about Iraq's future are now the responsibility of Iraqis," the report adds. "The United States must adjust its role to encourage the Iraqi people to take control."
Comment: !!!!!
The committee, co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, says all US forces not involved in training and support for the Iraqi military could leave the country by "the first quarter of 2008".
According to the Washington Post, quoting an official familiar with the report, the ISG also recommends Mr Bush should apply pressure on Iraq's government by threatening to reduce economic and military support if it fails to meet specific targets on security.
The 10-member group - which, ABC said, unanimously agreed on every point - also call for direct talks with Syria and Iran, as well as fresh efforts to deal with the Palestinian issue.
"The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals with the Israeli-Arab conflict and regional instability," ABC quoted the report as saying, adding that talks should include Israel, Lebanon and Palestinian leaders who recognise Israel's right to exist.
While Mr Bush appears as keen as the ISG to begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq, he is likely to be far less eager to deal with Iran and Syria, something he has thus far rejected.
But with violence in Iraq still seemingly out of control and the political pressure mounting after last month's Republican defeats in the midterm elections, the Bush administration is likely to be more open than previously to new ideas.
Illustrating this, Mr Gates - himself a former ISG panel member - marked a sharp break with his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld - by telling Congress yesterday that "all options are on the table" when it comes to Iraq.
He was twice asked if he thought the US was winning, replying both times: "No, sir."
The former CIA director said US forces would continue to support the Iraqi military, but said this could be done "with a dramatically smaller number of US forces than are there today", while arguing that total withdrawal would be a mistake.
"Developments in Iraq over the next year or two will, I believe, shape the entire Middle East and greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come," he said.
"The United States will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region, or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration."
Comment: Well! Thank God for "study groups"! Otherwise we would never has spotted the screamingly obvious fact that the US invasion of Iraq is a crime against humanity and that US troops should be withdrawn immediately. But there is more to this than meets the eye. Notice the time frame for withdrawal - "early 2008" - the beginning of Dubya's last year in office. Here's how it's going to play out between now and then (which was the plan all along):
Things will "get worse" in Iraq. Most people with think that things are "getting worse" all by themselves, but smarty pants like you and me know that mass murder is not a force of nature but rather of men, or more appropriately, policy makers in Western governments. So the death toll continues to increase until someone says "why, someone has to DO something about this!" Then, a small voice from the back of the room will be heard to say "partition Iraq! It's the only way!".
From there, the plan will take shape and Iraq will ultimately be divided into three separate states for Shia, Sunni and Kurd, just in time for the last US soldier to leave Iraq, well...the last "official" soldier to leave. Tens of thousands will, of course, stay on to man the permanent US military bases in the newly-formed countries - for "peace-keeping", you understand. Bush will leave office in Jan 2009 to little fanfare and lots of rotten tomatoes, but secretly he will be given a pat on the back for a job well done. At least that is how it is MEANT to play out. There will, of course, be a few unseen twists and turns in the road as we progress. So sit back and watch the show! Oh yes, and don't forget to expose the psychopathic murderers to everyone that will listen.
Comment on this Article
Iraq Study Group: "The Situation In Iraq Is Grave And Deteriorating'
AP
December 6, 2006
"A Risk Of A 'Slide Toward Chaos (That) Could Trigger The Collapse Of Iraq's Government And A Humanitarian Catastrophe....The Global Standing Of The United States Could Be Diminished'"
A commission on the war in Iraq recommended new and enhanced diplomacy Wednesday so the United States can "begin to move its combat forces" out of the country responsibly.
"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating," the commission warned after an eight-month review of a conflict that has killed more than 2,800 U.S. troops and grown increasingly unpopular at home. The report was obtained by The Associated Press.
Comment on this Article
New Defense Secretary: United States is 'losing war in Iraq'
Wed Dec 6 2006
AP
The man picked by George W Bush to be America's next defence secretary has conceded that the US is losing the war in Iraq.
Robert Gates made the admission a few hours before the president receives a major report on future options in the conflict.
The former head of the CIA was asked by Senators at his confirmation hearing: "We are not winning the war in Iraq. Is that correct?"
Mr Gates said: "That is my view. Yes sir."
He was then asked: "Therefore the status quo is not acceptable?"
He responded: "That is correct sir."
Mr Gates went on to warn that if Iraq is not stabilised in a year or two, the whole Middle East could implode.
He said: "There needs to be a change in our approach in Iraq. In my view all options are on the table."
The Iraq Study Group is now due to report, and they are expected to call for the biggest change yet in US strategy in Iraq, recommending a gradual pull-out of combat troops over the next 18 months, although they are not likely to fix a timetable.
It is thought the report will link that withdrawal to stronger efforts from Iraq's government to end the violence and recommend talking to Iran and Syria directly to help stop the killing.
Comment: Ya really gotta love the way no member of the Bush administration wants to say the word "losing". So are we eh...not winning the war? Eh yes, that is correct. Ok, just as long as we're not LOSING!
Seriously, these people are the biggest bunch of cretins the world has ever produced, how, in the name of Jesus did they manage to become our "leaders"?? Ya know, the "cream" of society??
Comment on this Article
Tony Snow: Bush Disagrees With Gates...We Are "Winning" In Iraq
December 5, 2006
AP
At today's meeting with reporters at the White House, the major topics for Press Secretary Tony Snow, as expected, were the pending release of the Iraq Study Group's report -- and today's surprise, the admission by Robert Gates, at his confirmation hearings as new Pentagon chief, that the U.S., indeed, is not winning the war in Iraq.
Snow said that, as far as he knows, the president has not backed away from his recent statement that the U.S. is actually "winning" in Iraq. He also suggested that Gates, elsewhere in his testimony, seemed to say that maybe we weren't losing and we weren't winning. And he charged that the press was being too negative about all this: "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission," he said.
Comment on this Article
Blair: We Are Not Winning In Iraq
BBC News
December 6, 2006
Tony Blair has agreed with the incoming US defence secretary's assessment that the war in Iraq is not being won.
Asked by Tory leader David Cameron if he agreed with Robert Gates' assessment of the war, Mr Blair said: "Of course."
Comment: Blair must be so relieved that he has been given leave by his superiors in Washington to agree that that which is patently obvious is in fact patently obvious. Constant lying can take its toll ya know.
Comment on this Article
Iraq: One by one, they tell the truth
Published: 06 December 2006
The Independent
As Tony Blair flies out to meet George Bush, the latest admission of failure in Iraq has made the two leaders appear even more isolated
Colin Powell
After telling the UN assembly in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the former Secretary of State admitted in May 2004 the claims were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading".
Colonel Tim Collins
The Army colonel made a famous rousing speech to troops on the eve of battle. But in September 2005, he declared:
"History might notice the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qa'ida ever."
Paul Bremer
The former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq admitted in January 2006:
"It [the invasion] was a much tougher job than I think I expected it to be... we really didn't see the insurgency coming."
Zalmay Khalilzad
Contradicting the usually upbeat rhetoric, the US ambassador in Iraq said in March: "We have opened a Pandora's box". And unless the violence abated, Iraq would "make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".
Jack Straw
The former foreign secretary, one of the cheerleaders for the war, said in September: "The current situation is dire. I think many mistakes were made after the military action - there is no question about it - by the United States administration."
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt
The British General admitted in an interview in October: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates [them]."
Richard Perle
Regarded as one of the intellectual godfathers of the war, Perle changed his tack in November, admitting that "huge mistakes were made" in the invasion of Iraq. "The levels of brutality we've seen are truly horrifying," he added.
Ken Adelman
Last month, the noted neoconservative said: "The national security team... turned out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. Not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly."
Donald Rumsfeld
A memo from the hardline former defence secretary revealed this week that he had been looking for a change of tactics. "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment... what US forces are doing in Iraq is not working well enough..."
Robert Gates
Yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld's proposed successor was asked at a Senate hearing whether the US was winning the war in Iraq. "No, sir," he replied. And he warned that the situation could lead to a "regional conflagration".
Tony Blair ...
George Bush ...
Comment on this Article
U.S. senate panel approves Gates' nomination as defense secretary
www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-06 06:53:41
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday unanimously approved the nomination of Robert Gates to be the next Defense Secretary.
The confirmation process now goes to a full Senate vote, which is expected sometime before the weekend.
The Senate panel endorsed Gates' nomination by a 21-0 vote after a daylong hearing, and now it appears very likely that he will be confirmed by Senate within this week.
In a hearing that centers on the Iraq policy, Gates said the country is not winning the war in Iraq and risks regional disaster in one or two years.
The view is apparently not shared by U.S. President George W. Bush, who said as recently as October that the United States was winning the war.
Gates gave no timeline for ending the conflict in Iraq, but repeatedly referenced "the next year or two" when discussing U.S. options.
"Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the United States will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration," he said.
Situation in Iraq by that time will "greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come," Gates noted.
The former CIA director said his greatest worry is that "if we mishandle the next year or two and if we leave Iraq in chaos, is that a variety of regional powers will become involved in Iraq, and we will have a regional conflict on our hands."
