Arafat 的个人资料صفحات في دفتر مهاجر照片日志列表更多 ![]() | 帮助 |
|
صفحات في دفتر مهاجر12月20日 Gaza must be rebuilt nowWe can wait no longer to restart the peace process. The human suffering demands urgent relief
It is generally recognised that the Middle East peace process is in the doldrums, almost moribund. Israeli settlement expansion within Palestine continues, and PLO leaders refuse to join in renewed peace talks without a settlement freeze, knowing that no Arab or Islamic nation will accept any comprehensive agreement while Israel retains control of East Jerusalem. US objections have impeded Egyptian efforts to resolve differences between Hamas and Fatah that could lead to 2010 elections. With this stalemate, PLO leaders have decided that President Mahmoud Abbas will continue in power until elections can be held – a decision condemned by many Palestinians. Even though Syria and Israel under the Olmert government had almost reached an agreement with Turkey's help, the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejects Turkey as a mediator on the Golan Heights. No apparent alternative is in the offing. The UN general assembly approved a report issued by its human rights council that called on Israel and the Palestinians to investigate charges of war crimes during the recent Gaza war, but positive responses seem unlikely. In summary: UN resolutions, Geneva conventions, previous agreements between Israelis and Palestinians, the Arab peace initiative, and official policies of the US and other nations are all being ignored. In the meantime, the demolition of Arab houses, expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Palestinian recalcitrance threaten any real prospect for peace. Of more immediate concern, those under siege in Gaza face another winter of intense personal suffering. I visited Gaza after the devastating January war and observed homeless people huddling in makeshift tents, under plastic sheets, or in caves dug into the debris of their former homes. Despite offers by Palestinian leaders and international agencies to guarantee no use of imported materials for even defensive military purposes, cement, lumber, and panes of glass are not being permitted to pass entry points into Gaza. The US and other nations have accepted this abhorrent situation without forceful corrective action. I have discussed ways to assist the citizens of Gaza with a number of Arab and European leaders and their common response is that the Israeli blockade makes any assistance impossible. Donors point out that they have provided enormous aid funds to build schools, hospitals and factories, only to see them destroyed in a few hours by precision bombs and missiles. Without international guarantees, why risk similar losses in the future? It is time to face the fact that, for the past 30 years, no one nation has been able or willing to break the impasse and induce the disputing parties to comply with international law. We cannot wait any longer. Israel has long argued that it cannot negotiate with terrorists, yet has had an entire year without terrorism and still could not negotiate. President Obama has promised active involvement of the US government, but no formal peace talks have begun and no comprehensive framework for peace has been proposed. Individually and collectively, the world powers must act. One recent glimmer of life has been the 8 December decision of EU foreign ministers to restate the long-standing basic requirements for peace commonly accepted within the international community, including that Israel's pre-1967 boundaries will prevail unless modified by a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians. A week later the new EU foreign policy chief, Baroness Catherine Ashton, reiterated this statement in even stronger terms and called for the international Quartet to be "reinvigorated". This is a promising prospect. President Obama was right to insist on a two-state solution and a complete settlement freeze as the basis for negotiations. Since Israel has rejected the freeze and the Palestinians won't negotiate without it, a logical step is for all Quartet members (the US, EU, Russia and UN) to support the Obama proposal by declaring any further expansion of settlements illegal and refusing to veto UN security council decisions to condemn such settlements. This might restrain Israel and also bring Palestinians to the negotiating table. At the same time, the Quartet should join with Turkey and invite Syria and Israel to negotiate a solution to the Golan Heights dispute. Without ascribing blame to any of the disputing parties, the Quartet also should begin rebuilding Gaza by organising relief efforts under the supervision of an active special envoy, overseeing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and mediating an opening of the crossings. The cries of homeless and freezing people demand immediate relief. This is a time for bold action, and the season for forgiveness, reconciliation and peace. Shocking revelations about the war on Gaza Dec 19, 2009 - 11:25 - WAM
Abu Dhabi, Dec 19th, 2009 (WAM) -- Genocide and ethnic cleansing were
not the only objective of the Israeli war on Gaza, it had more heinous
goals that included the annihilation of the future Palestinian
generations, stressed a local Arabic daily newspaper in its editorial
today. Based on new revelations about the Israeli aggression on the Mediterranean strip, 'Al-Khaleej' daily said that the main objective of the warfare was to target fertility and embryos of Palestinians by way of planting carcinogens in the weapons to wipe out the new generation as Israel had failed in the face of Palestinian resistance. The effects of those cancer causing weapons will retard the population growth of the Palestinians, who fight for their homeland, said the paper. Al Khaleej went on to express its belief that all international resolutions on Arab rights were not for implementation, but for procrastination and delay, after which they are buried in the archives of the United Nations for use as reasoning and citation whenever necessary. The editorial entitled 'Prison for Goldstone Report' said that the report on war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip was released before a month and a half. At that time UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon promised to refer the report to the Security Council in "as soon as possible" after the General Assembly decided to submit it to the Council. But the expression "as soon as possible," seems to have a meaning different from what is commonly understood, especially when it comes to the Zionist entity which is not subject to the laws and principles. Accordingly, whenever such resolutions and international reports pertaining to it are released, time stops at the borders of that entity, without regard to international justice, international legitimacy and international law, said the paper. The paper added that the international resolutions issued against the Zionist entity since its inception until now on the occupation, aggression and racism, have been shelved and any one of them did not find its way into implementation. At the same time, any resolution abiding by international law was issued; it was implemented with immediate effect if the party in question were the Arabs. The worse is that the Arabs themselves were pioneers in the implementation of these resolutions and commitments even if they were implemented against sister Arab countries. They expressed this keenness in order to assert their respect for resolutions of international legitimacy; some thing which applies to them only, said Al Khaleej. But "the ironic fact is that there is no a single Arab state who has asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations any thing about the fate of the Goldstone Report and when the time of the "as soon as possible" will come. The paper concluded its editorial opining that the report, which awaits its 'as soon as possible time', will finally land its abode to serve a life term imprisonment. WAM/AB 12月19日 Let's Talk About Torture!Nick Pell
12月18日 Masters of illusion tell deceiving talesWestern illusions that vilify Arabs and glorify IsraelBy Paul J. Balles
Many people think they know something about Arabs; but many
of those thoughts are as divorced from reality as genies emerging from
bottles. Not many Westerners, other than expatriates who have lived in
the Arab world, know much about the customs, traditions, language or
cultures of the Arab world. Experience has revealed some of the truths that the illusionists have hidden or glossed over. Hopefully, expatriates with experience in the Arab world will learn enough to expose some of the deceptive illusions. Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com. Afghanistan: It’s Not a Just Warby Jack A. Smith / December 17th, 2009President Barack Obama delivered a rather odd speech Dec. 10 when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize at ceremonies in Oslo. In the name of peace, he sought to justify former President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, as well as his own decision Dec. 1 to vastly expand this unnecessary and essentially lost endeavor by ordering another 30,000 troops to the war zone. In the process, Obama misinterpreted the “Theory of Just War,” the subject of this article, which argues it is not a just war. Most Republicans, especially the neoconservatives, strongly approved of the speech, largely because of its bellicosity and its justification for Bush’s foray into Afghanistan. Sarah Palin “liked what he said.” Newt Gingrich “thought the speech was actually very good.” Karl Rove defined it as “superb,” “tough” and “effective.” The pro-war Wall Street Journal offered a “Congratulations, Mr. President.” Antiwar Democrats and the peace movement were critical, but many liberal Democrats praised it, though seemingly less for its rationalization of war and imperialism and more for its smooth intellectual style and philosophical wanderings, as when Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the liberal flagship weekly The Nation, focused on the president’s “humility and grace.” Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald put it this way: “Much of the liberal praise for Obama’s speech yesterday focused on how eloquent, sophisticated, nuanced, complex, philosophical, contemplative and intellectual it was. And, looked at a certain way, it was all of those things — like so many Obama speeches are. After eight years of enduring a president who spoke in simplistic Manichean imperatives and bullying decrees, many liberals are understandably joyous over having a president who uses their language and the rhetorical approach that resonates with them. But that’s the real danger. Obama puts a pretty, intellectual, liberal face on some ugly and decidedly illiberal policies.” Obama had little option but to express humility in accepting the Nobel Committee’s award that he himself knew was entirely undeserved and an embarrassment, coming as it did just after his big move to widen the Afghan war. Under the circumstances, he carried off the necessary humility sequence quite well, noting that “Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight.” About half the Nobel speech was devoted to justifying the Afghan war, while most of the rest was a spirited, idealized, and mendacious defense of the U.S. role in foreign affairs since the end of World War II. Obama’s foreign policy resembles a combination of that put forward by Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (the elder). It continues the dubious tradition embraced by American presidents since 1945 consisting of seeking hegemony and world supremacy based on overwhelming military power. In attempting to legitimize Bush’s Afghan war, Obama declared:
