War in The Middle East

[Fedayeen]

Re: War in The Middle East

Monday, July 24, 2006


"A Revolution in The Middle East"




Over the course of the past 2 weeks we have witnessed more than a crisis unfolding in the Middle East. We have seen the beginning of a Revolution. Not a Revolution as in a popular uprising against leaders who claim to be related to a holy man written about in a gospel 1500 years ago. Not a Revolution where the corporate system that controls these nations is overthrown and the natural resources are put to generate wealth, technological, agricultural and medical advancements for a people that live in squalor. This is a different type of Revolution. Not a Revolution where the people question the legitimacy of their kings and princes who are educated in the West and only know their own country through the manufactured blind eyes of a young Siddhartha. Truthfully though the innocence characterized in Buddha's early view of the world cannot be attributed to those that turn a blind eye, those design war and those that hide its true nature to the public. The type of people that will stall for peace and a ceasefire to give the Israeli Army time to bomb more of Lebanons infrastructure creating more civilian death that includes children which are considered collateral damage. Collateral damage, thats an interesting way of putting it, I wonder if people would ever refer to the individuals killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 as collateral damage since there were non military personal also. What about those who died horribly as their world crumbled around them in the melting and exploding towers? Should they be in anyway held responsible for the actions of their government, whether or not the cause of the terrorist act was a reprisal or a preemptive strike upon our sovereign land?



Discussing Middle Eastern policy is never easy. Everyone has a bias of their own. While we always hear about the bias and hatred of Arabs towards xxxs I have very rarely in my life seen anything that would allude to the hate that some Israelis have for Arabs. I have never heard of Racism in Israel on FOX news or on MSNBC. I guess its just the magical holy land where people dont think like that. As if no one has ever died there for having a difference race or religion. Even when we discuss Israel and bring up things like the Balfour declaration and the fact that xxxs almost had their homeland in many places including Argentina instead of Palestine it creates a division. I find people that firmly believe in Democracy, in Revolution against the system, that believe in the sad reality that this government lies to us and proliferates war for profit are torn. I see journalists who are fed up with the Bush regime rally behind Israel under pressure from their bosses or their own personal heritage. I see Democrats in the Congress and Senate as the biggest supporters of Israel in a war that was started by an incursion into what is now their territory. While Hezbollah has built hospitals and schools, fed a starving population, and have done some good in the community to gain political support their military wing has continued often at odds with the government to fight without the support of the Lebanese Army against what it and many other people see as an illegitimate Israeli government in Palestine. Their incursion and attack in defense of Palestine can be condemned by the international community but not used as the rationale behind the destruction of an entire nation.



The other day I turned on the TV and saw Hillary Clinton looking desperate as ever to claw worms of unlikely political support out of the deep earth. She made the statement in front of the UN that Israels values were the values of America. I thought about that for a moment, and being a student of history I turned the pages back to how they both were the bastard children of the British Empire, conceived by white people in Europe while the land was still populated with the indigenous people. How they had conquered the land and the natural resources that they reign over now by using The Word of God. How they displaced people and uprooted homes to make room for more people that looked like them from far away. I though about how they both imported Blacks to work for them and then to fight for them, (Ethiopian xxxs.) Didn't they both supported Apartheid firmly? And even when it became unpopular to do so overtly they did with their corporations. Haven't they both always portrayed themselves as tortured fighters, survivors in a land where people did not want them? As if they somehow belonged there even though there was civilization there since before they came into existence as a people or a religion. And sadly enough there has never been anything but arrogance instead of atonement for the Palestinians and Native Americans who once lived on that land, instead we just hear lies about their lack of existence and stories past through generations about their savagery.



Please do not mistake my questions and contemplation for some radical hatred. I know many people suffering on both sides of this conflict. It is sad when a person cannot question Israel's domestic and foreign policy without being called Anti Semitic. After all I think that a white American can have issues with illegal immigration, with gang violence and job placement without hating Latinos, Africans and Asian people. And if that is possible, then why is it impossible for me to question a government that has a history of violence whether its on the receiving end or if it is the bringer of such. I have no superficial or condescending sympathy for the genocide and discrimination that xxxish have been forced to endure. But rather I have true empathy and understanding for their struggle to survive in a world of persecution, genetically recessive traits, and where people are more than ever turning away from conventional forms of Judeo-Christian religion. You see my people, through out Latin America and Africa had a Holocaust and our people date back to before Biblical times as well. We see the evidence of the African holocaust in the history of America and every time we pass a black man in the street who doesnt know where his last name came from. And since Black and White people werent married when they were slaves but rather women were raped, when a Black person has a generational history of being light skinned we see the failed attempt at ethnic cleansing. But I humbly beg that you all remember that we were not beaten by the military might of the white race, we were beaten an enslaved through deceit, disease and trickery. I always say it with conviction because it is conveniently never spoken of, the greatest lie told of our people is that we came quietly, that we accepted slavery that we did not fight it until the bitter end with all of our heart and soul.



