Palestinian Pundit

She was the 12-year-old girl filmed crying alongside her father and siblings as they lay dying - victims of an explosion at a family picnic. But what happened to Huda Ghalia next? Rory McCarthy meets the shy, teased girl who became a symbol of Palestinian despair

Saturday March 17, 2007
The Guardian

"......Then he took a call from a contact in the ambulance service: the Israeli military were shelling the beach at Beit Lahiya and there were casualties. He called his driver and they jumped into the car.

That afternoon at the beach, Abu Harbeed shot about 10 minutes of film for which he later won two awards. He arrived just in time to record the aftermath of a terrible explosion that had killed most of the Ghalia family. Seven were dead: Ali Ghalia, 49, and one of his wives, Ra'eesa, 35, together with five children: Haitham, five months old; Hanadi, 18 months; Sabreen, four; Ilham, 15; and Aliya, 17. Several others were injured, some severely, including more children from the family.

Much of the film Abu Harbeed made that day is so graphic it would never be broadcast on television in the west. One clip, however, was broadcast repeatedly that day and in the days that followed. It showed Huda Ghalia, aged 12, distraught and sobbing by the body of her dead father. It was an image distilling Palestinian despair, one that recalled the film of Mohammad al-Dura, the 12-year-old boy who died in his father's arms in Gaza in a hail of gunfire six years ago, at the start of the intifada.......

They don't have time to notice that several of the bodies they are carrying are dead, the wounds horrific, impossible to survive. One of the men reaches for a girl, grabs her black clothes at the shoulder and places her on a green canvas stretcher. Her left arm has been blown off just above the elbow. She is pale, unconscious and looks dead, but in fact she survives. I learned later that her name is Amani. Somewhere among the bodies is her sister, Ayhaam. She, too, is badly injured but survives.....

In the months after the explosion on the beach, I went to visit Huda and her family many times, to listen to the story of a household struck by a tragedy, a family that captured the headlines and then dropped from sight. I ate with them, went to school with them, drove with them to see relatives and visited their injured in hospital.....

After a while, Huda appeared. She was barefoot and dressed in a black cloak with a white veil on her head. A gold bracelet hung from her wrist. She was quiet and monosyllabic: still visibly affected by what had happened. Huda and her two younger sisters have started at a new school, a Hamas-run girls' school in Gaza City, their tuition another gift from Hamas. She said she preferred the new school. "I have new friends now," she said. "I don't see the old friends any more." She had just returned from a visit that she, her two sisters, her mother and her aunt made to the United Arab Emirates. "It was fine," she said. It was her first time out of Gaza....."

Demonstrators march towards the American Embassy during an anti-war protest to mark the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq, in Copenhagen, Denmark Saturday, March 17, 2007. (AP Photo)


Protesters against the war in Iraq participate in the 'March on the Pentagon' in Washington, March 17, 2007. Thousands of anti-war protestors, some carrying yellow and black signs reading 'U.S. out of Iraq now!' marched toward the Pentagon on Saturday, one of a number of protests held or planned around the country and the world. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


Protesters carry placards and shout slogans during an anti-war protest, ahead of the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, in Madrid March 17, 2007. The placards read "For Peace" and "Spain and its symbols belong to everybody. (REUTERS)


Nicaraguan dancers participate in a protest against the Iraq war in front of the U.S Embassy in Managua, Thursday, March 15, 2007. (AP Photo)


Protesters carry a banner which reads "End the Occupation" as they shout slogans during an anti-war march through Sydney March 17, 2007. The demonstration was part of a global action marking the fourth anniversary and opposition to the war in Iraq. (REUTERS)


Anti-war protesters march through central Seoul during a rally to mark the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Saturday, March 17, 1007. (AP Photo)


Turkish demonstrators wave peace flags and hold placards that read: 'We are all Iraqis' during an anti-war protest in Istanbul, Turkey, Saturday, March 17, 2007. (AP Photo)


Turkish demonstrators wave peace flags and hold anti-US banners during an anti-war protest in Istanbul, Turkey, Saturday, March 17, 2007. (AP Photo)


People hold placards and wave peace flags during an anti-war demonstration in Madrid Saturday March 17, 2007 marking the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. (AP Photo)


Demonstrators march over the Arlington Memorial Bridge from the National Mall to the Pentagon in Washington, Saturday, March 17, 2007 during a protest opposing the war in Iraq. (AP Photo)

Thrice-Told Tales

By HARRY CLARK
CounterPunch

"Gabriel Kolko's work as a historian casts a giant shadow, but his recent account of "Israel, Iran and the Bush Administration" (CounterPunch, February 10/11) is open to challenge. The Israeli peace talks with Syria, which Kolko finds of "enormous significance," are a thrice-told tale which has not yet come true, least of all because of intervention by the United States.......

Syria's fate is obviously bound up with the Iraq war and the buildup against Iran. Kolko deprecates Israel's animus against Iran as a political ploy to distract the public from scandal and corruption. Yet Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, and Iran is a national phobia. "If the annual Herzliya Conference [north of Tel Aviv] is any indication, the Israeli establishment, though reeling from one political scandal to another, has only one thing on its mind: Iran. Panel after panel declaimed, ad nauseam, the 'existential threat' emanating from the 'messianic totalitarian government' in Teheran." Speakers included prime minister Olmert, Israeli politicians and security personnel, and European and North American officials. Bernard Lewis, doyen of academic orientalism, who invented the "clash of civilizations" which Samuel Huntington popularized, was like Sam Cooke returned to reprise his greatest hits for an audience which knew only the bubblegum versions. The "general consensus," after duly weighing the alternatives and risks, was that if Iran's "race to acquire a nuclear weapon" outpaces "regime change or reform," "an overwhelming military strike by the USwill become inevitable." Or by Israel, which has negotiated US permission to overfly Iraq to strike Iran on its own. In an Israeli poll on November 9, 49 per cent answered yes, and 46% no, to the question, "If it turns out that all the international diplomatic efforts fail, should Israel attack the Iranian nuclear facilities even alone and without international support?"

Kolko is obviously right about the lethality of modern armaments and the suicidal course Israel and the US are pursuing, but because it is logical, a benign resolution is hardly inevitable. The disrepute of the Israeli establishment is matched by the Bush Administration's. Yet the loss of Congress in the mid-term elections, and the rebuke of the Baker-Hamilton report, were met with "troop surge" by the neoconservatives and radical nationalists who planned the Iraq war and the Iran buildup. These forces have found minimal diplomacy with Syria and Iran over Iraq hard to avoid, but they are gripped by reactionary dread, like Hitler in the late 1930s, obsessed with "encirclement" by Germany's "enemies," and with a dwindling opportunity for war. Nothing is determined, further catastrophe may yet be avoided, and Israel-Syria talks may even take place. In any case, Israel is not a victim of the United States, but of its own striving for power, in concert with the US organized Jewish community, and with the US government."

While the IDF is Destroying Schools and Shooting Children ...

A Good Article
By SAMI ADWAN (Professor of Education Bethlehem University)
CounterPunch

"On February 8, 2007 Mrs. Clinton made an incendiary statement on Palestinian schoolbooks to Itamar Marcus. This is not the first time Mrs. Clinton accused the Palestinian schoolbooks of inciting violent, teaching to hate and de-legitimizing Israel existence.....

She depended mainly on reports produced by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP), of which Itamar Marcus was the director. CMIP is a right-wing center that has offices in New York and Jerusalem and is well funded, though if you read the goals of the center one can easily be deceived that it is a peace-oriented center.....

The Palestinian Authority by that time only published school books for grades one and six. Even so, CMIP's baseless accusations and allegations were presented as if they are from the newly produced Palestinian school books. The first CMIP report was circulated all over the world causing serious problems for the Palestinian education system because many countries stopped funding the development of the Palestinians school books.

The report was criticized by many scholars like, Nathan Brown, IPICRI, Daniel Bar Tal, Nurit Peled El-Khanan and Ruth Firer and others. All disagreed with CMIP's findings and found many mistakes in its translation, selective analysis, taking phrases out of context and drawing false conclusions.

Most of them concluded that Palestinian school books do not teach hate nor instigate violence, are free from stereotypes and praised them for being highly moderate, even though they were produced in extremely difficult situation-the Occupation. (See Akiva Eldar's articles in Ha'aretz. ).....

Still, Israeli school books include negative stereotypes of Palestinians. Of course they are called Arab and not Palestinians: primitive, bloodthirsty, backward, a problem, dirty, etc (For more details see Daniel Bat Tal and Nurit Peled's analysis)......



The best resource of knowledge and experience Palestinian children learn is their reality, where they are forbidden to go to schools and stopped, harassed and humiliated at Israeli military check points, their schools destroyed and sometimes used as military posts. Many pupils are shot while going to their schools or playing in streets; others are jailed. They are daily terrorized and traumatized, seeing their parents humiliated in front of them. Their books were torn apart and their childhoods spoiled. These are facts Mrs. Clinton could not or dared not include in her statements......

Most scholars agreed the analysis of the CMIP was not professionally done and is motivated by a political agenda. Mainly, the purposes of the report are to fight the development and crystallization of the Palestinians identity, to keep the public from sympathizing with the Palestinians' suffering during forty years of continual Israeli Occupation and to cut funds to Palestinian education in general and to the development of the Palestinian school books in particular.....

Who is this Itamar Marcus? Itamar Marcus is originally from New York, moved to live in an illegal Efrata settlement/colony that was built south of Bethlehem in 1982 on the 1967 Occupied Palestinian land. He physically attacked Prof. Siri Nussauba, the President of Al-Quds University while the later tried to enter a building to give a talk in the US......

Itamar Marcus (and his followers) will not be satisfied until he himself writes the Palestinian school books."

Another Opportunity for US Diplomacy?

A Lousy Article Written by One of America's Palestinians
By SAMER ASSAD
CounterPunch

"......If looked at objectively, the administration will find that the eight-level platform of the new Palestinian government concurs with many of the principles that guide domestic and foreign U.S. policy, including its ill-fated three conditions.

On the political level, the Palestinian government states that it will "achieve national objectives through the resolutions of the PNC, the Articles of the Basic Law, and the resolutions of the Arab Summits, and shall respect the international resolutions and agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)." To an objective reader, this indicates that Hamas, as part of a coalition government, has accepted and recognized Israel's existence. In its 19th session in 1988, the Palestinian National Council (PNC) called for a two-state solution. Palestine would be established on the territory occupied by Israel in 1967-the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By accepting to abide by the resolutions of the Arab League summits, the government and, by extension, Hamas has accepted the 2002 Saudi Peace Initiative which was adopted by the Arab League. The initiative offers Israel a peace deal that includes recognition of the Jewish state's right to exist and secures its borders. Furthermore, it states that it will work with the agreements signed by the PLO-the third condition of the U.S.-backed Quartet-and with the international community to end Israel's occupation of Palestine.

On the level of occupation, the Palestinian government recognizes the right of Palestinians to "defend themselves against Israeli aggression." Yet despite this natural right, the government will work on "consolidating calm and expanding it to a comprehensive reciprocal truce."[Ending armed struggle] The U.S. should acknowledge that every government should recognize its people's right to self-defense and should work to guarantee that both sides commit to a truce. Past experience has shown that unless a truce is reciprocal, violence is sure to continue.

On the legal level, the Palestinian government promises to fulfill a long-standing U.S. desire [really? just as the U.S. is working towards a similar objective in Egypt, for example?], the empowerment of the judicial branch and the implementation of the Basic Law, which calls for the separation of the three branches of power.

On the economic level, the U.S. should be ready to engage the new government, which promises to respect the principles of a free economy, to protect the private sector and encourage investments-all treasured principles of the U.S. economy and legislation.

On the level of reform, the Palestinian government outlines its commitment to fight corruption and to reinforce the values of integrity and transparency, which are U.S. demands [really?] as well as long-held Palestinian demands......

U.S. foreign policy toward the new Palestinian government should be based on the same realization that forced the Palestinians into a unity government. Neither Hamas nor Fateh alone in power can deliver on Palestinian and international demands for reform and a peace agreement. Without Hamas' approval, Fateh cannot present the Palestinian people with a final peace accord or guarantee that an "end to conflict" deal can be sustained [so, final capitulation needs Hamas' blessing]. And without Fateh, Hamas will not have the financial backing to implement its program of domestic change and reform. Only a unity government can enforce law and order and guarantee that the truce achieved in Gaza be extend to the West Bank [Hamas is needed to end armed struggle, once and for all].

A U.S. foreign policy, which seizes the current opportunity presented in the form of a unity government, will be one that serves U.S. national interests in the Middle East as well as those of its allies. "

This cartoon is an example of the silly, upside-down world, cartoons you see in the Arabic press now.

How a Traitor Became a "Hero"
Celebrate, Now!

A Good Article
By Salim Nazzal

Al-Jazeerah, March 17, 2007

".....Muhammad Al-Zubaidi, a veteran Palestinian politician well-acquainted with the Syrian political scene, warns against what he describes as over-optimism at such meetings. >From his perspective, nothing has changed in the situation regarding the three primary Middle Eastern problems, Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, to raise expectations unduly. The USA and Europe still accuse Syria of providing support to the resistance movements in these countries. Al-Zubaidi postulates that the recent political moves are being made by Bush as a tactical step to win the support of the "Iraq study group" which, to find an honorable exit for the Americans bogged down in Iraq, advocates opening dialogue with Syria and Iran. Bush desperately needs the support of the Democrats and the sceptical Republicans in Congress to continue his policy of sending more soldiers to Iraq and probably to bomb Iran. Last week's speech by the American military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, insisting that there is no military solution to events there, has given more support to the increasing skepticism among senior American politicians about the war in Iraq, contradicting the arrogant and hubristic language of the neoconservative team during the invasion. If there is a relation between the shifts in American and European policy towards Syria, Al-Zubaidi is unsure whether these policy shifts were consciously coordinated, but since Europe has not so far adopted any independent policy stance towards the Middle East, it is hard to believe that such a change in attitude is entirely unrelated to the change in the Americans' approach, even if the two were not systematically coordinated.

