Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: Sowing The Seeds Of Civil War
Joe Quinn
18/06/2006
Signs of the Times
A short chronology of recent events in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:
Hamas was established by Israel as a counterweight to the Palestinian Liberation Organistaion. Israel couldn't control the PLO so they needed a "Palestinian" group that they could.
After the poisoning of Arafat by Israel and amid obvious corruption within Abbas' Palestinian Authority, Palestinians elected Hamas to government in January 2006 on a hard line ticket. Immediately, and at the urging of the Israeli government, Hamas was, and remains, ostracised by the international community, funds are denied, and Israel has even taken the step of blocking food deliveries into Gaza in order to "make the Palestininan a little thinner" according to Israeli political advisor, Dov Weisglass.
Israel demands that Hamas recognise Israel's right to exist. Hamas flip flops, but ultimately refuses. Israel uses this refusal as evidence that it has "no partner for peace in the Palestinians".
Throughout, Israel continues to provoke Palestinian militants by regularly firing highly accurate artillery shells into Gaza and killing civilians. In one two week period, 2,000 Israel rockets were fired at 'targets' within Gaza.
The response from "Islamic Jihad" is to fire pathetically impotent "qassam" rockets at Israel. Almost without fail, these rockets miss their targets and/or fail to explode. Nevertheless, the firing of such wayward chunks of concrete is played up by Israel and in the mainstream press and provides Israel with continued justification to attack the population of Gaza.
Throughout, Hamas has been holding to a 16 month ceasefire with Israel.
In late May, early June 2006, a group of Palestinian prisoners draw up a plan that would recognise Israel's right to exists and seek peace under a two state solution. The plan is endorsed by the PA and Abbas. Hamas is reluctant to accept the plan. Abbas then calls for a referendum, calling on the Palestinian people to vote on whether Palestine should recognise Israel's right to exist.
Hamas rejects the referendum idea saying it is a plot to remove them from power. Violence breaks out between members of Abbas' Fatah movement and members of Hamas.
Israel claims Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist as the main impediment to pushing forward progress towards peace and alleviating the suffering and regular murder of Palestinians living in Gaza, the West Bank and Palestinian refugee camps.
A poll suggests that a majority of Palestinians want to recognise Israel's right to exist. While questions have been raised as to the authenticity of the poll, it seems reasonable, given the circumstances, that most ordinary Palestinians realise that a simple declaration of a recognition of Israel's right to exist would deny Israel the plausible justification to continue to claim that they have no "partner for peace" and to continue persecuting the Palestinian people.
On 12 June 2006, an Israel gunboat off the coast of Gaza deliberately fired shells at Palestinian familes enjoying a picnic on the Gaza beach. Ten people from one family were blown to pieces. The Israeli military denied any responsiblity, but subsequent investigation proved that they had lied. That the killing of innocent Palestinians, including five children, was premediated was evidenced by the fact that the Israeli military had a spy plane hovering over the area at the time which provided real-time images of the people on the beach.
In response and according to Israel (the beach attack notwthstanding), Hamas "breaks its 16 month ceasefire" and fires a number of 'qassam' rockets at the Southern Israeli city of Sderot. As on previous occasions, most of the rockets miss their targets and/or fail to explode and there are no Israeli reports of damage. Amazingly however, such is the unreliability of such attacks, at least one of the rockets actually hits a Palestinian refugee camp.
The "breaking of the ceasefire" and the firing of the rockets, however ineffective and indeed damaging to the Palestinian cause, provides Israel with further justifcation to claim that it cannot deal with Hamas and that it will continue to attack sites within Gaza, and, we must assume, continune to murder the innocent people of Gaza.
Abbas continues to push for a referendum on the recognition of Israel's right to exist, and violence between Hamas and Fatah continues. In response to this delicate situation, the Israeli government authorises the Israeli army to send 950 M-16 assault rifles from the Jordan border to the West Bank and Gaza Strip and from there to Abbas' Fatah movement. A clearer vote of encouragement by the Israeli government for civil war in Palestine would be hard to find.
Today, we read that Hamas, Fatah may be "moving closer to deal on implicitly recognizing Israel", yet many such false alarms have graced the pages of the mainstream press in the past. If we are correct in our analysis, Hamas will either back away from such a deal, or more severe fighting between Hamas and Fatah supporters (with the help of Israel's U.S.-made guns) will sink the initiative before it gets started.
Hamas, a creation of Israel, regularly talks of "serving the interests of the Palestinian people", yet appears unable, or unwilling, to understand that its refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist is tantamount to supporting Israel's continued persecution of innocent Palestininans.
Like Iraq, Palestine appears at present to be perched on the precipice of 'civil war'. As we have commented about the Iraq war, it is supassingly strange that, all things being equal, an indigenous group of people, when confronted with a very clear external enemy, would ultimately resort to attacking and killing each other rather than focusing their energies on their enemy. The mystery is to a large extent dispelled when we realise that one of the central tenets of counter-insurgency strategies as perfected by American, British and Israeli intelligence agencies, is to uncover and provoke divisons within the insurgency groups that rise up in response to an invasion or occupation of their country. Other aspects of such covert operations include the infiltration and co-opting of one, or many, of the various groups.
While it is quite clear that Israel has known for a long time that it must continue to create its enemies in order to successfully pursue its racist agenda, we are left wondering just how much of a truly Palestinian organisation Hamas really is, and to what it extent it may have been internally co-opted to serve Israel's push towards a final solution for its "Palestinian problem".
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Israel Spinning Out of Control
By Sam Bahour
The Milli Gazette Online
Israel's Defense Minister Amir Peretz announced today that Israel is preparing a global "propaganda offensive" to counter the recent barrage of news reports and writings that condemned Israel for the recent killing of 10 civilians, including 5 children, on a Gaza beach. In political and media lingo this is called spin, to twist and turn an event so as to give an intended interpretation, and Israel excels at it.
Israel is unable to comprehend that by going to extremes to find a single event that lends itself well for a "propaganda offensive," its continued military occupation, now extrajudicially killing an average of 10 Palestinians per day, is causing so much death and destruction that its spin not only instigates further animosity against Israel, but fuels a culture of propaganda and arbitrary aggression in Israel that is ripping apart Israeli society at its fragile seams.
Context
Before looking at the specific Gaza beach killings, let's remember Israel's track record of conducting investigations. Not to bore you, I will not delve into the entire period of 58 years of dispossession of Palestinians caused by Israel's creation, nor will I touch on the full 39 years of Israel's ongoing military occupation of over 3.5 million Palestinians. It is enough to look only at the last few years of Israeli aggression to make the point that Israel is attempting to cover blatant war crimes by media spin. Worse yet, the international community is allowing them to get away with it.
These last few years have been characterized by the intensity of mostly the same practices Israel has used for decades. The context of these Israeli actions toward Palestinians may be summarized as follows: collective punishment, travel restrictions, denial of access to religious sites (e.g. Jerusalem, Bethlehem), bombarding population centers, arbitrary imprisonment
(20% of population has been imprisoned at some time ion their lives since 1967, which equates to 60 million people if compared in U.S. terms), demolishing houses (since 1967 Israel has demolished almost 12,000 Palestinian homes, leaving some 70,000 without shelter and traumatized.), deporting Palestinians, uprooting trees, strangulating the Palestinian economy, taking Palestinians' natural resources hostage (e.g. water, electromagnetic spectrum) - the list is endless.
Case in point as reported in The Guardian (UK) by Chris McGreal, of how Israel deals with investigating Palestinian deaths:
An Israeli army officer who repeatedly shot a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza dismissed a warning from another soldier that she was a child by saying he would have killed her even if she was three years old. The officer, identified by the army only as Captain R, was charged this week with illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and other relatively minor infractions after emptying all 10 bullets from his gun's magazine into when she walked into a "security area" on the edge of Rafah refugee camp last month.
A tape recording of radio exchanges between soldiers involved in the incident, played on Israeli television, contradicts the army's account of the events and appears to show that the captain shot the girl in cold blood.
The official account claimed that Iman was shot as she walked towards an army post with her schoolbag because soldiers feared she was carrying a bomb.
But the tape recording of the radio conversation between soldiers at the scene reveals that, from the beginning, she was identified as a child and at no point was a bomb spoken about nor was she described as a threat. Iman was also at least 100 yards from any soldier.
Instead, the tape shows that the soldiers swiftly identified her as a "girl of about 10" who was "scared to death".
The tape also reveals that the soldiers said Iman was headed eastwards, away from the army post and back into the refugee camp, when she was shot.
At that point, Captain R took the unusual decision to leave the post in pursuit of the girl. He shot her dead and then "confirmed the kill" by emptying his magazine into her body.
The tape recording is of a three-way conversation between the army watchtower, the army post's operations room and the captain, who was a company commander.
The soldier in the watchtower radioed his colleagues after he saw Iman: "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward."
Operations room: "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?"
Watchtower: "A girl of about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."
A few minutes later, Iman is shot in the leg from one of the army posts.
The watchtower: "I think that one of the positions took her out."
The company commander then moves in as Iman lies wounded and helpless.
Captain R: "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."
Witnesses described how the captain shot Iman twice in the head, walked away, turned back and fired a stream of bullets into her body. Doctors at Rafah's hospital said she had been shot at least 17 times.
On the tape, the company commander then "clarifies" why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."
The army's original account of the killing said that the soldiers only identified Iman as a child after she was first shot. But the tape shows that they were aware just how young the small, slight girl was before any shots were fired.
The case came to light after soldiers under the command of Captain R went to an Israeli newspaper to accuse the army of covering up the circumstances of the killing.
A subsequent investigation by the officer responsible for the Gaza strip, Major General Dan Harel, concluded that the captain had "not acted unethically".
(CHRIS McGREAL / The Guardian (UK) Nov. 24, 2004)
If you are curious, a five-count indictment was ultimately brought against Captain R. A few months ago Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that Captain "R," a Givati Brigade soldier in the IDF, would be awarded 80,000 NIS [over $15,000 USD] in compensation from the State of Israel in addition to reimbursement for NIS 2,000 of legal expenses, as part of an arrangement reached between his lawyers and the military prosecution after being acquitted of all five counts against him related to the killing of Iman!
A second case in point:
On the night of July 22, 2002 an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb in a densely populated area of Gaza City, killing Hamas military wing leader Salah Shehadeh and 16 others, of whom 15 were civilians and 9 were children
(between the ages of two months and 13 years), including Shehadeh's wife and child. Over one hundred others were injured in the attack.
Witnesses said that a F-16 fired a missile into an apartment house in which Shehadeh and his family were living. The air strike shortly after midnight leveled the five-storey apartment block and damaged several adjacent buildings.
In a Ha'aretz interview, the then Israeli Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz claimed to be satisfied both "militarily and morally" with the operation. He was subsequently promoted to his current position of IDF Chief of Staff.
A third case in point is the Jenin Refugee Camp in April 2002.
The Jenin Refugee Camp, the second largest refugee camp in the West Bank, was surrounded by Israeli occupation forces as part of their aggression throughout the West Bank and continuing till today. The camp was raided and tens of Palestinians were murdered and dozens of homes bulldozed. For days, the Israelis refused to allow medical personnel, journalists, Red Cross, and the UN enter the camp.
An Israeli military bulldozer driver, Moshe Nissim, left little to the imagination as he described his actions in the camp while it was besieged.
"They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give one blow, and wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible. I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible, I didn't give a damn about the Palestinians, but I didn't just ruin with no reason. It was all under orders."
On orders, the razing continued long after the battle was over. Dated aerial photos obtained from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs corroborate his tale, leading military expert and Amnesty International delegate Major David Holley to conclude: "There were events post-11 April that were neither militarily justifiable nor had any military necessity: the IDF leveled the final battlefield completely after the cessation of hostilities. It is surmised that the complete destruction of the ruins of battle, therefore, is punishment for its inhabitants."
Nissim concurs. "I found joy with every house that came down, because I knew they didn't mind dying, but they cared for their homes. If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people for generations. If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down," he says. "They will sit quietly. Jenin will not return to what it used to be." (Peter Lagerquist, The Daily Star, 22 Nov. 03)
Palestinians demanded an investigation.
A fact finding mission was proposed by the United Nations on April 19, 2002. Israel initially agreed to co-operate with the inquiry, but demanded a set of conditions to do so. Among the conditions, Israel demanded that the mission should include anti-terrorism experts, that the UN agree not to prosecute Israeli soldiers for potential violations of international law, and that it limit its scope exclusively to events in Jenin. The UN refused to accept the last two conditions and were forced to ultimately disband their mission.
The world will never know, until a war crimes trail in The Hague of Israeli officials, what really happened inside the camp during those deadly days.
The cases demonstrating Israel's systematic cover-up of Palestinian deaths are voluminous. It will suffice to direct you to Leigh Brady's writing on this issue, entitled, "Don't worry - it's just another Palestinian child's death" (Live from Palestine, 31 March 2006, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4607.shtml)
Not all Israelis are blind to Israel's war crimes. The renowned Israeli journalist Amira Hass who lives in Ramallah wrote these words: "There is a long list of Palestinian civilians whose blood was spilled neither in battle nor because they endangered someone, and their blood has evaporated from our consciousness." (Ha'aretz, 9 February 2005.)
Beach Killing
So back to the Gaza beach killings. Israel is now claiming, five days after the fact, that they are not responsible for the killing. Instead, the spin that they have developed is that the deaths were a result of a mine planted in the sand by Palestinians in anticipation of Israeli navy seals attacking Gaza from the sea. Is this possible? Yes? Will we ever really know? No? Well, again, not until Israeli officials are brought before The Hague for their war crimes.
In the hours and days to come, Israel will have an army of media experts speaking perfect mother-tongue language of their target audience explaining, in what seems scientific terms, why their "findings" exonerate the Israeli military from these killings. What they miss is that responsible accountability requires not the occupier to investigate the occupier, or Israeli military to investigate the Israeli military.
What is required is an international and independent investigation, an investigation that has consequences. Is this too much to ask for? Well, if we look at past Israeli investigations of their own leaders we can use the past Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to learn how Israelis punish their own leaders.
The date was September 16-18, 1982. The place was the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. Then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon encircled the camps, sealed them, and sent in his closest allies amongst the Lebanese militias to "cleanse" the area of the "2,000 terrorists" which he insisted had remained there during Israelis invasion of Southern Lebanon. As a result, hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were subject to three days of relentless torture, rape and killing, while hundreds more were arrested and trucked away, never to be seen again: an estimated 2000 civilians were killed or disappeared.
What happen to Sharon? A high-level Israeli commission was formed to investigate. The result of that investigation was the "Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut" (The Kahan Commission, February 8, 1983). The report stated:
"We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office.""
After being found unfit to be Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon swiftly rose to be the Prime Minister of Israel, twice.
Homemade Missiles
Of course Palestinians are firing missiles into Israel, albeit a failing strategy. If some Palestinians had the chance to smuggle F-16's into Gaza to release them toward Tel Aviv, I'm sure they would. I wonder what the State of Texas would do if Mexico militarily occupied if for 39 years. I would assume, then, the Palestinian missiles excuse would be acknowledged for what it is, acts of desperation and not an existential threat.
In spinning the recent Gaza beach killings, Israel will no doubt point to the homemade missiles that a few Palestinians are firing into Israel as a pretext to the continuous Israeli shelling of Gaza. But again, Israel forgets that after occupying Palestinians by force in a most brutal way for so long and giving no indication of the possibility for peaceful co-existence built on international law and human rights, they are feeding a terrible, lethal despair within Palestine that gives rise to steps of desperation taken by a few desperate people to cause harm to the occupier.
Not only is the Palestinian firing of missiles into Israel a failing strategy, one I wish I had the power to stop, but it is a blatant example of Palestinians not having a strategy that can end the occupation. Not having a strategy of liberation is understood, albeit unacceptable.
Israel has killed off and imprisoned most of the first and second level Palestinian leadership. Also, two-thirds of the Palestinian population is denied entry into Palestine and thus cannot participate on the ground to create a better reality. Thus, without a cohesive leadership, who could expect those under Israel's non-stop aggression to become peace doves overnight.
Chutzpah
Jews are very familiar with Yiddish, the Jewish dialect that gave us the widely used term, chutzpah. The dictionary defines chutzpah as unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity. In Palestinian lay terms, chutzpah relates to Israel's amazing ability to kill a people in cold blood and then march solemnly in their funeral procession.
Israelis must wake up. International and humanitarian laws do not release the State of Israel, or individual soldiers, from their responsibility as an occupying force simply because they apologize for killing those they occupy.
While Israel launched its "propaganda offensive" today, another 11 Palestinians were killed, 2 of them children and 2 medics, when Israeli warplanes struck a Palestinian car on a crowded Gaza City street. Also, in the midst of this living hell, Israeli Defense Minister stated that the time for restraint is over.
If the Israeli-made living hell that we have been living with thus far was an example of Israel showing restraint, God help us all, Palestinians and Israelis, as the Israeli occupation flexes its military muscle in the coming days. When all the flexing is done and all the dead buried, the occupation will still be wrong and The Hague will still await all those who committed war crimes. (14 June 2006)
The writer is a Palestinian-American living in the besieged Palestinian City of El-Bireh in the West Bank. He is co-author of HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and can be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.
Original
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Collaborators with the Israeli Occupier are Among Us
Interviewed by Silvia Cattori, June 11, 2006
A Palestinian living in a refugee camp in northern Gaza gives us his account of the current situation
The voice that you hear below is that of a young Palestinian baker who voted for Hamas in the recent election, hoping they would be able to lighten the suffering of his people. We think that his account sincerely reflects the feelings of a large part of the population of Gaza and can help us to rethink our biased way of seeing the situation there.
Silvia Cattori: A few weeks ago when we talked you told us of your fears that your society would become destabilized by the men of the security forces led by Mohammed Dahlan.(1) Has the situation deteriorated since then?
Hicham: Yes, it is difficult, very difficult. Especially since the recent massacre of the women and children on the beach. Unfortunately, the Israelis are killing civilians every day here in Gaza and in the West Bank. Normally nobody talks about it. When it happens, like last Friday, that their crime is too visible and provokes protests, the military spokesmen begin by hastily saying that experts will do an investigation, sometimes making apologies. Then, subsequently, they retract this statement, sowing doubt, and let it be understood that it probably wasn't from their positions that the shots were fired, in order to finally place the responsibility onto Hamas, on the victims. It's always in this way that they mask their crimes and deceive public opinion. We've never seen the results of their inquiries. We never seen them judge the criminals that have already killed thousands of children and have wounded tens of thousands of others. We never see your governments react with firmness against the brutality that Israel imposes upon us.
S.C.: This lack of recognition of these massacres, Israel's refusal to admit that you are the victims, do you find it offensive?
Hicham: Of course. They always manage to turn their crimes against us, in their favor. No matter the horror of the things they do, they have the support of the United States. You will have noticed that Bush is the only Western head of state that didn't condemn this massacre. The United States simply repeated that Israel has the right to defend itself! But it is a question of arms of war being used against civilians. We don't have any rights: neither that of being protected, nor that of defending ourselves.
S.C.: After the slaughter, Ehud Olmert said that Israel possesses the "world's most moral" army and his army chief declared that the shelling of the beach was in response to Palestinian rockets?!
Hicham: A response to what? What morality can the Israel army appeal to? For years they have never stopped attacking us and killing us! For the last 16 months Hamas has respected the ceasefire signed in Cairo and has not launched any rockets. As to the homemade rockets, these don't threaten Israeli security, but it is a way for people to stand up, to say "We're not going to lie down".
S.C.: How do you feel about being at the complete mercy of an invincible force?
Hicham: An enormous suffering. But also, since the militants of Hamas announced the end of the ceasefire, people are a bit reassured.
S.C.: But Hamas, which possesses a few derisory rifles, have no chance of escaping! If the Palestinians defy Israel through armed actions, won't the Israelis just respond with increased brutality?
Hicham: The population considers that after all the suffering and privations imposed by Israel, they have nothing more to lose. We have nothing but our lives. The Palestinian people are determined to sacrifice their lives for Palestine and Jerusalem. Through its aggressions, Israel has achieved what it wanted: to provoke Hamas into a confrontation.
S.C.: Are you saying that Hamas didn't have a choice? That because the population was crying for vengeance, it was obliged to react?
Hicham: The people are angry. They can longer support the sight of the Israelis multiplying the humiliations and the massacres of their children without a response. That's why, when the Ezzedine and Kassam Brigades announced they would avenge the slaughters, it was well received.
S.C.: Your people have paid by their blood and suffering to learn that in confronting this army you have neither the arms nor the means to fight back. Will you, in the face of the odds, still shoot?
Hicham: The Palestinians have only this path. Sometimes there are some successes.
S.C.: Are there no other ways of fighting to make yourselves heard?
Hicham: Other means? What other means? How can we defend ourselves against Israel's barbarism? We have only our bodies as a force to fight against the armed forces of Israel. All we can do is blow ourselves up. Do you want us to allow Israel to kill and kill and kill without our ever saying a word or reacting? For 16 months Hamas conducted no suicide missions in Israel. But the Israelis, they never stopped coming here to attack us, to kill us. In spite of the fact that the colonists have left Gaza, we have never been able to rid ourselves of the Israelis. They are always present with their columns of tanks all along Gaza, with their drones, their F16s, and their helicopters circling over our heads, as well as their battleships. They have fired thousands of bombs on Gaza over the last months. And they continue to launch Bang bombs that make an unsupportable noise that scares our children day and night.
S.C.: Is the referendum an idea of the United States destined to help Mahmoud Abbas (2) weaken the Hamas government?
Hicham: The leaders of Hamas have termed this referendum a "coup d'état". Obviously Fatah wants to push Hamas out of Parliament and the government.
S.C.: According to a poll, financed by the US, 85% of the Palestinians are in agreement with the referendum. Is this true?
Hicham: This poll isn't credible. Abdelkhaleq Al-Natché and Bassam Al-Saadi, two leaders from Hamas and Jihad among the prisoners who signed this document, removed their signatures. They didn't accept that Abbas take the text out of context and use it to blackmail the Hamas government. If Abbas persists in maintaining the referendum, he will deal a terrible blow to his people and a victory to Israel.
S.C.: But hasn't Israel let it be known that they aren't in favor of the referendum?
Hicham: They say that they aren't favorable, hoping that way we'll vote yes. If Abbas persists down this path, Israel will be the only winner in this story. The Israeli government's goal is to push us towards civil war.
S.C.: So the referendum risks splitting the population in two?
Hicham: That's already been done. The people are already split in two and find themselves, unfortunately, today with a new enemy: Fatah, who has not digested its electoral defeat.
S.C.: If the referendum is held, do you think that the people who are in great difficulty will vote yes?
Hicham: But what will they be voting on? On the UN resolutions? It is a catastrophe to ask the people to vote on international resolutions! These resolutions can't be submitted to negotiation or to blackmail. I don't think this vote will happen. Either Abbas agrees to talk with Hamas or there will be civil war. It's towards this extreme that Abbas will lead his people, counseled by the American Jack Wallace, if he is obstinate and holds this referendum.
S.C.: Can we consider that these massacres, committed by Israel in such a critical period, are a way of intervening in your affairs in order to increase the tension?
Hicham: Yes, we can believe it. Israel's goal by these repeated massacres is to increase the frustration of the people and push the resistance into reacting. For more than a year Israel has been conducting operations to push Hamas into a confrontation.
S.C.: All international organizations have folded in the face of the exigency of the US and Israel: don't enter into relations with Hamas. Even the Palestinian banks have imposed restrictions on the accounts of Hamas's deputies and ministers. On the other hand, the Palestinian authorities, those who lost power in January but have the favor of the West, are still receiving their salaries. Is this true?
Hicham: It is money stolen from the Palestinian people. Abbas is also financing the training of an army of 10,000 men with the green light from Israel, the occupier massacring us every day.
S.C.: How do you feel about the fact that Israel has announced that it will furnish arms to Abbas, to fight against the militia of Hamas?
Hicham: Officially it justifies this army as a necessity to ensure the security of the presidency. The members of Fatah are thinking of only one thing: protecting their backs, coming back to power, against the wishes of their people. In spite of the fact that the international community boycotts Hamas, the Palestinians continue to have confidence in them. We hope that Europe will finish by understanding that the will of the people is stronger than their will to impose upon us the people of Fatah who are playing Israel's game. That is the worst thing that could happen to us.
S.C.: Why are the tensions concentrated above all in Gaza?
Hicham: The majority of ministers today are in Gaza. The capital of the Palestinian authority is no longer Ramallah. But Abbas refused to allow Hamas to control the security forces. He allows Dahlan to use these forces to shoot against the government of Hamas; and then he forbids Hamas from defending themselves. That's were we are! The people will never forgive Fatah for what it is doing.
S.C.: Such harassment of Hamas, which until yesterday had remained open to dialogue, seems difficult to justify politically.
Hicham: Fatah's people know that if they allow Hamas to govern, the latter will prove their efficiency and that Fatah will not be able to return to power.
S.C.: Hasn't Abbas become a hostage to Washington's destabilization policy?
Hicham: We know that Abbas, Erakat, Dahlan, Rabbo, Joubril, etc are closely cooperating with Israel and the United States. The United States and the Arab and European governments, believed at first that by cutting the lifeline to Hamas, the Palestinians would rapidly revolt against the government they elected. However, it is the contrary that is happening. These last days, the people have shown their support for Hamas and are calling on Fatah to unite.
S.C.: In evoking the difficulties facing the Palestinians, you appear to be very saddened. You also seem full of affection and esteem for this martyred people that you describe as valiant and combative, even in the midst of the worst adversities.
Hicham: Never will the Palestinians lose their will to live and the will to liberate their land.
S.C.: However, your current situation is more terrifying than ever. Don't you have to confront three enemies from now on: the sanctions of the international community, the threats from Abbas, and the threats from the occupier?
Hicham: We aren't too afraid of the international sanctions. We can overcome them, make do. The threats from Israel, we know. It is our enemy now for a century. What is most insupportable for us is to know that our brothers, the people of Fatah, are our new enemy.
S.C.: Israel spills your blood every day. But it seems that what you fear the most is the idea that Fatah could drag you into a fratricidal war?
Hicham: Unfortunately, yes. It is the worst catastrophe for us. They are our cousins, our friends. I have relatives on both sides. I have no desire to see them kill each other. Hamas has been able to retain its sang froid. It has done everything to avoid falling into Fatah's traps. But it won't be able to avoid the worst indefinitely.
S.C.: But how can Palestinians end up turning their arms against other Palestinians?
Hicham: You know, the people of Fatah buy people. It is easy when there is so much poverty. For months the United States has been spending as much money as necessary to bring down Hamas. Israel and the United States announced back in February that they would do whatever it takes to prevent Hamas from governing. The money spent by the United States goes into the pockets of people like Dahlan. The militias that have been provoking incidents and killing Hamas and Jihad militants are paid to do it with this money. Dahlan, born to a refugee family, has made a fortune with embezzled money. He has arrested, tortured, and killed numerous Hamas militants in the past. He moves today in a reinforced limousine, protected by convoys even more imposing than those of Abbas. He is a close confidant, an ally for Abbas.
S.C.: Is Dahlan afraid of being attacked by members of Hamas?
Hicham: Members of Hamas would never attack Dahlan. The people of Hamas consider the Israeli occupier to be the enemy of the Palestinian people.
S.C.: Israel is ready to put into effect its terrifying plans to intervene in Gaza. Aren't they afraid?
Hicham: The militants aren't afraid of being assassinated. All resistants know that sooner or later they will be assassinated. They know it is their path, the path of loyalty towards their people who are suffering and demanding justice.
S.C.: Do the people clearly see that these other two burdens have been added to that of the Israeli occupier - the international community and the Fatah party that is collaborating with the occupier?
Hicham: Yes, the people understand all of this. But at the same time they are oppressed by the annoyances that threatened their survival. No one can say what might happen to force the Palestinians to vote tomorrow for the corrupt people of Fatah, in order to gain a salary, a respite, even though they know that they are bastards.
S.C.: How did the people of Gaza take the fact that Mubarak received Olmert and Abbas with pomp and ceremony while he refused to meet with the newly elected authorities from Hamas?
Hicham: Arab governments should have the decency to resign. The Palestinians have been waiting for gestures of support, of compassion. Nothing. They are pitiless. The young girl who cries and turns towards the heavens to implore that we give her back the life of her father has not heard Mubarak or the King of Jordan condemn the criminals.
S.C.: Will the world try to prevent other bloody operations?
Hicham: The whole world can see what Israel is doing to us. Why to they allow it to continue? There is enough information, even if Israel's propaganda is constantly used to confuse them. It serves no end to call out to the Arab states or to Europe. They have never done anything to get us out of our prison and to stop Israel from massacring us. However, we continue to hope that there will be Arab leaders capable of condemning Israel. We know that the Arab people are at our side. They can do nothing for us and are revolted to see their corrupt leaders subservient to the US and therefore to Israel. We know that all honest citizens of the world are touched by our suffering, but unfortunately their leaders have sided with the assassins.
(1) Mohammed Dahlan, born in 1961 in Gaza, is the former chief of the Security forces in Gaza. He is one of the most influential figures in Fatah. He maintains close relations with Israel and the United States and has been cooperating for a long time with the CIA.
(2) Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, was elected president of the Palestinian Authority in January 2005 with 27% of the vote. See: http://www.ism-france.org/news/article.php?id=2401&type=analyse&lesujet=R%C3%A9formes
Post Script, June 13, 2006
This week, as I was finishing the writing of this interview, terrible images of children and adults, torn apart by the bombing of Gaza by the Israeli army, were shown on the television news around the world. Among the 11 dead and 32 wounded on that day, there were children and an ambulance worker who had gone to the aid of the victims. At the same time, the campaign of Israeli disinformation, as described above in this interview, began. The occupiers now tell us that the explosion was the fault of... Hamas! Those who spread the Israeli propaganda conveniently omit to report on the denial by the military analyst of Human Rights Watch who affirmed, on the basis of pieces collected on the beach and the examination of the wounded, that it was indeed an Israeli explosive that slaughtered the civilians. This lying through omission regularly permits journalists the world over, protected by their bosses in spite of their lack of rigor, to disinform public opinion. This disinformation has as its goal to criminalize the resistance of the Palestinian people as incarnated in Hamas, while whitewashing Israel, the real aggressor.
The propaganda of Israel and Jewish organizations circulates freely in the media as news. Israel becomes judge and jury in these massacres and in the manipulation of the minds of the viewers.
Translation by Signs of the Times. http://www.signs-of-the-times.org
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Signs Economic Commentary
Donald Hunt
Signs of the Times
June 19, 2006
Gold closed at 584.70 dollars an ounce on Friday, down 4.8% from $612.50 at the close of the previous week. The dollar closed at 0.7910 euros on Friday, virtually unchanged from 0.7912 for the week. That put the euro at 1.2643 dollars compared to 1.2640 at the end of the week before. Gold in euros would be 462.47 euros an ounce, down 4.8% from 484.57 for the week. Oil closed at 69.97 dollars a barrel Friday, down 2.3% from $71.60 at the close of the previous Friday. Oil in euros would be 55.34 euros a barrel, down 2.4% from 56.65 for the week. The gold/oil ratio closed at 8.36, down 2.3% from 8.55 at the end of the previous week. In U.S. stocks, the Dow closed at 11,014.55, up 1.1% from 10,891.92. The NASDAQ closed at 2,129.95, down 0.2% from 2,135.06. The yield on the ten-year U.S. Treasury note closed at 5.13%, up 16 basis points from 4.97 for the week.
Gold prices continued to plummet last week and U.S. interest rates rose sharply. Everything else remained pretty much unchanged. If interest rates are rising over fear of inflation and gold is a hedge against inflation, why are gold prices falling? The paradox of gold is that it is both money and commodity. If it is, in effect, a currency, then with inflation the value of gold should go down. Yet, since it is also a commodity, and has been throughout history seen as a safe haven, its value should go up in inflationary times. Most likely the price of gold will eventually go up against the paper currencies. What we are seeing is probably both a natural correction as well as an indication of increasing volatility.
Gold, Copper Lead Metals Decline on Concern Over Higher Rates
June 13 (Bloomberg) -- Gold had its biggest plunge in 15 years, falling below $600 an ounce, and copper tumbled to a seven- week low as investors bailed out of commodities and equities on concern about rising global interest rates.
Metals fell for a fourth straight session, the longest slide in three months, and billionaire investor George Soros says the commodity rout isn't over. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland President Sandra Pianalto said yesterday inflation exceeded her "comfort level," boosting prospects for higher U.S. rates. Consumer prices in the U.K. reached a seven-month-high in May.
"The nervousness behind higher rates are anchoring down the markets," said Michael Guido, director of hedge fund marketing and commodity strategy at Societe Generale in New York. "You have massive global equity losses. Many of these funds are selling secondary and tertiary holdings, which happen to be commodities, to raise cash."
Gold for August delivery fell $44.50, or 7.3 percent, to $566.80 an ounce on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, the biggest percentage drop since Jan. 17, 1991. Prices have tumbled 23 percent from a 26-year high of $732 on May 12. The metal still has gained 31 percent in the past 12 months.
