Archive for the ‘9/11’ Category

History of USA Funding Al Qaeda

April 12, 2013

History of USA Funding Al Qaeda http://www.kosovaonline.info/?page=1%2C3%2C26534

PRISTINA – Wikileaks cables revealed by “Wikileaks” show for a while, at least in the years 2001-2002, Osama Bin Laden had his people in Kosovo, KTV reports. ”Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation” was the financial arm for terrorist activities Al-Qaeda anywhere in the world, and has its head office in Indonesia.

From there and in many branches around the world, including such in the U.S., “Al-Haramain,” except humanitarian activities for orphans, to recoup millions had intended to leave the other orphans.

In January 2003, the then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, widely reported to finance the “Al-Qaeda” and the fact that many organizations raise funds for humanitarian guise terrorist activities. Report Poweel secret CIA sent him, the Department of Commerce, Department of Treasury, Department of Defense, Government of Israel, the Government of Jordan and the Government of Saudi Arabia.

At one particular sector of activity dedicating Balkans and the “Al Haramain” in this region. ”Documents seized in the Balkans show that workers” Al Haramain “in Albania, Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, supporting” Al – Qaeda “and groups related to it. Individuals in these offices or work financed by bin Laden. E-mails of members of “Al-Qaeda” found in 2002 in the seized computers in the offices of “Al – Haramian” in Travnik Croatia, contained instructions to attack an SFOR base in Tuzla, “wrote Powell . Secretary of State told the officials attempt to “Al-Haramain” in Kosovo to hide their illegal activity. ”After the September 11 terrorist attacks, officials of the” Al-Haramain “in Kosovo destroyed all documents can bind the organization with militant or terrorist activities.

At the end of 2001 officers “Al Haramain” decided to temporarily reduce the level of activities before they continue illegally, “Powell wrote. ”Al-Haramain Foundation” was created in Saudi Arabia and in 2004 was declared a terrorist organization with links to the U.S. and its activity was banned by the Committee of the Security Council of the UN. officials had planned her unsuccessfully killing American officials in Nairobi, Kenya in 1997 .

A year later, more than 200 citizens, including dozens of Americans were killed in terrorist attacks in Kenya and Tanzania. An official “Al-Haramain” Was Convicted Perouz Sedaghaty was sentenced to 33 months in prison in the U.S. in 2011 , after being found guilty lied to funds that were dedicated to religious extremists in Chechnya.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

EU criticizes illegal Israeli settlements & then funds them

March 19, 2013

Europe’s odd policy in Palestine

 By Ramzy Baroud

More bad news emerged from Israel in recent weeks. It’s not that good news has the habit of being associated with Israel, its military occupation, institutionalized discrimination and mistreatment of Palestinians, but the emerging consensus that Israel is heading to an irrevocably perilous course is now crossing from the realm of political analysts over to international organizations previously lenient in the face of Israel’s dismissal of international law.

Only a few international law experts would defend Israel’s fervent settlement constructions on occupied Palestinian land. Yet there has been little interest from Western powers to pressure Israel to cease its illegal activities. Without US and European funding it would have been nearly impossible for Israel to build settlements and transfer more half a million Israelis over the years to live on stolen Palestinian land, in violation of numerous international laws including the Fourth Geneva Convention. Worse still, trade with European and other countries sustained and flourished these same illegal settlements, at the expense of Palestinians who have suffered massive ethnic cleansing campaigns since 1967.

At last, EU diplomats in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are speaking out in unequivocal terms. In a report, released February 27, the diplomats resolved that “settlement construction remains the biggest single threat to the two-state solution. It is systematic, deliberate and provocative.”

Moreover, “the report called for strict application of an EU-Israel trade pact to ensure products from settlements do not receive preferential treatment under the accord in European markets,” said Reuters. The report called on EU states “not to support … research, education and technological cooperation” with settlements, and to “discourage” investing in Israeli companies that operate in the occupied territories.

The report, as would be expected, is non-binding. Even if such recommendations are considered, Israel and its EU friends and lobbyists are likely to find many loopholes to somehow deprive any EU action of substance and vigor. The fact remains that without civil society action focused on turning up the heat against European governments, especially diehard supporters of Israel such as the British government, it is most likely be business as usual with Israel.

The real political and moral crisis does not only lie in Israel’s flaunting of international law, but because the supposed guardians of international law are the very ones empowering Israel to carry out bad deeds, which include disempowering and bankrupting Palestinians. Last January, an Oxfam report said that the Palestinian economy, which is currently in utter disarray, could generate urgently needed income (US$1.5 billion to be exact) if Israel eased restrictions in the Jordan Valley alone. But without suitable access to their own land and to water sources, Palestinians in the valley continue to agonize, while Israeli Jewish settlers are thriving.

While the United States government has done everything in its power to undermine Palestinian rights, defend Israel at any cost and ensure Israel’s superiority and military edge over all of its neighbors combined, the EU has falsely acquired a more balanced reputation. Nothing can be further from the truth.

In a recent report, the Palestinian human-rights group Al-Haq emphasized that trading in produce grown in settlements alone had “directly contributed to the growth and viability of settlements by providing an essential source of revenue that allows them to thrive.” The reported value of total EU trade with illegal Jewish settlements amounts to approximately $300 million annually. The volume may appear small if juxtaposed with the some $39 billion, the total trade between the EU and Israel reported in 2011 alone. But that means, according to Dalia Hatuqa, writing for Al-Monitor on January 17, “the EU has some room for leverage given it is Israel’s largest trade partner, and it receives some 20% of total Israeli exports.”

What is equally important and disturbing to the actual value of the trade is the very idea that Europe is ultimately taking part in the subjugation of the Palestinians and the funding of Israel’s illegal occupation and its massively growing settler population. No amount of diplomatic ‘recommendations’ or newspeak can ever challenge or alter that fact.

Discussing settlement growth in a vacuum is also misleading, as it is disconcerting to talk about boycotting settlements, while supporting the main organs that ordered or sanctioned them in the first place. To differentiate between products made in Israel or those made in the settlements is absurd at best. The settlers are not self-sustaining structures operating as autonomous regions, but are considered part and parcel of the so-called Israel proper. There is little distinction in the eyes of the Israeli government between settlers from Ma’ale Adumim or residents of Tel Aviv except in the imagination of those who may recognize Israel’s horrific practices but are too timid to confront them.

Israel, meanwhile, excels in pushing limits. By doing so it continues, although inadvertently, to expose the hypocrisy of its friends and ever-so-careful detractors. Yigal Palmore of the Israeli Foreign Ministry responded to the EU report with belittling terms. “A diplomat’s mission is to build bridges and bring people together, not to foster confrontation. The EU consuls have clearly failed in their mission,” he said.

While the report accurately spoke of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to develop more settlements in the area known as E1, which is “set to cut off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank,” there is unlikely a turning back from the construction plans, which include the building of 3,000 settler homes in the land corridor near Jerusalem. Nothing is random in Israeli planning and the final scene, as is already the case in various parts of the occupied territories, will make Palestinians unwanted irritants on their own land.

Yes, Israel is unrelenting and seems to have no regards whatsoever for any country or any relevant international law. Its action is emboldened by the weakness of its neighbors, the unhindered backing of its friends, and the gutlessness of its critics. While Israeli friends are busy labeling as anti-Semite anyone who dares highlight the effective Apartheid underway in Palestine and Israel, others are consumed in intellectual tussles over the boundaries of language and proper ways to frame the discourse.

None of this wrangling is relevant to Israel, which is merely winning time to achieve its own version of a harrowingly ugly Apartheid. As for those who still feel uneasy about that “provocative” term, they simply need to consider the latest Israeli transportation ministry’s initiative, which designates bus line number 210 to be “Palestinian only” buses, which will shuttle cheap Palestinian labor to and from the West Bank. Of course, this is not an isolated policy, but a continuation of a dreadful track record.