In the view of more sceptical observers, the American and the European policy change towards Syria is an attempt to isolate Syria from Iran at this critical time, when pressures are being increased on Iran regarding its nuclear power program. According to this view, the Americans have pressurized Israel to accept, at least for the time being, the Saudi Arabia peace initiative (after separating it from the right of return issue which is the main issue in the Palestinian question ) adopted by the Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002, which it has consistently refused to recognize to date.

From this viewpoint, Bush is primarily concerned at present with exerting more pressure on Iran, with the visit to Syria seen as part of isolating Syria from Iran in his efforts to prepare the political ground for launching a strike against Iran. However regardless of the reasons behind these recent policy shifts, the American approach towards solving the Middle Eastern problems remains, in essence, the same as before. The diplomatic maneuvering must not blind Arabs from seeing the negative results of American policy in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, nor blind them to perceiving the possible very real dangers which lay ahead."

by Gabriel Kolko

".....Syria has been attempting desperately to improve its relations with Washington, if only to forestall some mad act on the US’ part. When Israel attacked Lebanon last July, Elliott Abrams, in charge of the Middle East at the National Security Council, along with other neocons in Washington, urged it to expand the war to Syria. At the end of February Syria renewed its appeal to the US to discuss any and all Middle East issues with it in "a serious and profound dialogue." For over two years it has made similar attempts; Baker knew all about these. Talking to alleged adversaries is perhaps the most fundamental point of difference between Cheney, his neocon alliance, and Rice, and it covers North Korea, Iran, and many other places. The debate is less the nature and goals of American foreign policy but how to conduct it – by the application of material power and even the threat of war versus more traditional means, such as diplomacy.

In the past several weeks, taking her cue from the Republican Establishment in the Iraq Study Group last December, Rice has been winning points in this debate but her successes are fragile. Cheney is a powerful, determined and cunning man who knows how to succeed all too well with the president.....

Israel has ignored Washington on at least four very important issues, starting with the Sinai campaign in 1956, and acted in its own self-interest. The Americans were Olmert’s alibi but he can use them no more. There are other crucial issues, such as the Saudi plan for the resolution of the Palestine question, and never has Israel had a greater need for peace than at the present. Instead, like the US, its head of state may be the worst in its history, motivated by short-term political advantage and a consummate desire to retain power.

But the Syrian option is there for the taking. If there is war then the brain drain out will accelerate and migration in will fall; demography will take over. Israel will then become the only place in the world a Jew is in danger precisely because he or she is a Jew. If this opportunity is lost there will eventually be a mutually destructive war that no one will win – the Lebanon War proved that Israel must now confront the fact that its neighbors are becoming its military equals and US aid cannot save it.

Indeed, America’s free gifts enabled Israel to begin a war last July with illusions identical to those that also caused the Bush Administration to embark on its Iraq folly."

A Commentary by Tony Sayegh

Hamas was elected primarily because it promised the following program:

1) To end the corruption and to bring to trial all the crooks and embezzlers. Now we find some of the same chief crooks and embezzlers not only not facing trial, but also serving as "ministers." At the top is Salam Fayad, a U.S. and World Bank crony, who is the "finance minister." The U.S. will talk to him and some NGOs will give him money as a Mafia don, not as a representative of a self-respecting government.

2) To end the charade of the "peace process" which is the drug to which the PA has become addicted while Israel swallows what is left of the West Bank. Hamas opposed the Oslo accord which created the structure of the PA and the endless, fruitless, "negotiations." Now Hamas is a full participant in this structure which it originally rejected and is fully behind the charade of negotiations by "brother" Abu Mazen.

3) The alternative program that Hamas proposed and the Palestinians who voted for Hamas supported was that liberation will come only through serious armed struggle and not through begging and flying from one capital to the next and from one conference to the next. After it was elected, Hamas did just the opposite. It has observed a one-sided "truce" with Israel even while Israel continues daily killing, abduction of hundreds of Palestinians, expansion of the colonies, expropriation of Palestinian land, carving out more chunks from the West Bank by expanding the Apartheid wall and much more. What is worse is that Hamas, shamelessly, wants to expand this truce (or tahdi'a) to the West Bank. Israel couldn't care less as long as it is observed only by Hamas.

So, on every count Hamas has reneged on what it promised the Palestinians. I wouldn't be surprised that if elections were to be held again, many of those who voted for Hamas would not vote for it again. Hamas is increasingly becoming an imitation of Fatah (is this why "unity" was possible?) and the Palestinians are experiencing what the Americans have been realizing in their own political system: there is little difference between the two parties.

What the Palestinians need and what they should be agitating for is a genuine national liberation movement that focuses only on liberation at this stage. Political parties and governments come after liberation and not before. Time is running out.

By Daryl Cagle

In Memorium: Rachel Corrie, Crushed by Israeli Bulldozer While Trying to Save a Palestinian Home in Gaza, March 16, 2003.

For U.S. and Sadr, Wary Cooperation

The Washington Post

"BAGHDAD -- U.S. troops are conducting security sweeps in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City for the first time in three years, part of a revamped plan to pacify the capital. Yet the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has not risen up to fight them, despite U.S. raids on militia members' homes and growing Sunni attacks on Shiites.

"Until now, our leader has ordered us to keep quiet," explained Ayad al-Khaby, a local official in Sadr's organization. "This is in order for the security plan to succeed."

After four years of hostility, Sadr and the Americans are cooperating uneasily as the United States and Iraq attempt to tame Baghdad's sectarian violence. American officials, who in recent months described Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias as the biggest threat to Iraq's stability, now praise the Shiite cleric.

The collaboration represents a remarkable shift for two adversaries who control the largest armies in Iraq and who fought some of the fiercest battles since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

For Sadr, it is the latest stage in an evolution from populist cleric to guerrilla fighter to political kingmaker and now to power broker. In the early months of the occupation, U.S. officials dismissed Sadr as irrelevant to Iraq's future. Today, they view him as a political catalyst who can help keep Iraq together -- or implode it.

"We're very encouraged by what we're seeing on the ground right now in Sadr City," said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the U.S. military's chief spokesman in Baghdad. "There is a tremendous amount of cooperation and dialogue ongoing. It's proven to be very beneficial to both sides."......"

***

Muqtada Sadr: What a coward and a collaborator. He is a tough guy with his drill team when it comes to terrorizing and killing Iraqis and Palestinians in Iraq and when it comes to ethnic cleansing. When it comes to fighting the occupation, all his empty rhetoric has finally yielded to this: open collaboration with the occupiers and the killers of over 600,000 Iraqis. Now he is hiding somewhere, probably in Iran, wearing a woman's 'abaya!

Mahdi "army": Celebrate Now, you cowards!

By Layla Anwar

"......Could not miss this excellent historical documentary on al Jazeera about Mostafa Al Barazani.
Mostafa Al Barazani is the father figure "par excellence" of the Kurdish separatist (and I would add chauvinist) movement in Iraq.
This program interviewed many personalities who intimately knew and dealt with Mostafa Al Barazani and of course his son Massoud was there too.

They say in order to understand the present, you must know the past. And this is one of the reasons, I am taking pains to summarize this documentary.

According to this documentary and it was quite accurate in its analysis, Mostafa Barazani sought support for his Kurdish "cause" from nearly everyone and everywhere......

Saddam asked him: "What do you exactly want and I will sign it for you on a blank piece of paper". The man replied "If you are willing to sign anything on a blank page, this means that you will not give us anything". Saddam then said: " Tell me what do you exactly want?" The guy replied "We want self rule".
Saddam asked: "Explain to me what self rule means" The guy replied "I will send you a two page memo about self rule"...and Saddam Hussein agreed.

Meanwhile, the Kurds headed by M.Barazani were striking political deals with the Shah of Iran...
Saddam went ahead and agreed to the application of self rule in 1974.

Turkey then intervened and started putting pressure on both the Iraqi government and on the Kurds. The program then says that there were problems in the "applications of self rule" and a disagreement followed, without really telling us what these problems were......

In 1974 two other developments took place and which are in my opinion of great importance

1) the Kurdish leadership sought out help from the Israeli Mossad and this latter gladly helped.
An Israeli former mossad agent A.Tasfirini (as I said I am terrible with names, you can have the exact name by writing to:focus@aljazeera.net) said in that same interview/program.
"It is not so much a mossad/kurdish alliance. It was more of a friendly alliance between two "opppressed" people. Us, the Israelis having known the Holocaust, understood very well the Kurdish plight for a state of their own".
This gentlemen then wrote a book in hebrew and the title was "I am a kurd too..."

2) The second important development was a secret agreement orchestrated by Henry Kissinger and the Kurdish leadership.
In fact it was a secret agreement between the CIA and the Kurds and the Iraqi government and Saddam Hussein knew nothing of it.
This unofficial agreement back in 1974 assured that the USA will help the Kurds in realizing their objectives .
Or more aptly, that the CIA will help the Kurds in realizing their aims for an independent state in Iraq.
(Notice not in Iran, not in Syria, not in Turkey where considerable kurdish populations exist, but in Iraq!).......

In 1990, the Kurdish areas became an American/ English "protected zone".
Massoud Barazani, the prodigal son, took over the leadership from his father and so it continued till the second invasion in 2003 until this very day.

Now "our brothers the Kurds" have their own little flag, have excellent ties with Iran, America and Israel who has continued training their peshmergas since 1974......."

In Oil We Trust

Palestinian information minister-designate, Dr Mustafa Barghouti, warns against Israeli boycott of new unity government. 'Today's Palestinian government is not only a Hamas government, but the government of all the Palestinian people,' he says

""If Israel boycotts the Palestinian unity government, this means it is interested in continuing the occupation and is not interested in peace," Palestinian information minister-designate, Dr Mustafa Barghouti, told Ynet on Friday.

The new Palestinian unity government is expected to be sworn in on Saturday.

Barghouti, whose job is to market the new government and its policy to the global and Israeli public opinion, stated that Israel must not stand firm in its stances and should change them in light of the establishment of the new government. "Israel's stance is wrong. The new Palestinian government is not only a Hamas government, but the government of all the Palestinian people. The unity government represents the choice of 90 percent of Palestinian voters," he explained.

Barghouti said it was strange that Israel decided to reject the new government before seeing its plans and platform.

Addressing the platform, which was already reported in the media and includes the right of return, he said that "what was published is speculations, as the platform has not been finalized yet and is now being formed. Apart from that, why shouldn’t it include the right of return?"

'We refuse to live under occupation'

According to him, the Arab peace initiative also talks about a just solution of the refugee problem. "Israel's problem is that it is a colonialist state, but we refuse to be a people living under occupation and under a colonialist regime. The refugee problem should be solved in an appropriate manner, while taking into account the rights and dignity of the refugees," Barghouti said.

The designated minister said that Israel was making a big mistake if it thought the pressures it was exerting would cause the Palestinians to concede their rights. "If Israel wants peace, it must recognize the new government and must agree to a removal of the siege imposed on the PA. Lifting the siege is an Israeli interest," he added......."

By Danny Rubenstein

"RAMALLAH - The news that a Palestinian unity government had finally been formed brought a sigh of relief to Ramallah, coming as it did after long months of negotiations, bloodshed and fears of civil war. In meetings with acquaintances here yesterday, I heard not a single word of criticism or disappointment - only hope.

"What's important to us now is that there be a little quiet and we stop killing each other," explained a doctor at the new Sheikh Zaid hospital. To the Palestinians, the unity government is the only way to stop the street battles. Whether or not it is a good government, or how Israel deals with it, are less important: The only alternative is civil war.

The unity government's ultimate test will be whether it manages to end the economic boycott of the Palestinian Authority and revive the peace process. But first, it will have to arrange a prisoner exchange, in which kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit will be traded for numerous Palestinian prisoners.

To understand the new government's diplomatic platform, it is worth reading a key section of the official announcement of its establishment. Clause 2 of the section on the government's diplomatic program says: "The government is committed to defending the supreme national interests of the Palestinian people and its rights, preserving its achievements and developing it, and working to realize its national goals, as ratified in decisions of the Palestinian National Council, in its founding constitution, in the national unity document [which is based on the prisoners' document - D.R.], and in decisions of the Arab summit, and on this basis, the government will respect international decisions and the agreements signed by the PLO." This tortuous sentence was the result of lengthy and complex negotiations between Fatah and Hamas. Its interpretation, of course, depends on the eye of the beholder.

Journalists in Ramallah said yesterday that this document, and this government, can be viewed as a new page in Palestinian politics. However, some predicted that it would last only a few months, after which chaos would return.

One can certainly find indications in this government of flexibility and pragmatism on Hamas' part: For instance, none of the Hamas ministers arrested by Israel following Shalit's abduction are included in it. Why not? A senior Palestinian journalist explained: "Because they want to be practical. They want the new government to function well, and not to be only a national symbol." "

"BAQOUBA, Iraq - Dozens of U.S. Stryker combat vehicles roared into Baqouba at sunrise. The enemy was ready. As the dawn call-to-prayer fell silent, the streets blazed with insurgent fire.

Within minutes of the start of their first mission in Diyala province Wednesday a voice crackled across the radio: "Catastrophic kill, with casualties."

Inside the rear of one Stryker, soldiers shushed one another and leaned closer to the radio. They all knew what it meant. A U.S. vehicle had been lost to hostile fire.

Nearly 100 Strykers, armored troop carriers with 50-caliber machine guns, were called north from Baghdad into the province and its capital to try — yet again — to rout Sunni insurgents, many who recently fled the month-old Baghdad security operation.

The fighters have renewed their campaign of bombings and killings just 35 miles northeast of the capital as the war enters its fifth year. Diyala province is quickly becoming as dangerous as Anbar province, the Sunni insurgent bastion west of Baghdad......