Gates also said if confirmed, he would quickly consult military commanders in the field and politicians back home to determine the best course of action in Iraq, but "I will give most serious consideration to the views of those who lead our men and women in uniform."
Before the hearing, Bush said in a statement that he hopes for "speedy confirmation so he (Gates) can get sworn in and get to work."
Gates was nominated on Nov. 8 to replace current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, two days after Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in midterm elections dominated by concerns about the Iraq war.
Gates, 63, currently president of Texas A&M University, had served as national security adviser and CIA director during President George H.W. Bush's administration.
Comment: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Comment on this Article
Saddam to boycott 'comedy' trial
Tuesday December 5, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Saddam Hussein no longer wants to attend his trial for genocide, he told the chief judge in a letter released today, saying he was angry at not being allowed to speak after raising his hand.
In a handwritten note to Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa, Saddam complained about what he called repeated "insults" during the trial over his role in the 1987-88 military campaign against the Kurds, in which thousands died.
"I wasn't given the chance to speak when I tried to clarify the truth by raising my hand three times," Saddam wrote in the one-page letter dated yesterday. At the time, he said, he wanted to respond to a prosecution allegation that he had stashed away $10bn (£5.07bn) of public money in overseas banks.
Referring to himself in the third person, the former dictator said: "Saddam, who taught pride and dignity to many people, refuses to attend (the trial) and be subjected to insult by agents and their followers."
Referring to the trial as "this new comedy", Saddam told he judge he could "do whatever you want" in response to the boycott.
The letter, handed to the press by Saddam's lawyers, referred to him as "president of the republic and commander in chief of the mujahedeen (holy warriors) armed forces".
The current hearing, in which Saddam and six former members of his regime face charges of war crimes and genocide, is separate to the trial which saw Saddam sentenced to death last month for crimes against humanity, linked to an earlier massacre in the Iraqi town of Dujail.
Much of the testimony in the current trial has been harrowing accounts by Kurdish survivors of massacres the prosecution claims were carried out by Saddam's regime.
Yesterday, a Kurdish teacher described the death of 40 fellow villagers, including his mother and two daughters, in a chemical attack in 1988.
"My wife was lying on her back, holding my two daughters - Shovan, six months, and Tabga, four years, tight in her arms," Abdulla Qadir Abdulla, 58, told the court, saying his wife had only survived because she took an antidote.
The charges on which Saddam has already been sentenced to hang were chosen for the first trial as they were considered relatively straightforward and simple to prove.
Comment: The man in the dock refers to "himself" in the third person, just as if he wasn't actually the real Saddam Hussein.
Comment on this Article
Two More Years
By Paul Krugman
12/04/06
New York Times
At a reception following the midterm election, President Bush approached Senator-elect James Webb.
"How's your boy?" asked Mr. Bush. "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," replied Mr. Webb, whose son, a Marine lance corporal, is risking his life in Mr. Bush's war of choice.
"That's not what I asked you," the president snapped. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," said Mr. Webb.
Good for him. We need people in Washington who are willing to stand up to the bully in chief. Unfortunately, and somewhat mysteriously, they're still in short supply.
You can understand, if not condone, the way the political and media establishment let itself be browbeaten by Mr. Bush in his post-9/11 political prime. What's amazing is the extent to which insiders still cringe before a lame duck with a 60 percent disapproval rating.
Look at what seems to have happened to the Iraq Study Group, whose mission statement says that it would provide an "independent assessment." If press reports are correct, the group did nothing of the sort. Instead, it watered down its conclusions and recommendations, trying to come up with something Mr. Bush wouldn't reject out of hand.
In particular, says Newsweek, the report "will set no timetables or call for any troop reductions." All it will do is "suggest that the president could, not should, begin to withdraw forces in the vaguely defined future."
And all this self-abasement is for naught. Senior Bush aides, Newsweek tells us, are "dismissive, even condescending" toward James Baker, the Bush family consigliere who is the dominant force in the study group, and the report. Of course they are. That's how bullies always treat their hangers-on.
Even now, it seems, the wise men of Washington can't bring themselves to face up to two glaringly obvious truths.
The first is that Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq for no reason.
It's true that terrible things will happen when U.S. forces withdraw. Mr. Bush was attacking a straw man when he mocked those who think we can make a "graceful exit" from Iraq. Everyone I know realizes that the civil war will get even worse after we're gone, and that there will probably be a bloody bout of ethnic cleansing that effectively partitions the country into hostile segments.
But nobody - not even Donald Rumsfeld, it turns out - thinks we're making progress in Iraq. So the same terrible things that would happen if we withdrew soon will still happen if we delay that withdrawal for two, three or more years. The only difference is that we'll sacrifice many more American lives along the way.
The second truth is that the war will go on all the same, unless something or someone forces Mr. Bush to change course.
During his recent trip to Vietnam, Mr. Bush was asked whether there were any lessons from that conflict for Iraq. His response: "We'll succeed unless we quit."
It was a bizarre answer given both the history of the Vietnam War and the facts on the ground in Iraq, but it makes perfect sense given what we know about Mr. Bush's character. He has never been willing to own up to mistakes, however trivial. If he were to accept the failure of his adventure in Iraq, he would be admitting, at least implicitly, to having made the mother of all mistakes.
So Mr. Bush will keep sending other men's children off to fight his war. And he'll always insist that Iraq would have been a great victory if only his successors had shared his steely determination.
Does this mean that we're doomed to at least two more years of bloody futility? Not necessarily. Last month the public delivered a huge vote of no confidence in Mr. Bush and his war. He's still the commander in chief, but the new majority in Congress can put a lot of pressure on him to at least begin a withdrawal.
I'm worried, however, that Democrats may have counted on the Iraq Study Group to provide them with political cover. Now that the study group has apparently wimped out, will the Democrats do the same?
Well, here's a question for those who might be tempted, yet again, to shy away from a confrontation with Mr. Bush over Iraq: How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully's ego?
Comment: What Krugman and other liberal commentators in the US do not understand is that chaos is the desired Goal. Civil war is the desired goal. The whole point of the war was to force the dismemberment of Iraq, to create conflict, and to prepare the way for a wider and more devastating conflagration in the Middle East.
As long as they do not understand this, they'll never come to grips with the real terror of the situation.
Comment on this Article
Something Not Right...
Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'
BBC News
05/12/2006
The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.
The report, from the World Institute of Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.
There have of course been many studies of worldwide inequality.
But what is new about this report, the authors say, is its coverage.
It deals with all countries in the world - either actual data or estimates based on statistical analysis - and it deals with wealth, where most previous research has looked at income.
What they mean by wealth in this study is what people own, less what they owe - their debts. The assets include land, buildings, animals and financial assets.
Different assets
The analysis shows, as have many other less comprehensive studies, striking divergences in wealth between countries.
Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and some countries in the Asia Pacific region, such as Japan and Australia.
These countries account for 90% of household wealth.
The study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.
And it uncovers some striking differences in the types of assets that dominate in different countries.
In less developed nations, land and farm assets are more important, reflecting the greater importance of agriculture in those economies.
In addition, the report says the weighting is the result of "immature" financial institutions, which make it much harder for people to have savings accounts or shares.
In contrast, some citizens of the rich countries have more debt than assets - making them, the report says, among the poorest in the world in terms of household wealth.
However, they are presumably better off in terms of what they consume than many people in developing countries.
Comprehensive
The survey is based on data for the year 2000. The authors say a more recent year would have involved more gaps in the data. As it is, many figures - especially for developing countries - have had to be estimated.
Nonetheless, the authors say it is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken.
Why does it matter? Because wealth serves as insurance against times when income tends to fall, such as unemployment, sickness or old age.
It is also a source of finance for small businesses, a particularly important point since it is the countries with lower levels of personal wealth which also tend to have weaker financial systems without the funds, ability or inclination to lend to small firms.
The report is not about policy recommendations.
But one of the authors, Professor Anthony Shorrocks, says it does draw attention to the importance of enhancing banking systems in developing countries to help generate the funds for business investment.
Comment: Oh well, we all know that this massively disproportionate distribution of wealth "just happens", there is no mechanism that makes it so.
Comment on this Article
World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers
Wednesday December 6, 2006
The Guardian
- First ever study of global household assets
- 50% of world's adults own just 1% of the wealth
The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution. The report also finds that those in financial services and the internet sectors predominate among the super rich.
Europe, the US and some Asia Pacific nations account for most of the extremely wealthy. More than a third live in the US. Japan accounts for 27% of the total, the UK for 6% and France for 5%.
The UK is also third in terms of per capita wealth. UK residents are found to have on average $127,000 (£64,000) each in assets, with Japanese and American citizens having, respectively, $181,000 and $144,000. All data relate to the year 2000.
The global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations - is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income, for which more comprehensive date is available. It included all the most significant components of household wealth, including financial assets and debts, land, buildings and other tangible property. Together these total $125 trillion globally.
