Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Rebranding Iraq

By Ramzy Baroud | Palestine Chronicle | August 26, 2010

The soldiers of the US 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division hollered as they made their way into Kuwait. ‘We won,’ they claimed. ‘It’s over.’

But what exactly did they win?

And is the war really over?

It seems we are once again walking into the same trap, the same nonsensical assumptions of wars won, missions accomplished, troops withdrawn, and jolly soldiers carrying cardboard signs of heart-warming messages like “Lindsay & Austin … Dad’s coming home.”

While much of the media is focused on the logistics of the misleading withdrawal of the “last combat brigade” from Iraq on August 19 – some accentuating the fact that the withdrawal is happening two weeks ahead of the August 31 deadline – most of us are guilty of forgetting Iraq and its people. When the economy began to take center stage, we completely dropped the war off our list of grievances.

But this is not about memory, or a way of honoring the dead and feeling compassion for the living. Forgetting wars leads to a complete polarization of discourses, thus allowing the crafters of war to sell the public whatever suits their interests and stratagems.

In an August 22 Washington Post article entitled “Five myths about the Iraq troop withdrawal”, Kenneth M Pollack unravels the first “myth”: “As of this month, the United States no longer has combat troops in Iran.” Pollack claims this idea is “not even close” because “roughly 50,000 American military personnel remain in Iraq, and the majority are still combat troops – they’re just named something else. The major units still in Iraq will no longer be called “brigade combat teams” and instead will be called “advisory and assistance brigades”. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the differences in brigade structure and personnel are minimal.

So what if the US army downgrades its military presence in Iraq and re-labels over 50,000 remaining soldiers? Will the US military now stop chasing after perceived terrorist threats? Will it concede an inch of its unchallenged control over Iraqi skies? Will it relinquish power over the country’s self-serving political elite? Will it give up its influence over every relevant aspect of life in the country, from the now autonomous Kurdish region in the north all the way to the border with Kuwait in the south, which the jubilant soldiers crossed while hollering the shrieks of victory?

The Iraq war has been one of the most well-controlled wars the US has ever fought, in terms of its language and discourse. Even those opposed to the war tend to be misguided as to their reasons: “Iraqis need to take charge of their own country”; “Iraq is a sectarian society and America cannot rectify that”; “It is not possible to create a Western-style democracy in Iraq”; “It’s a good thing Saddam Hussein was taken down, but the US should have left straight after”. These ideas might be described as “anti-war”, but they are all based on fallacious assumptions that were fed to us by the same recycled official and media rhetoric.

It’s no wonder that the so-called anti-war movement waned significantly after the election of President Barack Obama. The new president merely shifted military priorities from Iraq to Afghanistan. His government is now re-branding the Iraq war, although maintaining the interventionist spirit behind it. It makes perfect sense that the US State Department is now the one in charge of the future mission in Iraq. The occupation of Iraq, while it promises much violence and blood, is now a political scheme. It requires good public relations.

The State Department will now supervise future violence in Iraq, which is likely to increase in coming months due to the ongoing political standoff and heightened sectarian divisions. An attack blamed on al-Qaeda in an Iraqi army recruitment center on August 17 claimed 61 lives and wounded many. “Iraqi officials say July saw the deaths of more than 500 people, including 396 civilians, making it the deadliest month for more than two years,” reported Robert Tait in Radio Free Europe.

Since the March elections, Iraq has had no government. The political rift in the country, even among the ruling Shi’ite groups, is large and widening. The disaffected Sunnis have been humiliated and collectively abused because of the misguided claim that they were favored by Saddam. Hate is brewing and the country’s internal affairs are being handled jointly by some of the most corrupt politicians the world has ever known.

Washington understands that it needs to deliver on some of Obama’s many campaign promises before the November elections. Thus the re-branding campaign, which could hide the fact that the US has no real intention of removing itself from the Iraq’s military or political milieus. But since the current number of military personnel might not be enough to handle the deepening security chaos in the country, the new caretakers at the State Department are playing with numbers.

“State Department spokesman P J Crowley said [a] plan would bring to some 7,000 the total security contractors employed by the government in Iraq, where since the 2003 US invasion private security firms have often been accused of acting above the law,” according to Reuters.

It’s important that we understand the number game is just a game. Many colonial powers in the past controlled their colonies through the use of local forces and minimal direct involvement. Those of us opposed the Iraq war should do so based on the guiding principle that foreign invasions, occupations and interventions in sovereign countries’ affairs are a direct violation of international law. It is precisely the interventionist mindset that must be confronted, challenged, and rejected.

While it is a good thing that that thousands of American dads are now coming home, we must also remember that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi moms and dads never did. Millions of refugees from the US-led invasion are still circling the country and the Middle East.

War is not about numbers and dates. It’s about people, their rights, their freedom and their future. Re-branding the army and the war will provide none of this for grief-stricken and vulnerable Iraqis.

The fact is, no one has won this war. And the occupation is anything but over.

August 27, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | Leave a comment

Top ten reasons for skepticism on Israeli-Palestinian talks

By Josh Ruebner on August 26, 2010

On August 20, the Obama Administration announced that it will reconvene under its auspices direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations beginning on September 2.

While a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace is in everyone’s interest, there are profound reasons to be skeptical about the likelihood of success for the following reasons (not necessarily listed in order of importance):

1. No more photo-ops, please. There is a desperate need for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. Negotiations can be a key to that. But the last thing Palestinians and Israelis need are phony negotiations. They only breed disillusionment, resentment, and cynicism about the possibility of Israeli-Palestinian peace based on human rights and justice. So rather than enter into negotiations for the sake of negotiations, the Obama Administration should exert real political pressure on Israel by cutting off military aid to once and for all get it to commit to dismantling its regime of occupation and apartheid against Palestinians, and make clear that the framework for all negotiations will be based on international law, human rights, and UN resolutions. As long as it fails to do so, U.S. civil society must keep up the pressure through campaigns of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) to change these dynamics and by joining up with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

2. The United States is not evenhanded. For decades, the United States has arrogated the role of convening Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. To convince the world that it is suitable to play this role, the United States declares that it is evenhanded, when it in fact arms Israel to the teeth and is aware that Israel will employ these U.S. weapons to conduct its human rights abuses of and apartheid policies toward Palestinians. Under international law, an outside party that provides weapons to a party in an armed conflict violates laws of neutrality. The United States is scheduled to provide Israel with $30 billion in weapons from 2009-2018 (part and parcel of a broader strategy to further militarize the region with an additional $60 billion in weapons sales to Gulf States). The United States cannot credibly broker Israeli-Palestinian peace while bankrolling Israel’s military machine and simultaneously ignoring Israel’s human rights violations.