Violence has risen dramatically in Diyala since the Feb. 14 launch of the Baghdad security operation. Insurgents have slowly been taking control for months, however. Attacks on American forces in the province have shot up 70 percent since July, according to military figures.

The Stryker group sent to fight the insurgents was hand-picked by Gen. Ray Odierno, the second in command of all U.S. forces in Iraq. It marked the opening of a new front in the Baghdad security operation, a broadening of the mission for which President Bush has promised more than 20,000 additional soldiers.

The Stryker group came to Baqouba on Tuesday full of optimism about pacifying Diyala, as they did earlier in parts of Baghdad and in the northern city of Mosul.

Confidence faded Wednesday in the hail of insurgent fire and news of casualties among comrades.

"Our first day and we lost one already," said 22-year-old Spc. Jose Charriez of Hermiston, Ore. "You realize how quickly your life can go." ....."

The question is:

Do you support Iran's stopping Uranium enrichment to avoid further international sanctions?

With close to 8,000 responding, here is the breakdown:

Yes.......15%

No........85%

A Great Article
Contributed by Lucia

By Joseph Massad
Al-Ahram Weekly

"Israel's struggle for peace is a sincere one. In fact, Israel desires to live at peace not only with its neighbours, but also and especially with its own Palestinian population, and with Palestinians whose lands its military occupies by force. Israel's desire for peace is not only rhetorical but also substantive and deeply psychological. With few exceptions, prominent Zionist leaders since the inception of colonial Zionism have desired to establish peace with the Palestinians and other Arabs whose lands they slated for colonisation and settlement. The only thing Israel has asked for, and continues to ask for in order to end the state of war with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours, is that all recognise its right to be a racist state that discriminates by law against Palestinians and other Arabs and grants differential legal rights and privileges to its own Jewish citizens and to all other Jews anywhere. The resistance that the Palestinian people and other Arabs have launched against Israel's right to be a racist state is what continues to stand between Israel and the peace for which it has struggled and to which it has been committed for decades. Indeed, this resistance is nothing less than the "New anti- Semitism".....

As for those among us who insist that no resolution will ever be possible before Israel revokes all its racist laws and does away with all its racist symbols, thus opening the way for a non-racist future for Palestinians and Jews in a decolonised bi-national state, Israel and its apologists have a ready-made response that has redefined the meaning of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is no longer the hatred of and discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group; in the age of Zionism, we are told, anti-Semitism has metamorphosed into something that is more insidious. Today, Israel and its Western defenders insist, genocidal anti-Semitism consists mainly of any attempt to take away and to refuse to uphold the absolute right of Israel to be a racist Jewish state."

Israeli Training Kurds in Iraq









"DUBAI - A U.S. defense official on Thursday encouraged Israelis to pump investments into the devastated Iraqi economy. Paul Brinkley, U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for business transformation, told a business conference here that Israelis and any other investors were welcome in a country crying out for investment "Israeli business people, any business people, we would encourage them to come," said Brinkley, speaking on the sidelines of a conference aimed at spurring investment into Iraq's northern Kurdish-ruled region. Brinkley leads the task force charged with reinvigorating Iraqi industry.

"If they find business opportunities, as I think they will, we encourage them to reach out and engage their Iraqi business partners," he said.

Israel is believed to maintain discreet ties to Kurdish groups, including those in Iraq, although Kurdish officials in the country deny such links.

Earlier this month, Brinkley said he organized a business networking mission last month in which the U.S. Army airlifted 43 international businesspeople around the country in Black Hawk helicopters to meet Iraqi business leaders.

The aim of the visit was to provide expertise to the Iraqi government to revive state-run factories and other enterprises to put more Iraqis back to work, a move the U.S. military believes would help calm the violence....."

Windbag du Jour: Ghazi Hamad, Hamas Spokesman

What Rachel Saw

By SONJA KARKAR
(founder and president of Women for Palestine in Melbourne, Australia)
CounterPunch

"A slip of a girl faced one of Israel's most feared war machines in the Occupied Palestinian Territories--the armed bulldozer--and died. This deliberate killing was no accident. Maybe the Israeli authorities would have preferred it not to happen because of the public relations backlash, but the driver of the bulldozer was wielding power that day. He had a mandate from his government to clear Palestinians out of their homes at a moment's notice and he knew that he would be protected regardless of the crimes he dared to commit. Rachel Corrie was a US citizen, but even the US government closed ranks behind Israel and the bulldozer operator. Being an American did not protect Rachel, and four years later, the US administration still refuses to investigate her death denying her American family justice and closure.

The bulldozer killing of Rachel Corrie was not the only case of such a death in Palestine, but it was the first time a US citizen had become the target of Israel's military. Rachel was a peace activist who had gone to Rafah in Gaza because she wanted to help bring the terrible plight of the Palestinians to the notice of the world. With others in the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), she believed that non-violent resistance was a means of doing that, and tragically, she achieved that with her death more than she could have ever done with her life.......

The highly politicised nature of the conflict and the fact that Rachel Corrie was American has ensured that the controversy of her death continues. Rachel's courage was perhaps born out of the idealism of youth, but it was a courage far greater than nations with bombs and arms and power to wield who have failed miserably to hold Israel accountable for the war crimes it has perpetrated against the Palestinians over decades of brutal occupation. For this reason, Rachel Corrie will always be a symbol of acting out truth to power in the struggle for Palestinian liberation against the Israeli occupier and a world long desensitised to the immorality pervading the corridors of power of all governments.

You will be remembered forever, Rachel and we hope that out of your tragic death will come a better understanding of the inhumanity gripping our world and what we have to do to bring compassion and justice back into our consciousness. Palestine has waited a long time and Palestine deserves some human kindness in its 40th year of occupation. We have no doubt that Rachel Corrie would have campaigned for that too: we feel her spirit with us as the struggle goes on."

A Dozen Different Cities at War with Each Other

By PATRICK COCKBURN
CounterPunch

Baghdad

"......The justification for blaming Iran for American failures in Iraq may be concocted byWashington. But is a confrontation with Iran such a damaging political mistake from the USpoint of view? It makes little sense in terms of Iraqi politics. The most important elements in the Iraqi government are pro-Iranian, notably the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which was for long based in Iran. The first time I went to see one of their leaders in Najaf his guards spoke to me in Farsi. The Badr Organisation, SCIRI's well organised militia, was set up by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and fought on the Iranian side in the Iran-Iraq war. It is not likely that SCIRI could simply change sides from Iran to the US. Paradoxically it is the Mehdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi nationalist cleric, now denounced as creatures of Iranby Washington, which were traditionally anti-Iranian.

Strangely Bush's new vision of Iran and the Shia militias in Iraq is close to that of the Baath party. They too justify their murderous attacks on the Shia by claiming that the latter are simply instruments of Iran. The US overthrow of the Baathist regime was bound to benefit Iran and al Qaeda because it eliminated their arch enemy Saddam Hussein. "We cannot reverse this outcome by more use of military force in Iraq," said Lt General William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, the largest US intelligence agency, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "To try to do so would require siding with Sunni leaders and the Ba'athist insurgents against pro-Iranian Shi'ite groups. The Ba'athist insurgents constitute the forces most strongly opposed to Iraqi cooperation with Iran." Because the Sunni insurgents ­ both nationalist and al Qaeda ­ primarily fight to end the US occupation they cannot ally themselves with Washington as Saddam Hussein did during the Iran-Iraq war in 1980-88. This means that inside Iraq Bush is alienating the Shia without necessarily gaining the support of the Sunni.

In terms of Middle East politics Bush's confrontation with Iran makes more sense. In Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan he is appealing to sectarian bigotry against the Shia in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. This is a powerful sentiment among leaders and people alike. The Shia take over of the Iraqi government in alliance with the Kurds can be portrayed as the cutting edge of Iranian imperialism. Sunni rulers, alarmed by the popular support for Hezbollah as it fought Israel to a standstill in Lebanon last year, knew that its success was being compared to the impotence, incompetence and corruption of their own regimes. To avoid such damaging comparisons they are happy to join the US in stoking the anti-Shiah and anti-Iranian fires.....

US confrontation or war with Iran will prolong the war in Iraq. "The Iranians can afford to compromise in Iraq, but they cannot afford to be defeated there," Ghassan Attiyah, the Iraqi political scientist, told me. If the US stages air raids, assassinations or pin prick attacks againstIran then it is likely to increase rather than reduce its involvement in Iraq. In reality there is little evidence that it gives critical support to either Sunni insurgents or Shia militias though it could do so if it needed to. After spending four years failing to defeat the five million Iraqi Sunni theUS could find itself fighting the 17 million Iraqi Shia as well."

The Lost Five Years of the Peace Process
By Akiva Eldar

"......Since March 2001, Steinberg has been reading every word written in Arabic about the peace initiative. He has found that the Arab League is not proposing withdrawal first and normalization afterward, but rather arriving at both of them simultaneously. "Anyone who demands that normalization will lead to a withdrawal cannot negate a demand that the withdrawal will be a condition for the normalization."

Steinberg is not proposing that the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert start negotiations with the government of PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on the basis of the Arab initiative. "The Mecca agreement gives Abu Mazen the power of attorney to conduct the negotiations," he says. "Olmert meets with Abu Mazen anyway. The question is not with whom to speak but rather about what to talk."

To demonstrate this last argument, Steinberg plucks a quotation from remarks made by Ahmed Yousef, Haniyeh's advisor, in the most recent edition of the London-based A Sharq al Awsat. "Ideological changes can be expected in Hamas' thought, as we are prepared to relate positively to the Arab peace initiative, on condition that Israel sticks to it. Something that hasn't happened thus far," said Yousef. Steinberg believes that the Arab initiative is even more important today than it was five years ago. "Back then it had mainly an internal Palestinian context, whereas today this text is relevant to an external-regional context. It embodies not only a solution to the Palestinian problem but also reinforces the Sunni Arab center. And furthermore, the regional support can make it easier for the Palestinians to come to terms with concessions they cannot digest on their own."

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is demanding that the leaders of the 22 Arab states, who will convene at the end of the month in Riyadh in order to re-ratify the Arab League's peace initiative, excise the right of return from it. Unlike the Clinton outline (which proposes realizing the right of return in the Palestinian state), the Arab initiative does not mention this phrase, which frightens Israel. But Livni argues that the problematic term is hidden in the phrase "on the basis of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194," in the final section of the Arab League proposal, which calls for arriving at a "just and agreed upon solution to the refugee problem."

Only a little less than a year ago, when Livni was trying to win people over to the disengagement plan, she gloried in a letter United States President George W. Bush had given to Ariel Sharon on the matter of the refugees, in which he pledged that when the refugee issue comes up in negotiations, the United States will support the realization of the right of return only in the Palestinian state that will be established in the territories and not in the territory of the state of Israel. At the time this letter was considered a great achievement on Sharon's part. The official mustering of the United States on Israel's side on the issue of the right of return in effect renders the discussion of the interpretation of Resolution 194 academic.

Professor Ruth Lapidot, who was the legal advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for many years, doesn't understand why Israeli politicians are clinging by their teeth to the right of return. In a position paper she published in 2003 on behalf of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Lapidot argues that there is no basis to the Arab claim that Resolution 194 grants them the right of return. She explains that the option of return is conditioned on the Palestinians who want to return to their homes being interested in living in peace with their neighbors. This condition, notes Lapidot, has not been fulfilled since the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000.

Lapidot agrees with Professor Geoffrey R. Watson, who was a member of the legal team at the U.S. State Department, in his interpretation of the sentence in Resolution 194, stating that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest possible date." The two experts agree that the use of the word "should" (as opposed to the word "shall," for example) turns the option of return into a mere recommendation.

In his book "The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements" (Oxford University Press), Watson notes that even the Palestinian delegation to the General Assembly argued that the phrase "should be permitted" does not concord with the right of return. This is a General Assembly resolution, which unlike Security Council resolutions, is not operative and is not binding.

The greatest critics of Livni's version asserting that the Arab peace initiative ensures the right of return can be found among the Hamas leadership and the heads of Al-Qaida. In an official reaction to the Arab League decision in Beirut, Hamas stated, "It is necessary to condemn outright the transfer of the issue of the right of return to the negotiating table and the demand for its implementation by means of a mutual understanding with Israel." Half a year ago Khaled Meshal's deputy Musa Abu Marzuq explained in a newspaper interview that one of the main reasons for Hamas' decision to reject the diplomatic initiatives that have cropped up in recent years, including the Arab initiative, is that "a solution that does not include the return of all the refugees to their homes and their property is untenable." He argued that the Arab League's decision puts an end to this sacred right....."

***

And now, just six months later, the very same Mesh'al and Marzuq are ecstatic about that same "Arab initiative" and Hamas can't write enough praise of the Arab "leaders" and how much hope is riding on their coming summit.

Amazing, isn't it? It shows you how much can be done with a mere billion Saudi dollars.

Palestinians: Celebrate THE RIGHT OF NO RETURN!

A Cry to Raise Our Voices!

A Good Article
by Max Fuller

Global Research, March 14, 2007

"......The implications of these two testimonies as well as the absence of independent and public scrutiny are obvious. The Occupation has done nothing at all to halt abuse at the Interior Ministry’s network of secret prisons or curtail in any way the culture of impunity in which they exist. And lets be absolutely clear what we are talking about here. This is as close as we can get to the tide of sectarian violence sweeping Iraq, whose victims are almost invariably arrested by Interior Ministry personnel, who are then horribly tortured within Interior Ministry prisons and whose bodies finally surface in abandoned lots, are dredged from rivers, are buried in shallow graves in the desert or left as human detritus around sewage works (Former human rights chief in Iraq John Pace stated that the majority of killings were being carried out by groups under the control of the Interior Ministry, Independent, 26 February 2006, while the Iraqi Organisation for Follow-up and Monitoring in Iraq found that in 92% of some 3498 cases of extrajudicial killing, the victims had been arrested by Interior Ministry forces). Such would undoubtedly have been the final fate of Professor Samarree and Mr Abid’s hapless fellow detainees.