Copper for delivery in three months fell $470, or 6.7 percent, to $6,570 a metric ton on the London Metal Exchange, the lowest close since April 20. The metal is down 25 percent from a record $8,800 on May 11. Prices still have doubled in the past year.
Silver futures for July delivery tumbled $1.44, or 13 percent, to $9.625 an ounce on the Comex. Prices have plunged 37 percent since reaching a 23-year high of $15.20 on May 11.
'Reduction in Liquidity'
"Commodities probably are in for a period of correction," Soros told financial news network CNBC yesterday. "We are in a situation where all asset classes are under pressure because of a reduction in liquidity."
Industrial metals have tumbled from records this year, and gold and silver have slumped in the past month from the highest prices since the early 1980s amid growing speculation higher borrowing costs will stifle the five-year rally in commodities.
U.S. stocks fell for a third day, European equities dropped to a six-month low, and indexes in Japan and Australia had the biggest losses since September 2001. Emerging markets also tumbled.
"There's too much froth in this market," said David Gornall, head of foreign exchange and bullion at Natexis Commodity Markets Ltd. in London. "People are removing higher risk from their portfolio."
Gold climbed 18 percent last year and surged 39 percent from the end of 2005 to mid May, partly on demand from investors seeking returns unavailable from stocks, bonds and currencies. Tensions over Iran's nuclear program also boosted the precious metal's appeal as a haven.
'Hot Money'
"There's hot money in the metals, and it can come and go, lending to volatility both ways," said A.C. Moore, who manages the $500 million Dunvegan Growth fund in Santa Barbara, California. "People get nervous and sell commodities to raise some cash."
Shares of mining companies also fell. The Philadelphia Stock Exchange Gold and Silver Index fell 3.92 or 3.1 percent to 120.79. Shares of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., which operates the largest gold mine in Indonesia, tumbled $2.06 to $44.65.
The European Central Bank raised its benchmark interest rate on June 8 for the third time in six months. South Korea raised its key rate the same day, followed by India and South Africa. At least four Fed officials said last week they're concerned about inflation.
Interest-rate futures show traders are pricing in a 90 percent chance the Fed will raise its benchmark rate a quarter-percentage point to 5.25 percent at its meeting late this month, up from 84 percent odds yesterday and 72 percent on May 31.
U.K. Rates
U.K. consumer prices rose 2.2 percent from a year earlier after rising 2 percent in April, the Office for National Statistics said today, making it more likely the Bank of England will raise rates. Prices paid to U.S. producers in May also rose more than forecast, stoking inflation concerns.
"The fears of a slowing economy are going to cast doubt on the demand for metals," said James Vail, who manages $700 million in natural-resource stocks at ING Investments LLC in New York. "It's a very unsettling time. We're overreacting on the downside as much as we were overreacting on the upside."
The rising cost of gasoline propelled U.S. consumer prices higher last month, giving Federal Reserve policy makers reason to fret they're losing their grip on inflation, economists expect a report to show tomorrow.
'Play Defense'
The consumer-price index rose 0.4 percent in May after a 0.9 percent gain the prior month, according to the median forecast of 72 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
Metal prices will tumble should the index increase more than forecast, some analysts said.
"The CPI is more Main Street," Guido of Societe Generale said. "A higher number and the metals market continues to play defense."
Demand still outstrips supply and the rally in metals may resume, Vail at ING said. Speculators increased copper purchases earlier this year amid forecasts global production will lag behind consumption.
"It's very difficult in today's world to find new supplies, and companies are having difficulty in meeting production targets," Freeport-McMoRan Chief Executive Officer Richard Adkerson said today in an interview. Output will be lower in 2006, and "even at today's prices, we have the opportunity to have even a stronger year," he said.
Time to Buy?
Some investors say the price decline offers a buying opportunity for some metals.
HSBC Holdings Plc estimated last month about $100 billion will be invested in commodity indexes by the end of 2006, compared with $10 billion at the end of 2003.
"This is not the end of the commodities rally," said Michael Widmer, an analyst at Macquarie Bank Ltd. in London. "The fundamentals for most commodities, such as gold, are strong."
Moore of Dunvegan, who sold some shares of the StreetTracks Gold Trust exchange-traded fund as the metal was rising to a 26- year high, said he's considering buying metals.
"We're more interested in gold and metals generally," Moore said. "There's still a bull run in gold, and the money will be back."
The drop in gold prices has emboldened those who have always ridiculed "gold bugs." Al Martin does his share of ridiculing in the following piece, but ends up recommending that many people should buy and hold gold, primarily because he sees a collapse in the value of the dollar within three years:
http://www.almartinraw.com/subscription/column262.html
What is [gold's] ultimate value? Its ultimate value is as an inflation hedge, not as an alternative investment, not maintenance of purchasing power in a would-be deflationary environment. Its ultimate and final value is money. It is the currency of last resort. That is its final and ultimate value. And that is the value that the stuff has to the gold bugs.
....The financial apocalypse that people believe are waiting for will come about when the U.S. dollar falls apart. Why? Because the U.S. dollar is the ultimate currency. In the realm of paper currencies, the U.S. dollar is the ultimate currency. When the U.S. dollar falls apart, that's when everything else falls apart.
....Thanks to Bushonomics I (Bush Sr.) and II (Bush Jr.) as well as the enormous multi-trillion-dollar accrual of debt that occurred from 1981 to 1992 and again from 2001 to present, the multi-trillion-dollar accrual of debt reduces the United States' future financial flexibility by increasing future liabilities -- both real and contingent because of this debt and the strangulation that debt has.
Debt has what's called a re-strangulation effect over time. Even though the value of the currency may be debased by purposeful action of the government in an effort to monetize existing debt, you can't monetize debt endlessly, which is what the United States is close to having to do.
David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, pointed out that, should the Bush Cheney Regime be re-ensconced in power for a second term and the fiscally corrosive practice of Bushonomic, i.e., negative debt finance consumption, be continued, then the United States would not be able to service its debt past 2009. That's when the game ends. That's when it all falls apart. When the United States government can no longer service its debt, the currency becomes worthless, or very nearly so.
...Unless the United States can engineer (the Bush Cheney Regime through economic policy and the Fed through market action) a dramatic fall, which would be at least another 40%, the ensuing decline in the dollar would help to monetize debt.
As we have explained debt monetization before, it is nothing more than the issuance of debt and the future servicing of the debt in ever-cheaper currency, which obviously causes interest rates to rise, which causes inflation and is something that this regime is desperate to create.
Despite having a Federal Reserve that has maintained money supply targets, in some cases, twice above what they would normally be maintained relative to GDP, they simply haven't been successful in creating inflation in the United States because of the latent deflationary pressures that Bushonomics causes.
How do you create deflation? Through the accrual of debt within all 3 legs of what could be called the national stool, i.e., government, business and industry, and the people.
We are now in a situation where government debt is at all levels of government–federal, state, local a record high. We also have a situation where consumer debt is also at an all-time high -- not only in the United States, but almost in every other country at the same time. Thus there are global deflationary pressures. How do you combat this deflation? You have to create some inflation.
This is simply the cheapening of money in order to repay existing debt in the future and make that less of a burden relative to total income, which is not only something that affects governments, but it affects business and industry, and the people as well.
The problem with Bushonomics, however, is that it adds in a new factor, namely, that the people aren't able to successfully monetize debt the way government does.
Under Bushonian Regimes, real wages, i.e., wages not including inflation, actually fall.
The reason they do so is because, under Bushonian Regimes, economic policies to dramatically increase the rate of productivity and to consequently decrease per-unit labor cost, are pushed.
Look at the tremendous increase in the rate of productivity that has occurred under the Bush Cheney regime.
...The answer is a conundrum. Gold is good. Gold is what you want to own. If you're not a trader, or if you don't have the smarts to trade it, ...you still want to hold gold. Gold is the asset you want to hold.
But why do you want to hold it? Therein becomes the question that separates the gold bugs from the gold bulls.
Why do you want to hold it? Do you want to hold it as an investor with the idea of selling it at some point in the future to take a profit?
That's not the reason why the average citizen should be holding gold, because they're not smart enough to time the markets in order to take a profit, simply put, to sell it high and buy it low, as they say.
The reason why the average citizen should be holding gold is because of gold's ultimate capacity as the money of last resort, knowing that it is now likely that the United States will not be able to service its debt after 2009.
Or that in order to continue to do so, it would have to create a hyper-inflationary scenario, which would only postpone the inevitable for a few years -- 4 years, or 6 or 8 years, maybe, at the most.
Ultimately, hyper-inflationary bubbles cannot be sustained. They burst and everything falls apart. Witness the 1981 "Bolivian Meltdown" wherein the Bolivian peso fell to a value that the physical weight of the banknotes was equal to the price of tomatoes.
For investors, the question of whether to buy precious metals is tied up with the likelihood of inflation or deflation. If there is deflation, cash is a good investment, if there is inflation gold and other commodities become more attractive. Analysts seem to be divided on the inflation versus deflation debate. But, as the following column in Forbes indicates, that very uncertainty should ultimately strengthen gold:
Glitter
James Grant
06.19.06, 12:00 AM ET
Gold is an August monetary asset but an undependable investment. Producing no income, it is inherently speculative. I am a value investor, but I am also a gold bull. I ought to try to explain myself.
Value investors buy stocks or bonds by the numbers. They compare price with value and buy if the discount is suitably deep. They turn a deaf ear to macroeconomic theorizing. Whether the gross domestic product is rising briskly or not at all is immaterial if a particular company is priced at less than its readily ascertainable net asset value.
Gold is something different. You buy it solely for macroeconomic considerations. I buy gold as a hedge against the stewards of paper money. I buy Krugerrands, the metal itself, suitable for burying in the turnip patch. I expect the price of the South African gold coins to keep going up, but I don't know how high.
There is much I don't know about gold. There is much that nobody can know--critically, for example, what the price ought to be. It's guesswork. If this is a cockamamie way to invest, I draw courage from the theory of central banking, which is more cockamamie still. These days it boils down to picking an interest rate and imposing that rate on the market. Some would call this "price-fixing." Can you name a single successful government price-fixing operation?
For a year, through June 2004, the Federal Reserve held the federal funds rate at 1%. Chairman Alan Greenspan and the chairman-to-be, Ben S. Bernanke, said they were fighting an anticipatory battle against deflation. They wanted to preserve the U.S. from a Japanese-style funk following the bursting of the stock-market bubble in 2000--01. So they dropped lending rates to the floor and pushed home prices to the moon.
Now house prices are falling, and mortgage rates are rising, which brings to mind Greenspan's advice to U.S. homeowners in February 2004.
He suggested they take out adjustable-rate mortgages. Many did--and are discovering that their disposable income, after mortgage payments, is adjusting to the down side. The real-estate-dependent U.S. economy is starting to wheeze.
And inflation is inconveniently starting to percolate. It's a quirk of the U.S. statistical apparatus that residential rents count for 29% of the measured rate of consumer price inflation. During the housing-price boom, rental rates sagged. But now that homeownership is losing some of its luster, rental rates are turning up. They are taking the Consumer Price Index up with them.
You are Chairman Bernanke. What do you do? A conscientious fellow, you try first to do no harm. You have made a lifelong study of deflation and the Great Depression. Of all the mistakes you could make at the helm of the Federal Open Market Committee, there is one you really want to avoid: You do not want to go down in history as the scholar of the Great Depression who inadvertently steered the highly leveraged U.S. economy into Great Depression Part II. You will be slow to tighten monetary policy when home prices are deflating, let the CPI be what it may.
Gold competes with the Bernanke dollar, just as it did with the Greenspan dollar and just as it has with government-issued money since the invention of the printing press. The historical record is undebatable: 1) Currencies ultimately lose their value. 2) Gold is a lousy long-term investment. 3) Yet when markets lose confidence in paper, there is nothing quite like a Krugerrand.
How confident are you? The U.S. annually consumes much more than it produces. It finances the deficit with dollars. More than $1.6 trillion has come to rest on the balance sheets of foreign central banks (as opposed, say, to the bank accounts of profit-seeking corporations). In recent months some of these central banks have signaled their intention to diversify into other currencies. Some of them have indicated they are buying gold.
The post-1971 dollar is uncollateralized. Its value is derived from the world's faith in America as much as from the strength of the U.S. economy or the level of U.S. interest rates. Reading the newspapers, I judge that faith to be wavering.
The gold price has doubled in the past three years. But it has only just kept up with the price of lead and has badly trailed the prices of copper and zinc.
Arguably, then, gold's rise to date is not as much a reflection on U.S. monetary management as it is an echo of the commodity boom.
You can be sure that gold will have its own bull market when the dollar resumes its bear market.
When will that day come, and how high is up? I don't know--and neither does Bernanke.
James Grant is the editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer. Visit his homepage at www.forbes.com/grant.
Here is another analyst bullish on gold:
Bernanke Scares Pavlov's Sheep
Richard Benson
June 13, 2006
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov was a brilliant Russian Physiologist whose experiments on animals led to discoveries that would make the demented doctors in World War II, in both Germany and Japan, very jealous. Some of Pavlov's early work was done on sheep. Unfortunately for the sheep, the experiments on them were so stressful they eventually died of heart attacks. Pavlov's work on sheep, analogous to stock market investing, is critical for this article because speculators, hedge funds, and particularly retail stock investors, do tend to act a lot like sheep.
Pavlov's work on the conditioned reflex reaction of sheep to stimuli should be of the utmost importance to the Federal Reserve and world central banks at this juncture in a world where signs of speculative excess – even to the bubble level – clearly remain in all major risk asset classes including housing, commodities, emerging markets, and even major stock markets.
In Pavlov's research, he discovered that if he gave the sheep a mild electric shock, it would bother them very little and their life would go on pretty much as if nothing had happened as long as the shocks were random. Warning the sheep in advance of a shock by ringing a bell, however, affected their behavior and it changed radically. The sheep were just smart enough to realize that if they heard the bell, the shock was coming. After repeating this exercise a few times, the poor sheep lost control of bodily functions and after a few more warning bells, they started dying of heart attacks.
What Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Governors should know, and are likely to find out the hard way, is that markets driven by speculation will react just like Pavlov's sheep. Indeed, the major market participants and speculators, particularly greedy retail investors, are there to get "sheared at market tops". Somebody has to buy when the smart money wants to sell and take their winnings out of the casino. Moreover, to keep the herd of retail investing sheep grazing on financial investments including commodities, there needs to be a steady stream of "feel good" press for stocks about how great productivity is and how the nomination of the new Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, will be good for the dollar. All the while, stock analysts and market touts are claiming "there has never been a better time to invest".
With fears about a rising core inflation rate and slowing economic growth, Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Governors understand too much money was printed up over the last decade. They're not alone. The central banks in Europe are not done raising interest rates either and Japan is just beginning to raise their rates from zero to drain excess liquidity. After 16 rates hikes, the Fed announced it is not done raising rates. This "ringing of the bell" has the sheep sensing that more shocks are coming. This could be downright ugly for the financial markets! We would recommend that the Fed have plenty of tranquilizers and lots of liquidity available to bail out the markets if they keep on scaring the sheep.
The market participants that started running like lemmings for the edge of the cliff are led by the market professionals! They have been heard shouting "get out before the sheep panic!" Over the last few months, easy money trades are down, and some Middle Eastern markets have crashed while other emerging markets are in a bear market. Commodities are also in a serious correction, including gold and silver.
All too often central banks tighten until the financial markets suffer a significant failure. The Federal Reserve and Treasury have regular practice "fire drills" on what to do during a market crash, and given their behavior and what Pavlov taught us about sheep, they will more than likely create an opportunity to fight a real financial market fire. However, when the Fed has to fight a market event – and cuts interest rates in an effort to save the lives of some of the sheep – you can kiss the dollar goodbye. So, while the dollar has gotten a technical lift over the past week or so, my cash is still going into "non-dollar cash". The U.S. trade deficit is so massive, and our debt is so large, we believe the dollar will have to fall much lower.
While a general stock market crash may pressure all stocks (including precious metal stocks) to go lower, precious metals and precious metal stocks are being offered now at significant discounts (much of the excess that causes sharp drops in price has been washed out).
In the years ahead, the high prices we have all seen in gold and silver will be surpassed many times over. In addition, leaving your money in short-term cash with no price risk while receiving 5 percent, looks a lot better than losing money in stocks or real estate! Suddenly, risk is a four letter word and cash is not trash.
On the deflationary side, housing inventories are rising, indicating sharp drops in prices soon:
Cheerleader Panic, the HPI, and the Battle of New Orleans
Michael Shedlock
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Speaking for the National Association of Realtors on June 6th, David Lereah, the NAR's top cheerleader had this to say:
Home sales are settling into a slower pace. "In recent years we were occasionally challenged to find appropriate superlatives to describe surprisingly high home sales," he said. "Now the housing market has cooled, but 2006 is still expected to be the third strongest on record. In this case, experiencing a slowing from a hot market is a good thing because we need a solid housing sector to provide an underlying base to the economy, and slower appreciation will help to preserve long-term affordability. But this is a time for the Fed to pause on rate hikes because we have some interest-sensitive housing markets that have become vulnerable."
Let's summarize:
- This year will be the "third strongest on record".
- Slowing from a hot market is a "good thing"
- "Slower Appreciation will preserve affordability"
- "The Fed should Pause"
It's now Mish Question Time (but this is an easy one).
Which one of the above does not logically fit in?
Ding Ding Ding the answer of course is number 4.
Lereah is now in panic mode, talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. I am not the only one that noticed this either.
In "Burning Down the House" Independent economist Bob Brusca had this to say: The 10-year note is still yielding just 5%, and 30-year mortgage rates are still historically reasonable. In that light, Mr. Lereah's demand "smacks of desperation," and might cause enough alarm to make potential first-time home-buyers more likely to stay on the sidelines. "I would see this as a mistake [on Mr. Lereah's part] and not an indicator of bad things to happen," Mr. Brusca said, adding: "Except for home builders."
... What is David Lereah really worried about?
...Lereah knows things are rapidly deteriorating or he would not be so contradictory. But the three things that probably worrying him most are inventory, inventory, and inventory. The next four things he is worried about are falling sales, falling prices, rising foreclosures, and rising bankruptcies. Let's take a quick look at some recent inventory charts.
Orange County
Fairfax County Virginia
There is little atypical about any of the above charts.
Florida looks the same way and I am sure countless other places do too.
Beneath the facade I sense David Lereah is in a near panic.
How long he can remain an optimistic cheerleader rooting for a team down 20 points in the fourth quarter with under 2 minutes left remains to be seen. I am already ready for the next ploy: "Homes won't stay at these prices forever". He will of course be correct. Prices will head lower, much lower. We have only just begun to unwind the craziness of the last few years.
The Producer Price Index numbers for May were released last week, raising inflation concerns:
Producer prices up more than expected
By Mark Felsenthal
U.S. producer prices excluding energy and food rose faster than expected last month and high gasoline prices boosted otherwise tepid retail sales, the government said on Tuesday in reports that signal inflationary pressures.
U.S. producer prices rose just 0.2 percent last month as food costs fell, but prices outside of food and energy rose a steeper-than-expected 0.3 percent. Retail sales in May rose just 0.1 percent, matching Wall Street expectations, with declines in auto, furniture and building material sales.
Analysts said the rise in core producer prices shows the risk that rising prices may be working their way from producers to consumers.
"Pipeline inflation pressures continue to build, and that impression was not dispelled by today's release," said William O'Donnell, head of U.S. interest rate strategy and research at UBS in Stamford, Connecticut.
The dollar climbed to its highest levels in over a month against the euro and the yen as the higher-than-expected core producer price reading heightened expectations the Federal Reserve would raise interest rates in June.
U.S. Treasury debt prices pared gains, while stocks were little changed in volatile trading.
The producer price report "supports the idea that (the Federal Reserve) will raise rates another 25 basis points on June 29, and the dollar has reacted positively to that," said Alex Beuzelin, foreign exchange market analyst at Ruesch International in Washington.
The consumer price report for May will be released on Wednesday, providing a much broader outlook on inflationary pressures. Analysts expect the 0.4 percent rise in the CPI, while the core rate is expected to rise on 0.2 percent.
George Ure points out that crude goods rose in May by a 2% monthly rate which means a 26.8% annual rate.
PPI: Crude Goods: 26.8% Inflation
Welcome to the Weimar? It depends on how much of the coming increases in crude goods are passed on to consumers, but here's the picture: Crude goods are up - a lot! 2% from last month to this (May) report and that pencils out to an annual rate (26.8%) that could spell disaster for the markets, especially in light of inflation results from elsewhere which we'll get to in a minute.
To keep things in perspective, here's how the flow of inflation data looks like when you step back far enough from the numbers:
So what we're talking about today is inflation down the supply chain a ways from where it hits the retail outlets where the numbers morph into CPI (consumer prices) which will come out tomorrow.
Now, here's where things are by the Labor Department's latest:
"The Producer Price Index for Finished Goods rose 0.2 percent in May, seasonally adjusted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. This increase followed a 0.9-percent jump in April and a 0.5-percent advance in March. At the earlier stages of processing, prices received by manufacturers of intermediate goods climbed 1.1 percent in May after rising 0.9 percent in the preceding month, while the crude goods index moved up 2.0 percent following a 1.2-percent gain in April. "
Now this is absolutely key: At the Crude Goods level (Raw Materials) prices are going up like crazy. Why? Haven't you been paying attention to our "inflation is a worry" discussions?
The change in crude goods of 2% for the month - which is the same as saying 26.8% inflation is working its way into the front end of the pipeline.
The report makes it sound like the slight improvement in finished goods is just a twitch of energy price impacts:
"Most of the deceleration in the finished goods index can be traced to prices for energy goods, which slowed to a 0.4-percent increase in May after advancing 4.0 percent in April. Prices for finished consumer foods turned down 0.5 percent following a 0.1-percent gain in the prior month. Alternatively, the index for finished goods other than foods and energy increased 0.3 percent in May compared with a 0.1-percent rise in April."
"Before seasonal adjustment, the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods advanced 0.4 percent in May to 161.2 (1982 = 100). From May 2005 to May 2006, prices for finished goods increased 4.5 percent. Over the same period, the index for finished energy goods climbed 20.6 percent, prices for finished goods other than foods and energy rose 1.5 percent, and the index for finished consumer foods fell 1.5 percent. For the 12 months ended May 2006, prices for intermediate goods increased 8.9 percent and the crude goods index moved up 8.6 percent."
OK, there you have it: The BLS folks admitting that there is 8-9% inflation down the pipeline.
Looking ahead, it's hard to see whether the ultimate fear should be inflation or deflation. Doug Casey says both can happen at the same time:
The Greater Depression - an Update
Doug Casey
June 5, 2006
...[A] depression is probably inevitable this time.
The only serious question in my mind is whether it will be essentially deflationary in nature, as it was the case in the U.S. in the 1930s, or inflationary like in Germany in the 1920s. My guess is the latter because the government is so much more powerful today. Or it could actually be both at once, in different sectors of the economy.
How?
Inflation could drive interest rates to 20%. This would collapse the bond and real estate markets, wiping out trillions of dollars of purchasing power - which is deflationary. Meanwhile, that same inflation doubles the cost of food and fuel. In other words, the opposite of what we've mostly had for the last generation, when we had "good" inflation in stocks, bonds and property, but stable or dropping prices in "cost of living" items. This time the pattern could reverse, which would be a nightmare for most people.
And as people become more focused on speculation in a generally futile attempt to stay ahead of financial chaos, they inevitably divert effort from economic production. Which will decrease the general standard of living even more.
The situation isn't made easier by the possibility that we're facing Peak Oil - the start of a secular decline in world oil production. Or the fact that Americans, both individually and collectively, are deeply in debt and living on the kindness of strangers. The problem with debt is that it artificially increases our standard of living. But when we pay it off, especially with interest, it reduces our standard of living in a very real way.
Wrap this economic environment around the so-called War on Terror, which is rapidly morphing into the War on Islam, which could easily turn into World War III, and you're looking at the perfect storm. The odds of a major conflagration are very high, and it's not being adequately discounted. If Bush starts a war against Iran, or if another incident like that of 9/11 occurs, or even if the trend of the last five years accelerates, the U.S. is going to be locked down like one of its numerous new federal penitentiaries. And that will be accompanied, and compounded, by mass hysteria among Boobus americanus.
At that point, your investment portfolio will be among your lesser concerns. People forget that, in every country and time, there's a standard distribution of sociopaths and misdirected losers. In normal times, they seem like normal people. But when the time is right, they show their colors, and they love to get jobs with the government, where they can lord it over their betters.
Is the Greater Depression really inevitable? How bad will it be? Is there another side to the argument? Can it be avoided?
I suppose it's not absolutely inevitable. Perhaps friendly aliens will land on the roof of the White House and present the government with a magic technology that can undo all the damage it's done. But we live in a world of cause and effect where actions have consequences. That being the case, I expect truly serious financial and economic trouble...
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: The Principle of Universality: Appreciating a fundamental principle for healthy culture
by Jim Prues
In these unsettled times where corporations control traditional media and the government seems completely divorced from understanding the needs of their citizenry, it would seem useful to review principles for a healthy society. Very near the top would be the principle of universality.
Simply put, this principle states the idea that the same rules apply to everyone or everything in a given situation. In science, this is exhibited in gravity and electromagnetic forces, which follow consistent laws regardless of where they are in the universe. Gravity may act differently near a black hole, but it will always act the same near identical black holes.
In finance the principle of universality would suggest that the same rules of lending and borrowing be applicable to all. That doesn't preclude, say, higher interest rates for a higher risk borrower, but it does preclude the assumptions so often used to stereotype someone as "high risk." The risk must be based on personal past experience, not neighborhood, ethnicity or other likely bogus "formulas" currently used to rip off our less well off neighbors.
In the area of society and culture, it's the same. We might describe it with the old adage, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Restated: the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of ethnicity, class, color, religion, sexual preference, beauty, stature, etc. Jefferson 's core idea in the Declaration of Independence echoes this concept, "that all men are created equal."
When written, Mr. Jefferson didn't necessarily mean to include persons of color or women in the statement. And yet over the last 230 years we've come to appreciate that the principle of universality must apply to that statement, and by implication to the rest of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. It's a lovely thought.
Tragically, this lovely thought has no basis in the realities of the day. We can create a very long list of situations to document this lack, as an even cursory read of Chomsky, Sirota, Palast or a host of others will clearly reveal. We can find glaring reasons, in spite of Bush' feigned confusion, to answer the question, "why does the rest of the world hate America ?"
Instead of applying the principle of universality to world affairs, our government applies a principle of "totality."
"Universality, therefore, is not exclusive. Totality, on the other hand, is; it demands everything for itself, rejecting any degree of participation. Both fundamentalism, in all its manifestations, as well as nationalism, are nothing but consequences of the principle of totality taken to an extreme, and which reached its greatest splendor in Hegelian thought." - Rafael Domingo
Here's a simple, if peculiar, way to appreciate the difference. If we interpret Jesus as the "one, only-begotton son of God," then Jesus has rights to all sorts of specialness - he's "the one and only." That's totality thinking. If we interpret Jesus as part of a "sonship" that includes every human being - "Ye are gods, if only ye would believe", that's universality thinking.
To expound a bit further, the Catholic claim of "one, true, apostolic church" exhibits the totality principle. The Taoist sounding "there are as many paths as there are souls, and all souls are one" is obviously universality. But enough passive/aggressiveness with typical Christian idealogy. The real meat is the Empire of Corporatism and Control established and enabled by the United States federal government.
As Chomky points out in "Hegemony or Survival," United States foreign policy, especially since WWII, has been strictly focused on US domination of the political and economic landscape across the planet. From Korea to Kosovo , Iran contra to current Iraq policy, Africa to Latin and South America - you got it - high crimes and imperialism by the good ol' U.S. of A.
There is not a single case of engagement to support a just and honorable cause. U.S. policy purveys a very obvious pattern of fear mongering (think WMDs), divisiveness (Muslim terrorists) and bold-faced lies (spreading democracy). And that's just the last few years in Iraq . Dare we consider what atrocities have been done in the name of "freedom fighting" or some other mythic bullshit? Considering the current world stage, the better question is "Dare we not?"
So when Mr. Bush asks his rhetorical question, "Why does the world hate us?" the appropriate response is that they don't hate us as American people. They hate the bully in the schoolyard - the country that decides when and where to make war because it can, the country that endorses "free trade agreements" that protect corporations, but not communities, workers or the environment. They hate watching McDonald's and Wal-Mart replace local resources because of U.S. diplomatic and trade pressures. They hate our pronounced love of democracy while we support the worst regimes on the planet, so long as they support "free trade" and other supposed U.S. interests. They hate us because we demonize the few leaders that emerge as true leaders, with Venuzuela's Hugo Chavez as the current bogeyman at the top of the list.
In short, they hate us for the same reasons we hate what our government is doing these days. It's just that outside the states they've experience this corporate imperialism to a much greater scale and for a far longer period.
And at home? No haters here! No efforts to undermine civil rights in these United States ! That's why the president's actions to undermine any law he signs with a signing statement, to allow illegal spying, to allow the outing of a CIA agent (that alone is treason), to allow energy, pharmaceuticals and other industries to rip off millions of us, to initiate "reforms" like privatizing social security, like aiding and abetting voting fraud, like encouraging divisiveness, like destroying our ecologies and communities, like pandering to every sort of corporate interest, like...dude, gimme a break.
Yes, friends, it's 1984 - Huxley style. Our soma is the disgusting propaganda spewed by news outlets and their corporate owners. The principle of universality? No, the principal of totality. But even the manipulation of news is performed under the pretext of universality, with opposing viewpoints that narrow the conversation and where right-leaning pundits are given the same weight in their arguments as scientific or well-reasoned thought (make that more weight).
And yet, the principle of universality has a quality of rightness, of fairness and justice. It's the old "do unto others..." approach. It states that congress and the president and all officials must abide by the same laws you and I do. It suggests that corporations cannot be endowed with the same rights as persons. It implies the real American Dream, a fair shake for everyone and a chance to live in health and peace.
Thomas Jefferson and other founders of our country were flawed, as are we all. But they had the vision to recognize the importance of the principle of universality to creating a successful democracy. And so it was written into our constitution. But that honest intent has been usurped by corporate interests and our government. And we can't fully address the problem without realizing its range and depth.
What solace there may be in our current situation lies in the glimmers on the edges of our culture. There are great efforts being made by common people around the world to make their governments more responsible and less corrupt. There are trends toward sustainability and justice all over the planet. And there's a growing realization that you can't win a war on terrorism by spreading terror.
The core issue is reforming our government to be, once again, sincerely based on the principle of universality. Hard to say how radical things are going to get before we throw these bums out and begin restoring our government, but it's not too soon to start.
Jim Prues is a entrepreneur and small business principal whose interests include writing, music, culture, ecology and the human condition. He can be reached at jim@world5.org. His site is http://world5.org/.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Wall Street Journal Gives Hugo Chavez A Mixed Review
by Stephen Lendman
In contrast to its one-sided stance on Hugo Chavez, the June 16 Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on US based activists in Boston, New York, San Diego, Miami, Cincinnati and other cities around the country forming Bolivarian Circles and other groups supporting the Chavez government. But it couldn't do it without taking its usual swipe at the Venezuelan leader beginning with the front page article's title: Move Over Che: Chavez Is New Icon of Radical Chic. That's WSJ language intending to demean in its headline rather than use a proper one to reflect what their story was about.
It then used its opening paragraph (which many readers never go beyond) to convey a flavor of invective before getting into the heart of a story worth telling but not without some slaps at Chavez interspersed along the way. It referred to the president's "fiery" rhetoric (never mentioning its honesty) saying it wins him few friends in Washington while never explaining the one place on earth Hugo Chavez will never have friends in high places is in the nation's capitol. It also accuses Chavez of becoming a "revolutionary hero nearly on a par with Che Guevara and Fidel Castro," that he uses his nation's oil riches to "prop up Mr. Castro's regime," and that "His dream is to spread the Venezuelan brand of socialism across Latin America."
Journal writers are masters of half-truths and distortion that goes along the the paper's policy of being hostile to any government not in line with the neoliberal Washington Consensus (wreaking havoc wherever it spreads) and not fully subservient to US wishes. Nothing in their article explains that the Bolivarian Revolution is a true participatory democracy where the people have a say in how the country is governed; that the lives of the majority poor have benefitted enormously by an impressive array of essential social programs and services unimaginable in the US; that Hugo Chavez aids his neighbors (Castro included who aids Venezuela in return) and doesn't threaten war or sanctions against them; has no secret prisons; no illegal political prisoners or illegal detentions; doesn't practice torture; doesn't ethnically cleanse neighborhoods to aid corporate developers; and never suspended the constitution even after a coup d'etat, mass street riots and a crippling US-instigated oil lockout and shutdown. It's even working to clean up and change a many decade-long legacy and systemic climate of corruption and inefficient state bureaucracy and is making slow progress against great odds that would challenge any leader.