3. Israeli colonization of Palestinian land continues. In one of its most abject policy failures, the Obama Administration has contented itself with resuming direct negotiations without securing an Israeli freeze on the colonization of Palestinian land, despite spending an initial nine months trying to do so. Israeli colonization of Palestinian land, including the expansion of settlements, the eviction of Palestinians from their homes, the building of the Apartheid Wall, continues apace. Previous failed rounds of negotiations have demonstrated that Israel utilizes negotiations as a fig leaf to actually increase its pace of colonization of Palestinian land, and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to do so. Meanwhile, Israel’s ongoing colonization of Palestinian land creates difficult-to-reverse “facts on the ground” that only make a two-state solution–purportedly the end game of the negotiations–less achievable.

4. Negotiations supersede accountability. The Obama Administration, building on decades of previous U.S. efforts to shield Israel from accountability, has worked actively to scuttle international attempts to hold Israel accountable for its previous violations of international law and human rights, and its commission of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. Both after the Goldstone Report and Israel’s attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the United States used its leverage at the United Nations to prevent Israel from being held accountable, arguing that accountability undermines prospects for peace negotiations. On the contrary, for peace negotiations to be successful, Israel must be held accountable for its actions and shown that it will pay a price for its illegal policies. Otherwise, it has no reason to alter its behavior.

5. No terms of reference. In his August 20 press briefing, Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell confirmed that the United States is not insisting on any guiding principles for the negotiations, or “terms of references” in diplomatic parlance, and that these terms will be worked out by the parties themselves. In other words, Israel will be free to marshal its overwhelming power to refuse to negotiate on the basis of human rights, international law, and UN resolutions, the only viable basis for a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace. Instead, Israel–backed by the United States–will negotiate based on its own exclusive terms of reference, namely what is in Israel’s “security interests.” As in previous failed rounds of negotiations, Palestinian rights will not enter into the conversation.

6. No timeline. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes that negotiations “could” be concluded within a year. Of course, successful Israeli-Palestinian negotiations could be wrapped up within in a year. In contrast to “peace process industry” pundits, there is nothing intrinsically complex or complicated about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel were to negotiate in good faith by declaring an end to its policies of occupation and apartheid against Palestinians. After all, South Africa concluded negotiations to end apartheid within a few months once the decision had been made to transition to democracy. However, Israel has given no indication whatsoever that it is prepared to alter its policies toward Palestinians, setting the stage for prolonged and fruitless negotiations.

7. Can a leopard change its spots? A recently-leaked video from 2001 shows current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrogantly bragging that “I actually stopped the Oslo Accord [shorthand for the failed 1993-2000 Israeli-Palestinian “peace process’].” (The Institute for Middle East Understanding has provided a useful translation and transcript of the video here.) His current Foreign Minister, Avigdor Leiberman, lives in an illegal Israeli colony built on stolen Palestinian land and has openly declared his support for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. With this negotiating team in place, how can Palestinians expect even a bare modicum of fairness and justice to emerge from these negotiations?

8. Increased U.S. military aid to and cooperation with Israel make it less likely to negotiate in good faith. In July, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro told the Brookings Institution that “I’m proud to say that as a result of this commitment [to Israel’s security], our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper, and more intense than ever before.” Indeed, it is. President Obama has requested record-breaking levels of military aid to Israel, and stepped up joint U.S.-Israeli military projects, such as the missile defense system “Iron Dome.” This increased level of military aid only makes Israel more reliant on military might in its attempt to subdue Palestinians into submission, and less likely to negotiate with them fairly as equals.

9. All the parties are not at the negotiating table. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell, who previously brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland, when discussing its success often referred to the necessity of having all the parties to the conflict around the negotiating table. What held true though for negotiations in Northern Ireland, apparently doesn’t apply to Israel/Palestine since Hamas, which currently governs the Israeli-occupied and -besieged Gaza Strip and legitimately won the 2006 legislative elections held at the behest of the United States, was not invited to participate in the negotiations. If, by some long-shot, an agreement were to emerge from these negotiations, it is difficult to see how it would be implemented without having Hamas as part of the discussions.

10. Negotiations help Israel mitigate its growing international isolation. Last, but certainly not least, images of Israeli and Palestinian political leaders negotiating presents the world with a false sense of normalcy and allows Israel the opportunity to state that it is making a legitimate effort to achieve peace. With Israel as the party pressing for direct negotiations, it is quite transparent that its desire for these talks has more to do with easing its growing international isolation and defusing the energy from the international movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS), rather than with genuinely negotiating a just and lasting peace. This point brings the analysis full circle: advocates for changing U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine to support human rights, international law, and equality should not be lulled into complacency by the resumption of negotiations, but need to keep up the pressure with campaigns of BDS to change the dynamics that will eventually lead to the possibility of a just and lasting peace.

Sign a petition to the Obama Administration, which states that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations must be based on human rights, international law, and UN resolutions to be successful by clicking here.

Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a national coalition of more than 325 organizations working to change U.S. policy to support human rights, international law, and equality.

August 27, 2010 Posted by | Deception | Leave a comment

Peres: “Iran threatens to use nuclear weapons”

Press TV – August 25, 2010

In a gaffe during a meeting aimed at garnering international support for tougher action against Iran, Israeli President Shimon Peres has claimed that Tehran “threatens to use nuclear weapons.”

“Iran jeopardizes Israel and the rest of the world, as it threatens to use nuclear weapons,” Shimon Peres said on Wednesday in a meeting with Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano, Ha’aretz reported.

His comments come while the IAEA has confirmed that Tehran does not possess nuclear weapons and Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said, “Nuclear weapons have no place in our defense paradigm.”

Widely believed to be the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the region, for the past four decades, Israel has constantly refused to reject or confirm its status as a nuclear power under a US-backed policy of “nuclear ambiguity.”

