Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Palestinian stabbed in Ashkelon

Ma’an – 20/08/2011

RAMALLAH — Palestinian Authority police said Saturday that unknown assailants in southern Israel stabbed and injured a Palestinian worker based in the coastal city of Ashdod.

Nassim Al-Barbarawi, 26, told police he was attacked by more than 20 Israeli men who said they were avenging Thursday’s attack near Eilat which left eight Israelis dead.

He managed to flee his attackers when a car stopped to rescue him and took him to hospital in Ashdod, he said.

The victim was transferred by ambulance to hospital in Hebron.

August 20, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Leave a comment

The US Government Won’t be Charged With Perjury Even When It’s Caught in a Lie

By SALLY EBERHARDT | CounterPunch | August 19, 2011

A chilling court decision unsealed at the end of April by a federal judge in California’s Central District reveals that the Obama administration is not only prepared to take advantage of the lies of the Bush administration, but is willing to up the ante. In a case that involved extensive surveillance of Muslim community groups and leaders, the Obama administration has now argued that the government not only can lie about its surveillance activities to American citizens but can, in turn, lie to federal judges when “national security” is involved. And, despite his strongly worded April 27 decision censuring the government for lying, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney ultimately ruled that the government can both withhold the requested surveillance documents and escape censure for lying.

Carney’s ruling, which has gone under the radar of most mainstream and independent media (with a lone 420-word editorial in the Los Angeles Times being the only mainstream coverage), chastises the U.S. government. But, that’s as far as Carney would go. The government will not be charged with contempt of court or perjury nor will it face any other kind of official sanction. In effect, the government can lie and conduct whatever kinds of surveillance it wants without accountability or repercussions for overreach.

The origins of the current case, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California et al. v. the Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., stretch back to 2006 and involve six Muslim organizations – the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, the Council on American Islamic Relations-California (CAIR), the Islamic Center of San Gabriel Valley, the Islamic Center of Hawthorne, the West Coast Islamic Center, the Human Assistance and Development International, Inc.- and five Muslim community leaders. These men and groups were among the first Muslim Americans to meet and share information with the FBI after 9/11, and include individuals like Mohammed Abdul Aleem, who served as a government witness for the U.S. Department of Justice in a 2004 terrorism case in Idaho.

However, by May 2006, the plaintiffs began to feel increasingly that they themselves had become the targets of extensive government surveillance and so filed a joint request for their FBI files under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for any records detailing their monitoring or surveillance. After almost a full year had elapsed, on April 27, 2007, the government told nine of the plaintiffs that they had “no records responsive” to their request, and, in June 2007, the FBI sent a single redacted page to CAIR and three redacted pages to Hussam Ayloush, CAIR’s Executive Director, and a plaintiff. Unconvinced by this report, the plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the government, challenging the adequacy of the FBI’s search.

In light of the lawsuit, the FBI conducted new searches and produced some 120 pages of documents that they heavily redacted or withheld entirely because they were claimed to be “outside the scope” of the FOIA request. This – it would later turn out – was the government’s first instance of lying to the court. They had, of course, already lied to the plaintiffs in their previous correspondence with them which, as Judge Carney cited in his decision, was a curious tactic to take – as, under FOIA, they could have simply identified the “statutory and factual basis” for not releasing certain documents and, so, would have been well within current legal bounds for not issuing requested documents.

Faced with cross-motions by the government and the plaintiffs in the case, in April 2009 the Court ordered an in camera review of the FBI’s searches (with only the government present) in order to determine the “propriety” of the FBI’s “outside the scope” determinations. Shortly after this order was given, the government – which had now shifted from the Bush administration to the Obama administration – revealed to the court that it actually had identified other “responsive” documents but had never disclosed them to the court or to the plaintiffs. It was at this juncture, under Obama’s watch, that the government asserted that it actually had the right to lie to the court because of national security.

Realizing that the government had, as Judge Carney’s decision later worded it, “provided false and misleading information to the Court,” Carney ordered two in camera hearings, again with only the government present, after which he issued a sealed order in June 2009. But the government immediately appealed this order and sought an emergency motion to stay the decision. In its ruling, the appellate court supported government secrecy. Judge Carney’s decision – amended as per the appellate court’s order to eliminate all statements which the government designated too sensitive – finally saw the light of day two years later, at the end of this April.

