The Nether-World

Illegal Attacks - A new Anti-war music video by Ian Brown with Sinead O'Connor

2007-08-21T01:59:00.000+01:00

Time for a musical interlude...

Ian Brown, ex singer of the landmark British rock group Stone Roses and creator of four highly acclaimed solo albums, launched his latest single 'Illegal Attacks' as a Stop the War exclusive.
'Illegal Attacks' is an anti-war song and Ian Brown is joined in this powerful duet by Sinead O’Connor. Shot in London directed by Colin O'Toole, the video tells the story of a young British man who enlists in the army and is sent to war.
"It’s a commercial crusade, ‘Cause all the oil men get paid, And only so many soldiers come home, It’s a commando crusade, A military charade, And only so many soldiers come home, Soldiers, soldiers come home, Soldiers come home"
Lyrics from Illegal Attacks

Pass it on.

Tags: Illegal Attacks, Ian Brown, Sinead O’Connor, Anti-War

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

Under The Weather

2007-05-26T05:26:00.000+01:00

Sorry about the lack of posts. I seem to have come down with some nasty lurgy which is making staring at a computer screen for any great length of time give me a headache (not to mention the blocked sinuses, fever, aching muscles and hacking cough), and stringing a coherent sentence together is difficult. So as a total cop-out, here are ten other stories collected over the week (in no rational order) that are worth reading:

Ministry of Truth on John Reid's latest attack on our freedoms.
Mask of Anarchy on McDonald's efforts to to have the word "McJob" removed from the dictionary.
Rachel has returned from her honeymoon only to face yet more abuse from a batshit cyber-stalker and is asking for help.
Grimmerupnorth on why Jon Cruddas is a dishonourable hypocrite who should not be elected to the Deputy Leadership.
Not Saussure on yet another attack on our civil liberties by our wonderful government.
Blood & Treasure on the latest ratcheting up of the hate campaign against Iran.
Ten Percent on America's renewed sabre rattling against Iran and on just who is really supporting Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon.
Lenin's Tomb on the secret air war in Iraq.
Tears for Lebanon on the misery that the Lebanese people are facing.
Obsolete on Margaret Hodge's latest outburst in favour of the BNP (supported by Hazel Blears no less).

Hopefully I'll be back to 'normal' blogging as soon as I feel a bit better.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, UK Politics, Civil Liberties

Spot the obstacle to peace

2007-01-21T10:03:00.000Z

Tags: Bush, Syria, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, US Politics

Amidst all the turmoil in the Middle East, there are some attempts being made in certain diplomatic circles to try and stabilise the region. One country however seems to be doing its level best to scupper these small efforts. No prizes for guessing who it is.

DUBAI (AFP) - Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is urging the United States to talk with Syria, claiming in an interview that Damascus "supports" Iraq in fighting the insurgency.
Source

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria on Saturday condemned insurgent attacks on the U.S.-backed Iraqi army and security forces, describing them as "terrorism", in another shift in the Damascus government's position toward its neighbour.
Source

BERLIN (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has reiterated Washington's opposition to talking to Syria or Iran to get their help in easing unrest in Iraq.
Source

Here's some other examples that I referred to obliquely in a previous post.

Israeli officials have confirmed that the Foreign Ministry knew about a series of peace talks that have taken place in Europe between Syrians and an Israeli team headed by a former senior diplomat. The teams discussed Israel handing back the Golan Heights, which it has occupied since the Six Day War in 1967, to Syria under a formula providing for President Bashar Assad to stop giving support to Hamas and Hizbollah and to distance his regime from Iran.
Source

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House denied media reports that Israelis and Syrians reached understandings for a peace treaty in secret unofficial talks over the past two years.
Source

Oh, and there's this:

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Source

And these are just examples of what has been happening on various diplomatic fronts. Only a lunatic would want the various wars in the Middle East to continue, only a lunatic could think that a disastrous policy can be put right by repeating it, and only a lunatic would want to start yet another war in the region. Unfortunately, a lunatic is running the United States of America.

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

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

The “unseemly” horse trading at the UN: Jobs for the boys or a prelude to war?

2006-10-05T06:10:00.000+01:00

I have to admit I was a bit surprised to hear about the extraordinary unanimity in the choice of Ban Ki Moon as the likely successor to Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the UN when he stands down at the end of this year. I needn't have been that surprised. Behind the scenes there was, it seems, an awful lot of argument about the selection of Ban Ki Moon, mostly from the five permanent members of the security council, particularly Britain, and what the horse trading was about was getting top jobs for British officials.