And what about the Mayan people of Central America (El Salvador, Southern Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Belize) lived through what they described as 4 Apocalypses. They had the recorded the history of their people on Codexs (similar to Egyptian Papyrus), for well over a thousand years. Until the Spaniards, deeming it blasphemy burned it in the 1500s. They burned their detailed history that supposedly included stories of great earthquakes, floods, meteor showers, creatures that are now extinct and man like visitors from the stars. Not that I necessarily subscribe to any of these things mentioned but it would have been an interesting read at least and at best a window into a world before our culture was destroyed and replaced with Catholicism. The history of a people is important and without it the people find themselves confused and searching for an identity with such longing that they will beg for acceptance. They are willing to suffer humiliating indignities just to gain the right to pledge allegiance and die for a country that has with only a handful of debatable exceptions never fought for a cause that directly benefited them. (For every instance you can bring up where America has taken on the white mans burden to help free Black and Latino people I can have an ace of real reasons for their involvement that trump that familiar soap opera good guy character they play on TV.) That said, I can point to the fact that during the first 100 years of the colonization of in South America an estimated 120 million people died of war, disease, famine and a variety of unnatural causes directly related to the invasion. European scholars and apologists make this number, much lower, somewhere around 60 or 80 million But even so, take the average 100 million people over the course of 100 years. 1 million people a year for a hundred years. We know what a holocaust is, and anyone who denies that claim is either not a student of history or a convenient liar. For the next 500 years our nations would live under European and American rule a nation of Native and African peoples ruled by White Latinos who spoke our language but have always looked down upon us. We were experiencing what Black people in the South did in the 50s and 60s in South and Central America in the 70s and 80s with the CIA sponsored coups and the disappearing of thousands of Revolutionary students.



You know I talk a lot about history and bring up White peoples role in it and some white people get offended. If you think Im preaching hate its because you hate what Im preaching, this is historical fact, and I will not change history to make someone feel better about the legacy of their people. At the same time I dont speak these words with hatred, because I have met many white people in my travels that are more Revolutionary than the majority of Black and Brown people, men and women who are willing to fight and die for this cause of exposing a society that hides its classism by altering history and creating more racism.



I see it as a clear indication of how primitive our society is that we are in the year 2006 arguing over someones right to exist. Thats like arguing over a womans right to not be raped. White people are never going to leave America, even though they are not indigenous to the land they stole, they are not all going to pack up and go back to where they came from. And by the same token, the majority of Israelis who are Eastern European and Russian xxxs and maybe not the original Hebrews, are not going to take their belongings and return to the misery of the places they left. No matter what we say now and forever thats just not going to happen. Once people who question Israels existence accept that and move on, they will find a reality on the other side that will liberate the method in which they may empower their own people economically and spiritually and create a homeland for themselves that does not monetarily support the people who oppress them. I do believe in Israels right to exist peacefully and if that can be true for them then all the more reason for the Palestinian State to exist, being in full control over its land in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I believe that a people who have been written out of history by several conquerors and who have been the victims of an occupation are due to receive the recognition and empowerment so that they can organize their own lives. People look at Palestine as some small terrorist state, as if they are not fighting for their own very survival as well. Keep in mind this is a government that whether the US likes it or not elected its own leadership. Which should be incredibly embarrassing for the US media as well as the State Department, this Administration and its puppet Emperor who talks about building democracy in The Middle East. And who are its allies besides Israel? The King of Jordan, The King of Saudi Arabia, The Kings and Princes of Kuwait, UAE, and the cheerful military dictatorship of Pakistan. These are a collective coalition of totalitarian regimes who have a pass for their actions in the Western media because of their strategic US Military bases and ties to our corporate economy. Even though they themselves have horrible human rights records that include election fraud, summary execution, torture and in many instances treating their women worse than the portrayal of the Taliban.



Some might ask ourselves how we got here, but let us not forget that the Arab people are a conquered people as well who have had their contributions to the world seemingly written out of history. For example when we open books about Science and Math we just see white faces and European names and but some of the very foundation of Mathematics, Algorithms and Algebra (Al-habra: The Solving of Problems by Reduction.) belong to the proud people of that region. If you read the history of Arabic influence over the creation of the Math which is the building block of all of our technology it shows that they opened a dimension of equations that had was beyond the understanding of the glorified Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. It is sad to see that many are spoon fed versions of Islam by a group of ruling elite who see the ignorance of the poor as a political tool to use for their own personal discretion. (More Classism people) The Sunni, Shiite conflict for example originates in the early struggle of who was deemed fit to take control of Islam and be the successor, the decedents of the Prophet Mohammed or simply his devoted followers. From the moment that the Prophet died, (peace be unto him) this argument was never about the purity of Islam or sanctity of religion, this was about a struggle for power. Proof of this is seen in the fact that the Caliphs fought and killed each other the way the Kings of Judea did and the Popes of the post Roman era did all done to slaughter their competition. Because belief is power, and religion is the window through which people see the world without ever looking outside for themselves

[Fedayeen]

Re: War in The Middle East

RememberTruth is subjective, but honesty is not.



I can understand a people wish to defend themselves and launching a retaliatory strike at someone who incurred into their border is something that you MUST forget your bias on either side and accept as a reality any of us would undertake. But something you have to look beyond your race, religion and political allegiance, is the difference in between a retaliatory strike and destroying the infrastructure of an entire nation. There are some despicable people that live in America whom we give a voice to with Freedom of Speech, they have strong ties to the Republican Party and the Right Wing of this government. They are violent and blatantly racist, they are religious fundamentalists who believe that a woman doesnt have the right to have an abortion even if shes raped or is the victim of incest. If they were to go to another country, (which they do in a way with the sponsoring of Eugenics programs in Africa and Asia promoting sterilization) and launch a military strike. We would understand having to have to address that in our own society. We would have to deal with the consequences of their misguided nature and although we can try to explain their actions in our wish to bring light to all the injustices of other people it doesnt do anything but cloud the argument. There would be no justification though seen by America for that foreign nation to attack our sovereign land, to bomb our nations capital, to bomb our hydro electric plants and emergency channels of communication. To continuously massacre our people with weapons that we have no defense for in response to the actions of those few would be deemed inhumane by us. To bomb power stations, banks (while some have ties to Hezbollah, some have never been proved to have any links), bomb television and radio networks that call for the evacuation of the people and to not allow the UN to administer aid to a part of the region that has been the most affected. I can recall too many times when I have seen the Israeli government not allow UN inspectors in once they have bulldozed or bombed installations. There is logic in defending oneself but the massively disproportionate civilian death indicates a flaw in that logic. Because if the response is an over extended counter measure that shows the force of an able bodied and well armed IDF an obvious means of intimidation being deterrent to future attacks. Then what will be of the future after such a statement is made? When the next generation whose seeds of hatred are being planted and watered as we speak come to grow, how will you speak to them of adopting peace?