When it comes to reporting even a good story about Hugo Chavez, the Journal has to ruin it by taking their usual jabs and getting their facts wrong in the process. It went on to claim a "darker side" in the Bolivarian circles within Venezuela stating they help the "government identify opponents, who are then denied remedial education and other government services." It reported this was what two US academics found in a study they conducted that may have been funded by the Bush administration to report results in line with its own policy and rhetoric. Bush officials also may have bought off some so-called "Human rights groups" which the Journal writer says claim Chavez is "dangerously centralizing (his) power, emasculating Venezuela's judiciary and threatening press freedom." It sounds more like those groups were misquoted and are talking instead about what's happening inside the US as the Bush administration consolidates its power, is systematically stripping away sacred constitutional freedoms and is moving the country dangerously closer to a full-blown police state. Hugo Chavez is doing just the opposite in Venezuela, but you won't learn that on the pages of the Wall Street Journal or from their so-called sources.
Nonetheless, the Journal reported an inspiring story of ordinary US citizens wanting to spread the message of what, if fact, is happening in Venezuela. It's heartening to learn about groups forming around the country that hopefully may grow in size and whose activities may be able to counter the hostile commentary from high level US officials and the complicit and stenographic corporate media. It's quite surprising to read on the front page of the WSJ a quote many in the US would agree with, but we'd never expect to see it in print in any major US newspaper. It's by a Chavez supporter in Olympia, WA who says "My political belief is that the US is a horrendous empire that needs to end." Another supporter said he formed an Oregon Bolivarian Circle because of his outrage over the 2002 US led failed coup against the Venezuelan leader. He went on to explain he and his Venezuelan-born wife make annual trips to the country and are impressed by Chavez's efforts to provide (free) health care and education for the poor (who never had it before he was elected). He then added that he "couldn't understand why the US press didn't see it his way," so he and others in his Circle began to sponsor pro-Chavez movies, college lectures and rallies. This gentleman actually appeared on one of President Chavez's five hour Sunday call-in television programs "Alo Presidente" and was called "brother" by the president.
The Journal went on to report on other groups including one in Philadelphia that has produced three pro-Chavez videos including one about supportive oil workers who helped the state-owned oil company keep operating despite a crippling anti-Chavez strike that began in December, 2002. It also explained that the US based groups get no funding from the Venezuelan government and instead operate strictly on their own and do it to "help us counteract the campaign that there isn't freedom of expression in Venezuela," according to the country's US ambassador Bernado Alverez.
Overall, the Journal today was unusual in that it was both in and out of character in the way it reports on the Chavez government. On the one hand, it showed Hugo Chavez has loyal supporters inside the US working to spread the truth about his government and Bolivarian Revolution. But at the same time, the flavor of invective was strong, in line with the Journal's usual one-sided stance, and it ended up spoiling what otherwise would have been a fine effort. Wouldn't it be nice if one day the WSJ doffed its empire-friendly garb and told it like it is, fully and honestly. Apparently that's too much to expect from the newspaper of record for corporate America that never lets the truth get in the way of their one-sided support for the US empire and interests of capital. In spite of it, the spirit of the glorious Bolivarian Revolution is uplifting and inspiring. It's powerful, spreading and in the end won't be derailed by Journal writers or other enemies of those on the side of social equity and justice.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.com. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Comment on this Editorial
Raindrops Keep Fallin' on my Head
NASA Spies Lunar Meteoroid Impact
SPX
Jun 16, 2006
Huntsville, AL - There's a new crater on the Moon. It's about 14 meters wide, 3 meters deep and precisely one month, eleven days old - and NASA astronomers watched it form. "A meteoroid hit the Moon's Sea of Clouds (Mare Nubium) with 17 billion joules of kinetic energy - that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT," said Bill Cooke, the head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office at Marshall Space Flight Center.
"The impact created a bright fireball, which we video-recorded using a 10-inch telescope."
Lunar impacts have been seen before - "stuff hits the Moon all the time," Cooke said - but this was the best-ever recording of an explosion in progress.
The video plays in 7x slow motion; otherwise the explosion would be nearly invisible to the human eye.
"The duration of the fireball was only four-tenths of a second," Cooke said. "A student member of our team, Nick Hollon of Villanova University, spotted the flash."
Taking into account the duration of the flash and its brightness (7th magnitude), Cooke was able to estimate the energy of impact, the dimensions of the crater and the size and speed of the meteoroid.
"It was a space rock about 10 inches (25 cm) wide traveling 85,000 miles per hour (38 kilometers per second)," he said.
If a rock like that hit Earth, it would never reach the ground. "Earth's atmosphere protects us," Cooke explained. "A 10-inch meteoroid would disintegrate in mid-air, making a spectacular fireball in the sky but no crater."
The Moon is different. Having no atmosphere, it is totally exposed to meteoroids. Even small ones can cause spectacular explosions, spraying debris far and wide.
NASA's Vision for Space Exploration is meant to send astronauts back to the Moon. Are these meteoroids going to cause a problem?
"That's what we're trying to find out," Cooke said. "No one knows exactly how many meteoroids hit the Moon every day. By monitoring the flashes, we can learn how often and how hard the Moon gets hit."
The work is underway. Using a computerized telescope built by Rob Suggs and Wesley Swift at Marshall, Cooke's group is monitoring the night side of the Moon "as often as 10 times a month, whenever the lunar phase is between 15 percent and 50 percent."
During a telescope test last November, Suggs and Swift recorded an explosion on their very first night of observing. A piece of debris from Comet Encke struck the plains of Mare Imbrium, making a crater about 3 meters wide.
Now that regular monitoring has begun, Cooke's group already has found a second impact, the May 2 event, in only 20 hours of watching.
This time, they suspect, the impactor was a random meteoroid, "a sporadic," from no particular comet or asteroid.
"We've made a good beginning," Cooke said, adding that much work remains. He would like to observe all year long, watching the Moon as it passes in and out of known meteoroid streams.
"This would establish a good statistical basis for planning (activities on the Moon)," he said.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: NASA Astronomers Spot Rare Lunar Meteor Strike
Steve Roy
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone: 256.544.0034)
12.23.05
News Release: 05-190
On Nov. 7, using a 10-inch-diameter telescope, astronomers recorded a tiny blip northwest of Mare Imbrium, the moon's "Sea of Showers." Such impacts are not uncommon, but it was only in 1999 that scientists first recorded a lunar strike as it happened.
"People just do not look at the moon anymore," said Dr. Robert Suggs, Space Environment team lead in the Natural Environments Branch of the Marshall Center's Engineering Directorate. "We tend to think of it as a known quantity. But there is knowledge still to be gained here."
As NASA plans to return to the moon, the agency has a need to understand what happens after lunar impacts in order to protect lunar explorers. On Earth, the atmosphere vaporizes most small meteoroids, leaving nothing behind but a brief streak of light. The vacuum environment on the moon, however, means there is nothing to slow incoming meteoroids before they strike.
"The likelihood of being struck by a meteoroid on the lunar surface is very, very small," said Bill Cooke, an astronomer in Marshall's Meteoroid Environment Office. "The challenge is learning what happens to high-velocity ejecta, the debris kicked up by a meteoroid strike, which is not hindered by atmospheric friction or Earth gravity. What threat does that debris pose to humans or equipment?"
Suggs, who heads the impact study, used commercial software tools to study the video frame by frame, and spotted a very bright flash. The burst of light diminished gradually over the course of five video frames, each 1/30th of a second in duration. Suggs called in Cooke, and both scientists agreed that the bright light was an impact flash, captured by video from some 248,000 miles away.
Immediately, the team began ruling out other possible causes. Two telling characteristics won out – the gradual diminishment of the flash rather than an on-off "winking" effect, and its motionlessness. A flicker of light from a moving satellite, Cooke noted, would have appeared to shift perceptibly, even in five brief frames of video.
Suggs and Cooke next consulted star charts and lunar imaging software and determined the meteoroid was likely a Taurid, part of an annual meteor shower active at the time of the strike. Based on the amount of light produced the object was roughly five inches in diameter, traveling more than 60,000 mph, and may have gouged a crater nearly 10 feet in diameter out of the moon's surface.
The Taurids, which approach Earth from the direction of the Taurus constellation, are believed to be ancient remnants of comet Encke, which orbits the Sun every 3.3 years.
NASA scientists previously studied lunar meteor strikes during the Apollo moon program, but lacked the sophisticated video cameras and high-powered image processors to capture the tiny, telling flashes. Now, however, as NASA readies its next-generation spaceship to carry explorers back to the moon for potential long-term stays, Suggs and Cooke say lunar impact research is more vital than ever.
"Large-scale lunar facilities are sure to be well-protected, using impact-resistant technologies much like those developed to shield the space shuttle and the International Space Station," Suggs said. "We want to support additional measures that safeguard personnel working in the lunar field – early-alert systems, emergency protective measures and new technologies that will mitigate risks from flying impact debris."
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Police report 'dazzling' meteor: Australia
December 8, 2005
ABCNewsOnline
There were reports of a big meteorite crossing south-western New South Wales and central Victoria overnight.
Victorians from Geelong to Mildura called police after apparently watching the object.
Senior Victorian Constable Peter Bullock and his partner were patrolling the Calder Highway at Kyneton at about 11:20pm AEDT when they saw what they say was a huge light.
Senior Constable Bullock says they had a clear view of the meteorite dropping towards the ground in the eastern sky.
"My offsider with me had a look as well and we were just dazzled," he said.
"It was unbelievable, it was a huge light, much bigger than any star. It was sort of round and had a very long tail and seemed to be dropping fairly slowly, so we were able to see it for 15 to 20 seconds."
"I said to my offsider, 'that's a meteorite, it's certainly too big to be a falling star' and he said the same thing."
Comment: With the increasing numbers of Fireballs being sighted, and increasing volcanic activity, we have to wonder if these events are in any way connected to the obvious climate changes we see all around the globe?
Unfortunately, most people who do pay attention to the fact that all the ancient myths discuss heating of the earth, increasing Volcanic and Earthquake activity, "signs in the heavens," and wars and rumors of wars, can do little or nothing about it in the face of the massive control system that has been created to keep our attention off what really matters. The Global propaganda machine more and more resembles the system utilized against the citizens of Nazi German under Hitler and Soviet Russia under the Communists. Those who might be creative enough to figure a way out of this mess are marginalized and factionalized. It is oh, so true, that Pathocracy is like a disease:
...What happens if the network of ... psychopaths achieves power in leadership positions with international [control]? ... Goaded by their character, such people thirst for just that even though it would conflict with their own life interestÂ… They do not understand that a catastrophe would ensue. Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: (Yet another) Meteor lights up the morning skies
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Mike Vogel/KTVB
BOISEE -- It happened early Thursday morning around 7:15 a.m.
Jacqueline Correnti describes what she the bright meteor she saw in the morning sky.
A very bright meteor lit up the skies and streaked across the horizon.
NewsChannel 7 spoke with several of the people who witnessed it.
We had numerous calls here at the station from people who saw it.
Police dispatch also took several calls, and even one person in the Boise Airport tower saw it.
And though the eyewitness accounts vary slightly, they are all consistent with it being a meteor.
“I was driving north on Bogus Basin, and I looked up in the sky and there was fireworks coming down,” said Jacqueline Correnti.
When Jacqueline Correnti looked up in the sky this morning she couldnÂ’t' believe her eyes.
“I only saw it for a second or two,” said Correnti.
A meteor in the skies above the Treasure Valley going west to east.
“Between where those two clouds are, it was right in the middle of it, and heading that way it was, if I were going out to reach and grab it, it was a good volleyball size,” said Correnti. “This was definitely not a falling star; the tail on it was bright blue and pretty thick. I’ve seen Hailey’s Comet in the sky, but that is so far away. this was like, this was closer than what an airplane would be. I was so excited, I got goose bumps.”
Across town in southeast Boise, Libby Hood saw the same thing.
“I saw it for a good ten seconds it was phenomenal. Was coming home and the bright light from this object in the sky caught my attention and it was low enough here above the roof line, I was just about to pull into the driveway and a flash kind of caught my eye, and I looked over to the left and I seen this ball of fire with a tail behind it, kind of at a gradual descent,” said Hood.
Video Clip
Mike Vogel, Rick Lantz report
At first she thought it might be a plane going down.
“I verbally remember myself saying, ‘oh my gosh,’ because it was that I looked, and I looked again, and just watched this thing go across the sky, and it was so low. Pretty amazing, pretty phenomenal to witness that,” said Hood.
Experts from the Boise Astronomical Society say that if the it did hit the ground, the meteorite would likely be smaller than a walnut.
And although it's unclear if anyone saw it land, considering its size, it is highly unlikely anyone would ever find it.
But if anyone did find it, meteorites are worth a lot of money. Some put their value at about the same as gold.
Comment: A post from our Forum:
Im currently living in a town in Essex, Uk...
Last night on 11th January 2006 at roughly 19:10hours I witnessed a decending meteroic phenomena which, if I were to hazard a guess, was a small meteor breaking up to the NE of my position.
Id guess [it was]no more than 3-6miles from my postion as the view I had was clear enough to see a glitering trail of sparks and colour decending with it, although there was no impact sound, I didn't really expect any. It was in my view for around 1.5-3seconds, so I hadn't seen it decend from a great distance and my view was obscured quickly by other houses.
To date in the last - maybe - year or more of watching the skies, this is the sixth or so time I've seen this same type of meteoric phenomena. I think we've been lucky so far as I have yet to have heard any impact. To be quite honest the first 2-3 times I have witnessed this it really sent a chill down my spine as one of these phenomena occured in a horizontal position across a small valley on which I live on the high side, and I knew that whatever it was could have been no more than 200-300feet above my head as it was traveling between the land and the thick cloud cover overhead.
I have had my attetion drawn to the skies so many times now and seen so many unexplainable occurences and strange celestial events, I thought I'd start sharing them as and when they occur in future. Ourselves in the future have helped me so much already in understanding what's going on, I felt its time to try and help share the high strangeness I see going on in the world around my locality.
Keep the hard hats handy.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Meteor lights Alberta sky
February 3, 2006
By KATIE SCHNEIDER, CALGARY SUN
Calgarians awoke to a fire in the sky early Wednesday morning.
Alan Hildebrand, co-ordinator of the Canadian Fireball Reporting Centre, said 20 people reported seeing a fireball, an exceptionally bright meteor, streak across the sky just before 7 a.m., lasting for several seconds before breaking up into fragments.
Reports were made from the Calgary area, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Pincher Creek and other areas, he said.
"It had to be a bright one for everyone in the Calgary area to see," Hildebrand said.
He estimated remnants of the meteorite landed about 400 km south of Calgary somewhere in Montana about two minutes after it appeared as a ball of fire.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Meteorite falls in Northeast Brazil
Published in O ESTADO DE SAO PAULO
03.08.2006
In TABOACAL at SANTO ANTONIO DE JESUS rural area, PAULINA DE JESUS saw a huge fire ball crossing the sky. "After falling, the fire ascended about 30m into the sky" and burned a great forest area in the Atlantic Forest.
The meteorite left five holes in the land of about 2 meters in diameter.
The ANTARES Observatory, in the nearby the city of FEIRA DE SANTANA will conduct an investigation.
Translated from the Portugese by MA BN
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Astronomer: "UFO" observed across Thailand is meteor
www.chinaview.cn
2006-03-13
BANGKOK, March 13 (Xinhuanet) -- The recent sighting of what appears to be an unidentified flying object (UFO) over Thai central province of Ayutthaya has left witnesses scratching their heads over what exactly it might have been while some astronomer and experts thought it was something like a meteor.
Morakot Areeya, head of a astronomy learning center, was quotedon Monday by the Bangkok Post as saying that he saw a burning object speeding across the sky at about 6:20 p.m. (1120 GMT) on March 4 in Ayutthaya's Nakhon Si Ayutthaya district. Some other witnesses also reported they have seen the unidentified object that night.
Worawit Thanwuttibandit, a cosmic adviser to the Thai Astronomical Society, said the object might have been a large meteor.
Dr Sarun Posayajinda, deputy director-general of the National Astronomical Research Institute, said it was possible that the object was some kind of space debris which had burst into flames on entering the earth's atmosphere.
Morakot took a photograph of the object, which he first thought was an airplane that had burst into flames. However, he was surprised to see the object continue to streak across the sky in an easterly direction before disappearing from sight.
Morakot said it did not appear that the object had struck the earth, rather it had traveled almost horizontally. He said some locals felt the object may have been some form of UFO.
"It is strange because after contacting a number of local amateur radio hams, none had learnt of any air crashes in the area," Morakot said
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Nah. It couldn't have been a meteorite. Could it?
Mar, 23 2006
BURNABY/CKNW(AM980) - A loud explosion in Burnaby late last night has authorities scratching their heads.
About 11:05 the blast rattled windows and awakened neighbours near the Chaffey Burke Elementary School on Abbey Avenue.
Police responded with officers and a dog but came up empty handed. All they could find was a small hole in the ground.
No damage has been reported and there were no injuries.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Daytime Meteor Spotted In Colorado
Vail Daily
07/06/2006
Steve Erickson and his boys have a pretty good view of the night sky. Tuesday, the daytime sky was pretty impressive, too.
As Erickson and his boys Colton, 11, and Cal, 9, were driving back to their home at Horse Mountain Ranch north of Wolcott Tuesday afternoon, they saw something - presumably a meteor - streak across the western sky.
"It was visible across probably a third of the sky, probably from Burns Hole to Muddy Pass," Steve said. "It looked like fireworks. When it separated, it had color to it."
The trail of smoke the meteor left then hung in the sky for several seconds after the thing had disintegrated.
"It was the biggest one I've ever seen," Colton said.
"It was better than seeing one at night," Cal said. "This didn't just streak across the sky and disappear." [...]
Comment on this Article
Flashback: UFO 'probably a small meteorite or something'
Johannesburg, South Africa
23 May 06
The search for an unidentified object that apparently crashed into the sea at Port Shepstone on Saturday will resume at the weekend as there were no bodies to search for, the National Sea Rescue Institute said on Tuesday.
"It is unlikely that we will go out to search before the weekend. The NSRI's core business is rescuing people and here there is no loss of life involved," said NSRI Shelley Beach Station Commander Eddie Noyons.
The search for the unidentified object began on Saturday after witnesses reported that an object, possibly an aircraft, had crashed into the sea behind the breaker line off-shore of the Port Shepstone High School.
Police, rescue craft and a fixed wing aircraft were alerted to the scene to investigate.
"Following a full-scale search of the area covering 12 square nautical miles nothing had been found.
"There are no reports of activity in the area that may be related to this incident and there are no aircraft reported to be overdue or missing," said Noyons.
He said numerous witnesses -- including teachers and pupils attending a sports event at the high school, and other bystanders including local fishermen -- were convinced they had seen an aircraft go into the water, including seeing smoke and a water plume.
Interviews with the witnesses revealed that some also reported seeing flames.
"Some reported seeing something, an unidentified object, splash into the sea causing a ripple effect of waves," Noyons said.
Due to the number of witnesses with similar reports, it was presumed that weather activity might have given the impression of something falling into the sea.
Noyons said rescue workers were unable to find oil slicks, petrol spillage or any signs or wreckage during the search on Saturday.
"We are not sure what it was as we are still unaware of any missing aircraft, but will continue the search at the weekend. It's probably a small meteorite or something. The weekend will be a nice time for diving," said Noyons. - Sapa
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Witnesses to 'green fire' wanted
By STAFF
Tue, June 6, 2006
Manitoba Museum wants to hear from people who spotted "eerie green fire" in the sky late Friday.
Resident astronomer Scott Young said the spectacle occurred about 11:30 p.m. when a small asteroid or chunk of comet burned up in the Earth's atmosphere, shattering into several pieces.
A sonic boom could be heard in the Whiteshell area about five minutes later, meaning the object was "nice and low," Young said.
He said it was visible from Winnipeg as far east as Lake of the Woods, and some pieces may have made it to the ground.
Vaporizing materials in the object, which burned up at 4,000 C to 5,000 C, produced the green colour, Young said.
Descriptions have him believing it was a large bolide, which is a bigger cousin of a meteor or shooting star.
"This happens every day somewhere in the world," Young said.
He wants to gather as many eyewitness accounts as he can to determine a flight path and find any fragments that may have made it to ground level.
People can send an e-mail to skyinfo@manitobamuseum.ca or call 956-2830 to submit their sighting.
You must include the time and date, your location when you saw the object, direction you were facing, the direction it was travelling (right to left, for example), and a description of the object and any sound it made.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: South Africa: Meteorite crashes through windscreen of car
Auto Express
World News
7 June 06
Driver Rick Wirth's escape when a stone crashed through his screen on a road in Minneapolis left him thanking his lucky stars. The rock was a meteorite from space.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Record meteorite hits Norway - Impact blast comparable to Hiroshima
Aftenposten.no
09 Jun 2006
At around 2:05 a.m. on Wednesday, residents of the northern part of Troms and the western areas of Finnmark could clearly see a ball of fire taking several seconds to travel across the sky.
A few minutes later an impact could be heard and geophysics and seismology research foundation NORSAR registered a powerful sound and seismic disturbances at 02:13.25 a.m. at their station in Karasjok.
Farmer Peter Bruvold was out on his farm in Lyngseidet with a camera because his mare Virika was about to foal for the first time.
"I saw a brilliant flash of light in the sky, and this became a light with a tail of smoke," Bruvold told Aftenposten.no. He photographed the object and then continued to tend to his animals when he heard an enormous crash.
"I heard the bang seven minutes later. It sounded like when you set off a solid charge of dynamite a kilometer (0.62 miles) away," Bruvold said.
Astronomers were excited by the news.
"There were ground tremors, a house shook and a curtain was blown into the house," Norway's best known astronomer Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard told Aftenposten.no.
Røed Ødegaard said the meteorite was visible to an area of several hundred kilometers despite the brightness of the midnight sunlit summer sky. The meteorite hit a mountainside in Reisadalen in North Troms.
"This is simply exceptional. I cannot imagine that we have had such a powerful meteorite impact in Norway in modern times. If the meteorite was as large as it seems to have been, we can compare it to the Hiroshima bomb. Of course the meteorite is not radioactive, but in explosive force we may be able to compare it to the (atomic) bomb," Røed Ødegaard said.
The astronomer believes the meteorite was a giant rock and probably the largest known to have struck Norway.
"The record was the Alta meteorite that landed in 1904. That one was 90 kilos (198 lbs) but we think the meteorite that landed Wednesday was considerably larger," Røed Ødegaard said, and urged members of the public who saw the object or may have found remnants to contact the Institute of Astrophysics.
Comment: Gosh, what a surprise! For more information on comets, meteors, and NEOs, check out:
- The Signs Meteor Supplement
- Independence Day by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
- Cometary Showers, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
The Norway strike is especially interesting not only because of its sheer magnitude, but because it seems to have been a busy week for meteorites and fireballs...
Comment on this Article
Murder on the Beach
Who really killed Huda Ghalia's family?
Chris McGreal in Beit Lahia
Friday June 16, 2006
The Guardian
Guardian investigation undermines military claim that Israeli shells could not have been responsible for death of girl's family
Heartrending pictures of 10-year-old Huda Ghalia running wildly along a Gaza beach crying "father, father, father" and then falling weeping beside his body turned the distraught girl into an instant icon of the Palestinian struggle even before she fully grasped that much of her family was dead.
But the images of the young girl who lost her father, step-mother and five of her siblings as picnicking families fled a barrage of Israeli shells a week ago have become their own battleground.
Who and what killed the Ghalia family, and badly maimed a score of other people, has been the subject of an increasingly bitter struggle for truth all week amid accusations that a military investigation clearing the army was a cover-up, that Hamas was really responsible and even that the pictures of Huda's grief were all an act.
However, a Guardian investigation into the sequence of events raises new and so far unanswered questions about the Israeli military probe that cleared the army of responsibility. Evidence from hospital records, doctors' testimony and witness accounts challenges the military's central assertion that it had stopped shelling by the time seven members of the Ghalia family were killed.
In addition, fresh evidence from the US group Human Rights Watch, which offered the first forensic questioning of the army's account, casts doubt on another key claim - that shrapnel taken from the wounded was not from the kind of artillery used to shell Gaza.
The pictures of Huda's traumatic hunt for her father garnered instant sympathy around the world and focused unwelcome attention for Israel on its tactic of firing thousands of shells into Gaza over recent weeks, killing more than 20 civilians, to deter Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli towns.
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, initially apologised for the killings but the military swiftly realised it was confronting another PR disaster to rival that of the killing of Mohammed al-Dura, the 12-year-old boy who died in his father's arms amid a barrage of gunfire six years ago and became the first iconic victim of the intifada.
Conflicting accounts
The army quickly convened a committee to investigate the deaths on the beach and almost as swiftly absolved itself of responsibility.
The committee acknowledged the army fired six shells on and around Beit Lahia beach from artillery inside Israel. But it said that by coincidence a separate explosion - probably a mine planted by Hamas or a buried old shell ó occurred in the same area at about the same time, killing the family.
The army admitted that one of the six shells was unaccounted for but said it was "impossible", based on location and timings, for the sixth shell to have done the killing. The investigation also concluded that shrapnel taken from some of the wounded was not from artillery used that day.
The military declared its version of events definitive and an end to the matter. Others went further and saw a Palestinian conspiracy. An American pro-Israel pressure group, Camera, which seeks to influence media coverage, went so far as to suggest that the film of Huda Ghalia's trauma was faked: "Were the bodies moved, was the girl asked to re-enact her discovery for the camera, was the video staged?"
But the army's account quickly came in for criticism, led by a former Pentagon battlefield analyst, Marc Garlasco, investigating the deaths for Human Rights Watch.
"You have the crater size, the shrapnel, the types of injuries, their location on the bodies. That all points to a shell dropping from the sky, not explosives under the sand," he said. "I've been to hospital and seen the injuries. The doctors say they are primarily to the head and torso. That is consistent with a shell exploding above the ground, not a mine under it."
Mr Garlasco produced shrapnel from the site apparently marked as a 155mm shell used by the army that day.
Timing a key issue
The key part of the military's defence hinged on timings. It says it fired the six shells toward the beach between 4.30pm and 4.48pm, and that the artillery barrage stopped nine minutes before the explosion that killed the Ghalia family.
The military concluded that the deadly explosion occurred between 4.57pm and 5.10pm based on surveillance of the beach by a drone that shows people relaxing until just before 5pm and the arrival of the first ambulance at 5.15pm.
Major General Meir Kalifi, who headed the army's investigation committee, said the nine-minute gap is too wide for Israel to have been responsible for the deaths. "I can without doubt say that no means used by the Israeli defence force during this time period caused the incident," he said.
But hospital admissions records, testimony from doctors and ambulance men and eyewitness accounts suggest that the military has got the timing of the explosion wrong, and that it occurred while the army was still shelling the beach.
Palestinian officials also question the timing of video showing people relaxing on the beach undisturbed just before 5pm if the army, by its own admission, was dropping shells close by in the previous half an hour.
Several of those who survived the explosion say it came shortly after two or three other blasts consistent with a pattern of shells falling on the beach.
Among the survivors was Hani Asania. When the shelling began, he grabbed his daughters - Nagham, 4, and Dima, 7 - and moved toward his car on the edge of the beach. The Ghalia family was gathered on the sand nearby awaiting a taxi.
"There was an explosion, maybe 500 metres away. Then there was a second, much closer, about two minutes later. People were running from the beach. I carried my girls and put them in the car but I forgot my mobile phone and I ran back to get it," said Mr Asania.
"Maybe two minutes later there was a third shell. I could feel the pressure of the blast on my face it was so strong. I saw pieces of people. I looked at my car and my girls were screaming."
This sequence is backed by others including Huda's brother, Eyham, 20.
Annan Ghalia, Huda's uncle, called an ambulance.
"We were sitting on the sand waiting for the taxis, the men on one side and the women on the other. The shell landed closer to the girls," he said. "I was screaming for people to help us. No one was coming. After about two minutes I called the ambulance on my mobile phone."
The first ambulance took children to the Kamal Odwan hospital. Its registration book records that five children wounded in the blast were admitted at 5.05pm. The book contains entries before and after the casualties from the beach, all of whom are named, and shows no sign of tampering.
The hospital's computer records a blood test taken from a victim at 5.12pm. Human Rights Watch said altering the records would require re-setting the computer's clock.
The distance from the beach to the hospital is 6km. Even at speed, the drive through Beit Lahia's crowded back streets and rough roads would not take less than five minutes and would be slower with badly wounded patients on board.
Dr Bassam al-Masri, who treated the first wounded at Kamal Odwan, said allowing for a round trip of at least 10 minutes and time to load them, the ambulance would have left the hospital no later than 4.50pm - just two minutes after the Israelis say they stopped shelling.
Factoring in additional time for emergency calls and the ambulances to be dispatched, the timings undermine the military's claim that the killer explosion occurred after the shelling stopped.
A second Beit Lahia hospital, the Alwada, also received a call for ambulances. Doctors say records were completed after treating the patients so they have no written account of timings.
But the first ambulance man to leave the hospital, and a doctor summoned to work, say they have a clear recollection of the time. The ambulance driver, Khaled Abu Sada, said he received a call from the emergency control room between 4.45 and 4.50pm.
"I went to look for a nurse to come with me but he couldn't because there had been a shooting in a family feud and he was treating people," he said. "I left the hospital at 4.50pm and was at the beach by 5pm."
The Alwada's anaesthetist, Dr Ahmed Mouhana, was woken by a call from a fellow doctor calling him to the hospital.
"I looked at the time. That's what you do when someone wakes you up. It was 4.55pm. Dr Nasser couldn't tell me what was going on so I called Abu Jihad [Mr Abu Sada] and asked him. He said he didn't know but I should get to the hospital quickly as it sounded bad," he said.
Mr Abu Sada remembers receiving the call while driving to the beach. Dr Mouhana left for the hospital immediately.
"It only takes 10 minutes from my house so I was there by 5.10pm or 5.15pm at the latest. I went to reception and they had already done triage on the children," he said.
If the hospital records and medical professionals are right, then the emergency call from the beach could not have come in much later than 4.45pm, still during the Israeli shelling.
From the number of shells counted beforehand by the survivors, Mr Garlasco, the former Pentagon analyst, believes the killer shell was one the army records as being fired at 4.34pm.
A military spokesman, Captain Jacob Dalal, said the army stood by its interpretation of timings.
Military investigators said shrapnel taken from wounded Palestinians treated in Israeli hospitals was not from 155mm shells fired that day.
"We know it's not artillery," said Capt Dalal. "We donít know what it is. It could be a shell of another sort or some other device."
The military has suggested that the explosion was rigged by Hamas against possible army landings but Palestinian officials say that would only be an effective strategy if there were a series of mines or Hamas knew exactly where the Israelis would land.
Mr Garlasco said the metal taken from the victims may be detritus thrown up by the explosion or shards from cars torn apart by shrapnel. He said shrapnel collected at the site of the explosion by Human Rights Watch and the Palestinian police was fresh and from artillery shells.
The former Pentagon analyst said that after examining a blood-encrusted piece of shrapnel given to him by the father of a 19-year-old man wounded in the beach explosion, he determined it was a piece of fuse from an artillery shell.
"The likelihood that the Ghalia family was killed by an explosive other than one of the shells fired by the Israeli army is remote," he said.
Capt Dalal defended the army's investigation.
"We're not trying to cover-up anything. We didn't do the investigation to exonerate ourselves. If it was our fire, we'll say it," he said.
Military account
4.30 to 4.48pm: Six shells fired at beach
4.57pm: Video drone records calm on beach
4.57 to 5.10pm: Explosion kills Ghalia family
5.15pm: Drone records arrival of first ambulance
Eyewitness account
4.30 to 4.40pm: Two shells hit the beach
4.40 to 4.45pm: Explosion kills Ghalia family
4.45 to 4.50pm: Ambulance man receives emergency call
4.50pm: Ambulance leaves hospital for beach
4.55pm: Palestinian doctor called to hospital
5.05pm; First casualties arrive at hospital
5.12pm: Hospital computer records blood test of beach casualty
Comment on this Article
Israeli Media and the Gaza Beach Bombing
International Solidarity Movement
Ah Media. Same story, one perspective of its importance, the other of who is telling the truth. Thanks to Mimi for the Keshev-Ma'ariv exchange and commentar, and to Ran for forwarding the Guardian piece, following.
Dorothy
============
Subject: KESHEV vs Maariv editor Danker
"Below is a translation of correspondence between Keshev, an Israeli organisation that monitors the Hebrew media, and Amnon Dankner, the editor of Israel's second largest newspaper, Ma'ariv. It offers an illuminating insight into the news priorities of an Israeli national newspaper, and why Israeli readers are so often misinformed about what is being done in their name in the Occupied Territories.
Keshev wrote to Dankner after the paper failed to offer coverage on its front page of the shelling of a beach in Gaza on Friday 9 June that killed seven members of one family and caused dozens of injuries. All of the Palestinian dead were civilians. Maariv buried the details of the deaths inside the Sunday paper, the first to be published after the incident.
Dankner's main defence of his action in his letter is that he preferred to give space to the story of an American Jewish student who was abducted in Nablus. The student was released unharmed a short time later. Dankner says, however, that, if asked whether the abduction and possible danger to one Jew were more important than the known deaths of seven Palestinians in Gaza, "My answer is a resounding Yes". To paraphrase Dankner, he believes his first duty is to his own kind, or "the people of our own city" as he puts it. His duty to search out the truth, or just to provide important information, obviously come far lower in his list of priorities. ['his own kind' can only refer to heartless racist madmen--m.a.]