In May 2009, Israel rejected a UN call to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which would require Tel Aviv to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

The White House, however, says that US President Barack Obama has vowed to shield Israel from being “singled out,” over its “nuclear ambiguity” stance.

Under the allegation that Iran is a threat to its existence, Israel has threatened to destroy the country’s nuclear facilities.

Iran, however, as a signatory to the NPT and a member of the IAEA has opened its nuclear facilities to intrusive inspections and round-the-clock supervision by the nuclear watchdog.

The IAEA has repeatedly reported that it has found no evidence of any diversion of nuclear materials from civilian to military applications in Iran.

August 25, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

The Light Rail Racist? Of Course it is

By Joharah Baker for MIFTAH, August 25, 2010

My two kids, especially my son, just love catching a glimpse of the shiny new trains being tested these days in Jerusalem. On our way to Ramallah, if you are “lucky” you can see the trains on a test drive along the main road, moving up to the beginning part of Shufat. In any other country, this would be a wonderful development – a necessary and efficient public service for all. However, this is not any other country, this is Israel and occupied Jerusalem, and my kids’ childlike enthusiasm would be short lived if they understood the racist ramifications of Jerusalem’s light rail.

Other than the usual reasons for the light rail, which includes relieving congestion in the city due to the hours long traffic jams, the political overtones are horrific. The light rail is essentially a service to the illegal settlements in and around Jerusalem, connecting them with the center of Jerusalem and with each other. It is a service for Israeli Jews who would rather skip the morning traffic jams and hop on the light rail to work every day. It is for the young Israeli teenager who wants to make a quick trip to the mall before sundown and it is for the 300,000 Jewish settlers living on occupied Palestinian land to feel they are part and parcel of Israel’s unified and eternal capital. Additionally, it is for Israel’s leaders who want to consolidate Israeli rule over Jerusalem as quickly and as permanently as possible. The train serves the same purpose as the separation wall or the checkpoints. It excludes Palestinians and encircles the city in a hermetically sealed Jewish envelope.

The light rail’s route, however, will have three stops in Shufut, a Palestinian suburb of Jerusalem. Shufat is across from the settlement of Pisgat Zeev and is right down the road from French Hill, so it is no surprise the train would stop there. And it is no surprise that west Jerusalem Municipality officials would market this as proof that the light rail is for all of Jerusalem’s residents, Palestinians and Israelis alike.

What is surprising is how far they take their little charade. It was almost funny to read an article published in Haaretz a few days ago about how municipality officials got their feathers all ruffled over a poll carried out by the CityPass Consortium, the company that won the Jerusalem light rail tender, which asked residents if it bothered them that Palestinians would be using the trains. Two of the questions ran like this: “There are three stops in Shuafat; does this bother you?” and “All passengers, Jews and Arabs, can enter the train freely, without undergoing a security check. Does this bother you?”

A municipality official, director general Yair Maayan was livid, calling the questions racist. “We were flabbergasted to see how a private commercial consortium dared to address these subjects; to ask such racist questions and to arouse strife and contention in the city,” Maayan wrote it a letter to CityPass.

Amazing, how all of a sudden, the Jerusalem municipality – or should I say the west Jerusalem municipality – is so concerned with racism in the city? The question, given Israeli perceptions of Palestinians, is legitimate because we all know how Israelis discriminate against the “Arabs.” We also know how the Israeli government has indoctrinated fear and suspicion among Israel’s Jewish population of Palestinians in general, which has partially earned its security justification so much success. Because the Palestinians are so dehumanized, because they are so “inclined to violence,” Israel has been able to justify so-called security measures on just about every level. This has led, I believe, to a collective and stereotypical mistrust and suspicion of Palestinians, something which CityPass obviously felt should be addressed.

But that is not my point. My point is that the light rail is racist in nature given that it will basically serve to connect illegal settlements and further strengthen Israel’s stranglehold on Jerusalem. Palestinians in the Shufat Refugee Camp do not have a stop, neither do those living in Beit Hanina or the villages surrounding Jerusalem. So, for the municipality to be up in arms over a “racist” question is absurd and it is insulting to our intelligence. The light rail is not for all of Jerusalem’s citizens and the fact that a few Palestinians may ride it occasionally is hardly proof of equality.

So why hide intentions? The municipality must feign equality because Israel claims Jerusalem is united for all its residents. We all know this to be another farce as well. The vast discrepancy between east and west Jerusalem is ample proof of Israel’s discriminatory policies. However, on the face of it, there is too much at risk for Israel to have its light rail also slammed as racist. Over the past few years, there has been enough bad publicity surrounding the construction of the rail, with BDS (Boycott and Divestment Movement) pressuring several companies to pull their money out of the project on the grounds of its illegitimacy (it is after all connecting illegal settlements on illegally occupied land). The French company Veolia reportedly pulled out most of its share of the project last year after pressure from boycott and rights groups. The company also reportedly lost an estimated $7 million in contracts because of its involvement in the Light Rail.

But it doesn’t take CityPass, the west Jerusalem municipality or even the route of the light rail train to showcase how racist Israel is towards the Palestinians. All you have to do is read some of the scathing comments under the article in Haaretz. One response with the subject “Arab cab use donkeys!” goes on to read, “After all they are a bunch of donkeys& behave like them as well.”

Another response said, “This shows that the threat of terrorism is endemic. The issue has nothing to do with race. It has to do with protecting innocent riders from being slaughtered.”

It does us Palestinians no honor to ride the train when it is finally up and running. If my kids want to ride it out of curiosity’s sake, I will bite the bullet and hop on for one ride. The last thing I need is to end up in some shady Israeli settlement built on land that is rightfully Palestinian.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

August 25, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Leave a comment

Obama Plays Down Plan for Post-2011 Iraq Troop Presence

Gareth Porter* – IPS – August 23, 2010

WASHINGTON – When the Barack Obama administration unveiled its plan last week for an improvised State Department-controlled army of contractors to replace all U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, critics associated with the U.S. command attacked the transition plan, insisting that the United States must continue to assume that U.S. combat forces should and can remain in Iraq indefinitely.

But the differences between the administration and its critics over the issue of a long-term U.S. presence may be more apparent than real.