As you read this now American made Israeli jets bomb from 20,000 ft in the sky down upon their selected areas and while they claim to only target military structures there is a collective punishment of the people that are being attacked. When you destroy someones home, their schools, bridges, and kill families, you are not fighting terrorism anymore, but you have become the very force of human nature that you condemn. When you mark numbers and letters on refugees arms (as has been done in the past) in the prison camps they are kept in, you are repeating a cycle of hatred that was once imposed upon you. A Revolution I told you before is not always a positive thing, it is sometimes a blood war, a cycle with no purpose but to enrich people and distract the masses from a larger power struggle. In this instance we find a Revolution, by that definition, the coming full circle of and the continuation of a corrupted movement. Meaning that in 10 or 15 years from now some child from Palestine or Lebanon will board some bus in Israel and it will explode, or there will be a bomb somewhere in a civilian area such as there was one dropped this evening in Beirut. America and its allies will look at that as an act of terror. A completely unexplainable violent outburst that is in no way of course related to the occupation or what happened those years earlier when his or her family was killed and whatever future they had was simply destroyed and their justifiable anger with no outlet quickly soured. Only this time all the parties will be forced to drink from the poisoned well of hatred that has festered. I will pray for peace tonight, for the Children of Palestine, of Lebanon and the innocent Israelis that are searching for peace. These children that are the innocent victims of politicians and the statements they so often make with other peoples lives rather than their own. The United States claims to be holding out for a lasting peace, continuing to hurl more accusations at Iran and Syria, while neglecting the political ground they are losing. They are fully aware of this though, for this war is not being fought to be won but to be exploited and prolonged to the benefit of the beast. There are dead children burning in the streets of Lebanon, you need no further proof of a new world order other than this is allowed to happen, and that some of you are so oversaturated with propaganda that you try to find excuses for it.





I wrote this quickly and in the hopes that someone else out there will look into the history of the region that I didnt go into as much detail as I would have liked to. Please go and educated yourself about the past, and look at both sides of the conflict instead of just listening to biased relatives or a news media controlled by a vested interest.


ReadReadRead


Immortal
Technique

[Yedtarts]

Re: War in The Middle East

Will Russia Stop the War?
By Israel Shamir, from Moscow – September 7, 2006

Israel and the US, the terrible Siamese twins conjoined by their xxxish communities, are on the warpath. The usually knowledgeable Uzi Mahanaimi wrote in the Sunday Times that the plans have been laid out, and preparations are being completed for the resumption of the war on Syria and Iran temporarily stopped by the Hezbullah fighters in the mountains of Southern Lebanon. President Bush hopes to improve his sagging popularity by the war, says Alex C0cburn. A condemnation of Iran by the Security Council is all he needs before the attack at dawn. Until now, such resolutions were produced after a short period of haggling. Now there is a chance Russia will use its veto, and then the US plans would be shelved and the assault on Iran cancelled.


Before 1990, such a vote would be certain. In those days of the much-maligned Soviet Union, the Russians advanced many causes of which we still enjoy the fruits: together with their Cuban allies they stopped the apartheid tanks in Angola and brought about Mandela’s release and the creation of a more egalitarian South Africa. The Russians supported European trade unions and Communist parties, preventing the onslaught of privatisation, outsourcing and globalisation. If you had it better before 1990, and you probably did, it was due to this Russian influence. The Russians supplied the enemies of the Empire with their cheap and good weapons, and they blocked the Empire’s attempts to legitimise its aggressions via UN resolutions. Their planes and their ground-to-air missiles helped the Vietnamese and the Koreans to win the war. Their influence and abilities were limited: the Russians never could compete on an equal footing with the immense power of the West harnessed by Washington. But they could spike the wheels of the American Juggernaut, and so they did. The Empire hated them and wished them dead, and many Western intellectuals supported this wish.


My friend, Russian maverick poet Edward Limonov, wrote a short story in the 1980s: what would happen if Russia were to disappear altogether from the face of Earth? The US would intervene all over the world on massive scale, and capitalism and imperialism would regain ground lost since 1917 with a vengeance, he prophesied; and so it has happened: Panama, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan were invaded. The rich grew richer, the middle class shrank, freedoms were undone on the pretext of a "War on Terror."


The Western Left contributed a lot to this unhappy development, for Soviet Russia was undone by double perfidy. In the end, their elites betrayed their masses and privatised the wealth created by the Soviet people. But before that, we, the Western Left, had internalized the Evil Empire cliché and repeated every slogan manufactured by the enemy. We chanted Let My People Go, and demanded an extra privilege for xxxs, the right to emigrate. We did not care that the Palestinians had no right to return to their homes, while the Russian xxxs wanted to move into settlements in occupied Palestine. We supported Russian dissidents, though they hated all we stood for and considered Pinochet ‘a soft leftist’. We accused Russians of their long-gone Gulag, and brought in Abu Ghraib. We condemned Russians too much, and contributed to their feeling of isolation, and to the second, fatal betrayal by their elites.


We, good and sincere people, were misled and tricked by the media machine into an outburst of condemnation against our only mighty ally. The Western Left did not survive the collapse: it went into self-destruct mode, and what remains is represented by the likes of Tony Blair. All over the Western world, the elites celebrate their unlimited wealth and luxury, while ordinary people are worse and worse off. Not only industrial workers: unless you are a CEO you live worse than you did, and your chances to improve your lot are worse than they ever were.