Citing the case of United States v. Richard M. Nixon, to explain why “the very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts,” Carney rebuked the government’s attempts to claim that its representations to the Court were not “technically false,” writing that the government “cannot negotiate the truth with the Court” nor “under any circumstance affirmatively mislead the Court.”

He went on to write that “the Government argues that there are times when the interests of national security require the Government to mislead the Court. The Court strongly disagrees. The Government’s duty of honesty to the Court can never be excused, no matter what the circumstance.”

But despite these fine sentiments, Carney (who is a George W. Bush appointee) was ultimately unwilling to impose any kind of penalty or even order that the requested FOIA documents be released, leaving the U.S. government with nothing to stop it from lying in court in the future. Under the basic rules of court, the actions of the FBI’s lawyer, Marcia K. Sowles, appear to be clearly unethical; yet Judge Carney did not refer Ms. Sowles to a state bar for, at the very minimum, a disciplinary investigation. By failing to hold the government in any way accountable for lying, Judge Carney has succeeded only in ultimately bolstering the government’s confidence in acting with impunity.

The government itself hinted at the new level of unfettered reach they now want in one section of their appellate brief that was not under seal, writing that the courts need to “give special deference to the Executive Branch when it invokes national security concerns.”

That our government, four decades after the Pentagon Papers, is able to lie in a federal court, get caught and have no price to pay speaks volumes about the state of justice in the United States right now. While there are many things that shock the conscience about how this case played itself out, what might be most shocking is how it reveals the U.S. government’s current understanding of the rule of law. As President Nixon once did, the current administration appears to see itself above the law. And despite issuing a strong rebuke in his decision, Judge Carney has given a green light both for the government’s lying and for its invasive surveillance.

~

Sally Eberhardt works with Educators for Civil Liberties, researching civil rights issues post 9/11. She is founding member of Theaters Against War and has worked for human rights organizations in Britain and the U.S.A. She can be reached at sallyeb@earthlink.net.

August 20, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | Leave a comment

Gaza health ministry condemns attack on doctor

Ma’an – 20/08/2011

GAZA CITY — The health ministry in the Gaza Strip on Saturday condemned Israel’s killing of a Palestinian doctor overnight.

Dr Munther Qriqe, 32, a member of Shifa hospital’s intensive care unit, was killed along with two others from the same family when an Israeli drone fired a missile at his car, medics said.

Qriqe was on his way home with his brother Mutaz and his young nephew Islam, the health ministry said, charging that the attack reflected Israel’s “brutal escalation against medical staff.”

“The Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people in Gaza has increased dramatically,” the ministry said in a statement early Saturday.

“Israel has crossed a red line,” said ministry spokesman Dr Ashraf Alqudra.

The health ministry called for more protection for medical staff.

August 20, 2011 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | 1 Comment

Zionists and the Palestine Narrative

By Mohammed Bsiso | Palestine Chronicle | August 19, 2011

History is a very powerful political tool that if wielded correctly can produce far-reaching results. Unfortunately, Zionists and their supporters in the West have long consolidated their control on the historical narrative of ancient and modern Palestine; effectively manipulating and channeling information through institutions of scholarship and the mass media. No era in history has been construed to demonize Palestinians and Arabs more than the story of the Children of Israel’s mortal enemy; the ancient Philistines. According to traditional Muslim, Christian, and Jewish beliefs, these ruthless and barbaric peoples inhabiting Palestine were the enemies of God and his divine plan for the holy land.

Decades before and after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the invasion of Palestine, Zionist Jews and Christians constantly reference the biblical Philistines and their supposed ancestral ties to the Palestinians of today. This propaganda tool has served well in reaching out to the Christian masses and justifying the actions of occupiers which normally would be deemed unjustifiable. These same so-called ties have infiltrated Palestinian psyches and have even served as a false source of pride. It is common to hear a Palestinian proclaim that they are the descendents of the ruthless and barbaric peoples that once occupied Palestine and cast fear into the hearts of the Hebrews at the time. This misguided and ill-informed sense of honor is rooted in the successful brainwash of a people occupied and humiliated for decades; ultimately accepting a distorted and altered historical narrative at their own reputational expense. In a sense, the Palestinians of today have been passed down the torch of infamy once carried by the Philistines of yesterday; at least in the eyes of the Western world.