Anthony Shorrocks, director of the research institute at the United Nations University, in New York, led the study. He affirmed that the existence of a nest egg provided an insurance policy that helped people cope with unforeseen events such as ill health or a lost job. Capital allowed people to drag themselves out of poverty, he added. "In some ways, wealth is more important to people in poorer countries than in richer countries." It was more difficult in developing countries to set up a business because it was harder to borrow start-up funds, he said.
His team used detailed data from 38 countries, but had to rely on incomplete information from the rest.
The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets. Half the world's adult population, however, owned barely 1% of global wealth. Near the bottom of the list were India, with per capita wealth of $1,100, and Indonesia with assets per head of $1,400.
Many African nations as well as North Korea and the poorer Asia Pacific nations were places where the worst off lived.
"These levels of inequality are grotesque," said Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam. "It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. The good news is that redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions."
Madsen Pirie, director of the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market thinktank, disagreed that distribution of global wealth was unfair. He said: "The implicit assumption behind this is that there is a supply of wealth in the world and some people have too much of that supply. In fact wealth is a dynamic, it is constantly created. We should not be asking who in the past has created wealth and how can we get it off them." He said that instead the question should be how more and more people could create wealth.
Ruth Lea, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, a thinkthank set up by Margaret Thatcher, said that although she supported the goal of making poverty history she did not think increasing aid to poorer countries was the answer. "It's no use throwing lots of aid at countries that are basically dysfunctional," she said.
The UN report was issued as the Swiss magazine Bilan released a list of the richest Swiss residents. Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea, topped the list with an estimated fortune of $21bn.
Comment on this Article
U.S. predicts bumper year in arms sales
Mon Dec 4, 2006
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government is on its way to brokering about $20 billion in arms sales in the fiscal year that began October 1, steady with last year's near-record total, the Pentagon official responsible for such sales said on Monday.
"We're forecasting in the $20 billion range" for fiscal 2007, Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington.
In fiscal 2006, which ended on September 30, foreign military sales notified to Congress reached $20.9 billion, nearly double the $10.6 billion the previous year.
Last year's total was second only to 1993, which topped $30 billion, swollen by sales to the Middle East after the first Gulf War.
Regional security concerns tied to Iran and North Korea were helping drive current sales, Kohler said.
He said Saudi Arabia, for instance, was talking to the United States about shore-hugging littoral combat ships that could cost billions of dollars in coming years.
The ships were of particular interest to the Saudi Navy's Eastern Fleet "that would first confront Iranian aggression if there is any." The Eastern Fleet also was largely responsible for protecting Saudi oil infrastructure in the Gulf, Kohler said.
Such ships, costing some $220 million apiece, are designed to counter submarines, small surface attack craft and mines in heavily contested areas near shore. Different versions are being built for the U.S. Navy by teams led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp..
The United Arab Emirates also was considering purchases designed to boost its naval capabilities, missile defense and command and control, Kohler said.
Sales to Iraq, including armored personnel carriers, plus equipment for Afghan government forces would total about $3 billion in fiscal 2007, about the same as last year, he said.
North Korea, which defied global pressure this year to test-fire missiles and carry out a nuclear test blast, is also spurring arms purchases, Kohler said.
Comment: Yaaay! Even more innocent people are gonna die this year than last year! Doesn't it just make ya wanna scream?!
Comment on this Article
Income of Top 0.1% of Americans up 348% - Income of 60% of Americans down 5% while 20% of Americans live on $7 per day
By Matthew Rothschild
28 Nov 06
George Bush likes to tout the success of the economy, citing recent job growth, and until Monday, the climbing stock market.
But most Americans can see through that mirage.
You know you're wallet isn't any fatter, and your bank account's no healthier.
A story on the front page of The New York Times business section on November 28 spells out the problems.
Average real incomes fell by 3 percent between 2000 and 2004.
Looked at over the past 25 years, things don't get any better. From 1979 to 2004, 'the bottom 60 percent of Americans, on average, made less than 95 cents in 2004 for each dollar they reported in 1979,' the Times reports. For those on the top 95th to top 99th rungs of the income ladder, the past quarter century was splendid: Their income went up 53 percent. And those on the top 0.1 percent rung? Their income went up 348 percent.
That is obscene.
We have a plutocracy in this country, not just of the rich or the very rich but of the unbelievably rich. This 0.1 percent are the ones who benefit most from the George Bush economy.
As he once put it, "Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."
Meanwhile, the poorest 60 million Americans "reported average incomes of less than $7 a day."
Seven bucks a day! That barely gets one meal at McDonald's.
Our economy is a sin.
We cannot call ourselves a moral people and let this kind of maldistribution continue, particularly when it brings suffering to millions and millions of people.
I do believe we should have higher taxes on that top 5 percent, and especially on that top 0.1 percent.
I do believe in preserving, or even increasing, the estate tax.
But I'd settle simply for a floor of decency, so that no one has to go hungry or survive on only that one McDonald's meal a day, no one has to go without health care coverage, no one has to cut prescription pills in half to make the medicine stretch, no one has to work 50 or 60 or 80 hours a week just to take care of family.
To build this floor of decency, we need to guarantee every American health care, every American the right to a free college education, every American an annual income of, say, about $20,000 or $25,000.
This guaranteed annual income, an idea espoused by people stretching from Martin Luther King Jr. to Milton Friedman, would remove the cruel coercion of the marketplace and outlaw the immorality of letting tens of millions of people suffer.
In some ways, our economy would still be grossly unfair, with that top 5 percent and that top 0.1 percent raking in enormously disproportionate amounts.
But at this stage, the greater sin is not gluttony. It is poverty. It is hunger. It is economic uncertainty. It is lack of opportunity.
So I don't care as much about there being no ceiling for Paris Hilton.
I care more about there being no floor for tens of millions of people.
We need to start building that floor of decency today.
Comment on this Article
Denver housing market in free-fall as foreclosures eclipse record
05/12/2006
AP
Denver's 2006 real estate foreclosure rate is now officially the worst on record.
With one month left in the year, foreclosures have already eclipsed the record set during the 1988 oil industry collapse which sent Colorado's economy into a tail-spin.
Experts are saying Denver's spiraling market should serve as a warning to the rest of the country.
An analysis shows many of the year's nearly 18,000 Denver metro-area foreclosures fall in what is being called the "foreclosure belt" of Adams and Weld counties and north Aurora, while upscale neighborhoods are nearly unscathed.
Observers say Denver's hot market for mortgage fraud has created what one called a "Wild West" atmosphere that has left buyers trapped in bad loans with no way out.
Comment on this Article
The Economics of John K. Galbraith and Milton Friedman
December 4, 2006
Rodrigue Tremblay
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) died on April 26, 2006 at the age of 97. Economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) died on November 16, 2006 at the age of 94. Along with the great John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), these two economists dominated the field of economics during the second half of the 20th Century. There existed such an intellectual competition between the two economists-not unlike the rivalry that prevailed between President Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and President John Adams (1735-1826), who both died on the same day- that Galbraith's death may have influenced the time of Friedman's death.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
"The Great Depression [1929-39], like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy."
Milton Friedman
"Economic freedom is... an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom."
Milton Friedman
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage."
John Kenneth Galbraith
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) died on April 26, 2006 at the age of 97. Economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) died on November 16, 2006 at the age of 94. Along with the great John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), these two economists dominated the field of economics during the second half of the 20th Century. There existed such an intellectual competition between the two economists-not unlike the rivalry that prevailed between President Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and President John Adams (1735-1826), who both died on the same day- that Galbraith's death may have influenced the time of Friedman's death.
Both were influential in framing the general economic debate and in steering general economic policies within their own country, but also abroad. For one, Galbraith was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Similarly, Friedman's ideas strongly influenced the economic policies of, among others, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, American President Ronald Reagan and Chilean President Antonio Pinochet. He also persuaded the Nixon administration to abolish military conscription.
John K. Galbraith's most influential book was The Affluent Society (1958), in which he proposed the idea that post-war private expenditures were generating marginal social benefits that were lower than would be derived from increased public expenditures on needed economic infrastructures and social programs. The general principle here is that public expenditures should be increased until one marginal dollar spent publicly generates the same marginal social benefit as one marginal dollar spent on private goods and services. This is still a fundamental precept of modern economic welfare theory.
Milton Friedman, for his part, espoused the 18th Century French physiocrats' economic philosophy that government should interfere as little as possible with the efficient functioning of free markets, according to the fundamental law of supply and demand. He advocated laissez-faire capitalism and free market economics. In his most important work, Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman became the universal champion of all those who advocate low taxation and small government.
Both economists, just as Keynes previously, were influenced by the pressing economic problems requiring solutions at specific times. During the immediate post-war years, after the onslaught of the Great Depression, and after the war-time price controls and rationing, private wealth was increasing at a fast pace (new houses, new cars, etc.) while schools, hospitals and roads were not catching up with the new demand for economic infrastructure. The international environment was also characterized by fixed exchanges rates, a high level of trade protectionism, and controls on international capital movements. In such a context, fiscal policy was deemed to be more potent and useful than monetary policy. Thus Galbraith's fiscal approach to solving society's problems of resource allocation and economic stabilization.