Of course the Americans have always been aware of the existence of this and other horrific dungeons within Interior Ministry facilities. How could they not be? They set them up and continue to operate from the same facilities! And for any who would question the validity or Mr Abid’s testimony that American forces were regular visitors, his story is confirmed by Solomon Moore writing in the Los Angeles Times (9 July 2006), who stated that the US military had been at the facility before the November raid! And the same happened in Basra. After it was revealed by the Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price that British trained policemen had tortured prisoners to death with drills, we discovered, through the New York Times (!!), that American intelligence officers had been working alongside them at the Jamiyat police station, where they passed on names of suspects knowing that those suspects would end up as the victims of death squads. That is their modus operandi and it is duplicated by British military intelligence units, like the Joint Support Group, who brought their nefarious experience from Northern Ireland (where, as Chris Floyd has recently documented, they orchestrated sectarian murder through the Ulster Defence Association) straight to Iraq. Thus in Basra we find a paramilitary death squad outfit called the Revenge of God (Thar Allah) nurtured and protected by the British, linked to police intelligence and given control of nightly curfews, despite its boasts of killing members of the former state (see Ghosts of Jadiriyah for a more complete account)!.....

The distinguished dissident academic Edward Herman, recently wrote a paper entitled Iraq: the Genocide Option in which he argued that the US war in Iraq threatened to become genocidal. He was quite right to point to genocide. With credible figures of over one million Iraqi casualties, another three to four million displaced internally and externally, the total collapse of civic infrastructure and the imminent threat of political disintegration, there must already be a very real question as to whether Iraq continues to exist as a viable nation. To fully substantiate the charge, the only question technically remains establishing intent, although I believe that too is perfectly possible when we consider the statements on partition made by the likes of Leslie Gelb (New York Times 25 November 2003, 1 May 2006).......

In Iraq (with its much smaller population) the US has already matched in scale the violence perpetrated on Vietnam and the war goes on, although there is little indication that it has given up its economic interests. Undoubtedly a very great part of this violence is conducted directly by US forces (the extremely credible Lancet study suggests from 30-40%), but, despite surges, that proportion appears to be falling. That leaves perhaps as many as 500,000 violent deaths unattributed to Coalition military action. Herman states that some of these would belong to the Salvador Option, while the bulk of the others would fall into the pattern that he explicitly describes as large-scale communal civil war manipulated by the US. I think it is vital that we all remember that this inter-communal sectarian warfare still consists of anonymous bombs that target the Shia and which most Iraqis for good reason believe are the work of the occupation and sectarian killings of Sunnis by members of the security forces – along with academics, engineers, lawyers, trade unionists, imams, doctors, teachers and other state functionaries by paramilitary forces operating from the Ministry of the Interior . This is indeed the application of the Salvador Option and it contributes an essential part of the ongoing genocide in Iraq."

IMEMC

"The Palestinian Ministry of Refugees reported on Wednesday that the Palestinian refugees in Iraq were attacked 31 times in February, and that eight Palestinians were killed in separate attacks.

The ministry also reported that at least fifteen refugees were abducted by insurgents and U.S troops. Two of the abducted refugees were released, the bodies of two others were discovered with signs of torture, and the fate of the others remains unknown.

The Palestinian Media Center reported that 135 refugees fled to Syria and are currently living in tents in camps set up at the Iraqi-Syrian borders. They are living an Al Waleed refugee camp, which is now inhabited by 517 refugees.

In the report, the Ministry said that the attacks carried out by American troops and Iraqi Militias had significantly increased after dozens of Palestinian areas in Baghdad and its suburbs were attacked and shelled.

The attacks also included breaking into houses and searching them, beating the residents, and stealing money and household items, in addition to detaining a number of refugees.

The Ministry also stated that there were dozens of attacks that were never revealed to the media, and described these attacks as “ugly crimes” against the refugees who are already living under extremely harsh conditions and poverty.

Also, the Ministry called on the Jordanian and Syrian governments to allow the Palestinian refugees who are stranded on the borders under harsh conditions through.

The Ministry also reported that there are continuous attacks and abductions carried out by insurgents against the Palestinian refugees in Iraq, and demanded that the International Community and the United Nations intervene and put an end to these attacks and violations."

All three prongs of the US military's "surge" strategy in Iraq are desperate measures aimed at reversing the decline of US power in the Middle East. This desperation has led to unprecedented brutality and the consideration of, or even the embrace of, strategies that are even more destructive.

By Michael Schwartz
Asia Times

"If you are trying to figure out how US President George W Bush's new strategy is progressing, or just trying to figure out what is happening in Iraq, here is a diagnosis and a bit of a prognosis.

Bush has promised three prongs to his new strategy: (1) attacking and neutralizing Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia; (2) confronting Iran; and (3) a new offensive against Sunni insurgents.......

The first prong of this new policy is doomed. No area in Baghdad, or for that matter in Iraq, has been successfully pacified in this manner. That includes Fallujah and Tal Afar, where this very strategy has been applied and has failed. About 1,000 American soldiers, supplemented by Iraqi (Shi'ite) troops, have been in Fallujah for 27 months since the city was "cleared" (that is, largely destroyed). They have established a particularly harsh form of martial law and yet the insurgency in the city, without ever having disappeared, has slowly grown again in strength. Fallujah is not pacified and the Americans have never actually initiated a real program of reconstruction there. In other cities, with less comprehensive occupations, the insurgency is even more robust, and there isn't even talk of reconstruction.....

All of this is unsettling enough. Worse yet, in the confrontation with the Sadrists, the Bush administration appears to be edging toward search-and-destroy operations that will rubble-ize Shi'ite neighborhoods; in the confrontation with Iran, it appears to be lurching toward a possible air assault on a remarkably wide range of targets inside that country, guaranteeing staggering levels of civilian casualties; in the confrontation with the Sunni insurgents, it is already mobilizing its ground and air power with the promise of the subsequent imposition of an extreme form of martial law. The hallmark of all these new strategies is the high level of destruction and mayhem they promise.

There is a larger pattern that should, by now, be clear in these developments, and all that have come before. The architects of US policy in the Middle East tend to keep escalating the level of brutality in search of a way to convince the Iraqis (and now the Iranians) that the only path that avoids indiscriminate slaughter is submission to a Pax Americana. Put another way, US policy in the Middle East has devolved into unadorned state terrorism."

Finally!
We Have a Buffoon and Only 25 "Ministers" to Manage a Reservation....
Eat Your Heart Out Native Americans.
Palestinians: Celebrate, but Tighten the Belt Some More First.

U.S. Military's Deaths Have Topped 3,200

U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq..........3,203

"Coalition" Troops Killed...........3,461

U.S. Troops Wounded.............23,924

The 24-Hour Scandal Cycle
By Mike Luckovich

A Good Article
Contributed by Lucia

"Ramallah - Ma'an - The editor-in-chief of the Palestinian daily 'Al Hayat', Hafiz Barghouthi, has published in today's edition a strong criticism of the Palestinian factions, in which he accuses the factions of abusing democracy and neglecting the West Bank.

In his article, Barghouthi said that what is delaying the formation of the Palestinian unity government, and what was the reason for the internal fighting, was not political differences but the absence of democracy within the factions. He said that these factions claim that they are adhering to the results of the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in 2006, and speak about democracy; yet these same factions never accept criticism of themselves. He also accused these factions of not practicing democracy internally, saying that they do not discuss issues in a democratic way within the factions themselves, and consequently they are not democratic factions.

Barghouthi went on to say that the factions are dealing with democracy in a partial way; they use it when it serves their interests only. He added that the internal fighting is because of the criteria and over particular governmental posts or portfolios. He stated that this way of dealing with democracy has frustrated the national project. The factions have become commercial projects and commissions, he said. Barghouthi accused the factions of "turning the national project into a project for employment and posts."

Barghouthi also highlighted the different approaches taken by the factions in regards to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. "We can see that Fatah and Hamas are dealing with the West Bank as if it is Bangladesh when it was united with Pakistan," Barghouthi said. "The West Bank is politically and economically ignored and is not receiving what it deserves from jobs and government posts. Hamas succeeded in making Palestine as if it is only the Gaza Strip, and succeeded in making the Strip only Hamas. They have marginalized the West Bank."

"Speaking about this subject might be painful but partnership never meant between the factions only, it means all the people," Barghouthi said, "and it never meant part of the country, it means the whole country."

Barghouthi expressed his concern that taking the Palestinian issue to this level deprives the factions and their leaders from being creative. He said it also means that the faction leaders pay more attention to the interests of their factions than to the country. He added, "In this case, it seems that the leaders of these factions do not deserve to be leaders as they have proved their failure."

He added, "The Palestinian issue has never been humiliated like this in the last year."

Furthermore, Barghouthi suggested that the Palestinian arena is "ready to have a new faction". He said that "this should be a new current from both the main factions and include the wise men from the two factions who deal and look at the country as one unit, not two units."

Barghouthi added, "We been watching the factions and we have ensured who in these factions is a nationalist and who is religious and who is serious; that is why we don’t need more time to clarify things." "

By Tony Karon

"......Here’s my advice to Obama: AIPAC is a right-wing body, even on the Jewish-American political spectrum — in Israeli terms, its orientation is strongly Likudnik, aligning it with the right-wing fringe in Israel, too. Close to 80% of American Jews, according to surveys see the Iraq war as a mistake. (As opposed to the AIPAC crowd and Israeli government, which continues to support it.)

So, when you pander to the AIPAC crowd, you are not reaching the Jewish-American mainstream (even though most of the Jewish-American mainstream is loathe to directly challenge the AIPAC crowd, for fear of being labeled traitors are worse by rabid right-wingers like Alvin Rosenfeld). Nor are you really helping Israel, because its only chance of surviving rests in its ability to make peace with its neighbors, and Israeli peaceniks will tell you that the support of the U.S. (egged on by the AIPAC crowd) for the most belligerent and hawkish positions on the Israeli spectrum is actually working against Israel’s ability to make the compromises it will have to make in order to achieve peace.

And nobody will think any less of you, Barack, if you choose to speak the truth, and what you know to be the truth, rather than half-heartedly embrace falsehoods that aren’t doing anybody any good. The right-wing Zionists aren’t going to support you no matter how hard you pander, and the liberal mainstream will respect honesty and consistency. Israel needs American leaders that can march it back from its own self-destructive impulses, rather than cheerleaders of its march of folly.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I’m wasting my breath… "

The problem is indeed bigger than mere ideological or even personal quarrels between two rival political parties; rather, it is the expression of a prevailing Palestinian factionalism that seems to consume members of various Palestinian communities regardless of where they are based.

By Ramzy Baroud

"It’s never easy to admit that the Palestinian front, both at home and abroad, remains as fragmented and self-consumed, thus ineffective, as ever before, and got worse during the disastrous post-Oslo period.

Such realization wouldn’t mean much if the inference concerned any other polity; but when it’s made in regards to a nation that is facing an active campaign of ethnic cleansing at home and an international campaign of sanctions and boycott, the problem becomes both real and urgent......

It must also be acknowledged, as uncomfortable as this may be to some, that the Palestinian democratic experience is rapidly succumbing to Israeli pressures, American meddling — tacitly or otherwise, coordinated with other governments — and the fractious Palestinian front that has been for decades permeated with ideological exclusivism, cronyism and corruption.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), since its formation by the Arab League in 1964, but most significantly since its reformation in the early 1970s under Palestinian leadership, was for long regarded as the main body that eventually brought to the fore the Palestinian struggle as — more than a mere question of a humanitarian issue that needed redress — a national fight for freedom and rights. There was, more or less, a national movement that spoke and represented Palestinians everywhere. It gave the Palestinian struggle greater urgency, one that was lost, or willingly conceded, by Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn in September 1993, and again in Cairo in May 2004.

Aside from snuffing out the Palestinian national project, reducing the territory to self-autonomous areas, rendering irrelevant millions of Palestinians, mostly refugees scattered around the world and thus demoting the international status of the PLO to a mere symbolic organization, Oslo gave rise to a new type of thinking among Palestinians who see themselves as pragmatic and whose language is that of real politic and diplomacy. This is the most woeful case of self-defeatism, and it continues to infuse most Palestinian circles whose new “strategy” is limited to acquiring funds from European countries which eventually dotted the West Bank with NGOs, mostly without a clear purpose, agenda and coordination. Involving oneself in such useless projects is ineffectual, while rejecting them without a clear alternative can be frustrating or demoralizing.

An official in President Mahmoud Abbas’ circle chastised me during a long airplane ride once for subscribing to Edward Said’s school, whose followers, I was told, wish to parrot criticism from the outside and refrain from “getting their hands dirty”, i.e., getting involved in the Palestinian Authority’s institution building, and so forth. Such a claim is utterly baseless; and no viable institution can possibly come out of the current setting, an amalgam of a most violent occupation, and internal corruption sanctioned, if not fed, by both Israel and the US government.

Truth is there have been no serious collective Palestinian efforts to redress the Oslo mistakes and to breathe life into the PLO. The Intifada was a popular expression of Palestinians disaffection with Oslo and the occupation, but, alone, it can hardly be considered a sustainable strategy. Neither a religious movement like Hamas nor a self-exalted one like Fateh is capable of approaching this subject alone, nor are they individually qualified to alter the Palestinian course, which seems to be moving in random order....."

With "Leaders" Like These, Liberation Has to be Just Around the Corner....
Just Be Patient and Wait Another 90 Years.

The Arab "Peace Initiative" at the Summit
By Baha Boukhari

(Click on cartoon to enlarge)

By Robert Scheer

"......While he is still as dangerous as any cornered animal, Cheney stands brightly revealed as the main culprit in cherry-picking the evidence to make the case for a stupid, failed war. He has been exposed as a vindictive, inflexible ideologue, who attempts to destroy all who publicly disagree with him, such as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Wilson’s CIA agent wife, Valerie Plame Wilson. His extensive ties and loyal political service to energy and defense companies such as Halliburton (which now, in a burst of honesty, is moving its headquarters to Dubai), reveal him to be a man of deep corruption.