All indications are that the administration expects to renegotiate the security agreement with the Iraqi government to allow a post-2011 combat presence of up to 10,000 troops, once a new government is formed in Baghdad.

But Obama, fearing a backlash from anti-war voters in the Democratic Party, who have already become disenchanted with him over Afghanistan, is trying to play down that possibility. Instead, the White House is trying to reassure its anti-war base that the U.S. military role in Iraq is coming to an end.

An unnamed administration official who favours a longer-term presence in Iraq suggested to New York Times correspondent Michael Gordon last week that the administration’s refusal to openly refer to plans for such a U.S. combat force in Iraq beyond 2011 hinges on its concern about the coming Congressional elections and wariness about the continuing Iraqi negotiations on a new government.

Vice-President Joe Biden said in an address prepared for delivery Monday that it would take a “complete failure” of Iraqi security forces to prompt the United States to resume combat.

Obama referred to what he called “a transitional force” in his speech on Aug. 2, pledging that it would remain “until we remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of the next year”.

He also declared an end to the U.S. “combat mission” in Iraq as of Aug. 31. But an official acknowledged to IPS that combat would continue and would not necessarily be confined to defending against attacks on U.S. personnel.

The administration decided on the transition from military to civilian responsibility for security at an interagency meeting the week of Jul. 19. It made the broad outlines of the plan public at an Aug. 16 State Department news briefing and another briefing the following day, even though crucial details had not been worked out.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Middle Eastern Affairs Colin Kahl and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Michael Corbin presented the administration plan for what they called a “transition from a military to civilian relationship” with Iraq.

The plan involves replacing the official U.S. military presence in Iraq with a much smaller State Department-run force of private security contractors. Press reports have indicated that the force will number several thousand, and that it is seeking 29 helicopters, 60 IED-proof personnel carriers and a fleet of 1,320 armored cars.

The contractor force would also operate radars so it can call in airstrikes and fly reconnaissance drones, according to the New York Times Aug. 21.

Kahl argued that the transition is justified by security trends in Iraq. He said al Qaeda is “weaker than it’s ever been”, that Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army has been “largely disbanded”, and that there is no strategic threat to the regime.

That provoked predictable criticism from those whose careers have become linked to the fate of the U.S. military in Iraq and who continue to view the United States as having enormous power to decide the fate of the country.

Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, a frequent visitor to Iraq at the invitation of Gen. David Petraeus and his successor Gen. Ray Odierno, dismissed the idea of giving the former U.S. military role in Iraq to the State Department and Kahl’s assessment of security trends as far too optimistic.

Some officials were talking “as if we’re on the five-yard line,” Pollack told the Christian Science Monitor. “We’re on more like the 40 – and it’s probably our 40.”

Pollack argued that the U.S. has great influence in Iraq, which it must use for “persuading” Iraqi leaders to do various things. If the U.S. troop presence ends in 2011, he argued, U.S. power would suffer.

Other variants of that argument were offered by Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations and Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, both of whom have been frequent guests of the U.S. command in Iraq and have generally hewed to the military view of Iraq policy.

Former ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who shared the media spotlight and adulation of Congress with Petraeus in 2007- 2009 before retiring from the Foreign Service, opined that the military needs to keep enough presence in Iraq to encourage Iraq’s generals to stay out of politics.

The real position of the administration over the issue is not much different from that of its critics, however. In answer to a question after a briefing Aug.17, Kahl said, “We’re not going to abandon them. We’re in this for the long term.”

Then Kahl observed, “Iraq is not going to need tens of thousands of [American] forces.” That is consistent with the figure of 5,000 to 10,000 being called for by the military, according to the administration official quoted in New York Times Aug. 18.

At another point, Kahl said, “We’ll just have to see what the Iraqi government will do,” adding that the “vast majority of political actors in Iraq want a long-term partnership with the United States.”

It is been generally assumed among U.S. officers and diplomats and the Iraqi officials with whom they talk that once a new Iraqi government is agreed on, it will begin talks on a longer-term U.S. troop presence, as former National Security Council official Brett H. McGurk told the New York Times last month.

At a Pentagon press conference Feb. 22, Gen. Odierno, U.S. overall commander in Iraq, referred to the purchase by the Iraqi government of “significant amounts of military material from the United States,” including M1A1 tanks and helicopters.

Odierno said he expected it would require a “small contingent” to “train and advise” the Iraqis. That formula implicitly anticipated a continuation of the U.S. combat presence in the guise of “advisory and assistance” units.

But the administration apparently made it clear to Odierno and others that they were not to contradict the administration’s public posture that U.S. troops were being withdrawn by the end of 2011.

During the interagency meeting that adopted the Obama administration transition plan, Odierno told reporters at a breakfast meeting Jul. 21 he expected U.S. troops to be down to zero by the end of 2011.

Meanwhile, the Nouri al-Maliki government is not admitting publicly that it would consider such an extension of the U.S. troop presence. The spokesman for al-Maliki said Aug. 12 there are alternatives to keeping U.S. troops in the country, such as signing “non-aggression and non- interference pacts” with neighbours.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

August 23, 2010 Posted by | Deception | Leave a comment

Iraq war dissenter Kelly’s postmortem report remains secret

Is British Attorney-General Grieve up to the job?

By Christopher King | 23 August 2010

Dr Kelly allegedly committed suicide when identified as the high-profile within-government dissenter from the Blair government’s lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction immediately prior to the Iraq war. His postmortem files are secret.

Although, when in opposition, Mr Grieve undertook to review the Kelly records, now that he is in government he declines to do so. He insists that Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, should make any decision to release them. He is quoted as saying,

  • It’s right to say that hunches, theories are not enough – there has to be evidence. And if the evidence is available and people feel that they have the evidence, then if they send it to me it will be considered
  • I have no reason to think … and not a shred of evidence to suggest that there has been a cover up. I know that some people have put some theories forward but if you’re going to put a theory forward like that you need some evidence and as matters stand at the moment I haven’t seen.

One can only ask: “Is Mr Grieve up to the job?” This is nonsense and obfuscation of the most puerile sort. The onus is not on conspiracy theorists to produce evidence of a cover up. The onus is on Mr Grieve to justify keeping Dr Kelly’s postmortem records secret, away from a public inquest. We have never heard a valid reason for this.