In the 1970's and 1980's, after two damaging, successive oil supply shocks, and the rise of inflation, the need was to isolate the economy from these external shocks, through the adoption of flexible exchange rates and through a more predictable monetary policy. Thus Friedman's emphasis on flexible exchange rates and on a more responsible management of the money supply. To a large extent, Galbraith's more Keynesian approach to economic management and Friedman's more monetarist approach to economic stabilization were a reflection of the different economic environments in which they applied their theories.
As far as economic stabilization is concerned, for example, that remains an empirical appreciation if, for a given economy, at a specific time, fluctuations in government surpluses and deficits are more or less efficient than fluctuations in interest rates in influencing private investment and private consumption. There are situations where private expenditures are very responsive to movements in real interest rates, i.e. to nominal interest rates minus inflation expectations. In such normal times, monetary policy alone can be relied upon to stabilize the overall economy, while public budgets remain balanced.
However, there arise situations of market failures when excessive market power by a few large corporations or excessive herd-like speculation by the many create destabilizing bubbles in crucial sectors of the economy. Economic psychology could become so universally depressed that no amount of monetary stimulus could jump start the economy. Japan is an economy that found itself in such a predicament during the 1990's. At that time, nominal interest rates were pushed to near zero, their absolute low, but real interest rates remained high due to a generalized deflation and high deflationary expectations. When an economy falls in such a 'liquidity trap', fiscal policy may become the only avenue left to stimulate the economy, with increased public deficits. It becomes a matter of political ideology if such deficits should be generated through tax reductions or through increased public expenditures, or both.
Philosophically, 'liberal' Galbraith would be more inclined to favor enlarged public expenditures, while 'conservative' Friedman would prefer to keep as much money as possible in private hands. Both would agree, however, that the government is the last arbiter when economic conditions in the private economy deteriorate, either through destructive inflation, imported or domestically produced, or through an economic slump, that generate widespread unemployment of both workers and machines. It should be no surprise if Friedman's prescriptions are more welcomed in times of prosperity, while those of Galbraith and Keynes would be readily adopted in times of economic crisis. This has been a pattern often observed in the past. For example, before the Great Depression, 'Laissez-faire ' capitalism was politically dominant. However, the role of government was rediscovered when poverty, income inequalities and unemployment became widespread. This is to be expected in a democracy, where the wishes of the median voter normally carry the day. The same ambivalence toward economic policies will no doubt prevail in the future, as people ride the consequences of economic cycles. Thus, there will surely be future Galbraiths and future Friedmans in the economics profession.
Posted, December 4, 2006, at 5:30 am
http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1047
Comment on this Article
Scientists say a 'silent earthquake' is overdu
06:01 PM PST on Tuesday, December 5, 2006
By GLENN FARLEY / KING5 News
SEATTLE - Seismology experts and geology researchers are literally waiting for the earth under the Pacific Northwest to move at any moment. The earthquake will be strong but it's certainly not going to knock plates off the wall or homes off their foundations. Experts say it will last a long time - about two weeks - and that's why you won't feel it.
The seismic event the scientists are waiting for is called a deep tremor or silent earthquake and the scientists have known about them for less than a decade.
Normally, the North American tectonic plate moves in a northeast direction, about 8 millimeters a year. We don't even notice its movement. But scientists have found that every 14 months or so, the plate seems to reverse course, sliding backwards for between 6 and 15 days. It happened in July 1998, August 1999, December 2000, February 2002 and September 2005. It's now due.
In anticipation, researchers have set out an array of monitors and are watching them closely.
In November, those monitors began picking up movements in the Vancouver Island area but they stopped after a just a few days. Scientists don't believe those shakes are linked to a silent earthquake. They say once the deep tremors start they'll definitely know it.
Comment on this Article
Austria's hills aren't alive with sound of skiing
Wednesday December 6, 2006
The Guardian
For the Austrian village of Hochfilzen it was a disaster. As it prepared to welcome the world's best cross-country skiers and shooters for a biathlon event this weekend there was a problem: no snow.
With climate experts confirming that the Alps are in the grip of the warmest temperatures for 1,300 years villagers borrowed some snow from a nearby mountain, trucking in snow from Grossglockner, Austria's highest peak, 20 miles away. Over five days lorries deposited the snow in the village, allowing a 6-metre wide by 45cm deep (20ft x 17inch) track.
"There's normally snow here. Unfortunately this year it didn't arrive in time," Martin Frieder, the town's tourist office spokesman said, adding: "Last winter we had 8.7 metres of snow."
An unseasonably warm autumn has wreaked havoc in Alpine ski resorts, postponing the winter season in Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. Instead of snow all around, most slopes are still covered in green grass.
Yesterday climate experts confirmed that the warm temperatures - including 22.4C recorded last week in Grenoble, the capital of the French Alps - were unusual.
"We are experiencing the warmest period in the Alpine region in 1,300 years," said Reinhard Böhm, a climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics. "It will undoubtedly get warmer in the future."
The lack of snow has also affected ski resorts further afield, with all 31 skiing areas in Spain and Andorra closed, said the newspaper El País.
Andrea Händel, of the German Alpine Association in Munich, said it is too warm for artificial snow machines to work. Snow is now forecast within days.
Comment on this Article
How Deep The Rabbit Hole?
Litvinenko's Italian Contact Says Ex-FSB Agent Poisoned by "Clandestine Organizations"
Created: 06.12.2006 09:54 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 10:15 MSK,
MosNews
An Italian contact of poisoned former Russian FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko accused "clandestine organisations" from Russia that were not under direct control of the Kremlin of targeting his dead friend, Reuters news agency reports.
Mario Scaramella, in a London hospital after doctors found traces of a radioactive substance in his urine, told CNN in an interview broadcast on Wednesday he was feeling well despite the discovery.
The expert on the KGB and its successor organization recalled meeting Litvinenko on November 1 at a sushi restaurant in London and sharing with him emails from a source warning the pair their lives might be in danger.
"(The emails said) him and in a certain sense me - I was mentioned as well but for different reasons - were under the special attention of hostile people and so to take care," Scaramella said.
Asked who these "hostile people" were, he said: "People linked with some clandestine organizations not directly under control of (the) Russian establishment but from Russia ... generally retired people from the security service."
On Saturday, when Scaramella said urine tests had detected traces of polonium 210 - the substance that killed Litvinenko - in his body, he did not accuse anyone of the poisoning.
Litvinenko, a critic of the Kremlin, accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering his death. The Kremlin denies any involvement.
Speaking to CNN from his hospital bed, Scaramella said he felt fine. "Doctors confirmed that I have no symptoms, no effect of the poisoning, so again I am perfectly well."
He also doubted whether the poisoning took place at the sushi restaurant as has been widely speculated.
"I don't believe it happened there simply because there were no other people, any strange situation," Scaramella said, adding that he did not think he had been a target himself.
The probe into Litvinenko's death on November 23 moved to Moscow on Monday as a team of British detectives flew there to look for leads.
Comment on this Article
Russia Should Carry Out Own Probe Into Litvinenko's Death - Official
Created: 06.12.2006 16:19 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:55 MSK, 1 hour 21 minutes ago
MosNews
Russia should carry out its own investigation into the poisoning death in London of former intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko, the deputy justice minister was quoted by a newspaper in Moscow as saying, Agence France-Presse reported.
Given that Litvinenko was a Russian citizen, as well as having British citizenship, "our security agencies should not be indifferent to what happened," Vladimir Kolesnikov said in quotes carried by the Kommersant newspaper, deriving from the Interfax news agency. "We should take a procedural decision and carry out our own full, multi-faceted, objective investigation... cooperating with the security agencies of other countries including Britain," he said.
On Tuesday Russia laid down strict ground rules for visiting British counter-terrorism police probing the poisoning and ruled out the extradition of any suspects.
The British team flew in to a frosty reception in the Russian capital on Monday and, according to a British Embassy spokesman here, has already begun their inquiries into a case that has created serious tensions between London and Moscow. While the Russian side has promised to cooperate with the investigation, Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika made it clear that the British officers would only be allowed to work under tight controls.
At a tense press conference, Chaika stressed that only Russian investigators had the right to actually question witnesses in Russia and ruled out any possibility of the British team making any arrests while here or extraditing suspects. "They can't arrest Russian citizens," he said. "If they have to be investigated, we can do that in Russia according to a convention. We can open an inquiry... and put them on trial in Russia."
Chaika also questioned claims made in the British media that the radioactive substance apparently used to poison Litvinenko, polonium-210, originated from Russia.
"We believe there haven't been any losses of polonium here," he said, adding that the British authorities would have to provide hard evidence to the contrary before prosecutors could open an investigation.
Litvinenko, who died in London on November 23, accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering his poisoning -- a charge sternly denied by the Kremlin which has taken umbrage at coverage of the case in the British media.