Like Nixon during Watergate, Cheney is now shrilly on the defensive. “National security made me do it!” he insists, clinging to pseudo-patriotism, that last refuge of scoundrels. But it is an argument that no longer flies with a public that has caught on to the rhythm of his screechy lies. After all, this is the leader, dominating a weak president, who pushed so hard for a complete occupation of a Muslim country not linked to 9/11. A man who hung his arguments for adventuristic war on known falsehoods, such as the attempted purchase of yellowcake uranium in Niger.

In fact, the recent terrorist bombing in Afghanistan that came too close to ending the vice president’s life aptly underscored just how reckless the decision was to direct our policy away from the religious fanatics of al-Qaida, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and instead pour our resources into overthrowing Osama bin Laden’s sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein......."

"Antiwar" Democrats cave on Iran

By Justin Raimondo

".......This settles at least three matters once and for all: To begin with, the president has been given the green light to attack Iran. Withdrawing this provision from the spending bill is an act not just of complicity, but of open collaboration with the Bush administration's war plans. When the bombs begin to fall, and the Democrats rise up in a yowl of righteous indignation, the president will be quite justified in doing this.

Secondly, the Democrats are either being dishonest or they lack fundamental knowledge of geography, because Pelosi is attacking the president for his Iraq "surge" even as she gives him the go-ahead for a super-surge right across the border in Iran.

The Republicans, no matter what their particular views on the war, seem to understand that this is a regional struggle and requires a comprehensive, overarching solution. They just don't agree on what that solution ought to be. Someone along the lines of, say, Rudy Giuliani, wants to extend the war to include the entire region, while Chuck Hagel, on the other hand, envisions a regional diplomatic and political architecture to serve as the framework for a comprehensive Middle East peace initiative.

Addressing the recent AIPAC conference, Scooter Libby's boss, AKA the Father of Lies, spoke the unvarnished truth:

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened."

What an easy target the "antiwar" Democrats make!

Third, one has to wonder how those who claim that recognizing the Israel Lobby's decisive impact on U.S. foreign policy is a hate crime are going to explain away this one. Those above-mentioned "conservative Democrats" are natural warmongers (although it wasn't always so), but exactly who, one wonders, are these other "lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel"? I'll bet Pelosi is one of them and Tom Lantos is another; no doubt the entire Democratic leadership belongs in that group.

No one is any longer pretending that Israel isn't the 51st state......"

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is back in the country, but it's in everyone's interest to make sure he doesn't get back into power.

By Marc Lynch
The Guardian

"Will Iyad Allawi, the rotund one-time Iraqi Prime Minister and current London resident, be the next Prime Minister of Iraq? He certainly seems to want the job, and he suits the Bush administration's agenda suspiciously well. But his return to power would not only fail to end the civil war - it would also signal a decisive end to democratic aspirations in Iraq and the Arab world, increase America's role at a time when most Americans would prefer to leave, and pave the way to a confrontation with Iran......

An Allawi return would mean a decisive break with even the pretence of caring about a democratic Iraq. He would return as a nationalist strongman, putting security (and American priorities) first, while always keeping in mind that elections are not his friend. The legendary corruption of his first government offers a preview of what to expect. So do his easy use of violence against both Sunni and Shia groups, his harsh repression of the media, and his generally anti-democratic instincts. From the vantage point of the emerging "new Middle East", sadly, this anti-democratic profile is an asset rather than a curse. This "Not-Dam Hussein" would be far more amenable to America's friendly Arab tyrants than is any elected, Shia, pro-Iranian alternative.

This may all come to nothing. Perhaps Allawi's return is being orchestrated simply to put pressure on the Maliki government. But when the current "surge" inevitably fails, and Washington's (and Riyadh's) itch to combat Iran grows, keep an eye out for the rotund one. He offers the fantasy of an easy solution to an intractable problem - a "magic bullet" which will only lead us deeper into fiasco."

A vast, secret Middle Eastern operation is being run, possibly illegally and based on stolen Iraqi oil funds and Saudi money, out of the US vice president's office, all to undermine the Iranians, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Syrians. This is one of several startling claims, such as US "meddling" in Iran, made recently by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. And no one seems in the least bit bothered.

By Tom Engelhardt
Asia Times

"Let me see if I've got this straight. Perhaps two years ago, an "informal" meeting of "veterans" of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal - holding positions in the Bush administration - was convened by Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams. Discussed were the "lessons learned" from that labyrinthine, secret and illegal arms-for-money-for-arms deal involving the Israelis, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Contras of Nicaragua, among others - and meant to evade the Boland Amendment, a congressionally passed attempt to outlaw US administration assistance to the anti-communist Contras.

In terms of getting around Congress, the Iran-Contra vets concluded, the complex operation had been a success - and would have worked far better if the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the military had been kept out of the loop and the whole thing had been run out of the vice president's office.

Subsequently, some of those conspirators, once again with the financial support and help of the Saudis (and probably the Israelis and the British), began running a similar operation, aimed at avoiding congressional scrutiny or public accountability of any sort, out of Vice President Dick Cheney's office. They dipped into "black pools of money", possibly stolen from the billions of Iraqi oil dollars that have never been accounted for since the US occupation began.

Some of these funds, as well as Saudi ones, were evidently funneled through the embattled, Sunni-dominated Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to the sort of Sunni jihadist groups ("some sympathetic to al-Qaeda") whose members might normally fear ending up in Guantanamo and to a group, or groups, associated with the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.

All of this was being done as part of a "sea change" in the Bush administration's Middle East policies aimed at rallying friendly Sunni regimes against Shi'ite Iran, as well as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Syrian government - and launching secret operations to undermine, roll back or destroy all of the above. Despite the fact that the administration of President George W Bush is officially at war with Sunni extremism in Iraq (and in the more general "global war on terror"), despite its support for the largely Shi'ite government, allied to Iran, that it has brought to power in Iraq, and despite its dislike for the Sunni-Shiite civil war in that country, some of its top officials may be covertly encouraging a far greater Sunni-Shi'ite rift in the region........

All I can say is: if any of this happened, I haven't been able to discover it. As far as I can tell, no one in the mainstream even blinked on the Iran-Contra angle or the possibility that a vast, secret Middle Eastern operation is being run, possibly illegally and based on stolen funds and Saudi money, out of the US vice president's office......."

By Kurt Nimmo

"....It seems a neocon hysteria has washed over Congress, enveloping even Dems, who are presumably “liberal,” whatever that means. As it turns out, according to the “authoritative” Congressional Quarterly daily report, more than a few Democrats were opposed to Pelosi inserting language in an Iraq occupation spending bill that futilely attempted to prevent the neocons from launching their shock and awe campaign against the people of Iran. According to “the CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war on Iran,” M.J. Rosenberg wrote last week. “It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists are being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another. This battle over the Pelosi language is part of the overall Iran effort.”......

Of course, AIPAC, infested with Likudniks and neocons, will never settle for mere sanctions—nothing short of decimating Iran with depleted uranium and nuclear bunker-busters will do. As we know, or should if we bother to pay attention, AIPAC is tightly integrated with the entire neocon infrastructure, from the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and beyond.

AIPAC operatives, “set to lobby individual lawmakers on the Hill,” will be pushing for an attack, not for sanctions, although the latter prints nicely in newspapers.

Finally, Dick Cheney’s speech before AIPAC, brimming with emotional nonsense about the threat of manufactured terrorism—once again eliciting the name “al-Qaeda,” the defunct database—served as a strident warning to a handful of pathetic Democrats opposed to the Iraq occupation. In essence, Dick has sicced AIPAC on the mildly dissenting Dems, who are lukewarm or weak-kneed on the idea of forever war, lasting generations, long after a blood clot has migrated to Bush’s brain.

In fact, the above mentioned lobbying of Congress at the conclusion of the AIPAC confab is all about sending a message to Democrats.

Get with the program—or find another job."

A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be?

Rolling Stone

"The war in Iraq isn’t over yet, but—surge or no surge—the United States has already lost. That’s the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. “Even if we had a million men to go in, it’s too late now,” says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. “Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again.”

Those on the panel—including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander—agree that President Bush’s attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style “quagmire.” The surge won’t bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq’s northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

“Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future,” says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden. “By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey—and from Turkey into Europe.” ......."

Contributed by Lucia

"Jerusalem - Ma'an - The political advisor to the Palestinian prime minister, Dr Ahmad Yousef, has confirmed that Prime Minister Haniyeh will be attending the forthcoming Arab summit on 28 March in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Speaking to 'Al-Quds' newspaper, Yousef said that the statement of the new government, which is to be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council, will comply partially with some of the demands of the Quartet.

The Quartet of Middle East negotiators (EU, UN, USA and Russia) has stipulated that the Palestinian government recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and accept the previous peace agreements, in order to be recognized politically and economically.

Yousef added that the names of the Hamas ministers will be announced soon.

In the interview, published on Tuesday, Yousef said that the Hamas ministers will not be PLC members. He added that some of the new ministers were in Haniyeh's first government and others are new.

He asserted that the new government, which will be supported by the Arab countries, will call on the world and the European Union to stop blaming the Palestinians for the delay in reaching a political settlement. Yousef stressed that it is not right to impose more conditions on the Palestinians as the Israelis should also comply with their commitments.

Regarding the ministry of the interior and other ministerial portfolios, Yousef said that Hamas submitted many names but President Abbas did not agree to them. He added that other names will be presented. He also confirmed that Ziyad Abu Amr will be the minister of foreign affairs and that Salam Fayyad will be the minister of finance.

Yousef also expressed his belief that Abbas will accompany Haniyeh to the Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at the end of the month.

When asked about his forthcoming Arab tour, Yousef said that it is aimed at explaining the Mecca deal to the countries he is going to visit and to urge them to lift the siege, in addition to other issues. He said that amongst the countries he intends to visit are Algeria, Syria, Turkey and Switzerland.

Yousef also spoke about Egypt's important role in the region. He said that Haniyeh will embark on an overseas tour following the announcement of the new government, and he will start in Egypt. He will then visit some other Arab and foreign countries, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey and other Arab countries.

As for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Yousef told Al-Quds newspaper that the relationship with Saudi Arabia is a strategic one, and this can also be said about Iran, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. "

***

Keep it up Yousef down that slippery slope once traveled by Arafat. Your "partial" compliance with the demands of the Quartet is the same as being "partially" pregnant; who are you fooling? In no time you have managed to make Hamas as rotten as Fatah; congratulations!

Take the Contracts and Run

By DAVE LINDORFF
CounterPunch

"......Before, there was always the old argument that "what's good for Halliburton is good for America." That line may have been hokey when it was first uttered with regard to General Motors by then GM chairman Charles Wilson, and it is surely hokey today, but it can lead to some confusion among Americans still in thrall to the corporate creed.

But with Halliburton now a Dubai corporation, with its tax obligations now owed to the Dubai Revenue Department instead of the IRS, that deception is gone.

We know now that when Dick Cheney makes a foreign policy or war policy decision regarding Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, he is really thinking about what it will do for Halliburton and Dubai--and for Dick Cheney.

Remember the big brouhaha that arose when a Dubai-based company was in line to take over the operation of several major U.S. ports last year? Members of Congress were in high dudgeon over that and in the end the plan was abandoned.

So how do we feel knowing that virtually the entire supply line for our over-extended troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is now in the hands of a Dubai corporation, and that it has its hooks into the central policy arm of our government, Blair House and the Office of the Vice President?

Next time Halliburton's KBR subsidiary serves our troops toxic, bacteria-ridden food, or puts untreated Euphrates River water into their canteens, maybe we should look harder to see if this was just another case of corporate corner and cost-cutting, or whether something more sinister was at work.

We--and members of Congress, if they still remember how to do their job--ought to be asking whether Halliburton's move to Dubai has anything to do with anticipated business should Cheney get his way and the U.S. attacks Iran this spring. Since such a war would inevitably include the destruction of much of Iran's state-owned oil industry, it would represent a huge new business opportunity for Halliburton, which first and foremost is an oil-services company.

Seeing all this is much easier with Halliburton based in Dubai, rather than Houston. Especially when you also consider the new oil law written by America and passed by the Iraqi parliament, which opens Iraq's oil reserves to American oil companies.

The American soldiers and marines stuck in Iraq, who have long been led to believe that they are over there fighting to defend America, should have little trouble these days seeing that they are really fighting and dying for Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil and Chevronand Dubai."

Olmert's Testimony to Winograd

Another Great Article
By JONATHAN COOK
CounterPunch

Nazareth.

"Israel's supposedly "defensive" assault on Hizbullah last summer, in which more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians were killed in a massive aerial bombardment that ended with Israel littering the country's south with cluster bombs, was cast in a definitively different light last week by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.

His leaked testimony to the Winograd Committee -- investigating the government's failures during the month-long attack -- suggests that he had been preparing for such a war at least four months before the official casus belli: the capture by Hizbullah of two Israeli soldiers from a border post on 12 July 2006. Lebanon's devastation was apparently designed to teach both Hizbullah and the country's wider public a lesson.

Olmert's new account clarifies the confusing series of official justifications for the war from the time.

First, we were told that the seizure of the soldiers was "an act of war" by Lebanon and that a "shock and awe" campaign was needed to secure their release. Or, as the then Chief of Staff Dan Halutz -- taking time out from disposing of his shares before market prices fell -- explained, his pilots were going to "turn the clock back 20 years" in Lebanon......

Olmert's claim, however, does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Israeli media revealed in January that for much of the past two years Syria's leader, Bashir Assad, has been all but prostrating himself before Israel in back-channel negotiations over the return of Syrian territory, the Golan, currently occupied by Israel. Although those talks offered Israel the most favourable terms it could have hoped for (including declaring the Golan a peace park open to Israelis), Sharon and then Olmert -- backed by the US -- refused to engage Damascus.....