So if this historical narrative is untrue and completely unfounded then the question remains; who are the Philistines and where did they come from? And are they really the defeated and accursed forefathers of the Arab Palestinians of today? Upon considerable research and inquiry into the history of this subject (much of which has been done by Western and Israeli scholars) and the most recent archaeological evidence excavated from historical sites, it becomes clear that these peoples were not in any way related to the Canaanites who are the historical ancestors of the Arabs in the Levant. In fact, the Philistines were not even native to the area. These invading “sea peoples” as they were called originated in the Aegean region (modern day Greece) and were ethnically and in some aspects culturally Mycenaean. As they invaded and eventually settled into Arab lands they adopted much of Canaanite culture and customs after having driven out many of them from their homes.

To simplify this ancient scenario, we can summarize it in the following terms. Powerful sea faring European forces expanded their empire into Canaanite (ancient Arab) territory, occupying and expelling its original inhabitants and causing regional instability. Sound familiar to anyone? The history of the Philistine invasion and occupation of Arab lands might as well be the same narrative of the modern history of Palestine under British colonialism with the mere shuffling of names and players. Would any rational Palestinian today proclaim proudly that they are the descendants of the British? I strongly doubt it and the same should be said about the Philistines.

It is important that Palestinians and all dignified supporters of justice around the world take back the historical narrative of this blessed land and its natural inhabitants. This can only happen if we remove ourselves from the vicious mental occupation of Zionism. … True history will uphold the side of justice and has no need of alterations and disfigurement in order to justify a claim or grievance. More importantly, we must understand that politics and history are interconnected which means a failure in one field is a failure in both. Again, we must free ourselves from the Zionist narrative and take back our history!

– Mohammed Bsiso has a Masters Degree in History from The University of Texas at Dallas. He is a freelance writer originally from the Gaza Strip. Visit his blog: www.islamicnewsandhistory.blogspot.com.

August 20, 2011 Posted by | Deception | Leave a comment

Palestinian youth in Gaza skeptical about PA’s UN bid

By Mohammed Rabah Suliman – The Electronic Intifada, Gaza Strip – 19 August 2011

Along with several other bloggers and activists in the Gaza Strip, I was recently invited to take part in a short video about young Palestinians’ reaction to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) bid to have the United Nations admit a Palestinian “state” as a full member of the international body this September.

As each participant was being assigned a role in the video, an argument erupted among the four of us over who should speak in favor of the Palestinian Authority’s move. We discovered, to the producer’s amazement, we were all flatly against it.

This might have just been a coincidence. Only a few days earlier, however, I woke up to my new wild ringtone. As I answered my phone, I was asked by a journalist from Germany’s Deutsche Welle television to give an interview on the same issue. As I arrived at the arranged meeting place, another blogger was already giving her answers to the interviewer. She was unequivocally critical of the PA’s “disastrous history” and its “unending series of flops.” She argued that UN recognition of a Palestinian state would be just one more chapter in that sad history.

Of course it is hard to generalize from two incidents but they do offer some insight that a large segment of Palestinians believe they have been entirely and overtly marginalized by the PA’s unconcealed monopoly of Palestinian political decision-making.

Still, this does not mean that the PA’s move does not have any support in Gaza — there are Palestinians who support the PA and they are numerous.

Critics of the PA’s UN bid would say that none of these supporters is truly able to appreciate that their unrealized dreams of living in a long-awaited free and independent Palestinian state are not being advanced by the PA’s little-debated UN move. Some Palestinians may be convinced by the rhetoric of PA officials and believe that potential UN admission is a highly symbolic move and a step forward on the road toward independence. But some younger observers in Gaza are much more skeptical.

Fed up with ignored UN votes

Fidaa Abu Assi, a 22-year-old blogger and English literature graduate in Gaza, believes there is nothing symbolic in going to the UN and securing recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines. She is “fed up” with the unimplemented UN resolutions and symbolic moves taken by the PA on her behalf.

“Some Palestinians would rejoice at the thought of finally having a recognized Palestinian state,” she argues in a blog post. “In essence, however, the whole initiative seems pointless, or rather, insidiously dangerous.” Bewildered, she asks, “How could they [the UN] recognize a state that doesn’t even exist? And, wait, hadn’t the PLO already proclaimed a Palestinian state in 1988 on the basis of UN General Assembly Resolution 181?” (“‘No’ to UN Recognition, ‘Yes’ to US Veto,” 22 July 2011).