"I see no grounds for speculation actively held in Western media that this was the long arm of the KGB or FSB, that Litvinenko knew a lot and was an important intelligence officer. But that does not at all correspond to reality," Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told the Greek Eleftherotypia newspaper Tuesday. According to Ivanov, himself a secret service veteran, Litvinenko was working in a minor role in the interior ministry when he was hired by the FSB in the mid-1990s for a newly created department combatting organised crime, and was thus unlikely to have been much of an insider.
Andrei Lugovoi, one of three Russians who met with Litvinenko in London on the day he fell ill, said Tuesday that he was willing to be interviewed by the British police team. "I am counting on meeting them in the coming days," Lugovoi, who like Litvinenko is a former secret service agent, said in a telephone interview broadcast on NTV television. "If they show me a list of people that they want to meet and if there are names missing from that list, names that I believe would be interesting to propose to them, then I certainly will," Lugovoi said.
According to the Kommersant newspaper, police are investigating why traces of radiation were found on the planes on which Lugovoi flew to London and returned to Moscow, and also in rooms in two London hotels where he stayed.
Traces of polonium-210 have also been at London football club Arsenal's Emirates Stadium, Britain's Health Protection Agency said Tuesday.
Police last week listed a dozen locations where the substance, of which large quantities were found in Litvinenko's urine, had been detected, but the Emirates Stadium was not one of them. "Minute quantities (of polonium-210) were found which were barely detectable in a couple of localised areas ... there was no risk to public health," a HPA spokeswoman told AFP. "Even the traces that were found were at barely detectable levels."
Because there are levels at which polonium is simply "naturally occurring", the HPA had to check it out and ensure that there was no public health risk, she added.
Three Russian men, Lugovoi, Dmitri Kovtun and Vyacheslav Sokolenko, who met with Litvinenko at a central London hotel on November 1, the day he fell ill and three weeks before he eventually died, also watched a football match between Arsenal and CSKA Moscow at the Emirates Stadium, the Russian newspaper Kommersant said earlier this month.
Meanwhile Italian police raided the home and offices of Mario Scaramella, an Italian contact of Litvinenko, suspecting him of violating Italian waste management laws, the ANSA news agency said Tuesday. Scaramella is allegedly connected to a scheme involving the illegal use of building site waste.
He is in hospital in London after testing positive for a radiocative substance, but doctors have so far failed to detect any symptoms of the radiation poisoning that killed the former Russian spy Litvinenko. The raids targeted Scaramella's home and several offices in Naples, as well as offices he regularly used in Torre del Greco, Marigliano and San Sebastiano in the Naples region.
The mass circulation daily Izvestia repeated allegations that Litvinenko had been involved in trading in radioactive materials and may have been involved with Chechen militants trying to create a "dirty bomb".
Given links between Litvinenko, the exiled Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky and Chechen envoy Akhmed Zakayev, "one can't exclude that the bomb was being created in Britain," Izvestia said.
Comment on this Article
Doctors Unable to Diagnose Former Russian PM's "Mysterious Illness"
Created: 06.12.2006 10:25 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 10:25 MSK, 9 hours 2 minutes ago
MosNews
Doctors who have failed to diagnose former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar's mysterious illness say they suspect poisoning but are unable to detect a toxic substance, an aide is quoted by Xinhua news agency.
Gaidar, a 50-year-old economist who served briefly as prime minister in the 1990s under President Boris Yeltsin and is a leader of a Russian liberal opposition party, began vomiting and fainted during a conference in Ireland on November 24, and was rushed into intensive care at a hospital.
Spokesman Valery Natarov said doctors treating Gaidar in Moscow concluded his condition "did not correspond to any disease known to medicine and a toxic factor was possible."
Natarov said Gaidar was taken a clinic in Moscow 60 hours after falling ill, which made it impossible to trace any possible toxic substance which usually remains in the system for up to 48 hours.
Gaidar was discharged on Monday and was feeling "quite well," but would remain under the doctors' supervision, Natarov said.
Gaidar fell ill a day after ex-FSB officer and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko died in London after being poisoned with the radioactive element polonium-210.
Irish doctors concluded he was not poisoned by a radioactive substance, but said his health had suffered "radical changes."
The illness added to growing speculation in Moscow over who might be responsible for Litvinenko's death. Some critics have tied Litvinenko's death and Gaidar's illness to the October killing of Russian investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya, also a Kremlin critic.
Gaidar is a liberal economist whose criticism of the Kremlin was largely limited to economic issues. He is unpopular among many Russians who blame the liberal, Western-backed economic policies he pursued as prime minister for the decline in their living standards following the Soviet collapse.
Comment on this Article
Traces of Polonium Found at London Stadium
December 6, 2006
Associated Press
LONDON - Traces of the radioactive isotope polonium-210 have been detected at a London stadium that hosted a soccer match attended by a key figure in the probe of the fatal radiation poisoning of a former Russian spy, a British official said Wednesday.
The key figure, Andrei Lugovoi, who is hospitalized in Moscow and being tested for possible polonium contamination, was to be interviewed by British investigators Wednesday, according to a Russian news agency report confirmed by a Lugovoi associate.
"I have been officially informed that our meeting with Scotland Yard detectives will take place today and proceed with the participation of employees of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office,'' Lugovoi said, according to ITAR-Tass.
Vyacheslav Sokolenko, a business associate, confirmed in an interview with The Associated Press that Lugovoi would be meeting with British investigators.
Lugovoi, who is also a former Russian agent, attended a soccer match at Emirates Stadium on Nov. 1 after meeting Alexander Litvinenko. Litvinenko fell ill that day and died Nov. 23 in London. Toxicologists found polonium-210 in his body.
The radiation found at the soccer stadium was "barely detectable'' and posed no public health risk, said Katherine Lewis, spokeswoman for the Health Protection Agency.
ABC News reported that British detectives had identified Lugovoi as a prime suspect in the poisoning. The report cited an unnamed senior British official.
Alexander Goldfarb, a friend of Litvinenko's, said he doubted that Lugovoi played a role in the killing.
"I frankly doubt that he was the hit man because hit men are usually people hiding in the dark,'' Goldfarb told the AP. "I think it's one of his associates, I think he was used unawares ... Now his life is in danger because he knows a lot.''
On Tuesday, Russian Prosecutor-General Yuri Chaika said that his office would fully cooperate with the British investigators, but all figures in the case would be questioned by Russian prosecutors in the presence of the British officers.
On his deathbed, Litvinenko, a strong critic of the Russian government, blamed President Vladimir Putin for the poisoning. The Kremlin has vehemently denied the accusations.
Lugovoi, who had become a businessman, has said that he knew Litvinenko for a decade. He said Litvinenko had contacted him from London about a year ago with some business-related proposals, and that they had met intermittently in London since then.
Lugovoi traveled to London three times during the month before Litvinenko's death and met with Litvinenko four times, according to Russian media.
The case has further strained already tense relations between Russia and Britain, which has infuriated the Kremlin by giving asylum to tycoon and fierce Kremlin critic Boris Berezovsky and Chechen rebel envoy Akhmed Zakayev in addition to Litvinenko, a former Federal Security Service officer.
Lugovoi was at one point a bodyguard for former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, who also recently fell ill with an illness that Russian doctors have been unable to diagnose. They say they suspect poisoning, but are unable to detect a toxic substance, a Gaidar aide has said.
Comment on this Article
Russia blocks questioning of spy poison suspects
By Andrew Osborn in Moscow and Cahal Milmo
Published: 06 December 2006
Detectives dispatched to Moscow to investigate the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko heard yesterday they would be barred from personally questioning witnesses and no suspects will be returned to Britain to face charges.
In comments that appeared to sharply limit the activity of the Scotland Yard team, Yuri Chaika, Russia's General Prosecutor, made it clear that if there is to be a "Litvinenko trial," it will be in Russia. British courts have repeatedly refused high profile Russian extraditions, including that of Mr Litvinenko's allies, the oligarch Boris Berezovsky and the Chechen exile Akhmed Zakayev. It seems Moscow is in no mood to help now the boot is on the other foot.
Though Mr Chaika vowed that the Russian side would do its "utmost" to help the British investigation, everything he said appeared to indicate the opposite, a state of affairs that mirrors increasingly icy relations between London and Moscow on the subject.
Efforts by the Yard's anti-terrorist command to talk to one of the central figures in the case - businessman and former KGB bodyguard Andrei Lugovoi - were also facing unexpected delay after it emerged that he was being treated in a hospital for an unexplained ailment. Mr Chaika said: "According to our information, he is ill and currently in hospital. If doctors allow, he will certainly be questioned." News that Mr Lugovoi is in hospital was unexpected: last week he was tested for polonium-210, the lethal radioactive isotope which killed Mr Litvinenko, and allegedly given the all clear.
Mr Lugovoi emerged as a key actor in the month-long drama of Mr Litvinenko's poisoning and subsequent death after he visited London three times in October. Mr Lugovoi met Mr Litvinenko four times on those trips to discuss potential business ventures.