President Obama is incorrect when he suggests that the Afghan war conforms with the theory of just war. Here’s why: Over the last 1,500 years, secular and religious ethicists have developed the theory of just war. The Roman Catholic Church is a major organizational upholder of the just war concept, but the theory enjoys universal application and is embraced in international law and the UN Charter. This is not a pacifist theory because it finds some wars just and some unjust. For instance, U.S. participation in World War II against German and Japanese imperialism is considered just, but its role in Iraq is termed unjust. Justness, not nonviolence, is the international criterion. There are nuanced differences in the interpretation of just war theory, but there is general agreement on its six principal stipulations — all of which be must honored for the resort to war to be considered just. Four of the points are relevant to Afghanistan, the most important being “Just Cause.” This means war is permissible to confront “a real and certain danger” — either an attack or imminent attack from another country — and includes self-defense or the defense of others from external aggression. Afghanistan neither attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, nor was it threatening an imminent attack. This rules out the just cause of self-defense. We will explain this before moving to the other three points. Al-Qaeda, a small decentralized fundamentalist religious organization on the fringes of Islam was responsible for the attack, not the state or government of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda was formed in Afghanistan by Osama bin-Laden, a Saudi exile, in 1988. Its members were drawn from foreign Muslim jihadist fighters taking part in the Afghan civil war (1979-1996) against a left wing government in Kabul that was being defended by Soviet troops, followed by a war between the various Afghan factions after the left was overthrown in 1992. The U.S. financed the anti-government civil war, as did Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on a lesser scale. Al-Qaeda was among the beneficiaries of Washington’s support. Most al-Qaeda recruits returned to their own countries in the Middle East and Europe after the war. Some set up small branches of the organization where they lived. A sector of al-Qaeda, including bin-Laden, remained in Afghanistan with the approval of the fundamentalist Taliban government, which emerged victorious from the civil war in 1996. No Afghan was among the 19 Al-Qaeda suicide operatives, armed with box cutters, who hijacked four airliners on 9/11 and slammed one of them into the Pentagon and two others into New York’s World Trade Center, killing about 3,000 people. Much of the planning for the attack evidently took place in Europe and then in the U.S. There has never been any proof that Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar was aware of the Sept. 11 plan, much less a party to it. Just hours after the Washington and New York City destruction, the Taliban authorities denounced the attacks. At the same time, Afghanistan’s Taliban ambassador to Pakistan stated to the media “We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain. We hope the courts find justice.” President Bush immediately rejected suggestions for a major international police effort to apprehend the leaders of the attack. Instead, after conferring with his neoconservative advisers, he defined this small-group terrorist raid as an act of war carried out from Afghan territory with the connivance of the Taliban government. This allowed Bush to declare an open-ended “War on Terrorism,” paving the way for his Oct. 7 bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, and then Iraq in March 2003. Another of the just war points is “Last Resort. This means a country may resort to war only after exhausting every other possible alternative. This is reflected in the UN Charter, which calls for serious efforts to resolve differences nonviolently through diplomacy or the courts, before the resort to military means. Bush rejected an offer by the Taliban to produce bin-Laden if the U.S. wouldn’t invade. Its only stipulation was that Washington provide proof that the al-Qaeda leader actually committed the crime, as would any country asked to surrender a suspect to another country. Bush swiftly refused, ruled out any negotiations, and began a bombing campaign and invasion. President Obama said in Oslo that “America did not seek” the Afghan war, but war was Bush’s first resort, not last, as was the case 18 months later when he attacked Iraq. A third stipulation is “Right Intention” — i.e., fighting only on behalf of an expressed just cause without a trace of ulterior motivation such as the acquisition of power, land, resources, riches, etc. Bush’s ulterior motivations were to interject U.S. military power into Central Asia in proximity to Russia, China and resource-rich former Soviet republics, and also to occupy a territory adjacent to Iran, another neoconservative target for regime change at the time. The last point is “Proportionality,” meaning that the quantity of violence, damage and costs is proportionate to the expressed reason for resorting to war. Given the violation of the Just War standards of just cause, last resort, and right intention, the disproportion involved in Bush’s bombing, invasion, occupation and continuing warfare is self-evident. In any event, Bush’s expressed reason for war was that the Afghan authorities did not hand over bin-Laden, but that was compromised by the U.S. refusal to provide the evidence required for extradition or to even discuss with the Kabul government the question of the Taliban’s alleged complicity in the terror attacks. Thus, despite President Obama’s efforts to define Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan as just, he has decided to send another 30,000 troops, on top of approximately 30,000 sent earlier in this year, to fight in a manifestly unjust war. Baby-faced' Mumbai gunman retracts confession in latest twist to terror trial Rhys Blakely in Mumbai
![]() Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, 21, is alleged to be the sole Mumbai terrorist to be caught alive during last year's attacks The strange court case of the man alleged to be the sole Mumbai terrorist to be caught alive during last year’s attacks on the city took yet another bizarre turn today when he retracted his confession and claimed to be a wannabe film star. When the case began in April Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, 21, claimed to be a child. He pleaded innocent and accused the police of beating a confession out of him. Then, taking his own defence lawyer by surprise in July, the Pakistani national confessed to being part of the most audacious terrorist atrocity since 9/11. He said that he was “ready to hang”. Now Mr Kasab has again denied having any part to play in an attack that left 166 people dead. Smiling as he made a statement to a packed, high-security courtroom, he retracted his previous admission of guilt. He had been in Mumbai hoping to break into the Bollywood film industry, he said, and had been framed. There was no truth to the elaborate details that he had earlier supplied of how he had been recruited by militants in Pakistan, been part of a rigorous training programme and then sent by sea to Mumbai to kill as many people as possible. Instead, he said that he was picked up by the police on the day before the attacks on November 26. He said that there was no truth in the allegation that he had been a footsoldier for the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist faction, the group believed to be behind the commando-style assault on two luxury hotels, Mumbai’s main train station, a Jewish centre and a backpacker bar. “I was not present at VT," he said, referring to Victoria Terminus, the former name of Mumbai’s main railway station where he is accused of opening fire, killing 52 people and injuring over 100. “I do not know what has happened. Witnesses have come and recognised me because my face looks similar to the terrorists.” The move was the latest in a bizarre series of events that has characterized what was billed by the local media as India’s “trial of the century”. Even before the court proceedings began, the process was blighted by controversy when lawyers chosen to defend Mr Kasab were hounded by Hindu extremists and threatened with violence. During the trial, two defence lawyers were dismissed in succession for professional misconduct. The twists and turns of the case, which has been heard by a single judge in a courtroom protected by a specially constructed, 50ft (15m) rocket-proof cage, have made front page news in India. Everything from Mr Kasab’s demands for meat biryani (the food in his prison is entirely vegetarian) to his literary habits (he was said to be reading Gandhi’s autobiography) have been picked apart with forensic scrutiny. In recent months he has complained of being ill. At one stage he produced a white powder from a screw of paper and presented it to the judge, saying that it was poison that his prison guards had tried to add to his food. At stake throughout has been his life. Mr Kasab, who became known as the “baby-faced gunman” after CCTV footage of him wielding an AK-47 during the attacks was shown, is accused of murder and of waging war on India — crimes that carry the death penalty. However, there is ample time for the case to take several more strange turns yet. Legal experts say that even if Mr Kasab is sentenced to hang it is likely to be at least five years before he exhausts his rights to appeal the verdict. Only then could he be sent to the gallows, a punishment reserved in India for “the rarest of rare cases”. Convicts in previous terror trials in India have avoided death for years. Mohammad Afzal, a member of the Jaish-e-Mohammed terror ground who launched a deadly commando raid on the Indian Parliament in Delhi in 2001, remains on India’s equivalent of death row. Nalini Murugan, found guilty of the murder of the former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, had her death sentence commuted to life imprisonment after Sonia Gandhi, his widow and now leader of the ruling Congress Party, intervened. CIA linked to Palestinian 'torture'
IT LOOKS LIKE LIEBERMAN IS THE ONLY HONEST ONE IN NETANYAHU’S GOVERNMENT
December 18, 2009 at 8:11 am With all the talk
and promises about ’settlement freezes’, it has been obvious that it
was just that, talk and promises. The building goes on, the expansion
goes on, nothing has changed…. but at least now we seem to be hearing
the truth about the situation….. from the most unlikely source, Avigdor
Lieberman. His statements found below tell it as it is……
Lieberman: Settlement activity to restart full force in 10 months
Foreign
Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday that Israel’s announced
10-month partial moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements
was only a tactical move and a temporary one.