Abu Assi’s view reflects the sentiments of a generation that does not seek more UN resolutions and international declarations. Not even a declaration of a state. A state itself is rather what we desire. A state that we can touch, see and live in. We long for the reunification of the more than 11 million Palestinians living in the world. We want to see facts on the ground and tangible results. We crave for the land which has been relentlessly ripped apart in flagrant violation of dozens of resolutions already passed — and then promptly ignored — by the very same UN to which the PA now turns.

“We would forget, wouldn’t we?”

In an open letter to a refugee living in the Palestinian diaspora, Sameeha Elwan, a 23-year-old blogger and English teaching assistant at the Islamic University of Gaza, pours out her scorn on the PA, and any declaration of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders that excludes the right of Palestinian refugees to return (“To My Dear Stateless Palestinian,” 6 August 2011).

“My mother would no longer be a refugee,” Elwan writes. “She would have to give up every dream of going back to Aqer [a large Palestinian village nine kilometers to the south east of Ramla in present-day Israel]. My grandmother would stop telling us of her tales of the lost village near Gaza from which they fled in 1948. She would forget this history. It is no longer hers. She would have to stop telling the story every now and then. She’d eventually die; we would eventually forget, wouldn’t we?”

Some bloggers have displayed a deep understanding of the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and of its implications for the future of the Palestinians not only in Gaza and the West Bank, but also those living inside Israel.

One state: the only real solution

Rana Baker, a 19-year-old blogger and student of business administration also at the Islamic University of Gaza, argues that to be able to comprehend the risk of the UN declaration of a Palestinian state, this issue should be placed in its rightful context: the debate over a two-state solution. “In fact, the Palestinian street is divided into two: those who are for one state and those for the UN September recognition of two states,” Baker writes, adding “I’m for one state” (“I Turn On the Fan and Sit to Write,” 8 August 2011).

Baker too warns that the PA “statehood” bid may be most threatening to Palestinians in the diaspora. “What about more than 5 million Palestinian refugees who dream to return to their lands?” she asks, “The Palestinian Authority does not have the right to take decisions on their behalf. If they were given the right to vote, they would have voted against this bid. This is definite.”

Behind these criticisms lie doubts that many Palestinians have about the upcoming move to declare a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines. Some tend to question the functionality of a state in the besieged Gaza Strip and the heavily colonized West Bank, a state totally dependent on foreign aid.

Others reasonably cast doubt on the credibility of the UN to secure the viability of this state, if recognized, and safeguard it against Israel’s expansionist policy. Some call it a blatant concession that terminates the right of return of Palestinian refugees all over the world. And some view it as yet one more act of treason by the PA — a move that would involve turning our backs on the 1.5 million Palestinians living in dire conditions and facing constant discrimination inside the apartheid State of Israel.

As varied as the reasons might be to oppose the PA bid, they all stem from a firm belief that universal rights, real liberation and return, not “statehood” at any price, must be at the heart of our demands and struggle. Any solution must fully restore the rights of all segments of the Palestinian people — those living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, those inside Israel, and the refugees waiting to return.

And its also clear that increasingly, many young Palestinians believe that these rights can only be achieved in a one-state solution that puts an end to Israeli apartheid and guarantees equality and justice for all.

Mohammed Rabah Suliman is a 21 year old Palestinian student and blogger from Gaza. Mohammed is an English literature graduate and will undertake graduate studies at the London School of Economics this September. He blogs at Gaza Diaries of Peace and War, and can be followed on Twitter @imPalestine.

August 20, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | 1 Comment

Fake flexibility from London’s Israel lobby

By David Cronin – The Electronic Intifada – 08/19/2011

Predictably, the European Union responded quickly to yesterday’s violence in Southern Israel. “I condemn unreservedly all such acts of terror,” the bloc’s foreign policy chief Catherine Asthon said.

Will Ashton be issuing another statement today to denounce the Israeli military in similarly strong terms for murdering an infant in Gaza a few hours later? Or for ending a teenager’s life in the early hours of this morning? I’m sure that she won’t. The most we can expect is that she will call for “restraint” (that weasel word which diplomats have rendered meaningless through overuse).