And finally, when Hizbullah did capture the soldiers, there was a chance for Israel to negotiate over their return. Hizbullah made clear from the outset that it wanted to exchange the soldiers for a handful of Lebanese prisoners still in Israeli jails. But, of course, as Olmert's testimony implies, Israel was not interested in talks or in halting its bombing campaign. That was not part of the plan.

We can now start to piece together why.....

Rather than the impression that has been created by Olmert of a rookie prime minister and military novice "going it alone" in planning a major military offensive against a neighbouring state, a more likely scenario starts to take shape. It suggests that from the moment that Olmert took up the reins of power, he was slowly brought into the army's confidence, first tentatively in January and then more fully after his election. He was allowed to know of the senior command's secret and well-advanced plans for war -- plans, we can assume, his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, a former general, had been deeply involved in advancing......

What is the evidence that Israel's generals had already established the protocols for a war?

First, an article in the San Franscisco Chronicle, published soon after the outbreak of war, revealed that the Israeli army had been readying for a wide-ranging assault on Lebanon for years, and had a specific plan for a "Three-Week War" that they had shared with Washington think-tanks and US officials......

And second, we have an interview in the Israeli media with Meyrav Wurmser, the wife of one of the highest officials in the Bush Administration, David Wurmser, Vice-President Dick Cheney's adviser on the Middle East. Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli citizen, is herself closely associated with MEMRI, a group translating (and mistranslating) speeches by Arab leaders and officials that is known for its ties to the Israeli secret services.

She told the website of Israel's leading newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, that the US stalled over imposing a ceasefire during Israel's assault on Lebanon because the Bush Administration was expecting the war to be expanded to Syria.....

In other words, the picture that emerges is of a long-standing plan by the Israeli army, approved by senior US officials, for a rapid war against Lebanon -- followed by possible intimidatory strikes against Syria -- using the pretext of a cross-border incident involving Hizbullah. The real purpose, we can surmise, was to weaken what are seen by Israel and the US to be Tehran's allies before an attack on Iran itself.....

Despite signs of a slight thawing in Washington's relations with Iran and Syria in the past few days, driven by the desperate US need to stop sinking deeper into the mire of Iraq, Damascus is understandably wary.

The continuing aggressive Israeli and US postures have provoked a predictable reaction from Syria: it has started building up its defences along the border with Israel. But in the Alice Through the Looking Glass world of Israeli military intelligence, that response is being interpreted -- or spun -- as a sign of an imminent attack by Syria......

What's the professor's evidence for these Syrian designs? That its military has been on an armaments shopping spree in Russia, and has been studying the lessons of the Lebanon war.

He predicts (of Syria, not Israel) the following: "Some incident will be generated and used as an excuse for opening rocket fire on the Golan Heights and the Galilee." And he concludes: "Overall the emerging Syrian plan is a good one with a reasonable chance of success."

And what can stop the Syrians? Not peace talks, argues Van Creveld. "Obviously, much will depend on what happens in Iraq and Iran. A short, successful American offensive in Iran may persuade Assad that the Israelis, much of whose hardware is either American or American-derived, cannot be countered, especially in the air. Conversely, an American withdrawal from Iraq, combined with an American-Iranian stalemate in the Persian Gulf, will go a long way toward untying Assad's hands."

It all sounds familiar. Iran wants the nuclear destruction of Israel, and Syria wants Jersualem to "throw in the towel" -- or so the neocons and the useful idiots of "the clash of civilisations" would have us believe. The fear must be that they get their way and push Israel and the US towards another pre-emptive war -- or maybe two."

This is an outrage!

Woman arrested over police rape claims
Times Online

"The Iraqi Government has arrested a woman who alleged last month that she was raped by three Iraqi policemen, claims that provoked a spate of sectarian killing, two Iraqi officials told The Times.

Sabrine Janabi’s rape case has polarised Iraq’s Sunni and Shia communities at a moment when the country is already enmeshed in a low-level civil war. Shia officials have accused her of being a proxy for Sunni militants who want to sabotage a security plan for Baghdad, while Sunni politicians have pointed to her story as proof of the sectarian nature of Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Government.

Janabi shocked Iraq last month when she appeared on Al-Jazeera television and accused three policemen of detaining her and then raping her in their garrison.

Her story earned a fiery rebuttal from the Shia Prime Minister, who praised the policemen and promised to promote them. His office released a medical report allegedly taken from a US military combat hospital that said the woman had been beaten but showed no signs of sexual penetration.

Rape is a taboo subject in Arab culture and the news of Janabi’s rape sparked anger in the Sunni community......

Salim Abdullah, a spokesman for the Islamic Party, told The Times that the Government was trying to cover up Janabi’s rape. “An arrest warrant was issued against Sabrine al-Janabi so as to prevent her from talking anymore to the media,” Abdullah said.

“From the beginning we figured out her arrest would be aimed at seizing her confessions from the public as well as to fabricate a lie.” He denied the Islamic Party had any role in the case.

The Iraqi Government has raided the homes of eight Sunni MPs in the last week, Salim Abdullah told The Times......"

أبو مرزوق: الفلسطينيون يعلّقون آمالاً كبيرة على القمة العربية لتكمّل اتفاق مكة

"صنعاء - المركز الفلسطيني للإعلام

قال الدكتور موسى أبو مرزوق، نائب رئيس المكتب السياسي لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية "حماس" إن الشعب الفلسطيني وحكومة الوحدة الوطنية "تعلّق آمالاً كبيرة على النتائج التي ستخرج بها القمة العربية المزمع انعقادها في الرياض"، أملاً أن "تأتي مكملة لاتفاق مكة".

وأضاف يقول: "هناك أهمية كبيرة معقودة على مؤتمر القمة بالرياض، خاصة في انعكاسات اتفاق مكة على جدول أعمال القمة"، موضحاً أن أهم المكاسب التي حققتها حركة "حماس" في اتفاق مكة هو الاعتراف الوطني والعربي والدولي بنتيجة الانتخابات.

وأشار أبو مرزوق، خلال حلقة نقاشية في صنعاء، تحت عنوان "القضية الفلسطينية بين مكة والقمة"، إلى أربع مطالب فلسطينية من القمة العربية في الرياض؛ أولها التعهدات العربية التي التزمت بها القمم العربية السابقة تجاه الشعب الفلسطيني، "التي آن الأوان للالتزام بها والدفع بها لحكومة الوحدة الوطنية القادمة"، وثانيها "ترجمة قرار وزراء الخارجية العرب برفع الحصار عن الشعب الفلسطيني، وعدم معاقبة الشعب الفلسطيني على خياره الديمقراطي"، مشيراً إلى أن هناك موقف أوروبي جيد بحاجة إلى تدعيمه.
........."

Abu Marzouk: Palestinians attach hopes on Arab summit to bolster Makkah accord

"SANA'A, (PIC)-- Deputy-head of Hamas’ political bureau Dr. Mousa Abu Marzouk has affirmed that the Palestinian people and the upcoming PA unity government were attaching big hopes on the upcoming Arab summit in endorsing the Makkah agreement.

Abu Marzouk’s remarks came during a political forum in the Yemeni capital Sana’a on Monday, where he affirmed that one of Hamas’ gains out of the agreement was the Arab and international recognition of results of last year’s PA legislative elections, which Hamas won.

Unequivocally, Abu Marzouk asserted that the Palestinians want Arab countries to answer four urgent demands, first to carry out pledges they made to the Palestinians during the past Arab summits, to implement the decision taken by Arab foreign ministers in their meeting in Cairo, urging the immediate rescinding of the unjust economic embargo on the Palestinians......"

Usrael's President at the AIPAC Altar

By Sarah Posner

"Delegates at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference were treated to an air-brushed John Hagee last night, primed with his most innocuous talking points and stripped of his most outlandish Armageddon rhetoric. Hagee, the founder of the America's leading Christian Zionist lobby, Christians United for Israel, left his clumsy exegeses of Biblical prophecy back home in San Antonio. He is well-versed in bringing an audience of several thousand people to its feet, and he knew he didn't need his slide show of mushroom clouds and world-ending wars to work this crowd.......


But judging from the crowd's reaction, and that of delegates I spoke with afterwards, none of that mattered. Like other Jewish leaders I've talked to about Hagee, the attitude is simply that Israel has very few friends, and it needs all the friends it can get. If Hagee is willing to mobilize hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of conservative Christians to the cause, then they're willing to overlook his eagerness for the Second Coming (when we'll all become Christians), because it's just a silly fantasy that won't come to pass, anyway......

Whether Hagee is good for Israel is beside the point. The real problem is that he represents a catastrophe for the United States and its standing in the world -- not because he might love the Jews too much, or might in fact secretly hate them, but because he is leading a growing political movement completely lacking in a substantive understanding of world affairs. At a time when the Middle East faces seemingly intractable conflicts with dire geopolitical consequences, the notion that Hagee -- whose status is only elevated by invitations like AIPAC's -- is leading a political movement based on nothing more than a supposedly literal reading of his Bible only reinforces the view that the United States is being led by messianic forces at odds with world peace and stability. Young Americans should have a deeper understanding of Middle East politics in order to fully participate in civic discourse as American troops are fighting a seemingly unending war. But Hagee worries not about troop deployments, instead focusing on teaching the Bible in public schools. While religious fundamentalism is causing untold bloodshed around the world, Hagee frets about secularists who are "destroying America.".....

Hagee's speech, laced with charged comparisons of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to men like Pharaoh, Haman, and Hilter, as well as countless Churchillian references, brought the crowd to its feet. "He's A-OK," said one AIPAC delegate who had never heard of Hagee before, adding that he wanted to get one of Hagee's DVDs for his grandchildren to watch. "I love him," enthused another delegate, a woman who had already learned of CUFI through conservative talk radio and had donated money to the cause. "Who else cares about Israel?" "

by Dahr Jamail
With Ali al-Fadhily

"BAGHDAD - The security conference held last Saturday in Baghdad produced statements, drew mortar fire, and brought little hope of security.

The conference attended by representatives from 13 countries, including Syria, Iran, and the United States, was held inside the heavily fortified "green zone" in central Baghdad......

"Those who met inside the green zone are so persistent at keeping [Iraqi Prime Minister] Nouri al-Maliki and his gang in power in Iraq that they are polishing their U.S.-made shoes with international wax for a better appearance," health expert Dr. Abdul-Salam al-Janabi told IPS.

Some Iraqi leaders accused the U.S.-backed Iraqi government at the conference of exploiting sectarian and ethnic differences to the advantage of the occupation forces.

"It is the same sectarian picture given once more by the Iraqi government," a senior staff member of the Iraqi ministry of foreign affairs told IPS.

United Iraqi Alliance leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who also leads the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shia group close to Iran, accused some Arab countries of supporting "terrorism."......

The ruling coalition is showing cracks. Hakim's Shia coalition members have developed serious differences in strategies. These led recently to withdrawal of the al-Fadhila Party from the prime minister's United Iraqi Alliance. Party leaders quit, citing "faulty sectarian policies."

The move destabilized Iraq's teetering government further.

Many Arab political analysts believe that this conference was yet another attempt by the U.S. administration to buy time in Iraq while it prepares to deal with Iran.

The U.S. military currently has two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region. This is the first time such a force has been positioned there since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "

US policy is fuelling the disintegration of Iraq and that threatens societies across the Middle East

Sami Khiyami (Syrian ambassador in London)
Tuesday March 13, 2007
The Guardian

"America's strategy in the Middle East, devised by Washington's hawks - the ultra nationalists, neocons and Christian Zionists - smells of oil and domination. It has been based on two objectives. First, US global dominance must shape further globalisation; while the present rules of the world economy left open opportunities for rising stars like Russia, China and India, it was clear to some Washington extremists that, in addition to technology, the US would need to control the world's oil. The second is to give paramount importance to Israel while sidelining the interests of the Arabs.

Such objectives can only be achieved if the coherence of Middle Eastern societies is undermined. So the aim is not confined to toppling regimes, but extends to questioning the foundations of nation states. A policy has been designed to encourage sectarianism, ethnic divides, regional xenophobia, and the eventual Balkanisation of the Arab Middle East. Sadly, the outcome may be the partition of several states, producing smaller entities, regarded as easier to manage and dominate......

The initiative appears to be a last attempt to maintain exclusive control over Iraq. It is not unreasonable to think that this could lead to the tearing apart of the country. To move forward, two questions need to be addressed: is America's final goal domination, partition or an honourable exit? And why are al-Qaida terrorists and other death squads attacking innocent civilians exclusively, whereas legitimate resistance forces are restricting their operations to military targets?......"

The Arab World: the Last Part of the World Still Subservient to the U.S.

"WASHINGTON, D.C. - Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Monday warned the U.S. not to show weakness in Iraq, during an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, D.C.

In a region where "impressions are important," said Livni, countries must be careful not to demonstrate weakness and surrender to extremists.

The comments could be construed as expressing support for the Bush administration's policy of toughing out a war that is increasingly unpopular domestically.

"This is relevant concerning decisions on Iran, it is true regarding Iraq, and it is true throughout the Middle East," Livni said.

Livni said Iran was at the forefront of extremist threats to Israel, the greater Middle East and the world in general because of its nuclear ambitions.

"To address extremism is to address Iran," she said, urging tougher UN sanctions over its nuclear program. "It is a regime which denies the Holocaust while threatening the world with a new one."

"To those states who know the threat but still hesitate because of narrow economic or political interests, let me say this: History will remember."

Also addressing AIPAC, United States Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would lead to disaster and chaos in the Middle East, with either Al-Qaida or Iran emerging dominant from a bloody sectarian battle.

Cheney laid out a dire sequence of events - all dangerous to Israel - that could arise if critics of the war, particularly those in Congress, mandate troop withdrawals or limit funding.

"A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States and the entire Middle East," he said......"

Egypt puts Gaza tunnels out of commission

The Australian

"FOR almost 36 hours from last Monday, eight Palestinian soldiers dug frantically through the soil of Gaza's southernmost border for a team of smugglers trapped underground.

When they reached the three lifeless bodies at sunset the following day, the soldiers noticed strange discolouration around their lips. They had not suffocated but been gassed.

Amid repeated complaints from Israel about the tunnels, which sneak under the border to emerge in fields or homes on the Egyptian side, the Egyptian army has resorted to a deadly deterrence. Any tunnel openings they find will be gassed.

Palestinian national security officials estimate there are at least dozens of tunnels in operation, all dug from inside bullet-scarred homes in Rafah, under the security barrier and the Philadelphia corridor that separates Gaza from Egypt. For years, they have been the gateway for smuggling weapons, drugs and other contraband into Gaza......"

And This Was Habila December 15, 2006 Sitting on a Curb Waiting for Permission to Enter Gaza Through Rafah, Which Israel Controls.
Some Power and "Authority," Mr. "Prime Minister!"


Habila Playing Government in his Office in Gaza, March 12.

Bush in South America

Even as the "surge" proceeds in Baghdad, the US is quietly moving to implement "Plan B", which would be nothing less than a coup d'etat pushing the hapless Nuri al-Maliki aside and installing former CIA asset and neo-con favorite Iyad Allawi back in as a dictator. Nothing less than a return to strongman rule will restore order, Washington believes.

By Pepe Escobar

"The Bush administration has perfected the art of fall-guy selection. The more convoluted the plot, the more credible the fall guy must be. As Lewis "Scooter" Libby was the fall guy in Washington, Premier Nuri al-Maliki will be the fall guy in Baghdad.

The Baghdad conference on Saturday was a derivative talk-fest setting up three committees to prepare the way for another meeting at the foreign-minister level next month in Istanbul. The subtext, though never explicit, is more glaring: it is the absolute US impotence to guarantee security or stability in Iraq, and the desperate search for a way out, now pitting the "axis of fear" (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates) against the "axis of evil" (Iran and Syria).....

Thanks to wily, Mao Zedong-inspired, nimble muqawama tactics, the much-dreaded Battle of Baghdad is not happening - at least not yet. The muqawama has dissolved into the general population. For the moment, Arab guile is tactically defeating US firepower - as even American generals admit.

General David Petraeus, touted as the miracle worker who might save the occupation from itself, had to admit on the record that in fact the surge won't solve or stabilize anything. To "stabilize" Baghdad to a minimum, the US would have to deploy at least 120,000 combat troops.

But that's not the point. The point is that this gory chronicle of a failure foretold is inevitably slouching toward the "secret" US Plan B - which is none other than installing the new Saddam Hussein: in this case the same old "Saddam without a mustache" (as he is known in Baghdad) Iyad Allawi. Allawi's stellar record - former car-bomber, Ba'ath thug, alleged embezzler (in Yemen), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asset, corrupt interim prime minister and "butcher of Fallujah" - could have been penned by a Hollywood hack.

Maliki has been the fall guy from the start. Unlike Libby in Washington, he was not following Dick Cheney's command. He may have even suggested the broad terms of the surge to Bush. But the Bush administration had no trouble trapping him in his own insecurities in one more operetta starring loads of "collateral damage".

In essence, Maliki and his helpless, corrupt government - whose only role is to enforce imperial US edicts in Iraq - will be blamed by the Bush administration for failing to help the Pentagon occupy and "pacify" the country with minimum hassle. He doesn't even control the Green Zone: the US does. Baghdad's neighborhoods are controlled either by the muqawama or by Shi'ite militias. The ministries of Defense and Interior are infested with death squads. Basra is being slowly ethnic-cleansed: Sunnis were 40% in 2003; now they are less than 14%......

Maliki, the fall guy, is already irrelevant. Any analysis of US imperial designs since the CIA-engineered coup against prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran more than half a century ago reveals the same pattern. If you want divide-and-rule and total domination, who's your man? A clever, charismatic nationalist or a ruthless CIA asset? "

By Jim Lobe

"It was just nine months ago when Newsweek spoke for the conventional wisdom at that moment when it pronounced "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy."

The phrase signaled the apparent victory – at last – of the State Department-led "realist" wing over hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld in gaining control over the foreign policy of President George W. Bush.

One month later, however, war broke out between Lebanon's Hezbollah and Israel, and the hawks, particularly neoconservatives around Cheney and Rumsfeld, enjoyed a strong resurgence.

Bush not only spurned the pleas of Washington's European and Arab allies to press the Jewish state for a cease-fire, but his top Middle East aide, Elliott Abrams, reportedly encouraged it to expand the war into Syria, much to the horror of both his State Department colleagues and his Israeli interlocutors.

Now, one Democratic election landslide later – not to mention Rumsfeld's departure, and the longest-running record of sustained low public approval ratings for any U.S. president in more than 50 years – conventional wisdom has again concluded that the realists have finally taken the reins of power.....

But while the realists are clearly ascendant, they are not yet dominant, particularly with respect to Middle East policy where they remain hostage to events in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and the occupied territories – and to potential provocateurs – that in many ways are increasingly beyond their control.

Cheney, whose office remains a neoconservative stronghold, retains considerable influence, particularly in its coordination with like-minded colleagues in the White House on the National Security Council staff, notably Abrams and others in the Middle East bureau, and deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch.

And a big question lingers over Rice's own willingness to take risks in pursuing the realist agenda, and the ISG recommendations, in particular. Some observers note that she has been very careful to permit other actors – Saudi Arabia and the Europeans in the case of both the Palestinians and Syria, the Iraqi government in the case of Iran – to take the diplomatic lead, leaving her less vulnerable to attacks by the hawks.

"She understands that she has a very short leash," said Joshua Landis, a Levant expert at Oklahoma University. "She knows she can't get too far off the reservation.".....

An even bigger question looms over Bush himself. While he has clearly given Rice a lot more room to maneuver than her predecessor Colin Powell could ever have imagined, particularly with respect to North Korea, his own views, especially on the Middle East, remain a subject of unceasing speculation among the capital's cognoscenti, hawks and realists alike.

Just last week, for example, he hosted a "literary luncheon" in honor of Andrew Roberts, author of History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. In a recent interview, Roberts called on Bush to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan "for as long as it takes to achieve complete and final victory over Radical Islam … [and] not be afraid of threatening to widen the struggle to include foreign countries that aid and abet the insurgents [there]."

Other guests in attendance included some of the country's most hawkish neoconservatives, such as Norman Podhoretz; Paul Gigot, the editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page; and AEI fellow Michael Novak.

"Roberts said that history would judge the president on whether he had prevented the nuclearization of the Middle East," wrote Irwin Stelzer, another prominent neoconservative, in the Weekly Standard.

As noted by the Financial Times in an article entitled "Four Years of Turmoil Put Pragmatists in Driving Seat" this week, the Eurasia Group, a consultancy firm, has advised its clients that it rates the chances of a U.S. and/or Israeli military attack on Iran before September 2008 at 60 percent."

Mercenaries For Hire, This is What is Left of Palestinian Resistance
Palestinian Fatah gunmen march during a rally asking for jobs in the Palestinian security forces, at a Rafah camp in the southern Gaza Strip, March 12, 2007. (REUTERS)

"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Monday that Israel expects captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit released before Hamas and Fatah form a new unity government.

She spoke after officials in Hamas were quoted as saying that the creation of the new Palestinian unity government and Shalit's release were in no way connected to one another.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during their meeting Sunday that he would make an effort to secure the release of Shalit as soon as possible, and perhaps before the formation of the unity government.

Livni said Abbas now had more influence on Hamas, which is keen to form a coalition with Abbas' Fatah movement.

"Abu Mazen has stated that before establishing a new Palestinian government, he wants Gilad released," Livni told Army Radio, referring to Abbas by his nickname.

"If in the past he could say that he was separate from Hamas and had no power to influence them, today his situation has changed. Today, with Hamas wishing to form a government, and, with Abu Mazen moving toward an agreement with Hamas, we expect that the release of Gilad Shalit will be part of this process."

According to Livni, "This is an Israeli demand, and I believe it should be an international demand as well. Now we must see if [Abbas} is capable of keeping this [promise]."....."

***

Hamas is expected not to embarrass Brothers Abu Mazen and Dahlan (guests of honor at Brother Olmert's dinner table) nor disappoint Sister Livni, by releasing Brother Shalit. This is the new and improved Hamas, after all, and what a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate political skill and pragmatism. Besides, Saudi Arabia demands it; what could be more important?

Celebrate the early release of Brother Shalit!

Rafeef Ziadah, The Electronic Intifada, 11 March 2007

"On the border between Iraq/Jordan and Iraq/Syria today live hundreds of Palestinian families who fled the US war to find themselves stranded in no-mans land. These families live in tents, in squalor, with little certainty or hope for the future, like their parents and grandparents did after their expulsion from their own homeland in the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe) by the Israelis. The Al-Hol, Al-Tanaf, Al-Ruweished and Al-Walid refugee camps in the Iraqi desert are examples of the on-going Nakba that Palestinian refugees face. The fate of the 34,000 Palestinian refugees who once lived in Iraq can be added to the many tragic stories of the US invasion and occupation of that country.

There are Palestinian refugees all over the world, and every one of them is being denied their right to return to their homes and villages from which they were expelled. This is a right that cannot be canceled and a right that doesn't have a statute of limitations. And while Palestinians continue to demand their right of return, other rights - to safety, to freedom of movement, to work and shelter and food - are violated as a matter of routine. The names of Palestinian refugee camps have become references to massacres and crimes committed against the Palestinian people: Sabra and Shatila (Lebanon), Jenin (West Bank), Rafah (Gaza) and today we add Al-Tanaf, Al-Hol, Al-Walid and Al-Ruweished.......

Palestinian refugees that fled Iraq report arbitrary arrests, disappearances and torture. Sometimes they would be picked up by uniformed Iraqi secret service, other times people in civilian clothing would just knock down their doors and kidnap them. Those kidnapped would be found dead, thrown away on the streets after being tortured with electric drills, many times their limbs amputated. Those not murdered were held for ransom, forcing their families to sell all they owned to get them out. Armed men hand-delivered death threats to several Palestinians in Baghdad, setting off widespread panic among the Palestinian population......"

The new US command for Africa will militarise the continent and inflame a string of regional conflicts

Salim Lone
Monday March 12, 2007
The Guardian

"For decades, Africa has pleaded in vain for a comprehensive engagement from the west on the basis of shared interests, particularly in the economic arena. But the new engagement the continent has been offered, in the form of a military US command, is the last thing the world's most impoverished continent needs.

The decision to establish Africom, as the command will be known, reflects the Bush administration's primary reliance on the use of force to pursue its strategic interests. Among the key goals for the new command, for example, is the assurance of oil imports from Africa, which have assumed much greater importance given the hostility to the US presence in the Middle East.

China has similar energy needs, but how differently it is pursuing them. When George Bush announced Africom's creation last month, the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was touring eight African countries to negotiate oil-related deals and announcing multibillion-dollar aid agreements. Many commentators voiced legitimate concerns about China's intentions; none have been voiced about Africom in the major western media....."

The paper consistency adopts Israel's language, giving credence to an inaccurate, simplistic and dangerous cliche.

By Saree Makdisi, SAREE MAKDISI, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, writes frequently about the Middle East.
L.A. Times

"......Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists — that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.

And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict — and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.

This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function....."

U.S. in talks with Saudis, Israel ahead of Arab meet.
The Hebrew Version of the "Saudi Plan" is ready for translation to Arabic.
Celebrate, Now!

"The U.S. administration is holding separate talks with Israel and Saudi Arabia before the Arab League summit in Riyadh late this month that will deliberate renewed approval of the overall Arab peace plan known as the Saudi initiative.

The initiative won the support of the Arab League during a summit in Beirut five years ago, calling for an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 lines, the establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and a "just and negotiated" agreement to the problem of the refugees.

In return, the members of the Arab League offer Israel full normalization of relations and an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As reported in Haaretz 10 days ago, Israel wants to see some changes to the Saudi initiative so that it can serve as an agreed basis for the renewal of the diplomatic process.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday at a cabinet meeting that the initiative should be taken very seriously.

"We hope very much that during the meeting of the heads of Arab states that will be held in Riyadh, the positive elements expressed in the Saudi initiative will be validated and perhaps will enable the strengthening of the chances for negotiations between us and the Palestinians," Olmert added.

Olmert made the statement at the start of the cabinet meeting, in front of television cameras. It was both more positive and detailed than his previous comments on this issue. Previously he only referred to the "positive elements" in the Saudi initiative.

Political sources in Jerusalem confirmed Sunday that diplomatic talks are being held concerning the Saudi initiative, but refused to give details.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas raised the issue during talks with Olmert in Jerusalem, the sources said.

Saudi National Security Adviser Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the main interlocutor of the kingdom with Israel, is visiting Washington. At the same time, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is visiting the U.S. capital.

Aides to Olmert, visiting Washington last week, apparently held talks with their American counterparts on the Saudi initiative.

Rice to return

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to visit the region late next week for a series of meetings ahead of the Arab League summit in Riyadh.

It is believed that Prince Bandar has been in contact with his Israeli interlocutors, although there has been no confirmation of this.

Six months ago Bandar met with Olmert in Jordan and their meeting sparked the process for the adoption of the Saudi initiative as the basis for a diplomatic process.

The main amendment to the Saudi initiative required by Israel deals with the refugees. The plan's current version refers to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, and the Palestinians interpret this non-binding resolution as calling for the resettlement of refugees inside Israeli territory.

In a meeting held two weeks ago with a senior European diplomat, Olmert said that "Israel will never accept Resolution 194, and this constitutes a red line for us. But anything over this red line, including creative solutions to the refugees [problem], which does not include their settlement in Israel, is open for discussion."

This view was echoed by Foreign Minister Livni two weeks ago.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres has responded positively to the growing Saudi Arabian involvement in the diplomatic process.