Mr Grieve has said: “I have been given no evidence to suggest an alternative cause of death.” That is because Mr Grieve will not release the postmortem report for independent examination and establishment of the facts. That is where such evidence will be if it exists.

As for evidence of a cover up, it lies on his desk. A group of doctors has written to him to say that Dr Kelly could not possibly have died from cutting the matchstick-sized ulnar artery given by Lord Hutton as his means of suicide. Perhaps Mr Grieve does not understand that this means that other causes of Dr Kelly’s death should be considered. Conceivably, he has not realized that the doctors have introduced an element of suspicion into Dr Kelly’s death. He shows no curiosity himself about the matter, which begs the question whether he is the man to hold the post of the government’s highest legal officer.

Mr Grieve speaks of theories. Let us consider the theory held by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. A theory that Saddam had such weapons, a nuclear programme and mobile chemical factories was presented as fact to the United Nations by the American secretary of state in the presence of Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, who willingly accepted it.

Britain and the United States devastated Iraq, killed and made millions refugees on the basis of these theories – which were proven false, absolutely groundless, without a shred of truth. It was a war justified by speculation and supposition.

Dominic Grieve himself voted in favour of this murderous, illegal war without examining the baseless theories proposed for it. He clearly had no curiosity about facts at that time and still seems to be disinterested in them.

Dr David Kelly was a man of facts. His death was the result of conflict between facts of which he had personal knowledge as a weapons inspector and the manufactured theories and suppositions, even lies, peddled by Anthony Blair and swallowed whole by members of parliament who were too lazy, stupid or lacking in morality to accept the factual reports from the weapons inspectors, of whom Dr Kelly was one. His death is an integral part of this war of deceit and the facts about it need to be made known. The doctors who have requested sight of Dr Kelly’s postmortem papers are showing the sort of curiosity and spirit of inquiry as to facts that Mr Grieve should have shown before voting for the Iraq war.

Dominic Grieve has learned nothing from the Iraq war. At least Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, voted against it. He made a good speech at that time and an excellent one in favour of a judicial enquiry into the war – which parliament failed to approve. Let us turn our backs on Dominic Grieve in disgust and look to Kenneth Clarke to release these papers. Mr Clarke is one of very few politicians of principle and good sense. We live at a time when such men are desperately needed.

Theorists and conspiracy theorists, such as myself, who wish to know the truth about Dr Kelly’s death are not inventing conspiracy theories. We are investigating the genuine, proven conspiracy of the war that the Blair-Brown government peddled to this country and Europe and inflicted on the Iraqi people.

If Dr Kelly did not commit suicide then he was assassinated. Let us use terms carefully. Assassination is not merely murder. It implies targeted, planned killing by professional murderers. It has always been considered a despicable crime for this reason, although our government now carries it out in Afghanistan in collusion with American practice.

Dominic Grieve’s professed solicitousness for the feelings of Dr Kelly’s family will apparently influence him in dealing with Dr Kelly’s papers. It is unprecedented for family feelings to influence an investigation involving suspicion of foul play. That suspicion now exists. I can only say that if a member of my family were to die in suspicious circumstances I would move heaven and earth to determine the truth. Who would not? Mr Grieve’s mock solicitousness is contemptible.

The truth is surely that Mr Grieve recognizes the position and does not like it. The Kelly files are clearly a hot potato and he does not want the responsibility of dealing with them. His nonsensical response and reluctance to release them, when he could easily do so and put an end to speculation, increases the probability that there is something to hide.

August 23, 2010 Posted by | Deception | Leave a comment

Israeli Soldiers Sell Gaza Flotilla Passengers’ Computers and Steal Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars in Cash

Israeli Government Refuses to Secure Criminal Evidence

Despite appeals from 750 passengers on the Gaza flotilla to their governments to pressure the Israeli government to protect and return their personal belongings that were taken by Israeli commandos on May 31, 2010, when they forcefully boarded the six ships of the flotilla, the Israeli government has left millions of dollars of computers, cameras and cell phones and hundreds of thousands of cash unsecured and un-inventoried.

An Israeli newspaper has revealed that four to six computers among the hundreds that were taken from passengers on the six ships have been sold by an Israeli First Lieutenant to three junior military personnel. On August 18, a second officer was arrested in connection with the theft. An Israeli military official described the case as “embarrassing and shameful.” Eitan Kabel, a member of parliament from the Labour party, told Israeli media: “This is an embarrassing, humiliating and infuriating act.”

Israeli government informed of passengers’ property by Embassies

Passengers from the six ships gave detailed lists of their property to consular officers from their respective Embassies while the passengers were in the Beer-Shiva prison on June 2. All passengers who were flown from Israel on June 4 to Turkey also gave another list of their possessions to consular officials in Istanbul, Turkey. Most passengers followed up with letters to their respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs or Department of State and to lawyers who will be filing lawsuits for deaths and injuries inflicted by the Israeli military and claims for stolen property.

Evidence of commandos’ actions on cameras, cell phones and computers should be available for independent investigation and possible criminal cases

Evidence on the flotilla passengers’ cameras, cell phones and computers should be a part of the evaluation by an independent panel to determine when and where 9 passengers on the Mavi Marmara were killed and when and where 50 other passengers were wounded. With the exception of two camera cards that survived endless body inspections on the ships, in the initial processing center at Ashdod port and in the prison, all the photos and video footage taken by 750 passengers is in the possession of the Israeli government.

Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars of Cash Taken by Commandos

Israeli commandos also took cash and credit cards from passengers. A conservative estimate of $1000 cash per passenger gives a total of $750,000 cash that was taken from passengers. Commandos with weapons demanded cash from passengers stating they were “to take the money for safekeeping.” Many passengers had been fundraising in their home areas to have funds to deliver to non-governmental organizations. Other passengers were taking money to families in Gaza from family members living outside of Gaza. I personally know of four persons on the passenger ships who had a total $68,000 in cash taken by commandos.

Israeli military can find out who took the equipment and money–if they want to

The Israeli military is certainly capable of finding out who took the money and equipment if they wish. The Israeli military knows exactly which military unit boarded each of the six ships, the names of each of the commandos that were on each ship and the leaders of each unit. Passengers do not know the names of the commandos as their uniforms were stripped of nametags, rank and unit insignia and they kept black masks on throughout the hours they were on the ships.