And did she post something on her website expressing revulsion at how Israeli troops shot dead Sa’d al-Majdalwai, a 17 year old with a mental disability, also in Gaza earlier this week? Of course, she didn’t. Why? Because he was too low down in the hierarchy of victims to get noticed. And because the European Union applies different standards to the Israeli forces of occupation and the Palestinians who resist them. Violence by Israel is “regrettable” (or, in most cases, elicits no comment); violence by Palestinians is always categorized as “terrorism”.

A phony plea for understanding

Ashton may try to appear balanced — she has repeatedly criticized the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank — but, in reality, there is little to distinguish her from former colleagues in the British parliament such as Lorna Fitzsimons. Who, you might ask? Fitzsimons was an elected representative of the Tony Blair-led Labor Party in Westminster between 1997 and 2005. After losing her seat, she took up a job running a propaganda outfit called the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM).

Fitzsimons had an opinion piece published by The Guardian in London this week, in which she sought to come across all reasonable. Purporting to be a big fan of mutual understanding, she patted her own back for organizing a “roundtable discussion” recently, where representatives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and the Palestinian party Fatah chatted amiably. She proceeded to illustrate how she has no interest in understanding the concerns of Palestinians by insisting “there cannot be a mass return of Palestinian refugees to [present-day] Israel.”

War criminal in London

BICOM’s team includes a “senior visiting fellow” named Michael Herzog. He is a retired brigadier-general from the Israeli army. During Operation Cast Lead, that relentless three-week assault on Gaza’s civilians in late 2008 and early 2009, Herzog was chief of staff to Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister. As he was involved in planning that operation and advising on strategy, Herzog must be held accountable for the war crimes committed in its execution. Next time he pops into BICOM’s London offices for a cup of tea and some blue-sky thinking, the police should be alerted and be ready to arrest him.

Herzog has at least done one good thing: he has proven that BICOM’s declared belief that Israel should display “considerable flexibility” (as Fitzsimons wrote in her Guardian article) amounts to waffle. In a new briefing paper for the center, Herzog contends that any future Palestinian state would have to be non-militarized but that Israel would maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River.

So while the Palestinians could have nothing more destructive in their arsenal than pea-shooters, the West Bank would remain surrounded by one of the world’s most powerful armies. That, it appears, is what the Israel lobby means by flexibility.

August 19, 2011 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Israeli air raids damage government buildings in Gaza

Palestine Information Center – 19/08/2011

GAZA — Israeli air raids on Friday morning resulted in widespread destruction and damage to many government buildings in Gaza City. The airstrikes caused damage to the general employment office, the ministry of justice and the government information office, according to a government statement.

The government’s information office called on journalists to document the Israeli occupation crimes against Gaza and the Palestinian people.

Meanwhile, the general employment office said it will not be able to provide services to the public for now because of the severe damage the airstrikes caused to its building.

Israeli aircraft carried out ten airstrikes on Friday morning against various targets in Gaza. The airstrikes resulted in the killing of a Palestinian child and wounding of 18 people.

August 19, 2011 Posted by | War Crimes | Leave a comment

15 Palestinians killed and 40 wounded in 24 hours

Palestine Information Center – 19/08/2011

GAZA — The number of victims in the Gaza Strip in the latest Israeli occupation aggression rose to 15 martyrs and 40 wounded over the past 24 hours, the latest of whom were three victims killed while riding a motorcycle in the centre of Gaza City.

Palestinian sources said that Israeli aircraft fired at least one rocket at a motorcycle travelling on Road 30 in the centre of Gaza City ridden by more than one person including a child resulting in the death of three Palestinians.

Adham Abu Selmeyyah, spokesman of the emergency services in Gaza, said that three Palestinians including a two-year-old child died and a number of wounded people, including a woman were brought to hospital.

The victims were Dr. Monther Qureqe and his brother Mu’taz who is a commander affiliated with the Quds Brigades, the armed wing of the Islamic Jihad and his two-year-old son who were riding a motorcycle to hospital to seek treatment for the child.

Abu Selemeyyah said that Anwar Salim and Imad Abu Abdeh after an occupation aircraft targeted the motorcycle they were riding at the southern entrance to the Buraij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. Both of them are affiliated with the Quds Brigades.