All of this comes at the heels of yet another international report, this time issued by the UN Children’s Fund, UNICEF. Released on March 6, the report criticized Israel’s military courts for its mistreatment of Palestinian children and spoke of their “widespread, systematic and institutionalized” abuse. The favorite arrest time of children by the Israeli army, as indicated in the report, was between midnight and 5am.

The report, “Children in Israeli Military Detention: Observations and Recommendations”, mentioned “measures so that Palestinian children in Israeli military custody are treated in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards”. Another pipe-dream, of course, for child abuse has been intrinsically linked to military occupation, and is as old as the state of Israel itself. Israel cannot possibly comply with any international law or convention without serious pressure.

The bad news from Israel is likely to continue. Almost every day there is a new disturbing development in Israeli practices against Palestinians. Institutionalized Apartheid however is merely met with bashful international criticism and the lack of any substantial action. Civil society organizations and groups must tell their governments that enough is enough. While Israel should be held responsible for its own behavior, the EU and other countries should not finance the occupation, while decrying the settlements. This hypocrisy can no longer be tolerated.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).

(Copyright 2013 Ramzy Baroud)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

CIA MI6 knew Iraq had no active WMD

March 18, 2013

MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims
BBC’s Panorama reveals fresh evidence that agencies dismissed intelligence from Iraqi foreign minister and spy chief

Tony Blair Faith Foundation Faith Shorts awards - London

Tony Blair’s claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are challenged again in Monday’s Panorama. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
Fresh evidence is revealed today about how MI6 and the CIA were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.
Tony Blair told parliament before the war that intelligence showed Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programme was “active”, “growing” and “up and running”.

A special BBC Panorama programme tonight will reveal how British and US intelligence agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries.
It describes how Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, told the CIA’s station chief in Paris at the time, Bill Murray, through an intermediary that Iraq had “virtually nothing” in terms of WMD.
Sabri said in a statement that the Panorama story was “totally fabricated”.
However, Panorama confirms that three months before the war an MI6 officer met Iraq’s head of intelligence, Tahir Habbush al-Tikriti, who also said that Saddam had no active WMD. The meeting in the Jordanian capital, Amman, took place days before the British government published its now widely discredited Iraqi weapons dossier in September 2002.
Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary who led an inquiry into the use of intelligence in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, tells the programme that he was not told about Sabri’s comments, and that he should have been.
Butler says of the use of intelligence: “There were ways in which people were misled or misled themselves at all stages.”
When it was suggested to him that the body that probably felt most misled of all was the British public, Butler replied: “Yes, I think they’re, they’re, they got every reason think that.”
The programme shows how the then chief of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, responded to information from Iraqi sources later acknowledged to be unreliable.
One unidentified MI6 officer has told the Chilcot inquiry that at one stage information was “being torn off the teleprinter and rushed across to Number 10”.
Another said it was “wishful thinking… [that] promised the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow”.
The programme says that MI6 stood by claims that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger, though these were dismissed by other intelligence agencies, including the French.

It also shows how claims by Iraqis were treated seriously by elements in MI6 and the CIA even after they were exposed as fabricated including claims, notably about alleged mobile biological warfare containers, made by Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, a German source codenamed Curveball. He admitted to the Guardian in 2011 that all the information he gave to the west was fabricated.

Panorama says it asked for an interview with Blair but he said he was “too busy”.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Damascus Aorta bombing .. The great taste of death …

February 23, 2013

تفجير الشريان الأبهر لدمشق ..طعم الموت العظيم …‏

بقلم: نارام سرجون‏

بعض الكلام الذي يقال في النوائب والمصائب يبدو ثقيلا وباردا مهما كان عذبا ودافئا .. ومهما كان فيه من الأسبرين والمهدئات والعقاقير .. ومهما كان بردا وسلاما فانه يقع على الجرح كما لو كان ملحا ..
وبعض الكلام الذي نقوله يملأ الصفحات ولكنه يقع من الدفاتر كما تقع الأوراق المتعبة الصفراء من الشجر في عواصف الخريف .. وكما تنفرط حبات العقود عندما تنقطع خيطانها .. فتتبعثر الكلمات كما تتبعثر خرزات العقد وحبات الياقوت الحمراء ولانقدر على جمعها ونظمها اذا لم نمسك بالخيط ثانية ..

في كل تفجير ارهابي ينفرط عقد الكلام الجميل وتتبعثر حبات اللؤلؤ والزمرد على الأرض .. وتقع أيقونات اللغة على التراب في كل مكان .. فماذا يقال للدم .. غير كلام من دم؟؟ وهل احمرار الياقوت يساوي احمرار الدم؟؟

أحس أحيانا أن الكلام يمكن أن يتحول الى قمامة وانه يستحق أن نتعامل معه بالمكانس اذا لم يقل ماتريد قلوبنا بصدق أو اذا كان فقط صدى لما يريد الآخرون .. ولذلك فلن أقول صدى مايريد الآخرون بل مايريده قلبي ..وقلبي هو خيط العقد الذي سيحمل الياقوت الأحمر..ياقوت الدم..

أما كلام القمامة فقد انفردت فيه لغة المعارضة وثورات الربيع طوال سنتين .. فبعد كل بيان واجتماع وتصريح وتفجير كنت أقوم بكناسة الكلام المتساقط من الشاشات المعارضة والثورية والذي تراكم على الأرض كشظايا البلور المحطم .. كناسة كلام المعارضة كان دوما عملا ضروريا واسعافيا لأن من يسير حافيا على كلام الثوار سينزف من عقله لا من قدميه وستنغرز شظايا الزجاج في عينيه .. فلاتتعبوا أنفسكم في قراءة تفجير دمشق وتفسيراته ..لأن رسائل التفجير وصلت الى عناوينها دون أن تخطئ .. وقام بتسليمها سعاة بريد جبهة النصرة ..

ففي تفجير دمشق انتقلت القطعان الثورية الهائجة الى حالة فريدة وهي أنها لم تعد تعبأ بالرأي العام السوري ولابخداعه كما دأبت طوال سنتين .. فقد طاف بها الكيل .. بل صارت تغامر غير مكترثة بالمجاهرة بالحيوانية والعنف .. ولم تعد حريصة على ادخار آخر مالديها في ذخائرها الثورية من خطابات ظمئها للحرية والانعتاق .. نعم لقد قررت المعارضة التخلص من حالة الحرج والتمثيل التي امتهنتها طوال سنتين .. حيث كانت تقتل وتتهم النظام .. وتفجر الشوارع وتمسح أيديها المضرجة بالدم بجدران أجهزة الأمن السورية وتتهمها بأنها تريد اخافة الناس من الثورة السلمية وثورة الكرامة ..وتذبح الضحايا وتمسح سكاكينها باسم الرئيس وعائلته .. لكنها اليوم قررت الخروج من عباءة البراءة وصوف الخرفان الوديع وصمت الحملان دون وجل .. ولم تعد تعنيها آراء الناس ولاتعاطفهم معها ولااقتناعهم بطهارتها لأسباب كثيرة سنمر عليها ..

ومما يلفت النظر كثيرا هو أنه حتى المجلس الوطني والائتلاف قررا أن عملية خداع الناس لم تعد ضرورية خاصة بعد الأدلة الدامغة على أن ثورجيي الكرامة هم من ينسف الشوارع ويرسل الانتحاريين المجانين .. فتغطى الائتلاف بالأمس باعلانه التقية بأول ادانة لتفجير ارهابي .. ولم يتأخر في الادانة الا سنتين فقط !!.. أي بعد خراب البصرة كما يقال .. لكنه في اعلانه هذا فانه كان يقر بشكل غير مباشر ولأول مرة بأن الثورة هي من قامت بالتفجير لأنه لم يقم كما اعتاد باستعمال الأغطية والملاحف الكبيرة والشراشف في اخفاء الثورجيين عن مسرح الجريمة .. ولم يقم كعادته بمسح الدم عن سكاكين الثورة وانيابها .. ولم يتبرع كما اعتاد بالتبرع بارشاد الناس والسير في مقدمة العراضة الى حيث القاتل من أجهزة الأمن السورية.. بل اكتفى ببراءة باعلان الادانة .. وهذا يعني أنه يريد أن يقول : “نعم ليست الدولة من يقوم بالتفجير .. بل نحن من يقوم بالتفجير” .. وفي اعماق هذا الاعتراف غير المباشر حاجة ماسة لاعلان المسؤولية .. وغاية الاعتراف هي الدفاع عن الموقف العسكري للثورة وهي تتعرض للقضم اليومي.. فترد بالتفجير لتقول:

ان من يعتقد أن هناك ضعفا في “الثورة” أو أنها واهنة فهو واهم ..

ومن ينتظر سقوطها الوشيك فهو واهم ..

ومن ينتظر قبولنا الحوار فهو واهم ..

ومن ينتظر الحل السياسي فهو واهم لأن الحل هو عسكري .. وعسكري فقط ..

The aftermath of a powerful car bomb explosion near the headquarters of Syria's ruling Baath party in the centre of Damascus. (AFP Photo)

كتبت المعارضة رسالتها على أوراق من أجساد السوريين ووتركت الرسالة في بريد منطقة المزرعة على قارعة الطريق واختارت أهم نقطة التقاء لطرق في دمشق حيث يكاد كل سوري قد مر مرة واحدة على الأقل في حياته من تلك النقطة لأن تلك النقطة هي الطريق نحو جميع سورية .. فلا يوجد سوري مر في دمشق لم يدخل عبر تلك العقدة والطريق الشهير (شارع الثورة) .. أو مايسمى أبهر دمشق .. ان تلك النقطة هي الشريان الأبهر لدمشق ومنها تسافر ضخات الحياة نحو سورية كلها .

تقول الرسالة الثورية مايلي ودون مواربة: هانحن في الشريان الأبهر ..فاما نحن واما هو؟ .. أي اما أن تقبلوا بنا بالقوة حكاما قادمين والا فسنرسل كل يوم رجلا آليا مبرمجا يسمونه (انتحاري) .. يرسل ابناءكم الى الموت .. سلّموا أيها السوريون .. فتسلموا ..

في تكتيك التفجير يراد بث الرعب في نفوس السوريين فيقبلون بما لايقبلون به .. رغما عن أنوفهم ..للوصول الى معادلة جورج بوش الشهيرة: “من ليس معنا فهو ضدنا .. وغالبية السوريين ليست معنا .. فهم ضدنا ..ومن ضدنا يجب أن يموت”..

وفي هذه العقلية يكمن خطر مميت لأنها تضع نفسها لأول مرة في مواجهة الجميع علنا .. وتقرر بشكل مجنون استفزاز جميع الشرائح الشعبية حتى الرمادية منها..وهي التي ستضع عنق المعارضة تحت حد المقصلة ..

هذه الأوهام والقمامات الثورية هي مايستدعي أن نحمل مكانسنا وننظف الطرقات منها ثم نرمي بها الى الحاويات العفنة.. لاتسيروا فوق هذا الزجاج المهشم من الأوهام والحطام كيلا تصاب بالجراح عقولكم وعيونكم .. لأن رسالة القمامة الثورية تقول للسوريين بالحرف مايلي:

1- لم نقدر على الأسد ولا على جيشه بعد سنتين من دعم الدنيا كلها لنا .. ونعترف أننا فعلا لانقدر عليه .. ولن نقدر عليه وجها لوجه لافي ساعة الصفر ولا في البركان ولا في الملاحم .. وعليكم أن تعينونا عليه لأنه ثبت في مكانه بسببكم وخسرنا معركتنا بسببكم .. فكما نصرتموه وانتصر .. فان عليكم أن تخذلوه كي ننتصر ..

2- ومما تقوله الرسالة من تحت ركام الأوهام رسالة على نقيض مبدأ قديم يقول: اضرب الراعي تتشتت الأغنام .. ليصبح مبدأ الثوار هو (شتت الأغنام لتضرب الراعي) .. ان ضرب العائلة يوجع راعيها .. لذلك فلنضرب الأسد حيث يتوجع ..اضربوه في أكثر نقطة توجعه وتجبره على الأنين .. اي اضربوا الأسد في “عائلته الدمشقية” .. وعائلته هم الشعب الذي رفعه ووضعه في قصر الرئاسة .. وهي الشعب الذي ملأ الساحات دعما لبرنامجه السياسي ..وضرب العائلة سيوجع كبيرها وراعيها .. اضرب الأبناء يتراجع الوالد .. اضربوا الاخوة .. يتقهقر الأخ المحارب ويبتعد عنا ..

3- ومما تقوله الرسالة ان الضغط العسكري في الأرياف خانق على الثورة .. والثورة تريد أن تتنفس فالحذاء العسكري في فمها في الريف يضغط وهو يعصر رقبتها عصرا .. فتقرر المعارضة أن تضرب بذيلها في أي مكان مؤلم لتخفيف الضغط عنها .. وضرب المدنيين أشد ايلاما من ضرب العسكريين ..هذا الاستنتاج مبني على اعترافات ووثائق القي القبض عليها وفيها مراسلات واقتراحات سابقة من بعض صقور (الثورة) بأن تخفيف الضغط عن المقاتلين في الارياف لن يتم الا عبر الضغط على النظام عبر المدنيين .. وسيقوم طرف ثالث بتسليم رسالة تهديد للنظام بأن استمرار الضغط العسكري على عنق الثورة الريفي سيدفع ثمنه النظام في شوارع مدنه .. وهذا ماسيخلق حالة من النقمة لدى المدنيين من تردي الوضع الأمني اذا ماتتالت التفجيرات .. لأن الضغط الشعبي كفيل برفع حذاء الجيش عن أعناق الثورة..

4- هناك طرف لايزال يريد عصر المفاوضات بين الدولة السورية وخصومها الدوليين في المنطقة حتى آخر قطرة فكان تصريح العربي والابراهيمي عن ضرورة استبعاد الرئيس الأسد من الحلول بعد شيوع أجواء انفراج وتلا هذه التصريحات مباشرة تفجير دمشق (الذي كان يتنبأ به البعض بعد تلك التصريحات التي بدت موطئة له) ليزيد من الوزن النوعي لتصريحات العربي والابراهيمي ..

في التعامل مع العمليات الانتحارية لاتوجد هناك بطولة لأنها هي بحد ذاتها من أسهل أنواع العمليات تنفيذا .. فهذه العمليات يمكن ان تنفذ كل يوم في كل مدينة في العالم .. فأنت لاتريد الا حمقى يتصرفون كالروبوتات تتم برمجتها بعناية وفق برامج غسيل الدماغ .. وتحتاج الى متفجرات يمكن لأي شخص صناعتها من مواد كيماوية ..لم تنج منها لندن ونيويورك وتل أبيب

ولكن تعالوا نعرج على عباقرة الصهيونية عندما واجه الاسرائيليون سنوات الانتفاضة الفلسطينية وفوجئ الاسرائيليون بموجات من الاستشهاديين الفلسطينيين في مدنهم وشوارعهم لسنتين متتاليتين قتلت أربعة آلاف اسرائيلي .. فقرر الاسرائيليون الدخول في عملية سلام مع الفلسطينيين .. وعندما سئل رابين عن سبب قبوله للسلام بعد عناد ورفض قال: في الماضي كنا وعلى مدى عقود نخيف الفلسطيني بقتله .. لكننا اليوم أمام شخص يريد ان يموت .. فماذا يمكنني أن أفعل مع شخص لايريد أن يعيش بل أن يموت.. هل أقتله؟؟

لذلك دخلت عملية السلام ..

وتبين أن الاسرائيليين يراوغون ليكسبوا الوقت لأن رابين دخل عملية السلام مؤقتا ودوّخ الفلسطينيين بالمفاوضات ولم يعطهم أكثر من بلدية رام الله .. لكن في نفس الوقت كان الساسة الاسرائيليون يقومون بعملية دراسة واسعة للعقل الجهادي ويقومون بعمليات اختراق كثيفة أفقية وعمودية لجسم حماس من القاعدة حتى رأس الهرم .. فتم فهم سيكولوجيا العقل الجهادي .. واستعان الاسرائيليون بالعقل الوهابي لتدمير العقل الجهادي .. فكانت عمليات نيويورك تقريبا هي بداية نهاية موجات الانتحاريين الفلسطينيين .. وكأن من صمم عمليات 11 ايلول أراد منها احراج العمل الاستشهادي بأن حوله الى فعل جريمة وحشية حيوانية..

ومنذ ذلك التاريخ خرجت العمليات الاستشهادية من شوارع اسرائيل نهائيا وتنقلت في شوارع العالم لتستقر في شوارع بغداد والعراق .. وأخيرا لتحط في دمشق حيث ترقد دجاجة القاعدة على بيوض جبهة النصرة لتفقس تلك الثعابين .. في عش المعارضة السورية .. عش الحرية والديمقراطية ..

فهل يقدر الاسرائيليون على شيء لانقدر عليه؟؟؟ ما نعرفه حتى هذه اللحظة هو أننا نمسك بلجام المشكلة وأننا على ظهر الدابة .. وعلينا أن نشد اللجام .. حتى تتألم الدواب!! ..

هذه الأيام القاسيات ستمر .. شاءت المعارضة أم لم تشأ ..شاءت اسرائيل أم لم تشا .. شاءت تركيا والعرب أم لم يشاؤوا .. ونحن سنقبل التحدي .. وفي كل تفجير حقير نعرف أننا كنا على صواب في احتقارنا لهذه الثورة ولهؤلاء الثوار ولهذه المعارضة .. ونعرف أننا كنا على صواب في اختيارنا الوطني وفي رفضنا القطعي لمعارضة تقتل وتسرق وتبيع الوطن ..

وستغادر التفجيرات شوارعنا .. وسنسير في شوارعك يادمشق ولن نوقف دفق الحياة في شرايينها وشريانها الابهر .. لأن أجمل الموت هو أن يكون في دمشق وفي شرايينها وأوردتها .. ولأن أقوى الجذور هي التي تصنعها الشرايين في سفرها العميق في تراب الوطن .. وليس صحيحا أن طعم الموت في أمر حقير كطعم الموت في أمر عظيم .. فاذا كنا نموت فلنمت في دمشق .. حيث طعم الموت العظيم .. من أجلك يادمشق..من أجلك يادمشق…

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Galloway to David Cameron: What is the difference between the jihadists in Mali we oppose and the jihadists in Syria we back?

February 12, 2013

George Galloway MP to British Prime Minister David Cameron:

What is the difference between the jihadists in Mali we oppose and the jihadists in Syria we back?

David Cameron hailed the C-17 transport plane, pictured at RAF Brize Norton, before news emerged that one of the aircraft had broken down at French airbase
Response to David Cameron

Bradford West MP George Galloway responded to Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to answer a parliamentary question, by resorting to a cheap insult, by detailing the Arab tyrannies and puppet presidents Britain backs.

‘I asked a reasonable question, to detail the difference between the jihadists in Mali we oppose and the jihadists in Syria we back and in response to a legitimate inquiry I received a sneering insult more fitted to the gutters of Eton than the Mother of all Parliaments,’ Galloway said. ‘Britain is guilty to backing the worst, most bloodthirsty dictators in the world, bar none. This country backs and arms the foul Saudi Arabian sheikhdom which has the least democracy and probably the worst human rights record on the planet.

Then there’s Bahrain. And what about Egypt where this government backed Mubarak until almost the end? And it is less than a week ago, isn’t it, that the Foreign Office was warning British citizens to get out of Benghazi immediately for fear of their lives – at risk from the same jihadis we supplied, armed and fought for.’

Galloway added: ‘I have written to the Prime Minister today about his response to me and I will be interested how he responds.’

Below is the text of the letter:

Wednesday 30th January 2012

Dear Prime Minister,

I’m sure on reflection you will realise that your answer to me today was beneath you and unbecoming for a British Prime Minister. I will deal with the complete absence of a substantive reply in a moment. But let me deal first with the vulgar abuse.

I do not support any Arab dictatorship, unlike you. It is you who is selling weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and providing military training there. It is you who is supporting the Bahraini dictatorship. It is you who supported the Mubarak dictatorship until its last hours. Ditto the late dictatorship in Tunisia, Yemen etc. It is you who has the warmest possible relations with the dictatorships in the Gulf. I could go on, believe me. I, on the other hand, have spoken, written and broadcast against all Arab dictatorships. Perhaps your staff, in preparing your reply, will provide you with the evidence of this. I also read Frankenstein until the end.

I told one of your predecessors, Lady Thatcher, on the eve of the triumph of those whom your party routinely described as ‘Afghan freedom fighters’ that she “had opened the gates to the barbarians…. And that a long dark night would now descend upon the people of Afghanistan”. I warned repeatedly against the folly of the creation of the Arab-Afghan force which became Al Qaida. Immediately after 9/11 I said in the House that “I despise Osama Bin Laden, the medieval obscurantist savage. The difference is that I have always despised him. I despised him when you (pointing at the Tory benches) were giving him guns and money”.

I find it genuinely inexplicable that you are doing it all over again. This is a tragedy which begins to look farcical when one considers the issue which I raised today with you.

We are now killing Al Qaida in Mali and helping Al Qaida kill in Syria – killing Christians, killing Shiites, killing Kurds, killing Druze, killing Sunnis who won’t join their jihad, and soon, trust me, they will be killing each other.

There may be “key differences” between Al Qaida in Mali and their counterparts in Syria. I asked you to explain these to the House today. You refused. But it is a question which will not go away before a puff of vulgar abuse.

I look forward to your reply. I am seeking to publish this letter.

Yours sincerely,

George Galloway MP
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

It really is time Tony Blair faced justice at the International Criminal Court

February 7, 2013

How Tony Blair and Iraq Robbed a Generation of Their Faith in Politics

I imagine for many people alive today, the great politicising event of their childhood came in the form of a tragedy.

The first dreadful hammer of the Luftwaffe passing overhead, the panicked screams at the Dealey Plaza or the bullet holes at Bogside – that key event that propelled you to develop a political consciousness seems more likely to have been one that made you angry than inspired.

But for many of us who were still just 16 on 15 February, 2003, that landmark came in a moment of hope when more than 1,000,000 people descended on the streets of London to march in protest against the imminent invasion of Iraq.

war protest Anti-Iraq war march, London, 2003
It was, we were told, the largest public protest in British history. I still remember the feeling of pride as I poured over the pictures, that sense that we belonged, not to the most ‘politically apathetic generation’ ever to live after all, but to the most engaged, the most righteous.

Like hundreds of teenagers who didn’t make the real thing, students at my school hastily arranged their own small protest, marching through our small rural town chanting and playing anti-war music. We must have looked pathetic, but we didn’t care. We were adding a cry to a national roar that made the hairs on the back of our necks stand up.

It didn’t even occur to me that it might not work.

But first, let’s go back.
*Perhaps growing up in a small town in Northumberland – the UK’s northernmost, most sparsely populated county – we were a touch parochial. But the events of 9/11 didn’t so much politicise my schoolmates as demonstrate to us for the first time that there was a wider world out there at all. Most of us didn’t know what the Twin Towers were until they were crumbling in a plume of smoke. None of that ‘stuff’ – the news, the bickering politicians – had any relevance to us.

And then in the space of a day, before the dust in Manhattan had even settled, the notion of politics had sprung up out of nowhere, like that moment when you realise the opposite sex isn’t just attractive but that they’re going to matter, a lot, for the rest of your life.

I began reading newspapers to find out what was going on. I bought the Times because I had heard of it, until an older boy said it was ‘right-wing’. I figured out what right-wing meant, and bought the Guardian.