The Israeli military can order the leaders of each unit to testify if they know if any member of their unit took money or equipment and whether they have noticed if any unit member has suddenly had a change in his lifestyle that might be attributed to having stolen money or sold equipment from the passengers.

As a retired U.S. Army Colonel with 29 years in the military, I know that the barracks gossip in the military unit involved will provide some information about the stolen property and money. Checking the pawnshops near the military bases is a good bet as they are likely places that stolen goods will appear. New cars, cell phones, electronic equipment that is above the “pay-grade” of a military members is a dead give-away that the person has somehow come into new money and is living beyond his means.

U.S. military court-martials in 1984 for theft by U.S. military during Grenada invasion

I speak from experience about military personnel taking the possessions of others. In 1984, 13 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division of Fort Bragg, North Carolina were court-martialed and found guilty of stealing property of civilians in Grenada when the U.S. military invaded and occupied that country. I was on the U.S. military claims commission and received the complaints from Grenadians that after U.S. military personnel had occupied their houses, jewelry, money and various items were missing.

We immediately asked the criminal investigative office at Fort Bragg to go to the pawn shops around Fort Bragg to look for the items, and they found most of the them at the shops. The soldiers considered that the property of the Grenadians were “spoils of war.” One young private even wrote an article for the Fayetteville, North Carolina newspaper in which he proudly described in detail what he had taken as “spoils of war.” He was court-martialed and sentenced to several months in prison.

In the same manner, I suspect that the commandos decided that since their government was labeling everyone on the flotilla as “terrorists,” that no one in the government would care if they took “spoils of war,” the possessions of the “terrorists.”

Leadership and Accountablility in the Israeli military?

I have no doubts that members of the commando units know exactly who took what and where the money and equipment is. It takes good military leadership to understand the breakdown in unit integrity and want to correct it.

We will see by the actions of the Israeli military and government what type of leadership and accountability they have.

Ann Wright is a retired US Army Reserve Colonel with 29 years of service and 16 years as a US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war. She was in Gaza three times in 2009, helped organize the 1350 person Gaza Freedom March in December, 2009 and was on the Gaza flotilla.

August 23, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | Leave a comment

First Murder, then Theft and Lies from the “World’s Most Moral Army”

Written by Greta Berlin | 21 August 2010

London: An investigation revealed by Israeli news sources confirms that an Israeli military officer and soldiers stole and sold laptops belonging to passengers on board the Freedom Flotilla, which was illegally boarded by Israeli forces on May 31, 2010.

The Israeli military now claims that “[t]he IDF did not receive complaints of stolen computers after the Navy raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla,” and is suggesting that “the civilians who were on the ships chose not to complain in light of the complicated incident they had gone through.”

The Free Gaza Movement, one of the organizers of the flotilla, says that statement is patently untrue. Passengers immediately filed complaints with their consular representatives and embassies about possessions taken from them. They also submitted extensive affidavits to lawyers, and reported it to the media: millions of dollars’ worth of computers, cameras, phones, cash, jewelry and other equipment was taken, and none has been returned. Embassies have repeatedly told us that they are in touch with the Israelis about getting our belongings back.

Col. Ann Wright, one of the passengers on board the U.S. flagged ship, Challenger 1, stated, “Since the U.S. State Department has assured me that they are in touch with the Israeli authorities about our belongings, I expect that they would respond to these articles that say the Israeli government did not know that passengers were missing any personal possessions.”

In addition, our lawyers at Adalah have been corresponding with the Israeli military authorities about the missing personal property, including computers. Therefore, it is a deliberate lie to say they have not received any complaints.

“Many of these computers, cameras and phones may contain vital evidence of Israeli military crimes committed during the attack on our ships,” said Free Gaza chairperson and attorney Huwaida Arraf. “Despite repeated requests, Israel has refused to return the equipment or turn it over to the United Nations. Instead it has stolen documents from our computers and cameras to use for propaganda purposes.”

While the actions of the officer and soldiers who stole and sold a half dozen laptops is reprehensible, it is Israel’s military and political leaders that must be held accountable for the larger crimes of aggression, murder, unlawful detention, bodily harm, confiscation and pillaging of property, tampering with evidence and more. All of these issues are being pursued by lawyers in Europe, Turkey, and the United States.

Contact: Huwaida Arraf, +970-598-336-215

Col. Ann Wright +1 808 741 1141

Audrey Bomse, legal coordinator +44 786 156 0932

Adam Shapiro +1-202-294-8813

August 23, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | Leave a comment

James Cameron—King of Hypocrites

By Ann McElhinney | 22 August 2010

Last March James Cameron sounded defiant.

The Avatar director was determined to expose journalists, such as myself, who thought it was important to ask questions about climate change orthodoxy and the radical “solutions” being proposed.

Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.

“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads,” he said in an interview.

Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word.

His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur.

Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.

They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.

“We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you’d like. The more the better,” one of James Cameron’s organizers said in an email.

It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics  he felt were so endangering humanity.

Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to “a roundtable”. We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

James Cameron’s behavior raises some very important questions.

Does he genuinely believe in man made climate change?  If he believes it is a danger to humanity surely he should be debating the issue every chance he gets ?

Or is it just a pose?

The man who called for an open and public debate at “high noon” suddenly doesn’t want his policies open to serious scrutiny.

I was looking forward to debating with the film maker. I was looking forward to finding out where we agreed and disagreed and finding a way forward that would help the poorest people in the developing and developed world.

But that is not going to happen because somewhere along the way James Cameron, a great film maker, has moved from King of the World to being King of the Hypocrites.

August 22, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Wikileaks – The Real Stuff – A Response To Israel Shamir

Joe Quinn | Signs of The Times | 23 Aug 2010

Israel Shamir recently published his opinion on the Wikileaks exposé and in the process took issue with those who had dismissed the leaks as a distraction. While I wasn’t named by Shamir as one of the dissenters, I had waxed skeptical in a recent Sott.net editorial on the topic.