PIC correspondent said that occupation aircraft Friday evening fired one rocket towards a group of residents in Abasan al-Jadida to the east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, but no casualties were reported.

Occupation aircraft also targeted a motorcycle in the Sheikh Zayed neighbourhood in the northern Gaza Strip killing Samed Abed, who is affiliated with the Salahuddin Brigades.

Earlier the PIC correspondent reported that occupation aircraft targeted a group of people at a stone cutting factory near the Wafa hospital to the east of Gaza City wounding two people one of theme a 15-year-old child.

Muhammad Enaya (22 years) was killed and another person was wounded in a separate airstrike targeting a group of people in east Gaza City.

Two others, including a pregnant woman, were wounded in a separate airstrike.

This is in addition to the victims of the airstrikes that took place on Thursday evening.

August 19, 2011 Posted by | Aletho News | Leave a comment

8 dead, dozens injured in south Israel attacks

Ma’an – 19/08/2011

TEL AVIV, Israel — At least eight Israeli citizens have been killed and dozens injured in two shooting attacks on buses near the city of Eilat, officials said Thursday.

Three militants armed with Kalashnikovs opened fire on a bus traveling from Beersheba to Eilat causing multiple injuries, Israel’s Channel 10 television reported.

Reports suggest that armed men opened fire from a car following the bus, which was traveling about 30 kilometers north of Eilat near Netafim in Israel’s south.

The Israeli army said five soldiers were among a total of nine people injured.

“This morning’s incident, near the southern Israeli city of Netafim, left four soldiers moderately injured and one soldier lightly injured,” a statement from the military said.

“Several people were injured as a result of an explosive device, detonated on an IDF force that arrived at the scene and drove over it,” the statement said.

Later, the military identified one of the soldiers as Moshe Naftali, 22, from Ofra.

“Naftali was killed as a result of a terrorist attack on his force while en-route to assist a civilian bus that was fired upon by terrorists,” the army said in a statement.

“Crossfire ensued between the force and the cell of terrorists.”

Assailants also attacked a second bus and a car soon after, an Al-Arabiya correspondent reported. Five people were killed, including one in the first bus attack, the correspondent said.

Israeli security officials said at least eight people were killed in all the attacks.

In a third incident, mortars were reportedly fired at Israeli forces near the southern border causing injuries, although initial reports were ambiguous about the origin of the artillery.

The Hebrew-language daily Yedioth Ahronoth, quoting foreign sources, reported that Jordan had delivered a warning based on intelligence that such an attack was likely.

An Egyptian official, meanwhile, denied that the attack originated in the Sinai.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak said that “this terror attack originated from Gaza. We will exhaust all measures against the terrorists,” Israel’s Ynet news site reported.

Senior Hamas official Salah Bardawil rejected Barak’s accusations and warned that Israel was preparing to attack Gaza during Ramadan, adding that resistance would be swift if this occurred.

In an interview with Ma’an radio, Bardawil accused Israel of blaming Hamas and Gaza groups in order to deflect attention from its domestic economic crisis and security failures.

Security forces are still investigating the nature of the incidents and latest reports from Israeli radio suggest three of the attackers have been killed by Israeli forces, with the clashes now over.

A search is currently underway in Eilat to locate other suspects in the attack, as the police presence across Israel intensifies.

Twenty-five people have been taken to Eilat hospital, Arabic media reported, and emergency services were immediately deployed to the scene of the attacks.

The identity of the attackers is unknown.

August 19, 2011 Posted by | Aletho News | 1 Comment

Pentagon Chit-Chat With Leon and Hillary

Panetta and the Defense Budget

By WINSLOW T. WHEELER | CounterPunch | August 19, 2011

The invitation came to me from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s public affairs office to attend a “conversation” with Panetta and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at the prestigious National Defense University in Washington. Although I knew it wasn’t me they wanted to talk to, I sat in the audience to hear Panetta and Clinton in action, especially on the subject of my prime interest: the defense budget.

The “conversation,” it turns out, was with Frank Sesno, the former CNN personality and currently director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs. Sesno took the “conversation” assignment seriously; although he boldly said that it was important to “ask the tough questions” – just like a journalist – he did no such thing. Lofting over shallow dinner-talk queries, Sesno chummed it up with Panetta and Clinton and permitted them to say anything they wanted without fear of challenge.