BRITAIN has demanded a key United Nations policy job as the price of supporting the man likely to become the new UN Secretary-General.
Before throwing its weight behind Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean in the leading position to succeed Kofi Annan, the Government set out conditions that included the promise of top jobs for British officials.
The “unseemly” horse trading also involved other countries, according to diplomatic sources. It took place behind closed doors before Mr Ban cleared the latest hurdle — an informal straw poll of the 15-strong Security Council — earlier this week.
“It was like the European states carving up Africa in the 19th century,” one diplomat at the UN said. “The very same countries that lecture the UN on the need to reform and to make appointments based on merit were the ones pressing for their candidates to be given top jobs.
[...]
In particular, the British want to reclaim the job of under-secretary-general for the Department of Political Affairs, responsible for all the main international crises, including the Middle East, Iran, North Korea and other flashpoints.
“The British made it clear to Ban Ki Moon that this was a condition for their support,” said another source, who added that the same negotiations took place when Mr Annan became Secretary-General.
Source

So Britain wants to have a key role in the political affairs of the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. Well, that's not so surprising. It is interesting however in the light of this:

We bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East.
The article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment and its relationship to the Battle for Oil.
The structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of these war preparations.
The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war
The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.
The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.
The naval buildup is coordinated with the planned air attacks. The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022
These war plans must be taken very seriously.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, a long war, which threatens the future of humanity.
In the weeks ahead, it is essential that citizens' movements around the world act consistently to confront their respective governments and reverse and dismantle this military agenda
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called Homeland Security agenda which has already defined the contours of a police State.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
Source

The above quote is the editor's note at the head of a long, detailed and well-sourced article by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya of Global Research entitled The March to War: Naval Build-Up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean (via Truthout which has put in other links to the relevant articles). The article and the long list of links at the end point to a very disturbing pattern which makes a bigger Middle Eastern war look all but inevitable. It's worth reading the whole piece. There has been plenty of speculation in recent months about the possibility of an attack on Iran and/or Syria, so much so that I decided to comment further on it only when there was evidence of the necessary troop build-up. This looks like evidence of a such a build-up, much more secretive than the blatent military massing prior to the Iraq war. It might explain why Britain is so eager to muscle in on top UN positions.

Tags: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, UN, Britain

The damage to Lebanon's cultural heritage

2006-09-19T05:19:00.000+01:00

The recent conflict in Lebanon, as well as causing over 1,000 civilian deaths and ruination of the country's infrastructure, has also damaged some of the world's most important archaeological sites. The worst damage is to the ancient port city of Byblos which is badly affected by the huge oil spill caused when Israel deliberately bombed the Jieh power plant several times causing the release of 15,000 tons of oil which has created the worst environmental disaster in the Mediterranean. The ancient stone harbour is now coated in thick toxic sludge.

Byblos, which has been continuously inhabited for more than 7,000 years, is still suffering from the oilslick.
The Lebanese authorities have not been able to clear up the oil, which leaked when the power station at Jiyyeh south of Beirut was bombed by the Israelis.
As the wave reaches the shore in Byblos, more oil is brought in from the Mediterranean Sea.
This is a town that has been invaded by many civilizations - but a man-made environmental disaster now threatens the port.
Source

Unless urgent action is taken soon the damage will become permanent. Other historic sites, although not directly bombed were damaged by the vibrations of nearby bombing. Particularly endangered are the splendid Roman ruins of Baalbek, some of the finest examples of imperial Roman architecture outside of Italy. Cracks in the lintel stones have widened and in Tyre frescoes have also been damaged in a Roman tomb.

Unesco is launching an urgent appeal for funds to restore these world heritage sites.

Tags: Lebanon, Culture

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 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

Interview with Dahr Jamail

2006-08-20T17:41:00.000+01:00

Truthout has conducted a very interesting interview with the independent reporter Dahr Jamail in which he speaks about his experiences in Iraq and Lebanon and of the insufficient coverage by the corporate media. The interview is on video in two parts and can be accessed from here or via these links:

Part I
QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K

Part II
QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K

Well worth watching.