Peres discussed this development with Olmert in recent days following consultation with experts, and noted the positive results that a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement will have."

Contributed by Lucia

"RAMALLAH, West Bank (AFP) - Israeli and Palestinian officials have been holding talks through a "secret channel" with the aim of jumpstarting the stalled peace process, Palestinian sources told AFP on Sunday.



The officials involved have been Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and Salam Fayyad, a former Palestinian finance minister, they said.

The trio have met twice in recent weeks, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

"They discussed issues related to the final status agreement and the Arab initiative," one source said.

He was referring to a Saudi peace plan adopted by the Arab League in 2002 and the thorniest issues of the Middle East conflict which both sides have always accepted will be left to a final peace agreement.

A senior aide to Livni rejected the report.

"There has been no meeting between Minister Livni and Yasser Abed Rabbo recently, certainly not on issues of final status... The last time they met was several months ago," the aide said.

The Palestinian sources made their remarks as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas met in Jerusalem, with their third encounter in as many months failing to produce any major breakthroughs.

Abbas has on several occasions said that he favoured a "parallel channel" in talks with Israel, like the secret talks that resulted in the 1993 Oslo accords.

The secret discussions have touched on the most sensitive issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians, including the final borders of the Palestinians' promised state and the fate of Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, the sources said.

The Arab peace plan of 2002 calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories, including east Jerusalem, in return for a full normalization of relations with the Arab world.

Livni said earlier this month that the Jewish state could not accept the initiative as it stands.

Earlier on Sunday, Olmert said Israel was "ready to take seriously" the Arab initiative.

"We sincerely hope that at the summit of the Arab leaders in Riyadh, the positive element in the Saudi initiative will be emphasised and would maybe allow an opportunity to strengthen the chances for negotiations with the Palestinians on its basis," Olmert said.
"

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 11, 2007

"A mysterious Congo vanishing uranium bars incident has emerged, coinciding with a decisive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of governors meeting in Vienna on March 5-8, regarding Iran's nuclear program.

According to Kinshasa's Le Phare newspaper (March 7), "more than 100 bars of uranium as well as an unknown quantity of uranium contained in helmet-shaped cases, had disappeared from the nuclear centre in Kinshasa as part of a vast trafficking [operation]" (Le Phare, 8 March 2007, Le Phare, 7 March 2007)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo's Commissioner for atomic energy Professor Fortunat Lumu and his associate were arrested over allegations of uranium smuggling. The Congo's state prosecutor, Tshimanga Mukeba said that Lumu is being "questioned regarding the alleged disappearance of unspecified quantities of uranium in recent years." He is accused of "orchestrating illicit contracts to produce and sell uranium". (BBC, 8 March 2007)

The IAEA is also said to be "investigating the situation". While the names of the alleged buyers were not revealed, the evolving consensus within the Western media, based on an "authoritative" August 2006 Sunday Times report, which is quoted profusely in syndicated press reports, is that Tehran might be behind the uranium smuggling operation.

Iraq, Iran, Niger, The Congo, yellow cake, missing uranium 238 bars.

A feeling of déjà vu.

Remember the Niger uranium yellow cake, which was used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq.

Ironically, while Professor Lumu was arrested on March 6 for alleged smuggling of uranium 238 (natural uranium) in Kinshasa, back in the US, on the same day, former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted by a federal grand jury on multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in relation to the Niger "yellow cake" operation.

According to US media reports, Bush's adviser Karl Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were also involved.

As confirmed in the trial proceedings, the yellow cake story was a fabrication triggered by forged documents which described Saddam Hussein as buying "yellow cake" from Niger allegedly for the production of a nuclear bomb. Libby was acting on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney, who is widely believed to have instigated the "yellow cake" psyop.

Déjà Vu?

Are we dealing with a similar fabricated Psyop in the case of the alleged missing Congo uranium bars, which could at some later date be used as a pretext directed against Iran? ......"

Abbas tells Olmert kidnapped soldier could be released before unity gov't is established this week
Celebrate, now!

"The Palestinians are exerting every effort to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit as soon as possible, and the release may take place before the Palestinian unity government is established this week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday evening.

Olmert demanded that the kidnapped soldier would be released immediately and without any conditions. He also demanded that the Palestinians stop firing Qassam rockets at Israel and smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip.....

The two leaders agreed to continue holding summits on a regular basis. The meetings will deal with defense issues, the war on terror and the Palestinians' humanitarian needs......

Aides to Abbas said that they understood from Olmert that even if a unity government was established with Hamas, the talks between Olmert and Abbas would continue. Abbas stressed during the meeting that any government founded in the Palestinian Authority would be committed to past agreements......"

Meeting the Butcher of Beit Hanoun, Again and Again.


Brother Abu Mazen and Brother Dahlan Having Dinner With Brother Olmert; Where is Brother Habila?

Contributed by Datta

A Very Good Article
By James Petras

"You are nearly my namesake – having a Romanized version of my Hellenized name (Petraeus/Petras). You are dubbed a ‘warrior’ or ‘counter-insurgency intellectual’. I hold credentials as an ‘insurgency intellectual’ or as Alex Cockburn calls it ‘a fifty-year membership in the class struggle’. You publicists have billed you as ‘America’s last best hope for salvation (of the empire) in Iraq.’ Predictably the Democrats in Congress led by Senator Clinton went down to their knees in praise and support of your professionalism and war record in Northern Iraq. So let it be recognized that you enjoy an advantage: the support of both parties, the White House, Congress and the mass media, but still being an insurgent intellectual, I am not convinced that you will or should succeed in saving Iraq for the empire. Better still; I think you undoubtedly will fail, because your military assumptions and strategies are based on fundamentally flawed political analyses, which have profound military consequences.......

By ‘honest talk’, about troop numbers in the present tense for your war, you prepare the ground for a greater escalation in the proximate future. “Right now we do not see other requests (for troops) looming out there. That’s not to say that some emerging mission or emerging task will not require that, and if it does then we will ask for that (my emphasis)” (AlJazeera, 3/8/2006). First there’s a ‘surge’ then there is an ‘emerging mission’ and before we know it, there are another fifty thousand troops on the ground and in the meat-grinder that is Iraq. Yes, General, you are a fine master of ‘double speak’ – but beyond that you are, with your colleagues in the White House and Congress, doomed to go down the same road of political-military defeat as your predecessors in Indo-China. Your military police will jail thousands of civilians and perhaps many more. They will be interrogated, tortured and perhaps some will be ‘broken’. But many more will take their place. Your policy of security through intimidation will ‘hold’ only as long as the armored cars in each neighborhood point their cannons at every building. But how long can you sustain it? As soon as you move, the insurgents will return: they can continue for months and years because they live and work there. You can’t. You run a costly colonial army, which suffers endless casualties. Sooner or later, the folks back home will force you to leave.

Your ambitions, General Petraeus, exceed your abilities. Best start preparing your farewell to arms and look toward a higher post in Washington. Remember your chances are slim: Only winning generals or draft dodgers are elected President. There is always a professorship at the Kennedy School at Harvard for the ‘warrior intellectual’ who is good at the books but a failure in the field."

Red Carpet Reception in South America

By Gideon Levy

"A great surprise: The overwhelming majority of Israelis support a one-state solution. After years in which the binational solution was anathema, it has suddenly become apparent that this is the preferred solution. You don't believe it? Look at the opinion polls. Benjamin Netanyahu is again leading them. You don't believe Netanyahu advocates this solution? Listen to his words. Once again, Netanyahu "does not find" a Palestinian partner. The conclusion: Wait and do nothing.

Netanyahu is not alone. Judging by their inaction, the prime minister and the foreign minister are also unable to find a partner; it is furthermore doubtful whether the Labor Party will find one. There are heaps and heaps of preconditions - one time it is the democratization of the Palestinians and another time it is their recognition of Israel; one time it is a halt to terror and another time it is a revision of their covenant; one time it is "no" to Arafat, then "no" to Mahmoud Abbas (the "fledgling") and now it is "no" to the unity government.

And the result is plain to see. One state, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, is coalescing before our very eyes. Because what are Netanyahu and his ilk offering? To sit and do nothing, which simply translates into a binational state. Most Israelis declare that they are in favor of two states? This is a hollow statement - after all, they prefer Netanyahu.

In fact, this is the real "big bang": The political map of Israel has been upended. There is no longer right and left, no more hawks and doves. The center, the right and the margins of the left are united. From now on, one should say: Israel is divided between supporters of one state, the overwhelming majority, and supporters of two states, a negligible minority.

Whoever does not work immediately for the formation of two states is pushing for one state. There is no other solution, no third way. Anyone who supports the settlement enterprise is a devotee of the greater Land of Israel.

"Tibi or Bibi?" It is more correct to say: "Netanyahu and Khaled Meshal forever." Both are proponents of a one-state solution and their dispute is only over the nature of this state - one favors an apartheid state and the other an Islamic state. Only the extreme left advocates a single democratic state.

All of the talk about the questions concerning the future of Israel is misleading. While Netanyahu is running on his favorite ticket, the danger of a holocaust emanating from Iran, a more acute question mark hovers over the declared character of Israel: Has it not already become a binational state? It will soon be divided into two equal halves, and later there will be an Arab majority. What is Israel if not a binational state? And what are 3.5 million Palestinians, who have already lived under Israeli occupation for 40 years, if not subjects of a state that has existed with the occupation for twice as many years as it has existed without it?

No, the occupation is not temporary, nor is the current nature of the state.

Enough empty talk about "a Jewish state." There is no such thing. The fact that the Palestinians live under unequal conditions does not make them subjects of another entity. On the contrary, the state's control of their lives is immeasurably greater than its control over its Jewish citizens.

"What good will it do - the time that is slipping like sand between the fingers, without taking any action," Netanyahu asked in an interview with Haaretz, published on Friday, in which he was described as someone who has "shifted to the center." But of course the "moderate" Netanyahu was referring to Iran, defiantly ignoring the really crucial hourglass. In another moment, the Palestinians will be a majority here, and then what? A minority that continues to abuse a majority? Non-citizens forever? South Africa has already taught us how this culminates.

This grown child must now be called by its name - Netanyahu, Yisrael Beiteinu, the National Religious Party, the settlers, Kadima and all those who reject negotiation should now be called "fans of the binational state." If it becomes a just state, perhaps this is good news. But is this really what the majority wants?"

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will try to persuade Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas not to appoint ministers to the unity government who have ties with Israel. The two are scheduled to meet today.

Olmert is expected to tell Abbas that Israel will not talk with the Palestinian unity government until it accepts the principles of the Quartet: recognizing Israel, abandoning terror and recognizing previous agreements. "If Abbas wants figures like Salam Fayad and Mohammed Dahlan to continue their contacts with us, he should not make them ministers in the unity government," a government source in Jerusalem said.

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinian Authority had a great interest in keeping the lines of communication open with the prime minister. He said the meeting was an important one, but that expectations should not be raised since there are disputes on both sides.

Washington intends to continue talks "on a personal basis" with moderates like Fayad if they join the unity government......

Former PA minister Ghassan Khatib told Haaretz the two leaders would be discussing a prisoner swap and the expansion of the cease-fire in the West Bank......"

Top American generals make shock admission as Iraq leader pleads with neighbouring countries to seal off their borders

Paul Beaver in Fort Lauderdale and Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 11, 2007
The Observer

"The US army is lagging behind Iraq's insurgents tactically in a war that senior officers say is the biggest challenge since Korea 50 years ago.

The gloomy assessment at a conference in America last week came as senior US and Iraqi officials sat down yesterday with officials from Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in Baghdad to persuade Iraq's neighbours to help seal its borders against fighters, arms and money flowing in......

In a bleak analysis, senior officers described the fighters they were facing in Iraq and Afghanistan 'as smart, agile and cunning'.
In Vietnam, the US was eventually defeated by a well-armed, closely directed and highly militarised society that had tanks, armoured vehicles and sources of both military production and outside procurement. What is more devastating now is that the world's only superpower is in danger of being driven back by a few tens of thousands of lightly armed irregulars, who have developed tactics capable of destroying multimillion-dollar vehicles and aircraft.

By contrast, the US military is said to have been slow to respond to the challenges of fighting an insurgency. The senior officers described the insurgents as being able to adapt rapidly to exploit American rules of engagement and turn them against US forces, and quickly disseminate ways of destroying or disabling armoured vehicles.

The military is also hampered in its attempts to break up insurgent groups because of their 'flat' command structure within collaborative networks of small groups, making it difficult to target any hierarchy within the insurgency.

The remarks were made by senior US generals speaking at the Association of the US Army meeting at Fort Lauderdale in Florida and in conversations with The Observer. The generals view the 'war on terror' as the most important test of America's soldiers in 50 years.

'Iraq and Afghanistan are sucking up resources at a faster rate than we planned for,' one three-star general said. 'America's warriors need the latest technology to defeat an enemy who is smart, agile and cunning - things we did not expect of the Soviets.'

Other officers said coalition rules of engagement were being used against the forces fighting the insurgency. 'They know when we can and cannot shoot, and use that against us,' said one officer, reflecting the comments of US soldiers in the field. Another said recent video footage of an ambush on a convoy, posted on the internet, was evidence that insurgents were filming incidents to teach other groups about American counter-measures......"

Barhoum: The USA lacks clear vision on the Palestinian issue

"GAZA, (PIC)-- Spokesman of Hamas Movement in Gaza Strip Fawzi Barhoum has scathingly lashed out at the US policy towards the Palestinian people and accused Washington of lack of clear vision on the Palestinian question.

“The failure of the successive US administrations in finding a just solution to the Palestinian question proves that the USA lacks clear vision on the Palestinian question”, Barhoum charged in an exclusive interview with the PIC on Saturday.

He explained that the Palestinian issue is very clear; adding that the Palestinian people simply want to establish their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital......"

***

Such vision......such insight....
It took the Palestinians only 90 years to develop such a revolutionary theory, give them just 100 more years and Jericho will be liberated.