I sent the following letter to Shamir:

Dear Shamir,

You title your last missive Wikileaks – The Real Stuff, yet you fail to point to anything “real” or valuable in the Wikileaks documents. Can you point to any detail, either within the documents or within those documents that have been published by the mainstream media that was not already publicly available?

Alternatively, can you point to some evidence that the release of the documents has in some way effected a sea-change in the general public opinion of the US misadventure in Afghanistan? I ask this because, such is the hype surrounding the release of the documents, I think we are all justified in expecting ‘big things’ as a result.

I don’t doubt that the coverage of the Wikileaks documents by the mainstream media has lent extra weight to the long-established truth (as purveyed most notably by the alternative news sites) that civilians are being murdered in Afghanistan, but the precise number of dead is all important, as is where to lay the blame.

Do you really think the Wikileaks documents and the mainstream media reporting on them serve up a dish of raw Truth to the public? Or is it possible that it has been cooked to some extent?

The UK Guardian newspaper has taken the lead in the dissemination of the Wikileaks documents. Take a look at this article, if you have not already done so. It is the main story that appeared in the Guardian announcing the documents, and consider the bullet-pointed summation at the beginning:

  • Hundreds of civilians killed by coalition troops
  • Covert unit hunts leaders for ‘kill or capture’
  • Steep rise in Taliban bomb attacks on NATO

Were you shocked, Shamir? “Hundreds” killed by coalition troops! The true figure is over 30,000 Afghan civilians killed as a result of the US invasion.

How many average US or European citizens do you think will be shocked by the claim that a “covert unit hunts” those evil ‘Tailban’ leaders? Is this meant to be a shocking exposé?

And what are we to make of the “steep rise in Taliban attacks on NATO”? Is this meant to elicit a “poor NATO” response from readers?

But I admit, some people are strong-willed, and read further than the bullet points of an article, and at least get to the end of the first paragraph where, in the case of the Guardian exposé, the public is treated to a further data point:

“NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.”

Do you find that interesting Shamir? Suspicious even? Is it possible that a reasonable person could make a tenuous link between the hint that Iran is involved in the increased attacks on US troops in Afghanistan and the incessant sabre-rattling from both the US and Israel over a threatened attack on Iran?

But we could read on a little further and learn that: “the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.” So we understand that the ‘Taliban’ are to blame for the vast majority of civilian deaths, while “coalition forces” are responsible for “at least 195 civilians killed […] and 174 wounded, in total”

Thanks to the documents and the Guardian then, we now know that the ‘Taliban’ are the real aggressors in Afghanistan. It was much the same with Iraq after all. While not everyone knows that well over 1 million Iraqis have been killed in the last 7 years, most people know that ‘civil war’ is to blame. As a result, everyone also understands that, when the white devils invade a Middle Eastern or S.E. Asian country, local military strategy stipulates that the best way for the host nation’s population to defeat the invader is to wage war on each other. Those Arabs and Asians must be a bit crazy, eh? But hey, it makes sense to the Western mind!

On the Guardian’s interactive war-logs page, we are treated to a cornucopia of videos and flash pages, all very pleasing to eye but none providing any more substance than that written in black and white print. The emphasis on Iran and Pakistan as the real problem is hard to miss. In an editorial entitled: Afghanistan war logs: the unvarnished picture, we are informed that:

“In these documents, Iran’s and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies run riot. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is linked to some of the war’s most notorious commanders. The ISI is alleged to have sent 1,000 motorbikes to the warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani for suicide attacks in Khost and Logar provinces”

Are you getting the picture yet?

Under “latest news” in the ‘War logs’ section, the Guardian reports what you mention in your defence of Wikileaks, that Reporters Without Borders has accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of “incredible irresponsibility” over the leaked documents.

The accusation is inane and baseless, as you note, but I am more interested in how this attack on Assange (and indirectly on The Guardian for publishing the documents), serves to convince an increasingly disgruntled public that these documents, and the Guardian’s analysis of them, are the ‘real deal’. Are we really at last seeing a little honest-to-god mainstream journalism?

I have sifted through the 92,000 documents, and based on the details therein, I agree with the Guardian’s analysis of their overall message – Iran and Pakistan and the ‘Taliban’ are evil and responsible for most of the deaths in Afghanistan. For sure, US troops are trigger happy at times, but who can blame them? War is hell after all! And to be honest, who can blame them for going after the bad guys…”dead or alive!”

Do you agree with this assessment of the root causes of the problems facing Afghanistan and the Afghan people today? More importantly, is the general public now more convinced that this perspective is an accurate one because it comes from the ‘secret documents’ of Whistle blowers?

Yesterday, for a while, Assange was accused of ‘rape and molestation’ by the Swedish public prosecutor. Assange was in Sweden last week. Within a few hours the charges were dropped however. Interestingly, Wikileaks is in the process of moving its operations to Sweden. Would you believe me if I suggested that the rape allegation was possibly a case of ‘reverse psychology’? That someone, somewhere, with considerable influence, flirted with the idea of accusing Assange in order to lend credence to the idea that ‘they’ are out to get him and thereby set in stone his and Wikileaks’ image as true champions of the people? Or do you demand that our world be more prosaic, and that the wayward son a Saudi royal really was the mastermind behind the incredibly complex 9/11 attacks?

I am not, however, totally convinced that we are dealing with some grand conspiracy involving Reporters Without Borders, the CIA, the White House, the Pentagon and the Guardian, etc. mainly because a conspiracy is not necessary. If we simply take the US National Security State apparatus, the US military command structure, the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign S.E. Asian state, throw in some for-profit newspapers and a well-meaning, somewhat naive and impressionable 29-year old hacker, and a public starving for something real but who must be kept on a diet of half-truths and hollow hopes, we have all the ingredients we need for a controversial issue. The result can look like a conspiracy, when in fact it is just another day’s news in the mixtus orbis that is 2010 planet earth – that is to say, the unfiltered Truth is seldom seen, and increasingly, in these increasingly desperate times, when it does chance to poke its head above the parapet, it very often treads on the toes of those emotionally invested in the idea that there can be any real positive change in our world without the conscious, active participation of all, or at least a majority.