But luckily Russia did not disappear forever, though it was a close call. Boris Yeltsin sold its resources to his cronies and to Western companies, shelled the Parliament and transferred media and oil into the hands of xxxish oligarchs. Yeltsin installed Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB officer and would-be Pinochet, with orders to keep the stolen property in the hands of thieves and the country in the Western grip. Now it appears that the enemies of Russia miscalculated with this man. Instead of doing a Pinochet on behalf of the oligarchs, Putin broke the oligarchs’ grip; he exiled and jailed some crooked tycoons, and restored a semblance of law and order in the country. He returned the main TV channels to the people. My wealthy xxxish acquaintances in Russia tell me that money does not rule in the country anymore. One can buy comforts, but not the power.


The oil revenues began to flow into the country, not only to private coffers in Swiss banks. This revitalised the economy. The infrastructure ruined by Gorbachev and Yeltsin is being restored and improved; housing is being built in vast amounts; the once-degraded army is receiving new hardware; main streets shine with bright new shops; new and repaired highways with millions of cars connect villages and cities. The Chechen war is over; that republic has been reintegrated into Russia, and its dwellers enjoy full civil rights. Russian ballet again captures eyes and hearts. After the total collapse of the film industry in the 1990s, Russians are again making many movies, even blockbusters with mass appeal (like The Night Guard) as well as “festival art”. Obsessive, guilt-ridden lamentation has given way to new prose and poetry. Thousands of churches have been refurbished and their onion domes gilded; all the churches are full on Sundays. Historically a country of Orthodox Christianity and Sunni Islam, Russia preserves this tradition, and here the Christians and Muslims live in relative harmony despite the efforts of pro-American forces to inject Islamophobia into Russian hearts. The state TV, taken away from xxxish oligarchs and freed from PC tyranny, shows a lot of footage of the venerable grey-bearded Patriarch (the Russian Pope) and the nimble karate-fighter of a President enforcing the faith-and-authority tradition of Russia.


A mammoth 1500-page-long novel by the Russian painter Maxim Kantor, The Drawing Textbook, le dernier cri of Russian literature, has been received by many readers as a proclamation of volte-face: Russia’s ideological subservience to the Mammonite West is over! Kantor does not stop at condemning comprador capitalists: they were preceded by comprador intellectuals. Kantor defends Christ from the humanist assaults: Christianity was betrayed by humanists, in his view. Kantor is not fond of the new Russian regime: he regrets that Russia gave up its socialism, and considers 20 years of capitalist development as a flop: “barracks’ socialism was replaced by barracks’ capitalism”. With this book, a modern War and Peace, Russia’s re-invention is officially on the way, and this great country with its great people may yet turn the tide of history.


It is doubtful whether Russia will turn leftwards anytime soon. But the international activism of adventure-seeking Americans is not acceptable to any independent Russian state. Russians are not happy with the American military bases surrounding Russia, with the aggressive push of NATO, or with politically motivated limitations on Russian companies. The Russians feel that they were cheated 20 years ago, when the West proclaimed its desire to reach full peace and harmony, and to respect the independence of nations. Believing this bull, the Russian troops left East Europe, but American troops still lounge in Germany, Italy, Japan; they advanced into Poland and this summer tried to land in Crimea, next to the Russian fleet's home base. The Russians left Vietnam, but the Americans still occupy Okinawa.


Russia’s leaders feel unsafe: since the Soviet Union’s demise, leaders of independent sovereign states – Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic - have been snatched and imprisoned for denying the will of Washington. Neither is Russian wealth safe: Russia, like many nations, is obliged to keep its savings in the bottomless pit of the American economy, but nobody can collect on these investments yet. Norway invested all its oil income in the US stock market, and lost all of it; Swedish pension funds went the same way. If this is the case with the best friends of the US, what will happen to its enemies? Iran, Iraq, Palestine lost all their savings by decisions of the US administration. Moreover, its legal system allows the US to sue foreign states for unlimited amounts. Thus, the families of victims of the Lockerbie crash received from besieged Libya a cool ten million dollars per passenger, although the American courts authorise ten thousand times smaller sums for the victims of American bombings – if indeed they receive anything at all.


Russia feels unsafe, for the US has invaded other sovereign countries more often and with greater impunity than Hitler ever did. This feeling is shared by a less vocal China. “The great issue that divides the U.N. is no longer Communism versus capitalism, as it once was; it is sovereignty”, preached the New York Times. Its scribe, James Traub, lists many countries that “abuse their citizens under protection of sovereignty”. In vain will you look there for the name of Israel, though the xxxs killed over a thousand people in Lebanon, and over 200 civilians last month in Gaza alone.


The great divisive issue of our times is actually somewhat different: whether the US and Israel are the only sovereign countries, while others have a limited "demo" version. Why does Israel get away with aggression (and now with its sea and air blockade of a sovereign UN member state, Lebanon) while peaceful Iran must be censured? Why has Israel been able to reject all pertinent UN resolutions and yet never had sanctions applied against it, while Iran is about to be bombed? Are non-xxxs less valuable than xxxs? The case of Iran provides a good opportunity for Russia and China to present a case for sovereignty and non-interference.


Some of better Soviet policies were embedded in the Christian ethos of Russia, and the tradition of helping the downtrodden and the weak, of resisting aggressor is one of them. Post-Soviet Russia inherited these traditions. But in this case practical need coincides with the call of compassion. Unless President Putin views with equanimity the possibility of being snatched and brought to some American kangaroo court himself, he may want to contemplate stopping this orgy of invasions. Iran is a case of one invasion too far. Iran is a sovereign country; it did not break international law. Its decision to enrich uranium is fully within its rights according to the NPT. Whether they worship Allah or Jehovah is entirely their internal affair. And by applying its right of veto, Russia would signal that interference in internal affairs of sovereign states will not be tolerated and legitimised in the UN. Russia won’t be alone – China, equally unhappy with US interference, may support it with its own veto.


The alternative is too much to consider: even if the UN resolution doesn't refer to sanctions, the US is famous for its cavalier way of interpreting UN text. Any condemnation (even a soft one) will be used as carte blanche for nuking Iran and taking it over; then the US chain of military bases will run continuously around the south flank of Russia and China, through Turkey, Georgia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. "Rebellious" Ahmadinejad will be brought to Tel Aviv in iron chains, while the US takes over the oil resources of Iran, and by using Iran and Iraq oil, undermines the Russian position in the world economy. Afterwards, under this or some other pretext, they may confiscate Russia’s assets, threaten Putin with Ahmadinejad’s fate and return Russia to its miserable position of Yeltsin’s days. Thus, using their veto in the Security Council would be a very prudent and wise step for both Russia and China, especially if it were accompanied by granting Iran full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.


The results of a Russian veto would be greater than just postponement of the US assault on Iran: it would send a strong signal that the end of Pax Americana is nigh. The “Old” Europe may take it as a cue and regain its independence, even demanding to remove those vestiges of WWII, US military bases, from Europe. The “New” Europe may understand it is out of step, and curtail its pro-American and anti-Russian partisanship. Japan could demand an end to the occupation of Okinawa. The Law of Nations will rule the world again, instead of the will of the Pentagon.


And then the time for a new American independence drive will come, independence of America from its xxxish Lobby. Such a drive took place in the revolutionary Russia of the 1920s, when Russian Communists argued about whether they should go for world revolution, as Trotsky demanded, or for creating socialism in their own country, as proposed by Stalin and Bukharin. If their militant activism is rejected, Americans may discard their neo-Trotskyites, both Republicans and Democrats keen on spreading their “world democratic revolution”, in favour of isolationists who prefer building to spreading. Supporters of spreading – from George W. Bush to Hilary Clinton – are great friends of Israel. The bipartisan support of Israel within the US political elites means also their subservience to the xxxish Lobby. Rejection of the Lobby may become the single slogan of a new American revolution, of a new American political party of independence and non-interference on the way to creating a United States the world can live with.


Language editing: Ken Freeland and Roger Tucker

[karoaper]

here we go again

IAEA complains of 'outrageous' inaccuracies in Iran report to House Intelligence Committee
The Associated Press

Published: September 14, 2006


VIENNA, Austria A recent U.S. House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation IAEA board meeting, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear programme is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."

The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the Vienna-based agency and the U.S. administration over whether Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.

VIENNA, Austria A recent U.S. House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation IAEA board meeting, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear programme is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."

The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the Vienna-based agency and the U.S. administration over whether Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.

[Pantera]

Re: War in The Middle East

The silliest thing about Beirut is that they are having problems with themselves. Every body wants to rule, to dominate, to be bossy and every body wants others to listen and follow them…that’s why they fight with each other. They are having a civil war at the moment.
Strong government and one word in the country is a strong army.
This is their biggest problem needs to be fixed for now.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Lebanon Throng Hails Hezbollah Chief, Who Calls Militia Stronger

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 22 — Hundreds of thousands of people stood Friday and chanted “God, God, protect Nasrallah.” It was the moment they had waited for: Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in person, declaring that his militia was stronger than ever and that no army in the world could force it to disarm. This was Sheik Nasrallah’s first public appearance since the war with Israel started in July, and it was steeped in defiance: at Israel, the United States, Arab heads of state and those political forces in Lebanon aiming to clip Hezbollah’s political and military power.

If there was any thought the war weakened Hezbollah, Sheik Nasrallah had a different message: “It is stronger.” Even after Israel’s 34-day bombardment of Lebanon, Hezbollah, he said, still has more than 20,000 missiles. “Not a single army in the world will be able to dismantle our resistance,” Sheik Nasrallah said, as he stood beneath a big banner that read “The Victory Rally.” “No army in the world will be able to make us drop the weapons from our hands.”

The crowd was mammoth, packing every corner of the 37-acre square in the southern suburbs of Beirut. There was a plastic chair for nearly everyone, and a baseball cap for protection from the sun. Hezbollah’s martial choir belted out chest thumping music. The crowds waved flags, wildly cheering for Sheik Nasrallah, who has become a folk hero to many here and throughout the Arab world. The audience came on foot, by car and by bus from the south and the north, and in every case, people said they came because Sheik Nasrallah asked them to.

“Whatever Sayid Hassan wants Sayid Hassan gets,” said Hossain Zebara, 29, using a title reserved for descendants of the prophet Muhammad. Mr. Zebara said it took him 24 hours to walk from his home in the southern part of Lebanon to be at the rally. “We came to show the American administration, the British administration, the French administration, that the resistance population is increasing, not decreasing.”

That was exactly Sheik Nasrallah’s point — a show of strength to those who would challenge him from abroad, and those who would challenge him at home. In a country of about four million, turning out hundreds of thousands of people in a disciplined, highly orchestrated event, is a sign of strength. But the rally also highlighted some of the deep divisions among Lebanon’s different factions, as the crowd at times chanted slogans calling the Druse leader, Walid Jumblatt, a “worm” and “xxx” and calling for the prime minister to leave office.

Sheik Nasrallah sought to overcome some of that by calling for unity in a speech that tried to define him as leader who is not just a local force, but a regional force as well. He gave voice to one of the primary feelings that has fueled anger throughout the Muslim world: a sense that Muslims are being victimized in places like Iraq and Gaza, and the world does not care. “How long will it go on that the world keeps quiet?” he asked. And he aimed hard at Arab leaders, criticizing them for not being willing to fight Israel. “These Arab leaders prefer to protect their thrones as opposed to protecting Palestine,” he said, taking a shot at the traditional power brokers, like the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak. In Israel, Sheik Nasrallah’s speech was condemned as defying the international community by refusing to disarm.

Sheik Nasrallah had multiple messages to deliver: He said that Hezbollah would not disarm because the state was too weak to protect the people against Israel. He warned the international force deploying along the border with Israel not to spy on the “resistance.” He castigated Arab heads of state who recently asked the United Nations Security Council to help restart the peace process with Israel. He cautioned the Lebanese people about allowing political differences among sectarian leaders to become sectarian differences that might tear the country apart. And he repeatedly criticized the American-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, saying it needed to be replaced by a national unity government, which would in turn give Hezbollah even more power.

No one knew if Sheik Nasrallah would appear. People here talk about his assassination by Israel as though it is not just a matter of if, but when. The rally, billed as a celebration of the “divine victory,” presented him a chance to re-energize his supporters, to enhance his standing as a pan-Arab leader, and to try to buttress Hezbollah’s domestic political position. When he entered, he stood on a platform and appeared almost regal in finely tailored religious robes and a black turban. He was taken to the stage where he was protected by a wall of blastproof glass. He said that up until 30 minutes before the rally there were still discussions going on over whether he would attend.

“I couldn’t talk to you from afar,” he said. “I insisted to be with you.”

Israel began the war after Hezbollah crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers. The Israeli onslaught caused heavy damage to the mostly Shiite areas in the south and the north, and cost more than 1,000 lives, mostly civilians. But Hezbollah’s fighters never stopped, shooting hundreds of rockets into Israel, destroying Israeli tanks, an Israeli naval vessel and killing many Israeli troops.

Judging from the size of the rally, and the remarks of the participants, Hezbollah’s base did not blame Hezbollah for the death and destruction. They blamed Israel and the United States. “This is good, good,” said Fatima Saad, 50, whose son, Kasem, was killed. There was no hint of sadness in her bearing. “I am very proud,” she said as she patted a picture of her son pinned to her chest. He was 20 when he was blown up. Ahmed Hussein, 78, made the trip to Beirut from his southern village of Kafr Kila. He said his house and most of his neighbors’ homes were destroyed, but that Hezbollah gave them tents and water tanks to help them get by. “All of us whose houses were destroyed we came here for Nasrallah, to tell him what we lost is nothing,” Mr. Hussein said.

While Hezbollah and Sheik Nasrallah have been hailed as heroes throughout the Arab world, the group’s position in Lebanese politics is more complex. They have been attacked by opponents who fear that an empowered Hezbollah would exert even more influence over the country. Some of Sheik Nasrallah’s opponents said they thought the rally might help undermine his chance of reaching out beyond his Shiite base because he said he was comfortable being aligned with Syria and Iran. For his part, Sheik Nasrallah seemed to try to both embrace his benefactors in Syria and Iran and to distance himself from them. He said it made him angry when his detractors charged that the battle with Israel was a proxy war for Iran, or Syria. “We are with the Iranians, we are with the Syrians, but this was our war,” he said, as he thrust his right hand into the air, and the crowd cheered.

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/wo...rtner=homepage

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Jane's: Russian intelligence indirectly helped Hezbollah

During military operation of Israel in the South Lebanon which proceeded from July 12 till August 14 this year, Hezbollah received intelligence data from the radio interception points that are served by the joint Russian-Syrian personnel, Israeli daily Ha’aretz writes, referring to a report by the Jane's Defense Weekly. According to the magazine, participation of the Russian side in transfer of the intelligence information to Hezbollah was indirect. The data received by secret services of Russia, first were transferred to Syria, as there is an agreement signed between Moscow and Damascus on cooperation of intelligences services and exchange of mutually interesting information. Besides it is marked that the Lebanese insurgents received the information on the Israeli troops from the surveillance centre, located in the Syrian part of the Golan heights and jointly supervised by the Syrian intelligence and Iranian experts. Unlike secret services of Russia with which the Syrian side does cooperate for a long time, arrangement with Iran has been reached only in the past year, adds Ha’aretz. Detailed information on the Russian secret services' ties with the Hezbollah was first published by AIA already in May 2005. Besides that, in Luly 2006, AIA prepared a broad analysis on the Russian-Syrian strategic cooperation, in the context of the Lebanon crisis.

Source: http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=1083

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Hizballah Shuts Reoccupied S. Lebanese Bases to Lebanese and UN forces

On Yom Kippur, Oct. 2, 24 hours after the last Israeli soldier left South Lebanon and the day before UNIFIL published its rules of engagement, Hizballah placed roadblocks on all the approaches to the central sector of the South and the entrances to the towns and villages reoccupied by its forces and their rocket units. These enclaves were declared “closed military zones.”

DEBKAfile’s exclusive military and Western intelligence sources report that neither the Lebanese army which moved south nor the international peacekeepers of UNIFIL venture to set foot in these enclaves. Nor did they raise a finger to block the first broad-daylight consignment of advanced Iranian weapons to be delivered in Lebanon via Syria since the August 14 ceasefire. This coordinated Hizballah-Iranian-Syrian ploy has brought into question the point of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which was to prevent the resumption of hostilities and Hizballah’s rearmament while helping the Beirut government and army assert its sovereignty in the South. It has also made a mockery of the UN Force and its missions. These developments effectively assign UN Security Council resolution 1701 to the same dustbin as resolution 1559 which ordered Hizballah disarmed.

It is especially noted that the Israeli government has made no military or diplomatic response to these violations, or even informed the public that Hizballah has redeployed in the precise positions from which it blitzed Haifa, Nahariya, Carmiel, Acre and W. Galilee for more than a month. Tuesday, Oct. 3, after Hizballah completed its redeployment, the southern commander who orchestrated the rocket bombardment of Israel, Sheikh Nabil Qauq, made his first appearance since the war. He announced that his forces had regrouped, fully armed and in command of rocket supplies, in exactly the same positions facing the Israeli border as they had occupied when they went to war on July 12. This statement is fully confirmed by DEBKAfile’s military and W. intelligence sources which locate the enclaves Hizballah has cordoned off as closed military zones:

1. Majdal Zoun south of Tyre, from which Nahariya, Acre, Carmiel and Western Galilee were bombed. The Nasser rocket brigade has returned to its posts there with a fresh supply of rockets, as well as the launchers and crews which escaped Israeli counter-attack.

2. Jouaiya, the strategic village occupied by the IDF during the war, has been roped into the Majdal Zoun “military area,” providing Hizballah with full military control of the Tyre district and the ability to bombard UNIFIL headquarters and bases.

3. Siddiquine south of Kana.

4. Deir Amess.

5. The road approaches to the large village of Tebnin in the central sector of the South are blocked.

Our military experts explain that control of Sidiquine, Deir Amess and Tebnin afford Hizballah’s military deployment command of the strategic Jabel Amel mountain region, and its focal points of Haris, Kafra and Aita e-Zott villages. From there, Hizballah fired rockets at Haifa. They were also the centers of the advanced electronic sites from which Hizballah tracked Israeli troop movements across the border and eavesdropped on their signals. DEBKAfile’s sources also provide detailed information on the Iranian-Syrian arms supplies sent openly into Lebanon on Oct. 2.

In early September, DEBKAfile began reporting on the 25 Hizballah arms dumps maintained for easy access on the Syrian side of the Lebanese border. Damascus was thus technically complicit with the 1701 arms embargo. The Syrian Al Qusayr air base south of Homs and opposite the Lebanese town of Hermel was given over for the use of the forward Iranian Revolutionary Guards command. Since the ceasefire, Iranian air transports have been landing arms for Hizballah at this facility almost daily. Saturday, Sept 30, Syrian military supplies and maintenance units at this air base prepared a convoy of six trucks for a trial run to test the response. Two were fully loaded with miscellaneous rockets, including Katyusha, anti-air and anti-tank missiles, four with mortars, heavy machine guns and ammunition.

This convoy crossed the border at a central road junction connecting the Syrian village of Qusayr with Mt. Lebanon, and headed southwest to Hermel. Another two arms convoys stood by on the Syrian side of the border, waiting to see if the first one was allowed through. Since both the IDF and UNIFIL sat on their hands, the next two will soon follow. What the international forces did next on Tuesday night Oct. 3 was to publish its rules of engagement These are the main clauses: The force's commanders have sufficient authority to act forcefully when confronted with hostile activity of any kind. UNIFIL personnel may exercise the inherent right of self-defense, as well as "the use of force beyond self-defense to ensure that UNIFIL's area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities."

The peacekeepers also may use force "to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent UNIFIL from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, to protect U.N. personnel, facilities, installations and equipment and to ensure the security and freedom of movement of U.N. personnel and humanitarian workers." Also the use of force may be applied "to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence in its areas of deployment, within its capabilities."

DEBKAfile notes that all these locutions are open to broad interpretation. For instance, “hostile activity” could apply to an attack from outer space since there is no mention of “Hizballah,” “Syria or “Iran.” The “arms embargo” ordered by Resolution 1701 is another unmentionable. “The civilians” to be protected are likewise undefined. UNIFIL’s commander has full discretion to decide whether or not it is aplicable to a Hizballlah rocket attack on Nahariya.

Since UN commanders have state explicitly they will only act with the permission of the Lebanese government and army (in which Hizballah holds the power of veto), there is no way that the international force can carry out its duties as mandated by the UN Security Council. The Olmert government fully colludes in reducing this body to the same ineffectiveness as it displayed in the 28 years leading up to the Lebanon War. By their silence and passivity, Israeli leaders hope to hide the true outcome of that bungled campaign from Israeli and world opinion. Foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who proudly held up the UN force’s deployment as the war’s only success and the formula for Israel’s successful exit strategy, has been strangely struck dumb.

Source: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1217

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Israel Quits Lebanon Leaving Hizballah Back in the Saddle under UN Auspices

DEBKAfile’s military sources saw the Iast Israeli soldier quit Lebanon before dawn of Oct. 1, Yom Kippur eve, leaving in captivity Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the two soldiers whose abduction by Hizballah provoked the 34-day Lebanon war on July 12. Only one third of the 15,000 international peacekeepers the UN Security Council pledged for an expanded UNIFIL has in fact been deployed in South Lebanon. And even that paltry force has made no effort to stop Hizballah restoring its presence and replenishing its stocks of rockets and missiles to points in South Lebanon within firing range of Israel. In most ways, therefore, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of Aug. 14 is a dead letter. While withdrawing the bulk of its force gradually, Israel kept the last units behind in a futile effort to persuade UNIFIL commanders to uphold key provisions of the resolution. They refused even the minimal demand to restrict Hizballah’s military movements along the Israeli border. They claimed they could only act with the permission of the Lebanese government. By finally giving way on this point, the Israeli government accepted the determination that UNIFIL is the instrument of the Lebanese government - not the enforcer of UN resolutions or Israeli security.

This concession makes nonsense of the claim that the most important gain of the Lebanon operation was the removal of Hizballah’s fighting forces from access to the Israeli border. This claim was made in a desperate attempt by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, defense minister Amir Peretz and chief of staff Lt.-Gen Dan Halutz, to justify the war and its losses. Looking slightly further ahead, Israel’s policy-makers had better hurry up and form a plan to meet an exacerbated threat from Lebanon, the possible displacement of the Fouad Siniora government in Beirut with a pro-Syrian, Hizballah-dominated administration. This further deterioration in Israel’s national security situation is far from being a remote hypothesis.

Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah used the war to forge alliances with the Lebanese parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri, head of the rival Shiite movement Amal, and the Christian Maronite strongman Michel Aoun. This bloc intends to make a bid to install a pro-Syrian government after Ramadan is over next month. Our sources in Beirut report a last-minute US-French initiative to frustrate this development. Siniora had his interior minister Ahmed Fatfat posted decree No. 2403 for Lebanon’s five intelligence and security agencies to pool their intelligence data and so provide his government and national army with the means of asserting control over national security. Two pro-Syrian officers, General Security chief Wafic Jezzini, and Director-General of Internal Security forces, Maj.-Gen Ashraf Rifi, stamped hard on this decree. The Siniora government was thus denied a key resource for dominating the country at large, not just the South, and is more vulnerable than ever to a hostile push.

As for Israel’s policy-makers, their handling of the bargaining with UNIFIL was as muddled, vacillating and feeble as their conduct of the Lebanon war itself. By accepting the Aug. 14 truce, they agreed to handing over the Lebanese-Israeli border to an international peacekeeping force without teeth; its rules of engagement are so constrictive that without Lebanese government authorization its members may not fire a single shot - even when necessary to prevent Hizballah moving back to its former aggressive positions or smuggling in fresh supplies of weapons – both of which are out-and-out violations of the same Resolution 1701 which mandated its own deployment. By removing its troops in keeping with that same resolution, Israel has bargained away its last option for extracting information about the fate of the two soldiers seized by Hizballah; Red Cross access has brusquely refused.

In the view of DEBKAfile’s political sources, the last IDF units were kept in Lebanon after the truce for no discernible military or diplomatic purpose but to lull the Israeli public into not looking too closely at their leaders’ feeble negotiating stance and assuming Israel was still a strong player on the Lebanese scene. By Yom Kippur eve, most people were caught up in seasonal pursuits and less inclined to continue their painful in-depth calculation of the war’s net results. Those results can be summed up in four negative developments which the Olmert government failed to thwart:

1. The wholesale smuggling through Syria of fresh weapons supplies to Hizballah from Syria and Iran, which neither the Lebanese army nor UNIFIL is lifting a finger to stop despite an explicit UN embargo. The heads of Israel’s government neglected to draw lessons from the failed deal on the Gaza crossings and the Philadelphi route, which never prevented arms flowing freely from Egyptian Sinai to Palestinian terrorists, notably the ruling Hamas. Syria stays technically in the clear of the UN arms embargo by setting up huge arms dumps on its border with Lebanon, ready to be pushed across at a moment’s notice by land.

2. Expanded UNIFIL, which Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni did her best to present as a force with teeth, rather than monitoring Hizballah’s movements and disarming its combatants, is busy monitoring the feuds of Lebanese political and military factions. 3. These international units refrain from entering S. Lebanese villages. There is therefore no hindrance to Hizballah re-occupying those villages and restoring its strongholds within range of the Israeli border. The UN force is not setting up checkpoints to control banned traffic in the South. At best, the units are using makeshift roadblocks which go up for an hour at most before being removed and leaving Hizballah a free field for moving around the South.

4. The naval blockade against illegal arms imports, purportedly maintained by French, Italian, German and Greek war vessels, is about effective as UNIFIL’s ephemeral roadblocks. Their governments consented to the vessels being barred from entering Lebanese territorial waters. And so a strip of ocean 12 miles wide up to the Lebanese coast remains wide open for Hizballah’s arms ships to freely ply the route between Syrian and Lebanese ports. Anxious to turn disaffected popular attention away from Hizballah’s recovery under the benign auspices of the UN’s European contingents, Israeli ministers and military chiefs have been debating out loud the need to carry out a major ground operation in the Gaza Strip, whence Qassam missiles continue to be fired into Israeli communities and where the Palestinians are building up their arms stocks, unhindered by international monitors and Egyptian police.

Source: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1215

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

French tanks obstruct Israeli tanks over suspected Hizballah robbery of Israeli weapons store

The south Lebanese village of Merwahin was the stage Thursday, Sept 28 of the first near-showdown between UN and Israeli forces. DEBKAfile publishes here the first photo of an encounter between 4 French Leclerc (see picture above) and at least 5 Israeli Merkava tanks in that Lebanese village. Despite the photographic evidence, Israel officially denies the incident. DEBKAfile reports the French force sought to prevent the Israeli unit from combing through the Hizballah-dominated village in search of the raiders who crossed into Israel and broke into the IDF’s Kibbutz Shomera arms store last week. They made off with a large quantity of side-arms, anti-tank weapons, LAU rockets and hundreds of combat grenades, which the Israeli force was determined to recover. American and German correspondents who witnessed the incident report that the two tank units held menacing positions 50 meters apart for about half an hour, after which the French tanks broke off contact and turned tail. The French commander claims the Israel tanks retreated first. DEBKAfile’s military sources note that this was the second incidence of French backing for Hizballah. On Sept 22, French fighter jets were seen cruising in Beirut’s skies above the podium of Hassan Nasrallah’s “victory speech.” He boasted then that he was not afraid to address the masses directly instead of through armored glass.

Source: http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3324