It is also worth noting that his argument implies he considers the deaths in Gaza less important than the two other stories on the front page: one on the World Cup, and the other on a cat that does not provoke allergies.
Dankner justifies his editorial decision in several other ways that do not accord with normal journalistic practice. He suggests that Maariv had a prior sense that the Israeli army was not responsible for the missile that killed the family on Gaza's beach. At the time of the deaths he was "unconvinced" of Israeli responsibility and now congratulates himself for forseeing that the army would subsequently deny that they fired the lethal rocket.
He believes that it is inevitable that Palestinian civilians will be hurt in the fighting, given how crowded Palestinian areas are, and that his editing of the paper "takes this into account" -- presumably meaning that he doesn't think such injuries or deaths merit much attention.
And he calls Keshev's demand that the paper inform its readers about the deaths of civilians in the occupied territories "hysterical", labelling Keshev an "extremist organisation". He argues that exposing the Israeli army to this sort of criticism "weakens" it.
Dankner's response poses more questions than it answers about the standards of Ma'ariv's journalism.
First, why is Dankner using the army's later denials to justify retroactively his decision? How could he have known that the early reports of the Israeli army shelling of the beach might be disputed when Israeli spokespeople were still apologising for the deaths? Does he possess a sixth sense, and is this the basis of his editorial decisions? And, in any case, what difference would it make if there was genuine doubt about the Israeli army having shelled the beach? Does that mean the deaths are no longer newsworthy, and that Maariv has no public duty to report prominently the debate about who is responsible?
Second, why as the editor of a national newspaper is Dankner so ready to accept without question the story now being offered by the Israeli army? Obviously the army has a strong interest, as does the Israeli government, in deflecting responsibility for the deaths to the Palestinians and trying to reverse the damage done to Israel's image. A leading expert from the Pentagon on the battlefield effects of weapons has already dismissed the Israeli version as implausible after conducting field research. Is Dankner incapable of keeping his own critical distance when examining the evidence? And does he also not believe that at the very minimum this evidence ought to be placed before readers?
Third, why does Dankner think it "hysterical" to want Palestinian deaths covered? Is this related to his view that such coverage will increase criticism of the army and thereby weaken it? And does this mean that Dankner's first priority as editor is to shield the army from criticism by censoring his paper's coverage?
Dankner argues that his duty of responsibility as editor means he must take "a more reserved approach" than Keshev. This apparently means preventing his readers from having the information necessary to reach their own conclusions about the nature of Israel's occupation of the Palestinians.
Letter from Keshev to Amnon Dankner
June 11, 2006=20
Mr. Amnon Dankner
Editor, Ma'ariv=20
Dear Sir,
We wish to strongly protest at the manner in which the newspaper Ma'ariv presented, in its edition of 11 June, the serious incident in which seven members of one Palestinian family were killed, and many other injured, on the beach at Beit Lahiya, Gaza, on 9 June.
The major communication media, both printed and electronic, in Israel and worldwide, devoted extensive time and space to a review of the tragedy at Gaza and its implications. The two other large Israeli newspapers, Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz, devoted their front pages to the incident and mentioned it in their headlines. They related to the event very seriously -- from the humanitarian aspect, from the incident's possible contribution to the escalation of the conflict, and from the aspect of the hard questions which need to be asked concerning the IDF's [Israeli army's] functioning with respect to the incident. We regret to say that the same cannot be said for Ma'ariv.
The newspaper's front page made no mention of the incident. Just so. Instead, room was found on the front page to report a state of readiness for attacks (for which no explanation was given), the World Cup, and even a headline on a "non-allergenic cat". The tragedy in Gaza appears on page 2 of the paper, in an indirect mention by Palestinian spokesmen on the killing of innocents, and on page 3 -- as part of some commentaries. The first factual report on the incident appears only on page 4.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of these facts: As part of our ongoing monitoring of Israeli reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, editing patterns of decisive significance are repeatedly seen: giving prominence or downplaying news items in newspapers and news editions have an immense effect on the awareness of media consumers. Removing the Gaza incident from the front page of Ma'ariv sends an unequivocal message to readers: This is an event of limited importance. In order to understand the bloody cycle of this conflict, and to find ways of ending it, we must also look at ourselves. In its edition of 11 June, Ma'ariv prevented its readers from taking that necessary look.
Lastly, on page 7 of the same edition, a unique headline appeared, which we found nowhere in any other Israeli publication. The headline said: "Despite the bombing of Gaza, the firing of Kassams has not lessened." The secondary heading said: "The country's money is being wasted for nothing." (Quotation marks in the original.) There you have it, deep inside the newspaper, appears a most significant criticism, from military sources, of the operation in Gaza and its implications. It is important, but one could have expected Ma'ariv to publish such a headline on its front page. Perhaps even at the expense of the "non-allergenic cat". If Ma'ariv had done so, it would have made a great contribution to its readers' understanding of the reality of their lives.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Dor
Chairman
Mr Yizhar Beer
CEO
Letter from Amnon Dankner to Keshev
June 12, 2006
Dr Daniel Dor
Mr Yizhar Beer
Dear Sirs,
I really, and sincerely, approve of the existence of various entities wishing to promote various agendas in the media because I believe in the blooming of a thousand flowers, and also in the saying "I have learned from all my teachers". One does not always see everything, and it is a good thing that there are entities who place mirrors from various angles, and make critical comments from which one can often learn and even correct one's conduct accordingly. Even when such entities have agendas that are foreign to my way of thinking, and which I find irritating. I am not one of those who believe they know it all, and are always right, and it is good to stop and think, and I always thank those who encourage me to do so. Having said all that, I cannot accept the complaint in your letter to me of yesterday, neither its content not its tone.
The Ma'ariv edition you mentioned is the second edition, received by only some of the readers, and was issued hurriedly at a late hour, after we had learned of the kidnap of the Jewish student in Shechem [Nablus]. The edition received by the majority of readers contained a serious and comprehensive review, on the first page, of the incident on the Gaza beach. Was it still necessary to edit the first page of the second edition otherwise, to give the Gaza beach incident prominence? In my opinion -- No. Is certain danger to a kidnapped Jew more interesting and important than the Palestinians who were killed? My answer is -- a resounding Yes. The "poor people of your own city come first", and not only do I believe that such a topic is more interesting to our readers -- it is more interesting to me, and in my opinion the implications of this case, if it had developed in bad directions, would have been more serious and extensive than the incident on the Gaza beach. Luckily, the matter ended well, however when we were dealing with the second edition, in view of the worrying news, we could not have known that.
But I do not want to hide behind this explanation, which presents only part of the picture, and from our viewpoint at Ma'ariv, on the matter you raised in your letter. I hope that you will also not hide behind some of the wording in your letter, and I hope you will admit that when you wrote it you were convinced that the killing and injuries on the Gaza beach were the result of IDF activities. It is sad, but true, that we were not so convinced, and today we are even less certain. I recommend to you to comply with what you wrote in your letter -- "We must also look at ourselves", and really look at yourselves and your letter to me, and you will notice the attitude peeping out of it that Israel is certainly suspect and responsible for the incident.
The duty of caution and responsibility dictates a more reserved approach on our part than an organization with such an extreme agenda as yours permits itself. We, of course, will neither distort nor twist, nor shall we make concessions for the IDF where it operates inappropriately. However, on the other hand, we will not act hysterically, with unnecessary self-flagellation, casting unfounded accusations and creating the impression that our hands are covered in blood.
Ma'ariv's editing line takes into account that we are fighting a battle against enemies operating out of closely populated areas, thus sentencing the region to the danger of unnecessary injury, to both the injured and the injurers. Our editing line takes into account the situation in which being dragged into unexamined accusations and piling uncalled-for invectives on the head of the security forces weaken them and us in this bloody struggle whose end is nowhere to be seen and is unknown. On the other hand, all management personnel at Ma'ariv will be able to tell you how, in cases in which the security forces or the settlers have obviously caused injustice and willful damage to Palestinians, such as cutting down olive trees or cruel ill-treatment or murder, I was careful not to let go of the affairs and wrote about them until the matters were clarified and the guilty brought to justice. All as the case may be and as the circumstances warrant.
Sincerely,
Amnon Dankner
I'lam Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel is a non-profit organization based in Nazareth. It was founded in 2000, by a group of Arab journalists and academics. As the only Arab Palestinian media organization in Israel, I'lam is deeply committed to the democratization of media policies, media practices, and the media landscape in Israel.
Comment on this Article
Beach deaths: No int'l probe
18/06/2006 21:49 - (SA)
Jerusalem - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday rejected calls for an international inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach nearly two weeks ago in which eight Palestinians were killed.
"We will never agree to become subject to an investigation by international bodies," Olmert told ministers during a weekly cabinet meeting.
Israel denied any responsibility after the deadly June 9 incident in which seven members of the same family were killed while picnicking on the beach in the northern Gaza Strip.
An internal military inquiry into the incident, ordered by defence minister Amir Peretz, absolved Israel of any involvement.
But Palestinians and international bodies insist the blast was caused by an Israeli shell, as the Israeli army regularly bombards northern Gaza in an effort to stop Palestinian rocket fire.
Despite the criticism, Olmert rejected calls for an international inquiry although he has previously expressed regret for the civilian deaths.
"The world isn't always ready to accept what we say and present, but no one can put in doubt our inquiries," he said.
Olmert declared his full backing for Peretz, who commissioned the military inquiry.
"The defence minister acted correctly all the way.
"There was an inquiry by a very senior source in the defence establishment which was not related to the army's decision-making process," the premier said.
Peretz told cabinet colleagues the world was wrong in its assumptions about the cause of the deaths, suggesting they might have been caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance or a Palestinian landmine left over from before Israel's withdrawal of ground troops last year.
"It may turn out that the blast was caused by old IDF (Israel Defence Forces) explosives on the beach.
"Things are still being examined. I hope that within several days we will have a complete picture," the minister said.
Comment: More Israeli propaganda and lies. Those who spread the Israeli propaganda conveniently omit to report on the denial by the military analyst of Human Rights Watch who affirmed, on the basis of pieces collected on the beach and the examination of the wounded, that it was indeed an Israeli explosive that slaughtered the civilians. This lying through omission regularly permits journalists the world over, protected by their bosses in spite of their lack of rigor, to disinform public opinion. This disinformation has as its goal to criminalize the resistance of the Palestinian people as incarnated in Hamas, while whitewashing Israel, the real aggressor.
Jeff Blankfort adds:
"Numerous Israelis have said over the years that international law does not apply to them and thanks to the power of their lobbies, not only in the US, but also in the UK and Western Europe and over the UN's Koffi Annan, they have been able to get away with breaking it with impunity. At this point, far, far late in the game, there needs to be a litmus test applied to those who claim to be against Israel's continuing occupation of Palestinian land and killing of its inhabitants.
"Simply criticizing Israel, no matter how emphatically and how detailed is not enough and, in fact, is meaningless, unless that person also supports boycotts, divestment and sanctions. That this litmus test has never been applied and has been rejected when suggested (under the illusion of building a "united front") is one major reason that the Palestine solidarity movement has been a failure to date. If that litmus test is not to be applied now, those opposing it should explain why."
Comment on this Article
Hamas: Probe arms transfer to Abbas
Jun. 18, 2006 0:27 | Updated Jun. 18, 2006 11:38
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Hamas on Saturday called on the Palestinian Legislative Council to launch an investigation into the transfer of rifles and ammunition to forces loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, charging that the move was intended to trigger civil war among the Palestinians.
About 1,000 M-16 rifles and large amounts of ammunition were transferred last week from Jordan to Abbas's security forces, a move that Israel authorized to help Abbas and his Fatah party in their confrontation with Hamas.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced the decision last week in London, causing senior PA officials in Ramallah to express outrage with Israel for going public on the issue.
"The Israeli government should not have published this," protested one official. "This is an extremely sensitive issue and the Palestinians street will now think that Israel is arming us so that we could fight Hamas. This makes us look like collaborators."
Another official told The Jerusalem Post that there was "nothing unusual" with the transfer of weapons to the PA.
"Under the terms of the Oslo Accords and other agreements signed with Israel, the Palestinian Authority is entitled to bring light weapons for the security forces," he said. "This is not the first time that rifles and ammunition have been transferred from Jordan or Egypt."
Although the transfer of the weapons was completed on Wednesday night, Abbas and his top aides have publicly denied knowing anything about the deal. On a visit to Nablus Thursday, Abbas accused Israel of lying and insisted that no weapons had been sent to his security forces.
But Hamas officials said on Saturday that Abbas's loyalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip had received three trucks loaded with rifles and ammunition. They said the shipment, which included 3,000 M-16 rifles and three million bullets, was delivered to Abbas's office in Ramallah and Gaza City.
"We call on the Palestinian Legislative Council to launch an immediate investigation into this matter," said a statement issued by the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip. "We want to know the nature and type of the weapons, why they are needed, and the party that paid for the rifles and bullets."
The statement, which is seen as an indication of growing tensions between Fatah and Hamas, noted that the decision to supply Abbas's loyalists with weapons came at a time when the Palestinians were suffering "under the yoke of financial siege and starvation."
Hinting that Israel and the US were behind the move, Hamas urged the PLC to look into the "size of American and Israeli intervention in the internal affairs of the Palestinians. We strongly condemn the exposed American-Zionist conspiracy to spark dissension among our people by arming and financing one side under the pretext of arming the presidential guard."
Hamas also accused unnamed Arab countries of being part of the alleged conspiracy, calling on the Palestinians to work toward thwarting any attempt to trigger civil war.
The latest charges came despite reports that Hamas and Fatah were close to reaching an agreement on ending their dispute.
PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said on Saturday that he expected an agreement with Abbas as early as this week.
"The dialogue has achieved significant results," he said. "I expect an agreement within the next few days."
Haniyeh did not elaborate, but sources close to Hamas said they had good reason to believe that Abbas would cancel his decision to hold a referendum over a controversial document drafted by some Palestinian prisoners. In return, Hamas would agree to the establishment of a national unity government that would bring together several factions, including Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Comment on this Article
Hamas, Fatah edge toward compromise on Israel
Last Updated Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:18:51 EDT
CBC News
The Palestinian government's two leading parties were said Sunday to be moving closer to an agreement that would recognize Israel as a state - a crucial step that could eventually lead to a comprehensive peace.
Major issues remained unresolved, negotiators told the Associated Press, making an agreement between the ruling Hamas party and rival Fatah far from certain.
One unnamed mediator said Hamas sees such an agreement as a way of lifting an international boycott that threatens to bankrupt its government.
Under one possible scenario, Israel would be offered the olive branch in exchange for its complete withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, and resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue, the negotiators said.
But it was unclear whether such a formula would satisfy the U.S. and Europe, which have demanded a clear commitment from the Hamas-led government to renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept peace accords signed by Palestinians.
Comment on this Article
The Israeli and Arab Lobbies
By Mitchell Bard
Jewish Virtual Library
Reference is often made to the "Jewish lobby" in an effort to describe Jewish political influence in the United States. This term is both vague and inadequate. While it is true that American Jews are sometimes represented by lobbyists, such direct efforts to influence policy-makers are but a small part of the lobby's ability to shape policy.
Organized groups do attempt to directly affect legislation. One of these, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a registered lobby. Other groups do not generally engage in direct lobbying (e.g., B'nai B'rith and Hadassah), but do disseminate information and encourage their members to become involved in the political process. They also sometimes lobby on specific issues. Though they have rarely influenced policy, Christian groups have also frequently weighed in on Israel's behalf and several pro-Israel organizations are comprised entirely of non-Jews. These organizations comprise the formal lobby. U.S. Middle East policy is further shaped by Jewish voting behavior and American public opinion. These indirect means of influence are the informal lobby.
The formal and informal components tend to intersect at several points so the distinction is not always clear-cut. Together, however, they form the Israeli (or pro-Israel) lobby. This is a more accurate label than "Jewish lobby" because a large proportion of the lobby is made up of non-Jews. This term also reflects the lobby's objective. The Israeli lobby can then be defined as those formal and informal actors that directly and indirectly influence American policy to support Israel.
The Israeli lobby does not have the field to itself. On any given issue, it may be opposed by a variety of interest groups unrelated to the Middle East (e.g., conservative groups that have nothing against Israel, but oppose foreign aid on principle), but its main rival is the Arab lobby, which similarly consists of those formal and informal actors that attempt to influence U.S. foreign policy to support the interests of the Arab states in the Middle East.
The Informal Israeli Lobby
American Jews recognize the importance of support for Israel because of the dire consequences that could follow from the alternative. Despite the fact that Israel is often referred to now as the fourth most powerful country in the world, the perceived threat to Israel is not military defeat, it is annihilation. At the same time, American Jews are frightened of what might happen in the United States if they do not have political power.
As a result, Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor. This is reflected by the fact that Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group. Though the Jewish population in the United States is roughly six million (about 2.3% of the total U.S. population), roughly 89 percent live in twelve key electoral college states. These states alone are worth enough electoral votes to elect the president. If you add the non-Jews shown by opinion polls to be as pro-Israel as Jews, it is clear Israel has the support of one of the largest veto groups in the country.
The political activism of Jews forces congressmen with presidential ambitions to consider what a mixed voting record on Israel-related issues may mean in the political future. There are no benefits to candidates taking an openly anti-Israel stance and considerable costs in both loss of campaign contributions and votes from Jews and non-Jews alike. Potential candidates therefore have an incentive to be pro-Israel; this reinforces support for Israel in Congress. Actual candidates must be particularly sensitive to the concerns of Jewish voters; it follows that the successful candidate's foreign policy will be influenced, although not bound, by the promises that had to be made during the campaign.
One way that lobbyists attempt to educate politicians is by taking them to Israel on study missions. Once officials have direct exposure to the country, its leaders, geography, and security dilemmas, they typically return more sympathetic to Israel. Politicians also sometimes travel to Israel specifically to demonstrate to the lobby their interest in Israel. Thus, for example, George W. Bush made his one and only trip to Israel before deciding to run for President in what was widely viewed as an effort to win pro-Israel voters' support. While there, he also was educated and was particularly influenced by a helicopter tour given to him by a man he would later work with as a fellow head of state - Ariel Sharon. In 2005 alone, more than 100 members of Congress visited Israel, some multiple times.1
Jewish congressmen are naturally expected to be supportive of Israel and, with the exception of occasional odd votes, this is true. Historically, however, few Jews have held elective office or primary positions of power, even though they have always been politically active. In the past decade, however, this has gradually begun to change. Today, Jews occupy more positions of influence than ever before. For example, in the 109th Congress, 11 Senators are Jewish (11 percent) while Jewish members comprise almost 6 percent of the House. Bill Clinton nominated two Supreme Court Justices, both Jewish. He had several Jewish Cabinet members, including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, and dozens of Jews held other key Administration posts. Bastions of bureaucratic opposition, and sometimes outright anti-Semitism, such as the CIA and State Department now employ Jews at the highest levels. For almost a decade, a Jew (Dennis Ross) was America's principal Mideast negotiator and Clinton appointed the first Jewish Ambassador to Israel (Martin Indyk). The George W. Bush Administration also has included many Jews in high-profile subcabinet positions
The Informal Arab Lobby
The disproportionate influence of the American Jewish population is in direct contrast with the electoral involvement of Arab-Americans. There are approximately 1.2 million Arabs in the United States, and roughly 38 percent of them are Lebanese, primarily Christians, who tend to be unsympathetic to the Arab lobby's goals. This reflects another major problem for the Arab lobby -- inter-Arab disunity. This disunity is reinforced by the general discord of the Arab world, which has twenty-one states with competing interests. The Arab lobby is thus precluded from representing "the Arabs."
Only about 70,000 Palestinians (6 percent of all Arab-Americans) live in the United States, but their views have received disproportionate attention because of their political activism. Similarly, a great deal of attention has focused on the allegedly growing political strength of Muslims in the United States, but fewer than one-fourth of all Arab-Americans are Muslims according to the Arab-American Institute.2 About half of the Arab population is concentrated in five states - California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York - that are all key to the electoral college. Still, the Arab population is dwarfed by that of the Jews in every one of these states except Michigan.
Jewish and Arab Populations in Key States
State | Arab Population | Arabs as % of Total State Population | Jewish Population |
Jews as % of Total State Population |
CA | 142,805 | .48 | 999,000 |
2.9 |
FL | 49,206 | .38 | 628,000 |
3.9 |
MI | 76,504 | .82 | 110,000 |
1.1 |
NJ | 46,381 | .60 | 485,000 |
5.7 |
NY | 94,319 | .52 | 1,657,000 |
8.7 |
Campaign Donations
Political campaign contributions are also considered an important means of influence; typically, Jews have been major benefactors. It is difficult to assess the impact of campaign giving on legislative outcomes, particularly with regard to Israel-related issues, where support or opposition may be a consequence of non-monetary factors. In addition, one does not know if a candidate is pro-Israel because of receiving a contribution, or receives a donation as a result of taking a position in support of Israel. In the past, Jewish contributions were less structured and targeted than other interest groups, but this has changed dramatically as Israel-related political action committees (PACs) have proliferated.
Initially, the Jewish community feared that post-Watergate election campaign financing reforms would reduce their influence, but the evidence so far suggests the opposite. If anything, the changes have stimulated greater political activism in the Jewish community.
The first pro-Israel PAC was formed in 1978, but there was little activity until 1982 when thirty-three pro-Israel PACs contributed $1.87 million to congressional candidates. Like other PACs, most of this money was given to incumbents and, because of the long association of Jews with the Democratic party, nearly 80 percent went to Democrats. The number of PACs more than doubled in 1984 as did their contributions. It was estimated that more than seventy pro-Israel PACs spent a little more than $4 million in 1984. By 1988, the figure was nearly $5 million. In 2004, pro-Israel PACs gave a little more than $3 million to candidate, and individuals contributed nearly $3 million more. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, pro-Israel interests have contributed $55 million in individual, PAC, and soft money contributions to national-level candidates and national party committees, but even these contributions are dwarfed by those of labor unions, lawyers, doctors, and trade associations. In fact, out of 80 "industries," the pro-Israel contributors rank only 52nd.
The PACs' contributions became increasingly focused in 1984 and, apparently, they had a high degree of success in choosing winning candidates. In the two most expensive and publicized Senate campaigns, Percy-Simon in Illinois and Helms-Hunt in North Carolina, however, the Israeli lobby had to settle for a split decision with its preferred candidate winning only in Illinois
On the Arab lobby side, only three PACs spent a trivial sum through 1988. Since 1988, Arab and Muslim communities combined contributed only $297,000.
The lobby took a more active and visible role than ever before in the 1984 election. The most obvious manifestation of this came in the congressional race involving seventy-six-year-old Maryland Democrat Clarence Long. Long, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Foreign Operations and a driving force behind increasing aid to Israel, was targeted by the Arab lobby: "to serve notice to members of Congress that the Arab lobby is ready and able to make life uncomfortable for Israel's friends on Capitol Hill."
Like the visible campaign undertaken in 1982 by the Israeli lobby to defeat pro-Arab Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois, the Arab lobby claimed victory when Long was defeated. As was the case in the Findley campaign, where the Congressman's district suffered from a high unemployment rate, and had been gerrymandered to his disadvantage, the reasons for Long's defeat were rooted in politics unrelated to the Middle East. In Long's case, redistricting took away a large percentage of his constituency and, after a narrow victory in 1982, he became a high priority target of the Republican National Committee.
In Jesse Jackson the Arab lobby found, for the first time, a presidential candidate receptive to their interests. Jackson had a long record of support for the Arab cause and was particularly outspoken in support of Palestinian rights, having met with Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman Yasir Arafat when it was considered politically taboo. As a result of his stands, Jackson received substantial financial support from members of the Arab lobby. The divisions of the lobby were again apparent, however, when the president of the American Lebanese League said Jackson turns his constituents off: "He seems interested in the welfare of Arab countries but not Lebanon or the United States."
Overall, the comparative impact of the two lobbies on elections was probably best summed up by Harry Truman in his frequently repeated statement to Paul Porter, a Washington attorney appointed as the ambassador to the Arab-Israeli peace talks in Geneva in 1948: "I won't tell you what to do or how to vote, but I will only say this. In all of my political experience I don't ever recall the Arab vote swinging a close election."
Public Opinion
The absence of a large voting bloc requires the Arab lobby to develop sympathies among the general public if it is to use public opinion or the electoral process as a means of influencing U.S. policy. The lobby has tried to support sympathetic American groups, such as Third World organizations, and cultivate friendships in the academic and business realms, but, as opinion polls have consistently shown, there is relatively little popular support for the Arab cause.
Since 1967, polls have found that sympathy for Israel varied between 32 and 64 percent, averaging 46 percent, while sympathy for the Arabs has oscillated between 1 and 30 percent and averaged only 12 percent. In the last several years, support for the Arabs has increased slightly, but this has not affected sympathies toward Israel.
Not only has the Arab lobby been unable to increase its standing significantly with the public, it has also failed to convince the American people that the Israeli lobby controls U.S. Middle East policy. In fact, polls indicate the public sees the Arab lobby as more of a threat than the Israeli lobby. For example, in a poll conducted several weeks after the Senate vote on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia, 53 percent of the public agreed Israel has "too much influence" on American foreign policy, but only 11 percent felt the same way about American Jews. By contrast, 64 percent said Saudi Arabia had too much influence, and 70 percent believed oil companies were too influential. A March 1983 poll asking which groups have "too much" political influence found that only 10 percent of those asked said "Jews." Business corporations and unions were considered too powerful by more than 40 percent of the respondents, with Arab interests next at 24 percent.
Thus, the Arab lobby's problem is twofold; it suffers from a very negative image and Israel enjoys a very positive image. This has gradually begun to change. To combat negative Arab stereotypes, former Senator James Abourezk founded the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in 1980. The ADC is modeled after the Anti-Defamation League, but is considerably smaller and weaker.
The Formal Israeli Lobby
The organization that directly lobbies the U.S. government on behalf of the Israeli lobby is AIPAC. The lobby, originally called the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, was founded in 1951 by I.L. (Sy) Kenen to appeal directly to Congress for legislation to provide aid to Israel to circumvent State Department opposition. As recently as the late 1960s, the organization now considered the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington was essentially a one-man operation run by Kenen. In the late 1970s, AIPAC still had only a handful of staff based in Washington. Today, it has more than 100 employees with seven regional offices and a budget of more than $40 million and lobbies the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative. Because of its name, AIPAC is sometimes mistakenly thought to be a political action committee (PAC), but the organization does not rate, endorse or finance candidates.
AIPAC was not the first domestic lobby to concern itself with foreign affairs, but it is regarded as the most powerful. In 1998 and 1999, for example, Fortune Magazine named AIPAC the second most powerful lobby in Washington after the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP). The lobby strives to remain nonpartisan and thereby keeps friends in both parties. By framing the issues in terms of the national interest, AIPAC can attract broader support than would ever be possible if it was perceived to represent only the interests of Israel. This does not mean AIPAC does not have a close relationship with Israeli officials, it does, albeit unofficially. Even so, the lobby some times comes into conflict with the Israeli government. One of the most blatant examples occurred when AIPAC's Executive Director Thomas Dine was quoted on the front page of the New York Times as saying the 1982 Reagan peace plan had some good points (and many bad ones) after the Israeli government had rejected the plan in toto. Despite such disagreements, the Israeli lobby tends to reflect Israeli government policy fairly closely. Though its influence is limited primarily to issues where Congress has a say, in particular, economic matters, the organization also serves as a watchdog to deter anti-Israel policies from being adopted. Lobbyists usually roam the halls of Congress trying to get the attention of legislators so they can explain their positions. AIPAC has the luxury of being able to call its allies in Congress to pass along information, and then leaves much of the work of writing bills and gathering cosponsors to the legislative staffs. The lobbyists themselves are mostly Capitol Hill veterans who know how to operate the levers of power.
Since it does not use stereotypical lobbying tactics, the Israeli lobby depends on the network it has developed to galvanize the Jewish community to take some form of political action. The network consists of at least seventy-five different organizations, which in one way or another support Israel. Most cannot legally engage in lobbing, but are represented on the Board of Directors of AIPAC, so they are able to provide input into the lobby's decision-making process. Equally important is the bureaucratic machinery of these organizations, which enables them to disseminate information to their members and facilitate a rapid response to legislative activity. A second coordinating body is the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. It is composed of leaders of 55 different organizations and is responsible for formulating and articulating the "Jewish position" on most foreign policy matters. The conference allows the lobby to speak with one voice in a way its opponents cannot. The conference is the main contact between the Jewish community and the executive branch, while AIPAC tends to be the conduit with the legislative branch. Even with the Jewish population concentrated in key states, there is still only a total of about six million Jews; therefore, the Israeli lobby is dependent on the support of non-Jewish groups and actively works to form coalitions with broad segments of American society. The lobby has successfully built coalitions consisting of unions, entertainers, clergymen, scholars, and black leaders. The coalitions allow the lobby to demonstrate a broad public consensus for a pro-Israel policy.
The Arab Lobby
The Arab lobby in the United States is at least as old, perhaps older than the Israeli lobby. It is composed of what I.L. Kenen called the petro-diplomatic complex consisting of the oil industry, missionaries, and diplomats. According to Kenen, there was no need for a formal Arab lobby because the petro-diplomatic complex did the Arabs' work for them.
One of the earliest activities of the petro-diplomatic complex began in 1951 when King Saud of Saudi Arabia asked U.S. diplomats to finance a pro-Arab lobby to counter the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (later the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -AIPAC). The Arab lobby became an official, active, and visible spokesman for the Arab cause in the wake of the oil embargo. "The day of the Arab-American is here," boasted National Association of Arab-Americans (NAAA) founder Richard Shadyac, "the reason is oil."
From the beginning, the Arab lobby has faced not only a disadvantage in electoral politics but also in organization. There are several politically oriented groups, but many of these are one man operations with little financial or popular support. Americans for Justice in the Middle East was formed by a group of Americans at the American University in Beirut after the 1967 war to combat "Zionism's virulent thirty-year campaign of hate and vindictiveness." Two anti-Zionist Jews are also active supporters of the Arab lobby. Elmer Berger runs American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism and Alfred Lilienthal publishes his own newsletter Middle East Perspectives.
There are a number of larger and more representative groups, including the aforementioned NAAA and ADC, the Middle East Research and Information Project; the Middle East Affairs Council, Americans for Near East Refugee Aid, the Arab American Institute and the American Palestine Committee. Typically, these organizations have boards of directors composed of prominent retired government officials. Board members have included former Ambassador to Jordan, L. Dean Brown, Herman Eilts, former Ambassador to Syria and Egypt; Parker T. Hart, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and several others.
The formal Arab lobby is the National Association of Arab-Americans (NAAA), a registered domestic lobby founded in 1972 by Richard Shadyac. The NAAA was consciously patterned after its counterpart, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Shadyac believed the power and wealth of the Arab countries stemming from their oil reserves, would allow the Arab lobby to take advantage of the political process in the same way the Jews have been thought to. Like AIPAC, the NAAA makes its case on the basis of U.S. national interests, arguing a pro-Israel policy harms those interests. Aid to Israel is criticized as a waste of taxpayers' money, and the potential benefits of a closer relationship with the Arab states is emphasized. The highlight of the NAAA's early efforts was a meeting between President Ford and twelve NAAA officials in 1975. Since then, the NAAA has participated in meetings with each president and obtained access to top government officials. In 1977, for example, after Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem, the Arab lobby made its displeasure over United States support for the initiative known to President Carter, who wrote in his diary: "They [Arab-Americans] have given all the staff, Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, and others, a hard time. Although the lobby's concerns began to reach the highest levels of government, there were no perceptible changes in United States policy."
It is not only Arab-Americans who have made the lobby's case; the Arab lobby, like the Israeli lobby, has successfully built coalitions with other interest groups. As noted earlier, the pedro-diplomatic complex was the lobby until 1972, when the NAAA was formed. Even today, arguably, it is the most influential component of the lobby. Nevertheless, most of the nation's major corporations have not supported the Arab lobby. In fact, prior to the AWACS sale, oil companies were about the only corporations willing to openly identify with Arab interests. The reason is that most corporations prefer to stay out of foreign policy debates; moreover, corporations may feel constrained by the implicit threat of some form of retaliation by the Israeli lobby.
The major oil companies feel no such constraints. Exxon, Standard Oil of California (SoCal), Mobil, and Texaco have long sought to manipulate public opinion and foreign policy on the Middle East. These companies as a group comprise the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO). Participation in the public relations campaign amounted to the price of doing business in the oil-producing nations. The campaign began after the 1967 War when ARAMCO established a fund to help present the Arab side of the conflict. In May 1970, ARAMCO representatives met with Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco and warned him American military sales to Israel would hurt U.S.-Arab relations and jeopardize U.S. oil supplies. The former chairman of ARAMCO testified before Congress that the United States' pro-Israel policies were harming U.S. business interests. In 1972, at Kuwait's urging, Gulf Oil joined the campaign, providing $50,000 to create a public relations firm to promote the Arab side.
The campaign took on greater urgency in 1973 after Frank Jungers, then Chairman of the Board of ARAMCO, met with Saudi King Faisal, and was pressured to take a more active role in creating a sympathetic attitude toward the Arab nations. In June, a month after the Jungers meeting, Mobil published its first advertisement/editorial in the New York Times. In July, SoCal's chairman sent out a letter to the company's 40,000 employees and 262,000 stockholders asking them to pressure Washington to support "the aspirations of the Arab people." The chairman of Texaco called for a reassessment of U.S. Middle East policy. When the October 1973 War broke out, the chairmen of the ARAMCO partners sent a memorandum to the White House warning against increasing military aid to Israel. Since 1973, ARAMCO has maintained its public relations campaign and become involved in occasional legislative fights, such as the AWACS sale, but, on the whole, the campaign has had no observable impact on U.S. policy.
Other companies outside the oil industry are involved in the Arab lobby, the most well-known being the international engineering firm Bechtel, but the Arab and Israeli lobbies have had virtually no confrontations since the AWACS fight in 1981, in part because the Israeli lobby hasn't opposed any major arms sales or other economic investments in the region that threatened U.S. corporate interests.
A relatively ignored component of the "Arab lobby" is found among the Christian community, most notably, the National Council of Churches (NCC). The NCC is composed of thirty-two Protestant denominations, including virtually all major church bodies. The Council has taken consistently anti-Israel stands, and its 1980 policy statement on the Middle East called for the creation of a PLO state. Besides passing anti-Israel resolutions, the NCC puts on seminars, radio shows, and conferences. From 1972 to 1977, it published the ARAMCO financed SWASIA (Southwest Asia) newsletter. When SWASIA ceased publication, the NCC established an Islamic desk to "enable American Christians to understand Arab Christian and Muslim attitudes." The relationship between the NCC and other Arab lobby organizations is primarily informal, with NCC leaders serving on many of their boards.
Contrasts
At least two major differences distinguish the Arab and Israeli lobbies. First, the Arab lobby almost always lobbies negatively; i.e., against pro-Israel legislation rather than for pro-Arab legislation. In 2004, for example, members of Congress were graded on a number of issues, including: opposition to the war with Iraq; opposition to resolutions that condemned terrorism inflicted on Israel, that supported President Bush's letter supporting Israel, that called for a halt to Saudi support for terrorism and Syrian accountability, and that supported Israel's construction of a security fence; opposition to a letter calling for the Palestinians to meet certain obligations; and a resolution expressing sympathy for an American woman who was accidentally killed protesting Israeli house demolitions.4
The other major difference between the two lobbies is the use of paid foreign agents by the Arab lobby. Pro-Arab U.S. government officials can look forward to lucrative positions as lobbyists, spokesmen, and consultants for the Arab cause. For example, the outspoken critic of the Israeli lobby, former Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright, was hired by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates. It was the Saudis' agent, Fred Dutton, a former Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs and special assistant to President Kennedy, who spearheaded the AWACS campaign and reputedly conceived the "Reagan vs. Begin" angle. Other top officials who have provided their services to the Arab lobby include: Clark Clifford, President Johnson's Defense Secretary; Richard Kleindienst, President Nixon's Attorney General; and William Rogers, Nixon's Secretary of State.
Overall, the Israeli lobby is effective because it enjoys advantages in every area considered relevant to interest group influence. It has (a) a large and vocal membership; (b) members who enjoy high status and legitimacy; (c) a high degree of electoral participation (voting and financing); (d) effective leadership; (e) a high degree of access to decision-makers; and (f) public support. Moreover, for reasons at least partly attributable to the lobby's efforts, the lobby's primary objective - a U.S. commitment to Israel - has been accepted as a national interest.
Measuring Influence
Most articles and research on the Middle East interest groups are based on anecdotes, case studies or casual observation. They either vaguely conclude the Israeli lobby has some influence some of the time or (usually in the case of works by authors hostile to Israel) assert the Israeli lobby is a powerful and dangerous influence that controls U.S. policy.
In a more rigorous study of 782 policy decisions made from 1945 to 1984, I found the Israeli lobby won; that is, achieved its policy objective, 60 percent of the time. The most important variable was the president's position. When the president supported the lobby, it won 95 percent of the time. At first glance it appears the lobby was only successful because its objectives coincided with those of the president, but the lobby's influence was demonstrated by the fact that it still won 27 percent of the cases when the president opposed its position.
One of the most surprising results, particularly in light of conventional wisdom and evidence presented in case studies, was that the president's position was not significantly affected by the electoral cycle. Although candidates may appear to pander to Jewish voters, the data indicate the electoral cycle does not affect influence success.
Lobby success also varied depending on the policy at issue. The lobby was very successful in overcoming presidential opposition on economic issues, but rarely able to defeat the president on security and political issues. The lobby was more successful on economic issues because most of those were decided in Congress where pro-Israel congressman frequently fought for increased aid levels for Israel, earmarked funds for Israel and adopted amendments to aid bills that were endorsed by the Israeli lobby.
The lobby's lack of success on political issues was most likely a result of the fact that most of these cases were decided in the executive branch where lobby influence is relatively weak. The outcome might also be explained by the tradition of congressional deference to the president on matters of security and diplomacy.
Notes
1JTA, January 13, 2006).
2Alex Ionides, "Getting
Their House Together," Egypt
Today, (November 2003).
3U.S.
Census Bureau (2000).
4Shirl McArthur, "Five
Senators, 29 Representatives Included in 108th Congress' 'Hall of Shame,'"
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, (November 2004), pp.
36-37.
Comment on this Article
The Power of the Israel Lobby: Its Origins and Growth
By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA analysts
June 16/18, 2006
CounterPunch
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the University of Chicago and Harvard political scientists who published in March of this years a lengthy, well documented study on the pro-Israel lobby and its influence on U.S. Middle East policy in March , have already accomplished what they intended. They have successfully called attention to the often pernicious influence of the lobby on policymaking. But, unfortunately, the study has aroused more criticism than debate not only the kind of criticism one would anticipate from the usual suspects among the very lobby groups Mearsheimer and Walt described, but also from a group on the left that might have been expected to support the study's conclusions.
CounterPunch Editors' Note: Ten, even five years ago, a fierce public debate over the nature and activities of the Israeli lobby would have been impossible. It was as verboten as the use of the word Empire, to describe the global reach of the United States. Through its disdain for the usual proprieties decorously observed by Republican and Democratic administrations in the past , the Bush administration has hauled many realities of our political economy center stage. Open up the New York Times or the Washington Post over the recent past and there, like as not, is another opinion column about the Lobby.
CounterPunch has hosted some of the most vigorous polemics on the Lobby. In May we asked two of our most valued contributors, Kathy and Bill Christison, to offer their evaluation of the debate on the Lobby's role and power. As our readers know, Bill and Kathy both had significant careers as CIA analysts. Bill was a National Intelligence Officer. In the aftermath of the September, 2001, attacks we published here his trenchant and influential essay on "the war on terror". Kathy has written powerfully on our website on the topic of Palestine. Specifically on the Lobby they contributed an unsparing essay on the topic of "dual loyalty" which can bed found in our CounterPunch collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
In mid May they sent us the detailed, measured commentary, rich in historical detail, that we are delighted to print below in its entirety. Which is the tail? Which is the dog? asked Uri Avnery in our newsletter, a few issues back, apropos the respective roles of the Israel Lobby and the US in the exercise of US policy in the Middle East. Here's an answer that will be tough to challenge.
-- A.C./J.S.C.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the University of Chicago and Harvard political scientists who published in March of this years a lengthy, well documented study on the pro-Israel lobby and its influence on U.S. Middle East policy in March , have already accomplished what they intended. They have successfully called attention to the often pernicious influence of the lobby on policymaking. But, unfortunately, the study has aroused more criticism than debate not only the kind of criticism one would anticipate from the usual suspects among the very lobby groups Mearsheimer and Walt described, but also from a group on the left that might have been expected to support the study's conclusions.
The criticism has been partly silly, often malicious, and almost entirely off-point. The silly, insubstantial criticisms such as former presidential adviser David Gergen's earnest comment that through four administrations he never observed an Oval Office decision that tilted policy in favor of Israel at the expense of U.S. interests can easily be dismissed as nonsensical . Most of the extensive malicious criticism, coming largely from the hard core of Israeli supporters who make up the very lobby under discussion and led by a hysterical Alan Dershowitz, has been so specious and sophomoric, that it too could be dismissed were it not for precisely the pervasive atmosphere of reflexive support for Israel and silenced debate that Mearsheimer and Walt describe.
Most disturbing and harder to dismiss is the criticism of the study from the left, coming chiefly from Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, and abetted less cogently by Stephen Zunes of Foreign Policy in Focus and Joseph Massad of Columbia University. These critics on the left argue from a assumption that U.S. foreign policy has been monolithic since World War II, a coherent progression of decision-making directed unerringly at the advancement of U.S. imperial interests. All U.S. actions, these critics contend, are part of a clearly laid-out strategy that has rarely deviated no matter what the party in power. They believe that Israel has served throughout as a loyal agent of the U.S., carrying out the U.S. design faithfully and serving as a base from which the U.S. projects its power around the Middle East. Zunes says it most clearly, affirming that Israel "still is very much the junior partner in the relationship." These critics do not dispute the existence of a lobby, but they minimize its importance, claiming that rather than leading the U.S. into policies and foreign adventures that stand against true U.S. national interests, as Mearsheimer and Walt assert, the U.S. is actually the controlling power in the relationship with Israel and carries out a consistent policy, using Israel as its agent where possible.
Finkelstein summarized the critics' position in a recent CounterPunch article ("The Israel Lobby," May 1, http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein05012006.html), emphasizing that the issue is not whether U.S. interests or those of the lobby take precedence but rather that there has been such coincidence of U.S. and Israeli interests over the decades that for the most part basic U.S. Middle East policy has not been affected by the lobby. Chomsky maintains that Israel does the U.S. bidding in the Middle East in pursuit of imperial goals that Washington would pursue even without Israel and that it has always pursued in areas outside the Middle East without benefit of any lobby. Those goals have always included advancement of U.S. corporate-military interests and political domination through the suppression of radical nationalisms and the maintenance of stability in resource-rich countries, particularly oil producers, everywhere. In the Middle East, this was accomplished primarily through Israel's 1967 defeat of Egypt's Gamal Abdul Nasser and his radical Arab nationalism, which had threatened U.S. access to the region's oil resources. Both Chomsky and Finkelstein trace the strong U.S.-Israeli tie to the June 1967 war, which they believe established the close alliance and marked the point at which the U.S. began to regard Israel as a strategic asset and a stable base from which U.S. power could be projected throughout the Middle East.
Joseph Massad ("Blaming the Israel Lobby," CounterPunch, March 25/26, http://www.counterpunch.org/massad03252006.html) argues along similar lines, describing developments in the Middle East and around the world that he believes the U.S. engineered for its own benefit and would have carried out even without Israel's assistance. His point, like Chomsky's, is that the U.S. has a long history of overthrowing regimes in Central America, in Chile, in Indonesia, in Africa, where the Israel lobby was not involved and where Israel at most assisted the U.S. but did not benefit directly itself. He goes farther than Chomsky by claiming that with respect to the Middle East Israel has been such an essential tool that its very usefulness is what accounts for the strength of the lobby. "It is in fact the very centrality of Israel to U.S. strategy in the Middle East," Massad contends with a kind of backward logic, "that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around." (One wonders why, if this were the case, there would be any need for a lobby at all. What would be a lobby's function if the U.S. already regarded Israel as central to its strategy?)
The principal problem with these arguments from the left is that they assume a continuity in U.S. strategy and policymaking over the decades that has never in fact existed. The notion that there is any defined strategy that links Eisenhower's policy to Johnson's to Reagan's to Clinton's gives far more credit than is deserved to the extremely ad hoc, hit-or-miss nature of all U.S. foreign policy. Obviously, some level of imperial interest has dictated policy in every administration since World War II and, obviously, the need to guarantee access to vital natural resources around the world, such as oil in the Middle East and elsewhere, has played a critical role in determining policy. But beyond these evident, and not particularly significant, truths, it can accurately be said, at least with regard to the Middle East, that it has been a rare administration that has itself ever had a coherent, clearly defined, and consistent foreign policy and that, except for a broadly defined anti-communism during the Cold War, no administration's strategy has ever carried over in detail to succeeding administrations.
The ad hoc nature of virtually every administration's policy planning process cannot be overemphasized. Aside from the strong but amorphous political need felt in both major U.S. parties and nurtured by the Israel lobby that "supporting Israel" was vital to each party's own future, the inconsistent, even short-term randomness in the detailed Middle East policymaking of successive administrations has been remarkable. This lack of clear strategic thinking at the very top levels of several new administrations before they entered office enhanced the power of individuals and groups that did have clear goals and plans already in hand such as, for instance, the pro-Israeli Dennis Ross in both the first Bush and the Clinton administrations, and the strongly pro-Israeli neo-cons in the current Bush administration.
The critics on the left argue that because the U.S. has a history of opposing and frequently undermining or actually overthrowing radical nationalist governments throughout the world without any involvement by Israel, any instance in which Israel acts against radical nationalism in the Arab world is, therefore, proof that Israel is doing the United States' work for it . The critics generally believe, for instance, that Israel's political destruction of Egypt's Nasser in 1967 was done for the U.S. Most if not all believe that Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was undertaken at U.S.behest, to destroy the PLO.
This kind of argumentation assumes too much on a presumption of policy coherence. Lyndon Johnson most certainly did abhor Nasser and was not sorry to see him and his pan-Arab ambitions defeated, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Johnson administration ever seriously planned to unseat Nasser, formulated any other action plan against Egypt, or pushed Israel in any way to attack. Johnson did apparently give a green light to Israel's attack plans after they had been formulated, but this is quite different from initiating the plans. Already mired in Vietnam, Johnson was very much concerned not to be drawn into a war initiated by Israel and was criticized by some Israeli supporters for not acting forcefully enough on Israel's behalf. In any case, Israel needed no prompting for its pre-emptive attack, which had long been in the works.
Indeed, far from Israel functioning as the junior partner carrying out a U.S. plan, it is clear that the weight of pressure in 1967 was on the U.S. to go along with Israel's designs and that this pressure came from Israel and its agents in the U.S. The lobby in this instance as broadly defined by Mearsheimer and Walt: "the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction" was in fact a part of Johnson's intimate circle of friends and advisers.
These included the number-two man at the Israeli embassy, a close personal friend; the strongly pro-Israeli Rostow brothers, Walt and Eugene, who were part of the national security bureaucracy in the administration; Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas; U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg; and numerous others who all spent time with Johnson at the LBJ Ranch in Texas and had the personal access and the leisure time in an informal setting to talk with Johnson about their concern for Israel and to influence him heavily in favor of Israel. This circle had already begun to work on Johnson long before Israel's pre-emptive attack in 1967, so they were nicely placed to persuade Johnson to go along with it despite Johnson's fears of provoking the Soviet Union and becoming involved in a military conflict the U.S. was not prepared for.
In other words, Israel was beyond question the senior partner in this particular policy initiative; Israel made the decision to go to war, would have gone to war with or without the U.S. green light, and used its lobbyists in the U.S. to steer Johnson administration policy in a pro-Israeli direction. Israel's attack on the U.S. naval vessel, the USS Liberty, in the midst of the war an attack conducted in broad daylight that killed 34 American sailors was not the act of a junior partner. Nor was the U.S. cover-up of this atrocity the act of a government that dictated the moves in this relationship.
The evidence is equally clear that Israel was the prime mover in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and led the U.S. into that morass, rather than the other way around. Although Massad refers to the U.S. as Israel's master, in this instance as in many others including 1967, Israel has clearly been its own master. Chomsky argues in support of his case that Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion in August, two months after it was launched. This is true, but in fact Israel did not pay any attention; the invasion continued, and the U.S. got farther and farther embroiled.
When, as occurred in Lebanon, the U.S. has blundered into misguided adventures to support Israel or to rescue Israel or to further Israel's interests, it is a clear denial of reality to say that Israel and its lobby have no significant influence on U.S. Middle East policy. Even were there not an abundance of other examples, Lebanon alone, with its long-term implications, proves the truth of the Mearsheimer-Walt conclusion that the U.S. "has set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state" and that "the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'"
As a general proposition, the left critics' argumentation is much too limiting. While there is no question that modern history is replete, as they argue, with examples of the U.S. acting in corporate interests overthrowing nationalist governments perceived to be threatening U.S. business and economic interests, as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and elsewhere this frequent convergence of corporate with government interests does not mean that the U.S. never acts in other than corporate interests. The fact of a strong government-corporate alliance does not in any way preclude situations even in the Middle East, where oil is obviously a vital corporate resource in which the U.S. acts primarily to benefit Israel rather than serve any corporate or economic purpose. Because it has a deep emotional aspect and involves political, economic, and military ties unlike those with any other nation, the U.S. relationship with Israel is unique, and there is nothing in the history of U.S. foreign policy, nothing in the government's entanglement with the military-industrial complex, to prevent the lobby from exerting heavy influence on policy. Israel and its lobbyists make their own "corporation" that, like the oil industry (or Chiquita Banana or Anaconda Copper in other areas), is clearly a major factor driving U.S. foreign policy.
There is no denying the intricate interweaving of the U.S. military-industrial complex with Israeli military-industrial interests. Chomsky acknowledges that there is "plenty of conformity" between the lobby's position and the U.S. government-corporate linkage and that the two are very difficult to disentangle. But, although he tends to emphasize that the U.S. is always the senior partner and suggests that the Israeli side does little more than support whatever the U.S. arms, energy, and financial industries define as U.S. national interests, in actual fact the entanglement is much more one between equals than the raw strengths of the two parties would suggest. "Conformity" hardly captures the magnitude of the relationship. Particularly in the defense arena, Israel and its lobby and the U.S. arms industry work hand in glove to advance their combined, very compatible interests. The relatively few very powerful and wealthy families that dominate the Israeli arms industry are just as interested in pressing for aggressively militaristic U.S. and Israeli foreign policies as are the CEOs of U.S. arms corporations and, as globalization has progressed, so have the ties of joint ownership and close financial and technological cooperation among the arms corporations of the two nations grown ever closer. In every way, the two nations' military industries work together very easily and very quietly, to a common end. The relationship is symbiotic, and the lobby cooperates intimately to keep it alive; lobbyists can go to many in the U.S. Congress and tell them quite credibly that if aid to Israel is cut off, thousands of arms-industry jobs in their own districts will be lost. That's power. The lobby is not simply passively supporting whatever the U.S. military-industrial complex wants. It is actively twisting arms very successfully in both Congress and the administration to perpetuate acceptance of a definition of U.S. "national interests" that many Americans believe is wrong, as does Chomsky himself.
Clearly, the advantages in the relationship go in both directions: Israel serves U.S. corporate interests by using, and often helping develop, the arms that U.S. manufacturers produce, and the U.S. serves Israeli interests by providing a constant stream of high-tech equipment that maintains Israel's vast military superiority in the region. But simply because the U.S. benefits from this relationship, it cannot be said that the U.S. is Israel's master, or that Israel always does the U.S. bidding, or that the lobby, which helps keep this arms alliance alive, has no significant power. It's in the nature of a symbiosis that both sides benefit, and the lobby has clearly played a huge role in maintaining the interdependence.
The left's arguments also tend to be much too conspiratorial. Finkelstein, for instance, describes a supposed strategy in which the U.S. perpetually undermines Israeli-Arab reconciliation because it does not want an Israel at peace with its neighbors, since Israel would then loosen its dependence on the U.S. and become a less reliable proxy. "What use," he asks, "would a Paul Wolfowitz have of an Israel living peacefully with its Arab neighbors and less willing to do the U.S.'s bidding?" Not only does this give the U.S. far more credit than it has ever deserved for long-term strategic scheming and the ability to carry out such a conspiracy, but it begs a very important question that neither Finkelstein nor the other left critics, in their dogged effort to mold all developments to their thesis, never examine: just what U.S.'s bidding is Israel doing nowadays?
Although the leftist critics speak of Israel as a base from which U.S. power is projected throughout the Middle East, they do not clearly explain how this works. Any strategic value Israel had for the U.S. diminished drastically with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They may believe that Israel keeps Saudi Arabia's oil resources safe from Arab nationalists or Muslim fundamentalists or Russia, but this is highly questionable. Israel clearly did us no good in Lebanon, but rather the U.S. did Israel's bidding and fumbled badly, so this cannot be how the U.S. uses Israeli to project its power. In Palestine, Finkelstein himself acknowledges that the U.S. gains nothing from the occupation and Israeli settlements, so this can't be where Israel is doing the U.S.'s bidding. (With this acknowledgement, Finkelstein, perhaps unconsciously, seriously undermines his case against the importance of the lobby, unless he somehow believes the occupation is only of incidental significance, in which case he undermines the thesis of much of his own body of writing.)
Owning the Policymakers
In the clamor over the Mearsheimer-Walt study, critics on both the left and the right have tended to ignore the slow evolutionary history of U.S. Middle East policymaking and of the U.S. relationship with Israel. The ties to Israel and earlier to Zionism go back more than a century, predating the formation of a lobby, and they have remained firm even at periods when the lobby has waned. But it is also true that the lobby has sustained and formalized a relationship that otherwise rests on emotions and moral commitment. Because the bond with Israel has been a steadily evolving continuum, dating back to well before Israel's formal establishment, it is important to emphasize that there is no single point at which it is possible to say, this is when Israel won the affections of America, or this is when Israel came to be regarded as a strategic asset, or this is when the lobby became an integral part of U.S. policymaking.
The left critics of the lobby study mark the Johnson administration as the beginning of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, but almost every administration before Johnson's, going back to Woodrow Wilson, ratcheted up the relationship in some significant way and could justifiably claim to have been the progenitor of the bond. Significantly, in almost all cases, policymakers acted as they did because of the influence of pro-Zionist or pro-Israeli lobbyists: Wilson would not have supported the Zionist enterprise to the extent he did had it not been for the influence of Zionist colleagues like Louis Brandeis; nor would Roosevelt; Truman would probably not have been as supportive of establishing a Jewish state without the heavy influence of his very pro-Zionist advisers.
After the Johnson administration as well, the relationship has continued to grow in remarkable leaps. The Nixon-Kissinger regime could claim that they were the administration that cemented the alliance by exponentially increasing military aid from an annual average of under $50 million in military credits to Israel in the late 1960s to an average of almost $400 million and, in the year following the 1973 war, to $2.2 billion. It is not for nothing that Israelis have informally dubbed almost every president since Johnson with the notable exceptions of Jimmy Carter and the senior George Bush as "the most pro-Israeli president ever"; each one has achieved some landmark in the effort to please Israel.
The U.S.-Israeli bond has always had its grounding more in soft emotions than in the hard realities of geopolitical strategy. Scholars have always described the tie in almost spiritual terms never applied to ties with other nations. A Palestinian-French scholar has described the United States' pro-Israeli tilt as a "predisposition," a natural inclination that precedes any consideration of interest or of cost. Israel, he said, takes part in the very "being" of American society and therefore participates in its integrity and its defense. This is not simply the biased perspective of a Palestinian. Other scholars of varying political inclinations have described a similar spiritual and cultural identity: the U.S. identifies with Israel's "national style"; Israel is essential to the "ideological prospering" of the U.S.; each country has "grafted" the heritage of the other onto itself. This applies even to the worst aspects of each nation's heritage. Consciously or unconsciously, many Israelis even today see the U.S. conquest of the American Indians as something "good," something to emulate and, which is worse, many Americans even today are happy to accept the "compliment" inherent in Israel's effort to copy us.
This is no ordinary state-to-state relationship, and the lobby does not function like any ordinary lobby. It is not a great exaggeration to say that the lobby could not thrive without a very willing host that is, a series of U.S. policymaking establishments that have always been locked in to a mindset singularly focused on Israel and its interests and, at the same time, that U.S. policy in the Middle East would not possibly have remained so singularly focused on and so tilted toward Israel were it not for the lobby. One thing is certain: with the possible exceptions of the Carter and the first Bush administrations, the relationship has grown noticeably closer and more solid with each administration, in almost exact correlation with the growth in size and budget and political clout of the pro-Israel lobby.
All critics of the lobby study have failed to note a critical point during the Reagan administration, surrounding the debacle in Lebanon, when it can reasonably be said that policymaking tipped over from a situation in which the U.S. was more often the controlling agent in the relationship to one in which Israel and its advocates in the U.S. have increasingly determined the course and the pace of developments. The organized lobby, meaning AIPAC and the several formal Jewish American organizations, truly came into its own during the Reagan years with a massive expansion of memberships, budgets, propaganda activities, and contacts within Congress and government, and it has been consolidating power and influence for the last quarter century, so that today the broadly defined lobby, including all those who work for Israel, has become an integral part of U.S. society and U.S. policymaking.
The situation during the Reagan administration demonstrates very clearly the closeness of the bond. The events of these years illustrate how an already very Israel-centered mindset in the U.S., which had been developing for decades, was transformed into a concrete, institutionalized relationship with Israel via the offices of Israeli supporters and agents in the U.S.
The seminal event in the growth of AIPAC and the organized lobby was the battle over the administration's proposed sale of AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia in 1981, Reagan's first year in office. Paradoxically, although AIPAC lost this battle in a head-on struggle with Reagan and the administration, and the sale to the Saudis went forward, AIPAC and the lobby ultimately won the war for influence. Reagan was determined that the sale go through; he regarded the deal as an important part of an ill-conceived attempt to build an Arab-Israeli consensus in the Middle East to oppose the Soviet Union and, perhaps even more important, saw the battle in Congress as a test of his own prestige. By winning the battle, he demonstrated that any administration, at least up to that point, could exert enough pressure to push an issue opposed by Israel through Congress, but the struggle also demonstrated just how exhausting and politically costly such a battle can be, and no one around Reagan was willing to go to the mat in this way again. In a real sense, despite AIPAC's loss, the fight showed just how much the lobby limited policymaker freedom, even more than 20 years ago, in any transaction that concerned Israel.
The AWACS imbroglio galvanized AIPAC into action, at precisely the time the administration was subsiding in exhaustion, and under an aggressive and energetic leader, former congressional aide Thomas Dine, AIPAC quadrupled its budget, increased its grassroots support immensely, and vastly expanded its propaganda effort. This last and perhaps most significant accomplishment was achieved when Dine established an analytical unit inside AIPAC that published in-depth analyses and position papers for congressmen and policymakers. Dine believed that anyone who could provide policymakers with books and papers focusing on Israel's strategic value to the U.S. would effectively "own" the policymakers.
With the rising power and influence of the lobby, and following the U.S. debacle in Lebanon which began with Israel's 1982 invasion and ended for the U.S. with the withdrawal of its Marine contingent in early 1984, after the Marines had become involved in fighting to protect Israel's invasion force and 241 U.S. military had been killed in a truck bombing the Reagan administration effectively handed over the policy initiative in the Middle East to Israel and its American advocates.
Israel and its agents began, with amazing effrontery, to complain that the U.S. failure to clean up in Lebanon was interfering with Israel's own designs there from which arrogance Reagan and company concluded, in an astounding twist of logic, that the only way to restore stability was through closer alliance with Israel. As a result, in the fall of 1983 Reagan sent a delegation to ask the Israelis for closer strategic ties, and shortly thereafter forged a formal strategic alliance with Israel with the signing of a "memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation." In 1987, the U.S. designated Israel a "major non-NATO ally," thus giving it access to military technology not available otherwise. The notion of demanding concessions from Israel in return for this favored status such as, for instance, some restraint in its settlement-construction in the West Bank was specifically rejected. The U.S. simply very deliberately and abjectly retreated into policy inaction, leaving Israel with a free hand to proceed as it wished wherever it wished in the Middle East and particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Even Israel, by all accounts, was surprised by this demonstration of the United States' inability to see beyond Israel's interests. Prime Minister Menachem Begin had attempted from early in the Carter administration to push the notion that Israel was a strategic Cold War asset to the U.S. but, because Israel did not in fact perform a significant strategic role for the U.S. and was in many ways more a liability than an asset, Carter never paid serious attention to the Israeli overtures. Begin feared that the United States' moral and emotional commitment to Israel might ultimately not be enough to sustain the relationship through possible hard times, and so he attempted to put Israel forward as a strategically indispensable ally and a good investment for U.S. security, a move that would essentially reverse the two nations' roles, altering the relationship from one of Israeli indebtedness to the U.S. to one in which the United States was in Israel's debt for its vital strategic role.
Carter was having none of this, but the notion of strategic cooperation germinated in Israel and among its U.S. supporters until the moment became ripe during the Reagan administration. By the end of the Lebanon mess, the notion that the U.S. needed Israel's friendship had so taken hold among the Reaganites that, as one former national security aide observed in a stunning upending of logic, they began to view closer strategic ties as a necessary means of "restor[ing] Israeli confidence in American reliability." Secretary of State George Shultz wrote in his memoirs years later of the U.S. need "to lift the albatross of Lebanon from Israel's neck." Recall, as Shultz must not have been able to do, that the debt here was rightly Israel's: Israel put the albatross around its own neck, and the U.S. stumbled into Lebanon after Israel, not the other way around.
AIPAC and the neo-conservatives who rose to prominence during the Reagan years played a major role in building the strategic alliance. AIPAC in particular became in every sense of the word a partner of the U.S. in forging Middle East policy from the mid-1980s on. Thomas Dine's vision of "owning" policymakers by providing them with position papers geared to Israel's interests went into full swing. In 1984, AIPAC spun off a think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, that remains one of the pre-eminent think tanks in Washington and that has sent its analysts into policymaking jobs in several administrations. Dennis Ross, the senior Middle East policymaker in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, came from the Washington Institute and returned there after leaving government service. Martin Indyk, the Institute's first director, entered a senior policymaking position in the Clinton administration from there.
Today, John Hannah, who has served on Vice President Cheney's national security staff since 2001 and succeeded Lewis Libby last year as Cheney's leading national security adviser, comes from the Institute. AIPAC also continues to do its own analyses in addition to the Washington Institute's. A recent Washington Post profile of Steven Rosen, the former senior AIPAC foreign policy analyst who is about to stand trial with a colleague for receiving and passing on classified information to Israel, noted that two decades ago Rosen began a practice of lobbying the executive branch, rather than simply concentrating on Congress, as a way, in the words of the Post article, "to alter American foreign policy" by "influencing government from the inside." Over the years, he "had a hand in writing several policies favored by Israel."
In the Reagan years, AIPAC's position papers were particularly welcomed by an administration already more or less convinced of Israel's strategic value and obsessed with impeding Soviet advances. Policymakers began negotiating with AIPAC before presenting legislation in order to help assure passage, and Congress consulted the lobby on pending legislation. Congress eagerly embraced almost every legislative initiative proposed by the lobby and came to rely on AIPAC for information on all issues related to the Middle East. The close cooperation between the administration and AIPAC soon began to stifle discourse inside the bureaucracy. Middle East experts in the State Department and other agencies were almost completely cut out of decision-making, and officials throughout government became increasingly unwilling to propose policies or put forth analysis likely to arouse opposition from AIPAC or Congress. One unnamed official complained that "a lot of real analysis is not even getting off people's desks for fear of what the lobby will do"; he was speaking to a New York Times correspondent, but otherwise his complaints fell on deaf ears.
This kind of pervasive influence, a chill on discourse inside as well as outside policymaking councils, does not require the sort of clear-cut, concrete pro-Israeli decisions in the Oval Office that David Gergen naively thought he should have witnessed if the lobby had any real influence. This kind of influence, which uses friendly persuasion, along with just enough direct pressure, on a broad range of policymakers, legislators, media commentators, and grassroots activists to make an impression across the spectrum, cannot be defined in terms of narrow, concrete policy commands, but becomes an unchanging, unchallengeable mindset, a sentimental environment that restricts debate, restricts thinking, and determines actions and policies as surely as any command from on high. When Israel's advocates, its lobbyists, in the U.S. become an integral part of the policymaking apparatus, as they have particularly since the Reagan years and as they clearly have been during the current Bush administration there is no way to separate the lobby's interests from U.S. policies. Moreover, because Israel's strategic goals in the region are more clearly defined and more urgent than those of the United States, Israel's interests most often dominate.
Chomsky himself acknowledges that the lobby plays a significant part in shaping the political environment in which support for Israel becomes automatic and unquestioned. Even Chomsky believes that what he calls the intellectual political class is a critical, and perhaps the most influential, component of the lobby because these elites determine the shaping of news and information in the media and academia. On the other hand, he contends that, because the lobby already includes most of this intellectual political class, the thesis of lobby power "loses much of its content". But, on the contrary, this very fact would seem to prove the point, not undermine it. The fact of the lobby's pervasiveness, far from rendering it less powerful, magnifies its importance tremendously.
Indeed, this is the crux of the entire debate. It is the very power of the lobby to continue shaping the public mindset, to mold thinking and, perhaps most important, to instill fear of deviation that brings this intellectual political class together in an unswerving determination to work for Israel. Is there not a heavy impact on Middle East policymaking when, for instance, a lobby has the power to force the electoral defeat of long-serving congressmen, as occurred to Representative Paul Findley in 1982 and Senator Charles Percy in 1984 after both had deviated from political correctness by speaking out in favor of negotiating with the PLO? AIPAC openly crowed about the defeat of both men both Republicans serving during the Republican Reagan administration, who had been in Congress for 22 and 18 years respectively. Similarly, does not the media's silence on Israel's oppressive measures in the occupied territories, as well as the concerted, and openly acknowledged, efforts of virtually every pro-Israeli organization in the U.S. to suppress information and quash debate on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, have an immense impact on policy? Today, even the most outspoken of leftist radio hosts and other commentators, such as Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, and now Cindy Sheehan, almost always avoid talking and writing about this issue.
Does not the massive effort by AIPAC, the Washington Institute, and myriad other similar organizations to spoon-feed policymakers and congressmen selective information and analysis written only from Israel's perspective have a huge impact on policy? In the end, even Chomsky and Finkelstein acknowledge the power of the lobby in suppressing discussion and debate about Middle East policy. The mobilization of public opinion, Finkelstein writes, "can have a real impact on policy-making which is why the Lobby invests so much energy in suppressing discussion." It is difficult to read statement except as a ringing acknowledgement of the massive and very central power of the lobby to control discourse and to control policymaking on the most critical Middle East policy issue.
Interchangeable Interests
The principal problem with the left critics' analysis is that it is too rigid. There is no question that Israel has served the interests of the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex in many areas of the world by, for instance, aiding some of the rightist regimes of Central America, by skirting arms and trade embargoes against apartheid South Africa and China (until the neo-conservatives turned off the tap to China and, in a rare disagreement with Israel, forced it to halt), and during the Cold War by helping, at least indirectly, to hold down Arab radicalism. There is also no question that, no matter which party has been in power, the U.S. has over the decades advanced an essentially conservative global political and pro-business agenda in areas far afield of the Middle East, without reference to Israel or the lobby. The U.S. unseated Mossadegh in Iran and Arbenz in Guatemala and Allende in Chile, along with many others, for its own corporate and political purposes, as the left critics note, and did not use Israel.
But these facts do not minimize the power the lobby has exerted in countless instances over the course of decades, and particularly in recent years, to lead the U.S. into situations that Israel initiated, that the U.S. did not plan, and that have done harm, both singly and cumulatively, to U.S. interests. One need only ask whether particular policies would have been adopted in the absence of pressure from some influential persons and organizations working on Israel's behalf in order to see just how often Israel or its advocates in the U.S., rather than the United States or even U.S. corporations, have been the policy initiators. The answers give clear evidence that a lobby, as broadly defined by Mearsheimer and Walt, has played a critical and, as the decades have gone on, increasingly influential role in policymaking.
For instance, would Harry Truman have been as supportive of establishing Israel as a Jewish state if it had not been for heavy pressure from what was then a very loose grouping of strong Zionists with considerable influence in policymaking circles? It can reasonably be argued that he might not in fact have supported Jewish statehood at all, and it is even more likely that his own White House advisers all strong Zionist proponents themselves would not have twisted arms at the United Nations to secure the 1947 vote in favor of partitioning Palestine if these lobbyists had not been a part of Truman's policymaking circle. Truman himself did not initially support the notion of founding a state based on religion, and every national security agency of government, civilian and military , strongly opposed the partition of Palestine out of fear that this would lead to warfare in which the U.S. might have to intervene, would enhance the Soviet position in the Middle East, and would endanger U.S. oil interests in the area. But even in the face of this united opposition from within his own government, Truman found the pressures of the Zionists among his close advisers and among influential friends of the administration and of the Democratic Party too overwhelmingly strong to resist.
Questions like this arise for virtually every presidential administration. Would Jimmy Carter, for instance, have dropped his pursuit of a resolution of the Palestinian problem if the Israel lobby had not exerted intense pressure on him? Carter was the first president to recognize the Palestinian need for some kind of "homeland," as he termed it, and he made numerous efforts to bring Palestinians into a negotiating process and to stop Israeli settlement-building, but opposition from Israel and pressures from the lobby were so heavy that he was ultimately worn down and defeated.
It is also all but impossible to imagine the U.S. supporting Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories without pressure from the lobby. No conceivable U.S. national interest served even in the United States' own myopic view by its support for Israel's harshly oppressive policy in the West Bank and Gaza, and furthermore this support is a dangerous liability. As Mearsheimer and Walt note, most foreign elites view the U.S. tolerance of Israeli repression as "morally obtuse and a handicap in the war on terrorism," and this tolerance is a major cause of terrorism against the U.S. and the West. The impetus for oppressing the Palestinians clearly comes and has always come from Israel, not the United States, and the impetus for supporting Israel and facilitating this oppression has come, very clearly and directly, from the lobby, which goes to great lengths to justify the occupation and to advocate on behalf of Israeli policies.
It is tempting, and not at all out of the realm of possibility, to imagine Bill Clinton having forged a final Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement were it not for the influence of his notably pro-Israeli advisers. By the time Clinton came to office, the lobby had become a part of the policymaking apparatus, in the persons of Israeli advocates Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, both of whom entered government service from lobby organizations. Both also returned at the end of the Clinton administration to organizations that advocate for Israel: Ross to the Washington Institute and Indyk to the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which is financed by and named for a notably pro-Israeli benefactor. The scope of the lobby's infiltration of government policymaking councils has been unprecedented during the current Bush administration. Some of the left critics dismiss the neo-cons as not having any allegiance to Israel; Finkelstein thinks it is naïve to credit them with any ideological conviction, and Zunes claims they are uninterested in benefiting Israel because they are not religious Jews (as if only religious Jews care about Israel). But it simply ignores reality to deny the neo-cons' very close ties, both ideological and pragmatic, to Israel's right wing.
Both Finkelstein and Zunes glaringly fail to mention the strategy paper that several neo-cons wrote in the mid-1990s for an Israeli prime minister, laying out a plan for attacking Iraq these same neo-cons later carried out upon entering the Bush administration. The strategy was designed both to assure Israel's regional dominance in the Middle East and to enhance U.S. global hegemony. One of these authors, David Wurmser, remains in government as Cheney's Middle East adviser one of several lobbyists inside the henhouse. The openly trumpeted plan, crafted by the neo-cons, is to "transform" the Middle East by unseating Saddam Hussein, and the notion, also openly touted, that the path to peace in Palestine-Israel ran through Baghdad grew out of the neo-cons' overriding concern for Israel. Both Finkelstein and Zunes also fail to take note of the long record of advocacy on behalf of Israel that almost all the neo-cons (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, and their cheerleaders on the sidelines such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and numerous right-wing, pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington) have compiled over the years. The fact that these individuals and organizations are all also advocates of U.S. global hegemony does not diminish their allegiance to Israel or their desire to assure Israel's regional hegemony in alliance with the U.S.
The claimed interchangeability of U.S. and Israeli interests and the fact that certain individuals for whom a primary objective is to advance Israel's interests now reside inside the councils of government proves the truth of the Mearsheimer-Walt's principal conclusion that the lobby has been able to convince most Americans, contrary to reality, that there is an essential identity of U.S. and Israeli interests and that the lobby has succeeded for this reason in forging a relationship of unmatched intimacy. The "overall thrust of policy" in the Middle East, they observe quite accurately, is "almost entirely" attributable to the lobby's activities. The fact that the U.S. occasionally acts without reference to Israel in areas outside the Middle East, and that Israel does occasionally serve U.S. interests rather than the other way around, takes nothing away from the significance of this conclusion.
The tragedy of the present situation is that it has become impossible to separate Israeli from alleged U.S. interests that is, not what should be real U.S. national interests, but the selfish and self-defined "national interests" of the political-corporate-military complex that dominates the Bush administration, Congress, and both major political parties. The specific groups that now dominate the U.S. government are the globalized arms, energy, and financial industries, and the entire military establishments, of the U.S. and of Israel groups that have quite literally hijacked the government and stripped it of most vestiges of democracy.
This convergence of manipulated "interests" has a profound effect on U.S. policy choices in the Middle East. When a government is unable to distinguish its own real needs from those of another state, it can no longer be said that it always acts in its own interests or that it does not frequently do grave damage to those interests. Until the system of sovereign nation-states no longer exists and that day may never come no nation's choices should ever be defined according to the demands of another nation. Accepting a convergence of U.S. and Israeli interests means that the U.S. can never act entirely as its own agent, will never examine its policies and actions entirely from the vantage point of its own long-term self interest, and can, therefore, never know why it is devising and implementing a particular policy. The failure to recognize this reality is where the left critics' belittling of the lobby's power and their acceptance of U.S. Middle East policy as simply an unchangeable part of a longstanding strategy is particularly dangerous.
Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades, CounterPunch's history of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
They can be reached at kathy.bill@christison-santafe.com.
Comment on this Article
Burning Cole
June 16, 2006
The Nation
Philip Weiss
Neoconservatism is an elite calling. It thrives in think tanks, not union halls; its proponents want most of all to influence the powerful. No wonder Ivy League labels have always been important to neocons. This fixation on intellectual prestige explains the recent neocon uprising over the possibility that Juan Cole, scholar and blogger, would become a Yale professor. It was one thing for Cole to hold forth from the University of Michigan, where he has been a professor for twenty years. But Yale would provide "honor" and "imprimatur," says Scott Johnson, a right-wing blogger. "That's a huge thing, to have them bless all his rantings on that blog."
On June 2 Johnson broke the story (on powerlineblog.com) that Yale's Senior Appointments Committee had the day before rejected Cole after three other Yale committees had signed off on him. By then a process that usually takes place behind closed doors had become thoroughly politicized by the right. "I'm saddened and distressed by the news," John Merriman, a Yale history professor, said of the rejection. "I love this place. But I haven't seen something like this happen at Yale before. In this case, academic integrity clearly has been trumped by politics."
The controversy erupted this spring after two campus periodicals reported that Cole was under consideration by Yale for a joint appointment in sociology and history. In an article in the Yale Herald, Campus Watch, a pro-Israel group that monitors scholars' statements about the Middle East, was quoted as saying that Cole lacked a "penetrating mind," and suggesting that Yale was "in danger of sacrificing academic credibility in exchange for the attention" Cole would generate. Alex Joffe, then the director of Campus Watch, told me Cole "has a conspiratorial bent...he tends to see the Mossad and the Likud under his bed." For its part, the Yale Daily News twice featured attacks on Cole by former Bush Administration aide Michael Rubin, a Yale PhD associated with Campus Watch and the American Enterprise Institute. In an op-ed Rubin wrote, "Early in his career, Cole did serious academic work on the 19th century Middle East.... He has since abandoned scholarship in favor of blog commentary."
Academics dispute this. They say that Yale was drawn to Cole by top-rank scholarly achievement. He is president of the Middle East Studies Association, speaks Arabic and Persian, and has published several books on Egyptian and Shiite history. "We were impressed with Cole's scholarly work, and a wide set of letters showed that he is also highly regarded by other scholars in the field," says political science professor Frances Rosenbluth, a member of the Yale search committee that chose Cole. Zachary Lockman, an NYU Middle Eastern studies professor, says, "It's fair to say he is probably among the leading historians of the modern Middle East in this country." Joshua Landis, a professor at University of Oklahoma, describes Cole as "top notch."
"He was the wunderkind of Middle East Studies in the 1980s and 1990s," Landis says. "He can be strident on his blog, which is one reason it is the premier Middle East blog.... [But] Juan Cole has done something that no other Middle East academic has done since Bernard Lewis, who is 90 years old: He has become a household word. He has educated a nation. For the last thirty years every academic search for a professor of Middle East history at an Ivy League university has elicited the same complaint: 'There are no longer any Bernard Lewises. Where do you find someone really big with expertise on many subjects who is at home in both the ivory tower and inside the Beltway?' Today, Juan Cole is that academic."
Of course, Cole is on the left, while Lewis is a neoconservative. And it is hard to separate Cole's scholarly reputation from his Internet fame. Cole started his blog, Informed Comment, a few months after September 11. He quickly became the leading left blogger on terrorism and the Middle East, delivering every day, often by translating from Arabic newspapers. He could discuss the pros and cons of, say, an invasion of Iraq with complete authority. Here, for instance, are some of his writings in the lead-up to war: "The Persian Gulf is the site of two-thirds of the proven petroleum reserves in the world. Yet the countries along its littoral have no means of providing security to themselves.... The two exceptions here are Iran and Iraq.... Iraq did so badly in the Iran-Iraq war, however, that it left itself without credibility as security provider in the region. It also was left deeply in debt." A US invasion "will inevitably be seen in the Arab world as a neo-colonial war.... The final defeat of the Baath Party will be seen as a defeat of its ideals, which include secularism, improved rights for women and high modernism. Arabs in despair of these projects are likely to turn to radical Islam as an alternative outlet for their frustrations."
At times, his voice rose.
"The idea that terrorists willing to commit suicide will be afraid of the US after it invades Iraq is just a misreading of human nature," he wrote in 2003. "If the US really wanted to stop terrorism, it would invade the West Bank and Gaza and liberate the Palestinians to have their own state and self-respect."
Israel's treatment of Palestinians has always been important in Cole's reading of the Middle East. Naturally, Israel is central to neocons, too. Michael Rubin accused Cole of missing the good news from Iraq and of being anti-Semitic. That charge was soon taken up in the Wall Street Journal and in the New York Sun. "Why would Yale ever want to hire a professor best known for disparaging the participation of prominent American Jews in government?" wrote two Sun authors. One of them, according to Scott Johnson, was a student of Alan Dershowitz's at Harvard. The other is Johnson's daughter, Eliana, then a Yale senior. After that article, Johnson, a Minneapolis lawyer and Dartmouth grad, wrote up the case on his blog, which describes itself as a friend of Israel, and attacked Cole as a "moonbat."
Alex Joffe denies that a network went after Cole. "There wasn't any organized opposition. It was a question of people becoming aware of it somehow and each getting in his two cents." Asked about pot-stirrers, Johnson says, "I think if you look anywhere but Yale, you'd be making a mistake."
Well, if this isn't a network, neither are the professionals who exchange cards at New York parties. Joel Mowbray, a Washington Times columnist who has assailed the consideration of Cole, sent a letter to a dozen Yale donors, many of them Jewish, warning of Cole's possible appointment. According to the Jewish Week, "Several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors...have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole's appointment be denied." Still, Johnson's point is well taken. It must have been Yale insiders who got the news out to Cole's enemies, as Cole's appointment passed one after another of several institutional hurdles. The vote in the history department was said to be 13 to 7 with three abstentions (which count as no). This signaled unusual opposition to an appointment recommended by an interdisciplinary search committee. Yale's history department includes prominent supporters of the Bush international agenda like John Gaddis and Donald Kagan.
After Cole's defeat, Rubin suggested that Yale now had an opportunity to hire a real talent, someone at the level of, say, Aaron Friedberg, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton. Who is Friedberg? A former national security aide to Vice President Cheney through the first two years of the war that the-network-that-is-not-a-network wanted to get us into. Having a role in the greatest foreign-policy disaster of our generation is evidently a worthy credential in academia. Douglas Feith, after all, is about to join the Georgetown faculty.
As Scott Johnson notes, the left didn't care about Cole's appointment as much as the right. (Maybe because the left values his blog, which an Ivy League job might have cut in on.) In retrospect, though, it is appalling to consider what was done to Cole's reputation over this blue-chip appointment.
Cole chose not to discuss the process publicly while it was happening. "I think that a hiring process in academia is a professional matter," he told me. But he also said that Yale sought him out, and that the vilification process was orchestrated. "There were clearly phone calls amongst the persons doing it." The Yale Herald quoted two Michigan students one of whom had visited him at his office in Ann Arbor and questioned his openness to Jews. "I am frankly suspicious," Cole says. "How did [the Herald] track down these students?"
Lockman, Cole's fellow Middle Eastern scholar at NYU (speaking for himself only), finds the process fearful. "Since September 11 there has been a concerted effort by a small but well-funded group of people outside academia to monitor very carefully what all of us are saying, ready to jump on any sign of deviation from what they see as acceptable opinion. It's an attack on academic freedom, and it's not very healthy for our society."
Cole declined to talk about his feelings on losing the job. Still, the pain came through in his comments. Modern Middle Eastern studies has always been politicized, he says. He jumped into the blogosphere for a simple reason, to counter the common assertion that the Israeli occupation had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attacks. "I'm from a military family. I had two cousins working in the Pentagon that was attacked. So this was personal to me. My country had been attacked. The mistreatment of the Palestinians and the high-handed policies of the Israeli right were deeply implicated in the attacks. I was angry.
"I knew when I began to speak out that I wasn't going to be hired. I knew my academic career was over. I knew that I can be in this place, be a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Michigan for the rest of my life. But I would never be a dean. I would never be a provost. I would never be in the Ivy League. I'm not surprised. I'm not upset. Actually, the bizarre thing is that Juan Cole was considered by Yale in the first place."
Comment: So, as we can see, there is no Israel lobby in the US that weilds disproportionate influence in American politics and academia. So stop saying that.
Comment on this Article
Quartet backs EU funding mechanism for Palestinians
AFP
Sat Jun 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - The diplomatic quartet on Middle East peace endorsed a European Union proposal for a temporary mechanism to funnel aid to the Palestinians, bypassing the Hamas-led government.
In a statement, envoys for the quartet, which groups the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, said it would revisit the need for the funding tool in three months.
The EU has already committed to channeling an aid package worth 100 million euros (126 million dollars) through the mechanism, which it backed in Brussels Friday.
"Mindful of the needs of the Palestinian people, the Quartet endorsed a European Union proposal for a temporary international mechanism, limited in scope and duration, which operates with full transparency and accountability," the statement said.
"The mechanism facilitates needs-based assistance directly to the Palestinian people, including essential equipment, supplies, and support for health services, support for the uninterrupted supply of fuel and utilities, and basic needs allowances to poor Palestinians," it said.
The statement said it hoped other donors, international organizations and Israel would consider channeling aid through the mechanism.
It urged the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and accept international obligations including the quartet's "roadmap" blueprint for Middle East peace.
Nearly all international aid to the Palestinian territories has been suspended since the Hamas government took power in March. The Islamist movement is deemed a terrorist organisation by both the EU and the United States.
The EU -- historically by far the biggest aid donor to the Palestinians -- sought to design a mechanism that would funnel much-needed funds to Palestinians without the money going to the Hamas-led government.
The Palestinian Authority has struggled to pay the salaries of its 160,000 civil servants, threatening the livelihoods of one million Palestinians -- a quarter of the population in Gaza and the West Bank.
The moderate Palestinian leadership hailed the EU aid package, but Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on Saturday called the funding mechanism proposal "not adequate" because it channels funds away from the Palestinian government.
"The mechanism is, I believe, not adequate because the funds must go through the government," Abbas told reporters after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo.
"Though we consider this a step forward, it is not enough at all because it cancels the role of the government and cancels the role of the Palestinian Authority," he said.
Hamas gave a cautious welcome to the package but expressed reservations about how the money would be distributed.
"It's hard to judge matters until things become clear," said spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri. "We welcome any support for our people as long as it does not come with conditions and as long as it goes to through the proper government channels."
The aid package agreed by European leaders in Brussels Friday is divided into three parts.
One part extends a programme operated through the
World Bank which provides essential supplies to the health sector, including money for those who work in hospitals and clinics.
The second reinforces an emergency relief scheme launched by the EU's executive European Commission earlier this year, and which ensures the supply of essential utilities like fuel.
The third -- which is more contentious and likely to take effect later -- would see funds paid directly into the bank accounts of as-yet unidentified people based on their needs.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Desmond Tutu: Apartheid in the Holy Land
Uk Guardian
29 April 2002
"I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa."
In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.
What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.
On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?
I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."
My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?
Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.
The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.
Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.
We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?
My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: "I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro-freedom. I am anti- injustice, anti-oppression."
But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?
People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.
Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.
We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God's dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.
Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.
Comment on this Article
Israeli hero known as a plunderer
18/06/2006
AMY TEIBEL
Associated Press
Late defense minister said to have poached Holy Land artifacts
JERUSALEM - Stunning military victories made Israel's Gen. Moshe Dayan an iconic figure on the international stage, but his reputation for looting antiquities is little known outside the country where his myth was born.
Across three decades until his death in 1981, Dayan, of the trademark eye patch, established a vast collection of antiquities acquired through illicit excavations. He also traded in archaeological finds in Israel and abroad, antiquities experts say.
"Moshe Dayan didn't deal in archaeology. He dealt in antiquities plundering," said Uzi Dahari, deputy director of the Israel Antiquities Authority. "He was a criminal. He knew he was breaking the law."
The Holy Land is a treasure trove for antiquities collectors -- and plunderers.
"There are 30,000 antiquities sites. Every hilltop has antiquities, and, of course, you can't put guards on each hilltop," said Amir Ganor, head of the robbery prevention unit at the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Various books and news reports have related how Dayan, aided by children, robbers, soldiers and military equipment, poached excavations.
Dayan's extensive collection included pottery, stone heads, ossuaries, Byzantine gravestones and Roman sarcophagi, antiquities experts said.
After Dayan's death, his wife, Rachel, sold his collection to the Israel Museum for $1 million, Dahari said.
Comment on this Article
Bring 'em on!
U.S. troops search for missing GIs in Iraq
By KIM GAMEL
Associated Press
June 18, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops searched Sunday for two missing soldiers in the volatile Sunni triangle south of Baghdad as witnesses claimed the Americans were led away by masked gunmen after the attack that left one of their comrades dead.
Ground forces, helicopters and airplanes fanned out shortly after Friday's attack and U.S. military spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Saturday that four raids had been carried out.
He said a dive team also was to search for the men, whose checkpoint was near a Euphrates River canal not far from Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad - in the so-called triangle of death, named for the frequent ambushes against U.S. soldiers and Iraqi troops in the area.
Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer who said he witnessed the attack Friday, said three Humvees were manning a checkpoint when they came under fire from many directions. Two of the vehicles went after the assailants, but the third was ambushed before it could move, he told The Associated Press.
Seven masked gunmen, including one with what he described as a heavy machine gun, killed the driver of the third vehicle, then took the two other U.S. soldiers captive, the witness said. The account could not be verified.
The U.S. military said Sunday it was continuing the search but had no new information to provide.
"Coalition and Iraqi forces will continue to search everywhere possible, uncovering every stone, until our soldiers are found, and we will continue to use every resource available in our search," it said.
The New York Times also reported in its Sunday editions that Iraqi residents in the area said they saw two U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by a group of masked guerrillas. It said the two surviving soldiers were led to two cars and driven away.
Falah also said tensions were high in the area as U.S. soldiers raided some houses and arrested men. He also said the Americans were setting up checkpoints on all roads leading to the area of the attack and helicopters were hovering at low altitudes.
He did not give more details and no new raids were announced by the military early Sunday.
The military said Saturday that soldiers at a nearby checkpoint heard small-arms fire and explosions during the attack that occurred at 7:15 p.m. on Friday, and a quick-reaction force reached the scene within 15 minutes. The force found one soldier dead but no sign of the two others.
"We are currently using every means at our disposal on the ground, in the air and in the water to find them," said Caldwell, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad.
He said blocking positions were established throughout the area within an hour of the attack to keep suspects from fleeing.
He also noted the military was still searching for Sgt. Keith Matthew Maupin, who went missing on April 9, 2004.
"We continue to search using every means available and will not stop looking until we find the missing soldiers," he said.
Maupin was captured when insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy with the 724th Transportation Co. west of Baghdad. A week later, Arab television network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape showing Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men holding automatic rifles.
That June, Al-Jazeera aired another tape purporting to show a U.S. soldier being shot. But the dark, grainy tape showed only the back of the victim's head and did not show the actual shooting. The Army ruled it was inconclusive whether the soldier was Maupin.
A 20-year-old private first class at the time of his capture, Maupin has been promoted twice since then.
Comment on this Article
Insurgent blasts kill at least 27 in Iraq
By PATRICK QUINN
Associated Press
Sat Jun 17, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents foiled heightened security in Baghdad and killed more than two dozen people Saturday after an al-Qaida threat to avenge the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, dealing a blow to the Iraqi government's pledge to bring peace to the capital.
Eleven more Iraqis, including four in Baghdad, died in shooting attacks across Iraq.
U.S. troops, meanwhile, combed through the "Triangle of Death," a predominantly Sunni Arab region south of the capital looking for two soldiers missing since an attack Friday on a traffic checkpoint that also killed one of their comrades.
The spree of bombings and mortar attacks in Baghdad was an embarrassment for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who ordered more police and army checkpoints for the city last week to restore security for its 5 million residents.
His Sunni Arab deputy prime minister, Salam Zikam Ali al-Zubaie, charged that the plan was not properly thought out and needed more work.
"I can say that I am not pleased with the way the Baghdad security plan began," he told al-Jazeera television. "The Baghdad plan has begun, but it will need a year or more to finish."
Al-Zubaie said the Interior Ministry, which is responsible for Iraq's police forces, first has to be cleansed of people who may be responsible for "human rights violations." Many Sunnis charge that Shiite-dominated security services have been infiltrated by Shiite militias blamed for sectarian violence.
"There are a lot of officials who were responsible for committing numerous acts of foolishness and many human right violations who are still in positions of responsibility," al-Zubaie said.
Eight attacks killed at least 27 people and wounded dozens in the Baghdad area.
The violence included a suicide bomber who blew up his car as it was being towed near a police checkpoint in Mahmoudiya, south of the city, killing four civilians and injuring 15. The bomber had claimed his car broke down and hired a tractor to tow it while he rode inside, police Capt. Rashid al-Samarie said.
A mortar barrage also hit a residential area in Mahmoudiya, a predominantly Sunni town about 20 miles south of Baghdad, killing one civilian and wounding three.
In Baghdad itself, a mortar shell hit one of Baghdad's best known markets, in the predominantly Shiite suburb of Kazimiyah, killing at least four people and wounding 13, police said.
About a half hour later, two people died and 24 were wounded when a bomb left in a plastic bag exploded at an outdoor market where secondhand goods are sold in central Baghdad.
Police said a suicide bomber targeting an Iraqi army patrol near Wathiq Square in the same neighborhood killed seven people when he blew himself up.
A parked car bomb in southwest Baghdad killed six people and wounded 36, police said.
Three mortar rounds hit a popular open-air market in the al-Bour area of northern Baghdad, killing two and wounding 14.
One other person died from a roadside bombing.
The blasts stepped up a surge of violence that has shattered the fragile calm imposed by the security crackdown launched a week after bombs dropped by a U.S. warplane killed al-Zarqawi in a hideout June 7.
On Friday, a suspected shoe bomber targeting a Shiite imam who criticized al-Zarqawi blew himself up inside the Buratha mosque during the main weekly religious service, killing 13 people and wounding 28. The assault was staged during a four-hour driving ban meant to prevent suicide car bombs during Friday prayers.
It was the second attack on the Buratha mosque in just over two months. On April 7, four suicide bombers, including a woman, set off their explosives during Friday prayers, killing at least 85 worshippers. The U.S. military blamed al-Zarqawi's followers.
On Friday, Al-Jazeera aired an audio tape of a key insurgency leader calling al-Zarqawi's death a "great loss" but saying it would strengthen the militants' determination.
The broadcaster identified the voice as that of Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, head of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five Iraqi insurgent organizations including al-Qaida in Iraq. The authenticity of the tape could not immediately be verified.
Discussing the missing American soldiers, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said that four raids had been carried out since Friday's attack and that ground forces, helicopters and airplanes were taking part in the search.
The soldiers came under attack at a traffic checkpoint next to a canal southwest of Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad. The area is considered and insurgent hotbed.
"We are currently using every means at our disposal on the ground, in the air and in the water to find them," Caldwell said.
Comment on this Article
10 workers at Baghdad bakery kidnapped
AP
June 18, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen seized 10 workers from a bakery Sunday in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, while police found the bodies of 11 other people shot elsewhere in
Iraq.
The gunmen arrived in two cars, broke into the bakery in the northern suburb of Kazimiyah and abducted the 10 workers, police Lt. Mohammed Khayoun said. The kidnappings came a day after a mortar shell hit a well-known market in same neighborhood, killing four people and wounding 13.
It was one of a series of attacks that killed more than two dozen people Saturday despite heightened security, dealing a blow to the Iraqi government's pledge to bring peace to the capital.
On Sunday, police found the bullet-riddled bodies of 10 men who apparently had been tortured in several areas of Baghdad, said Lt. Thaer Mahmoud.
The body of a man in his 20s was found in Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, health authorities said. He had been shot in the head, and his body showed signs of torture.
A mortar shell hit the al-Sadiq University for Islamic Studies on Palestine Street, one of the capital's main thoroughfares, wounding five students and a teacher, police Lt. Ahmed Qasim said.
Comment on this Article
Pentagon Details U.S. Abuse of Detainees
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press
June 17, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Murky procedures, lack of oversight and inadequate resources led to mistakes in the way U.S. troops treated Iraq and Afghanistan detainees. But two Pentagon reports, made public Friday, found no widespread mistreatment or illegal actions by the military.
A human rights group called the reports a whitewash that ignored countless documented accounts of detainee abuse.
One report detailed several incidents involving U.S. special operations forces in 2003-04. It said interrogators fed some Iraqi detainees only bread and water for up to 17 days, used unapproved interrogation practices such as sleep deprivation and loud music and stripped at least one prisoner.
That report concluded the detainees' treatment was wrong but not illegal and reflected inadequate resources and lack of oversight and proper guidance rather than deliberate abuse. No military personnel were punished as a result of the investigation.
The findings were included in more than 1,000 pages of documents the Pentagon released to the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday under a Freedom of Information request. They included two major reports - one by Army Brig. Gen. Richard Formica on specials operations forces in Iraq and one by Brig. Gen. Charles Jacoby on Afghanistan detainees.
While some of the incidents have been reported previously and reviewed by members of Congress, this was the first time the documents were made public. Many portions of the reports were blacked out, including specific names and locations.
"Both the Formica and the Jacoby report demonstrate that the government is really not taking the investigation of detainee abuse seriously," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU attorney.
Singh called the reports "a whitewash." In particular, she said, there have been numerous documents showing that special operations forces abused detainees, but Formica only reviewed a few cases.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said: "We've undertaken significant steps to investigate, hold people accountable and change our operations as appropriate. This is all part of our effort to be transparent and show that we investigate all allegations thoroughly, and we take them seriously."
Less than a week ago, three detainees committed suicide at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, highlighting accusations of abuse. A little more than two years ago, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq came to light, with its graphic photographs of detainees being sexually humiliated and threatened with dogs.
The Bush administration has been criticized internationally, including by U.S. allies, for abusive treatment of terror war detainees. Late last year, Congress forced Bush to accept a ban on the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners by U.S. troops.
Administration officials have said the U.S. uses legal interrogation techniques - not torture - to gain information that could head off terror attacks.
The Formica review recommended better training, new standards for detention centers and updated policies for detainee operations, among other things. The final report is dated November 2004.
Formica reviewed three allegations of abuse by special operations forces who held detainees in temporary facilities, often hastily set up near where they were captured. He found that overall conditions "did not comport with the spirit of the principles set forth in the Geneva Conventions," which require humane treatment of prisoners.
For example, Formica said, the forces used five interrogation techniques that were allowed at one point but had been rescinded by then: sleep or food deprivation, yelling and loud music, forcing detainees to remain in stressful physical positions and changing environmental conditions.
Formica also said stripping prisoners "was unnecessary and inconsistent with the principles of dignity and respect" in the Geneva Conventions. And while one of the prisoners fed just bread and water appeared to be in good condition, he said, 17 days of that diet "is too long."
He said more serious allegations of rape, sodomy and beatings were not substantiated by medical examinations and the accusers' stories changed over time and were not credible.
Jacoby was dispatched in May 2004 to examine the treatment of detainees at facilities in Afghanistan.
His report found "no systematic or widespread mistreatment of detainees," but concluded that the opportunities for mistreatment and the ever-changing battlefield there demanded changes in procedures.
He said there was "a consistent lack of knowledge" regarding the capture, processing, detention and interrogation of detainees, with different policies at facilities across the country. Jacoby also concluded that "inconsistent and unevenly applied" interrogation standards created opportunities for abuse and impeded efforts to gain timely intelligence.
To date, there have been about 600 investigations into detainee-related incidents, including natural deaths and detainee assaults on other detainees, according to Army spokesman Paul Boyce. As a result, he said, 267 soldiers have received some type of punishment, including 85 courts-martial and 95 nonjudicial actions.
Comment: The Pentagon investigated itself and concluded that there was no widespread abuse or torture of prisoners in the war on terror. It must be nice for them to be able to investigate and clear themselves of any wrongdoing.
Comment on this Article
Bush is a war criminal: Austria's Haider
June 18, 2006
Sydney Morning Herald
Austrian right-wing populist Joerg Haider called US President George W Bush a war criminal, days before Austria's government hosts Bush and European leaders in Vienna.
Haider, whose group is part of Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's government coalition, said Bush's meeting with his European peers on Wednesday was pointless as he did not expect the US president to pay attention to what Europe had to tell him.
"He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods," Haider said in an interview with Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.
"The Iraqi population is suffering terribly. Bush took the risk of an enormous number of victims," said Haider.
Maverick Haider is a personal friend of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and visited Iraq's former president Saddam Hussein shortly before the US-led invasion started in 2003.
Austria's attitude towards the US has worsened over the past three years, Die Presse reported separately, citing a Eurobarometer poll.
The poll showed 62 per cent thought the US played a negative role for world peace, up from 56 per cent in the same poll in 2003, Die Presse said, and 49 per cent found the US role in fighting terrorism negative.
Comment on this Article
Torture admission By US Special OPs
18 June 2006
Sunday Mail
AMERICAN special operations soldiers kept some Iraqi detainees chained in a room with a diet of bread and water for as long as 17 days, a US military report, made public yesterday under a court order, says.
The report by Army Brigadier General Richard Formica - dated November 8, 2004, but withheld by the Pentagon until now - examined in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal the treatment of detainees in Iraq by US special operations troops.
The heavily edited report was turned over by the US Government to the American Civil Liberties Union under court order as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
It also described detainees being kept in very small mobiles - including one who was naked "because he continually urinated on himself and his clothes" - and being exposed to loud music to prevent them communicating and sleeping.
ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said: "The Government's own documents demonstrate that the abuse of detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan was widespread and systemic.
"It shows that special operations task forces were repeatedly involved in detainee abuse incidents and they continued to escape scrutiny."
A Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ballesteros, said: "The US policy is to treat all detainees humanely".
The report, he added, "covers prior events - they are not new abuses - and we have undertaken significant steps to investigate, hold accountable and change our operations as appropriate".
The report described special operations troops, at a temporary holding facility in April 2004, keeping detainees in a room on a chain, with a diet chiefly of bread and water, for up to 17 days.
But it concluded this diet was not intended as punishment and that, for short periods, eating just bread and water "is sufficient to maintain good health and prevent the onset of nutritional deficiencies".
"In my judgment, if true as alleged in the case of the one detainee, 17 days with only bread and water is too long," the report stated, but said he "appeared in good health".
The report cited a case in which detainees were kept at a special operations team's temporary holding facility in small cells - measuring 51cm by 1.2m by 1.22m - for up to seven days, with at least one detainee kept naked.
It found that the cells fell short of minimum standards for detainee quarters, called the removal of clothing unacceptable and said a week in such a cell was too long.
The report did not recommend discipline of US personnel and concluded the incidents were not the result of deliberate or malicious attempts by US forces to abuse detainees.
Ms Singh said the reach of the report appeared narrow, "almost in a deliberate attempt to avoid the truth of the extent of detainee abuse".
Comment on this Article
How US hid the suicide secrets of Guantanamo
David Rose
Sunday June 18, 2006
The Observer
After three inmates killed themselves, the Pentagon declared the suicides an act of 'asymmetric warfare', banned the media and went on a PR offensive. But as despair grows within the camp, so too does outrage mount at its brutal and secretive regime
In Guantanamo Bay's Alpha Block, the night was like any other: sweltering and seemingly endless. Although the temperature was down to the high 70s outside, the block's steel roof and walls were radiating heat, and in the two facing rows of 24 cells it felt little cooler than it had at midday. 'The nights are worse than the days,' the British former prisoner Shafiq Rasul recalled yesterday. 'You hear the rats running and scratching. The bugs go mad and there's no air. Especially where that block is: there's no breeze whatsoever.'
According to Guantanamo's rules, a six-person team of military police should have been patrolling constantly, and as usual the bright neon lights stayed on. A guard should have passed each detainee's cell every 30 seconds. 'From the landing, you can see right into every cell,' said Rasul. 'They don't have doors, just gates made from wide-spaced mesh. There's no privacy. If you hang up a towel because you want to go to the toilet, they make you take it down.'
The high degree of surveillance has foiled dozens of previous attempts by prisoners to take their own lives. 'It happened in front of me several times. The soldiers would see what was happening and they were in the cell in seconds,' Rasul said. But somehow, in circumstances that the Pentagon has succeeded in keeping totally obscure, late on Friday, 9 June, three detainees, all weak and emaciated after months on hunger strike and being force-fed, managed to tease bedsheets through their cells' mesh walls, tie them into nooses and hang themselves. With the cells little taller than the height of a man, they stood no chance of breaking their necks: the only way they could die was slowly, by hypoxia.
'That would take at least four or five minutes, probably longer,' said Dr David Nicholl, consultant neurologist at Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth Hospital, who has been co-ordinating international opposition to Guantanamo by physicians. 'It's very difficult to see how, if the landing was being properly patrolled, they could have managed to accomplish it.'
Accomplish it, however, they did. And virtually simultaneously. A little before midnight the bodies of Manei Shaman Turki al-Habadi, 30, and Yasser Talal al-Zahrani, 21, both from Saudi Arabia, and of a Yemeni, Ali Abdullah Ahmed, 29, were found on Alpha Block. How long they had been like that, the Pentagon will not disclose. Their mouths were stuffed with cloth, apparently to muffle any cries.
As often before in its four-and-a-half-year propaganda war over Guantanamo, the US military and its masters in Washington decided that the best means of defence to what looked - at best - like a case of criminal negligence was to go on the offensive. The dead men, said Guantanamo's commander, Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, when the news broke last Saturday, had 'no regard for human life, neither ours nor their own. They are smart, they are creative, they are committed. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetric warfare against us.'
Colleen Graffy, a senior State Department official who recently visited London to make the case for Guantanamo with the UK media, called the suicides a 'good PR move' and 'a tactic to further the jihadi cause'. The US government tried to distance itself from Graffy's remarks. But early on Sunday The Observer talked to the camp's top Washington spin doctor, Lieutenant Commander Jeffrey Gordon, an official in Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office and the Pentagon's chief press officer. According to Gordon, whatever the outcome of the investigation now being conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, there was no need to regret the deaths. All three men, Gordon said, had been dedicated terrorists: 'These guys were fanatics like the Nazis, Hitlerites, or the Ku Klux Klan, the people they tried at Nuremberg.'
He went on to make specific allegations against each: Ahmed had been a 'mid-to-high-level al-Qaeda operative' with key links to Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaeda leader captured in 2002; Habadi had been a 'militant recruiter' who worked with a second tier group called Jama'at Tabligh, and knew of operations in Qatar and Pakistan. As for Zahrani, he was a 'frontline Taliban fighter' who had played a prominent part in the November 2001 prison uprising in Mazar-e-Sharif, in which a CIA man died.
All this may be true. On the other hand, they had not been charged with anything. Questionable as it often is and consisting of statements made after torture or coercion, the Pentagon has disseminated some evidence against more than 300 Guantanamo detainees, in federal court filings and at internal camp boards that reviewed their detention. Against the three suicides, it has presented nothing.
Meanwhile, the information available suggests that the explanation of the deaths rejected by Harris - that the men tried to kill themselves through despair and succeeded through the incompetence of his staff - remains more plausible.
Rasul said: 'I was shocked by what happened, though not surprised, because I saw it almost happen so often. It was always scary: I would see people deteriorating mentally in front of my eyes until they tried to take their own lives, and you always thought: "That could be me". There were even times when I thought about it myself, but I wanted to be strong for my family. When I did, believe me, it wasn't because I was trying to hurt the United States, but on days when I'd just been told I'd never see England again, and that I was a terrorist, and when I denied it they wouldn't listen.'
The suicides triggered new calls to close Guantanamo, from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, the European Union and others. But the Pentagon will go to considerable lengths to block any independent scrutiny of what happened.
News of the suicides broke while I was flying to Washington from London, in order to travel to Guantanamo on a military flight next day and cover a military commission tribunal. A message on my mobile phone - from a fellow reporter, not the Pentagon - said that both had been cancelled. Thus I made the first of many calls to Jeffrey Gordon. At first, he could not have been more helpful. To enter Guantanamo, he said, one needed an 'area clearance', and because mine had been issued for the tribunal it was no longer valid. However, the press office at Guantanamo or Southern Command in Miami might be able to issue a new one, Gordon said. Clearance was not, he pointed out, the only problem. Now that the military plane had been cancelled, the only way to reach Guantanamo was on scheduled 18-seat flights from Florida and Kingston, Jamaica. They tended to be fully booked well in advance.
I teamed up with another British journalist, David Jones of the Daily Mail, to organise clearance and investigate flights. By the end of Sunday, we thought we were on our way. Jones found a private charter firm willing to fly us to the camp from Kingston. Guantanamo's head of public affairs, Commander Robert Durand, explained in an email he was seeking authorisation from Harris. 'He's a pretty open sort of guy,' Durand said, 'and I can't see any reason for not granting you clearance since you were coming already.' At 7.30pm one of Durand's staff phoned to say there were new clearances. He faxed them a few minutes later.
Next day Jones and I got up at 4am to fly to Miami, where we checked with Guantanamo one last time that everything was in order and got on a plane to Kingston. There, at check-in for our private flight, the manager was apologetic. 'Guys, I'm so sorry. Jeffrey Gordon called me from the Pentagon five minutes ago. Your clearances have been revoked.' Over the next 48 hours, I had several heated conversations and email exchanges with Gordon. At first he was apologetic: the new clearances had been 'a mistake' and he would try to get us a refund on the plane costs. Later he became more aggressive: forgetting that he had advised me to approach Durand at Guantanamo, he claimed that we tried to 'get round' the Pentagon by obtaining clearance from a clerk. His last email stated that our conduct had been 'ethically questionable, at best'. It was left to Durand to shed a little light. For the time being, he said, his ability to issue clearances had been removed and assumed by Rumsfeld's office alone.
Meanwhile, three US reporters at the base were ordered to leave. According to a Pentagon spokesman quoted by the US media, the reason was that two barred British reporters - us - had threatened to sue if the Americans were allowed to stay. This was, of course, untrue.
Closing Guantanamo to the media meant there were no reporters there as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service team went about its work; none when pathologists conducted post mortem examinations; and none last Friday when, after a Muslim ceremony conducted by a military chaplain, the first body - Ahmed's - was prepared to be flown home. It was also impossible to gauge the impact of the deaths on the 460 inmates.
Yet our bizarre experience raises a fundamental question: when it comes to Guantanamo, can the world believe a single word that Gordon and his numerous cohorts say? There is, to say the least, an alternative explanation for the three Guantanamo deaths. Since early 2003, when the Red Cross issued the first of many reports stating that inmates were experiencing high levels of depression, there has been mounting evidence that detention there has wrought havoc on some prisoners' mental health. It is not so surprising: most prisoners get just two 30-minute periods out of their cells - the size of a double bed - each week, except when being interrogated. Some have endured this since 2002, and have no idea when, if ever, they may leave.
By the time of my own visit in October 2003, a fifth of them were on Prozac and there had been so many suicide attempts - 40 by August 2003 - that the Pentagon had reclassified hangings as 'manipulative self-injurious behaviours'. Cannily, perhaps, it has refused to give exact statistics on how many SIBs have occurred, claiming that since the reclassification there have been (until last week) only two genuine attempted suicides.
Tarek Dergoul, another freed British former detainee, knew two of the dead men well. 'I was next to or opposite Manei [Habadi] for weeks, maybe months,' he said, 'and like me his morale was high. He was always up for a protest: a hunger strike or a non-co-operation strike. He used to recite poetry, not just Arabic, but English - he knew chunks of Macbeth and he taught me how to read the Koran correctly. When you go through that sort of experience with someone, you really get to know them. I just can't believe he would take his own life. He would have had to be really desperate.' Likewise, Dergoul said, Zahrani was 'a person everyone loved. It's offensive to me to say he could have killed himself.' Apart from anything else, all three men would have been deeply aware of Islam's prohibition of suicide.
However, the men may well have been so desperate that they ignored the prohibition - even if, as seems likely, they co-ordinated their deaths in the hope of increasing their political impact. Many lawyers who have visited clients at Guantanamo have spoken eloquently of their despair: this year a prisoner tried to kill himself in front of his US attorney, somehow managing to open his veins, covering himself in blood, as the lawyer watched in horror, unable - because of the screen that separated them - to intervene.
Dergoul also suggested how the three may have been able to kill themselves undetected. Sometimes, he said, instead of patrolling the guards 'used to sit in their room at the end. It's a long walk from end to end of the block and some nights they didn't feel like it: they'd sit in their room, smoking and playing cards. You'd need toilet paper or something and you'd yell "MP, MP!" But they wouldn't come - it could be as long as an hour.'
One might, just about, imagine such a scene in a British prison. One can also envisage what might happen if three men committed suicide on the same landing at the same time: public inquiries, sackings, outrage. All three had been on hunger strike, with few breaks, since the middle of last summer. This meant that, four times a day, they were strapped down in restraining chairs so that they could not move their limbs and force-fed through nasal tubes, inserted and removed each time - a process the Pentagon's own court documents state causes bleeding and nausea. It is not hard to see why that may have made them depressed.
According to newly declassified testimony by another prisoner shortly before the suicides, a guard recently told him: 'They have lost hope in life. They have no hope in their eyes. They are ghosts and they want to die. No food will keep them alive right now.' This prisoner, the former British resident Shaker Aamer, told his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, that the three dead men and other hunger strikers were so ill whenever their feeds contained protein that it went 'right through them' causing severe diarrhoea.
Last week Rumsfeld got what he wanted: the removal of media scrutiny from Guantanamo's deepest crisis. Potentially embarrassing, perhaps very damaging, headlines have been averted, and tomorrow, with the most sensitive tasks in the wake of the deaths complete, Guantanamo's public affairs office will resume its chaperoned tours. But the bigger costs of shutting out the daylight are making themselves felt.
On BBC1's Question Time last week, Falconer called the camp 'intolerable and wrong', adding that it acted as a recruiting agent for those who would attack all our values. Proving his point next day, some former Guantanamo detainees suggested the three dead men had been murdered, a claim echoed by their families and the government of Yemen next day.
The Pentagon response to the suicides was characterised by panic, smears and blatant obstruction. One might be forgiven for thinking that its vehement denials lacked a little weight.
Comment on this Article
Identity of Zarqawi's successor remains enigma
6/17/2006
Turkish Press.com
CAIRO - The true identity of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the man said to have succeeded the slain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, remains an enigma in his reported homeland of Egypt.
"His real name is Yussef al-Dardiri, he is around 38 years old and he comes from Upper Egypt," Montasser al-Zayat, a lawyer and former member of the Islamist group Gamaa Islamiya, told AFP.
But Egyptian security sources insist they have not heard of the name.
"The Egyptian security services have not heard of any Egyptian by this name, but since his name has been released, we are researching and investigating the matter," a security source said.
Diaa Rashwan, an expert on political Islam at Cairo's Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies, said he too had not come across the name. "There is no trace of such a name in the Egyptian radical Islamic files," he said.
The US military on Thursday released pictures of the Egyptian who it said was the successor of Zarqawi, who was killed in a US air strike north of Baghdad on June 7.
Coalition forces spokesman Major General William Caldwell said the new leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri (meaning 'the Egyptian' in Arabic), also known as Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajer (meaning 'the immigrant'), was believed to be operating out of Baghdad.
Al-Qaeda, which has not disclosed the new leader's nationality, "on its website has named him as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, but we believe that he is one and the same", Caldwell told reporters.
According to Zayat, who says he does not know Masri personally, Zarqawi's successor lived in the central Cairo area of Zawyia Hamra before going to Afghanistan in the late 1980s or early 90s, and then on to Iraq via Iran.
Zayat is the main lawyer for the Gamaa Islamiya and Islamic Jihad, two Islamic militant groups which were behind a wave of violent attacks that killed 1,300 people in Egypt during the 1990s.
A government crackdown left the two groups' members killed, behind bars or fleeing the country, while others renounced the use of violence in their campaign for an Islamic state.
About one third of Al-Qaeda's members are believed to be Egyptians, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, the organization's number two and Osama bin Laden's right-hand man.
"The Americans have given details of his past, saying he (al-Masri) joined Islamic Jihad in 1982 and make him out to be one of the founders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq without knowing his real name, which is difficult to believe," says Rashwan.
The photo shown by the US military does not show "the facial features of an Egyptian man but rather a Saudi", according to Rashwan.
"The Americans are eager to establish a non-Iraqi identity for Zarqawi's successor for political reasons," said Rashwan. "They need a symbol of international jihad (holy war) to justify their occupation of Iraq."
Caldwell said Masri was believed to have signed up to militant Islam in 1982 when he joined Egypt's Islamic Jihad, once led by Zawahiri.
Masri met Zarqawi in Afghanistan in 1999, when they were both at Al-Faruq training camp where he became an explosives expert, making him the main car-bomb maker in Iraq, according to Caldwell.
"He eventually made his way back to Iraq after the fall of the Taliban," Caldwell said.
But Zayat said Dardiri's name was not on any Egyptian list because "most of those who worked with Zarqawi in Afghanistan did not have strong ties with Egyptian organizations out there," he told the Saudi-owned daily Al-Hayat.
And according to Yasser Al-Sirri, an Egyptian dissident and director of the Islamic Observation Center in London, the new Al-Qaeda chief in Iraq is in fact an Iraqi called Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi, another possible alias.
"If confirmed, the choice of an Iraqi would show Al-Qaeda wants to 'Iraqize' the battle, and to keep it going while preserving an international jihadist character," said Sirri.
Comment: Conclusion? US military intelligence just invented another "al-Qaeda terrorist leader"
Comment on this Article
What happens when the horrors of Iraq become to much for a soldier to bear?
By Neil Makay
06/18/06
Sunday Herald
MORE than 6000 men and women have deserted from the US army since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In the British forces, the figure stands at around 1000. The soldiers are leaving because they are sickened by the bloodshed in Iraq; because they believe the war is illegal; because they are on the verge of nervous breakdown; and because they are having to buy their own boots or are not being given enough food and water. Labour MP John McDonnell says that troops are now "questioning the morality and legality of the occupation".
In Britain, deserters rarely - if ever - publicly explain why they have refused to fight. In the US, however, it's a different story.
Some 25 GIs have applied for refugee status in Canada since the invasion of Iraq. At least 200 others are just living quietly , assisted by organisations such as War Resisters, and hoping that the US will forget all about them. Many of the Canadians helping them were once US citizens themselves. More than 30 years ago, they fled north, taking Canadian citizenship to escape being drafted to Vietnam.
Many of these deserters are suffering from serious mental health problems, such as post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by prolonged exposure to the horrors of war. Britain's Ministry of Defence recently revealed that in 2005, around 60 soldiers a month were found to be suffering from mental health problems. The total number of cases, 727, equates to almost 10% of the entire British military presence in Iraq - and 66 were so badly affected that they had to be airlifted home. So far around 2500 US and 113 British soldiers have died in Iraq.
One fear is that the recently elected right-wing government in Canada, under the premiership of Stephen Harper, will look less favourably on the US deserters' claims than the previous liberal administration - Harper is a lot closer to the government of US President George W Bush than his predecessor Paul Martin.
So far no US soldiers have been granted refugee status, but the Canadian government is thought to be looking for a politically comfortable solution that allows the deserters to stay in Canada without offending the Bush administration. It is unlikely the deserters would be deported back to the US, but they may be sent to a third country if their appeals fail.
Once a GI deserts, they lose all the perks : health insurance, pension and the right to a college education. When soldiers go on the run in the US, organisations such as GI Rights help and advise them. Peter Laufer, a respected US journalist whose forthcoming book Mission Rejected recounts the lives of Iraq war deserters, says GI Rights is so concerned about being monitored by the state that its volunteers have at times held discussions about soldiers' cases in parking lots where they know they won't be bugged.
"There are people hiding in attics and cellars," says Laufer, "because they are being sought by the military police." GIs who go public with their condemnation of the Iraq war are particularly targeted for arrest .
Once a GI is listed as Awol - absent without leave - their name is put into the Federal Crime Database. That means if they so much as a run a red light and get stopped by a traffic cop their name will be flagged and they will be arrested.
The punishment for desertion is a lengthy spell in military prison, but the US army retains the right to send a deserter before a firing squad to be executed - although that hasn't happened since the end of the second world war.
The US media barely covers the ever-growing phenomenon of desertion, and Laufer's book is tipped to cause a sensation when it reveals just how virulently some American troops loathe the action into which they have been sent.
Laufer says: " The actions of these men and women is great ammunition against those who still support the war. You can't impugn the actions of a soldier who served their country. These people have stood up and said, 'this is wrong, I'm not going to do this any more' in the face of severe penalties. They are brave and heroic and they deserve our support."
Comment on this Article
Witness: U.S. Troops in Iraq Taken Captive
Sunday June 18, 2006
Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A farmer claiming to have witnessed an attack on a U.S. military checkpoint said Sunday that insurgents swarmed the scene, killing the driver of a Humvee before taking two of his comrades captive.
U.S. troops, backed by helicopters and warplanes, fanned out across the "Triangle of Death'' south of Baghdad searching for the missing servicemen. At least four raids had been carried out, but the captives were not found, the military said.
A U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, said Saturday a dive team also was searching for the men, whose checkpoint was near a Euphrates River canal not far from Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad. The Sunni region is the site of frequent ambushes of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi troops.
Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer who said he witnessed the attack Friday, said three Humvees were manning a checkpoint when they came under fire from many directions. Two Humvees went after the assailants, but the third was ambushed before it could move, he told The Associated Press.
Seven masked gunmen, including one carrying what Falah described as a heavy machine gun, killed the driver of the third vehicle, then took the two other U.S. soldiers captive, the witness said. His account could not be verified independently.
The U.S. military said Sunday it was continuing the search.
"Coalition and Iraqi forces will continue to search everywhere possible, uncovering every stone, until our soldiers are found, and we will continue to use every resource available in our search,'' it said.
Falah also said tensions were high in the area as U.S. soldiers raided some houses and arrested men. He also said the Americans were setting up checkpoints on all roads leading to the area of the attack and helicopters were hovering at low altitudes.
No new raids were announced by the military early Sunday.
The military said Saturday that soldiers at a nearby checkpoint heard small-arms fire and explosions during the attack at 7:15 p.m. Friday, and a quick-reaction force reached the scene within 15 minutes. The force found one soldier dead but no signs of the other two.
"We are currently using every means at our disposal on the ground, in the air and in the water to find them,'' said Caldwell, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad.
He said blocking positions were established throughout the area within an hour of the attack to keep suspects from fleeing.
Caldwell also said the military was still searching for Sgt. Keith M. Maupin, of Batavia, Ohio, who went missing April 9, 2004.
"We continue to search using every means available and will not stop looking until we find the missing soldiers,'' he said.
Maupin was captured when insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy with the 724th Transportation Co. west of Baghdad. A week later, Arab television network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape showing Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men holding automatic rifles.
That June, Al-Jazeera aired another tape purporting to show a U.S. soldier being shot. But the dark, grainy tape showed only the back of the victim's head and did not show the actual shooting. The Army ruled it was inconclusive whether the soldier was Maupin.
Maupin, a 20-year-old private first class at the time of his capture, has been promoted twice since then.
Comment on this Article
US outflanked in Eurasian energy politics
By William Engdahl
06/18/06
Green Left
Curiously and quietly the United States is being outflanked in its now-obvious strategy of controlling major oil and energy sources of the Persian Gulf, Central Asia's Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.
The US's global energy control strategy, it's now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed "democracy" by Washington.
The quest for energy control has informed Washington's support for high-risk "colour revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan in recent months. It lies behind US activity in the west-African Gulf of Guinea states, as well as in Sudan. It lies behind US policy vis-a-vis Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Evo Morales'a Bolivia.
In recent months, however, this strategy of global energy dominance, a strategic US priority, has shown signs of producing just the opposite, a kind of "coalition of the unwilling" - states that increasingly see no other prospect but to cooperate to oppose what they see as a US push to control their future energy security.
The White House denied visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao the honour of a full state dinner when he visited in April, serving instead a short lunch. Hu was publicly humiliated by a well-known Falun Gong heckler at the White House press conference and by other obvious humiliations. In other words, the White House welcomed Hu with a diplomatic slap in the face.
At the same time, US Vice-President Dick Cheney slapped Russian President Vladimir Putin with the most open attack yet on Moscow's internal human rights policy as well as its energy policy. In a speech in the Baltic state of Lithuania in early May, Cheney accused Russia of energy "intimidation and blackmail".
Washington has repeatedly accused China of "not playing by the rules", in terms of its oil politics, declaring that China is guilty of "seeking to control energy at the source", as though that has not been US energy policy for the past century or so.
Eurasian energy bloc
The significance of taking aim simultaneously at both Russia and China, the two Eurasian giants (with China being the largest investor in US Treasury securities, and Russia being the world's second most developed military nuclear power), reflects the realisation in Washington that all may not be as seamless in the quest for global domination as originally promised by various strategists in and around the Bush administration.
This month, member-nations of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), led by China and Russia, will reportedly consider inviting observer Iran to full membership. Even if full membership is postponed as has been mooted, the fact remains that Russia and China both want to seal closer cooperation with Iran.
The SCO was founded in June 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is beginning to look like an energy-financial bloc in Central Asia consciously being developed to serve as a counter-pole to US hegemony.
Russia's state-owned natural gas transport company, Transneft, has consolidated its pipeline control to become the sole exporter of Russian natural gas. Russia has by far the world's largest natural gas reserves and Iran the second largest.
With Iran, the SCO would control the vast majority of the world's natural gas reserves, as well as a significant portion of its oil reserves, not to mention potential control of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow corridor for a majority of Persian Gulf oil-tanker shipments to Japan and the West.
China's energy geopolitics are also in high gear. China's booming economy, with 9% growth, requires massive natural resources to sustain its growth. China became a net importer of oil in 1993. By 2045, China will depend on imported oil for 45% of its energy needs.
On May 26, crude oil from Kazakhstan began to flow into China from a newly completed 1000-kilometre pipeline. It marked the first time oil began being pumped directly into China.
Kazakhstan had been regarded by Washington since the collapse of the Soviet Union as its sphere of influence, with ChevronTexaco, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's old oil company, the major oil developer. In 2005, China's CNPC state oil company bought PetroKazakhstan for US$4.2 billion and will use it to develop oilfields in Kazakhstan.
China is also in negotiations with Russia for a pipeline to deliver Siberian oil to northeast China, a project that could be completed by 2008, and a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Heilongjiang, in China's northeast. China just passed Japan to rank as world's second largest oil importer behind the US.
Beijing and Moscow are also integrating their electricity economies. In late May, the China State Grid Corporation announced it plans to increase imports of Russian electricity fivefold by 2010.
China's push into Africa
In its relentless quest to secure future oil supplies "at the source", China has also moved into traditional US, British and French oil domains in Africa. In addition to being the major developer of Sudan's oil pipeline, which ships some 7% of total China oil imports, Beijing has become more active in the states bordering the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea.
Since the creation of the China-Africa Forum in 2000, China has scrapped tariffs on 190 imported goods from 28 of the least developed African countries, and cancelled $1.2 billion in debt.
Indicative of the way China is doing an end-run around the customary International Monetary Fund-led Western control of African states, China's export-import bank recently gave a $2 billion soft loan to Angola. In return, the Luanda government gave China a stake in oil exploration in shallow waters off the coast. The loan is to be used for infrastructure projects.
In contrast, US interest in war-torn Angola has rarely gone beyond the well-fortified oil enclave of Cabinda, where ExxonMobil, along with Shell Oil, has dominated until recently. That is apparently about to change with the growing Chinese interest.
Chinese infrastructure projects underway in Angola include railways, roads, a fibre-optic network, schools, hospitals, offices and 5000 units of housing developments. A new airport with direct flights from Luanda to Beijing is also planned.
Indirectly, through its support of the Sudan government, China is also a contender in a high-stakes game of potential regime change in neighbouring, oil-rich Chad. Earlier this year, World Bank "tough guy" Paul Wolfowitz was forced to back down from plans to cut off World Bank aid, after a threat of an oil export cut-off by Chad.
ExxonMobil is currently the major oil company active in Chad. But Sudan backs Chadian rebels, who were only prevented from toppling the notoriously corrupt and unpopular regime of President Idriss Deby by the intervention of 1500 French soldiers. Washington has joined with Paris in backing Deby.
A new Sudan-backed regime in Chad would jeopardise the presence of Western oil firms. One can imagine that China just might be willing to step into such a vacuum and help Chad develop its oil exports, especially if the lion's share went to China.
And immediately after his unpleasant diplomatic visit to Washington in April, Hu went on to Nigeria, long regarded by the US as its "oil sphere of interest".
Hu signed a deal under which Nigeria, Africa's largest oil producer, will give China four oil drilling licences in exchange for a commitment to invest $4 billion in infrastructure. China will buy a controlling stake in Nigeria's 110,000-barrel per day Kaduna oil refinery and build railways and power stations, as well as take a 45% stake in developing Nigeria's giant OML-130 offshore oil and gas field.
US hawks alarmed
The curious charge against China of "not playing by the rules" and "trying to secure energy at the source" begins to assume real dimension when these and recent Russian energy moves are taken as a totality.
It's little wonder that some Washington hawks are getting alarmed. Suddenly, the world of potential "enemies" is no longer restricted to the Islam-centred "war on terror". Leading neo-conservative ideologue Robert Kagan wrote a prominent opinion piece on it in the April 30 Washington Post.
Kagan is privy to pretty high-level thinking in Washington. His wife, Victoria Nuland, worked as Cheney's deputy national security adviser until being named US ambassador to NATO. Kagan also co-founded the hawkish Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990s to, among other things, advocate a major US military build-up and forced regime change in Iraq.
Kagan charged that China and Russia have emerged as the protectors of "an informal league of dictators" that currently includes the leaders of Belarus, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Venezuela, Iran and Angola, among others, who, like the leaders of Russia and China themselves, resist any efforts by the West to interfere in their domestic political affairs.
"The question is what the United States and Europe decide to do in response", wrote Kagan. "Unfortunately, al Qaeda may not be the only challenge liberalism faces today, or even the greatest."
The mainstream US foreign policy organisation, the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, has also weighed in on the question of Chinese energy pursuits. In an April 5 report, Sino-Russian Energy Ties, the CFR accused the Bush administration of lacking any comprehensive long-term strategy for Africa. The CFR criticised the US focus on "humanitarian issues" such as in Darfur, in western Sudan, demanding instead that the US "act on its rising national interests on the continent". Those interests? The CFR lists oil and gas number one, and growing competition with China as number two.
Comment on this Article
Birds of a feather
Lawyers: Threats and "Coercive Techniques" Used Against Marines
By THOMAS WATKINS
Associated Press
June 16, 2006
SAN DIEGO - Pentagon investigators threatened the death penalty and used other coercive techniques to obtain statements from some of the seven Marines and a Navy corpsman jailed for the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian, two defense lawyers say.
Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Marine Pfc. John Jodka, 20, said Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials spoke to her client three times after he was taken into custody May 12. Jodka was questioned for up to eight hours at a time and was not offered water or toilet breaks, Siegel said.
"They used some really heavy-handed tactics to extract the information," Siegel said, adding that her client was not read his rights prior to questioning - a fundamental right to which all accused troops are entitled - and was threatened with the death penalty.
Jeremiah Sullivan III, the attorney representing the unidentified Navy medic, said his client was treated similarly.
Marine Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Camp Pendleton, where the troops are being held. Officials there declined to comment.
Gary D. Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge advocate who teaches law of war at Georgetown University Law Center, said investigators were within their rights to threaten a suspect with the death penalty since it is the maximum sentence for premeditated murder.
If statements are to be used in a trial, a military judge must first decide that they were given voluntarily, Solis said. If the defense can argue this was not the case then the statements could be ruled inadmissible.
"To be questioned for eight hours does not necessarily make it an inadmissible statement," Solis said. "But you have to look at the circumstances that surrounded those eight hours."
The Pentagon began investigating shortly after an Iraqi man was killed on April 26 in Hamdania, west of Baghdad. Military officials have said little publicly about the man's death, but a senior Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the investigation said evidence so far indicates troops entered the town in search of an insurgent and, failing to find him, grabbed an unarmed man from his home and shot him.
After the killing, the troops planted a shovel and an AK-47 rifle at the scene to make it appear the man was trying to plant an explosive device, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The Pentagon originally said the incident occurred in Hamandiyah but officials later acknowledged they had misidentified the town and that the incident happened in Hamdania.
The troops being held at Camp Pendleton served with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, and are members of the battalion's Kilo Company. The highest-ranking among them is a staff sergeant.
More than two weeks ago, Sullivan said he expected murder and kidnapping charges would be brought soon, and a Pentagon official confirmed charges were imminent. But none has been filed and the delay has not been explained.
According to Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, charges must be filed within 120 days of servicemembers being taken into custody. Gibson put that date at May 24, which would mean charges might not be filed until September.
Siegel and Sullivan said they do not know what exactly the troops told their interrogators, and they complained that the Pentagon has not shared information about the investigation. They declined to say what they have been told about the killing.
Until Thursday the Marines and Navy corpsman were held at a maximum level of security at Camp Pendleton and were shackled whenever they left their cells. Their security level now has been reclassified to a lower level and they are allowed one hour's recreation daily without shackles, Camp Pendleton spokesman Lt. Lawton King said.
Solis said even if the Marines are charged and convicted of murder it's highly unlikely they would actually be executed. The president must approve such a penalty and that hasn't happened in nearly 200 years, he said.
Comment: First it was only "evil terrorists" who were "mistreated" in US custody. Now US soldiers are receiving the same treatment. Guess who's next??