Tags: Iraq, Lebanon, Media

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

Bush Administration was aware of Israel's plans to attack Lebanon and helped

2006-08-14T05:36:00.000+01:00

According to veteran journalist Seymour Hersh writing in The New Yorker magazine, the Bush administration was not only informed of Israel's plans to take on Hezbollah before the capture of two Israeli soldiers, it also helped to plan the attack.

The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hizbullah, according to a report published yesterday.

The veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine that Israeli government officials travelled to the US in May to share plans for attacking Hizbullah.
Source

Here is a segment from the article:

Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.” The consultant added, “Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council.” After that, “persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board,” the consultant said.
Source

The Bush administration has denied any prior knowledge of the attack so it would be embarrassing if the story was somehow verified. Seymour Hersh well known for uncovering major news stories. In 1969 during the Vietnam War he exposed the My Lai massacre and its cover-up. He also broke the story of Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 and the US military's use of torture. And he has reported on American plans to attack Iran.

Tags: Bush, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah

The UN agrees on something

2006-08-12T05:39:00.000+01:00

After a month of slaughter in Lebanon, the UN Security Council has finally agreed to the text of a draft resolution which has now been passed unanimously. Resolution 1701 is marginally better than the previous draft of last week which gave Israel everything it demanded. It does not call for an immediate ceasefire but does call for "a full cessation of hostilities". It also calls for Israeli troops to withdraw as they are replaced by a 15,000 strong international force which will back up the Lebanese army, and for Hezbollah to pull back and later disarm. It is still balanced heavily in favour of Israel as was noted by the foreign minister of Qatar, the only Arab on the Security Council. But we all know that the USA would have vetoed anything less. Kofi Annan expressed his disappointment that an agreement hadn’t been reached sooner. The full text of his statement is here. It is interesting that some progress was made once Blair was told to take a back seat and left for his holiday.

One of the weaknesses of the resolution is that it still allows Israel to murder Lebanese civilians provided it calls such atrocities ‘defensive measures’, while Hezbollah must cease all attacks whether they are defensive or not. Another weakness is that Israel has been given permission to stay in Lebanon until a security force appears which could take months. I doubt Hezbollah will tolerate the IDF occupation of a square inch of Lebanon for any length of time. This highlights the main problem; the UN can decide what it likes but it’s events on the ground which matter. Lebanon, despite accepting the resolution has already expressed doubts about it stopping the war.

Lebanese acting Foreign Minister Tarek Mitri was scathing in his criticism of Israel during an address to the Security Council shortly after the body unanimously adopted the long-awaited resolution.

"A ceasefire that is incomplete is not a true ceasefire. A ceasefire that retains for one side the right not to cease firing is not a ceasefire," Mitri said.

"The Lebanese are not confident in Israeli distinction between 'defensive' and 'offensive'," he added. "The end to military operations should be unqualified."

"For a month now, as the world continues to watch and the international community continues to watch, Israel has besieged and ravaged Lebanon, creating a humanitarian and environmental disaster," he said.

Mitri characterized the weeks of Israeli artillery and aerial bombardments against his country as a "strategy of terror" and an "obscenely disproportionate and unjustifiable" retaliation for Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel.
Source

Ehud Olmert has also said he accepts the resolution and will urge his cabinet to agree to it on Sunday. However even as he spoke, Israel was rapidly escalating the war.

Ehud Olmert's office said late Friday that the expanded incursion into Lebanon would continue "for the time being," despite agreeing to a cease-fire resolution drafted by the United Nations Security Council.

Israel will press ahead with its military offfensive in south Lebanon until Israel's Cabinet approves an emerging Mideast cease-fire deal, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said early Saturday.

"The logic would be that even in the framework of this successful outcome, if you hand over to the Lebanese army a cleaner south Lebanon, a south Lebanon where you have Hezbollah removed from the territory, that makes their [the Lebanese] troubles a lot easier," Regev said.
Source

As if to prove the point, Israeli aircraft attacked a convoy of 500 vehicles full of civilians who were fleeing the fighting killing seven people and wounding 36. Israel called the attack a ‘mistake’. The attack took place near the town of Chtaura in the Bekaa Valley about 50km north of the Litani River. Israel had earlier warned that it would attack any vehicle below the Litani River. Since the resolution was passed, Israel has been significantly "broadening" its campaign with the cities of Tyre and Sidon being targeted. To get an idea of the pessimism felt about the UN resolution, take a look at this Sky News poll screenshot which I grabbed. "Will the UN agreement end the Middle East crisis?" The pessimism is increasing, originally it was 25% "Yes" and 75% "No", and has since plummeted to 7% "Yes" and 93% "No".

The U.N. Human Rights Council was also busy on Friday, condemning Israel for "massive bombardment of Lebanese civilian populations" and other "systematic" human rights violations. It has decided to send a commission to investigate.

The Geneva resolution expressed "outrage" at what it called "senseless killings by Israel, with impunity, of children, women, the elderly" and to "immediately stop military operations against (the) civilian population."
Source

There is a petition calling for Israel to be prosecuted for its numerous war crimes. Please sign it.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, UN resolution

The citizen weapons inspectors strike again

2006-08-09T08:55:00.000+01:00

It doesn’t look like Prestwick airport has improved its security since the last time that the Trident Ploughshare campaign group managed to get on board a US military cargo aircraft in order to search for weapons bound for Israel. Two days after eight of the group were arrested they did it again.

A group of anti-war campaigners yesterday claimed to have broken through security at Prestwick airport and boarded a US plane. Last month it emerged that the airport, near Glasgow, was being used as a staging post for American planes transporting bombs to Israel.

Campaign group Trident Ploughshare said five activists boarded a US Air National Guard plane just after midnight. According to the protesters, they searched through documents on the aircraft before being stopped by airport workers. Strathclyde police confirmed a number of arrests had been made.

The apparent break-in came less than 24 hours after eight people were arrested after a group of protesters allegedly managed to board a cargo plane at the same airport. Four people were also arrested on Prestwick's runway on Sunday.

On Monday, Strathclyde Police revealed it had ordered airport authorities to tighten security. The latest incident proved another embarrassment to the airport's management, which had claimed the existing measures were "effective".
Source

Either security arrangements at Prestwick are really bad or Trident Ploughshare are very resourceful, perhaps it’s a bit of both. Anyway I still think it’s a good way to protest. I only hope that there are equally resourceful groups near RAF (or is that USAF?) Mildenhall in Suffolk where the American planes with their cargoes of death bound for Lebanon via Israel now land.

Tags: Prestwick, Protests, Lebanon, Israel, USAF

Some of speeches at the London 'Ceasefire Now' demonstration

2006-08-08T03:51:00.000+01:00

Having failed in my attempt to record Craig Murray's excellent speech at the protest, and having missed some of the other speeches, I was relieved to discover that Ady Cousins managed to film it in its entirety and also recorded many of the other speeches.

This is exactly what I was hoping to do at the demonstration. So here they are, the speeches than none of the news outlets wanted you to see, or just couldn't be bothered to show you. Shame on them.

Via The Antagonist who has a very good post on the protest.

Tags: Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, London Demonstration, UK Politics, Blair

Sickening

2006-08-07T11:31:00.000+01:00

This ghastly article from The Times tells us of British citizens volunteering for the Israeli army.

AT FIRST sight Ben and his mates could be at a wedding party on the lawns of an hotel in his native Yorkshire.

Except that this hotel is a short drive from the Israel-Lebanon border and, despite his Leeds accent, Ben is an Israeli soldier. He is also cradling an Israeli-army issue Colt AR15 semi-automatic rifle stamped “Property of US Govt”.

Ben, 26, who arrived in Israel last year, is one of thousands of those serving in the Israeli military either as newly arrived citizens or on army programmes for Zionists who want to defend Israel while deciding whether to emigrate.

Earlier in the day he was ducking Hezbollah mortars in the Lebanese village of Adessa, just across the border. Now he sits chatting in two languages about two lives — as a would-be medical student in Britain and as an Israeli soldier known among his colleagues for his stamina and ability to carry a heavy machinegun over long distances.
Source

This grotesque story is disturbing on so many levels. Firstly the approving tone of the article. Secondly the hypocrisy; what would The Times have to say if they had a story about people of Lebanese descent going off to join Hezbollah in order to defend Lebanon, or Palestinian sympathisers going off to join Hamas? I doubt it would be so smug; in fact it would probably react with indignant horror and tell us about radicalised, brainwashed Muslim youth. And then what happens when any of these stupid kids get themselves killed in the conflict? We will be bombarded with stories of Hezbollah targeting British citizens justifying more violence. Lebanon and Israel have enough foreign killers. There is no need for any more.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, UK volunteers

Citizen weapons inspectors

2006-08-07T09:37:00.000+01:00

I like this idea. Protesters at Glasgow’s Prestwick airport were arrested after boarding a US military cargo flight searching for evidence to suggest the plane was carrying bombs to Israel.

A spokesman for campaign group Trident Ploughshares told BBC Scotland three people had managed to get onto a US cargo flight.

He said they were searching for evidence to suggest the plane was carrying bombs to Israel.

On Sunday, four people were arrested after demonstrators broke through security fencing onto the main runway.

It was reported last week that US military flights carrying bombs to Israel would no longer use any civilian airports in the UK for refuelling.

The protesters describe themselves as "citizen weapons inspectors" and said they were searching for evidence to suggest the plane was en route to Israel carrying bunker busting bombs.

Trident Ploughshares said seven people got through security fencing at the airport and got into the freight area, with three managing to get on board a US plane.

It is claimed one of the protesters was sitting in the pilot's seat reading a manual when he was arrested.

Strathclyde Police said seven people had been arrested at the airport on Monday morning and confirmed a number of protesters had been on board a plane.
Source

Obviously all seven members of Trident Ploughshares have been arrested. Apparently they did not find the evidence they were looking for. However they did show how lax the security is at Prestwick airport which is worrying even though the US are now using military bases to transport their cargoes of death en route to the civilians of Lebanon.

Tags: Prestwick, Protests, Lebanon, Israel, USA

Letter to the BBC

2006-08-07T05:18:00.000+01:00

Many people have expressed their dismay at the inadequate media coverage of last Saturday’s demonstration against the Israeli aggression in Lebanon and Gaza. While it is nice to know that some bloggers are doing a very good job of covering the event, it is the duty of news outlets, particularly the BBC, to cover such events properly. Once again the BBC has failed in its duty and so I have decided to complain. Here is the letter I wrote.

Dear BBC,

I wish to complain about the appalling coverage you gave to last Saturday's (August 5th) demonstration in London. You gave this huge demonstration with its unprecedented rally in Parliament Square very scant coverage. You quoted the police estimate of the numbers (20,000) as if the police was a reliable source. The police always revise down the numbers. True, you did also quote the Stop The War Coalition estimate (80,000 - 100,000) but in such a way as to imply that their figures were less reliable. You made no effort to come up with a figure for yourselves. What kind of journalism is that? Suspiciously, you did not show any aerial shots of the march that would have helped viewers get a better idea of the size of the protest.

Nor did you broadcast any of the speeches even though at least four of the speakers were MPs, three of them from the governing party. You interviewed only one of the speakers, but only about the news of the draft UN resolution, and that was after the demonstration against the backdrop of a now empty Parliament Square. You showed no reaction from the Government about this huge demonstration, and it really was huge as the many photographs show.

People do want an accurate report of the events of last Saturday and in order to find out what happened they have had to resort to the numerous blogs which gave this protest the coverage it deserved albeit with their own particular slants. The blog coverage includes photographs, video clips and quotes from the speakers. If people without access to the huge resources that the BBC has can do such a good job of reporting an event, why can't you? Even if you don't have the time on your news bulletins to fully cover the event, you still have an extensive website and the coverage on that was only marginally better than what you broadcast.

My criticism isn't just reserved for the BBC. None of the other major news outlets did justice to this protest and I shall be writing to some of them too. However, the BBC is funded uniquely by the obligatory license fee; therefore it has a special duty to report fully and fairly in as unbiased a way as possible. I think you have failed in that duty. And nor is it the first time your coverage of major protests has been unbalanced or just inept. The difference here is that this protest is about events that are happening in the world that we are seeing on our TV screens every day. In other words, it is a part of the current events that you are already covering and deserves more than the few minutes you allocated to it.

The scant coverage you and the other news outlets gave to this protest amounts to a media blackout. If that is the case then you should at least tell us that a media blackout has been imposed so that people know that they should find other methods to find out what is happening in our country. The fact that so many people turned up last Saturday without there having been any posters, or articles in the news (except for one in The Independent on the day of the protest) shows that many people are losing faith in news outlets such as yours and are relying on word-of-mouth and, of course the blogs and other internet sites. If I worked for the BBC, that would worry me.

I have listed below just a few of the blogs that have done the journalism that the BBC on this occasion has failed to do. The amount of hits that these blogs are getting reflect the interest there is about last Saturday's protest, and the comments I have been receiving over the report I posted on my blog on the event and the comments that I have read on other blog posts illustrate that there is a huge disappointment in the lack of media coverage.

I sincerely hope you do a better job of covering these protests in the future because there will be a lot more of them.

Yours truly

Davide Simonetti

http://nether-world.blogspot.com

Some of the blog coverage:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/at-least-100000-march-against-us.html
http://ernest.turro.cat/blog/2006/08/06/on-the-august-5th-demonstration/
http://www.septicisle.info/2006/08/uh-yeah-there-was-sort-of.html
http://ellissharp.blogspot.com/2006/08/massive-protest-against-blair-media.html
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1271
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1272
http://nether-world.blogspot.com/2006/08/august-5-demonstration-in-london.html

If anyone else feels the urge to complain to the BBC over its rubbish coverage of the August 5 demonstration, this is the link to the complaints department. I’ll let you know what the BBC’s response is if I get a reply.

Tags: BBC, Media, London Demonstration, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel

August 5 demonstration in London against the War in Lebanon

2006-08-06T07:07:00.000+01:00

By anyone’s standards (except for those of the BBC apparently) this was a big demonstration. Let’s get the obligatory numbers argument over with first. The BBC, which always says it is reporting the police estimates as if they were the sole guardians of the Truth, told the world that 20,000 people showed up. Hmm, the word I’m looking for here is Bollocks! The Beeb did also quote the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) estimate as well (100,000) but in such a way as to make readers and viewers distrust their figures. Of course they declined to show any aerial shots of the march. From the ground it is impossible to guess the numbers (at least it was for me), but Tom from Blairwatch applied his considerable mathematical skills to the problem and came up with a much more realistic 52,800 to 66,000 people marching. I would have put the number higher, at about 80,000 to 100,000 but based only on previous experiences of such protests and not on any real calculations.

I did ask a steward what she thought the turn-out was and she suggested it might be between 80,000 and 140,000. Apparently STWC calculate numbers by the not very scientific method knowing how many placards they have and assuming that one in five protesters will pick one up. This of course doesn’t allow for people joining the march as it progresses. Suffice to say, I haven’t a clue how many people were there but there were an awful lot of them. Judge the numbers for yourself from these photos and video clips. People were still pouring into a very crowded Parliament Square halfway through the rally with the march still winding up to Piccadilly Circus and Trafalgar Square.

The march started at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, went down Park Lane and then detoured off to go around the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square where there was a lot of shouting and booing at the building and its occupants surrounded as they were by the ubiquitous fortifications and battalions of day-glow police.

It then went back onto Park Lane, down Piccadilly to Piccadilly Circus from there onto and Lower Regent Street into Whitehall (Downing Street) and finished at Parliament Square where the Rally was held. Holding the rally in Parliament Square was a stroke of genius (I don’t know how the organisers managed to get permission to do that). It meant that the protest was impossible to ignore even with a near total media blackout.

The mood of the march was obviously very angry, and rightly so. However there was still a very friendly atmosphere, no doubt helped by the fine sunny weather (actually it was bloody hot and I’ve gone red) and the huge turn-out. There were people from all walks of life and of different ages and races, which was a very good thing to see. Lots of children attended too which helped to highlight the huge proportion of children’s’ deaths and injuries in this war (a trade mark of Israel).

As the march reached Whitehall, it got much noisier and angrier. The march slowed down as people hung about to hurl abuse at the Prime Minister. His Tonyness was in residence, apparently. We were treated to the frankly surreal spectacle of hundreds of shoes being lobbed towards Downing Street. The shoes represented the children whose lives have been snuffed out in this war. Later they were placed in a touching arrangement at the Cenotaph.

Finally we ended up in Parliament Square for the rally. I think I was somewhere in the middle of the march and so I missed some of the speeches. I would have liked to have heard John McDonnell’s speech as I have been reading his campaign blog recently. It seems I also missed Diane Abbot. I did get to hear Craig Murray’s speech which was very good. I tried to record it but my camera ran out of space so I only managed to capture the beginning (weirdly enough the same thing happened to Lenin on Craig’s speech).

I tried to capture the rest of what he had to say on my cell phone but the audio is so bad that I’m not going to post it here (all the other speeches I filmed on the mobile are also incomprehensible unfortunately – Note to self: buy another memory card for the camera, one with more storage space). I did manage to record the speeches of George Galloway, Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn after deleting some photos and accidentally deleting Bianca Jagger’s speech and some others.

I can’t remember all of the other speakers but I liked Jeremy Hardy’s speech about a secular and harmonious Middle East with Jews, Christians and Muslims living together eventually in one state, and Professor Manuel Hassassian’s speech (the would-be Palestinian ambassador to Britain if Palestine was allowed to exist).

After the Rally, the crowd dispersed fairly quickly and I made my way to the nearest comfortable pub with an outdoor area for a well-earned couple of pints. I don’t know how effective the demonstration will be. Demonstrations don’t have a very good record of changing Government policy, but it is important to register dissatisfaction while we still can. The media blackout on the protest is a pretty appalling state of affairs and the mainstream television news channels should be ashamed of themselves. I actually thought they would report this event in a misguided bout of optimism. As it is we will have to rely once more on the bloggers to spread the word and do the journalists’ jobs for them.

There is excellent coverage of the march from Lenin’s Tomb, Septic Isle, The Sharp Side and also Blairwatch. Also, a very good report from the antagonist which has video clips of Rose Gentle from Military Families Against the War, and also the whole of Craig Murray's speech. Little Richardjohn has some more good pictures. If I hear of more reports I’ll update this post.

Finally, while we were protesting, there was some movement at the UN. I say movement rather than progress because this looks like anything but progress. However, I may be proved wrong. The idea seems to be that Israel gets to occupy southern Lebanon (again) until the much-talked about peace keepers/enforcers arrive. Hezbollah has to stop retaliating while Israel can continue to attack provided they call it “defensive” action rather than “offensive” action which is what Israel has called its genocidal wrecking spree all along. This will go down like a lead balloon with Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon. No immediate unconditional ceasefire, just “full cessation of hostilities”. Is that really the best the USA and France could come up with?

Tags: Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, London Demonstration, UK Politics, Blair

Blair knew of Israel’s plans to bomb Lebanon

2006-08-05T01:32:00.000+01:00

According to John Kampfner of the New Statesman, Tony Blair was aware of Israel’s plans to bomb southern Lebanon in an effort to “destroy” Hezbollah.

I am told that the Israelis informed George W Bush in advance of their plans to "destroy" Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew. This exposes as a fraud the debate of the past week about calling for a ceasefire. Indeed, one of the reasons why negotiations failed in Rome was British obduracy. This has been a case not of turning a blind eye and failing to halt the onslaught, but of providing active support.
Source

Two weeks ago news emerged that General Wesley Clark heard of a Pentagon plan to attack Lebanon back in November 2001, along with Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

So, this might help explain why Tony Blair has gone out of his way to prevent a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon despite having the gall to tell everyone that this is what he is working so hard to achieve. Yesterday Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell informed us that contrary to everything we are reading in the news, Tony Blair is not isolated in his party or in the Cabinet and is in fact playing a "crucial" and "pivotal" role to play in trying to bring about peace.

"We've had lots of... robust discussions and you know it is simply not a fair reflection - or a truthful reflection - of the position to describe the prime minister as being isolated," she said.

"He is absolutely central to the discussions, both within his cabinet, within his government, as he is also internationally, with other world leaders."
Source

This contradicts a statement from chairwoman of the parliamentary Labour Party, Ann Clwyd, who was one of Blair’s staunchest allies on the Iraq war who warned of the anger of many MPs.

"I think the vast majority of them felt there should be a ceasefire and the vast majority of them are very critical of Israeli policy."
Source

The problem here is Blair. As long as he is involved in peace negotiations, there is unlikely to be any peace. This has been recognised by no less a figure than UN's deputy secretary general, Mark Malloch Brown who thinks that Blair should take a back seat over Lebanon. So Tony had no need to postpone his holiday. He can be just as ineffectual in Barbados as he is in the UK and the USA.

Tags: Blair, Lebanon, Israel, Bush

Demonstrate 5th August

2006-08-04T04:27:00.000+01:00

Join the national demonstration
Saturday 5 August: Assemble 12 Noon
Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London
March to Parliament Square for rally

Here's why

For more details including information about coaches and trains click here.

Tags: Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, London Demonstration August 5