Clinton tended toward impromptu speeches on whatever she was asked about; well articulated and forceful, much like she did as a senator at hearings where, rather than conduct oversight asking informed questions and following up, she would express her political points and neither seek nor reveal any new or deeper information.

Panetta was more subtle and single-minded. Although he comes from the same political background – White House insider and Congress – his answers were shorter and more softly stated, but they were directed at one and only one objective: defending the Pentagon’s budget.

Sesno started the “discussion” asking about budget cuts beyond the $350 billion the Pentagon has already committed to over the next 10 years, saying “What’s really at stake?” Panetta whacked the softball question hard: “Very simply, it would result in hollowing out the force,” and, “It would break faith with the troops and with their families,” and, finally, “It would literally undercut our ability to provide for the national defense.”

The bureaucratic moguls at the Pentagon, who currently preside over the largest defense or non-defense agency budget since the end of World War II, must have been delighted. After four years of sometime tough-guy Robert Gates, who fired senior officials for not toeing his line, DoD’s high spenders must be elated to have at the top someone who has leaped so quickly and with such eagerness to defending their agenda.

The $850 billion cut that Sesno was referring to does sound like a lot – if you are ignorant about the background and budget history. He offered no pushback and did nothing to probe Panetta’s budget preserving agenda, to question Panetta’s assumptions, and or even seek the data behind them.

Things didn’t get any better when Sesno allowed the audience a grand total of one question on DoD budget issues. The individual Sesno selected asked about funding for foreign language training. Panetta dutifully said it was important and that he wanted to look for “creative ways” to protect it. Clinton gave a speech about it, and the remaining 99.9 percent of the national security budget went unaddressed.

Instead of this feather-stroking chitchat, consider the following:

If the Pentagon’s “base” (non-war) budget were to be cut $850 billion, or so, over ten years, it would go down to about $472 billion annually, the approximate level of the base DOD budget in 2007. (This, not coincidentally, is about the same level of a new round of defense budget cutting hysteria circulating in Washington in response to a just released memo from OMB Director Jack Lew.)

Using the Pentagon’s “constant” dollars that adjust for the effects of inflation, that $472 billion level would be more than $70 billion higher than DOD spending was in 2000, just before the wars. Over ten years, base Defense Department spending would be almost three quarters of a trillion dollars above the levels extant in 2000. And, none of the additional monies to be spent on the wars would be eliminated.

At $472 billion per year, the Pentagon budget would be almost $40 billion more than we averaged, in inflation-adjusted “constant” dollars, during the Cold War when we faced an intimidating super-power, the Soviet Union, its Warsaw Pact allies and a hostile, dogmatically communist China.

At the 2007, 472 billion, level, our defense budget would remain more than twice the defense spending of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Cuba and any other potential adversary – combined.

The problem is not money. Under this so-called worst case scenario, the Pentagon would be left quite flush with money, plenty of it in historical terms.

The problem is that the Pentagon, as it exists under its current leadership, is incapable of surviving with less money. They quite literally do not understand how to face a future where the DoD budget exceeds any and all potential enemies by a multiple of only two.

Many – including Obama’s bipartisan 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a task force put together by congressmen Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), yet another commission headed by former budget leaders Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and OMB Director Alice Rivlin, and two alternative budget proposals from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) – have itemized how to save about $900 billion from the national defense budget. The political landscape is littered with competent recommendations to remove many of the thick layers of hydrogenated fat from the Pentagon.

These proposals hit on many of the same soft spots in the DoD budget, such as the unaffordable, under-performing, years behind schedule F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The implied consensus on such ideas and on the approximate amount (roughly $900 billion) suggest that the slightly lesser $850 billion in Pentagon savings is not “doomsday” (Panetta’s word) but quite endurable-and would actually leave DoD quite flush with cash.

But, it is unthinkable to Secretary Panetta, as it is to those who perform the enabling chitchat.

Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project and editor of “The Pentagon Labyrinth: 10 Short Essays to Help You Through It.“

August 19, 2011 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | Leave a comment

13 year old boy old dead and 18 injured in Gaza

19 August 2011 | International Solidarity Movement, Gaza

Israel’s price tag campaign is not waged only by the settlers in the West Bank; it is also waged against the people of Gaza.  It isn’t exactly clear what the Gaza Strip is paying the price for. In contrast to Israeli propaganda, people are killed in Gaza all the time.  This has been a bloody week.  An 18 year old mentally disabled man was shot to death on Tuesday, another young man was shot in the leg on Tuesday.  Perhaps the price must be paid simply for existing.

Overnight Israeli warplanes pounded Gaza.  Nine people have been murdered in Gaza since yesterday. 13-year-old Mahmoud Abu Samra was one of the killed, he and 18 others were injured in one bombing attack in Gaza.  The Abu Samra family lives near the former intelligence services headquarters in Gaza City.  Their house was destroyed by an Israeli bomb last night at 12:30 A.M.  Their house was completely destroyed, one of their neighbors houses was also destroyed, one more, heavily damaged.  Thirteen people from three families live in these houses.  All of these families are refugees, expelled from their homes in 1948, and now, in a repeat of history, once again their houses are destroyed.  When we arrived family members were picking through the rubble, trying to salvage what could be salvaged.

The Abu Samra house was completely destroyed.  All that is left standing is a bathroom with the door torn off, a sink, and a broken mirror in it.  Mahmoud is dead, the latest causality in the Israeli assault on Gaza.  Neighbors and relatives pick through the remains.  A shattered computer monitor sits on a pile of rubble.  Israel bans the import of concrete into Gaza, so the house will probably live on in another house after the rubble is recycled.  Mahmoud is dead, he was buried today.

Next to the Abu Samra house is the Al Helal Sporting club.  It is one of the few places for young men to hang out in the neighborhood.  When the bomb hit it was packed with young men trying to escape the heat, entertaining themselves playing football and watching TV.  Many of the injured were young people from the neighborhood at the club.

We spoke to Seham Awad, a forty five year old mother of two.  She and her nephew were picking through the rubble.  Thankfully, her son is away at university studying, her daughter is married and no longer lives with her.  Her ex-husband is in an Israeli prison, seven years into a twelve year sentence.  She is unemployed and lives on charity and help from her neighbors.  She is a resourceful woman though, her backyard, maybe 25 square  meters, has been turned into a garden.  It is overhung by a shattered trellis for passion fruit vines.  She grows vegetables on the rest of her land, in old tires that have been turned into planters, on every square meter of land vegetables grow.  Her house is small, only two rooms, now both destroyed.

Her house was also destroyed during Cast Lead, she received no help rebuilding, only some mattresses and household supplies.  She lives without windows; only sheets cover the holes in the walls that would be windows.  Perhaps, this was lucky last night, there was no shattered glass to cut her.  After the attack, she slept in the garden, on mattresses placed in the back corner.  She is undefeated, after her house was destroyed in Cast Lead she rebuilt as best she could, concrete blocks, an asbestos and tin roof, and no windows.  She expected that her house would be destroyed again, she was right.  As she said, “I expect little from life, I planted this tree, now it is big, it provides shade, that is enough.”  When asked what she would do now, where she would go, she said, “I will stay here, I will rebuild again as best I can, where else can I go?”

Her neighbors, the Abbas family was not so lucky.  Their father, Abu Akmed was injured in the bombing.  This family too is picking through the rubble, praying for their father.  Their home, heavily damaged was all that they had.  In the back a horse still lives in a small shed.  Abu Ahmed, like most men in Gaza, had no job–they’re just simple refugees trying to rebuild their lives.  Nine people crammed into a small concrete block house, now, mostly destroyed.  Out their front door you can see the old security headquarters in Gaza, heavily bombed during Cast Lead and now abandoned.

Behind the Abbas family lives Hajjer Abu Duwani.  She is a fifty five year old mother of twelve.  She is a small woman; she looks older than her years.  She doesn’t really have a house, just two tin sheds that she lives in.  A chicken coop takes up one end of her land; on the rest of it she tries to grow vegetables.  She has no job; she depends on the help of her children to live.  Shrapnel from the bombing hit her.  She has an ugly hand sized bruise on her leg, another bruise on her arm, and her head was cut with shrapnel.  She is happy, at least she is alive, Mahmoud, her thirteen year old neighbor is dead, the houses of her other neighbors destroyed.

August 19, 2011 Posted by | Aletho News, Illegal Occupation, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »