The Nether-World

Warning: Armed, Dangerous Lunatics On The Loose In London

2007-11-01T23:38:00.000Z

Following the verdict at the Old Bailey in which the Metropolitan Police was found guilty of "a catastrophic series of errors" in the events leading to the public execution of Jean Charles de Menezes, we hear that the killers who shot the Brazilian electrician seven times in the head with dum-dum bullets at point blank range while he was being held down (and still managed to miss several times) are back on active duty and have been for some time.

Despite their notoriety, the pair's identity has never been revealed, and their names are a closely guarded secret within the elite Met firearms unit, now known as CO19.
Retired superintendent Phil Manns, a former commander of the firearms unit, has described the pair as "incredibly mature, well-adjusted, competent, professional officers" [my emphasis].

So, the assassins who actually pulled the trigger(s) have been found to be in no way culpable. What a surprise! Perhaps the officer in charge of the botched operation is in some way responsible. You'd think so wouldn't you? But no, apparently not:

In a highly unusual move, the judge, Mr Justice Henriques, allowed the jury to insert a rider, or caveat, into the verdict stating that Cressida Dick, the commander in charge of the operation on the day, should not be held personally culpable for the events.

Well then, if neither the assassins or their commander are in any way responsible for the tragedy then surely the blame must fall on the The Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair. Wrong again:

The Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said after the verdict that he would not be resigning and would go back to New Scotland Yard to "get on with my job". The prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said Sir Ian retained their "full confidence".

In other words absolutely no one is to be held accountable for the cold-blooded murder if an innocent man. Why is this?

The judge called the case a "corporate failure, not an individual failure". He said it was hard to decide the appropriate fine because "any costs to the police is a cost against a police officer on the streets".

Well how bloody convenient! In the end the fine that was decided was a pathetic £175,000 with £385,000 costs. And this after the Met had tried to cover its tracks with a tissue of lies and had done its best to smear Jean Charles de Menezes. There are so many lies, smears and episodes of incompetence that it's hard to know where to start, so in no particular order:

The Met dishonestly manipulated a photo of Jean Charles de Menezes in an attempt to make him look more like Hussain Osman, one of the men who tried to bomb London's transport network on July 21 2005.

We were told by the Met that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed because he acted in an "aggressive and threatening manner" when challenged and was "up for it"

The facts that Jean Charles de Menezes had apparently taken cocaine and had a fake stamp in his passport* was used as a smear to somehow justify the execution.

After the shooting, we were told that Jean Charles de Menezes was an illegal alien. He wasn't

We were told that he was wearing bulky coat, refused to stop when challenged and then vaulted the ticket barriers. Not true

We were told that there was no CCTV footage at the Stockwell tube station. There was (at least in the ticket area, no footage was recorded on the train or on the platform as far as we know).

The spotter who was supposed to verify Osman's identity had gone to the toilet and was absent from his post when de Menezes left his home.

A suspected bomber was allowed to make two bus journeys, but were told to hold back and wait for the firearms team to handle the arrest.

And yet, Cressida Dick told the court that she never gave an order to shoot. The Operation Kratos "shoot-to-kill" procedures were never invoked, and no Kratos codeword was issued. Somebody must have.

Add to all this the chaos and confusion in the control room and the fact that we now allow Israel, of all countries, to train Met Police firearms officers, we can see that this was an disaster just waiting to happen. This still leaves us with the question as to why with all these catalogued errors and lies, no one is being prosecuted or asked to resign? The "corporate failure, not an individual failure" line just doesn't wash. After a fuck-up this big there should be a whole bunch of resignations if not prosecutions. When corporations fail, resignations follow.

The only answer is that the Police are never held responsible when they kill innocent people and those responsible are often promoted so as to rub our noses in it. The only time accountability came close was when the police gunned down Harry Stanley in 1999 and five years later when the officers responsible were suspended from duty, over 100 armed officers returned their weapons in protest leading to the reinstatement of the culprits. In the case of the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes a clue was given by defence counsel Ronald Thwaites QC as to what would happen:

A successful prosecution of the Metropolitan police over the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes would be like putting handcuffs on detectives and would damage the fight against serious crime in the UK, a jury was told yesterday.
A trial at the Old Bailey heard that the attempt to prosecute police over the death of the 27-year-old Brazilian, who was shot dead by police marksman at the height of the anti-terrorist operation in July 2005, was based on ignorance and hindsight.
"The prosecution in this case are attempting to dictate to the police how they should do their job from a position of near ignorance," defence counsel Ronald Thwaites QC told the jury.
He added that a conviction would "inhibit their effectiveness in combating serious crime" and said the trial should be viewed as a test case. "The prosecution do not appear to understand how the police organise themselves, how they conduct major operations, or how they work."

There you have it. Thankfully a jury was able to provide the correct verdict despite the lies given by the Met, but no prosecutions will come of it. And this was known before the trial ever started. The only way the incompetence could be highlighted at all was by charging the Met with "health and safety" violations. What a damning indictment of British justice!

* Clarification from John Lettice in the comments:
The Home Office never categorically stated that his leave to remain stamp was forged. It suggested that it was in a statement issued after an extensive record search, but didn't go as far as saying so. Covered in this article in The Register towards the end (another good piece by The Reg here).

More bloggage on this from Ten Percent, Mask of Anarchy, Obsolete, Paul Linford, Iain Dale, Pickled Politics, Bloggerheads, Chicken Yoghurt, Beau Bo D'Or, The Yorkshire Ranter, Blood & Treasure...

Tags: Jean Charles de Menezes, Stockwell Police Shooting, UK Police, British Justice, Ian Blair

The Burmese Junta's Accomplices

2007-10-27T07:37:00.000+01:00

There's a new article in the Guardian by John Pilger that I've just read. It's about Burma and it's called 'The politics of hypocrisy'. It seems to be an edited version of an address he gave to a London meeting, 'Freedom Writ Large', organized by PEN and the Writers Network of Burma, on October 25. It's an interesting piece and I urge you to read it in full. Here are some highlights.

In Britain, the official PR line has changed; Burma is a favourite New Labour "cause"; Gordon Brown has written a platitudinous chapter in a book about his admiration of Suu Kyi. On Thursday, he wrote a letter to Pen, waffling about prisoners of conscience, no doubt part of his current empty theme of "returning liberty" when none can be returned without a fight. As for Burma, the essence of Britain's compliance and collusion has not changed. British tour firms - such as Orient Express and Asean Explorer - are able to make a handsome profit on the suffering of the Burmese people. Aquatic, a sort of mini-Halliburton, has its snout in the same trough, together with Rolls-Royce and others that use Burmese teak.
When did Brown or Blair ever use their platforms at the CBI and in the City of London to name and shame those British companies that make money on the back of the Burmese people? When did a British prime minister call for the EU to plug the loopholes of arms supply to Burma. The reason ought to be obvious. The British government is itself one of the world's leading arms suppliers. Next week, the dictator of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, whose tyranny gorges itself on British arms, will receive a state visit. On Thursday the Brown government approved Washington's latest fabricated prelude to a criminal attack on Iran - as if the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan were not enough for the "liberal" lionhearts in Downing Street and Whitehall.
And when did a British prime minister call on its ally and client, Israel, to end its long and sinister relationship with the Burmese junta? Or does Israel's immunity and impunity also cover its supply of weapons technology to Burma and its reported training of the junta's most feared internal security thugs? Of course, that is not unusual. The Australian government - so vocal lately in its condemnation of the junta - has not stopped the Australian Federal Police training Burma's internal security forces.
Read the whole article.

Other crises have shunted Burma further down the news agenda but the problems are obviously still there. We knew that despite protestations from the Government that British companies are supporting the regime, as are French and American companies. So it's no surprise that Chevron and Total are part of a consortium with the junta and that Halliburton was involved in the construction of the gas pipline which was built with forced labour. Thanks to the Burma Campaign UK we can easily find out which companies are still propping up the vile regime in Burma and learn of the lamentable lack of meaningful action from the EU. And blogs like Ten Percent have done an excellent job in helping to keep the issue alive with active campaigning. What isn't being as widely reported on is the arming of the regime and the countries which are involved. It seems that the EU arms embargo on Burma has been compromised by India by their selling of European made military helicopters to the junta. Russia, China and Ukraine have also been arming the regime supplying it with everything from small arms to surface-to-air missiles. Israel too is playing a role in keeping the junta armed so that it can slaughter defenceless monks. Israel and Burma have developed a military pact. And when it comes to supporting despotic regimes, Israel has plenty of previous.

It could be that the Myanmar troops who've been shooting demonstrators to death were using Uzi submachine guns that Israeli arms dealers sold to the country's military dictatorship. According to Jane's Intelligence Weekly, Israeli "security companies" are believed to have sold Uzis and parts from Galil assault rifles to the junta. Israeli mercenaries are also said to have trained Myanmar's infamously repressive police force.
"Given its sensitive nature, it is difficult to see how this assistance could be given to Myanmar without the active involvement, or at least the full knowledge and support, of the Israeli government," reported Jane's in 2000. Myanmar, formerly Burma, has been one of the world's worst police states since 1988.
[...]
To the list of military clients Israel never liked advertising, you can add the dictatorships that once ruled Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Nicaragua and other Latin American countries, as well as past and/or present military dictatorships in Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone and other African nations.
The sadistic Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega owed his life, and his power, to Mike Harari, the ex-Mossad agent who led the team of mercenaries that was Noriega's palace guard. The Israeli arch-mercenary Yair Klein and his boys trained Colombia's right-wing death squads, drug cartels and whoever else would meet his price. When the apartheid regime of South Africa was having problems with black demonstrators, Israeli "security companies" sold the white rulers electrified fences and gravel-spraying trucks.

Back in March questions were asked in Parliament about Israel's help to Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe which took the form of advice on demonstration control and supplies of tear gas. Isolating and starving the Burmese junta of revenue is obviously the best way to get it to stop its crackdown on protesters and take steps leading to democratic reform, but as long as so many countries are arming the junta to the teeth then there is little incentive for it to co-operate.

Tags: Freedom, Burma, Myanmar, Protest, Democracy, Israel, Arms Trade, John Pilger

Alan Johnston Realeased

2007-07-04T10:06:00.000+01:00

Image courtesy of Bloggerheads

Also posted on Blairwatch

Some good news. BBC reporter Alan Johnston has at last been freed after 114 days in captivity.

It seems that Hamas, who had the kidnappers surrounded, managed to apply enough pressure to secure Alan Johnston's release.

Mr Johnston said Hamas's seizure of power in Gaza and its subsequent pledge to improve security in the territory had facilitated his release.
"The kidnappers seemed very comfortable and very secure in their operation until... a few weeks ago, when Hamas took charge of the security operation here," he said.

I'm sure the huge campaign to draw attention to the kidnapping added further incentive to get Alan Johnston freed. Quite what Israel and her allies will make of this Hamas achievement remains to be seen.

Tags: Alan Johnston, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Hamas

Middle East Spiraling Into Chaos

2007-06-18T04:13:00.001+01:00

I haven't commented recently on the current chaos engulfing the Middle East. This is partly because events are moving so fast that anything written becomes almost instantly redundant, partly because others have have written very eloquently on the subject saying pretty much what I was going to say, and partly because the whole situation is so depressing and tragic that commentary on it becomes difficult. However, the events in the region are too important to ignore so some sort comment is necessary.

Firstly, it seems unwise to focus just on one aspect of the crises. Obviously what is grabbing the headlines at the moment is the situation in Palestine where Hamas have taken control of Gaza leaving Fatah in nominal control of the West Bank. There is plenty to say about this but Palestine is only a part (albeit a very large part) of a broader set of problems. What we are seeing is the destabilising of the whole region which was widely predicted before the invasion of Iraq, and more countries are now being affected. This is not to say that the Middle East was completely stable before the invasion of Iraq, far from it, but each particular problem was more contained. Now, as the Iraq war is spilling over into other countries, there is what looks like a chain reaction of instability throughout the region affecting Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt to varying degrees.

It might be unfair to blame all this instability on the Iraq war but it does seem to have acted as a catalyst for discontent to explode into anger and hatred. To me all these problems seem to be linked and behind it all is US and Israeli foreign policy. America has been condemned fot its handling of the Middle East in a UN report. Removing the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein created a vacuum in the region. Iraq, as it turned out, wasn't particularly powerful but it was thought to be, and so was feared. Also it was fiercely secular and kept a lid on sectarian tensions. The destruction of Iraq has made Iran much more powerful and it can much more easily influence events in southern Iraq and Lebanon. Whereas one of the excuses for the war was to combat terrorism, now terrorism is widespread and exists where it wasn't evident before, like in Iraq.

How does this have a bearing on the 60 year-old Israel/Palestine conflict? Hamas is said to be supported by Iran for a start. Just how true this is, and to what extent if it is true, is not really known. But the traditional Sunni/Shia divide which affects so much of relationships between Middle Eastern states is not a simple black and white issue. One thing all the states in the region have in common is a desire (stated at least) to see justice for the Palestinians. So many commentators have stated this obvious fact but it has been brushed aside by Bush and Blair in their unquestioning support for Israel. The Arab countries which benefit from support by the West have diluted their support for Palestine despite their rhetoric and this has created further divisions. At the start of the Iraq war, Tony Blair asked the Bush administration to renew its commitment to finding a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. After a token effort (if it can be called that), it became obvious that America would allow Israel to do precisely what it wanted and Blair quickly fell into line. Last year Blair again promised to concentrate his remaining time in office to finding a solution and again failed.

Another justification for the Iraq war was install a democratic government and make Iraq a beacon to the whole region; a model that other states would want to emulate. This crass propaganda has been sufficiently rubbished now. Who in their right minds would want to emulate Iraq? The continued oppression of the Palestinians with ever more restrictions, theft of land and unrestrained settlement building, has led to Fatah, mired in corruption, to be challenged by Hamas. Hamas won a free and fair election and was voted into power. America and Israel's commitment to democracy was instantly exposed as a sham when, with their pressure, all support for the Palestinian Authority (PA) was withdrawn leading to terrible suffering among the Palestinians. It was only a matter of time before they started fighting among themselves, and I think that this was so obvious that it must have been the plan all along. Like so many neocon plans, it backfired. Hamas, despite having more extreme views than Fatah were democratically elected and share the same aims as Fatah. When the wishes of the Palestinian people were ignored, Hamas formed a unity government with Fatah and the people were still collectively punished by Israel although the Europe and the US started to waver.

Now, as we have seen the tensions have boiled over and Hamas has seized Gaza in what Margaret Beckett (among many others) are calling a coup d'état. Whatever one's views of the situation are, elected representatives fighting to keep what they had already won at the ballot box is not a coup d'état. This is one of so many examples of the pernicious propaganda we are all faced with. So, as a direct result of American and Israeli policy the two-state solution is postponed if not dead and we now have what Jon Snow of Channel 4 news called a three-state non solution. No one knows how long this situation can continue. Hamas might have Gaza, but the situation for all Gazans will worsen. What little aid that was trickling through will stop. Israel has already halted deliveries of fuel into Gaza. This will mean more Gazans will try to flee, adding pressure on the Egyptian border. Israel's claim to have withdrawn from Gaza was demonstrably false. True they dismantled the settlements there and moved back the army but Israel still has military dominance of the Gaza strip and the disproportionate bombings in response to rocket attacks never ceased. One thing Hamas might achieve which would increase its standing in the West (if only temporarily) is to secure the release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston. As always there are mixed messages about this issue, with Hamas saying he could be released within hours and the kidnappers denying it.

Meanwhile in the West Bank, Fatah has been asserting itself. It has nominal control (for now at least) of the remaining areas the PA is allowed to control and Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyah, and set up an emergency government. This move has been rewarded by America and Israel with some promises of aid. However, though more stable than Gaza, there is increasing instability in the West Bank and that is likely to put pressure on Jordan. Already we have heard of Palestinian factions from the Jordanian army preparing to help Fatah. Jordan is already under pressure from a huge number of refugees coming from Iraq. Instability spreading into Jordan is not inconceivable.

In Lebanon, the army is claiming that it has control of 90 percent of the Fatah al Islam strongholds in Palestinian refugee camps. If true then it still does not mean an end to Lebanon's problems. Katyusha rockets have been fired into northern Israel from Lebanon and this time Hezbollah are denying any responsibility. Let's just remind ourselves briefly that Fatah al Islam was originally backed by the USA and the Lebanese government in an attempt to have a force to challenge Hezbollah. Needless to say the plan backfired. The truce between Israel and Hezbollah is shaky at best and hostilities could resume at any time, particularly because Israel is still smarting from last summer's defeat and wants to assert itself. The assassination of another anti-Syrian MP is putting more pressure on Syria.

While that potential conflict is brewing, another flash point is starting to manifest. Both Israel and Syria have been massing their forces on each side of the Golan Heights in preparation for what might be another war. At the same time there have been talks (or talks about having talks) over the handing back of the Golan to Syria. This is potentially positive if it happens. The price for Syria would be to renounce any support for any Palestinian and Iranian groups and presumably any involvement in Lebanon. It remains to be seen if this is a possible peace or a possible war. It might be an attempt by Israel to make attacks on Lebanon and/or Iran easier.

We are seeing the long established pattern of positive diplomatic developments scuppered by facts on the ground. This usually happens when Israel is offered a chance for peace by its Arab neighbours and realises it has to make concessions. Then, suddenly, a conflict mysteriously flares up allowing Israel to scrap any deal. I've lost count how many times this has happened. Remember the last Arab League summit a few months ago when Israel expressed an interest in a Saudi sponsored peace deal which was in effect a return to the 1967 border in exchange for normalised relations with Arab countries? Lo and behold we now have a host of new conflicts brewing.

Once again the lost cause of Iraq has caused America to take its eye off the ball in the wider region. Anyone looking to the USA to solve these crises will be disappointed. Iraq is disintigrating with Turkey attacking Kurds in the north and a full blown insurgency and numerous civil wars. America, despite its ill-advised 'surge' can barely control 40 percent of Baghdad. The casualties on both sides are mounting and Bush's support is at an all time low. It is now blatently obvious that the Iraq war has been lost and Bush is trying to hang on so that another administration faces the humiliating withdrawal. Despite the hate campaign against Iran and Syria the hawks in Washington are now in the minority. Dick Cheney, and now Joseph Lieberman, calling for the bombing of Iran are looking ever more ridiculous. This must be worrying for Israeli hawks who have been pushing for America to commit to a war Iran as they did with Iraq. They could initiate an attack themselves and Washington would no doubt support it, but the resulting retaliation on so many fronts would lead to a catastrophe. For the Bush administration, time is short as the President prepares to limp and quack into the sunset, the Democrats, however, don't seem to be any less hawkish and their opposition to the Iraq war (such as it is) is merely a political game. Whether they can see the futility of further conflict and the failure to pandering to lobby groups like AIPAC is questionable. In Britain, Gordon Brown is sending mixed messages, a continued British presence in Iraq, failure to completely rule out involvement in an attack on Iran and yet more cash for the Palestinians.

With all these small regional conflicts so tangled up with each other, and with American power games playing such a large part in them, the chances of some sort of mishap triggering a bigger catastrophe increase. And that's even if America doesn't succumb to the insane plans of some neocons in Washington to launch an attack on Iran.

Related Bloggage

Tags: Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel,US Politics

Diplomacy, Dishmomacy

2007-03-28T08:39:00.000+01:00

It is no great secret that Condoleezza Rice isn't exactly the most successful of diplomats - especially when it comes to trying to solve the torturous Israel/Palestine conflict. Her obvious bias towards Israel means that more often than not she returns empty-handed from her numerous jaunts to the region. Her latest escapade was no exception. The difference this time, however, is that now Condi is being rebuffed not just by the Palestinians, who she can't seem to convince to recognise the state that is continually stealing their land, but also by the Israelis, who don't seem to be able to accept any form of compromise.

An Israeli journalist I spoke to was dismissive as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left Jerusalem this morning.
"Diplomacy, dishmomacy," were his actual words.
This was Ms Rice's seventh visit to the region over the last few months.
A lot of talk, little to show for it, is the accepted wisdom amongst most Israelis and Palestinians.

Hmmm, not a very promising start is it? Worse still, Israel has refused Condi's offer to act as a negotiator between it and the Palestinians in what The Daily Telegraph calls a humiliating snub.

Condoleezza Rice received a humiliating snub from Israel yesterday when it refused her offer to act as negotiator between its government and the Palestinian authorities.
The US secretary of state, who was attempting to start final status talks on the creation of a Palestinian state during a visit to Jerusalem, was forced to postpone a press conference planned on Monday evening after tense talks with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister.

Well if Israel won't trust its best friend to conduct negotiations, it does beg the question: who will it trust? One thing Condoleezza did manage to take away from her visit is a commitment for Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert to meet once a fortnight to discuss security issues which may later lead to discussions about the formation of a Palestinian state. A positive development no doubt, but slim pickings for America which desperately needs a success story in the region to detract attention from its appalling failure in Iraq and to get support for its attack on Iran.

Needless to say, Arab leaders were less than impressed with Condoleezza's appeal to them to 'reach out to Israel'. The idea here is that all the Arab countries recognise Israel and normalise relations with it without Israel being compelled to make any reciprocal moves. If she thought that was going to work then she really must be very naive to assume that Arabs would be so gullible as to fall for that trick. After all, Israel won't even recognise the new unity government in Palestine. America on the other hand, seems at last to be realising that the unity government is at least a promising compromise and, though it won't deal directly with it, is offering some support (to Abbas anyway). Perhaps this is the cause of the tension between Condi and Olmert.

All this diplomacy comes, of course, on the eve of an important summit among Arab leaders in Riyadh. The focus of this summit is to revive the peace plan proposed by the Saudis in 2002 in which all the 22 countries in the Arab League would recognise Israel and normalise relations with it in return for Israel withdrawing back to the borders it had prior to the 1967 war. This would make it possible for the formation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. When this plan was first proposed, it was immediately rejected by the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The timing of the original proposal was unfortunate as the Palestinian second intifada was raging and suicide bombings were taking place in Israel. Also this was only a year after 9/11 and at the height of the build up to the Iraq war (Saddam Hussein was one of the Arab League members prepared to recognise Israel). Relations between Saudi Arabia and America had soured somewhat and the plan was seen as an attempt to improve things.

"I wanted to find a way to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don't reject or despise them," Abdullah said at the time. "But the Arab people do reject what their leadership is now doing to the Palestinians, which is inhumane and oppressive. And I thought of this as a possible signal to the Israeli people."

The political climate in the region now is just as tense (if not more so) but the dynamics are different. Iran is seen as the big threat now and powerful Sunni states like Saudi Arabia don't wish to see Shia Iranian influence spread into Palestine. Israel and Saudi Arabia share this fear of Iran as does the USA, of course. It was Saudi Arabia which managed to broker the deal between Fatah and Hamas to form a unity government. Perhaps this is a good time to revive this five year-old peace plan. The big question of course is what will Israel's reaction to it be? So far, Ehud Olmert's response hasn't been the outright rejection of his predecessor. He has said there are "positive elements" in it worth pursuing. But this is hardly the ringing endorsement needed to carry the plan forward. This is the sort of language we frequently hear from Ehud Olmert. Israel has reservations about withdrawing from all the illegally captured territory which would obviously mean dismantling the illegal settlements (even Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister has said that the presence of Jewish settlers inside the West Bank city of Hebron has created an "unbearable situation"). It also objects to Arab East Jerusalem being part of a Palestinian state and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, the only part of the plan it likes is the recognition of Israel by the Arab states and normalisation of relations. But the problem isn't going away and appeasing Israel's territorial desires hasn't eased the situation at all.

In the absence of any other workable plan, this one might be a reasonable starting point. Saudi Arabia's Prince Saud al-Faisal has made it quite clear that this is the only way for Israel to have peace with its neighbours.

"What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally."
[...]
"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said.
[...]
"Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved?
"The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."

Well, quite! Getting Israel to accept this plan will be hard and we can expect that it will do everything it can to avoid making any concessions. In that respect, it is unlikely that the summit will produce anything tangible. But hopefully more people are realising that endlessly appeasing Israel hasn't worked and still isn't working and maybe it might be time to try something new - actually applying pressure to Israel. That can be done quite easily by cutting the the huge aid packages it gets from the USA (something that seems unlikely at the moment considering the power of AIPAC). There should be more than the one lone voice in the Knesset calling for a boycott of Israel. And with news that Israel is supplying tear gas to Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe and after by the way British diplomatic staff have been treated by the regime, that position might gain some support, after all Palestinians have to put up with far worse. Olmert's position isn't that strong.

Olmert currently commands what may be the lowest approval rating for any democratic leader in world history: a measly 2%. Mired in corruption scandals and about to face the verdict of a commission of inquiry into the debacle of last summer's war in Lebanon, Olmert finds his premiership stalled and in a ditch. "He needs an initiative and this could be it," says one Israeli government official of the Saudi plan.

The former head of Israeli military intelligence, Shlomo Gazit, wrote an open letter to the Saudi regime in which he suggested bypassing Olmert and appealing over his head to the Israeli people directly.

Follow the path taken by Anwar Sadat of Egypt 30 years ago, Gazit urged: come to Jerusalem and call for immediate negotiations. Public opinion will rally and "no government in Israel will be able to reject that kind of initiative," he wrote.

As Jonathan Freedland says in the article, calling Israel's bluff over its stated desire for peace might just be a good idea.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Middle East, US Politics

The Coming War On Iran

2007-02-12T10:20:00.000Z

Tags: Iran, Israel, Iraq, US Politics, Propaganda, War

I have been trying to avoid writing about Iran for the last week or so; partly in order to focus on other issues and partly because it is such an awful and depressing situation that it's easy to become obsessed with it. However, the drumbeat of war is getting louder so it's time for an update.

On February 24 there will be another demonstration in London against the Iraq war and the looming war in Iran. In my next post I'll provide details, but this roundup is to show why we need to protest. It's been nearly four years since the invasion of Iraq and all the lies we were told in the build up to it. History is now repeating itself. Just as Iraq was demonised with disinformation, so Iran is today. America insists it is not planning for a war with Iran, however all the signs point to the contrary. In fact former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy believes World War III has already begun. It seems that Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the former chief of staff of the Russian Army, was right when he said that there would be an attack "within weeks" predicting that it would start in April:

"we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc."

Lo and behold, what do we see now?

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the "highest levels" of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

How very timely! Note the "speaking on condition of anonymity". Perhaps they are not as certain as we are being led to believe by some media outlets. Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle East History has a little more detail. He debunks the New York Times article which claims that:

In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.

Sounds quite authorative and convincing doesn't it? However Juan cole says:

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops:

Hmmm, the assertions aren't quite so convincing now are they? As always, it's the timing of these clains that are suspect. As America makes these claims and denies provoking Iran, a third Navy carrier group is about to follow the second carrier group already steaming toward the Persian Gulf. At the same time as this news emerges, we hear that Israel has been testing a missile system as a "message to Iran". And this is of course after numerous Israeli threats and an alleged attempt to drop nuclear bombs on Iran.

Iran in the meantime still maintains that its nuclear programme is peaceful and that it poses no threat to Israel. Of course America, Britain and Israel refuse to believe the Iranian claim. As John Pilger points out:

Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations – until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use. The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to “go anywhere and see anything”. They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei says that an attack on Iran will have “catastrophic consequences” and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Compare this threatening behaviour with the complete lack of concern about Israeli plans to build a nuclear power station despite having an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a reputation for flaunting international law as well as a habit of bombing its neighbours and ethnically cleansing the illegally held land it has conquered. As Pilger mentions, Israel has not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has and wants to stay within the rules.

Iran is not defenceless; it too has been testing missiles and it has a formidable military bolstered by a state of the art air defence system purchased from Russia. On top of this, it can create havoc in Iraq and Lebanon and also destabilise oil supplies by blocking the narrow Strait of Hormuz through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes. But it is unknown whether it can see off an American/Israeli attack. A war, if it happens, will be conducted largely from the air. If there is to be any invasion, it would be in the small area known as Khuzestan where 90 percent of Iran's oil comes from (ironically this was the area Saddam Hussein tried to invade with American backing).

The calls for attacking Iran are, of course, coming from the neo con part of the Bush administration personified by Dick Cheney and advised by the American Enterprise Institute. The plan is to taunt Iran into doing something which would give America an excuse to respond. It is assumed that an attack on Iran would disguise the total failure of the Iraq mission. The Bush administration is now planning for the inevitable failure of the ill-advised "surge". This bare faced aggression has prompted Russia's President Vladimir Putin (of all people) to make some very critical statements about America.

"What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master...

"It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion...

"People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."

Needless to say, his statements have sparked a war of words between Washington and Moscow. Putin might be a fine one to talk about democracy and abuse of power but that doesn't make what he said about America any less true.

Melanie Phillips And Her Vitriol Against Independent Jewish Voices

2007-02-08T16:59:00.000Z

Tags: Melanie Phillips, Independent Jewish Voices, Israel, Palestine

When I heard the news that a group of Jews had got together to speak out against Israeli aggression and to disassociate themselves from the right-wing Zionists claiming to speak for them, I breathed a sigh of relief at this very positive development. Finally some prominent Jewish voices are speaking out loudly enough to be heard above the surrounding din of extremism. I read the articles about Independent Jewish Voices and watched the recent Newsnight programme which featured rabbi David Goldberg and the poisonous Melanie Phillips.

It wasn't much of a debate I'm afraid. Rabbi Goldberg is far too cultured and genteel to deal with a foaming-at-the-mouth wingnut like Melanie Phillips. Too long a pause in his considered replies would be exploited by the rabid bitch. Even so Melanie was fairly restrained on TV. I don't know what possessed me to look, but I stumbled upon her webpage and found everything she meant to say... and it really is sickening. It just had to be fisked. So at risk of bringing on another attack by GIYUS, Israel's little army of cyber soldiers who I've seen off before, here goes:

*Deep Breath*

February 8, 2007

Jews for genocide
On Monday night, I debated on BBC TV’s Newsnight with Rabbi David Goldberg, one of the signatories of a group styling itself ‘Independent Jewish Voices’, an unlovely collection of congenital Israel-bashers, many of whom are unfortunately prominent in British public life and are lionised by the rest of the intelligentsia who share the same venomous prejudice.

What does it tell you Melanie, that a number of prominent Jews are prepared to finally speak out against Israeli injustices after remaining silent for so long? They were lionised by the population long before they broke their silence and their prominence in public life is due to their talents in their different professions. When it comes to "venomous prejudice", do you ever read any of the garbage you write? This latest offering of yours for example has more "venomous prejudice" than I've seen in an article for a long time.

Their main beef is that the Board of Deputies of British Jews dares to defend Israel in the name of the Jewish community. It has no right to do so, it seems, because it does not speak for them. Hello? The Board of Deputies?? Are they kidding? The Board is almost entirely silent on the subject.

No Melanie, their main beef seems to be (as Tom from Blairwatch says) that Jewish opinion in the UK and US is being efficiently corralled by PR into narrow support for the Israeli extreme right and their neo-con buddies in the UK and US. They want to speak for themselves, get it?

And since when were many of these signatories part of the British Jewish community anyway? Although some do identify themselves with it, many of them maintain either the most tangential or even no connection with the community or with Judaism whatever. It embarrasses them. The only time they ever identify themselves as Jews is in order to vilify the Jewish nation state, when — grotesquely — they use their ethnic Jewish identity to armour-plate themselves against the charge of Jew-hatred by wrapping themselves in the mantle of Jewish victimisation.

So because their views don't coincide with yours, suddenly they are not Jews, is that right? Have you explained that to any of the rabbis who have signed up to Independent Jewish Voices. You didn't do that on Newsnight when you 'debated' with rabbi David Goldberg. I'm sure he would be very surprised to learn that he doesn't identify himself as a Jew. Are you aware that there is a difference between 'Jew' and 'Zionist'? Apparently not.

And here they are again indeed posing as Jewish martyrs. Their complaint is that the Jewish establishment is trying to silence them in their heroic attempt to tell the truth about Israel, in which cause it is they who speak with the authentic voice of Jewish conscience. This is just surreal. These signatories are never out of the media with their revolting rants against Israel. Editors fawn respectfully over their every utterance. They dominate the discussion.

I don't think 'martyrs' is quite the right word is it? Is that what they call themselves? They speak with their own consciences. The media is not a monolith, some media outlets spout the same garbage you do (although usually with less of the "venomous prejudice" which you use). If their views seem to prevail, it might just possibly mean that they are right and you are wrong. Have you thought of that? No, of course not.

On the contrary, their intention is to silence others. The Board of Deputies — made of representatives who are elected by synagogues and other communal organisations and which therefore speaks for the mainstream British Jewish community — is not even to be allowed by these goons to say anything about Israel because, on the rare occasions when it does so, it dares to defend it. The voice of the Jewish mainstream is to be silenced — because they disagree with it.

You're putting the cart before the horse again Melanie. It is not them who are trying to silence others. The stifling of debate is done by nasty bullies like GIYUS, the on-line army of cyber soldiers sponsored by the Israeli government to shut down any debate which might expose Israel's crimes. If you are criticising Independent Jewish Voices for getting together to put forward a counter argument, how come you make no mention at all of GIYUS who behave in a manner far more in keeping with your unsubstantiated racist rants.

The essence of the signatories’ complaint, however, is even more offensive. They object to people saying rude things about them in response to what they say about Israel. They just can’t stand the criticism — and so want to silence their critics. They think freedom of speech means they are free to speak, but others are not free to speak about what they say. They think if the defenders of Israel call them names — ‘antisemites’, ‘betrayers’, ‘self-haters’ — this is stopping them from exercising their freedom of speech; but when they themselves call the defenders of Israel names — ‘the far right’, ‘sanitisers of war crimes’ or just ‘insane’ —they are merely stating demonstrable truths.

Sorry, who is it that can't stand criticism and tries to silence their critics? Is anyone preventing you from speaking? No, I thought not. Are you denying that critics of Israel are called ‘anti-Semites’ and if they happen to be Jewish are called ‘betrayers’ or ‘self-haters’? You imply as much in your third paragraph. You really don't read the crap you write do you? Either that or you have the memory of a goldfish. As for the labels used against the rabid rantings from your side of the 'debate', ‘the far right’, ‘sanitisers of war crimes’ and ‘insane’, well they seem perfectly apt to me, particularly the latter.

Enough of their ludicrous and self-serving bleating. What they say about Israel is loathsome, and fully deserves the maximum opprobrium. On Newsnight, Goldberg trotted out the usual canard that mainstream Jews object to any criticism of Israel. Not true. What his lot serve up is not criticism. It is instead a monstrous campaign of demonisation and delegitimisation based on systematic lies, libels and distortions which presents Israel, the historic victim of almost sixty years of Arab and Muslim aggression and ethnic cleansing from the Jews’ historic homeland, as the aggressors, regional bullies and oppressors of the innocent. Thus these people not only scapegoat the Israeli victims of aggression, but sanitise their killers and thus encourage them still further in their murderous project.

Can we also have an end to your 'self-serving bleating' please? What is loathsome is the attempt to justify mass murder of civilians, ethnic cleansing, starvation, house demolitions, assassinations, annexation of land and theft. I notice in your ravings that you fail to address those issues other than the anodyne lie that it's all self defence. I can see the pattern now in your diatribe; you accuse your opponents of the very crimes Israel is guilty of. Hence saying that Israel is the "historic victim of almost sixty years of Arab and Muslim aggression and ethnic cleansing from the Jews". Before 1948 there was no Israel, and the inhabitants of that land (the Palestinians) have been, and are still being driven out by people who are for the most part from eastern Europe. Melanie, it's you who is spouting the canard, and only the people who regularly consume your drivel would believe it.

The group’s founding declaration is: ‘Those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of the occupied people.’ But the rights of the Palestinians are being infringed for one reason only: that they are intent upon destroying Israel and murdering its citizens. Israel’s legitimate self-defence in this war of annihilation being waged against it is thus represented here entirely falsely as aggression. That of course is the trick of Palestinian propaganda, which has appropriated the history of Jewish victimisation and turned it on its head, casting the Palestinians as the new Jews and the Israelis as the Nazis — a vile inversion which has been swallowed in its entirety by the signatories to this declaration and by many others on the left.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. If Israelis have the right to defend themselves against resistance, then the Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and indiscriminate slaughter. Both sides of this conflict are guilty of atrocities, Israeli atrocities are on a much vaster scale however. They might not be on the same scale as those of the Nazis but there certainly seems to be a strong whiff of Nazism in Israel's behaviour. What else would you call it when one of the world's best equipped and well trained armies uses its might against a people armed with rocks, Kalashnikovs, RPGs and primitive rockets little better than fireworks, and who are so desperate that some of them are willing to blow themselves (and civilians) up. You cannot deny that Israel is the stronger force and uses that force inappropriately contrary to international law.

On Newsnight, Goldberg stunningly dismissed the hundreds of rockets that have been fired from Gaza into Israel since Israel’s disengagement from that territory as being of no consequence. Thus this self-styled champion of human rights simply refuses even to acknowledge Jewish victimisation, while professing concern only for those who are trying to wipe the Jews out. This man is supposed to be a rabbi? This is not morality, but pathology.

Goldberg didn't dismiss the hundreds of rockets fired fired from Gaza into Israel, he merely pointed out (or tried to) that the rockets fired pale in comparison to the thousands of shells fired into Gaza. The rockets do occasionally kill and maim. Israeli shells and missiles create a much, much higher death toll. I challenge you to deny that. It is you Melanie, who dismisses the obvious imbalance and disproportionality here. By drawing attention to this fact, rabbi Goldberg was fulfilling his duty as a religious leader and human rights activist.

What has been the Palestinian response to Israel’s disengagement from Gaza? An unending barrage of rockets on Israeli towns and the building of tunnels and import of weaponry in order to unleash even greater death and destruction upon Israel. What has been Israel’s response to Palestinian aggression? Israeli hospitals are currently treating more and more Palestinians injured in the clashes between Fatah and Hamas — people who have been trying to kill Israelis and are now being given medical care in Israeli hospitals on equal terms with Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Just who is upholding human rights here, and who is trying to extinguish them?

Israel never really left Gaza. Oh, yes the settlers were removed (and some of them relocated to the West Bank thus exacerbating that situation) but the borders were sealed with no easy way for Palestinians to travel, or trade. They have no access to the sea or air. They are in effect, imprisoned in a giant overcrowded concentration camp and subject to regular Israeli bombardment which for the IDF must be like shooting fish in a barrel. If poor defenceless Israel wasn't maiming Palestinians, they wouldn't need to be treated in Israeli hospitals. It should go without saying that if Palestinians had their own well equipped and properly staffed hospitals, they wouldn't need Israeli ones either, but Israel wouldn't allow that. That would be too much like independence wouldn't it? No, far better to show how humane and upholding of human rights Israel is by treating the Palestinians that have been blown to pieces by Israel in Israeli hospitals.

The phenomenon of this Jewish fifth column for Arab and Muslim terror is now doing serious damage to the struggle for survival not just by Israel but by the west in general. Two writers have recently produced withering critiques of these people and the harm they are doing: Bruce Bawer, author of While Europe Slept, and Professor Alvin Rosenfeld, whose article has horrified American liberal Jews who refuse to acknowledge their own faces in Caliban’s mirror.

I find it incredible that you would accuse Jews who object to the wanton violence of Israel as a fifth column. Have you looked up the meaning of that term Melanie? Here it is:

A clandestine subversive organization working within a country to further an invading enemy's military and political aims.

Now, does that term fit for a group of Jews concerned with Israeli atrocities? I would argue not. In fact if you drop the 'clandestine' the term would be fit much better to organisations like AIPAC in the USA or Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel or Lib Dem Friends of Israel. The clue (seeing as you don't have one) is "invading enemy's military and political aims". Who is doing the invading Melanie? And under the pretense of it being self defence... hmmm what does that remind me of?

One of the most painful aspects of all of the Jewish tragedy is that, throughout the unending history of Jewish persecution — from the medieval Christian converts to Marx and beyond —Jews have figured, for a variety of reasons, as prominent accomplices of those who wished to destroy the Jewish people. These signatories are firmly in that lamentable tradition. And since today’s principal battleground is — as the Islamists well understand but we in the west do not — the battleground of ideas, the contribution of these Israel-bashing Jewish intellectuals to the cause of those who hate Jews, the west and human rights is immense.

No one is denying that Jews have suffered terribly in the past because of European barbarism throughout the ages. It's a series of shameful episodes in our History. But speaking of History, look at how well Jews and the Muslims you so obviously hate got on in the past. Why should Muslims have to pay for European crimes. If you need a direction to point that huge chip on your shoulder, European Christians would be a more logical target. The current problems between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East stem largely from the theft of Muslim land, aided and abetted once again by European colonial powers. The suffering of Jews in the past does not give some of them the right to commit similar crimes now.

When Daniel Pipes was recently drowned out by Islamists at the University of California-Irvine, this (via LGF) was what they were saying:

They have no future. And it’s just a matter of time before the state of Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth.[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!] Justice will be restored then. Those people who are there legitimately … the people there will, will rule. There will be no injustice any more there. So just keep on doing what we’re doing. Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out, and we deflate their morale, and this is the best we can do right now….[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!]

Fine, go ahead and quote some angry nutcases in a crowd and try to imply that this is the view of all Muslims if you must. As I said earlier, the only people you'll convince are the idiots who devour your trashy vitriol with such gusto. Even in the passage you quote are words which defeat your 'argument'. "Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out..." Wow, Melanie, who's afraid of free speech now?

At a time when Iran is threatening to nuke Israel into kingdom come, the words of the prophet come to mind: your destroyers are among you.

So Iran is threatening to nuke Israel is it? Are you sure? Would you be so kind as to find me the relevant quote which shows that intention? It wouldn't be this would it? Oh you really are gullible aren't you Melanie? Whilst on the subject of nuking people, perhaps you would like to explain this:

A recent strike by nuclear-armed Israeli Air Force fighter-bombers bound for targets in Iran was turned back after being intercepted by U.S. fighters over Iraq, this reporter has learned.

Two sources have independently confirmed the encounter, which took place on January 7, 2007. Though the first informant offered few details beyond an initial tip, a second source long-known by this reporter to have well-placed U.S. and “non-U.S.” military and government contacts provided specific information regarding the raid, which was aimed at the radical religious ayatollahs holding ultimate power in Iran.

What's it to be Melanie, blanket denial or a claim of "self defence"? We've heard plenty of Israeli denials before, followed by admissions of "mistakes".

Having struggled though all that appalling crap I now need to lie down in a darkened room for a while.

Did Israel Try To Carry Out Its Plan To Nuke Iran?

2007-01-20T08:27:00.000Z

Tags: Bush, Iran, Israel, US Politics

I posed the title of this post as a question because I have no idea if this is true or not and I don't know how to verify it. It seems so outrageous that I can hardly believe it but with everything else going on around Iran at the moment and the recently revealed Israeli plans for a nuclear attack on Iran (since denied), maybe there is some truth in this.

Israeli Nuclear Strike On Iran Turned Back
A recent strike by nuclear-armed Israeli Air Force fighter-bombers bound for targets in Iran was turned back after being intercepted by U.S. fighters over Iraq, this reporter has learned.
Two sources have independently confirmed the encounter, which took place on January 7, 2007. Though the first informant offered few details beyond an initial tip, a second source long-known by this reporter to have well-placed U.S. and “non-U.S.” military and government contacts provided specific information regarding the raid, which was aimed at the radical religious ayatollahs holding ultimate power in Iran.
Israeli nuclear strikes are not unprecedented. Soon after Desert Storm, U.S. Navy pilots told this reporter in Kuwait how in late 1990 Israel made good on its pledge to respond in kind to WMD attacks by launching nuclear-armed aircraft against Baghdad following a lethal assault on Tel Aviv by Scud missiles tipped with chemical warheads. That air strike was called off when the Americans refused to provide the vital IFF codes needed to fly through U.S.-controlled airspace.
Read on

As I said, I can't verify the source and I don't know much about American and Israeli military protocols, but it's certainly a scary article. There are however plenty of other reports about Iran which suggest that war could break out very soon indeed.

Tensions between the USA and Iran have been mounting alarmingly since the recent kidnapping of Iranian diplomats and consular workers and the raid on a consular office in northern Iraq. Some of this has been widely reported, the sending of another American aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley refusing rule out the possibility of US forces striking across the border or the Russian delivery of state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles to Iran for example. Other news items are appearing on less well known news sources. For example, in recent days, there have been reports that Iran shot down an American pilotless spy drone. America has also denied that there was an Iranian missile strike on a US warship in the Gulf.

Whether these stories are true or not, one thing seems certain and that is that the crisis is escalating to a point where any small incident could kick off a huge conflict. In other words a war could soon be unstoppable even if America and Iran did try to row back, something neither party is showing any signs of doing. There have been several reports saying that America will have all its pieces in place some time in February and that there is a plan to attack Iran from the sea as early as April this year.

KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn't’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.

When you couple news like this with news of America's rejection of Iranian concessions as far back as 2003, and ofAmerica's dismissal of the widespread reports of possible peace talks between Israel and Syria which would do much to ease the tensions in the region, you have to wonder what bush is planning. It looks like the planned attacks are not going to be "surgical strikes" as was previously suggested, but a whole scale war which would devastate the region.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against
Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.
"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.
"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

When you put all these different reports together, a very frightening picture emerges. What we are hearing far less of are diplomatic moves in the UN or effective restraining of Bush and his insane neo con agenda from the Democrat dominated Congress. The US Congress seems like the only force able to prevent the coming devastation, but have the saner voices in both parties got the strength, courage and will to do what is necessary?

Another Roundup of Middle East Turmoil

2007-01-15T08:11:00.000Z

Condoleezza Rice's latest trip to the Middle East cannot be described a peace-making mission. The motives for her trip appear to be to drum up support for the destabilisation force Bush is sending to Iraq, and to poison the minds of Arab leaders even more against Iran in preparation for what is looking ever more likely to be another Middle East war. However, some Arab leaders have had the temerity to impose conditions on the USA in exchange for their support. The price is US engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And so once again Condoleezza has to pretend that she wants to see a Palestinian state and is able to win meaningful concessions from the Israelis.

"I have heard loud and clear the call for deeper American engagement," she said after talks in Ramallah with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

So far she has met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan. Today she will meet Ehud Olmert and then go on to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to promote war. It won't escape the attention of these Arab leaders that she has absolutely nothing new to offer. What she will try to gain is unconditional support for more chaos in Iraq and new Chaos in Iran and beyond by telling them that all this is in their interest.

In advance of her visit, the secretary of state said she was not bringing new proposals but would be listening, talking and looking for creative solutions.

At a press conference she had to deny that USA was too distracted by concerns about Iraq and Iran to have effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state... and if there is anything that I can do and that the president can do to finally realise that day, why wouldn't we want to do that?"

The answer to that of course is that the Bush administration is so pro-Israel and controlled by Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC that it cannot possibly be considered as a fair arbiter in any negotiations and is responsible along with Israel for the appalling conditions in which the Palestinians are forced to live. America has had plenty of opportunities to restrain the worst excesses of Israel and has failed to do so every time.

Still, Condi should be able to drum up enough support for Bush's nefarious plans in the region. Iran is disliked and feared by many Arab countries, and by spreading the fear of Iranian influence over Iraq (even though it was America's invasion that created this problem) as well as pretending that sending another 20,000 troops into the quagmire will somehow make the situation more secure for the region she'll probably get enough support to give a veneer of legitimacy to her plans. Bush needs this support because it certainly doesn't exist back home where even the Republicans are in open revolt over the "surge" plans.

Bush has finally been forced to acknowledge that the invasion has made Iraq more unstable, but he still maintains that despite some mistakes he did the right thing.

But pressed on the issue, and told by a Fox News interviewer that Iraq was “much more unstable now, Mr President,”, Mr Bush replied: “Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.”
He added: “I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.” But toppling Saddam was not a mistake. “We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqis express that.”

Yes, that's right, he actually thinks Iraqis should be grateful for the murder and mayhem that that has engulfed their country because of the invasion. I don't know which Iraqis he's been talking to but 90 percent of them seem to think they were better off under Saddam Hussein.

Not content with wrecking one country, the Bush administration is now working flat out to try and wreck another. The recent incidents in Northern Iraq (authorised by Bush) where Iranian diplomats have been arrested and a consular office raided have increased tensions between the US and Iran. These diplomatic incidents look like being the first moves in an attempt to provoke a conflict. America is now threatening to "deal with" Iran and Syria over their alleged support of insurgents while Iran is demanding the release of its kidnapped diplomats. The White House is emphatically refusing to rule out an attack on Iran.

The attack could take the form of air strikes or cross-border raids, most likely it will be both. The legality of such action hasn't been discussed; the last time the UN was mentioned vis-à-vis Iran was last month when limited sanctions were imposed. Whether or not the US Congress can prevent its commander in chief make another even more catastrophic foreign policy blunder is unknown, but we have already seen how much respect Bush has for legal processes.

Tags: Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria, US Politics, Bush, Condoleezza Rice

Israeli Plans To Nuke Iran

2007-01-07T06:19:00.000Z

It's no great secret that Israel wants Iran to be be attacked - ideally (from Israel's point of view) by or with the Americans. The pretense for this attack is the fear of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program for which the CIA can find no evidence. There has also been plenty of fear mongering in Israel, America and Britain concerning the mistranslation of some bellicose rhetoric from President Ahmadinejad where he is alleged to have stated that "Israel must be wiped off the map". The Middle East expert Juan Cole and The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) provide us with more accurate translations:

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

Unsurprisingly, no effort whatsoever has been made to correct this inaccurate translation in the West and the Media still spreads the lie that Ahmadinejad stated that he wanted Israel wiped off the map. As a piece of propaganda this has been extraordinarily effective as it is widely believed and frequently used by politicians in Britain, America and Israel to justify diplomatic and military pressure on Iran. The prevalence of this deliberate misinterpretation can be compared with the scant reporting of this piece of rhetoric from Ehud Olmert a few months ago:

Olmert compares Iran with Nazi Germany

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president.

I have reported many times recently of my fears of an immanent attack on Iran by either the USA, Israel or, more likely, both countries in concert. Now comes news that Israel is planning a preemptive attack on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities using tactical nuclear weapons.

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

Needless to say this would be an absolute disaster for the entire region and beyond. Iran would have to respond and America would then come to the aid of Israel using the hardware that it has already put in place in preparation for a war with Iran. Despite the USA being stuck in the Iraq quagmire, it is making no attempt to extricate itself, indeed it is digging itself ever deeper into the hole it has dug. America has rejected the findings of the Iraq Study Group report which advised a phased withdrawal from Iraq and consultations with Iran and Syria. What Bush seems likely to do instead is the complete opposite by pouring more troops into Iraq. Bush has replaced his top commanders in the region who expressed doubts about sending in more troops with people who support his plan.

By replacing General John Abizaid as head of Central Command for the Middle East region with a naval officer, Admiral William Fallon, Bush might be planning for the use of the naval assets he has in place in the Persian Gulf. These warships are likely to be more useful for an attack on Iran than putting down an insurgency in Iraq. It would seem then that the preparations have been made. All that is left is the coming battle in Congress. The Democrats have already said they don't want more troops sent to Iraq and they have the power now to block further funding for Bush's war. However, they are unlikely to make such a bold move, and when it comes to Iran, the Democrats seem just as belligerent as the Republicans. By expanding the war in this way, Bush may get the support he needs.

The stage seems to be set now for a wider Middle East conflict that will make the Iraq war look like a school playground squabble. The Sunni/Shia sectarian violence which is tearing Iraq to pieces could easily spread to encompass the surrounding states. Israel has already assumed that the war it lost to Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer will resume and will involve Syria too this time. If that war did resume, then what happens to the UNIFIL peacekeepers currently keeping the two sides apart? It is looking like 2007 could be a very dangerous year indeed.

What will Britain's role in all this be? Blair has been ratcheting up the hate on Iran for a while now. But would he really be so stupid as to participate in a nuclear strike on Iran? His actions up to now suggest that he might. It could well be the perfect excuse for him to try and remain in office for longer and continue his failed policies at home and abroad. So much for his "alliance of moderation".

Of course the main reasons for conflict in Iraq and Iran remain the same. Israel will largely be used to provoke the conflict, something it seems eager to do for reasons of its own (war with Iran will give it the cover it needs to resume its invasion of Lebanon and further incursions into Palestinian territory, as well as a show of strength and a boost to Olmert's standing). But with a state this dangerous and unprincipled (hello GIYUS), one has to wonder about Israel's plans to join the EU and NATO. Maybe by engaging in a murderous campaign with the USA, Israel might be thinking that membership to those institutions will be easier. I sincerely hope any overtures to those institutions will be flatly rejected because of its behaviour, but if Israel can fool the world yet again into believing that it is a victim rather than the antagonist it undoubtedly is, the international community (bullied by America) might favour such a move. Either way things are looking worse than ever in the Middle East.

Happy new year everyone.

Tags: Israel, Iran, USA

Bush and Blair's Stable Middle East: Progress or More Despair?

2006-11-28T07:52:00.000Z

The news coming from the Middle East this week, as well as providing us with the usual overdose of despair, is also showing some faint glimmers of change if not exactly hope in some of the hotspots.

In Palestine the tenuous cease fire between the Israelis and the Palestinians seems to be holding... just, and we are finally hearing some more positive language coming from Olmert which may just be the beginnings of a peace initiative, although it is far too early to say for sure and everyone has seen positive developments quickly collapse into renewed violence. However the cease fire, prisoner exchange and possible talks about a viable Palestinian state are developments which are to be welcomed and encouraged. One has to wonder what initiated this change of heart. Is it a realisation that Israel cannot simply murder its way to a peaceful solution (after several months of relentless attacks, massacres, demolitions and assassinations resulting in over 400 Palestinian deaths, most of them civilian, the rocket attacks continued unabated)? Is it pressure from Washington as Bush prepares to visit the region and needs at least something that will play well with the folks back home (it certainly won't be from Iraq)? Perhaps both sides are exhausted and need a pause in order to re arm and prepare for another cycle of violence. Possibly it is a mixture of all these things.

In Iraq of course, it is very difficult to see anything positive as the country crumbles further into anarchy. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be amusing watching the US and British governments try to use any wording they can to describe the situation without uttering those fateful words 'civil war'. However, civil war is exactly what is happening, or to be more precise, civil wars may be a better term because the country is so fractured now. It's now obvious to everyone that the Bush/Blair axis does not have the faintest clue what to do about the catastrophe it has created. Talking to Iran and Syria, previously unthinkable, is now very much on the agenda. While Bush and Blair contemplate this very obvious climb down, the Iraqi leader has gone to Iran to plead for help and has received a promise of assistance. Just what form that assistance will take and how effective it will be remains to be seen, however, it is a change and the closest thing to a positive development happening.

In Britain there has been more talk of troop withdrawals, but again the rhetoric displays the bankruptcy of ideas. It has been more or less acknowledged that troops in the region are contributing to the violence, and also acknowledged that withdrawing them is likely to increase the violence in the short term. The decision seems to be to announce a withdrawal of some (possibly most) British troops by the end of next year while admitting that some troops will be in Iraq for many years to come (probably confined to bases and under siege). Hardly a clear strategy. Of course, the remainder of the so-called coalition of the willing will be out of Iraq much sooner. America is not making any such announcement. The USA is still deliberating on whether to send even more troops into the quagmire as if that would improve matters.

Another hotspot in the news again is Lebanon which also looks close to descending into chaos again. Hizbollah's threat to leave the government unless it was given greater representation could be a body blow to the pro Western administration. The assassination of Pierre Gemayel, Lebanon's anti-Syrian industry minister has obviously added to the pressure on Lebanon and also Syria, which has been accused of the murder without a shred of evidence. It is interesting that the killing took place just as Syria was making positive noises about coming in from the cold and helping ease the tension in Iraq. For Syria to murder a Lebanese Cabinet Minister at this time is hardly in its best interests, so we have to ask ourselves who would benefit most from the renewed chaos in Lebanon and and more pressure on Syria as well as who is best placed to carry out such an assassination. Hopefully the tension in the Levant will be allowed to calm down in order for all parties to focus on the far more dangerous situation in Iraq.

Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon are the three civil wars (potential or already started) that Jordan's King Abdullah warned that we could be facing next year. Not exactly "the advance of freedom and hope in the greater Middle East" promised by Bush and Blair when they lied their way into the Iraq war and now try to lie their way out of it. But there is also the quagmire in Afghanistan to consider. That conflict is not going well either and America and Britain are having trouble finding other NATO allies to join them in their mission. Far from rushing to join in the fun, NATO countries are looking for a way out of that mess.

While there is very little to get exited about in terms of stability in the region, there is a noticeable change in the air. America's stranglehold on the Middle East might well be coming to an end. An attack on Iran now looks less likely as the US realises that it needs Iranian cooperation and that Iran seems to be holding the best cards and knows how to play them. Also it will be much harder to attack Iran now that the CIA has said that it has found no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. This with the possibility of a peace initiative in Palestine and Iranian and Syrian cooperation in Iraq does give us some reason to hope, however small that hope is.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Bush, Afghanistan, Blair

About Time Too!

2006-11-15T08:15:00.000Z

In the past year, the Government licensed the sale of £23m worth of weaponry to Israel. This is a dramatic increase (almost double) on the previous year. Britain seems to have a nice little business going in selling weapons to despotic regimes.

However, under both EU (and UK) law arms cannot be sold to countries where they might be used for internal repression, international aggression, or contribute to regional instability. See Criterion Two and Criterion Four of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. So why are we doing it? Well, apparently we have received assurances from Israel that that arms sold to it from the UK would not be used in the occupied territories. Assurances that evidently were not worth the paper they were printed on.

Anyway, it looks as if this cosy business arrangement is about to be disrupted by a Palestinian who is taking the Government to court over the matter.

The government is being taken to court today over the sale of military equipment to Israel including parts for Apache helicopter gunships, laser range finders, and communications equipment.
Saleh Hasan, a Palestinian who lives in Bethlehem, argues that the sales are in breach of the government's guidelines covering arms exports and are unlawful. The guidelines say exports should be blocked when there is a "clear risk" they "might be used for internal repression".
Mr Hasan's lawyers point to comments by Foreign Office minister Kim Howells in the Commons in August that "almost any use of equipment ... could be used aggressively, especially in occupied areas".
They point out that after British military equipment was used in the occupied territories in 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, said he would no longer take Israeli assurances into account. Mr Howells said that approach "still holds true".
Michael Fordham QC says in his court challenge on behalf of Mr Saleh that there is also clear evidence of human rights abuses by Israeli forces.
Source

Well, hopefully Mr Hasan will win his case. If he does win, it won't change facts on the ground, Israel gets most of its weaponry from the USA, but at least Britain will be less complicit in the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. A small victory.