The space between 9/11 and the Iraq War being something people were talking about felt tiny, and that’s because it was. Just nine days after the attack, George W Bush, addressing Congress (and the world), uttered the words ‘War on Terror’ for the first time. Fabrications about the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda followed, and the international reputation of the most despised and ridiculed American in living memory was launched.

We couldn’t have known, at the time, how ‘Dubya’ would come to dominate how we felt about the world for the next eight years, how he’d oscillate from a figure of fun for our blossoming liberal sententiousness to quite simply the most terrifying man in the world. How he’d eventually make us despise our own prime minister. How, because of him, shamefully tossing around prejudice remarks about ‘stupid Americans’ felt OK.

The crazier Bush’s rhetoric got, the more he divided the world into good and bad like it was some kind of He-Man cartoon, the more I clung to the notion that here, we wouldn’t be drawn into using phrases like ‘axis of evil’. America was excitable, in the throes of imperialism. We were post-empire, cynical and weary.

But our prime minister saw things differently. Up until 2001, I think most of my generation still believed, in an abstract way, that Tony Blair was a decent man. He looked and sounded good on tele, he’d ended the conflicts in Ireland that had been a distant bogeyman of our childhoods and the other guy – the Tory -always seemed old, bald and well, boring.

But now suddenly, Blair was siding with Bush at every turn. When the president launched his War On Terror, Blair said he’d back it. When the president said he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Blair said he believed it too. The press presented him as Bush’s poodle, and we winced in acknowledgement.

Then came Resolution 1441 and Hans Blix. Blix swept into the darkening saga like a comforting beam from a lighthouse. The arrival of the peaceful Swede, with his glasses and nervous smile, seemed to my young mind like democracy at work. All Iraq had to do was open to doors to the weapon inspectors, show they had nothing to hide and war would be avoided. Like Piggy from Lord Of The Flies, Blix was supposed to be the rational voice of intelligence. But like Piggy he was taken out of action by an unstoppable boulder: an American government that had made its mind up to go to war long ago.

Blix didn’t find a thing, because there were no WMDs to find. By 31 December 2002, his team had reached the same conclusion as an Iraqi dossier presented to the UN during the same period: they were in the clear. It should have ended right there. Instead, two years later, Blix would tell the BBC what by then we all already knew – Bush and Blair ignored him and dramatised a threat in order to start a war.
*Looking back today, the whole charade that precipitated the Iraqi War reminds me of an incident from my teenager years.

A friend of mine had developed a complex about never having been in a fight. None of us had, really, being comfortable, middle-class kids who had grown up with no need for violence. One night this friend got drunk and followed an even punier guy from school out of the pub, where he backed him into a corner and preceded to bait him.

Trying to pluck up the courage to take a swing, my friend taunted this other kid unsuccessfully, before trying a new tact. He started sexing up some perceived slight from long ago, wanting to convince himself the guy deserved what was coming to him. He worked himself into a faux outrage, then finally, after an excruciating half hour, threw his punch.

My friend, you might say, was like a new American President desperate to prove he could be tough by attacking an opponent he knew he could easily beat. And in the background, feeling uncomfortable but doing nothing to stop it, was me. Tony Blair.
*Bush and Blair pushed for a second UN resolution to start a war in Iraq and failed, but American and British troops continued to build up around the Gulf. On 7 February, Downing Street admitted that its dossier on Iraq – released the previous week to push the case for war – was a muddled patchwork of academic sources pulled together by mid-level lackeys of Alastair Campbell. Still, the troops flooded in. Three days later, France and Germany make a last ditch attempt to keep the peace by suggesting the UN triples the number of arms inspectors in Iraq. The US-UK alliance ignored them.

Which brings us to the day of 15 February, 2003 – the day of my generation’s political awakening.
For two years we had watched our government join America in ignoring every plausible reason for not starting a war with innocent people in a poor country in the Middle East – the scepticism of the press, the will of the UN, the weapons inspectors, the facts. It had been a depressing lesson in the limitations of politics and politicians, these things we’d only just started paying attention to.
Then, at what felt like the last moment, the people stepped up.

Early in the morning they assembled: first at Embankment, then, through force, Westminster and Whitehall. Ken Livingstone, the mayor, led the way. Over a million people – a million, all sending a message to Tony Blair: you work for us, and we don’t want this war. And it wasn’t just London, either. Damascus, Athens, Seoul, Rome, Tokyo, Sydney – hundreds of cities all over the world were witnessing the same thing.

280 miles away from London, we were feeling for the first time the age old thrill of protest. A handful of us skipped school in the afternoon, drew CND signs on our face with one of the girl’s eyeliner and took a portable stereo playing Bob Dylan and Barry McGuire to our town square. Shoppers wandered by looking bemused. Some stopped to tell us well done. We argued with anyone who would listen about the lack of WMDs. We stood beneath a gloomy overcast sky but felt bathed in a warm glow.

Guardian/ICM polls at the time put support for the war at just 29% of the public, with 52% opposing. But Blair heard about polls all day long. Naively, I thought a million people marching past his window would be impossible to ignore.

A little over a month later, at 9.34pm on Wednesday 19 March, we watched on television as the first bomb fell on Baghdad. 28 British soldiers would die before the month was out.
*If every generation lives through an event that opens their eyes to politics for the first time, then perhaps there also an event that closes them again, if not entirely then at least in part.

My father isn’t a political man. He’s passionate and he cares about lots of things, but the political system depresses him. All my life I’ve heard him dismiss it – ‘they’re all the same’, ‘it’s pointless’ – and describe himself, with a hint of sadness, as ‘apolitical’.

In the build up the Iraq War, and particularly on the day the world marched, I couldn’t have understood his stance any less. I remember feeling disappointed in him. But as it came to dawn on me that it had all come to nothing, that Blair was pushing ahead with the war anyway, I came to understand a little of how he felt.

It left me – and most of us at school who had taken an interest in the world after 9/11 – bitterly angry. The buds of our idealism were buried under an avalanche of cynicism. I couldn’t comprehend how Blair had the nerve to ignore the will of the country. I assumed that, if they’d ignore us over something as important as war, they’d ignore over anything.

Ten years later and, like my father, I care about the issues politics affect, but I don’t trust the political system, and I don’t believe in politicians.

And I’m not alone. I see and hear it everywhere. Ask anyone in their late twenties to name an MP from their lifetime they admire, and most will stare at you blankly. Plenty of us are engaged in politics, but without relish, voting in elections like we’re choosing from the menu at Wimpy. When the expenses scandal broke in 2009, there were no marches, no protests, just a shrug of the shoulders and a look that said: why would we expect anything else? Since the early promise of Blair proved so misplaced, there hasn’t been a single inspiring figure in the top tier of British politics. No wonder we idolise Obama from afar: how we long for a leader whose motives we can trust, no matter how they might fail.

The worst legacies of the Iraq War belong to the families of the soldiers and civilians from Iraq, Britain, America and everywhere else forced to make sacrifices for an illegal occupation. But another legacy, one harder to measure than body bags, is the way Tony Blair’s hubris robbed a generation of their faith in politics.

I sometimes wonder how differently we’d feel today if Blair had listened. No doubt at the time he felt he was heeding the call of history, but he heard the wrong message. Ten years later, even when the last troop finally comes home, we’ll all still be paying a price.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The War on Afghanistan is a Profit driven "Resource War".

February 7, 2013

Source – Another link



   
US and NATO forces invaded Afghanistan more than eleven years ago. 
Afghanistan is defined as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The war on Afghanistan continues to be heralded as a war of retribution in response to the 9/11 attacks. 

This article, first published in June 2010, points to the “real economic reasons”  why US-NATO forces invaded Afghanistan eleven years ago. 
The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade and occupy Afghanistan under “the doctrine of collective security” was that the September 11 2001 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power.
Michel Chossudovsky,  February 5, 2013

The 2001 bombing and invasion of Afghanistan has been presented to World public opinion as a “Just War”, a war directed against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, a war to eliminate “Islamic terrorism” and instate Western style democracy.

The economic dimensions of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) are rarely mentioned. The post 9/11 “counter-terrorism campaign” has served to obfuscate the real objectives of the US-NATO war.

The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, “a resource war”.

While Afghanistan is acknowledged as a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on the former Soviet Union, China and Iran, at the crossroads of pipeline routes and major oil and gas reserves, its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.

According to a joint report by the Pentagon, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and USAID, Afghanistan is now said to possess “previously unknown” and untapped mineral reserves, estimated authoritatively to be of the order of one trillion dollars. (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010).

“The previously unknown deposits – including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium – are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said… “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries.
Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.
“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.
(New York Times, op. cit.)
Afghanistan could become, according to The New York Times “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”.
“Lithium is an increasingly vital resource, used in batteries for everything from mobile phones to laptops and key to the future of the electric car.”
At present Chile, Australia, China and Argentina are the main suppliers of lithium to the world market.

Bolivia and Chile are the countries with the largest known reserves of lithium.

“The Pentagon has been conducting ground surveys in western Afghanistan. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large as those of Bolivia”
(U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, see also Lithium – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) 

“Previously Unknown Deposits” of Minerals in Afghanistan
The Pentagon’s near one trillion dollar “estimate” of previously “unknown deposits” is a useful smokescreen.

The Pentagon one trillion dollar figure is more a trumped up number rather than an estimate:

“We took a look at what we knew to be there, and asked what would it be worth now in terms of today’s dollars. The trillion dollar figure seemed to be newsworthy.”
(The Sunday Times, London, June 15 2010)
Moreover, the results of a US Geological Survey study (quoted in the Pentagon memo) on Afghanistan’s mineral wealth were revealed three years back, at a 2007 Conference organized by the Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce.

The matter of Afghanistan’s mineral riches, however, was not considered newsworthy at the time.

The US Administration’s acknowledgment that it first took cognizance of Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth following the release of the USGS 2007 report is an obvious red herring. Afghanistan’s mineral wealth and energy resources (including natural gas) were known to both America’s business elites and the US government prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1988).

Geological surveys conducted by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and early 1980s confirm the existence of vast reserves of copper (among the largest in Eurasia), iron, high grade chrome ore, uranium, beryl, barite, lead, zinc, fluorspar, bauxite, lithium, tantalum, emeralds, gold and silver. (Afghanistan, Mining Annual Review, The Mining Journal, June, 1984).

These surveys suggest that the actual value of these reserves could indeed be substantially larger than the one trillion dollars “estimate” intimated by the Pentagon-USCG-USAID study.

More recently, in a 2002 report, the Kremlin confirmed what was already known:

“It’s no secret that Afghanistan possesses rich reserves, in particular of copper at the Aynak deposit, iron ore in Khojagek, uranium, polymetalic ore, oil and gas”.
(RIA Novosti, January 6, 2002)
“Afghanistan has never been anyone’s colony – no foreigner had ever “dug” here before the 1950s.
The Hindu Kush mountains, stretching, together with their foothills, over a vast area in Afghanistan, are where the minerals lie. Over the past 40 years, several dozen deposits have been discovered in Afghanistan, and most of these discoveries were sensational. They were kept secret, however, but even so certain facts have recently become known.

It turns out that Afghanistan possesses reserves of nonferrous and ferrous metals and precious stones, and, if exploited, they would possibly be able to cover even the earnings from the drug industry. The copper deposit in Aynak in the southern Afghan Helmand Province is said to be the largest in the Eurasian continent, and its location (40 km from Kabul) makes it cheap to develop.

The iron ore deposit at Hajigak in the central Bamian Province yields ore of an extraordinarily high quality, the reserves of which are estimated to be 500 million tonnes. A coal deposit has also been discovered not far from there.

Afghanistan is spoken of as a transit country for oil and gas. However, only a very few people know that Soviet specialists discovered huge gas reserves there in the 1960s and built the first gas pipeline in the country to supply gas to Uzbekistan. At that time, the Soviet Union used to receive 2.5 billion cubic meters of Afghan gas annually. During the same period, large deposits of gold, fluorite, barytes and marble onyxes that have a very rare pattern were found.

However, the pegmatite fields discovered to the east of Kabul are a real sensation. Rubies, beryllium, emeralds and kunzites and hiddenites that cannot be found anywhere else – the deposits of these precious stones stretch for hundreds of kilometers. Also, the rocks containing the rare metals beryllium, thorium, lithium and tantalum are of strategic importance (they are used in air and spacecraft construction).

The war is worth waging…

(Olga Borisova, “Afghanistan – the Emerald Country”, Karavan, Almaty, original Russian, translated by BBC News Services, Apr 26, 2002. p. 10) 2
While public opinion was fed images of a war torn resourceless developing country, the realities are otherwise: Afghanistan is a rich country as confirmed by Soviet era geological surveys.

The issue of “previously unknown deposits” sustains a falsehood. It excludes Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth as a justifiable casus belli. It says that the Pentagon only recently became aware that Afghanistan was among the World’s most wealthy mineral economies, comparable to The Democratic Republic of the Congo or former Zaire of the Mobutu era.

The Soviet geopolitical reports were known.

During the Cold War, all this information was known in minute detail:
…Extensive Soviet exploration produced superb geological maps and reports that listed more than 1,400 mineral outcroppings, along with about 70 commercially viable deposits…
The Soviet Union subsequently committed more than $650 million for resource exploration and development in Afghanistan, with proposed projects including an oil refinery capable of producing a half-million tons per annum, as well as a smelting complex for the Ainak deposit that was to have produced 1.5 million tons of copper per year.
In the wake of the Soviet withdrawal a subsequent World Bank analysis projected that the Ainak copper production alone could eventually capture as much as 2 percent of the annual world market.
The country is also blessed with massive coal deposits, one of which, the Hajigak iron deposit, in the Hindu Kush mountain range west of Kabul, is assessed as one of the largest high-grade deposits in the world.
(John C. K. Daly, Analysis: Afghanistan’s untapped energy, UPI Energy, October 24, 2008)
Afghanistan’s Natural Gas

Afghanistan is a land bridge.

The 2001 U.S. led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been analyzed by critics of US foreign policy as a means to securing control over the strategic trans-Afghan transport corridor which links the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea.

Several trans-Afghan oil and gas pipeline projects have been contemplated including the planned $8.0 billion TAPI pipeline project (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) of 1900 km., which would transport Turkmen natural gas across Afghanistan in what is described as a “crucial transit corridor”. (See Gary Olson, Afghanistan has never been the ‘good and necessary’ war; it’s about control of oil, The Morning Call, October 1, 2009).

Military escalation under the extended Af-Pak war bears a relationship to TAPI. Turkmenistan possesses third largest natural gas reserves after Russia and Iran. Strategic control over the transport routes out of Turkmenistan have been part of Washington’s agenda since the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991.

What was rarely contemplated in pipeline geopolitics, however, is that Afghanistan is not only adjacent to countries which are rich in oil and natural gas (e.g. Turkmenistan), it also possesses within its territory sizeable untapped reserves of natural gas, coal and oil.

 
Soviet estimates of the 1970s placed,
“Afghanistan’s ‘explored’ (proved plus probable) gas reserves at about 5 trillion cubic feet. The Hodja-Gugerdag’s initial reserves were placed at slightly more than 2 tcf.”
(See, The Soviet Union to retain influence in Afghanistan, Oil & Gas Journal, May 2, 1988)

The US. Energy Information Administration (EIA) acknowledged in 2008 that Afghanistan’s natural gas reserves are “substantial”:
“As northern Afghanistan is a ‘southward extension of Central Asia’s highly prolific, natural gas-prone Amu Darya Basin,’ Afghanistan ‘has proven, probable and possible natural gas reserves of about 5 trillion cubic feet.’ “
(UPI, John C.K. Daly, Analysis: Afghanistan’s untapped energy, October 24, 2008)

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979, Washington’s objective has been to sustain a geopolitical foothold in Central Asia.

The Golden Crescent Drug Trade
America’s covert war, namely its support to the Mujahideen “Freedom fighters” (aka Al Qaeda) was also geared towards the development of the Golden Crescent trade in opiates, which was used by US intelligence to fund the insurgency directed against the Soviets.
1

Instated at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war and protected by the CIA, the drug trade developed over the years into a highly lucrative multibillion undertaking. It was the cornerstone of America’s covert war in the 1980s.

Today, under US-NATO military occupation, the drug trade generates cash earnings in Western markets in excess of $200 billion dollars a year. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism, and, Heroin is “Good for Your Health”: Occupation Forces support Afghan Narcotics Trade, April 29, 2007)

Towards an Economy of Plunder

The US media, in chorus, has upheld the “recent discovery” of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth as “a solution” to the development of the country’s war torn economy as well as a means to eliminating poverty. The 2001 US-NATO invasion and occupation has set the stage for their appropriation by Western mining and energy conglomerates.

The war on Afghanistan is a profit driven “resource war”.

Under US and allied occupation, this mineral wealth is slated to be plundered, once the country has been pacified, by a handful of multinational mining conglomerates.

According to Olga Borisova, writing in the months following the October 2001 invasion, the US-led,
“war on terrorism [will be transformed] into a colonial policy of influencing a fabulously wealthy country.”
(Borisova, op cit).

Part of the US-NATO agenda is also to eventually take possession of Afghanistan’s reserves of natural gas, as well as prevent the development of competing Russian, Iranian and Chinese energy interests in Afghanistan. 
Note
1. The Golden Crescent trade in opiates constitutes, at present, the centerpiece of Afghanistan’s export economy. The heroin trade, instated at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979 and protected by the CIA, generates cash earnings in Western markets in excess of $200 billion dollars a year. Since the 2001 invasion, narcotics production in Afghanistan has increased more than 35 times. In 2009, opium production stood at 6900 tons, compared to less than 200 tons in 2001.
In this regard, the multibillion dollar earnings resulting from the Afghan opium production largely occur outside Afghanistan. According to United Nations data, the revenues of the drug trade accruing to the local economy are of the order of 2-3 billion annually. In contrast with the Worldwide sales of heroin resulting from the trade in Afghan opiates, in excess of $200 billion. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal, 2005)
2. Olga Borisova, “Afghanistan – the Emerald Country,” Karavan [Kazakhstan] [April 26, 2002], available in English as “Afghan Mineral Wealth Will Turn Anti-terror War into Colonialism – Kazakh Paper,” Hoover’s OnLine [April 28, 2002]. Almost 15 years ago, emeralds of very high quality were found in Afghanistan. A carat of unpolished Afghan emerald fetches over $300 in the West, and up to 10 carats of emerald can be washed out of one cubic meter of rock.
The mining of emeralds is carried out by small wok groups of men, who sell to dealers in the valley villages like Khenj, Safitchir, etc.. The mines are often located at over 4000 meters [over 13,000 feet]. For details, see Joel Donnet, “Les emeraudes de la survie du Panshir” [septembre 1999] and Lucian Kim, “Afghanistan’s Emerald Heights. The Gem-Studded Mountains Are a Pot of Gold for Anti-Taliban Forces,” Christian Science Monitor [July 2000]. 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

USA playing with fire-waiving visa requirements for Israelis

January 28, 2013
HR 300: Visa Waiver for Israel Act Proves Dangerous, Considering History of Israeli State Sponsored Terrorism

http://www.blacklistednews.com/HR_300%3A_Visa_Waiver_for_Israel_Act_Proves_Dangerous%2C_Considering_History_of_Israeli_State_Sponsored_Terrorism/23871/0/38/38/Y/M.html

It is no secret based upon past history that the Israeli lobby in Washington DC has an unbelievable amount of influence over the United States government. With this in mind it should be no surprise that we see yet another pro-Israel bill being pushed in the U.S. House of Representatives. House Resolution 300 or the Visa Waiver for Israel Act of 2013 was recently introduced by Brad Sherman a Jewish Congressman from California. The bill would include Israel on the list of countries that participate in the U.S. government’s Visa Waiver Program. If the bill is passed into law, it would allow Israelis to stay in the United States for tourism or business purposes up to 90 days without obtaining a Visa. The bill has so far been co-sponsored by over 50 members of Congress.

The fact that a bill like this has even been proposed let alone supported by so many members of Congress is more proof that there is a big problem. Israel has proven time and time again that they are not a friend of the American people. The CIA itself even admits that Israel is the greatest counterintelligence threat to the United States in the Middle East. Throughout its existence, Israel has consistently engaged in acts of spying and espionage against the United States and has made few apologies for it. There are numerous documented cases of this with the most infamous of them being the case of Jonathan Pollard. During the 1980s, Pollard a Jewish-American who worked for the U.S. Navy as an intelligence analyst offered himself to Israel as a spy. Pollard would end up passing on thousands of classified documents to Israel but was eventually caught and found guilty of espionage. He would be later sentenced to life in prison.

In the 1960s, the Israeli military attacked the USS Liberty killing and wounding many American sailors in an event that was quickly covered up by President Lyndon Johnson. Several people within U.S. military and intelligence circles concluded that the attack was a deliberate attempt to sink the vessel despite Israeli claims of it just being one big mistake. The USS Liberty was flying a large easily identifiable American flag at the time of the attack so it is impossible to believe that this was a simple accident. Israeli forces would even commit war crimes by firing at sailors in life boats who had abandoned ship.

On September 11th, 2001 Israeli spies were caught filming the World Trade Center before the first plane hit the North tower. Eyewitnesses even saw these people dancing and cheering after the explosion which prompted some to call police. Later these individuals were found and arrested but after many weeks of questioning were let go and allowed to return to Israel. One of the Israelis would later admit on an Israeli television show that they were there to document the event. The question being how would they know there was going to be an event in the first place unless they had prior knowledge of it?

Fox News – Part1 – Israeli Spy ring by exprofesso
Many researchers have pointed to this case as proof that Israel had at the very least advance knowledge of what was about to take place that day. Not surprising, there was very little attention paid to this situation by the big corporate media outlets. Instead the American people were bombarded with all sorts of ridiculous propaganda and conspiracy theories about Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

It is completely absurd that anyone in the United States would extend special immigration privileges to Israel considering this history. If anything Israel represents one of the greatest threats to the American people and should be considered an enemy not an ally. The myth of Israel being America’s closest ally and a beacon for freedom in the Middle East is repeated over and over again by the corporate media has reached absurd proportions. It is nothing more than a lie promoted by the Jews and assorted Zionists who have run the big American news media for decades.

Congressman Sherman has introduced this legislation not to benefit the American people but instead to benefit the Jewish people residing in Israel. Unfortunately, this legislation will likely pass considering that recent pro-Israel bills have either received unanimous or close to unanimous Congressional support.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

jewals?

January 28, 2013
by David Holden
Friday, January 25th, 2013

David Holdenthis incomplete list of well-embedded sayanim in US government has been tidied up a bit and edited from a document i found dating from 2006.
it seems mainly to include people influential in the dubya Bush administration, so does not stretch to the media, banking etc. cuddly Ben Bernanke of the Fed would not receive a mention.
i reproduce it here because i had felt the lack of a handy list, and happening on this, thought it might be of interest to others doing similar investigative work. such information undoubtedly provides a useful initial research guide for those seeking to understand the genesis of the psychopathic Middle Eastern wars initiated by the USA/NATO in the first decade of the 21st century. dual citizenship in the technical sense is not a verified fact in every case – the reason for inclusion seems to have been primarily a demonstrated loyalty to Israel against the interests of the US. a more thorough study would have its scope extended to include humanitarian activists like Madelaine Albright (who only found out she is Jewish after G_d spoke to her in a dream!), Philip Zelikow, the principal scriptwriter for the Broadway hit The 9-11 Commission, and administrative stars of the Obama years like Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod etc., etc,. etc., etc., etc., etc,. etc., etc., etc., etc,. etc., etc., etc., etc,. etc., etc., etc., etc,. etc., etc., … Among those mentioned below are several high-level operatives who made major contributions to the organization of the PNAC 9-11 demolitions and the implanting of the boxcutter boys myth.