“It is clear to everyone that in 10 months, we will be building again full force; anyone who understands anything knows this,” he told a meeting in the West Bank settlement town of Ariel. “There
will be no more overtures, and we will not make another gesture or
quarter gesture. Enough with the theatrics and the mediators,” he said.
“We are prepared for direct negotiations without any conditions or
gestures. The ball is in the Palestinians’ court.”
Read the report the above is taken from HERE
Watch the video below to see what others are saying about the ‘freeze’…
Yad Va Shame on you!
Debunking anti-Semitism studies and Yehuda Bauer in particular By Gilad Atzmon 19 December 2009
Holocaust
studies is an emerging pseudo-intellectual, academic trend. It
basically allows rabid Zionists to elevate their discussions about
“what is really wrong with the Goyim [Gentiles] into a university qualification. I recently learned about the “Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of anti-Semitism”. I also learned about a similar institute at the University of London. The Gentile – a pathological case?But here is a clear, embarrassing catch: given that humanity is comprised of Goyim, anti-Semitism scholars who attempt to grasp “what is wrong with the Goyim”
actually ask “what is wrong with humanity?” This is in fact a
legitimate question, unless we leave one conspicuous group out. As
things stand, in the new Judaeo-centric “academic” field, namely
“anti-Semitism studies”, a Zionist is there to review the Goy
as a pathological case. This is slightly odd, to say the least. It is
even peculiar that such departments exist at Yale and London
universities. However, since academic institutes thrive on corporate
donations and other funding sources, we can no longer expect the
academic world to lead intellectual discourse or even commit itself to
any form of ethical integrity.
Bauer
initially comes across as a charming and open-minded person. He even
makes some crucial observations. For the first 20 minutes it is
possible to believe that one is witnessing a genuine, authentic
intellectual. Jews as a “unique race”Bauer
then moves on and asks: what are the types of crises that lead towards
anti-Semitism? Christian anti-Semitism is not too problematic to grasp.
“Christianity had to differentiate itself from Judaism,” says Bauer.
However, Christianity is not a major problem. “Christianity doesn’t
like Jews, it discriminates against Jews, yet due to its theology, it
prevents genocide.” In fact, according to Bauer, the genocidal tendency
in Europe emerged with the secularization of Christian communities. One
is left with Christian anti-Semitism minus the theology that curtails
murderous inclinations. Again, in Bauer’s trivial world, the Jews are
innocent. It is always the Goyim who fail morally and ethically. Rules for criticizing IsraelIt
takes a few good minutes before Bauer, the proud owner of a rabid
Zionist mind, shows his real colours. “Is it okay to criticize Israel?”
Yes, for sure, says Bauer. The Israeli press are the first to criticize
Israeli politics. Condemnation of Israel is not anti-Semitic unless one
describes Israel as a “Nazi state”. This is exactly where Bauer
relinquishes his last drop of intellectual integrity. Are there any
rules that we must employ when criticizing the “Jewish State”? Is there
any intellectual obligation that we have to take into consideration
when referring to a racist Jew-only, expansionist, murderous state?
Surely, the 45 per cent of Europeans who regard Israel as an exterminatory state
do so for a reason. Israel and the Zionists had better learn to take
responsibility for their actions. They may then understand why almost
half of the Europeans equate them with Nazis. Fighting anti-Semitism through influence and dominationHow do you fight anti-Semitism? “The ADL and the AJC
are doing excellent work,” says Bauer. But what about a hypothetical
case of rising anti-Semitism in a different territory, for instance
Russia? Could the ADL influence the Russian Federation? Bauer thinks
not but Jews could make an impact “together with non-Jews”. Things
changed in the Soviet Union because the USA mounted pressure on the
USSR. “The Jews have to find allies and the allies will come when they
understand that anti-Semitism just starts with the Jews.”
Is not finding “new allies” a reference to seeking influence via the media and political movements? The Hamas Charter describes it eloquently indeed:
Considering the
lecture was given in 2005, four years into the “war on terror” and two
years into the Iraq war where American and British soldiers ended up
fighting Zionist wars and combating the enemies of Israel, I think that
by now we all have a glimpse of understanding of what Prof. Bauer
refers to when he talks about “allies”. Notes1. Here are a few examples of early Zionists’ take on anti-Semitism: Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau and Ze'ev Jabotinsky. 2.
“The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have
consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have
achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and
accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to
the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them
to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the
press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used
this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order
to fulfil their interests and pick the fruits. 3. According to new research conducted by Bielefeld University, “about 37.4 per cent (Europeans) agree with the following statement: Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews.” Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner. His latest jazz album, "In loving memory of America", was released on 1 March 2009 and can be purchased here. Israel's Leaders on the RunGilad Atzmon
The international league of war criminalsChris MarsdenWSWS, 17 December 2009 The issuing of a British arrest warrant for former Israeli Foreign Minister and current leader of the opposition Tzipi Livni is only the latest event confirming an international body of legal opinion that Israel should be tried for war crimes over its treatment of the Palestinians. Livni was a member of the war cabinet during Operation Cast Lead, the offensive against Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18 this year. Some 1,400 Palestinians—the majority of them civilians, including 400 women and children—were killed, at least 5,000 people were injured, and 21,000 homes and other vital infrastructure were destroyed. In October, the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed a report by South African Judge Richard Goldstone stating that the war was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever-increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability." The warrant against Livni was issued by Westminster Magistrates' Court at the request of lawyers acting on behalf of 16 Palestinian plaintiffs. Livni was due to address the Jewish National Fund conference on December 13, but it is claimed she had cancelled her appearance some time ago due to a "scheduling conflict." However, the New York Times reported Thursday that Livni was tipped off about the warrant and the threat of arrest. This is far from the first time that an Israeli political or military figure has faced the threat of prosecution. In 2001, a warrant was issued in Belgium for the arrest of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, former Army Chief-of-Staff Raphael Eitan and former head of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Northern Command, Amos Yaron, for their roles in the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. In September 2005, former head of IDF Southern Command Doron Almog faced arrest in the UK for ordering the demolition of 59 civilian Palestinian homes. The arrest warrant was supposedly issued secretly under UK law, but Israeli diplomats were tipped off and Almog refused to leave his plane for two hours until it took off again for Israel. An arrest warrant was also issued by Spain for seven Israelis involved in the July 2002 bombing of an apartment building in Gaza City that killed Hamas military leader Salah Shehadeh and 14 civilians, including his wife and several children. Moshe Ya'alon, the Israeli deputy prime minister and strategic affairs minister, and the former defence minister, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, were amongst the accused. In September, the Westminster Court was asked to issue an arrest warrant for Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, for his involvement in the Gaza War. The court accepted the assertion by the Foreign Office that he was a serving minister who would be meeting his British counterparts and therefore enjoyed immunity under the State Immunity Act of 1978. Ex-ministers, not on official business, such as Livni, enjoy no such immunity. For this reason both Ya'alon and Avi Dichter, the public security minister and head of the Shin Bet security agency, have turned down invitations to events in Britain. The government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has mounted a campaign to end all possibility of future arrests under universal jurisdiction provisions of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. As far as Israel’s allies are concerned, however, Tel Aviv is kicking against an open door. Whenever there has been a prosecution threatened against an Israeli official, Washington has brought pressure to bear to prevent it. This led to the dropping of Belgium’s charges against Sharon, et al and changes to Belgian law to lessen the possibility of similar prosecutions in the future. In June this year, a Spanish court shelved its investigation into the Gaza City bombings. In addition, the US led a block of six nations that voted against acceptance of the Goldstone report, while Britain and France abstained. Britain’s response to Israel’s official protests against the warrant issued for Livni was more than merely fawning. It led to promises by Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Prime Minister Gordon Brown to change the law allowing non-citizens to be brought before British courts. In the naked language of imperialist realpolitik, Miliband declared, "Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend of the United Kingdom. We are determined to protect and develop those ties." So much for Western claims to uphold international law and democratic rights! As with the position taken by the US, much more is involved in the UK’s response than mere loyalty to an ally. There is a basic issue of self-preservation. Time and again Israeli spokesmen have warned that the leaders of the major powers—including George Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq and Brown and President Barack Obama over Afghanistan—are threatened with prosecutions under universal jurisdiction provisions. Netanyahu himself warned, regarding Goldstone’s report, "It’s not just our problem… If they accused IDF officers, IDF commanders, IDF soldiers, IDF pilots and even leaders, they will accuse you too. What, NATO isn’t fighting in various places? What, Russia isn’t fighting in various places?" The concept of universal jurisdiction allows prosecution by international or national courts when the case is deemed to be a crime against humanity and not likely to be tried in the allegedly guilty party’s own state. It underlies the creation of a range of institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The US and other major powers have been happy to see these bodies utilized against those regimes they have targeted as hostile to their interests, such as Serbia. But like Israel, the US opposes universal jurisdiction over itself and therefore endorses neither the ICC nor the ICJ. When Obama gave his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize last week, he argued explicitly for war as an instrument of US foreign policy, defending military action whose purpose "extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor." He insisted that such pre-emptive imperialist wars—of the kind already conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan—were essential to the US maintaining its position at the centre of the "architecture to keep the peace" set up in the aftermath of World War II. This supposedly included abiding by "certain rules of conduct" and the US acting as "a standard bearer in the conduct of war." To this end, he made great play of having personally reaffirmed "America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions" and "other international laws of war." This is one lie amongst many. Some newspapers have claimed that Spain and Britain pioneered the concept of universal jurisdiction, with the 1998 extradition warrant by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. In point of fact, the concept is rooted in the Geneva Conventions, adopted on August 12, 1949. Regarding war crimes, the Conventions require signatory nations, such as Britain and the US, to pass the necessary laws and "provide effective penal sanctions" for persons "committing, or ordering to be committed" any "grave breaches" of the Conventions. Article 129 goes on to state that each signatory "shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts." That is why the Goldstone report made an explicit call to countries that are signatories to the Conventions to use their "universal jurisdiction" to search for and prosecute those Israelis, as well as leaders of Hamas, it accused of war crimes. In reality, the imperialist powers and their allies operate as a de facto international league of war criminals—dedicated to their mutual defence and self-preservation. That is why the US rejects universal jurisdiction when it comes to its friends, as well as its own politicians and military personnel. Now Brown and Miliband have made clear that they too will abrogate the independence of the courts in order to prevent any prosecution for war crimes that runs contrary to the strategic interests of British imperialism. In doing so, they may hope to save themselves from the possibility of being brought to justice. But they should know that some crimes are too great for prosecution to be avoided forever. Chris Marsden India: Was Mumbai suspect a double agent for US?By Huma Yusuf
Stunning Statistics About the War Every American Should KnowBy Jeremy Scahill
December 17, 2009 By Jeremy Scahill A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, "the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history." That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety. In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff, "From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000." At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan. The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts. Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. "The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight," according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. "In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant." A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are "administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations." According to one USAID official, the agency is "sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent." As a result, the agency does not "know … where the money is going." The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:
The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker(SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: "The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan." Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors. As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed. To Schlep Them to Justice in SafetyGilad Atzmon
The War Trapby Ernest Partridge / December 18th, 2009 Today, twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and nineteen years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the military budget of the United States is larger than at any time during the Cold War and roughly equal to the total of all other military budgets throughout the world. Why, in the midst of the greatest economic emergency in seventy years, with the public sector of the U.S. economy starved for funds required for economic recovery, and with urgent global climate and energy crises directly before us, have we failed to benefit from a “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War? Why are we instead engaged in two wars in nations that pose no threat to us? It appears that Einstein was right: everything has changed except our modes of thinking, and thus, as he warned, “we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” The good news is that we have the means to avoid catastrophe. The far worse news is that there is little evidence that the political and economic structures in place will allow us to escape that catastrophe TIT FOR TAT Last September, President Obama announced that the United States was cancelling plans to establish a ballistic missile defense system (BMD) in Poland and the Czech Republic. This decision, which appalled Republicans and neo-cons in the U.S., along with many Czech and Polish politicians, delighted peace activists both in the U. S. and throughout the world. Also delighted were the Russians, who had regarded the missile defense shield, first proposed by George Bush (the lesser), as a provocation, aimed at neutralizing the Russian strategic missile capability. The Russians were unconvinced by Bush’s assurance that the BMD was designed as a defense against a missile attack from Iran, a skepticism that was shared by many American critics. Obama’s decision to cancel the BMD was shortly followed by a Russian announcement that it would not deploy missiles in the Baltic city of Kaliningrad, along with an indication that this decision was in response to Obama’s announcement regarding the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Thus began the first two moves of a de-escalation strategy known to game-theorists and political scientists as “Tit for Tat,” whereby an initiation of a conciliatory act is responded to in kind, and so on reciprocally, until one player elects to take advantage of the cooperating opponent (i.e., “defects”). This particular game came to an abrupt halt the following month when Vice President Biden, in a visit to the Czech Republic, assured the Czech President that the U.S. would, after all, install a “modified” missile defense shield. One can only speculate as to what might have happened had the
American/Russian Tit For Tat game continued. Following the Kaliningrad
announcement, it was Obama’s “turn.” Instead of reneging on the
original BMD decision, Obama might have announced that ICBMs would
henceforth be equipped with in-flight “abort” mechanisms, to minimize
the chance of an accidental nuclear war (which, as I have argued elsewhere, is the most likely cause of a global thermonuclear catastrophe). More................................ 12月16日 Obama’s Oslo Speech Was Right: Force Is Justified in Fighting Evilby John Walsh / December 15th, 2009 I agree with Obama. Force is necessary at times to fight evil. But what is “necessary” or “just” or justifiable force? Obama raises this in his Oslo speech, and we would do well to consider it. Justifiable force, most of us can probably agree, is that used in self-defense or to stop an assault on ourselves and our loved ones. And such assault we can define as evil. By that definition Occupation is evil. And hence Obama the Occupier is evil. We can fight back with violence if necessary against evil, and often that is the only way to win. Hence the Iraqis and Afghanis are in the right to use force against the American Occupation. Just as the Palestinians now and the Black South Africans earlier were in the right when they used violence against their Occupiers and Apartheid. And the Chinese revolution was in the right when it used force against the Western and Japanese Occupiers and against the murderous landlord class, which were killing Chinese by the millions. And so too the Indigenous peoples were right to fight back against the Europeans who conquered their lands, and the slaves of America were right to rise in rebellion against their masters. The American colonists were justified when they violently threw off the arbitrary rule of King George and his army of Occupation, in the same way as are Iraqi and AfPak freedom fighters today. Our Declaration of Independence, which recognizes this right, is not a pacifist document, and the anti-Empire movement cannot be pacifist either. Nor is the average American a pacifist, simply because pacifism does not mesh with the common sense idea of self-defense. Let us add to that a rejection of the fiction that the US is in Central Asia to fight terrorism. The failure of liberals and the Democratic Party left, like Progressive Democrats of America, is that they accept this premise, a premise which figures prominently in Obama’s speech and a premise which is clearly a lie. Iraq did not have WMD, and the perpetrators of the war on Iraq knew that very well. So why the war? Many strands contributed to the war — the ambitions of the puppet master of much U.S. foreign policy, Israel, to wreak as much destruction as possible on Muslim lands; the desire to control energy resources so as to deprive the Empire’s economic competitors,1 principally China, of these energy supplies; and the desire to control Central Asia militarily and hence to encircle China and to a lesser extent Russia. In sum these wars are all about maintaining and extending the U.S. Empire’s world domination as dictated by official, public U.S. policy to allow no nation to eclipse it as number one. The war on Iraq was never about terrorism; and it is not believable that the war on AfPak is about that either. Both are directed at the Empire’s economic adversaries, especially China. So Obama is not fighting evil. Obama is the leader of an Evil that must be fought. Evil on a grand scale like war is not something built into men’s brains but can emerge from great power which is given to certain men, notably the President of the U.S. at this point in history, by virtue of social and political arrangements. This view of things is that of the radical Left or that of a strict Jeffersonian. But it is also consistent with Libertarianism since Libertarianism views force justifiable against those who assault us or otherwise do us grievous or mortal harm.2 The U.S. Empire has set itself not just against the Muslim peoples but against many of the peoples of the world — including the people of the US itself. If all else fails in curbing this Empire, the peoples of the world are entirely justified in rising up against it. The “left” wing of the Democratic Party, Obama’s disappointed supporters, has proved useless or worse in curbing Empire. The next step will surely be an independent anti-imperial electoral effort, and we shall see whether that works. If it does not, the Declaration of Independence tells us what is likely to follow. 'التفجير الأعمى' 'القتل عندما يصبح هدفاً'كلما
أسمع عن تفجير هنا أو هناك أفزع فيه بآمالي إلى التكذيب؛ تكذيب أن يكون
وراءه مسلم! وأغلِّب في كل مرة أن جهات استعمارية تريد من وراء هذه
التفجيرات تحقيق أغراض لها معروفة. فحجم القتل
الأعمى الذي تخلفه هذه التفجيرات مرعب، ولا أعتقد أنه يحقق مصالح للإسلام
والمسلمين، على العكس من ذلك فهو يخرب ـ ولا أقول أكثر مما يصلح بل يخرب
وحسب ـ ويشوه صورة الإسلام، ويعود بالدعوة إلى ما قبل الصفر! وإلا فليقل
لي عاقل ما الهدف المرجو تحقيقه من تفجير سوق شعبي كما يحدث غالباً في
العراق والباكستان وأفغانستان، أو من تفجير احتفالِ تخريجِ طلبةٍ جامعيين
كما حدث مؤخراً في الصومال؟ ويُسرُّ المرءُ عندما يسمع تكذيباً من جهة
متهَمة بتفجيرٍ من هذه التفجيرات، الأمر الذي يؤكد أن كثيراً منها وراءه
أيدٍ خفيةً بأهداف كبيرة رهيبة. ولكن ماذا عن عشرات
التفجيرات التي لا يتم نفي مسؤوليتها من قبل المتهمين بها؟ هل هي فعلاً
مسؤولة عنها؟ بل وماذا عن التي تتحمل الجماعات تبعاتها؟ لتعود بنا هذه
التساؤلات إلى الصرخة التي بدأنا بها: ما الهدف من هذا الجنون؟ وكيف
يستفيد الإسلام من هذا العمى؟ أبفتوى التـترس
يتترسون؟! فقد بالغوا إذن، وخرجوا بالفتوى عن تكييفها الفقهي، وحملوها ما
لا تحتمل، ولا عجب أن لو اطلع أصحابُ الفتوى الأصليون على ما يفعلون،
لاستغروا ربهم ولسحبوها ـ أي الفتوى ـ وهم يسترجعون. وليس هذا المقال
محلاً للتفصيل في هذه الفتوى، فمن أراد الاطلاع عليها فعليه بمظانها. إنه
تفجير أحمق لأنه لا غاية له إلا القتل وسفك الدماء، بصرف النظر عن نية
مقترفيه، وهي نية عظيمة لا جدال حولها، ولكن لا ينبغي أن تخيفنا هذه النية
عن تقييم هذه الأعمال، ودراسة جدواها، والفوائد المرجوة منها، والأهداف
التي ستحققها في النهاية. إنها قضايا تنتظر الإجابة
من العلماء المقبولين من مجموع الأمة، ومن الدعاة العاملين الثقات،
ويكفينا هذا الجهد الضائع، والدماء المهدورة، والشباب الشجاع الذي يذهب
بلا هدف في عملية عمياء تقتله وتقتل ضحاياه، وتلغي أهدافه، وأهداف غيره
ممن يعمل في الساحة ! وما المقابل؟ التجربة المعاصرة في مصر وغيرها تقول:
لا مقابل! المقابل شباب مجاهد، شجاع، ذو أهداف عظيمة، تتناثر كل هذه
الغايات مع لحمه المتناثر، ودمه المهدور. وأرجو من
الأكارم أن لا يقول لي أحدهم إنه ذهب شهيداً من أجل غاية سامية. وأقول:
وهل تكفي الغاية السامية، والهدف العظيم مسوغاً لأي عمل؟ ألم نتلقى في ألف
باء العلم أن العمل لا يقبل ولا يعتمد إلا إذا توفر فيه شرطان: الأول
النية المخلَصة، والثاني أن يكون العمل صحيحاً، أي موافقاً للكتاب والسنة.
هل المطلوب أن نموت ثم تنتهي مهمتنا في الحياة؟!
أليس هناك غاية من وراء الجهاد؟ هذا الذي فجر نفسه قرب بيت نائب حامد
كرزاي ـ مثلاً ـ وأخذ معه ستة أشخاص غالباً لا علاقة لهم بكل القضية، ولم
يصب النائب ـ الذي كان يكفيه رصاصة واحدة في أمِّ رأسه إن كان يستحق الموت
ـ بأذى بالطبع، لأنه لم يستطع أن يصل إليه، فقد أصبحت اللعبة مفهومة وأصبح
من الصعب جداً الوصول للمقصودين فيضطر القنبلة المتحركة تفجير نفسه عند
أقرب نقطة التي تكون بعيدة فيطير رجل خرج من بيته يطلب رزقاً، وتتناثر
امرأة لعلها تمسك بيدها طفلاً خرجت به لتشتري له حلوى أو اي شيء آخر. هذا
الشاب ماذا أراد أن يقول هو ومن أرسله؟ هل يظنون أنهم يملكون حقِّ سلبِ
حياةِ هؤلاء بدعوى أنهم مجاهدون، أصحاب مشروع تحريري؟ وأنهم أعداء لأعداء
الأمة المستعمرين؟ الجواب بكل بساطة وسذاجة: فتوى التترس! بهذه
الفتوى سُفِـك الدمُ المعصوم، واتسع الخرق على الراتق، واختلط الحابل
بالنابل، ولم نعد نعرف من أين تخرج الرصاصة، أو من الذي سحب مسمار
التـفجير، هل هو الشاب الملتف بالحزام الناسف أم آخر يجلس بعيداً بعيداً
... قد نفهم أن يخترق مجاهد معسكراً للأمريكان،
فيفجره بمن فيه، فيذهب معهم من ليس منهم ممن يخدمهم .. في هذه الحالة
يتحقق مناط فتوى التترس، كما يتحقق في الصورة التي ذكرها العلماء قديماً،
أما غير ذلك مما يحصل اليوم يومياً فحرام، وهو ليس جهاداً بل هروب ـ إن
كان الفاعل مسلماً أصلاً ـ من أشياء لا علاقة لها بالجهاد! أما
ما يحصل في العالم الإسلامي من تساهل بالقتل بدعوى إعانة الظالمين، ودعوى
البعد عن التوحيد ... فقل لي بربك وبعد قرون من التشويه والتحريف ونشر
الإنحراف باسم الإسلام، أو التجهيل باسم تعليم الدين ... هل الحجة قائمة
على مجموع المسلمين؟!! وأعد معذوراً بقولي هذا في هذا العصر، إذا كان عمر
بن عبد العزيز رحمه الله يقول عشية انتهاء القرن الأول: "إني أعالج أمراً
لا يُعين عليه إلا الله، قد شبَّ عليه الصغير، وهرم عليه الكبير، وهاجر
عليه الأعرابي، وفصح عليه الأعجمي حتى حسبه الناس ديناً لا يرون الحق
غيره". يقول هذا وأصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وسلم متوافرون، والعلماء كثيرون، والدائرة للإسلام، فكيف بنا الآن والحال
على ما وصفت؟ ! المشكلة أن هؤلاء يريدون حل مشاكل المسلمين كما لو كنا على
عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المدينة السنة التاسعة للهجرة وفق
آخر إجابة صدرت عنه، ووفق آخر آية نزلت، ناسخين بذلك كل مناهج التعامل
السابقة مع المراحل المختلفة، متوهمين أن آخر إجابة، وأن آخر آية قد نسخت
كل ما قبلها ! وليس كذلك فكل إجابة، وكل آية تطبق كلما تحقق مناطها. إن
منهج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في التعامل مع واقع الدعوة في مكة،
منهجٌ في قمة الحكمة والشجاعة وضبط النفس يقتضيه ملابسات تقتضيها طبيعة
المرحلة. وامتناع الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم قتلَ
المنافقين (المعروفين لديه) له ملابساته التي تقتضيها طبيعة الظرف حينئذٍ،
ولا يقال ـ ولا ينبغي أن يقال ـ إنها مراحل مضت وانـقضت، بل هي تشريع يدور
مع ملابساته وجوداً وعدماً. ولأنك قد لا تأمن عليَّ
الفتنة، فإنني أحيلك إلى من مات وهو في قمة صموده وتحديه للباطل ولا أظن
أن أحداً قد يخطر على باله أنه يجامل ويداري، أحيلك إلى سيد رحمه الله
فيما كتبه في المعالم فصل الجهاد في سبيل الله. إنني
أدعو من خلال هذا المقال إلى توقف هذه التفجيرات وإعادة الدراسة
والمراجعة، بل وأدعو إلى مدارسة الأمر مع العلماء والدعاة واستماع وجهات
النظر المتعددة بصرف النظر عن الموقف منهم، ولا أقول مدارسة من هو متهم في
دينه، أو المحسوبين على الأنظمة، ممن فتاواهم مدخولة. الأمر
جدُّ خطير ومستعجل لا يحتمل التأخير، وعلى العقلاء أن يساهموا وبشدة في
معالجة هذه القضية، وفتح القنوات مع المعنيين، والانفتاح على الجميع فضرر
هذه الأعمال لا تمس أصحابها، بل إنها تعدت كل عامل للإسلام، ومن يشتغل في
الدعوة يشعر بهذا ويلمسه. بالتعاون مع موقع التغيير www.altaghyeer.com Dangers of the Two States Solutionby Dr. Elias Akleh / December 16th, 2009 The Two States Solution (Israeli and Palestinian states) to the Zionist-Arab conflict has been, lately, revived as the only practical solution to the conflict. This solution, with all its embedded dangers, had been unjustly and illegally imposed by the UN in 1948 giving the Zionists a foot hold in the Arab World. It was, then, welcomed by the Zionists but rejected by the Arabs. Ironically, after 61 years and due to the changing balance of power, reviving this solution, now-a-days, is welcomed and sought for by the Arabs, but is rejected by Zionist Israel. The 1993 Oslo Accords were supposed to be the solution of the conflict between the two parties. The Accords provided for the creation of a Palestinian Authority as a first step towards statehood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip side by side with Israeli state. A Palestinian state, in one form or another, would have been achieved in 1996, after which permanent agreements would have been negotiated leading to the Israeli withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories. But Israeli intransigence, land confiscations, and colonial expansions had sabotaged all negotiations. The Two State Solution has been used by late American administrations (Bush and Obama) as a sedative and a future-to-look-forward-to as a reward to neutralize any Arab opposition to American military adventurism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibility in Syria and Iran. Israel, meanwhile, takes the opportunity to expand its colonies at Palestinian expense. Finally, after 18 years of fruitless peace negotiations, the Palestinian Authority recognized and officially declared the fact which every Palestinian knew, namely that the so-called peace negotiations were only meant for Israel, the stronger party, to impose its own solutions on the weaker Palestinian party while at the same time expanding its illegal colonies. Mahmoud Abbas, the President of Palestinian Authority, whose presidency expired last January, has petitioned the UN to recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders the same way it recognized the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948. Abbas and his entourage were seen visiting important countries trying to garner political support for the declaration of a Palestinian state. The definition of a state includes, among others, a contiguous piece of land with internationally recognized borders, a free people, who can exercise their own will within an organized social, political and economical structures, with a free government that exercises total control over its natural resources, its borders, its air, and its sea, and can secure inner peace and protect, through arms when necessary, the security of its citizens from any invading party, and most importantly a thriving economy that can sustain such a state. Does this definition apply to the would-be Palestinian state? Israel exercises total control over all aspects of Palestinian life: land, air, sea, water, and economy. Israel controls the movement of virtually every Palestinian and specifically the Palestinian Authority. To put it bluntly, Palestinian officials cannot even fart without Israeli permission. One wonders, then, what form would a Palestinian state take. Would it be viable or decaying? Sovereign or subservient? Free or besieged? Emancipated or dependent? Above all, would the establishment of a Palestinian state, at this time, solve or exacerbate the conflict? Palestinian Authority envisions a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (West Bank and Gaza Strip) with east Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capital, and a “just solution” to the Palestinian refugees’ situation. This is a huge change in the goals of the Fatah’s liberation program. Fatah’s present leadership, headed by the rigged elected Abbas, had degraded its honorable goals from liberating the whole Palestine down to accepting the establishment of a teratogenic state on less than 18% of Palestine proper, for Israel has annexed 80% of Palestine, has taken all of Jerusalem, and the separation wall is taking 42% of the rest of the land. Leaders of Palestinian Authority are still hoping to keep on serving their Western employers by playing the role of policing, subjugating, and containing Palestinians within their major cities. It seems that they have forgotten that Palestinians are struggling not only for a mere dwarfed state, but also for justice, for freedom, for equality, for return to their homeland, and for independent sovereignty. It behooves Abbas and his gang, and the rest of the Arab leaders who have abandoned Palestinians, to remember that the Palestinian Cause does not belong only to Palestinians, but also to all Arabs. Legitimizing the right of existence of an expansionist colonial foreign entity in the heart of the Arab World is not a decision to be taken by few puppet leaders. Every Arab citizen has a stake in this decision. Israeli leaders, on the other hand, although pretending to accept the Two State Solution, are introducing all kinds of unattainable conditions in order to sabotage the solution. They want to keep the unbalanced negotiations to milk as much would be internationally recognized political concession as they could from the weak Palestinian representatives. They are adhering to the main policy of their Zionist founders which states a “Jewish state is unthinkable without the compulsory transfer of Palestinians to other Arab states”. The Zionist project of establishing a Jewish-only Greater Israel is based, initially, on the expulsion of Palestinians out of Palestine into the neighboring Arab countries in order to implant Jews in the land. Then, while expanding Israel into the Greater Israel dream, drive the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs, living within the area between the Nile and Euphrates, into far away countries. Zionists are taking the American model as their road map, where the so-called “American pioneers and forefathers” had annihilated the Indigenous peoples to establish the good old USA. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed this policy eloquently: “Israel is not a bi-national state. It is the homeland of ANY JEW. And there is a broad consensus in Israel that the Palestinian refugee problem should be resolved outside Israel’s borders. Jews will come here and Palestinians will go there. That is the bases of a solution. Palestinians should have to make a final peace deal with The Jewish State of Israel.” Zionists will never accept east Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. They want Jerusalem to be the eternal capital of Israel. In their final scheme Jerusalem is planned to become the Zionist capital of the whole world after the destruction of the al-Aqsa Mosque and the building of a Jewish temple in its place. This plan was hinted to in Ben Gurion’s statement: “There is no meaning to Israel without Jerusalem, and there is no meaning to Jerusalem without the temple.” The Two State Solution is a dangerous and an unjust solution. It gives legitimacy to the law of the jungle; might is right. It takes the land and the homes of the Palestinians and gives them to armed-to-the-teeth Zionist terrorists. It vindicates the Zionists’ war crimes, crimes against humanity, their massacres of civilians, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, as well as their war crimes against Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese. It denies those victims any right to pursue justice, their right of return to their homes, and their right for full reparations. It recognizes and legalizes the rogue state of Israel as a racist Jewish only state. It wipes all the history and cultures of the land before the times of Abraham, and recognizes only the shorter Jewish history and their so-called religious right to the land. The proponents of the Two State Solution claim that it is the only practical and logical solution due to the present balance of power and due to the facts on the ground. Balance of power is represented in the WMD Israel possesses and has used against Palestinians, and in the American blind unconditional political, financial, and military support to Israel. The facts on the ground are represented by the Israeli illegal occupation of all Palestine, and the illegally scattered Israeli militarized colonies (settlements) in the West Bank. It is claimed that it is impractical to uproot already resident Zionist colonists (settlers) and to dismantle the illegal colonies. It is worth mentioning that history demonstrates that the balance of power has never been fixed and is always changing. Today belongs to you, tomorrow belongs to your brother. As for facts on the ground, they are in daily flux. In 1947, facts on the ground showed Palestinian existence all over the land and no Zionist colonies. No one knows what facts on the ground will be in the future. Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer of Palestinian descent, born in the town of Beit-Jala and now living in the US. He can be reached at: eakleh@ca.rr.com. Read other articles by Dr. Elias, or visit Dr. Elias's website. U.S. Silent About Taliban Guarantee Offer on al Qaedaby Gareth Porter / December 16th, 2009 WASHINGTON (IPS) — The Barack Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give “legal guarantees” that it will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries. The administration’s silence on the offer, despite a public statement by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressing scepticism about any Taliban offer to separate itself from al Qaeda, effectively leaves the door open to negotiating a deal with the Taliban based on such a proposal. The Taliban, however, has chosen to interpret the Obama administration’s position as one of rejection of its offer. The Taliban offer, included in a statement dated Dec. 4 and e-mailed to news organisations the following day, said the organisation has “no agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal guarantees if foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan”. The statement did not mention al Qaeda by name or elaborate on what was meant by “legal guarantees” against such “meddling”, but it was an obvious response to past U.S. insistence that the U.S. war in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent al Qaeda from having a safe haven in Afghanistan once again. It suggested that the Taliban is interested in negotiating an agreement with the United States involving a public Taliban renunciation of ties with al Qaeda, along with some undefined arrangements to enforce a ban al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan in return for a commitment to a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. Despite repeated queries by IPS to the State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley and to the National Security Council’s press office over the past week about whether either Secretary Clinton or President Obama had been informed about the Taliban offer, neither office has responded to the question. Anand Gopal of the Wall Street Journal, whose Dec. 5 story on the Taliban message was the only one to report that initiative, asked a U.S. official earlier that day about the offer to provide “legal guarantees”. The official, who had not been aware of the Taliban offer, responded with what was evidently previously prepared policy guidance casting doubt on the willingness of the Taliban to give up its ties with al Qaeda. “This is the same group that refused to give up bin Laden, even though they could have saved their country from war,” said the official. “They wouldn’t break with terrorists then, so why would we take them seriously now?” The following day, asked by ABC News This Week host George Stephanopoulos about possible negotiations with “high level” Taliban leaders, Clinton said, “We don’t know yet.” But then she made the same argument the unnamed U.S. official had made to Gopal on Saturday. “[W]e asked Mullah Omar to give up bin Laden before he went into Afghanistan after 9/11,” Clinton said, “and he wouldn’t do it. I don’t know why we think he would have changed by now.” In the same ABC interview, Defence Secretary Robert Gates suggested that the Taliban would not be willing to negotiate on U.S. terms until after their “momentum” had been stopped. “I think that the likelihood of the leadership of the Taliban, or senior leaders, being willing to accept the conditions Secretary Clinton just talked about,” Gates said, “depends in the first instance on reversing their momentum right now, and putting them in a position where they suddenly begin to realise that they’re likely to lose.” In a statement issued two days after the Clinton-Gates appearance on ABC, the Taliban leadership, which now calls itself “Mujahideen”, posted another statement saying that what it called its “proposal” had been rejected by the United States. The statement said, in part, “Washington turns down the constructive proposal of the leadership of Mujahideen,” and repeated its pledge to “ensure that the next government of the Muhajideen will not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries including the neighbours if the foreign troops pull out of Afghanistan.” The fact that both the State Department and the NSC are now maintaining silence on the offer rather than repeating the Clinton-Gates expression of scepticism strongly suggests that the White House does not want to close the door publicly to negotiations with the Taliban linking troop withdrawal to renunciation of ties with al Qaeda, among other issues. Last month, an even more explicit link between U.S. troop withdrawal and a severing by the Taliban of its ties with al Qaeda was made by a U.S. diplomat in Kabul. In an article published Nov. 11, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin, who was then visiting Kabul, quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying, “If the Taliban made clear to us that they have broken with al Qaeda and that their own objectives were nonviolent and political — however abhorrent to us — we wouldn’t be keeping 68,000-plus troops here.” That statement reflected an obvious willingness to entertain a negotiated settlement under which U.S. troops would be withdrawn and the Taliban would break with al Qaeda. A significant faction within the Obama administration has sought to portray those who suggest that the Taliban might part ways with al Qaeda as deliberately deceiving the West. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution, who headed the administration’s policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring, recently said, “A lot of smoke is being thrown up to confuse people.” But even the hard-liner Riedel concedes that the Pakistani Taliban’s attacks on the Pakistani military and Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) threaten the close relationship between the Afghan Taliban and ISI. The Pakistani Taliban continue to be closely allied with al Qaeda. The Taliban began indicating it openness to negotiations with the United States and NATO in September 2007. But it began to hint publicly at its willingness to separate itself from al Qaeda in return for a troop withdrawal only three months ago. Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s message for Eid al-Fitr in mid-September assured “all countries” that a Taliban state “will not extend its hand to jeopardise others, as it itself does not allow others to jeopardise us… Our goal is to gain independence of the country and establish a just Islamic system there.” But the insurgent leadership has also emphasised that negotiations will depend on the U.S. willingness to withdraw troops. In anticipation of Obama’s announcement of a new U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar issued a 3,000-word statement Nov. 25 which said, “The people of Afghanistan will not agree to negotiations which prolongs and legitimises the invader’s military presence in our beloved country.” “The invading Americans want Mujahidin to surrender under the pretext of negotiation,” it said. That implied that the Taliban would negotiate if the U.S. did not
insist on the acceptance of a U.S. military presence in the country. In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Karzai said there is an “urgent need” for negotiations with the Taliban, and made it clear that the Obama administration had opposed such talks. Karzai did not say explicitly that he wanted the United States to be at the table for such talks, but said, “Alone, we can’t do it.” Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006. Read other articles by Gareth, or visit Gareth's website. Open Letter from U.S. Trade Unionists to AFL-CIO President Richard TrumkaBoycott Apartheid Israel by Labor for Palestine / December 16th, 2009
***** Dear Brother Trumka: As labor and anti-apartheid activists, we strongly disagree with your October 27 speech denouncing the movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The BDS campaign was initiated in 2005 by Palestinian civil society — including its entire labor movement. Inspired by the international boycott that helped topple apartheid South Africa, it demands Palestinian self- determination, including an end to Israeli military occupation, the right of refugees to return to the land from which they have been ethnically cleansed since the Nakba of 1947-1948, and equal rights for all throughout historic Palestine. Support for BDS has grown rapidly, especially since December 27, 2008, when Israel broke a truce with the democratically-elected Palestinian government and attacked Gaza. In the resulting massacre, Israel killed more than 1400 Palestinians, hundreds of them children; maimed and wounded thousands more; and utterly devastated Gaza’s infrastructure, including the Gaza headquarters of the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions. In the best tradition of labor solidarity, South African and Australian dockworkers responded by refusing to handle Israeli cargo, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) “call[ed] on other workers and unions to follow suit and to do all that is necessary to ensure that they boycott all goods to and from Israel until Palestine is free.” Their action echoes the West Coast dock-workers who refused to handle cargo for Nazi Germany (1934) or fascist Italy (1935); those in Denmark and Sweden (1963), the San Francisco Bay Area (1984) and Liverpool (1988), who refused shipping for apartheid South Africa; those in Oakland who refused to load bombs for the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (1978); and those at all twenty-nine West Coast ports who held a May Day strike against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (2008). Since Gaza, the 2005 BDS call also been endorsed or reaffirmed by numerous other labor bodies around the world, including the trades union congresses of Ireland, Scotland and the UK; UNISON (UK); Transport and General Workers’ Union (UK); L’Union syndicale Solidaires Industrie (France); Canadian Union of Postal Workers; Canadian Union of Public Employees-Ontario; six Norwegian trade unions; and Intersindical Alternativa de Catallunya. It is no accident that South African workers play a leading role in the BDS movement. They remember that Israel was apartheid South Africa’s closest ally. They agree with Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s observation that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is “worse than apartheid.” They recognize that the Gaza massacre mirrors the infamous Sharpeville massacre of 1960, which gave birth to an international boycott against South African apartheid. This rising tide of labor support for BDS has only been further vindicated by Israel’s rejection of the war crimes indictments issued against it by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN’s Goldstone Report and numerous other bodies — many of them Israeli. The BDS campaign is particularly relevant to workers in the United States. In the past ten years alone, U.S. military aid to Israel was $17 billion; over the next decade, it will be another $30 billion. As in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. aircraft, white phosphorous and bullets kill and maim on behalf of the occupiers, while both Democratic and Republican politicians condone the slaughter. Amidst deepening economic crisis, workers in this country pay a staggering human and financial price for U.S.-Israeli war and occupation throughout the region. Despite all of this, however, many U.S. labor officials — often without the knowledge or con-sent of union members — have ignored Palestinian appeals for justice. Instead, they continue to collaborate with the Histadrut, the Zionist labor federation that not only supported Israel’s war on Gaza, but which has spearheaded — and whitewashed — racism, apartheid, dispossession and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians since the 1920s. They have invested billions of our union pension funds and retirement plans in State of Israel Bonds. They have actively encouraged the U.S. to provide the money and weapons that oppress Palestinian workers, and to ensure Israel’s role as watchdog for U.S. domination over the oil-rich Middle East. The Jewish Labor Committee has exploited its carefully groomed “progressive” image by hurling hurls false accusations of “anti-Semitism” against those who challenge racism in the U.S. labor movement, who support affirmative action for workers of color, who criticize notorious “AFL-CIA” support U.S. war and empire, and — above all — who oppose apartheid Israel. Thus, it was the JLC that in July 2007 mobilized top AFL-CIO and Change to Win officials to condemn British union support for BDS. It is the JLC that seeks to deflect outrage over the Gaza massacres by launching Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine, whose stated purpose is to sabotage the BDS campaign, while demanding boycotts against Iran, which — unlike Israel — receives no U.S. aid and has no “weapons of mass destruction.” In the 1980s, as president of the United Mine Workers, you rightly argued that, “economic pressure and political isolation of the South African government can hasten the day when justice and freedom reign in that troubled land.” Two decades later, the cause of “justice and freedom” for Palestinians requires no less of you as president of the AFL-CIO. As trade unionists, we must immediately and completely: 1. Divest from State of Israel Bonds. 2. Support workers’ refusal to handle Israeli cargo. 3. Break ties with the racist Histadrut. 4. Oppose U.S. military and economic aid for Israel. Initial Signers Monadel Herzallah, President, Arab American Union Members Council, California International Endorsers Rubina Jamil, Working Women Organization; All Pakistan Trade Union Federation* |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|