If he looses the case and the UK continues to supply Israel with high-tech weaponry to be used on the civilians of Palestine then that will make a mockery of Tony Blair's recent rhetoric about solving the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, UK Politics

Ten Tips For Dealing With GIYUS

2006-11-12T05:04:00.000Z

If, like many people, you are disgusted by the behaviour of Israel and happen to blog about, say, the latest massacre in Gaza; the desperate situation the Palestinians are in; the carnage in Lebanon or the provocation of UNIFIL peacekeepers; the threat of attacking Iran or any of the other nefarious deeds that Israel is allowed to get away with, then there is a reasonable chance that you may attract the attention of GIYUS. You'll know when that has happened when you find your post bombarded by comments (usually anonymous and looking remarkably similar) attempting to justify those actions and attacking you for daring to mention them. A quick look at your stats will confirm that you've been GIYUSed. If this bothers you, here are some tips which may put a stop to the attack, or at least lessen the flow of moronic comments. Of course I can't guarantee that they will work, all I can say is that they seemed to work for me when I became their target. First of all don't be intimidated, that's what this little army of cyber soldiers want you to be. Instead you could try the following:

Update your post straight away explaining what has happened and adding a little bit about GIYUS for those unfamiliar with this annoying pressure group. This also let's the GIYUS bots know that you're on to them.
If possible, add some links to previous posts you might have written on the issues to show that you are not going to be intimidated by their antics.
Refute their 'arguments' in the comments. This is easy as they really don't have any. Their comments go along the lines of "it is about time that Israel completely ignore any condemnation of our effort to stay alive and have a simple life in a and keep pounding at the Palestinians...". Also they don't stick around to argue, debate is the last thing they want and its what they are trying to stifle. They just do as they are directed by GIYUS.
On no account say anything which they could construe as being anti-Semitic. That is exactly what they want. Not only is anti-Semitism so obviously wrong but you'll be lowering yourself to their level. Their main objective is to 'prove' that anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is a) anti-Semitic, b) a Holocaust denier, and c) an 'Islamo-fascist'. To do this they try to blur the distinctions between 'Zionist', 'Israeli' and 'Jewish'.
Use reliable news sources to back up your points. If you can find items from Israeli sources, so much the better. Haaretz and B'TSalem are useful.
Invite others to join in the fun, it makes the thread more balanced and much more interesting. It also saves you from having to repeat yourself or respond to every comment.
Don't delete their comments unless they really are particularly offensive. That just makes it look like you haven't got an answer to them. Leave their comments up so we can all have a good laugh at them.
Use humour. Believe me, these commenters have as much sense of humour as Ian Paisley on a bad day, and they don't like having the piss taken out of them (who does?). The issues are deadly serious for both sides of the argument but the point here is to stop GIYUS bullying you into remaining silent about them.
If other bloggers link to your post then even more people will see it thus rendering their efforts to silence you completely counter-productive. I'll take this opportunity to thank the Curious Hamster, Obsolete and D-Notice for linking to my post which helped GIYUS's attack on me backfire.
GIYUS has been particularly effective in distorting or wrecking on-line polls. If you are conducting a poll about Israel and you find that GIYUS members turn up in great numbers to distort the result, my advice would be to shut it down immediately and post a message explaining why. I haven't conducted a poll about Israel but it's what I'd do if I found my poll being distorted by GIYUS.

When I was targeted by GIYUS I did most of the things on this list and the comments slowed down and then stopped very quickly. And it wasn't because the GIYUS bots stopped visiting. As I write this they are still coming, they're just not bombarding me with their silly justifications for what is by any standard criminal behaviour. Groups like this don't like to be exposed in this way, so when a light is shined on them they tend to scuttle back to whatever dark recesses they emerged from. Mind you, having posted this I wouldn't be surprised if they tried again.

If you have been GIYUSed and your post is genuine comment on Middle East news and not anti-Semitic or conspiracy theory garbage, feel free to drop me a comment and I'll link to it. Freedom of speech is important and we have enough curtailment of it from our leaders, so we don't need these idiots to bully us into silence. If all this sounds like behaving little better than GIYUS, it isn't. I'm not advocating bombarding people's web sites with comments or hurling abuse at anyone. This is just a defence tactic which may or may not work if you find yourself under a coordinated virtual attack from a state sponsored pressure group. No state is above criticism and when a state behaves the way Israel does it should expect to be criticised for its crimes. Unfortunately many governments, particularly the American and British governments refuse to criticise these atrocities and are complicit in them, so it's up to us to do it.

Tags: Israel, Blogging, GIYUS, Palestine, Lebanon

Israeli Jets Nearly Shot Down by French Troops

2006-11-10T13:57:00.000Z

French peacekeepers in southern Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL force came close to shooting down Israeli F-15 fighters which nose-dived repeatedly over their positions. The incident took place on October 31 but has only now come to light.

The French government has demanded that Israel stop mock raids over Lebanon after French peacekeepers came within seconds of shooting down Israeli warplanes.
Israeli officials said the flights were needed to monitor Lebanese compliance with UN demands, but the French Defence Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, said the attitude of the Israeli planes was "absolutely inadmissible" after Israeli F-15 fighters nose-dived repeatedly over French peacekeepers' positions in southern Lebanon on 31 October.
"Our troops barely avoided a catastrophe," Alliot-Marie told the French parliament. "Our troops find themselves in a position where they have to fire in legitimate self defence."
Source

France has now summoned the Israeli ambassador over the incident and launched a complaint. The Israeli military has so far denied any knowledge of the incident. This is not the first time France has warned Israel about violations of Lebanese airspace in defiance of Security Council Resolution 1701, but this seems to be the closest the French have come to being forced to defend themselves. Israeli jets were also involved in an incident with German warships patrolling off the Lebanese coast last month. Two F-16s allegedly fired shots and anti missile flares as they buzzed the vessel.

Israel seems determined to provoke some sort of retaliation from the UNIFIL peacekeepers. If these provokations are happening with the tacit agreement of the USA (I have no idea if this is the case or not), then there is a potential conflict of interest looming because America is spending $40 million to train and equip the Lebanese army in order for it to better defend Lebanese territory so Hizbollah can withdraw.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, France, UNIFIL

While The World's Attention Was Focused on the American Elections...

2006-11-08T06:59:00.000Z

How very predictable of Israel. Knowing that a huge assault on the Palestinians would be likely to attract condemnation (not from the USA or the UK, of course) Israel waited until the most people became engrossed in the drama of America's Midterm elections before launching a massive tank attack on the beleaguered citizens of Gaza and the West Bank killing 18 people.

Initial reports say the dead were civilians, with women and children among the casualties.
Israeli military sources said they were unaware of the incident.
Earlier, four Palestinian militants and a civilian were reported killed in an Israeli army operation near the West Bank town of Jenin.
Source

The American Midterm elections were widely seen as a referendum on George Bush's policy on Iraq and the victory speeches of the Democrats, who won control of the House of Representatives (the control of the Senate is at time of writing, too close to call), were full of references to Bush's disastrous war. Unsurprisingly there was no mention at all of the mass murder being committed by America's closest ally.

If, as the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said, the Democrats would "restore integrity and honesty" to Washington and lead the "most ethical Congress in history", then a good place to start would be another look at America's unqualified support for the genocidal kleptocracy allowed free reign in the Middle East.

*UPDATE*

It appears that this post has incurred the wrath of GIYUS and it's little army of cyber soldiers. Well, I'm not exactly quaking in my boots. For those unfamiliar with GIYUS, read this:

Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.
Source

Their aim is to stifle any any commentary on the barbaric acts of the Israeli regime and also to distort on-line polls. Notice in the comments how most wish to remain anonymous, how they have nothing to say about Israel's killing of civilians including women and children, the theft of land, the deliberate policy of starving of the Palestinians, the robbing of their banks, the theft of their tax revenues and their efforts to stop any aid getting to the malnourished Palestinians, and, of course their ethnic cleansing. They try to justify these actions by saying that they left the Gaza strip, without mentioning of course that there is no freedom for the people of Gaza, it is now the World's largest open-air prison camp. What these GIYUS commenters most object to is the Palestinians daring to defend themselves against such brutality. Yes, they fire primitive home-made rockets, little better than fireworks that occasionally cause injury or worse. Compare this to Israel's tank and missile attacks or the DIME weapons they test on the Palestinians. And yet Ehud Olmert refers to the IDF as "the most moral military in the world".

So there you go GIYUS people, there are some more posts for you to get upset about.

Ten Tips For Dealing With GIYUS

Tags: Israel, Palestine, US Politics

Iran's Response to American-Led 'War Games' in the Persian Gulf'

2006-11-02T11:06:00.000Z

I have been posting recently about the covert build-up of American and allied war ships in the Persian Gulf for the purpose of military exercises organised by the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative. The stated objective of these exercises is to practice maneuvers to stop ships bound for Iran that might contain nuclear materials. The unstated objective is to intimidate the Iranian regime although the Americans are saying that they want Iran to take notice of their fire power.

"From Iranian news reports we know the exercise got the attention of Iran," Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said Friday.
Source

Well, how could the Iranians fail to pay attention to a hostile foreign armada off their coastline? Needless to say the Iranian regime criticised the exercises.

Iran called the two-day maneuvers "adventurist," but the Foreign Ministry said the Islamic Republic's response would be "rational and wise."
"We are watching their movements very carefully," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in Tehran, adding that the exercises would not improve security in the gulf, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil transits.
Source

The Iranians have also said that they are unconcerned as they have the ships under close observation.

"US warships move regularly in the Persian Gulf and in the Sea of Oman, and we have them under surveillance," said the navy's commander Sajad Kouchaki, quoted by the Iranian press on Sunday.
"The presence of two US warships shows the aggressive and dominating character of the Americans," he added.
"If they want to threaten the Islamic republic of Iran we are capable of keeping them under control. The Iranian navy does not believe in such a threat and has the enemy completely under control," he said.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters that "Iran does not believe that these maneuvers constitute a threat".

Despite their nonchalance, the Iranians have responded to this provocation with some exercises of their own. This was a fairly predictable move and demonstrates that the regime is as defiant as ever, and while Iran's statements of being unconcerned with the war games in the Gulf may be a bluff, its determination to protect itself is not.

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired dozen of missiles, including the long-range Shahab-3, during the first hours of new military maneuvers, Iranian state-run television said Thursday.
The report said several kinds of short-range missiles were also fired in a central desert area of Iran during the maneuvers, which came two days after U.S.-led warships finished an exercise in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist."
"We want to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message of the maneuvers," said the head of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, in an apparent reference to the US and other western powers.
The general said the 10-day maneuvers, named "Great Prophet," would take place in the Gulf, the Sea of Oman and several provinces of the country. He did not specify how many troops were involved.
Source

This was the sort of escalation I was concerned about when I wrote this post. Now we will have to see what America (under the guise of the 'international community') will do about this latest development. If the Bush administration continues to escalate the situation, it could develop into a crisis very quickly. We already know that Bush and his government are in desperate trouble at home and about to lose an election, a fact that the Iranians are also well aware of.

America has also been threatening Syria again too, accusing the Assad regime of trying to topple the Lebanese government. This at a time when Blair is trying to build bridges with the Syrians in order to do something to try and rectify the terrible mess he and Bush have created in the Middle East. It doesn't seem to be an initiative the Bush administration or Israel approve of. I think it would be naive to think all these events are unrelated.

Tags: Iran, Syria, Israel, Bush, Blair, US Politics

Israel's new weapon tested on the Palestinians

2006-10-13T13:12:00.000+01:00

Israel appears to have an experimental new weapon which is being used on the beleagured Palestinians. It is called a DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) and is thought to be similar to something the US military have been developing. So far the weapon is said by doctors to have caused 200 deaths and 62 amputations and severe burns in June and July.

The same team of Italian journalists who uncovered America's use of white phosphorous on Iraqis in Falluja have also been investigating Israeli weapons. The weapon is supposed to cause a powerful blast within a small radius.

Israel Air Force Maj.-Gen (res.) Yitzhak Ben-Israel, formerly head of the IDF's weapons-development program, told the Italian reporters that "one of the ideas [behind the weapon] is to allow those targeted to be hit without causing damage to bystanders or other persons."
Source

Doctors in Gaza reported inexplicably serious injuries which prompted the investigation. They found that the bodies of the dead and wounded had small entry wounds. Juma Saqa of Shifa hospital said that the victims had a powder on their bodies and internal organs.

"The powder was like microscopic shrapnel, and these are what likely caused the injuries," he said.
Habas al-Wahid, head of the emergency room at the Shuhada al-Aqsa hospital, told reporters that the legs of the injured were sliced from their bodies "as if a saw was used to cut through the bone".
The Dime is said to be made of a carbon-fibre casing and filled with tungsten powder and explosives. It is likely to be carcinogenic.
According to the website globalsecurity.org, the weapon was successfully tested during 2004 and 2005 but is being further developed.
Source

Samples of the particles found in wounds of the injured Gazans were sent for analysis to a laboratory at the University of Parma, in Italy where high concentrations of carbon and unusual materials, such as copper, aluminum and tungsten were found. The weapon is also likely to be carcinogenic.

Physicians for Human Rights has asked Israel's defence Minister, Amir Peretz for an explanation to these injuries. They shouldn't hold their breath for an explanation. The usual lies will be trotted out, and when they are exposed then claims that they are justified in using the Palestinians for weapons tests. The international community will just say that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' and give the Israelis something even more nasty.

Tags: Israel, Palestine

More Hypocrisy from Condoleezza Rice

2006-10-04T06:21:00.000+01:00

Condoleezza Rice is returning to the Middle East to call for end to the Palestinian violence caused by her policy of cutting off aid to the PA. Because of the desperate situation in Palestine, particularly in Gaza, different factions are fighting amongst themselves.

Ten Palestinians have been killed and more than 100 wounded since clashes between the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas began on Sunday in Gaza.
"Innocent Palestinians are caught in this violence," Ms Rice said.
She did not directly blame Hamas, but she said the Hamas government was unable to deliver for the Palestinian people - and could not represent a responsible government to the international community.
Source

To implement a policy of starvation and to allow repeated attacks by Israel and then to casually observe that the government is unable to deliver to the Palestinians is yet another breathtaking act of hypocrisy from the US Secretary of State. She is returning to a intolerable situation that she is partly responsible for causing. Her mission to the Middle East will achieve nothing as she has nothing to offer the Arabs except for more of the same misery. She failed in her objectives in Lebanon and managed to earn the hostility of the Lebanese Prime Minister, one of the very moderates she is supposed to be engaging with.

During the conflict in Lebanon, Israel used the confusion as a cover to further expand illegal settlements in the West Bank. And while the world's attention was focussed on Lebanon Israel was able to slaughter the Palestinians without very much in the way of media coverage let alone international condemnation. So just what does Condoleezza expect to achieve in her mission?

Speaking in Jeddah, Ms Rice urged a halt to fighting between Hamas and Fatah factions in Gaza. But she made plain there would be no let-up in the US-directed boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority which is stoking those tensions. And while paying lip service to a two-state solution, she did not diverge one inch from the administration's line that countering extremism in Iran and Iraq, and among al-Qaida and like-minded jihadists, was Washington's top priority.
Source

In other words this is more of an attempt to bolster support for Israel and to make the USA look like it is trying to do something positive in the Middle East before the November mid-term elections while in reality doing nothing of the sort. The very chaos Condoleezza Rice is speaking out against is exactly the chaos that her close ally Israel wants in order to prevent the possibility of a Palestinian state being created.

Tags: Condoleezza Rice, Palestine, Israel, US Politics

Israel makes a withdrawal from the West Bank

2006-09-21T14:26:00.000+01:00

However, it's not the kind of withdrawal that the Palestinians were hoping for. Rather than leave illegally occupied territory, the IDF (the most moral army in the world) has taken to robbing banks... again.

Israeli troops have raided a bank and the offices of money-changers in West Bank towns, confiscating funds they say were intended to fund militants.

The army said it seized almost $1.5m (£0.8m) in raids on premises in Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and Ramallah.

The money had mostly come from Syria and Iran and was intended for Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants, the army said.

Palestinian sources have said that millions of dollars, documents and files were "stolen" in the raids.

At least eight currency exchange offices and a small bank were destroyed, the Israeli army said.
Source

Not content with withholding Palestinian tax revenue and persuading America and Europe to cut aid to the desperate PA in order to starve the Palestinians into recognising the kleptocracy which has stolen their land, Israel has stooped to helping itself to the meagre funds remaining. This is not the first time that Israel has resorted to robbing Palestinian banks using the excuse that what little money the Palestinians have is obviously for the use of terrorism. In 1994 the IDF raided four banks stealing millions of dollars in cash.

Tags: Israel, Palestine

Israeli violations of the ceasefire in Lebanon and Blair's foreign policy disasters

2006-09-14T09:35:00.000+01:00

Israel is still trying to provoke Hezbollah into retaliating to ceasefire violations. These violations include incursions by tanks, bulldozers, troops and aircraft. There has also been gunfire to intimidate the Lebanese. Unifil spokesman Alexander Ivanko said there have been over 100 ceasefire violations by the IDF in the last month. Hezbollah patrols the hills but has not responded to the Israeli provocation.

The arrival of the enhanced Unifil force hasn't yet inspired much confidence among the Lebanese people and it appears that apart from some limited de mining operations little is being done by the force.

Talk of the UN met with a similar lack of enthusiasm. "We don't know them and they don't know us - so how can their be any real trust between us? They will not stand against the Israelis; they are Europeans that are coming now," said Kalamia. Villagers had seen UN troops roll through the village without stopping a few days earlier. "They have come and gone before, it's the same old story. Whether they're here or not, it doesn't make any difference to us," said Fatmeh Srour.
[...]
Nearby Bint Jbeil, where the bloodiest battles were fought, is the first of four southern towns to benefit from a planned $300,000 reconstruction project funded by Qatar. The Lebanese army deployed to the town nearly two weeks ago, but the residents still complain of Israeli harassment. "It's not a ceasefire yet because the Israelis have not stopped their firing," said Ibrahim Bassi. "The big test for the Unifil is whether they can stop the violations."
Source

A commander of the Israeli Defence Force has confirmed that cluster bombs and phosphorous shells were used on civilians during the conflict.

"In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs, what we did there was crazy and monstrous," testifies a commander in the Israel Defense Forces' MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) unit. Quoting his battalion commander, he said the IDF fired some 1,800 cluster rockets on Lebanon during the war and they contained over 1.2 million cluster bombs. The IDF also used cluster shells fired by 155 mm artillery cannons, so the number of cluster bombs fired on Lebanon is even higher. At the same time, soldiers in the artillery corps testified that the IDF used phosphorous shells, which many experts say is prohibited by international law. According to the claims, the overwhelming majority of the weapons mentioned were fired during the last ten days of the war.
Source

It is obvious that both sides in the conflict are guilty of war crimes. Israel is unlikely to be prosecuted however because it has the support of the USA and the Bush administration which approves of the extermination tactics used on the the Lebanese and Palestinians. Hezbollah has now also been accused of war crimes by Amnesty International. No doubt this will be seized on as justification for the far more monstrous Israeli war crimes but Hezbollah too is unlikely to be prosecuted.Meanwhile Tony Blair's policy of refusing to call for a ceasefire at the same time as calling for a UN resolution has come under attack from Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells. During the conflict Kim Howells called for a ceasefire and then backtracked on his statement (presumably after coming under pressure from the Government). Now that Blair is so weakened he is once again criticising the policy.

A Foreign Office minister has conceded that Tony Blair's refusal to call for a ceasefire during 34 days of slaughter in Lebanon may have been a mistake.
The admission by Kim Howells, minister for the Middle East, reflects the growing worries of senior figures in government that Mr Blair's defence of US foreign policy at every turn is damaging his administration at home and abroad.
Mr Howells also conceded that the decision to oppose - with the US - the international demand for an immediate ceasefire was not properly explained to the British public.
Source

Blair came under attack for his foreign policy recently when he addressed the TUC. Union members held up placards and heckled the Prime Minister and some Union members walked out when Blair started to speak. Nevertheless Blair did try to defend his policies without convincing anybody.

When heckled over British troops being in Iraq, Blair said that those troops were there because the elected Government of Iraq requested them in order to keep order in the country ignoring the obvious facts that there is no order in the country and those troops went in as part of an illegal invasion of Iraq. Blair argued that British troops are in Iraq to stop the chaos created by British troops going into Iraq. The puppet government might be requesting for the troops to remain in the country (although it wants a clear timetable for withdrawal) but that doesn't seem to be what the Iraqi people want or what the populations of coalition member states want.

The UN is also criticising the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq again. Kofi Annan said that most Middle East leaders regard the US-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath as a disaster for the region. No doubt Tony Blair thinks that Kofi Annan is in alliance with those mad anti-American Europeans.

Tags: Blair, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel

Blair's Middle East trip

2006-09-11T01:52:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair's attempt to ~~look like a statesman~~ bring peace to the Middle East is continuing despite achieving very little so far. He has managed to get an agreement from Olmert and Abbas to meet for talks at some unspecified time but that is about all. But this trip was always going to be about Blair trying to prove that he has some sort of role to play in international diplomacy to justify his staying in office rather than achieving anything concrete in the region.

Despite the previous reluctance of the Israeli leadership to meet with Blair, he was met with a warm welcome by Israel, and with good reason. Blair has not once criticised Israel for the continuing building of illegal settlements, the disproportionate destruction of Lebanon and the genocide and starvation of Palestinians which he has actually helped with by doing his best to prevent a ceasefire in Lebanon and by imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians for daring to elect a government that does not meet with the approval of Olmert, Bush and himself. This pattern of no criticism has continued on his current visit.

Asked to condemn Israeli actions Mr Blair said "grandstanding" and apportioning blame would not help resolve the situation.
Source

Can you imagine Blair saying something similar if there was a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv? He would be grandstanding and apportioning blame for all he was worth, just as he grandstanded and apportioned blame to Hezbollah for the war in Lebanon while carefully ignoring the constant violations of Lebanese airspace and border incusions by Israel. It is precisely this obvious bias which makes Blair's claims of being a helpful influence for peace in the Middle East so ludicrous. And it's not just to please his American master who is ambivalent at best to peace in the region. Blair still feels he has to honour his pledge to his discredited Middle East envoy and personal fund-raiser, Lord Levy despite the collapse of his authority at home. That support for Israel is not unappreciated in the Jewish state:

Blair is currently probably the most popular British prime minister among the Jews here since the era of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, with the exception perhaps of Winston Churchill. Friendly towards Israel throughout the past nine years, he surpassed himself during the Lebanon War, insisting on a comprehensive solution to the Hizbullah threat before pressing for a cease-fire and refusing to place blame on Israel for a "disproportionate" retaliation to the attacks.
Source

Needless to say Blair's welcome in Ramallah was somewhat more formal than his welcome in Jerusalem. All Blair could do was say that he understood Mr Abbas' greivances and try to help. But without speaking to Hamas, the elected government, Blair will make no progress. What Blair is trying to do yet again is impose conditions on the Palestinians. This time he wants them to form a 'unity government' that recognises the theives of their land as a legitimate state. Blair would look far more even-handed if he put equal pressure on the other countries that refuse to recognise Israel to do so. I have not noticed similar pressure being put on:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Comoros, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
Source

Instead of starving that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia into recognising Israel, Britain is arming the regime to the teeth. So there is little wonder that Blair's visit to Palestine has been met with protests.

Around two dozen demonstrators, who accuse him of pro-Israeli bias, gathered outside the government compound where he was meeting with Abbas, waving Palestinian flags and holding up a placard that read: "Be a darling Tony and don't show your face here." [My emphasis]
Source

Even before Blair's arrival there was no doubt as to how the Palestinians felt about his visit.

A newspaper advertisement signed by hundreds of Palestinian figures [though none from Hamas or Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement] said: "He is coming here in order to wash his hands, that are dripping with Lebanese blood, with Palestinian water.

"We the signatories... notables, intellectuals and political figures declare that Tony Blair is persona non grata in our country."
Source

Blair will soon return from what will be seen as a largely ineffective mission in the Middle East to the turmoil he has created within his own party. I expect his welcome home will be similar to the welcome he received in Ramallah or the welcome he is about to receive in Lebanon where the speaker of the Parliament has already left the country to avoid meeting him.

Tags: Blair, Palestine, Israel

Blair not welcome anywhere in the Middle East

2006-08-24T03:50:00.000+01:00

Recently I have been questioning the wisdom of Tony Blair's decision to go to the Middle East when he returns from his holiday. Originally I thought that Tony Blair's international standing on the World stage is now so bad that only Israel would give him a warm welcome. After all the Palestinian's and Lebaneseare hardly going to fall over themselves with gratitude for Blair's failure to condemn the atrocities purpotrated against them and his efforts to prevent a ceasefire in Lebanon.

But it was even worse than that. Not even the Israelis want to talk to him. Blair's sleazy Middle East envoy Lord Levy has been in Israel and Palestine trying to pave the way for Blair's visit and has been soundly rebuffed by Ehud Olmert.

The Israeli rebuff was reportedly delivered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at private talks last week with Blair's Middle East envoy, Lord Levy. In a series of meetings to test the diplomatic waters, Levy also met Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Downing Street and Levy refused any comment yesterday on his meetings. But a diplomatic source familiar with the talks told The Observer that Olmert's message was: 'Not now. After this difficult war, Israelis are simply not ready for new talks with the Palestinians.'
Source

Blair, however, still plans to go ahead with his trip. After all, unlike any other world leader, he has to ask for the permission of the President of the United States before he can play at being a statesman. He was refused permission at the G8 summit but this time his wish has been granted so he's not going to let a small thing like no one wanting to see him get in the way of his last shot at glory. But he's got his work cut out. The ceasefire is holding for the moment...just. But there is still little sign of the international force arriving any time soon, and Israel is doing its level best to break the truce, while tensions with Iran are increasing. And all this time the Palestinians have been continuously under attack with much of the elected government kidnapped by the Israelis. He is unlikely to make much progress in Lebanon either. The Lebanese Prime Minister has already dismissed Condoleezza Rice once in this conflict so telling Blair to get lost shouldn't be a problem for him, although he is expected to be diplomatic and welcome him. Hezbollah, on the other hand has not wasted any time in telling Blair to stay away and why.

TONY BLAIR’S peace mission to the Middle East appeared in jeopardy last night after Hezbollah declared that the Prime Minister would not be welcome in Lebanon because of his support for Israel during the war.
A senior member of Hezbollah’s politburo has told The Times that Mr Blair should stay away from the country because he was “up to his ears in the blood of Lebanese women and children”.
Source

So it's very hard to see just what his Toniness can expect to achieve on this mission. I'll reiterate that in my opinion the only reason Blair is insisting on making this ill-advised trip is because his popularity at home is only marginally better than his popularity with Hezbollah. He needs to do something to convince his mutinous party that he really is trying to do something to bring about peace in the Middle East and is capable of some independence from the "crap" Mr Bush. As always with Blair however, it's appearance rather than substance that matters, especially just before the Labour Party conference where there will be a sizable crowd demanding to know when he is going to stand down. Blair has already been warned by the UN Deputy Secretary General to take a back seat on the Lebanon crisis. He has been snubbed by the Isaelis, humiliated by the Americans, reluctantly tolerated by Fuad Saniora and told to get lost by Hezbollah. This man just can't take a hint. Not even when 100,000 people marched past his house telling him what they thought of him and lobbing shoes at the gates of Downing Street.

Tags: Blair, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, UK Politics

Amnesty International states the obvious

2006-08-23T08:28:00.000+01:00

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes in its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The published findings of Amnesty's report can be seen here. Throughout the conflict there have been repeated warnings that the wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure, the mass killing of civilians and targeting of ambulances amount to war crimes. Usually when Israel kills innocent civilians, as it frequently does in the Palestinian Territories, little action is taken. But the scale of destruction is so huge in Lebanon that Amnesty is calling for a full impartial investigation by the UN. Such an investigation should also look into any war crimes committed by Hezbollah.

Amnesty International today published findings that point to an Israeli policy of deliberate destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, which included war crimes, during the recent conflict.

The organization's latest publication shows how Israel's destruction of thousands of homes, and strikes on numerous bridges and roads as well as water and fuel storage plants, was an integral part of Israel's military strategy in Lebanon, rather than “collateral damage” resulting from the lawful targeting of military objectives.

The report reinforces the case for an urgent, comprehensive and independent UN inquiry into grave violations of international humanitarian law committed by both Hizbullah and Israel during their month-long conflict.

"Israel’s assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong. Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy," said Kate Gilmore, Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International.

The Israeli government has argued that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities and that other damage done to civilian infrastructure was a result of Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield".

"The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was 'collateral damage', simply not credible,” said Kate Gilmore, Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International.

"Civilian victims on both sides of this conflict deserve justice. The serious nature of violations committed makes an investigation into the conduct of both parties urgent. There must be accountability for the perpetrators of war crimes and reparation for the victims.”

The report, Deliberate destruction or 'collateral damage'? Israeli attacks against civilian infrastructure, is based on first-hand information gathered by recent Amnesty International research missions to Lebanon and Israel, including interviews with dozens of victims, officials from the UN, Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Lebanese government, as well as official statements and press reports.

The report includes evidence of the following:
Massive destruction by Israeli forces of whole civilian neighbourhoods and villages;

Attacks on bridges in areas of no apparent strategic importance;

Attacks on water pumping stations, water treatment plants and supermarkets despite the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population;

Statements by Israeli military officials indicating that the destruction of civilian infrastructure was indeed a goal of Israel’s military campaign designed to press the Lebanese government and the civilian population to turn against Hizbullah.
Amnesty International is calling for a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry to be urgently established by the UN into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict. It should examine in particular the impact of this conflict on the civilian population, and should be undertaken with a view to holding individuals responsible for crimes under international law and ensuring that full reparation is provided to the victims.

The report exposes a pattern of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, which resulted in the displacement of twenty-five percent of the civilian population. This pattern, taken together with official statements, indicates that the attacks on infrastucture were deliberate, and not simply incidental to lawful military objectives.
Source

At the beginning of the conflict Israel's army chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, said his military would target infrastructure and "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years". This was one Israeli war aim that was actually achieved. The same General also declared that 10 buildings in Beirut would be destroyed for every rocket fired at Haifa.

"Army chief of staff Dan Halutz has given the order to the air force to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in the Dahaya district (of Beirut) in response to every rocket fired on Haifa," a senior air force officer told army radio on Monday.
Source

Israel's justice minister Haim Ramon said "Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah." Statements such as these expose Israel's claim that everything they targetted was Hezbollah hiding behind civilians as the obvious lie it is.

The question now is whether anything will actually be done to bring the criminals responsible for all this death and destruction to justice, or whether America will once again manage to ensure that they are never held to account.

Ambulance photo by Dahr Jamail

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Amnesty, War Crimes

Hostilities between Lebanon and Israel likely to restart

2006-08-21T08:20:00.000+01:00

Senior IDF officers are saying that the precarious ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is likely to end soon. Israel has already violated the ceasefire at least once and despite condemnation from the UN Secretary General, has threatened further violations.

Members of the Israel Defense Forces General Staff say that "round two" between Israel and Hezbollah could begin within months or even weeks, probably over the renewal of arms deliveries to the organization from Iran and Syria.

One senior officer told Haaretz on Sunday that throughout the month-long war with Hezbollah, Iran and Syria attempted to smuggle large quantities of weapons to Lebanon. He said that the efforts were stepped up over the past week, following the cease-fire and the end of Israel Air Force sorties deep in Lebanese territory.

The officer noted that while UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calls for an embargo on arms shipments to Hezbollah, no mechanism has been put in place to enforce this embargo, and said that Israel will have to intervene if the deliveries continue unchecked.
Source

Lebanon for its part is observing the truce and the Lebanese Government has warned Hezbollah not to violate the ceasefire by firing rockets into Israel, an action that would be punished by a military tribunal. Unlike Israel, Hezbollah has not fired any rockets since the truce, but that could change if they are subjected to more provocation. More Israeli violations of the ceasefire might also bring in the Lebanese army (such as it is) which would make this a true war between sovereign states and much harder to stop. The IDF are also committed to hunting down and killing Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah the leader of Hezbollah and possibly the most popular leader in the Middle East. Nasrallah's assassination will cause an explosion of violence all over the region, which might be something Israel wants in order to draw America into an expanded conflict.

Part of the problem is the delay in getting in a sufficient international force to police the ceasefire and keep the warring parties apart. There is much argument over the mandate of the UNIFIL force and how much force it will be able to use. This has caused France to scale down its commitment. Another Problem is Israel trying to decide the make-up of the force by dictating which countries should participate and who should lead it rather than letting the UN get on with it. The UN is also warning that the ceasefire could soon collapse.

A restart of the hostilities would be catastrophic. The many refugees are just starting to return to what's left of their homes and rebuilding the damaged infrastructure and clearing away the unexploded ordinance. There are also environmental disasters that urgently need to be tackled. It seems likely that depleted uranium has been used in Lebanon, and there is a massive oil spill which is the worst to have happened in the Mediterranean. Worse still, what Israel is already calling "round two" is likely to involve Syria and possibly Iran. The war of words with Iran is getting louder as the regime is criticised for its nuclear programme and is accused of supplying arms to Hezbollah and the resistance in Iraq. Iran is now conducting war exercises and testing missiles.

What is becoming clear is that Israel does not want this ceasefire. America and Britain tried to give Israel as much time as possible for it to conduct its massacres but this was not enough. The consensus is that American-backed Israel has lost the war and this is causing problems in the Israeli government and disrupting America's plans to attack Iran. So there will be little opposition in America to renewed hostilities.

Tags: Israel, Lebanon, Ceasefire

Israel violates ceasefire

2006-08-19T18:16:00.000+01:00

"...and then we'll see who is for peace and who isn't." - Condoleezza Rice August 6, 2006

Everyone knew that the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah agreed last week was precarious and that it was highly likely that it would be violated. The delays in getting a UN force in the region quickly enough added to the problem. The unfair wording of Resolution 1701 (.pdf) allows Israel to carry out operations against the Lebanese provided it calls them "defensive". Hezbollah, on the other hand, are forbidden from even defending themselves against Israeli aggression. It was only a matter of time before Israel took advantage of this loophole in order to extract some revenge for the defeat it suffered at the hands of the resistance militia and to try and diffuse some of the political fallout Ehud Olmert is experiencing at home. Sure enough, Israel has tried to scupper the ceasefire by launching an attack in the Bekaa Valley, deep in Lebanese territory.

In Beirut, the raid prompted an angry response from Mr Siniora.

"It is a naked violation of the cessation of hostilities declared by the Security Council," he told reporters.

He said a complaint had been made to visiting UN envoys about the operation.

But Israel insisted it had not breached the ceasefire.
Source

Israel insists that it had "specific information of arms transfers taking place" and so is not in violation of the ceasefire, but there is also the possibility that this was a foiled attempt to 'kidnapp' a senior member of Hezbollah or retrieve its own captured soldiers. The Lebanese government has now threatened to stop any more of its soldiers moving south to replace Hezbollah fighters until the UN investigates the violation. This in turn casts doubt over the implementation of the UN force which is already having difficulties finding countries to supply enough troops as arguments over the mandate of the force rage even as the first peacekeepers arrive.

If Israel is successful in its attempt to wreck the ceasefire and restart the war (as it did in Gaza when a family picknicking on a beach was targeted in an effort to end Hamas' 16 month ceasefire) then perhaps Olmert's precarious position will be strengthened, and Israel can continue with America's plan to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran. A senior UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, has said that if the reports are true then it is a breaking of the truce.

BEIRUT, Aug 19 (Reuters) - A senior U.N. envoy said on Saturday if media reports about an Israeli raid in Lebanon were true, it would constitute a clear violation of a U.N.-brokered truce that halted the war between Israel and Hizbollah. "We had no independent means to verify ... what has happened. But if what has been reported is correct, it is of course a clear violation of the ceasefire," Terje Roed-Larsen told Lebanon's LBC television.
Source

Unsurprisingly, America is refusing to criticise Israel's violation of the ceasefire. The UN Secretary General is however, placing the blame firmly on Israel.

Tags: Israel, Lebanon