 Michael Mukasey

became US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Michael Chertoff

Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security. freed the mossadnik 9-11 suspects to go back to Israel.

Richard Perle
One of Bush’s foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970′s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from a pro-Israel think tank, the AEI. Perle was one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading the Iraq war mongering within the administration and  the media.

Paul Wolfowitz

Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle’s Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the  Jewish think tank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind the Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.

Douglas Feith

Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don’t agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm’s own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith “represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer.” Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA.

Lawrence (Larry) Franklin

The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith’s deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, “to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat” and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Edward Luttwak

Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak has taught in Israel and frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.

Henry Kissinger

there seems to be no public information about this character, whose name is unfamiliar to me.
Dov Zakheim

has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. much of Israel’s weaponry  was obtained  thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value. Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.  He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story was buried under 9-11′s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch.  Despite this, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world and worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Kenneth Adelman

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extreme anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views.

Lewis “Scooter” Libby

Cheney’s ex-Chief of Staff and longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband’s revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.

Robert Satloff

U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby’s “experts” come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

Elliott Abrams

National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based “Think Tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration’s State Department.

Marc Grossman

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

Richard Haass

Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

 Robert Zoellick

U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.

Ari Fleischer

Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

James Schlesinger

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

David Frum

White House speechwriter behind the “Axis of Evil” label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.

Joshua Bolten

White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.

John Bolton

Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).

 David Wurmser

Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.

Eliot Cohen

Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.

 Mel Sembler

President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.

 Steve Goldsmith

Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

 Adam Goldman

White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

Joseph Gildenhorn

Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.  DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator. former ambassador to Switzerland.

Christopher Gersten

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.

Mark Weinberger

Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.

Samuel Bodman

Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

Bonnie Cohen

Under Secretary of State for Management.

Ruth Davis

Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

Daniel Kurtzer

Ambassador to Israel.

Cliff Sobel

Ambassador to the Netherlands.

Stuart Bernstein

Ambassador to Denmark.

Nancy Brinker

Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin

Ambassador to Singapore.

Ron Weiser

Ambassador to Slovakia.

Mel Sembler

Ambassador to Italy.

Martin Silverstein

Ambassador to Uruguay.

Lincoln Bloomfield

Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

Jay Lefkowitz

Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Ken Melman

White House Political Director.

Brad Blakeman

White House Director of Scheduling.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Richard Falk: An Open Letter of Response to CRIF

January 3, 2013


An Open Letter of Response to CRIF (Counsèil Représentif des Institutions juives de France)

I am shocked and saddened that your organization would label me as an anti-Semite and self-hating Jew. It is utterly defamatory, and such allegations are entirely based on distortions of what I believe and what I have done. To confuse my criticisms of Israel with self-hatred of myself as a Jew or with hatred of Jews is a calumny. I have long been a critic of American foreign policy but that does not make me anti-American; it is freedom of conscience that is the core defining reality of a genuinely democratic society, and its exercise is crucial to the quality of political life in a particular country, especially here in the United States where its size and influence often has such a large impact on the lives and destiny of many peoples excluded from participating in its policy debates or elections.

It is always difficult to negate irresponsible accusations of this kind. What follows is an attempt to clarify my honestly held positions in relation to a litany of charges that have been given currency by a campaign conducted by UN Watch ever since I was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to be Special Rapporteur for the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 2008. What follows are brief attempts at clarification in response to the main charges:

–the attacks on me by such high profile individuals as Ban ki-Moon, Susan Rice, David Cameron were made in response to vilifying letters about me sent to them by UN Watch, and signed by its Executive Director, Hillel Neuer. The contention that Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, also attacked me is misleading. She regretted the posting of a cartoon on my blog that had an anti-Semitic cartoon, but she took note of my contention that it was a complete accident and that the cartoon was immediately removed when brought to my attention;
–it was the cartoon that has served UN Watch as the basis of their insistence that I am an anti-Semite. Their bad faith is demonstrated by their repeated magnification of the cartoon far beyond what I had posted on the basis of its size on the Google image page for the International Criminal Court. As I have explained many times, I was unaware when I posted the cartoon of its anti-Semitic character, and pointed out that the post in which was inserted was dealing with my argument that the ICC was biased in its use of its authority, in this instance by issuing arrest warrants against the Qaddafi leadership in Libya. Israel was not mentioned in the post the content of which had nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism or Jews. To ignore such an explanation is to my way of thinking and to reprint the cartoon in an enlarged form is a sign of malicious intent; any fair reading of the 182 posts on my blog, including one devoted to Jewish identity would make it very clear to any objective reader that I have not expressed a single sentiment that can be fairly described as an anti-Semite. It is a grave disservice to both Israel and Jews to confuse criticism of Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians with anti-Semitism.

–the claim that I am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, actually a leading one, is false, as well. I have consistently maintained that I have insufficient knowledge to reach any conclusions about whether there is an alternative narrative of the 9/11 events that is more convincing than the official version. What I have said, and stand behind, is that David Griffin and many others have raised questions that have not been adequately answered, and constitute serious gaps in the official version that were not closed by the 9/11 Commission report. I would reaffirm that David Griffin is a cherished friend, and that we have professionally collaborated on several projects long before 9/11. It should be pointed out that Griffin is a philosopher of religion of worldwide reputation that has written on a wide range of issues, including a series on inquiries into the post-modern world and the desirability of an ecological civilization.

–The recent UN Watch letter that led me to be removed from the Human Rights Watch SB city Committee also claims I am a partisan of Hamas, which is a polemic charge and is untrue. What I have encouraged is a balanced view of Hamas based on the full context of their statements and behavior, and not fixing on language in the Hamas Charter or a particular speech. When the broader context is considered of Hamas statements and recent behavior is considered, then I believe there exists a potential opportunity to work with Hamas leaders to end the violence, to release the people of Gaza from captivity, and to generate a diplomatic process that leads to a period of prolonged peaceful co-existence with Israel. I have never insisted that this hopeful interpretation is necessarily correct, but I do maintain that it is worth exploring, and a preferred alternative to the current rigid insistence on refusing to deal with Hamas as a political actor because it is ‘a terrorist organization.’ It was evident in the recent violence preceding the November ceasefire in Gaza that leaders throughout the Middle East were treating Hamas as the governmental authority in Gaza and as a normal political entity, and this helped bring the violence to an end.

–Finally, UN Watch charges that I am biased and one-sided in my treatment of Israeli behavior, and cites Susan Rice and others for support, as well as noting my failure to report on violations by Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority. I can only say once more that I am trying my best to be objective and truthful, although unwilling to give in to pressure. I did make an effort in my initial appearance before the Human Rights Council to broaden my mandate to take account of Palestinian violations, but was rebuffed by most of the 49 governmental members of the Council for seeking to make such a change, and reasonable grounds were advanced for not changing my mandate. I have noted Palestinian violations of international law wherever relevant to the assessment of Israeli behavior, as for instance in relation to the launch of indiscriminate rockets. Palestinian abuses of human rights of Palestinians under their control while administering portions of Occupied Palestine is outside my mandate, and I have no discretion to comment on such behavior in discharging my responsibilities as Special Rapporteur.

It is my view that Israel is in control of the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and is primarily responsible for the situation and the persistence of the conflict, especially by their insistence on undertaking provocative actions such as targeted assassinations and accelerated settlement expansions.

I would grateful if this account of my actual views and beliefs can be circulated widely in response to the CRIF repetition of the UN Watch attacks.

Richard Falk
29 December 2012

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!