But he again denied any involvement in the poisoning and claimed he is being set up as a suspect. He told Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency: "Once I give all the necessary testimony to the law enforcement organs, I intend publicly to put an end to speculation about my supposed involvement in this story that has caused such a stir."
Mr Chaika indicated that his own officials would conduct the interrogation of any witnesses, with the British allowed only to listen in but not allowed to interject or pose its own questions spontaneously.
A list of individuals who the Yard officers want to question has been submitted to their Russian counterparts. It is understood to include two Russian men who were in London at the time Mr Litvinenko fell ill.
Mr Chaika said Russia's Federal Security Service would not be dragged into the investigation.
A team of nine anti-terrorism officers arrived in Moscow on Monday briefed to find out all it can about Mr Litvinenko's death.
Comment on this Article
Russia Holds Israeli Prisoners Hostage, Seeks to Swap Them for Wanted Tycoon - Report
05.12.2006
MosNews
Moscow has continuously denied four Israeli nationals convicted in Russia permission to serve their prison terms at home, unless Israel extradites Jewish Russian-born entrepreneur Leonid Nevzlin, once the second-in-command of Yukos and business partner of the jailed Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, leading Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth wrote Tuesday in a report headlined "Putin's Israeli Hostages".
According to the paper, four Israeli jewelers and diamond dealers convicted of illicit diamond smuggling in Russia are currently held in a Moscow prison. The authors of the story insist that the four men are effectively held hostage as Russia, seeking extradition of Leonid Nevzlin, refuses to allow them to serve their terms at home, in violation of diplomatic accords signed by the two countries.
The wrongdoings attributed to the Israeli nationals were decriminalized after the four were convicted. In talks with Israeli officials and families of the convicts the Russian officials reportedly hinted at the possibility of "the exchange".
Moscow and Tel-Aviv signed the extradition agreement two years ago. Russia has already used it once when Israel extradited a Russian-Israeli suspect on condition that if convicted he would serve his prison term in Israel. Russia honored its commitments under the treaty.
But ever since the Israeli jewelers were found guilty in Moscow two years ago numerous requests made by Israel to let them return home have been flatly rejected by Russia. Even personal requests made by top Israeli ministers were ignored, Yedioth Ahronoth reported.
One of the convicts has recently wrote a letter to his relatives where he claimed that in October 2005 he and his inmates were visited in their cell by an unidentified man who informed them that their task was to bring Nevzlin back to Russia and assured them that if they agreed to help Russian law enforcers they would be discharged from prison; if not they would have to serve their entire terms in Russia.
The NEWSru Israel website asked Leonid Nevzlin who currently lives in Israel to comment on Yedioth Ahronoth's report. "I have heard that those convicts were warned that if Israel refused to extradite Nevzlin they could abandon hope for early release or transfer to an Israeli prison. I also know that my extradition has many times been discussed at meetings between top Israeli and Russian foreign ministry officials but those conversations were never officially recorded," the entrepreneur said.
Nevzlin also pointed out to an inaccuracy in Yedioth Ahronoth's report. "In truth, there is no permanent extradition pact between Russia and Israel saying that criminals shall serve their sentences at home. Such an accord was achieved once, on the Zhuravlyov case (Multiple murder suspect Andrei Zhuravlyov, aka Terrazini, was extradited to Russia in 2002, after the court said he had obtained Israeli citizenship unlawfully). As to the jewelers' case a separate agreement was drawn up," Nevzlin said.
Nevzlin said he had no reason to doubt the facts unearthed by Yedioth Ahronoth. "I view [Russia's actions] as a hostage-taking in spite of the fact that those people had been arrested before I moved to Israel. In fact, what we deal with here is blackmail where innocent Israeli are being used as bargaining chips," Nevzlin said.
Comment on this Article
Kyrgyz National Fatally Shot Dead by U.S. Serviceman at Local Army Base
Created: 06.12.2006 17:07 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:07 MSK
MosNews
A U.S. serviceman in Kyrgyzstan fatally shot a local resident on Wednesday, The Associated Press reported citing a a senior police official.
The incident took place at the U.S. military base in Manas, outside the capital, Bishkek, said Deputy Interior Minister Temerkan Subanov.
Subanov said he had traveled to the base but did not have details on the victim or the serviceman.
A spokesman for the base was not immediately available for comment.
The United States maintains the Manas base mostly in support of U.S. forces operating in nearby Afghanistan.
Comment on this Article
Top Kyrgyz Official Says Nation Will Not Follow U.S. Model of Democracy
Created: 06.12.2006 15:19 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:54 MSK
MosNews
The adoption of the American model for development has not created prosperity in Kyrgyzstan, the Central Asian republic's state secretary was quoted by the RIA Novosti news agency as saying on Wednesday.
Political turmoil and economic hardship has continued to plague the country since the overthrow of the government in March 2005 known as the 'tulip revolution', widely believed to have been backed by U.S.-funded NGOs.
"Kyrgyzstan's friends in the person of the U.S. are pushing the country toward democracy, where freedom of speech reigns, but we are not getting richer or better-fed from this democracy," Adakhan Madumarov told professors and students of the Kyrgyz State University.
He cited ex-Soviet neighbor Kazakhstan with its authoritarian government, whose economy has been developing rapidly in recent years on the back of oil and gas revenues.
"For example, in Kazakhstan there is discipline, while democracy reigns in Kyrgyzstan," Madumarov said.
Madumarov also said Kyrgyz mass media negatively impact the state's development, because they write about murders and scandals. He urged the media to stop "shattering the process of strengthening statehood" and to "serve the unification of society."
After the mass opposition protests that ousted long-serving leader Askar Akayev, Kurmanbek Bakiyev came to power in a democratic vote. However, his term in office has been marred by corruption scandals and mass poverty. At the beginning of November, thousands of opposition supporters gathered in the center of the capital, Bishkek, demanding that Bakiyev resign or delegate some of his powers to parliament.
Bakiyev signed a new constitution November 9, based on a compromise agreement drafted by opposition and pro-government lawmakers. The president lost the right to dissolve parliament, and parliament gained the authority to appoint the prime minister and the cabinet.
is quoted by RIA Novosti news agency as saying.
Political turmoil and economic hardship has continued to plague the country since the overthrow of the government in March 2005 known as the 'tulip revolution', widely believed to have been backed by U.S.-funded NGOs.
"Kyrgyzstan's friends in the person of the U.S. are pushing the country toward democracy, where freedom of speech reigns, but we are not getting richer or better-fed from this democracy," Adakhan Madumarov told professors and students of the Kyrgyz State University.
He cited ex-Soviet neighbor Kazakhstan with its authoritarian government, whose economy has been developing rapidly in recent years on the back of oil and gas revenues.
"For example, in Kazakhstan there is discipline, while democracy reigns in Kyrgyzstan," Madumarov said.
Madumarov also said Kyrgyz mass media negatively impact the state's development, because they write about murders and scandals. He urged the media to stop "shattering the process of strengthening statehood" and to "serve the unification of society."
After the mass opposition protests that ousted long-serving leader Askar Akayev, Kurmanbek Bakiyev came to power in a democratic vote. However, his term in office has been marred by corruption scandals and mass poverty. At the beginning of November, thousands of opposition supporters gathered in the center of the capital, Bishkek, demanding that Bakiyev resign or delegate some of his powers to parliament.
Bakiyev signed a new constitution November 9, based on a compromise agreement drafted by opposition and pro-government lawmakers. The president lost the right to dissolve parliament, and parliament gained the authority to appoint the prime minister and the cabinet, RIA Novosti reported.
Comment on this Article
The Suffering Of The Palestinian People
Apartheid Israel
By VIRGINIA TILLEY
December 5, 2006
Johannesburg, South Africa
On November 27, Ehud Olmert responded to frantic international pressure and US hand signals by delivering what was billed as a "landmark" policy speech. The BBC has raised a faint cheer for the "new mood" it seems to signal. But the occasion, an annual memorial for Ben Gurion, was appropriate: in silky language, Mr. Olmert baldly reiterated the same terms and conditions that have blocked all progress toward Middle East peace for years.
Talks with the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Olmert declared, will begin only after a newly elected Palestinian government "renounces violence", recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, abandons the right of return on behalf of the entire Palestinian people, and agrees that the large urban Israeli settlements that now dismember the West Bank will be permanently annexed to Israel.
After this abject betrayal of all Palestinian national aspirations and social needs, Mr. Olmert said, Israel will then open "negotiations" with the new government (unless Israel doesn't like that government), "significantly diminish the number of roadblocks" (how many does Israel consider "significant"?), "improve the operation of the border crossings to the Gaza Strip" (what does "improve" mean?), and release Palestinian VAT funds that Israel is illegally withholding.
In this dubious context, what about progress toward a regional peace agreement? Of the Arab states' 2002 peace initiative, which offered Israel a full peace upon its withdrawal from the West Bank, Mr. Olmert says that "some parts" are "positive" but responds only with diplomatese: "I intend to invest efforts in order to advance the connection with those States". Well then, how about talks with the Palestinians? He hopes the Arab states will "strengthen their support of direct bilateral negotiations between us and the Palestinians." But the Palestinian Authority and Fatah have been scraping their knees asking for bilateral talks with Israel, so this is meaningless - unless it means that the Arab states should pressure the Palestinians to capitulate to the model he is proposing, which even Arab quisling governments cannot successfully do.
Israel will also "assist" the new Palestinian government "in formulating a plan for the economic rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip and areas in Judea and Samaria," which might sound promising until we consider that "assist in formulating a plan" does not mean Israel will assist in implementing any plan. But "areas in Judea and Samaria" is especially ominous wording. First, "Judea and Samaria" are biblical-era terms for the West Bank used by Israelis to conceptualize the West Bank as an intrinsic part of Israel. Using them in diplomatic language regarding peace negotiations signals that Mr. Olmert is now so secure in this notion that he is willing to deploy it casually as a political given. Second, Israel will evacuate only "areas" (plural) of the West Bank. Later, Mr Olmert again uses the plural form when he says that Israel "will agree to the evacuation of many territories and communities which were established therein". To everyone else, the West Bank is one territory. Now carved up by Israeli settlements, it is several territories only if those settlements remain.
In other words, we are back to Olmert's old Convergence Plan, already combusted on the altar of Lebanon. The entire speech was a stale reiteration of the same old hogwash.
Israel-Palestine sits at the eye of the Middle East blood-bath that now rightly obsesses world security debates. No serious analyst of Middle East politics believes that regional stability, and therefore world stability, is remotely obtainable without resolving this conflict. Yet the best Israel can offer are talks for which no legitimate Palestinian government can conceivably qualify, which cannot achieve anything, and that, given the prerequisites, cannot even be launched in the first place. Instead of the serious emergency summit we so urgently need, we have a tableau of foolery: Mr. Olmert scraping to save his hollow leadership; a compliant media bleating again about "hope"; Mr. Abbas shuffling and grinning.
The bankruptcy of Mr. Olmert's speech did accomplish one useful task: it highlighted and capped the current state of world paralysis. In fact, no one knows what to do. Daily in the West Bank, land is taken, people are confined, jobs are ruined or lost, families are divided, hopes are crushed. Daily in Gaza, conditions are far worse, as close to a million people face starvation while mortars, bulldozers, and tanks grind up people's lives. Anguished cries from Beit Hanoun "why? why?" - receive no answer from Israel or anyone else. As one commentator noted, no one notices Gaza as long as the Palestinians' daily death toll remains in the single digits. We leave the Palestinians only the job of dying more dramatically to get any attention at all.
Flailing for direction, some eyes still turn mechanically to the US hegemon: e.g., Zahi Khouri (San Diego Union-Tribute), who insists that "America alone has the influence" to do something. But the "do-something" mantra cannot be sensibly directed toward the Bush administration now that it has openly urged Israel to smash Lebanon and Gaza both. The spotlight turns to the Democrats, but what hope is there for a party that takes every chance to pronounce on Israel's outrages by ritually enthusing over Israel's "right to defend itself"? Kathleen and Bill Christison have put it flatly: "The Democrats don't care". Indeed, the Bush administration's only response to meltdown in Palestine and Iraq is to argue for bombing Iran, on the idiot notion that this trauma will trigger regime change and solve the Palestinian problem by cutting off its regional support networks. Hence the whole world remains hostage to the absurd neocon and Zionist fantasy that Hizbullah and Hamas oppose Israel only because they are paid to do it.
But indeed, few still ask or expect the US to act on Israel-Palestine. Getting the imperium's shredded talons out of Iraq will be hard enough.
As for Europe, its moral bankruptcy is emblemized by the UK official who admitted that Israel's blasting a sleeping eighteen-member Palestinian family into fragments was "hard to defend." (One wonders what she might have said if a Palestinian rocket barrage had smashed eighteen Israeli Jewish citizens to bloody fragments in their beds. "Hard to defend" seems unlikely.)
Still, some things are happening. The Palestinians are slowly winning the propaganda war, at terrible cost. Israel's stunning crimes in Lebanon and Gaza have turned the tide: Israel has never been such an international pariah in all its years. The Arab states finally ended the financial boycott of the Hamas government that they should be ashamed before their families and clans that they ever deployed in the first place. The heroic new international boycott movement, finally standing up to shrieking Zionist slander and charges of anti-Semitism, expands rapidly through cyber-space and into serious and principled activism. Hopeful eyes turn to Ireland's victories and bold statements from Canada.
But direction is lacking, and that lack is dangerous. "End the occupation" is an empty call as Israeli city-settlements drape ever more broadly over the West Bank. Solidarity movements focus mainly on negative goals - trying to stop Israel from bombing helpless Palestinian civilians or bulldozing their houses. Lacking positive goals, activists remain in reaction mode and exhaust themselves battling Israel's defenders in the "letters" columns of newspapers. Worn-out editors eventually close their forums to these wars, leaving activists fuming to each other in cyberspace.
We know the agents of this debacle: the complicit US government and the brilliant Zionist lobbying machine; dithering Europeans; legless Arab states; a rhetorically heated but intimidated and divided global South. But to sort out what to do, we need to consider how we got here.
First, let's finally face it: The two-state carrot, dangled before the diplomatic donkey for the past fifteen years, has led us straight to this debacle.
The Oslo and Road Map processes were not only fruitless. They were deceptions. Preying on collective hopes for a Palestinian state, Israel never actually agreed to one. The Oslo Accords, which Israel signed, never mentioned a Palestinian state. The Road Map explicitly called for one, but Israel signed onto it only with fourteen "reservations", the first of which precluded any Palestinian state. Before it would lift a finger toward its own obligations, Israel required the PA to ensure complete cessation of all Palestinian resistance, collect and turn over all "illegal" weapons, stop all smuggling of arms (how?), "dismantle" Hamas and the other militant groups "and their infrastructure" (how?), submit all Palestinian resistance fighters to arrest, detention, and interrogation, support a system of laws that ensures their continuing arrest, detention, and interrogation, cease "incitement" (what is that?) and "educate for peace" (again vague - instil an ethos of surrender in Palestinian youth?). Complete success in all these measures was required to proceed even within the Road Map's three stages. Moreover, the Palestinians must give up the right of return and any claim on Jerusalem.
Since no rational observer can consider these conditions workable, they clearly signified Israel's intention not to comply with the Road Map. That a wilfully gullible world has pretended that this sham was meaningful, and therefore placed a moral and legal onus on the Palestinians to fulfil their obligations to the Road Map, is only more shame.
No wonder Israel bombed Lebanon to smithereens. Its leadership was fatuous with victory.
Second, Israel's sovereignty in Mandate Palestine has moved into a new stage. Israel has long controlled the airspace, sea, ports and border controls, economy, land, water, infrastructure, and the social management of the entire territory's population. But Israel has also become sovereign in Max Weber's famous sense: "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Of course, Israel's claim to a monopoly on violence is not "successful" as long as the Palestinians continue to resist it. And certainly Israel's brutal methods are not considered "legitimate" by the Palestinians or by anyone with moral sensibilities the world over. But consider: the international community has endorsed Israel's insistence that Hamas and all Palestinians are required to "abandon terror" and "recognize Israel". These conditions signal that continuing Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation is now considered illegitimate.
This shift is immensely important. The right of a population to resist occupation is enshrined in the UN Charter. Resistance to occupation becomes illegitimate only if and when the occupier is recognized as the legitimate sovereign. Of course, the international community has not admitted openly that Israel is sovereign in all of Mandate Palestine, because that would wreck the already-shaky collective pretence that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are territories from which Israel can be expected to withdraw someday. But denying Palestinians the right to resist occupation demonstrates that Israel's occupation itself has been tacitly redefined.
Israel's own model is not occupation. The word "occupation" rarely appears in Israeli government parlance. (Ariel Sharon used it once or twice, but it caused an enormous stir, and it appears now only in the formula "Israel ended its occupation of Gaza", patently untrue in any case.) Israel's model regarding the West Bank is openly one of sovereignty. Jewish-Israeli settlers potter about peacefully in their gardens in the West Bank because they know it is "Israel". The big settlements around Jerusalem, which divide the West Bank in half, are called "neighbourhoods". Israeli government maps of the country still do not show the green line. The West Bank, as we know it, is not there for Israel.
In sum, Israel has used the Road Map only to mask its own one-state program: retain sovereignty over all the land and exclude the native people. Israel is even being treated like a sovereign power. But here is the trick: Israel is getting away with its astoundingly brutal treatment of the Palestinians and Israeli Jewish citizens sustain their impressive immunity from caring about it - only through the collective fiction that Israel is not sovereign.
Israel evades any open claim to sovereignty over all Palestine because its hands would then be tied. No government that styles itself a democracy could get away with slaughtering and terrorizing its own citizens this way or, alternatively, refusing to enfranchise parts of its territory's permanent population this way. Israel excuses its treatment of the Palestinians on grounds that they are, in fact, aliens. The world has accepted this formula, viewing the territory's native people as citizens of some other country that exists only in the future, in territory that no one can find. Israel is understood to be "at war" with this nonexistent country, represented by these aliens. (That the native people have no weapons worthy of the term "war" is an inconvenient fact very poorly veiled by nuclear Israel's thumping accusations that the impoverished Palestinians, with their automatic rifles and hand-painted homemade rockets, still stubbornly want to "destroy Israel".)
Political power often lies in defining the situation. Right now Palestinians are in the grip of Israel's definition. Israel does not claim openly to have consolidated sovereignty over all Palestine because it would then face the logical consequence: the moral and legal onus of abandoning racial exclusion and making the native people citizens. In Israel's dual model, the Palestinians remain aliens in their own country, who have no rights. Their politicians are legitimate only when they collaborate. Their fighters, lacking uniforms, are "illegal enemy combatants" to whom Israel owes only bullets and torture.
The way out? Change the definition to suit the facts. Right now, one state power is sovereign in Palestine and that state is Israel. It is an apartheid state because it excludes the territory's indigenous people from citizenship solely on the basis of ethnicity. For let us remember: The Palestinians' original sin - the "failing" has consigned them collectively to expulsion, dispossession, exile, and a cruel and humiliating occupation - is not bad leadership, missed opportunities, stubborn insistence on their demands, Arafat, or any of the usual shibboleths. It is that they are not Jewish.
And, just as apartheid did in southern Africa, Israel's fearful and zealous commitment to racial exclusion of the indigenous people is tearing the entire region apart.
What do we get from recognizing this fact? We may take clues from public indications that Ariel Sharon before his stroke and Mr. Olmert after him have been terribly anxious that we not do so. For what can Israel do if it is truly held accountable for denying its territorial population the right to vote? How can it exclude its native people from equal citizenship if they ask for it? The common defence, the need to preserve Jewish statehood, will instantly ring hollow. For Israel styles itself a western-style democracy. Yet no western democracy is presently attacking its own territory's population with mortar barrages and helicopter gunships solely because of their ethnic identity. No western democracy is blasting whole families to bits with mortars solely because their ethnicity is unwelcome. No western democracy is now encircling millions of people within walled cantons solely on the basis of their religion or ethnicity.
Like "White Australia" and apartheid South Africa before it, Israel is attempting to be racial state and a democratic state at the same time. No western democracy has survived the obvious contradictions of this formula: they all had to give it up. And apartheid Israel will not survive it if we call the shots as they are. Like the US, South Africa, New Zealand, and "White Australia" before it, Israel must admit its Muslim and Christian population as citizens and then grapple with the ensuing tough work of pluralist democracy like the rest of us.
This was the hard-won South African solution, where the state now represents everybody. Seventeen languages and differing historical narratives are recognized and dignified. Whites have retained their property and wealth, while black Africans are rising rapidly to join the middle and upper classes. After some early economic missteps, the government has launched new social policies and steered booming trade with the African continent that are channelling wealth and rapid growth throughout the country. The press is free and vibrant. Is South Africa still struggling for racial equality and economic justice? Sure. Is it plagued by the racial legacy of settler colonialism? Sure. But ongoing struggles for equality and mutual respect are the human condition and the noble burden of democracy. South Africa is a vigorous, growing, vital society. And there is peace.
John Dugard, the eminent South African legal scholar and UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Palestine, wrote frankly in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that racial oppression in Israel is worse than it was in South Africa. But his assessment also offers hope. Identifying that we presently have a one-state solution - Israel's apartheid version - allows us to affirm a different one: a unified secular-democratic state, in which everyone is equal in dignity and rights, and where the Jewish and Palestinian national homes can share the land as they should. With that shared goal, disparate activist struggles around the world can find, at last, true direction.
Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science, a US citizen working in South Africa, and author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005). She can be reached at tilley@hws.edu.
Comment on this Article
An Appeal For An Abandoned People
By Donald Macintyre in Gaza
06 December 2006
The Independent
Maybe they are just conveniently forgetting other periods in Gaza's turbulent and blood-stained history, but most Gazans will tell you that 2006 is the worst year they can remember.
In Gaza City's deserted gold souk, people are not even coming to sell their jewellery any more. "We just sit and drink tea," said Yasser Moteer, 35, who runs a jewellery stall. "It's worse than any time in the 20 years I've been here. It's crazy."
The gold-selling started soon after the international and Israeli boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority started to plunge Gaza's economy into collapse last March. But having long ceased to buy here, the poor now have nothing left to sell.
Certainly, the 1.3 million population of this ancient coastal strip of territory, a mere 225 square miles, can never have experienced as intense a swing of hope to despair as they have in little more than 12 months. Ariel Sharon's decision to withdraw Israel's settlers and troops in August 2005, unilateral and circumscribed in both its genesis and its implementation as it was, made many Palestinians here, almost despite themselves, hope for a better future.
It was not just the sudden freedom to travel from north to south without the endless delays at the hated Abu Houli checkpoint, or that children in the southern town of Khan Younis could run west through what were now the ruins of the Jewish settlement of Neve Dekalim and plunge into a Mediterranean they had only ever dreamt about.
It was the sense that for the first time in five dark, stifling and dangerous years, Gaza could breathe, psychologically, and just maybe, economically.
As 2006 nears its close and The Independent launches its Christmas appeal partly focused on Gaza, it is easy to see how cruelly those hopes have been mocked by what has happened this year.
Since Hamas and other Gaza militants seized the Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit, and killed two of his comrades in late June, shells, drones and machine gun-fire from Israeli forces have killed some 400 Palestinians, civilians, women and children among them, in an operation Israel stated was to free Cpl Shalit and stop the Qassam rockets being fired from Gaza.
For five long months, electricity was cut to eight hours a day, damaging water supplies, after a surgically accurate bombing condemned by Israelis as well as foreign human rights groups as collective punishment in breach of humanitarian law.
Reaching a peak in July, the use of sonic booms, often deliberately timed as children were going to school, created misery and fear. As if that was not enough, a far lower but significant number of civilians, also including children, have been killed or wounded in the sporadic fighting between Fatah and Hamas, the two dominant factions in Palestinian politics, or in clan battles.
For the immediate survivors of the Israeli shells that killed 17 members of the Athamneh family as they tried to flee their home in Beit Hanoun as it was attacked, the bereavement is, if anything, harder to bear now that more than three weeks have elapsed since it happened. In late afternoon sunshine on Sunday, in the now eerily peaceful alley where the carnage was perpetrated, Hayat Athamneh, 56, a strong woman who lost three adult sons, all fathers themselves, sat with their still devastated and injured brother Amjad, 31, and his wife, who lost their own son Mahmoud, 10. "Now I feel it," said Hayat, covering her eyes as they fill with tears. " It wasn't so bad at the beginning. There were a lot of people around. Now there is nobody."
As she reeled off the list of Palestinian and foreign dignitaries who had visited the site, her daughter-in-law Tahani, 35, said: "They all came. But nothing happened." Tahani talks about the three surviving Athamneh members, two of them children, who lost limbs in the attack.
"We have to worry about the ones who lost arms and legs now and will see the others who haven't. We have to look after them and then worry about where we are going to live."
Arriving to join them, her brother-in-law Majdi Athamneh, who lost his 12-year-old son Saad, says that not only do the extended family fear to go back to their shelled house because of the structural damage, but they no longer think they should live together as they did for so many years.
"When so many members of one family were killed, it is better to make sure it doesn't happen again and live apart," he said.
Five miles away in Gaza City, Adeeb Zarhouk, 44, is a man used to hard work and 4am starts to support his wife Majda, 44, and their seven children in the 20 years he was employed in Israel as a freelance metalworker and electrician, and then for five working for an Israeli company in the now flattened Erez industrial zone on the northern edge of Gaza. But this morning he apologises for being asleep when we call.
Each day, he hopes for a request to install a TV satellite or do another odd job. "But the phone hasn't rung for two weeks," he says. " Nobody has any money to do these things." Mr Zarhouk is part of the 64 per cent increase in "deep poverty" among Palestinian refugees in the past year.
He is naturally cheerful but, as his wife prepares a three-shekel (36p) family breakfast of beans, felafal and a few tomatoes, he says: "When I'm at home by myself I start crying. When your son asks you for half a shekel and you do not have it ..."
Mr Zarhouk gets up to wash the tears from his eyes. Then he says that although as a refugee he earned $240 (£120) a month on a three-month UNRWA job programme, he now owes $540 in rent and that the family eat meat only when his 20-year-old policeman son has an irregular 1,500-shekel handout in lieu of his salary as a policeman.
Who does Mr Zarhouk, who voted Fatah in the last election, blame? "I blame democracy," he says with a flash of sarcasm. "The whole world wanted us to have democracy and said how fair had been our election. The problem is they didn't like our results."
The world's boycott since those elections did not only end salaries for the PA employees on whom Gaza's economy disproportionately depends. The health service, in many ways highly professional but desperately under-equipped, is also suffering. In her bed at Shifa Hospital, Intisar al Saqqa is waiting for the drug Taxoter which doctors