Regards

Joe Quinn
Editor
Sott.net

Shamir responded to my letter:

Dear Joe, probably we’ll have to work hard to achieve ‘sea-change’ you and I wish to have. Wikileaks is just one of the tools, not a magic wand. Did they deliver some impressive news? Yes. The US pays in cash to Iraqi and Afghani media for positive coverage. For journalists this is important news. They released hundreds of names of the US agents. The hit squad is not to be pooh-poohed, either. It was never published in the US, only in the UK and Germany. Wikileaks Afghan stuff is raw data, it has to be processed to become acceptable. The bias, as I’ve said, is that of newspapers that process, but you can also process the stuff if you are willing. Julian Assange is definitely not 29-year old somewhat naïve hacker – he is 39 and quite astute. And your question about Osama, I presume is facile – my view was expressed on September 12, 2001 in the piece called Orient Express

I respect Israel Shamir and his significant efforts in service to the truth, but his myopia over the Wikileaks documents and his response to my comments is a little depressing. The release of names of US agents (informers) in Afghanistan is not news because it tells is something we already knew: that the US military uses informers in Afghanistan. Of what value to the anti-war movement is the additional detail of their names? The ‘Taliban’, on the other hand, have apparently shown great interest. So who is that a score for? You and me, Wikileaks, The Taliban, or the US military?

Shamir’s suggestion to “process” the raw data is equally unhelpful. We have processed it. It tells us that Iran and Pakistan are the bad guys and the US is killing civilians in Afghanistan, but not as many as the Taliban. I can read than on CNN.

The news of ‘hit squads’ is old news. 7 years ago the Guardian informed us that not only were US ‘hit squads’ operating in Iraq, but that they were being trained by the Israelis! And in any case, is the idea that ‘hit squads’ are being used to track down the evil ‘Taliban’ in Afghanistan more appalling than the fact, splashed across American broadsheets earlier this year, that Obama signed a bill earlier this year authorizing the assassination of an American citizen by the CIA??

That the US pays the Iraqi and Afghan media for positive coverage is not only old news, it’s only half the story. Has Shamir forgotten the Lincoln Group and the precocious Christian Bailey? The Lincoln group won (read: was awarded) a $100 Million contract to essentially control the entire Iraqi media via its own ‘Iraqi’ publications and monopolizing the advertising industry. All of these details have been carried by the mainstream press starting in 2005.

I can only conclude that Shamir hasn’t been keeping up with the news, because all, and I mean ALL of the important information in the Wikileaks documents has been available from outlets like the Washington Post, etc. for many years. So I’m faced with a dilemma; either I go to the Washington Post from now on for all the Pentagon’s dirty secrets, or I don’t believe the hype around the Wikileaks documents.

As for 9/11, I’m disheartened that, in the 9 intervening years, Shamir appears not to have accepted any new data about what really happened on 9/11.

 

  • See also, Shamir extolling Obama, July 2009:

Obama Lynching Party


August 22, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Peace Talks in the Shadow of Demolitions

BADIL | August – 2010

While President Barack Obama pressures Palestinians to re-engage in direct peace talks, and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu loftily counsels President Mahmoud Abbas not to miss the opportunity, recent demolitions within the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel continue unabated and unaddressed.

According to OCHA, July and August have marked the highest number of demolitions this year. As of the end of July, OCHA reports Israeli forces have destroyed over 230 structures effectively displacing and/or affecting over 1100 Palestinians, including 400 children since the beginning of 2010. Over 50% of said destruction has taken place in July alone. OCHA further comments that the Israeli Civil Administration will be stepping up demolitions in the West Bank per orders by the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

In the Jordan Valley, Israeli forces have demolished the village of al Farisyia twice within the span of 10 days; first on July 19th and again on August 5th. These have resulted in the destruction of 116 structures and the displacement of 129 people, 63 of whom are children. In the second round of demolitions, 10 structures not previously harmed were demolished along with 27 structures and materials provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Israel has flagrantly disavowed its peace rhetoric by issuing additional demolition orders to be meted out on August 15th & 16th.

Moreover, Israeli authorities are proving complicit in vigilante activity among Jewish settlers in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem. In the early morning hours of July 29th Jewish settlers stormed the Kirrech house, home to 9 Palestinian families, without sanction. Of these families, only one has been allowed restitution to their home by court order. The other eight families continue to be displaced while waiting for their case to be tried in court.

While UN bodies have condemned these demolitions, absent actionable measures, the condemnations alone fall short of the United Nations’ obligations to maintain peace and security and to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Under international law the State is obliged to prevent, investigate, and provide remedy, and when it fails to do so the international community becomes responsible for providing victims with effective protection. Violence by non-state actors (settlers) should not be seen merely as provocative actions; but as part of an overarching policy backed by State authority. By stopping at rhetoric, the United Nations, States, and international organizations fail to adequately respond to Israel’s human rights abuses that both fuel the humanitarian crisis and undermine the peace process.

In fact, even if Netanyahu’s recent statements were to be considered sincere, Israel’s actions are a flagrant rejection of the peace process and its underlying documents including the Oslo Accords which reserve settlements as a final status issue and the Road Map which outright prohibits settlement expansion.

Under the cover of its calls for the resumption for peace talks, Israel is also infringing on the rights of its own Palestinian citizens. Israeli forces have demolished Al Araqib, a Bedouin village in the Negev, 4 times from July 27th to August 17th, displacing 300 Palestinian citizens of Israel at the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan forcing them to endure a recent heat wave living in the open air atop their cemetery. According to MK Talab al-Sana, “This is a test for democracy in Israel; and democracy is failing. Al Araqib is a test of how much Israelis can live in peace with their own Palestinian citizens; so, how can [Israel] live in peace with Palestinians [within Palestine].”

Demolitions and the denial of basic human rights, such as shelter, are features of Israel’s apartheid regime and are indicative of the root causes of the ongoing humanitarian crises in the OPT. At best, Israel’s recent demolitions can be considered attempts at colonization, at worst they can be interpreted as ethnic cleansing.

Taking these actions into account, one cannot help but be confused by the good faith underpinning the most recent calls for peace’ talks. We call upon States, UN bodies, international organizations, and the international community at large to reconcile peace talks with humanitarian and human rights law in an effort to create an environment where peace may actually be sought instead of paying lip service to peace in the shadow of demolitions and displacement.

August 20, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »