[Winning hearts and minds] Marines to train at new Israeli combat center ...

Marines to train at new Israeli combat center | By Barbara Opall-Rome - Staff writer | Posted : Monday Jun 25, 2007 19:46:09 EDT

BALADIA CITY, Israel — In a new, elaborate training center in the Negev desert, Israeli troops — and someday, U.S. Marines and soldiers — are preparing for the wide range of urban scenarios they may confront.

Here, at Israel’s new National Urban Training Center, the Israeli Defense Force’s Ground Forces Command is preparing forces to fight in four theaters: Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank and Syria.

Built by the Army Corps of Engineers and funded largely from U.S. military aid, the 7.4-square-mile generic city — balad, in Arabic, means village — consists of 1,100 basic modules that can be reconfigured by mission planners to represent specific towns. ..

arrest warrants German authorities have issued against 10 CIA agents have strained German-American relations ... [First Italy, now Germany]

June 25, 2007 | RENDITIONS SCANDAL | CIA Arrest Warrants Strain US-German Ties | By John Goetz, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark

The arrest warrants German authorities have issued against 10 CIA agents have strained German-American relations. Now, prosecutors in Munich want the agents extradited to Germany so they can stand trial for their alleged roles in the illegal kidnapping of terror suspects.
...
Difficult Deliberations in Berlin

Officials in Washington have since realized that the German investigation is more than just a symbolic act. This week in Berlin, a group of senior officials from the interior, foreign and justice ministries will meet to discuss the sensitive issue of how the German government should handle the Munich petition for "arrest for the purposes of extradition." There is general agreement within the government in Berlin that the request should be promptly delivered to the Bush administration, which would be tantamount to an official request for the arrest of the men being sought. ...

Who runs American Foreign Policy?

"One of the big problems is - and here goes the grenade - ISRAEL!

The second you mention the word "ISRAEL" - the nation "ISRAEL," the concept "ISRAEL," many in the American press become defensive.

We're not allowed to be critical of the state of israel.

And the other thing we're not allowed to do is discuss the notion that israel and the notion of israeli interests may in fact be dictating what America is doing."

May???

Get real Scott - there is no question about

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise"... "criminal." ...

Jun. 19, 2007 17:00 | Updated Jun. 19, 2007 23:53 | Carter: Stop favoring Fatah over Hamas | By ASSOCIATED PRESS | DUBLIN, Ireland

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."
...
Carter said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in the West Bank, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."
...
Carter said that election was "orderly and fair" and Hamas triumphed, in part, because it was "shrewd in selecting candidates," whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.

Far from encouraging Hamas's move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, has sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.

"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.
...
He said plans to reopen international aid to the West Bank, but clamp down on aid to Gaza, would imprison 1.4 million Gazans. He called for both territories to be treated equally.

[Hamas] 'We are the legitimate government' : [Fatah] opened fire on the Council of Ministers and fired a rocket at the prime minister's residence

Isma'il Haniyah: 'We are the legitimate government' | Publié le 19 juin 2007

Interview with Palestinian [National] Authority Prime Minister Isma'il Haniyah by Patrick de Saint-Paul in Gaza.

Some people accuse Hamas of having carried out a coup d'etat in the Gaza Strip. How do you reply to that?

I reply to them with a question: a coup d'etat against whom? Against ourselves? We embody legitimacy. We are the legitimate government, resulting from a democratically elected parliament. Why take control of Gaza by force?

Following the signing of the Mecca inter-Palestinian agreements, which permitted the formation of a national unity government, a propaganda war was launched against Hamas. Fatah has behaved with certain security services as though they were a militia affiliated to it. Once they were deployed in the streets, the services setup roadblocks, arrested and killed people because of their membership of a party, because they wore beards. They behaved like pirates. Then they opened fire on the Council of Ministers and fired a rocket at the prime minister's residence. It was necessary to put a stop to this security disorder. Calm will return and I think that the security situation will be much better than before. Now there will be only one legitimate weapon. We will make discipline and law reign in Gaza. It will thus be easier to secure the release of British journalist Allan Johnston. His kidnappers will heed us more. ...

U.S. officials pushed Abbas into giving Hamas's nemesis, Dahlan, control over security and then pushed him to deploy Fatah forces in Gaza.

FEATURE-After Gaza, some question who was overthrowing whom | 17 Jun 2007 13:28:44 GMT | Source: Reuters | By Adam Entous

JERUSALEM, June 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. government began to lay the ground for President Mahmoud Abbas to dismiss the Hamas-led Palestinian government at least a year before the Islamist group's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last week.

Western, Israeli and Palestinian official sources said over the weekend that, far from being an ad hoc response to Hamas's offensive, Abbas's declaration of a state of emergency and his replacement of a Hamas prime minister with Western favourite Salam Fayyad marked the culmination of months of backroom deliberations, planning and U.S. prodding.

In the end, pressure on Abbas to act against Hamas was as great -- if not greater -- from within his own Fatah faction as from Washington, which is seeking to play down its own role.

Only the triggering event, resulting in total Hamas control of the Gaza Strip, can be said to have come as a nasty surprise to the Americans. It left in tatters plans by U.S. and Arab allies to build up Abbas's own forces in Gaza against Hamas.

Many Western officials and analysts see the offensive as a pre-emptive strike by Hamas before Washington could build up Fatah. Hamas says it made its move against a U.S.-backed "coup".

"(Hamas leaders) knew what was going on," one senior Western diplomat said. "They knew Abbas was going to try to establish his authority. They read it in the paper like everyone else."

Exactly who was overthrowing whom is a fair question, said International Crisis Group analyst Mouin Rabbani.

"Hamas would argue they were merely defending their election victory whereas Abbas would claim he's defending the legitimacy of Palestinian institutions," he said. "You had powerful elements within Hamas who thought time was against them."

Edward Abington, Abbas's long-time adviser and Washington lobbyist, said the Bush administration made its intentions known to the president soon after Hamas was elected in early 2006. Abbas was told "Hamas is an illegitimate organisation and that they are doing everything they can to force it out of power".
...
Current and former U.S. officials deny that overthrowing the government itself was their goal in cutting off funds last year to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority while quietly directing cash to try to rebuild Fatah and prepare for new elections.

They say Washington's goal was to starve Hamas of financial and diplomatic support so it would fail in the eyes of voters.
...
Some Western and Palestinian officials argue Washington fanned the flames as soon as Hamas and Fatah formed a short-lived "unity" government in March. U.S. officials pushed Abbas into giving Hamas's nemesis, Mohammad Dahlan, control over security and then pushed him to deploy Fatah forces in Gaza.

Abington, a former U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, said: "For us to be seen so clearly backing one armed Palestinian military against another is a very dangerous proposition, and in the case of Gaza, has failed totally." ...

US policy has largely backfired and added to the region's downward spiral of violence and economic troubles

The US role in Mideast travails | Extremists' rise can be traced in part to Bush policy, analysts say. | By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - When Israel blasted southern Lebanon last summer in response to rocket attacks by the Islamist group Hizbullah, President Bush spoke of a "clarifying moment" in the Middle East. People everywhere, he said, would be able to grasp the dangers posed by "groups of terrorists trying to stop the advance of democracy" in Lebanon, Iraq, or the Palestinian territories.

Almost a year later, however, much of the Middle East seems only further down the path of radicalization and chaos, as events of the past week demonstrate – starting with the violent seizure of control of the Gaza Strip by Hamas. For a growing number of analysts, if the past year has brought any clarity, it is that US policy has largely backfired and added to the region's downward spiral of violence and economic troubles.
...
Indeed, some of the radical organizations in the region, such as Hamas in Gaza, have done a better job of delivering services, with less corruption, than governments.

"There's more than enough blame to go around for the predicament [the region] is in. But you have this undeniable situation among the Palestinians where those who are moderate are not effective, and those who are effective are not moderate," says David Makovsky, an expert in the Middle East peace process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Added to this list of contributing factors is US policy, according to some analysts. Gerges, who has been a Carnegie scholar for the past year teaching in Egypt, says US involvement in Iraq has earned it the image of occupier, even as it abandoned its traditional role as catalyst for the Middle East peace process.

Alterman concurs that people in the region have increasingly perceived the US in a different way. "Arabs don't see the US as taking a hands-off approach. They see the US protecting the status quo, by supporting and legitimizing unpopular governments. They see US support for internal security services that practice torture," he says.
...
The US approach to the Hamas electoral victory in January 2006 is a case in point for many analysts. The US pressed for elections and then condemned the results, looking hypocritical about its support for democracy, they say. The US then boycotted a Hamas-led government, cutting off international funding – and effectively driving more Palestinians into Iran's waiting arms, some add.
...
"It's tempting to think that this is another clarifying moment, that you can build up some kind of Fatah-land as the Palestinian promised land, and reduce this radical Hamas-stan to a place of suffering, and then they'll understand," he says.

"But it's unlikely to work that way, because it's unrealistic to expect Palestinian leaders to play that game, and because the Palestinians are still one people," Levy says. "And then beyond all that, let's not forget where the last clarifying moment got us in Lebanon," referring to the increasing alienation that people in the region have felt in the past year toward moderate solutions and the US.

Hamas leaders decided that they had no alternative ... as the US orders Israel to deliver arms to Fatah ...

June 16 / 17, 2007 | Crocodile Tears | The Gaza Cage | By URI AVNERY

WHAT HAPPENS when one and a half million human beings are imprisoned in a tiny, arid territory, cut off from their compatriots and from any contact with the outside world, starved by an economic blockade and unable to feed their families?

Some months ago, I described this situation as a sociological experiment set up by Israel, the United States and the European Union. The population of the Gaza Strip as guinea pigs.

This week, the experiment showed results. They proved that human beings react exactly like other animals: when too many of them are crowded into a small area in miserable conditions, they become aggressive, and even murderous. The organizers of the experiment in Jerusalem, Washington, Berlin, Oslo, Ottawa and other capitals could rub their hands in satisfaction. The subjects of the experiment reacted as foreseen. Many of them even died in the interests of science.

But the experiment is not yet over. The scientists want to know what happens if the blockade is tightened still further.
...
WHAT HAS caused the present explosion in the Gaza Strip?

The timing of Hamas' decision to take over the Strip by force was not accidental. Hamas had many good reasons to avoid it. The organization is unable to feed the population. It has no interest in provoking the Egyptian regime, which is busy fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother--organization of Hamas. Also, the organization has no interest in providing Israel with a pretext for tightening the blockade.

But the Hamas leaders decided that they had no alternative but to destroy the armed organizations that are tied to Fatah and take their orders from President Mahmoud Abbas. The US has ordered Israel to supply these organizations with large quantities of weapons, in order to enable them to fight Hamas. The Israeli army chiefs did not like the idea, fearing that the arms might end up in the hands of Hamas (as is actually happening now). But our government obeyed American orders, as usual.

The American aim is clear. President Bush has chosen a local leader for every Muslim country, who will rule it under American protection and follow American orders. In Iraq, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, and also in Palestine.
...
The Gaza population supports Hamas, because they believe that it is fighting the Israeli occupier. Their opponents look like collaborators of the occupation. The American statements about their intention of arming them with Israeli weapons have finally condemned them.

That is not a matter of Islamic fundamentalism. In this respect all nations are the same: they hate collaborators of a foreign occupier, whether they are Norwegian (Quisling), French (Petain) or Palestinian.
...
But Arafat was pilloried by Israel as a monster, imprisoned in the Mukata'ah and, in the end, murdered. The Palestinian public elected Mahmoud Abbas as his successor, hoping that he would get from the Americans and the Israelis what they had refused to give to Arafat.
If the leaders in Washington and Jerusalem had indeed been interested in peace, they would have hastened to sign a peace agreement with Abbas, who had declared that he was ready to accept the same far--reaching compromise as Arafat. The Americans and the Israelis heaped on him all conceivable praise and rebuffed him on every concrete issue.

They did not allow Abbas even the slightest and most miserable achievement. Ariel Sharon plucked his feathers and then sneered at him as "a featherless chicken". After the Palestinian public had patiently waited in vain for Bush to move, it voted for Hamas, in the desperate hope of achieving by violence what Abbas has been unable to achieve by diplomacy.
...
The turning of the Gaza Strip into Hamastan has created a situation for which our leaders were not ready. What to do now? To cut off Gaza altogether and let the people there starve to death? To establish contacts with Hamas? To occupy Gaza again, now that it has become one big tank trap? To ask the UN to station international troops there -- and if so, how many countries would be crazy enough to risk their soldiers in this hell?
...
Successive Israeli governments have destroyed Fatah systematically, cut off the feet of Abbas and prepared the way for Hamas. They can't pretend to be surprised.
...
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

The Israel which goes on building - vast settlements for Jews only on Arab land, gobbling up even more of the 22 per cent of “Palestine"

Saturday, June 16, 2007 by The Independent/UK | Welcome to ‘Palestine’ | by Robert Fisk

How troublesome the Muslims of the Middle East are. First, we demand that the Palestinians embrace democracy and then they elect the wrong party - Hamas - and then Hamas wins a mini-civil war and presides over the Gaza Strip. And we Westerners still want to negotiate with the discredited President, Mahmoud Abbas. Today “Palestine” - and let’s keep those quotation marks in place - has two prime ministers. Welcome to the Middle East.

Who can we negotiate with? To whom do we talk? Well of course, we should have talked to Hamas months ago. But we didn’t like the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. They were supposed to have voted for Fatah and its corrupt leadership. But they voted for Hamas, which declines to recognise Israel or abide by the totally discredited Oslo agreement.

No one asked - on our side - which particular Israel Hamas was supposed to recognise. The Israel of 1948? The Israel of the post-1967 borders? The Israel which builds - and goes on building - vast settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land, gobbling up even more of the 22 per cent of “Palestine” still left to negotiate over ?

And so today, we are supposed to talk to our faithful policeman, Mr Abbas, the “moderate” (as the BBC, CNN and Fox News refer to him) Palestinian leader, a man a “leader” we can trust because he wears a tie and goes to the White House and says all the right things. The Palestinians didn’t vote for Hamas because they wanted an Islamic republic - which is how Hamas’s bloody victory will be represented - but because they were tired of the corruption of Mr Abbas’s Fatah and the rotten nature of the “Palestinian Authority”.

...

All over the Middle East, it is the same. We support Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, even though he keeps warlords and drug barons in his government (and, by the way, we really are sorry about all those innocent Afghan civilians we are killing in our “war on terror” in the wastelands of Helmand province).

We love Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whose torturers have not yet finished with the Muslim Brotherhood politicians recently arrested outside Cairo, whose presidency received the warm support of Mrs - yes Mrs - George W Bush - and whose succession will almost certainly pass to his son, Gamal. ...

...
For that is what it is about - control - and that is why we hold out, and withdraw, favours from their leaders. Now Gaza belongs to Hamas, what will our own elected leaders do? Will our pontificators in the EU, the UN, Washington and Moscow now have to talk to these wretched, ungrateful people (fear not, for they will not be able to shake hands) or will they have to acknowledge the West Bank version of Palestine (Abbas, the safe pair of hands) while ignoring the elected, militarily successful Hamas in Gaza? ...

“Hamas spokesmen said the movement had no political goal except to defend itself from a group within Fatah collaborating with Israel and the US

Friday, June 15, 2007 by CommonDreams.org | US and Israel Stir Up Palestinian Crisis | by Ira Chernus

It’s so obvious that Fatah and Hamas should work together to achieve an independent Palestine. Not long ago, they were proclaiming their unity. So why are they now destroying each other? If you get your news from the mainstream U.S. media, you might well think that they are just two irrational factions, driven crazy by lust for power.

But if you know how to read between the lines, even our mainstream media tell a much more complicated story, one that implicates Israel and the U.S. government too. All the quotes that follow are from reporting on the crisis in the mainstream’s flagship newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

“An Israeli analyst of Palestinian affairs, Danny Rubinstein, said the ‘primary reason for the break-up is the fact that Fatah has refused to fully share the Palestinian Authority’s mechanism of power with its rival Hamas, despite Hamas’s decisive victory in the January 2006 general elections.’” “Fatah leaders failed to heed warnings that the party’s corruption and arrogance were alienating voters.” “Fatah ‘was forced to overrule Palestinian voters because the entire world demanded it do so,’ Mr. Rubinstein added. ‘Matters have come to the point where Hamas attempted to take by force what they believe they rightfully deserve.’”

The U.S. and Israel have led the world in forcing Fatah to resist Hamas’ democractically-won power. In a just-released document, “the United Nations’ former top Middle East envoy has sharply criticized U.S. and Israeli efforts to isolate the Hamas-led Palestinian government, saying the policy has further radicalized Palestinian opinion and undercut long-term efforts to establish a viable Palestinian state. The broadside by Alvaro de Soto was contained in a confidential 52-page report he filed before resigning from the United Nations last month. Starting in May 2005, de Soto directed U.N. efforts to ease the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” “With all the focus on the failings of Hamas,” De Soto observed, “the Israeli settlement enterprise and barrier construction has continued unabated.”

But Hamas’ complaint is more specific. “Hamas wants a restored unity government where the security forces would all report to the interior minister.” Why is that so important? The security forces have been controlled by Fatah and its security chief Mohammed Dahlan. “During 12 years in power, Fatah had repeatedly cracked down on the [Hamas] Islamists, including in 1996 when the Preventive Security Service, then led by Dahlan, arrested Hamas leaders.” “Many of those who were imprisoned remember the treatment they received as cruel and humiliating.”

Now “Hamas spokesmen said the movement had no political goal except to defend itself from a group within Fatah collaborating with Israel and the United States. They said they wanted to bring the security forces under the control of the unity government.” “A Hamas spokesman said the movement was defending itself, not reaching for unalloyed power. He said Hamas ‘is doing the work that Fatah failed to do, to control these [security] groups,’ whom he accused of crimes, chaos and collaboration with Israel and the United States.”

...

In the midst of the current crisis, the Bush administration continues to take sides and stir up the conflict. “Administration officials were pushing Mr. Abbas to dissolve the power-sharing agreement between Fatah and Hamas [and] dismiss the entire government.” When Abbas did just that, “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed support for Mr. Abbas’s decrees.” Also, “administration officials were weighing the possibility of … pressuring Egypt to seal the tunnels leading from its territory into Gaza; American and Israeli officials say the tunnels are often used to smuggle weapons to Hamas. One administration official suggested Wednesday that the United States might then try to prod Israel into taking down Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a way to shore up Mr. Abbas.” ...

Bush attends Neo-Conservative International ... along with Sharansky -- Palestinian opponent

A Neo-Conservative International Targets Iran | posted on Saturday, June 9th, 2007

Before the week is out, it’s worth noting the “Democracy & Security” conference in Prague last Monday and Tuesday where Bush, on his way to the G-8 Summit in Heiligendamm, confirmed once more — just in case his tightening embrace over the past year of Sunni-led authoritarian regimes around the Middle East had provoked any doubts — his commitment to spreading freedom and defeating tyranny throughout the world, particularly in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. Held under the auspices of the Czech Foreign Ministry and Prague’s municipal government, the meeting was organized by the Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI), the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Likudist Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and Spain’s Foundation for Social Studies and Analysis (FAES) headed by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.
...

The conference’s official website can be found here and is certainly worth a visit as are the program, and the list of participants, ...

Heralded last month by the Weekly Standard (whose editor, Bill Kristol, serves on the Shalem Foundation’s board of directors) in an article entitled “Dissidents Unite!,” the conference was convened by former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, Aznar, and the former president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel.

Sharansky, chairman of both the Adelson Institute and of One Jerusalem, a group created to oppose any move under the Oslo peace process to to recognise Palestinian sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, is a former Soviet refusenik whose 2004 book, ‘The Case for Democracy,’ helped inspire Bush’s ringing 2005 Inaugural Address (even if Sharansky’s own democratic credentials ring a little hollow. Aznar and Havel are co-chairs of the “international” section of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), which was launched by FDD in June 2004 and whose website is www.fightingterror.org. Sen. Joe Lieberman, an honorary co-chairman of CPD, keynoted the opening session. In other words, the conference constituted a kind of “Neo-Conservative International” designed to rally support for “dissidents,” primarily from the Islamic world, and give them hope that “regime change” in their countries is possible much as it was in the former Soviet bloc almost 20 years ago.

Indeed, besides FDD’s May, Sharansky and Lieberman, a familiar clutch of U.S. hawks took part in the proceedings, including an all-star contingent from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) consisting of Richard Perle, Michael Rubin, Michael Novak, Joshua Muravchik, and Reuel Marc Gerecht; Herb London, John O’Sullivan, and Anne Bayefsky from the Hudson Institute; Bruce Jackson a former director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC); Tod Lindberg of the Hoover Institution; the FDD’s Walid Phares; and Devon Cross, a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board (DPB), director of the London-based Policy Forum on International Security, and sister of Frank Gaffney, the president of the ultra-hawkish Center for Security Policy (CSP). A close Gaffney associate and co-founder of PSSI, Roger W. Robinson, Jr., who is also a leading figure in the Iran divestment campaign here, was also in attendance, along with some major funders of pro-Likud, neo-conservative groups, such as Nina Rosenwald, Ronald Lauder, as well as Miriam and Sheldon Adelson.

In addition to Bush himself, other U.S. government officials who participated in the conference included Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes; the new president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and AEI alumnus, Jeffrey Gedmin; Harold Rhode, a Pentagon official and close associate of AEI’s Michael Ledeen who was involved in back-channel talks with Manucher Ghorbanifar about encouraging “regime change” in Iran in 2003; and Joe Wood, identified in the participants’ list as the deputy assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs in the Office of the Vice President at the White House. ...

accused the US of using undue pressure to impose a one-sided pro-Israeli agenda ... suggests UN withdraw from quartet

UN envoy blasts US for pro-Israeli agenda | By Harvey Morris in Jerusalem | Published: June 13 2007 16:47 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:14

The United Nations’ outgoing Middle East envoy has accused the US of using undue pressure to impose a one-sided pro-Israeli agenda on diplomacy in the region and urged Ban Ki-Moon, UN secretary-general, to consider pulling out of the international peace Quartet.

In a hard-hitting confidential report, intended for internal UN consumption, Alvaro de Soto, a veteran Peruvian diplomat who quit his Jerusalem-based post in May, said the Bush administration had forced through an international boycott of the Hamas government that had devastating consequences for the Palestinian people.

Relying on a “small clique of Palestinian interlocutors who tell them what they want to hear,” Washington was persuaded Hamas could be confronted and overthrown by its internal rivals.
...
In his 52-page report, Mr de Soto refers to a meeting at which two senior US officials, deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams and assistant secretary of state David Welch, exerted pressure through “ominous innuendo” about Congress’s ability to curb its funding of the UN.

He said the consequences of the policy of the Quartet – the UN, US, European Union and Russia – had been to “take all pressure off Israel. With all focus on the failings of Hamas, the Israeli settlement enterprise and barrier construction has continued unabated.”

De Gaulle 1967: Israel "is organising, on the territories ... an occupation ... resistance to this will be called "terrorism"

3 June 2007 22:24 | Robert Fisk: Lies and outrages... would you believe it?
It was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran | Published: 09 June 2007
...
It recalled vividly - and shamefully - how the world's newspapers covered the story of Egypt's "aggression" against Israel. In reality - Believe It or Not - it was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and ordered UN troops out of Sinai and Gaza following his vituperative threats to destroy Israel. "The Egyptians attack Israel," France-Soir told its readers on 5 June 1967, a whopper so big that it later amended its headline to "It's Middle East War!".

Quite so. Next day, the socialist Le Populaire headlined its story "Attacked on all sides, Israel resists victoriously". On the same day, Le Figaro carried an article announcing that "the victory of the army of David is one of the greatest of all time". Believe It or Not, the Second World War - which might be counted one of the greatest of all time, had ended only 22 years earlier.
...
Only the president of France, General de Gaulle, moved into political isolation by telling a press conference several months later that Israel "is organising, on the territories which it has taken, an occupation which cannot work without oppression, repression and expulsions - and if there appears resistance to this, it will in turn be called 'terrorism'". This accurate prophecy earned reproof from the Nouvel Observateur - to the effect that "Gaullist France has no friends; it has only interests". And Believe It or Not, with the exception of one small Christian paper, there was in the entire French press one missing word: Palestinians. ... ...

What's behind the calls for the U.S. to bomb Iran?

June 13, 2007 | It's All About Israel | What's behind the calls for the U.S. to bomb Iran?

I see that Zbigniew Brzezinski is stealing my ideas and not giving me credit, but, what the heck, I'm in a generous mood – and he puts his own gloss on it – so I don't mind (via Matthew Yglesias):

"Zbigniew Brzezinski at the conference says the U.S. and Israel should try to put their demands for Iranian disarmament in the context of support for a regional nuclear-free zone (i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament). After all, he says, if we're supposed to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran's nuclear program, then it obviously isn't a very valuable asset."

What good is the Israeli "deterrent" if it doesn't deter? A good question, perhaps answered by challenging the assumption that the nukes in the IDF's arsenal are at all defensive in nature or intent. The Israelis clearly intend to crouch behind their nuclear shield as they expand their sphere of influence, and this has been especially true since the implementation of the "Clean Break" scenario espoused by the Likudniks and their American co-thinkers. Growing Israeli influence in Kurdistan, recent incursions into Lebanon, and the purported ability of Israeli agents to penetrate Iran's borders attest to the success of their strategy. While American soldiers in Iraq take bullets from Sunni insurgents – and, increasingly, radical Shi'ite militias – the Israelis have been quietly (and not so quietly) taking the spoils of our Pyrrhic "victory." ...

...

The United States should apply the same standards to Israel as it does to Iran. If the Iranians must disarm, then so must the Israelis. If nukes in the hands of the mullahs are threatening, then they are no less so when wielded by ultra-nationalistic Zionists of the Likudnik persuasion. The current crisis provoked by the Iranian nuclear power program only highlights how utterly archaic our present policy in the region has become – and demonstrates that nuclear disarmament must be made a regional issue rather than a bludgeon with which to beat the Iranians.

Anyone who could argue, as Pollak has, that an American attack on Iran would not produce regional chaos has got to be smoking some pretty strong stuff. Not once does he mention the probable fate of the 150,000 or so American soldiers in Iraq who would surely be the objects of Shi'ite rage in response to the killing of thousands of their Iranian co-religionists. Apparently the lives of so many Americans make no difference to him. So much for his pretense of upholding American interests in the region.

This isn't about America, however, as Pollak makes all too clear. The current propaganda campaign on behalf of striking Iran – a campaign given a big boost by the Republican candidates for president, who, except for Ron Paul, favor hitting Iran with nukes – is all about Israel. It's as simple as that. ...

Resolution ... states that U.S. policy should recognize that Jerusalem is “the undivided capital of Israel.” ... against 5+ UN resolutions

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 by Foreign Policy In Focus | Jerusalem: Congress Endorses the Right of Conquest | by Stephen Zunes

In a flagrant attack on the longstanding international legal principle that it is illegitimate for any country to expand its territory by military means, the U.S. House of Representatives, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, passed House Concurrent Resolution 152 congratulating Israel for its forcible “reunification of Jerusalem” and its victory in the June 1967 war.

The resolution, passed by a voice vote on June 5 – the 40th anniversary of the Israeli conquest of East Jerusalem and other Arab territories – states that U.S. policy should recognize that Jerusalem is “the undivided capital of Israel.” There is no mention that Jerusalem – which has the largest Palestinian population of any city and which for centuries served as the commercial, cultural, education and religious center for Palestinian life – should also be recognized as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

The resolution was sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA), widely recognized as the Democratic Party’s chief foreign policy spokesman, and co-sponsored by such Democratic Party foreign policy leaders as Howard Berman (D-CA), Eliot Engel (D- NY), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), and Middle East subcommittee chairman Gary Ackerman (D-NY).

Israel has formally annexed East Jerusalem and surrounding lands, unlike the rest of the West Bank, which is either under the control of Israeli military administration or the Palestine Authority. No government outside Israel recognizes this illegal annexation or supports the idea of a Jerusalem united under exclusive Israeli sovereignty. International organizations and leaders of major religious bodies throughout the world have repeatedly stressed the importance of not allowing Israel’s unilateral takeover to remain unchallenged. UN Security Council resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 476 and 478 – passed without U.S. objections during both Democratic and Republican administrations – specifically call on Israel to rescind its annexation and other efforts to alter the city’s legal status. Given that Article 5 of resolution 478 specifically calls on all UN member states not to recognize Israel’s annexation efforts, the Democratic-controlled Congress is effectively calling on the Bush administration to put the United States in direct violation of the UN Security Council. ...

How can anyone dispute Putin’s analysis?

Putin’s Censored Press Conference: | The transcript you weren’t supposed to see | By Mike Whitney | 06/10/07
...
How can anyone dispute Putin’s analysis?

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has simply summarized the Bush Doctrine better than anyone else.

The Bush administration has increased its frontline American bases to five thousand men on Russia’s perimeter. Is this conduct of a “trustworthy ally”?

Also, NATO has deployed forces on Russia’s borders even while Putin has continued to fulfill his treaty obligations and move troops and military equipment hundreds of miles away.
As Putin said on Tuesday: “We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”
...
Putin: “AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two years ago, “don’t do this, you don’t need to do this. What are you doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps.” …we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these weapons.” We told them that “it would be better to look for other ways to fight terrorism than create low-yield nuclear weapons and lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they don’t listen to us. They are not looking for compromise. Their entire point of view can be summed-up in one sentence: ‘Whoever is not with us is against us.’”
...
Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian people. That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%. The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year. He’s lowered the number of people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half and will bring it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are growing by an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, “Combating poverty is one of our top priorities and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe.”
...
As for the Bush administration---Putin produced a copy of Amnesty International’s yearly report condemning the United States conduct in the war on terror. “I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report here, which includes a section on the United States,” he said. “The organization has concluded that the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE.”
...

What did we do to antagonize Russia? ... Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?

February 12, 2007 | Doesn’t Putin Have a Point? | By Patrick J. Buchanan
...
What did we do to antagonize Russia?

When the Cold War ended, we seized upon our "unipolar moment" as the lone superpower to seek geopolitical advantage at Russia's expense.

Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch.

Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?
...
We are living in a world of self-delusion.

Somewhere in this presidential campaign, someone has to bring us back to earth. The halcyon days of American Empire are over.

If Americans understood the enormity of the deception behind the invasion of Iraq ... and the pending attack on Iran ...

The Neoconservative Threat to American Freedom | By Paul Craig Roberts

06/11/07 "ICH " -- - The Bush/Cheney White House, which told the American people in 2003 that the Iraqi invasion would be a three to six week affair, now tells us that the US occupation is permanent. Forever.
...
The wild card is the neoconservatives and their long-standing alliance with Israeli Zionists. The neoconservatives still have a death grip on the discredited Bush regime. Jim Lobe (http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/) describes the extensive international organization that the neoconservatives have put into place for the purpose of orchestrating an attack on Iran.

A sane reader might wonder why neoconservatives would want to expand a conflict in which the US has failed. Surely, even delusional “cakewalk” neoconservatives must realize that attacking Iran would greatly increase the threat to US troops in Iraq and perhaps bring missile attacks on oil facilities and US bases throughout the Middle East. An attack on Iran would further radicalize Muslims and further undermine US puppets in the Middle East. It could bring war to the entire region.

The point is that the neoconservatives do realize this. Their defeat in Iraq and Israel’s defeat in Lebanon has taught the neoconservatives that the US cannot prevail in the Middle East by conventional military means. As I have previously explained, the neoconservatives’ plan is to escape the failure of their Iraq plan by orchestrating a war with Iran in which the US can prevail only by using nuclear weapons. As previously reported, the neoconservatives believe that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran will convince Muslims that they must accept US hegemony.

The neoconservatives have put the elements of their plan in place. They have powerful naval forces on station off Iran’s coast. They have convinced President Bush that only by attacking Iran can he prevail in Iraq.

The neoconservatives have rewritten US war doctrine to permit preemptive US nuclear attack on non-nuclear countries (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263). They have demonized Iran as the greatest threat since Hitler. Neoconservatives have invented “Islamofascism,” something that exists only in the neoconservative propaganda used to instill in Americans hatred of Muslims. The neoconservatives have dehumanized Muslims as monsters who must be destroyed at all costs. Recent statements by neoconservative leaders such as Norman Podhoretz read like the ravings of ignorant lunatics. Podhoretz has written Muslims out of the human race. He demands that their culture be deracinated.

Neoconservatives, convinced that a nuclear attack will bring Muslims to heel, are ignoring the likely blowback and unintended consequences of an attack on Iran, just as they ignored the likely consequences of their attack on Iraq. If the neoconservatives are mistaken in their assumption that nuclear weapons will cause Muslims to submit to the US, the consequences will be unmanageable.

The neoconservative Bush regime has got away with more than I thought possible, perhaps because most of Congress and the American public cannot imagine the degree of insanity that lies behind the Bush administration. Most Americans who have turned against the regime think that the administration is incompetent, that it jumped to wrong conclusions about Iraq, and that it mismanaged the war and will not admit its mistakes. As every reason Bush gave for the war has proven to be false, people see no point in continuing the struggle.

If Americans understood the enormity of the deception behind the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the pending attack on Iran, Bush and Cheney would be impeached and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, and AIPAC would be forced to register as a foreign agent.

Just as Goebbels said, some lies are too big to be disbelieved. It is this disbelief that is so dangerous. The inability of Americans to see through the Big Lie to the secret agenda allows the neoconservatives to escape accountability and to continue with their plot. ...

Iran to make U.S. "regret" detention of Iranians ... holding three U.S.-Iranians ... denies linkage ...

Iran to make U.S. "regret" detention of Iranians-FM | 12 Jun 2007 11:48:15 GMT | By Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN, June 12 (Reuters) - Iran will make the United States "regret" its detention of five Iranians in Iraq since early this year, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Tuesday.

Iran says the five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil in January are diplomats and has demanded their release. U.S. officials say they were involved in supporting militants inside Iraq.

"We will make the Americans regret their ugly and illegal action against the Islamic Republic of Iran's consulate in Arbil, Iraq, and the abduction of the five Iranian diplomats," Mottaki said, according to the state broadcaster's Web site.

Mottaki said the Foreign Ministry had "put on its agenda a series of widespread actions against these unlawful and illegal actions that are in contradiction with all international conventions," the ISNA news agency said, without giving details.

The issue has fuelled tension between the two foes, already high because of Iran's disputed nuclear programme which the West suspects is aimed at making atom bombs, a charge Iran denies.

Further souring ties, Iran is holding three U.S.-Iranians on security-related charges. Tehran has dismissed any suggestions their cases might be linked to the five Iranians held in Iraq.

Mottaki said Iran would write to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in the next few days complaining about the Security Council's "clear discrimination" in delaying putting the issue of the detained Iranians on its agenda. ...

The occupation ... has made Israel and its principal backer, the United States, the two most hated countries in the world. ...

The Victory that Wrecked Israel |Posted by Taki Theodoracopulos on June 05, 2007

William Buckley writes this week in his syndicated column about the ghosts of Vietnam watching us in Iraq. They sure are. Everyone in Europe seems to be writing about the 1967 Six-Day War, where Israel wiped out the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies in six quick days of mayhem. Only a brave few, on the other hand, have mentioned the U.S.S. Liberty, the American spy ship that was rocketed and strafed by the Israelis while it was in neutral waters, with great loss of American lives. LBJ quashed all inquiries following the unprovoked attack, and the Israeli lobby took care of the rest.
...

Israel had been rumored to be about to attack the Arabs by early spring 1967. ...

This was 40 long years ago. The Pyrrhic consequences of the occupation of Arab lands are obvious. There are now thousands of illegal settlements, there is terrorism and intensification of Palestinian nationalism, and an ever-deepening hatred between Jews and Palestinians. Only distrust prevails. A quarter of a million Israelis are squatting on Palestinian land, while terrible privations have been imposed on the local population. Was any of this worth it? Personally, I do not think so. The occupation has changed the Jewish character for the worse, and has made Israel and its principal backer, the United States, the two most hated countries in the world. As the saying goes, no one has ever cried more bitter tears than the one who had their prayers answered. ...

Zinni ... has stated that the United States invaded Iraq for Israel and oil ... reason for 9/11 ...

Monday, June 11, 2007 | The High Cost of Subservience to Israel June 8, 2007 | By Paul Findley

In the greatest service of his long public life, former President Jimmy Carter warns of the grave consequences of America's phenomenal subservience to Israel. In his latest book and recent lectures, he focuses on how Israel's cruel occupation, made possible by massive and unconditional U.S. support, has subjected the Palestinian people to terrible suffering for forty long years. Beyond that grave human tragedy, candid observers must cite U.S. complicity in Israeli lawlessness as the major factor that prompted the horror of 9/11 and lured America into launching three costly, wrong-headed, and failing wars – Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror.

The linkage is easily identified.

America's support of Israel's brutality was the main motivation for 9/11. It was the ultimate expression of Arab fury over America's double standard that routinely ignores Israeli violations of Arab human rights. Nine-eleven would not have happened if any U.S. president in the last forty years had refused to finance Israel's humiliation and destruction of Palestine. Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst now a consultant to CBS News, recently told a congressional committee that "our unqualified support of Israel" was the main reason for 9/11. Marine General Anthony Zinni, President George W. Bush's first special envoy to the Middle East, has stated that the United States invaded Iraq for Israel and oil. Osama bin Laden repeatedly said it was payback for U.S. support of Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs and for U.S. complicity in 1982 when Israeli forces used U.S.-donated munitions to massacre over 18,000 innocent Arabs in Lebanon.

The U.S. acts of war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror were President Bush's retaliation for 9/11. Israel – and only Israel – urged the United States to invade Iraq. Israel's lobby in Washington pushed hard and prevailed. To our foreign critics, these wars focus on killing people outraged by our pro-Israel bias. Our government has done nothing to redress the grievances of Israel's victims.

Despite this grim record, U.S. subservience to the wishes of Israel's leaders does not change. Unconditional aid to Israel keeps flowing, as does Israel's savage treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs. Moreover, the Bush administration is fully and openly pledged to do whatever is necessary – even acts of war – to halt Iran's nuclear program even if its projects are lawfully limited to peaceful purposes. Israel is the only nation urging the United States to attack Iran. The lobby is pushing hard again. If the U.S. assaults Iran it will be on Israel's behalf.

Congress, like the rest of America, is totally devoid of debate on the amazing role of this small nation in critical U.S. policy. Members are fulsome in public praise of the Jewish state, but no politician mentions the illegal behavior of Israel or the staggering burden it imposes on our country.
How did Israel gain this influence? ...
...
It all started 40 years ago. On June 8, 1967, the U.S. commander-in-chief, President Lyndon B. Johnson, turned his back on the crew of a U.S. navy ship, the USS Liberty, despite the fact that the ship was under deadly assault by Israel's air and sea forces. The Israelis were engaged in an ugly scheme to lure America into their war against Arab states. They tried to destroy the Liberty and its entire crew, then pin the blame on the Arabs. This, they reasoned, would outrage the American people and immediately lead the United States to join Israel's battle against Arabs.

AEI: "Its real name should be The Likud Center for Middle East War."

May 26 / 27, 2007 | The Bush Doctrine | Democracy in Iraq, Tyranny at Home? | By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The Washington, DC, think-tank, The American Enterprise Institute, camouflages its purpose with its name. There is nothing American about AEI, and the organization's enterprise is fomenting war in the Middle East against Israel's enemies. Its real name should be The Likud Center for Middle East War.
...
Now that the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have failed, the AEI warmongers are conspiring with Vice President Cheney to foment war with Iran.

Writing in The Washington Note, Steven C. Clemons reports that Cheney is working with the AEI warmongers to short-circuit the efforts of Bush's secretaries of defense and state to find a diplomatic solution. Clemons reports that one former high level national security official describes the Cheney-AEI conspiracy as possibly an act of "criminal insubordination" against President Bush.
...
Disinformation is being fed to the media that Iran is responsible for attacks on US troops in Iraq. This disinformation is routinely reported without skepticism by the American media in the face of challenges from experts. For example, a recent British report concludes: "few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency."

While the Cheney/AEI conspirators strive to whip up American anger at Iran with lies and disinformation, they are doing everything possible to provoke Iran. The warmongers have planted the story in the media that the US is conducting covert operations against Iran. The US Navy is conducting "exercises" off Iran's coast. The US military in Iraq has violated diplomatic privilege and kidnapped Iranian officials in Iraq despite protests from the Iraqi and Iranian governments. The US government is stirring up more trouble in Lebanon by setting extremists Sunnis against Iran's Hezbollah ally. In short, the US government is doing everything possible to start a war with Iran. Bombing Iran, perhaps after a contrived "false flag" operation, is the next step.

Bush continues to tell his favorite lies that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq" and that Muslims hate us because of our "freedom and democracy." ...

Because of the culture of fear, mistrust, hatred and suspicion that is carefully cultivated in the media, by the government .. to keep us safe [!]

Culture of Fear: Poetry Professor Becomes Terror Suspect By Kazim Ali, New America Media. Posted April 24, 2007.

A poetry professor in a small college in the Northeast decides to recycle old manuscripts and becomes an object of suspicion.

...

Upon my departure, he called the local police department and told them a man of Middle Eastern descent driving a heavily decaled white Beetle with out of state plates and no campus parking sticker had just placed a box next to the trash can. My car has NY plates, but he got the rest of it wrong. I have two stickers on my car. One is my highly visible faculty parking sticker and the other, which I just don't have the heart to take off these days, says, "Kerry/Edwards: For a Stronger America."

Because of my recycling, the bomb squad came, then the state police. Because of my recycling, buildings were evacuated, classes were canceled, the campus was closed. No. Not because of my recycling. Because of my dark body. No. Not even that. Because of his fear. Because of the way he saw me. Because of the culture of fear, mistrust, hatred and suspicion that is carefully cultivated in the media, by the government, by people who claim to want to keep us "safe." ...