Comment on this Article
CBE for UK police chief involved in Menezes operation and last week's shooting of a Muslim
BBC News
17.06.2006
A police officer who led an anti-terror raid in London in which a man was shot has been made a CBE, drawing criticism from politicians and campaigners.
Assistant Met commissioner Andy Hayman has been honoured by the Queen for his response to the 7 July London bombings.
It comes days after he apologised to two brothers freed without charge a week after the Forest Gate raid.
Lib Dems said there was still "enormous anger" over the raid. Campaigners said the award should have been postponed.
Mr Hayman is assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan Police's special operations unit, which is responsible for anti-terrorism investigations.
He was also involved in the operation which led to the shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes by police.
Mr Menezes was mistaken for a suicide bomber and shot dead on a Tube train in south London on 22 July last year.
'Exceptional circumstances'
Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said there may have been a "wider case" to award Mr Hayman for his service to the police.
But given the "exceptional circumstances" of the Forest Gate operation, he said, there was a "strong case" to have given more thought to the timing of the award.
"Enormous anger and anxiety" still existed in the local community, Mr Clegg argued.
Some 250 officers were involved in the Forest Gate operation, which resulted in two brothers being arrested.
Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, and Abul Koyair, 20, were questioned under terrorism laws for a week before being freed without charge.
Mr Kahar, who was shot in the shoulder, has said he thought he was going to be killed by robbers targeting his home.
Asad Rehman, who has spoken in the past for the Menezes family and the two men arrested at Forest Gate, called the timing of the award "slightly insensitive".
He said there were "issues still outstanding" regarding the Menezes inquiry, and "many, many questions" over the Forest Gate raid.
"So both of these issues combining, I wouldn't have thought maybe this was the right time for us to be saying that awards needed to be given."
Mr Hayman was made a CBE as part of the Queen's Birthday Honours List.
Comment on this Article
US military honoured in secret by Britian
06/19/06
By Antony Barnett
The Observer
The government has been secretly awarding honours to senior figures in the US military and foreign businessmen with lucrative public sector contracts. The Observer has obtained a Foreign Office list detailing all non-British citizens who have been awarded honours since 2003 - the first time the complete three-year dossier has been released.
It has emerged that Riley Bechtel, billionaire boss of the US-based Bechtel Corporation, which has won big transport and nuclear contracts in Britain and made a fortune from the Iraq war, was secretly awarded a CBE in 2003.
This award has never been made public either by the British government or Bechtel. At the time Jack Straw, now Leader of the House of Commons, was Foreign Secretary. Although there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing, questions are being asked about whether the Foreign Office kept the awards quiet for fear of a political backlash.
But the Foreign Office says this is normal practice. On releasing the information, the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said: 'Honorary awards to citizens where Her Majesty the Queen is not head of state are not formally announced.'
According to the Foreign Office list the Queen approved Bechtel's honour for 'services to UK-American commercial relations' on 25 April 2003 - just a week after the company won a bumper £430m contract to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure after the invasion.
The honour to one of America's wealthiest citizens, a man with intimate ties to the Republican administration, will reignite the row over the secretive honours process.
The list shows that under Straw the Foreign Office awarded honours to several senior US military personnel involved in the Iraq invasion. These included the US military commander General Tommy Franks, known as 'Mr Shock and Awe' for his role in devising the battle plan for the 2003 invasion.
Others include Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, who was in charge of all maritime forces involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom; Rear Admiral Barry Costello, commander of the Third Fleet and Task Force 55 during the Iraq invasion; Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Childress; and General Tad Moseley, chief of staff to the US Air Force.
The row comes as protests mount at the CBE given to Andy Hayman, the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terror operations who is at the centre of investigations into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station last July and the raid at Forest Gate, east London, earlier this month.
Bechtel, who has a personal fortune of more than $3bn (£1.62bn), is 50th on America's rich list. British ministers have awarded his company contracts for the London Underground, the upgrade of the west coast main line, the Channel Tunnel rail link and the Jubilee Line extension. Bechtel's nuclear subsidiary has received almost £30m to help set up the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Bechtel's contracts for US reconstruction work in Iraq have caused the most controversy. One of the firm's key board members is George Schultz, who was secretary of state under Ronald Reagan and who, as chairman of the Committee to Liberate Iraq, was one of the loudest cheerleaders for regime change.
The full list of awards to non-British citizens was only disclosed after Beckett agreed to place the details in the House of Commons Library following a series of parliamentary questions by the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker.
Baker said: 'This shows that what matters in Tony Blair's Britain is those with power, money and a US accent. These awards are supposed to be for good works and those that have helped Britain. Instead it seems they are being handed out to those who have supported Blair's misguided policies at home and overseas.'
Earlier this year The Guardian disclosed that Hans Rausing, the Swedish billionaire and former head of Tetra Pak, was awarded an honorary knighthood for philanthropy in January despite questions over his use of legal loopholes to avoid paying tax.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office confirmed that Bechtel had been awarded a CBE but said he could not give any details about the nomination process.
Comment on this Article
Amnesty: Microsoft helped Israeli Police in Vanunu probe
Ynetnews
28/05/2006
Human rights group says company complied with request by Israel police to hand over information on nuclear whistleblower
Amnesty International's British branch chief, Keith Allen, said Microsoft helped Israeli Police interrogate Mordechai Vanunu, who leaked nuclear secrets to the foreign press.
Allen, writing in the British Sunday newspaper, the Observer, wrote: "Amnesty is concerned about its co-operation with the Israeli authorities in prosecuting nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu for communicating with foreign journalists. Vanunu was imprisoned for more than 18 years after disclosing Israel's nuclear capabilities to the UK media, and only released on condition he stays in Israel and does not talk to foreigners. Microsoft is reported to have complied with government demands for his computer records, which could lead to him being sent back to prison."
Amnesty International did not give further details about its claims. The organization's website claimed that the judge in Vanunu's case agreed not to base his decision on information obtained by Microsoft, but added that the details in the hands of the authorities could limit Vanunu's freedom in the future.
Readers of the site were asked to send a formulated petition on what Amnesty International called Microsoft's "repression of human rights" in Israel and other countries.
Comment on this Article
U.S. Warns N Korea Over Missile Test - But tested own missile last Wednesday!
06/18/06
Information Clearing House
The United States government has warned the DPRK (North Korea), who seem to be poised to perform a missile test (Maybe), of unspecified negative consequences should they perform that test.
However, the United States itself performed an exactly similar test last Wednesday, when it fired a minuteman missile from Vandenberg Airforce Base to Kwajelien Atholl in the pacific.
The test was described as 'routine', and the US conducts such tests on a continuing basis. Nonetheless, the double-standard in dealing with the DPRK is breathtaking.
The DPRK may be preparing to conduct a test of the as - yet untried Taepo-Dong - II missile, which is said to have a range capable of reaching the continental US. The US has warned the DPRK of unspecified but negative consequences should it proceed with the test, which may have been scheduled for this weekend.
Australian peace - groups have called for the US to do as it asks others to do
According to nuclear weapons campaigner John Hallam of Friends of the Earth and People for Nuclear Disarmament, "If the US believes that others such as the DPRK ought not to test nuclear - capable missiles, and describes those tests as 'provocative', it should at least refrain from testing itself. .Having tested a missile as little as a week ago, the US is hardly in a position to complain if the DPRK tests. Current US policies are simply pushing nations such as the DPRK and Iran in precisely the direction that we say we do not wish them to go. We say we don't want a nuclear - armed DPRK (which we already have) or a nuclear - armed Iran (which we do not yet), yet the direction of current policy all but ensures that this is what we will get."
Comment on this Article
Drug wars take over fading Acapulco resort
Jo Tuckman in Acapulco
Monday June 19, 2006
The Guardian
Once a playground for presidents and stars, Acapulco is now the scene of a deadly power struggle
From a distance the object bobbing in the bay looked like a coconut or a loose buoy, but when it was washed up on the beach it proved to be a human head.
"It wasn't pretty, not pretty at all," said José Vargas, a local waiter who joined the crowd that had gathered. He was shocked but not surprised by the grisly sight. "This kind of thing happens in Acapulco these days. I wonder when the body will show up."
Acapulco - the once glittering resort graced by Hollywood luminaries and romancing US presidents - is earning a reputation as the latest stage for an escalating turf war between Mexico's main drug cartels. Sporadic ambushes and assassinations carried out with hand grenades began in 2005, alongside a constant trickle of lower profile murders of the foot soldiers in the conflict. Now the violence is intensifying to the point that every day there is at least one death thought to be associated with the war. [...]
Comment on this Article
American Apocalypse
New Orleans shootout leaves 5 teens dead
By CAIN BURDEAU
Associated Press
Sat Jun 17, 2006
NEW ORLEANS - Five people ranging in age from 16 to 19 were killed in a street shooting early Saturday, the most violent crime reported in this slowly repopulating city since Hurricane Katrina hit last August.
All were believed to have been gunned down in a volley of bullets on a street in the Central City neighborhood just outside the central business district. Three of the victims were found in a sport utility vehicle rammed against a utility pole and two were found nearby on the street.
Authorities said they were looking for one or more suspects but did not elaborate.
Capt. John Bryson said police think the shootings were either drug-related or some type of retaliation attack. A semiautomatic weapon was used and "multiple, multiple rounds" were fired, he said.
"I think the motivation we're looking at is pretty obvious," he said. "Somebody wanted them dead."
Bryson said he could not remember the last time this many people were killed in once incident - before or after Katrina. "I can't remember five," he said.
Four of the victims - a 16-year-old, a 17-year-old and two 19-year-olds - died at the scene. Another 19-year-old, believed to be the brother of the youngest victim, died later at a hospital, police said.
There was no immediate word if any of the victims had been armed. Their identities were not immediately released.
Terrance Rayly, 23, who was staying in a home nearby, said he heard the shots after getting in from a music club.
"It was like 15 gun shots," he said. "I heard pop, pop, pop, pop, pop."
The shooting left many people feeling unsafe in the poor Central City neighborhood where people sat on porches and discussed the incident Saturday.
"Lord, this is like the sixth person killed around here in the last month," said Monique Jackson, a 27-year-old housekeeper who lives around the corner from the crime scene. "It's getting bad now."
She added: "I don't want to ever hear about a murder ever again. It's just young people doing it to each other."
Crime, including murder, has been creeping back after Katrina emptied the city of its residents when it hit on Aug. 29, flooding 80 percent of New Orleans. Current population estimates vary but the city is believed to have less than half its pre-storm population of about 455,000.
So far, 52 people have been murdered in the city since Jan. 1, half the number of murders at this time last year, Bryson said.
There were only 17 killings in January through March. But the rate picked up after that - there were 13 in April alone, followed by 22 in May and June, including Saturday's killings.
Bryson said the recent spike in murders, which he said was connected to drugs, was not just a "police problem" or a "New Orleans problem."
"It's a Louisiana problem, it's a United States problem," he said. "We're begging the citizens to join with us to coordinate with watch groups."
Comment on this Article
How an Al-Qaeda Cell Planned a Poison-gas Attack on the N.Y. Subway
Time.com
Saturday, Jun. 17, 2006
Al-Qaeda terrorists came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with a lethal gas similar to that used in Nazi death camps. They were stopped not by any intelligence breakthrough, but by an order from Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri. And the U.S. learned of the plot from a CIA mole inside al-Qaeda. These are some of the more startling revelations by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind, whose new book The One Percent Doctrine is excerpted in the forthcoming issue of TIME. It will appear on Time.com early Sunday morning.
U.S. intelligence got its first inkling of the plot from the contents of a laptop computer belonging to a Bahraini jihadist captured in Saudi Arabia early in 2003. It contained plans for a gas-dispersal system dubbed "the mubtakkar" (Arabic for inventive). Fearing that al-Qaeda's engineers had achieved the holy grail of terror R&D - a device to effectively distribute hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is deadly when inhaled - the CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the captured design, which comprised two separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable source of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two could be broken by a remote trigger, producing the gas for dispersal. The prototype confirmed their worst fears: "In the world of terrorist weaponry," writes Suskind, "this was the equivalent of splitting the atom. Obtain a few widely available chemicals, and you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot - and then kill everyone in the store."
The device was shown to President Bush and Vice President Cheney the following morning, prompting the President to order that alerts be sent through all levels of the U.S. government. Easily constructed and concealed, mass casualties were inevitable if it could be triggered in any enclosed public space.
Having discovered the device, exposing the plot in which it might be used became a matter of extreme urgency. Although the Saudis were cooperating more than ever before in efforts to track down al-Qaeda operatives in the kingdom, the interrogations of suspects connected with the Bahraini on whose computer the Mubtakkar was discovered were going nowhere. The U.S. would have to look elsewhere.
Conventional wisdom has long held that the U.S. has no human intelligence assets inside al Qaeda. "That is not true," writes Suskind. Over the previous six months, U.S. agents had been receiving accurate tips from a man the writer identifies simply as "Ali," a management-level al-Qaeda operative who believed his leaders had erred in attacking the U.S. directly. "The group was now dispersed," writes Suskind. "A few of its leaders and many foot soldiers were captured or dead. As with any organization, time passed and second-guessing began."
And when asked about the Mubtakkar and the names of the men arrested in Saudi Arabia, Ali was aware of the plot. He identified the key man as Bin Laden's top operative on the Arabian Peninsula, Yusuf al Ayeri, a.k.a. "Swift Sword," who had been released days earlier by Saudi authorities, unaware that al-Ayeri was bin Laden's point man in the kingdom.
Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003, to inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system using cyanide gas. Several mubtakkars were to be placed in subway cars and other strategic locations. This was not simply a proposal; the plot was well under way. In fact, zero-hour was only 45 days away. But then, for reasons still debated by U.S. intelligence officials, Zawahiri called off the attack. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why. He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off."
The news left administration officials gathered in the White House with more questions than answers. Why was Ali cooperating? Why had Zawahiri called off the strike? Were the operatives planning to carry out the attack still in New York? "The CIA analysts attempted answers. Many of the questions were simply unanswerable."
One man who could answer them was al-Ayeri - but he was killed in a gun battle between Saudi security forces and al Qaeda militants, who had launched a mini insurrection to coincide with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Suskind quotes a CIA operative as questioning whether it was an accident that the Saudis had killed the kingpin who could expose a cell planning a chemical weapons attack inside the U.S. "The Saudis just shrugged," the source tells Suskind. "They said their people got a little overzealous." .S. intelligence got its first inkling of the plot from the contents of a laptop computer belonging to a Bahraini jihadist captured in Saudi Arabia early in 2003. It contained plans for a gas-dispersal system dubbed "the mubtakkar" (Arabic for inventive). Fearing that al-Qaeda's engineers had achieved the holy grail of terror R&D - a device to effectively distribute hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is deadly when inhaled - the CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the captured design, which comprised two separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable source of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two could be broken by a remote trigger, producing the gas for dispersal. The prototype confirmed their worst fears: "In the world of terrorist weaponry," writes Suskind, "this was the equivalent of splitting the atom. Obtain a few widely available chemicals, and you could construct it with a trip to Home Depot - and then kill everyone in the store."
The device was shown to President Bush and Vice President Cheney the following morning, prompting the President to order that alerts be sent through all levels of the U.S. government. Easily constructed and concealed, mass casualties were inevitable if it could be triggered in any enclosed public space.
Having discovered the device, exposing the plot in which it might be used became a matter of extreme urgency. Although the Saudis were cooperating more than ever before in efforts to track down al-Qaeda operatives in the kingdom, the interrogations of suspects connected with the Bahraini on whose computer the Mubtakkar was discovered were going nowhere. The U.S. would have to look elsewhere.
Conventional wisdom has long held that the U.S. has no human intelligence assets inside al Qaeda. "That is not true," writes Suskind. Over the previous six months, U.S. agents had been receiving accurate tips from a man the writer identifies simply as "Ali," a management-level al-Qaeda operative who believed his leaders had erred in attacking the U.S. directly. "The group was now dispersed," writes Suskind. "A few of its leaders and many foot soldiers were captured or dead. As with any organization, time passed and second-guessing began."
And when asked about the Mubtakkar and the names of the men arrested in Saudi Arabia, Ali was aware of the plot. He identified the key man as Bin Laden's top operative on the Arabian Peninsula, Yusuf al Ayeri, a.k.a. "Swift Sword," who had been released days earlier by Saudi authorities, unaware that al-Ayeri was bin Laden's point man in the kingdom.
Ali revealed that Ayeri had visited Ayman Zawahiri in January 2003, to inform him of a plot to attack the New York City subway system using cyanide gas. Several mubtakkars were to be placed in subway cars and other strategic locations. This was not simply a proposal; the plot was well under way. In fact, zero-hour was only 45 days away. But then, for reasons still debated by U.S. intelligence officials, Zawahiri called off the attack. "Ali did not know the precise explanation why. He just knew that Zawahiri had called them off."
The news left administration officials gathered in the White House with more questions than answers. Why was Ali cooperating? Why had Zawahiri called off the strike? Were the operatives planning to carry out the attack still in New York? "The CIA analysts attempted answers. Many of the questions were simply unanswerable."
One man who could answer them was al-Ayeri - but he was killed in a gun battle between Saudi security forces and al Qaeda militants, who had launched a mini insurrection to coincide with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Suskind quotes a CIA operative as questioning whether it was an accident that the Saudis had killed the kingpin who could expose a cell planning a chemical weapons attack inside the U.S. "The Saudis just shrugged," the source tells Suskind. "They said their people got a little overzealous."
Comment: By way of deception, thou shalt do war.
Comment on this Article
Odd actions near Cheney prompt arrest
Nicole Frey
Vail Daily
June 16, 2006
BEAVER CREEK - A man was arrested by Secret Service agents when he tried to approach Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek Village yesterday afternoon, said Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren.
Cheney was walking outside when the agents charged with protecting him noticed the man, identified as Steven Howards, who "wasn't acting like the other folks in the area," Zahren said.
"His behavior and demeanor wasn't quite right," Zahren said. "The agents tried to question him, and he was argumentative and combative"
Authorities did not describe Howards' behavior in any further detail.
While Howards was released later in the evening, officials are reviewing possible federal charges. His age and hometown were not listed. There was no phone number listed for him in the local phone book.
Cheney is attending the AEI World Forum conference in the Vail Valley, an unofficial summit, created and hosted by former president Gerald R. Ford. Former world leaders, current government officials, scholars and business leaders from around the world are invited to discuss important global issues, organizers say.
Comment: Well, wouldn't you be a bit argumentative and combative if US law enforcement officials tried to arrest you for "acting strangely"?! What does that mean, exactly? In any case, you can feel much safer now knowing that you and everyone around you can be arrested for acting in a way that "wasn't quite right".
Comment on this Article
Al-Qaida cell 'plotted gas attack' on New York subway
Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Monday June 19, 2006
The Guardian
An al-Qaida plan for a gas attack on the New York subway system, a "second wave" that could have been more destructive than 9/11, was called off just weeks before it was due to be carried out in early 2003, according to a new book.
US officials learned of the plan after it was cancelled by Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims. The officials do not know the fate of the al-Qaida cell that travelled to the US to carry out the attack. Some fear its members are still in the country.
The plan, details of which were found in a laptop computer captured in Bahrain, called for the simultaneous release of hydrogen cyanide in several carriages on the New York subway and other strategic locations in the city, Suskind says in his book, The One Percent Doctrine. A form of hydrogen cyanide was used by the Nazis in the death camp gas chambers.
The plan caused particular alarm among US officials because it used a device known as a mubtakkar, meaning "initiative" or "invention". The device, the size of a tin of paint, could be easily concealed and would allow the remote release of the deadly gas.
Suskind describes the panic in the higher echelons of the US government on learning of the plan. He quotes President George Bush as voicing concern about the group's motives for calling off the attack. "I mean, this is bad enough. What does calling this off say about what else they're planning?" Mr Bush asked, according to Suskind. "What could be the bigger operation Zawahiri didn't want to mess up?"
Suskind speculates that the attack was called off because it would not be sufficiently destructive or eye-catching, even though it supposed thousands of deaths and widespread panic in New York.
"Al-Qaida's thinking is that a second-wave attack should be more destructive and more disruptive than 9/11," the author said in an interview with Time magazine, which published an extract from the forthcoming book.
"That would create an upward arc of terror and anticipation between the second and ostensibly a third attack. That fear and terror is a central goal of the al-Qaida strategy."
The planned subway attack echoes the release of sarin in the Tokyo subway in 1995, which killed 12 people.
Comment: Once you accept the evidence for fake terrorism, it is easy to see how such alerts serve the agenda of the Bush administration. How easy would it be for agents of the American or Israeli government to plant a laptop with details of a planned terror attack?
Recently imprisoned Moussaoui also had a laptop that was discovered in 2002. But, as Xymphora pointed out back in 2002, the FBI were not allowed to search it:
The local FBI agents were not allowed to search the contents of Moussaoui's laptop due to the resistance of the Washington FBI and Department of Justice officials. The resistance was so peculiar, and so lacking in any conceivable rational explanation, that local FBI investigators even started to suspect some sort of conspiracy. Now a whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds, a former wiretap translator in the Washington field office of the FBI, is alleging that one of her co-workers, another translator, had connections with a foreign government official subject to FBI surveillance, and this co-worker even failed to translate important intelligence-related information, presumably to shield the target from proper investigation. When Sibel Edmonds complained about this and other problems, she was fired. She now has a whistle-blower action underway against the government. The really interesting point is that she alleges that she was approached to join the group for which the co-worker was working. In other words, she was approached to become a spy. What jumps out at you from the reports of all this is the coyness with which the matter is described. Nowhere is the country involved ever named. You would think that if it were an Arab intelligence agency the reports would not hesitate to point that out. For that reason, some have surmised that it must be Israel that had compromised FBI security. An article was written by Justin Raimondo accusing Israel, and then sort of retracted, leaving us with the statement "that the country in question may not be Israel." However, common sense would lead us to the conclusion that it is very unlikely to be any country other than Israel. It doesn't surprise me that Israel has spies in the U. S. government, and it may not even be very important. What does interest me is the possibility that the resistance to inspection of Moussaoui's laptop may have been inspired by Israeli concerns. Why would Israel not want Moussaoui's laptop to be inspected? Is is possible that Moussaoui was acting as an Israeli operative? French intelligence had a thick file on Moussaoui, as he appeared to have connections to radical Islam in London, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. Somone like that might have been a very useful double-agent, and whatever group was running him may have feared that inspection of the laptop might have traced back to them.
Comment on this Article
Secrecy in court shuts out defense - Lawyers barred in terrorism cases
Associated Press
June 18, 2006
CHICAGO -- Witnesses testified under assumed names, the public was barred from the courtroom, and part of the hearing was held in the judge's chambers, with defense lawyers shut out.
"I don't know what took place back there," grumbled Michael E. Deutsch, chief defense attorney for Muhammad Salah, a Chicago man charged with laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for murders, bombings, and other acts of terrorism by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
Court secrecy is getting tighter across the nation as the government wages war on terrorism, lawyers say.
In Maryland, a federal judge last month dismissed a lawsuit filed by a German man, Khaled al-Masri, who claimed to have been illegally detained and tortured in overseas prisons run by the CIA. After receiving a secret written CIA briefing, the judge ruled that the civil trial would expose state secrets.
The New York Civil Liberties Union is asking an appeals court to order a federal judge in Albany to unseal his decision refusing to throw out charges against alleged money launderers Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain. They say they may have been targets of a warrantless wiretap. The judge's decision came two hours after the government submitted a secret court document.
In Chicago, attorneys for Sami Latchin, a man accused of serving as a "sleeper agent" in the United States for Saddam Hussein's regime, have asked a federal judge whether the National Security Agency eavesdropped on his telephone conversations. Prosecutors say a representative of the Justice Department in Washington will answer the question -- but only in the judge's chambers with defense attorneys not allowed.
Such secret procedures, once rare in American courts, have become more common since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Prosecutors say they need secrecy to protect undercover agents, informants, and witnesses from reprisals and to keep critical information pipelines from being shut down.
But defense attorneys say the right of defendants to confront their accusers, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, is being worn away under the guise of national security.
"It's critical to the functioning of a healthy democracy that people know what the government is doing in their name," said David Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.
But former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who sent the blind Egyptian sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman to prison for plotting to blow up New York landmarks, scoffed at the notion that the public has a right to know what is going on in terrorism investigations.
"In point of fact, the public doesn't have a right to know a large variety of information maintained by the government, particularly its investigators, its intelligence services, and that presumption doesn't change just because someone is charged with a crime," McCarthy said.
Ex parte hearings -- from which one side is barred -- are legal under the Classified Information Procedures Act, passed three decades ago to combat "graymail," in which defendants charged with spying would try to force the government to drop the charges by threatening to expose US secrets. But Critics say the law is now being overused.
Comment: Changes are being made, precedents are being established, all of which will be applicable to ANYONE being tried under the American criminal justice system. And all of it, is false, fake, a con game. Think about that.
Comment on this Article
Blanco signs law that would ban abortions
Reuters
Sat Jun 17, 2006
NEW ORLEANS - Louisiana Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a ban on most abortions, which would be triggered if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 1973 ruling legalizing the procedure, a spokesman said on Saturday.
The ban would apply to all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, except when the mother's life is threatened. It is similar to a South Dakota law that has become the latest focus of the abortion battle.
The South Dakota law was enacted partly to invite a court challenge in the hope a more conservative Supreme Court would overturn its Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman's right to abortion.
The Louisiana ban would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Medicaid, which provides health benefits for the poor and disabled, requires funding for abortions in cases of rape or incest. Louisiana would allow those exceptions so long as it was required for Medicaid funding.
Seven states have such abortion trigger laws, and Louisiana already had a trigger law, although abortion legislation has been blocked by courts. The new law would mean the ban would happen quicker in the case of a new Supreme Court decision.
Blanco cited "overwhelming" support for the bill in the state Legislature.
"The central provision of the bill supports and reflects my personal beliefs," she said in a statement, adding she had hoped for legislation with exceptions for rape and incest.
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said lawmakers were focused on the wrong thing, especially as the state rebuilds from Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans last August.
"It is hard to believe that by passing this ban they are addressing what is most on the minds of most of the citizens of Louisiana," she told Reuters.
Most U.S. states have some limits on abortion linked to gestation of the fetus and often based on viability, essentially the ability to live outside the womb.
Comment on this Article
Nuking Iran For No Reason
Iran: U.S. Making Nuke Talks Difficult
Sunday June 18, 2006
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran accused the United States on Sunday of steering Europe away from a possible compromise on Tehran's disputed nuclear program.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the U.S. insistence on conditional negotiations over a Western package of incentives has narrowed the scope of possible talks and made it tougher for all parties to reach a solution.
The incentives are meant to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium, a process that can make nuclear fuel for a power plant or fissile material for an atomic bomb.
"We feel that the Americans are trying to take Europe to a point that the case could not be easily solvable,'' Asefi said. "The U.S. said it gave a deadline to Iran to respond to the package, but that is not correct. Again, they mix different issues and that is not appropriate.''
Asefi reiterated that enriching uranium was his country's unalienable right, and that talks must be unconditional. He said Iranian officials were reviewing the package, and Iran would propose amendments to the deal.
"We have formed different committees to review the package. When the committees have concluded, we will send our answer to the Europeans immediately,'' Asefi said.
Iran has called the package a "step forward,'' saying some of the incentives were acceptable and calling for changes in others. It also said that the central issue of uranium enrichment needed clarification.
In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Iran must take the next step if it wished to cooperate with the international community and qualify for the incentives.
"The Iranian government needs to suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,'' Snow told CNN's "Late Edition.'' "Once they do that, once that is done, they can sit down at the table.''
Iran denies accusations by the United States and others that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, saying its program would only generate electricity.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented the package of perks and possible penalties to Tehran on June 6. The package was drawn up by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia - and Germany.
Crucially, the package calls on Iran to suspend, not permanently halt, uranium enrichment as a condition for the start of talks, although the negotiations are aimed at achieving Iranian acceptance long-term moratorium on such activities.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged Iran to accept the package.
"I can see that they take the offer seriously and I hope they will respond in a not too distant future,'' Annan said while visiting Denmark.
Iran so far has said it will not give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, though Tehran has indicated that it may temporarily suspend uranium enrichment to ease tensions.
The package included some significant concessions by the United States, including providing Iran with peaceful nuclear technology, lifting some sanctions and joining direct negotiations with Tehran.
However, it also contains the implicit threat of U.N. sanctions if Iran remains defiant.
Comment: Well, of course the US is trying to sabotage the negotiations! America and Israel want WAR with IRan, as soon as, and in any way, possible!
Comment on this Article
Iranian charm offensive calls Bush's bluff
Simon Tisdall in Tehran
Monday June 19, 2006
The Guardian
Bush administration officials like to describe Iran as country isolated from the outside world. Its outlaw government's policies, and especially its nuclear activities, have earned it the distrust of the international community, the fear of its neighbours and, they say, the rightful label of a "rogue state".
But in recent weeks, as Tehran's uranium enrichment dispute with the US, Britain and other western European countries has moved towards a denouement, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has launched an energetic diplomatic counter-offensive to prove the Americans wrong. Defying US containment efforts, Iran is actively pursuing its own policy of regional engagement. And to Washington's growing unease, it seems to be working.
"The Americans are making a big push to isolate Iran. But they are making a big mistake. We are not Burma," Vahid Karimi of the government-funded Institute for Political and International Studies told the Guardian. "We have plenty of friends."
Mr Ahmadinejad's latest success came at last weekend's meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a pan-Asian economic and security grouping dominated by China and Russia. Iran has made clear that it hopes to win full SCO membership soon.
The Iranian leader described his talks with China's president, Hu Jintao, and Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, as "very fruitful", saying they had opened the way for deeper energy and investment links as well as political cooperation. Iran has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world and is second only to Saudi Arabia in Opec as an oil exporter.
As Mr Ahmadinejad spoke in Shanghai, a senior Chinese minister, Ma Kai, was in Tehran expressing interest in extended joint oil, gas and petrochemical projects. "The economies of China and Iran are closely tied together," he said.
Much the same may be said of Iran's growing business with Russia. Mr Putin said he wanted more collaboration with Iran aimed at winning control over downstream energy supplies to "third countries", presumably including Europe. "We are talking about setting up a joint venture on the basis of Russian and Iranian deposits ... We support these initiatives with our Iranian partners," Mr Putin told the Itar-Tass news agency.
And in a remark that is certain to infuriate Washington, Mr Putin also said Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, was "willing to take part in the construction of an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline". The US has strongly urged both India and Pakistan to shelve the pipeline plan as part of its efforts to isolate Iran.
Mr Ahmadinejad has not been slow to spell out the political and strategic implications of his Shanghai hobnobbing with China and Russia, on whose support the US will depend if it seeks UN and other sanctions on Tehran in the nuclear dispute. "Under the present situation, when policies of certain states [are] based on unilateralism, threats and destruction, the SCO can play a crucial role in establishing a justice-based system for the region and the world conducive to peace and stability," he said.
Iran's diplomatic fightback is taking place on several other fronts across the Arab and Islamic spheres. "Iran is coming into its own," said Seyed Muhammad Adeli, Iran's former ambassador to Britain and the head of Econotrend, a respected independent thinktank in Tehran. "Iran's regional profile has never been higher in modern times. Our neighbours are ever more convinced that Iran is being unfairly treated by the Americans."
To drive home the point, Tehran is actively building closer links with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and other central Asian countries. Mr Ahmadinejad is planning a Tehran summit of Caspian Sea littoral states to discuss how to stop "foreign intervention" in the area. Iran also recently wooed a Washington favourite, the Afghan president Hamid Karzai, in Tehran, and is busily mending fences with Pakistan.
It has won the support of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab League for its nuclear stance. Its envoys have recently visited Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and some north African states. It has reportedly become the biggest single state contributor of funds to Palestine in the wake of the west's ostracism of the Hamas government.
And in a groundbreaking move earlier this month, Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator and the second most influential government figure after Mr Ahmadinejad, met Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, in Cairo. It was the highest-level contact between the two countries since the 1979 Iranian revolution. Mr Ahmadinejad's outspoken hostility to Israel has won him a big following in the Arab world, Tehran officials say. And that is something Egypt, its notional leader, cannot entirely ignore.
"Shanghai was a big success," Dr Karimi said. "All our neighbours support our [nuclear] policy, even Mubarak. We are successful in building up relations. That is why the American position is changing ... They thought we were encircled because of Iraq and Afghanistan. But we're not. That's why they want to talk to us now."
Comment on this Article
1,000 Protest Before Iran World Cup Match
By MATT MOORE
Associated Press
June 17, 2006
FRANKFURT, Germany -- More than 1,000 people gathered peacefully Saturday to protest the Iranian president's denial of the Holocaust as Iran played its second match at the World Cup.
Demonstrators waved Israeli flags at the rally outside the Alt Oper opera house in Germany's financial capital. Some held up signs reading "Support Israel Now!" and "Israel has the right to exist."
They were joined by a small group of Iranian dissidents with their country's flags, though police said there was no trouble.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has caused international outrage by dismissing the Holocaust as a myth and questioning Israel's right to exist.
Germany's interior minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, has said that his country would have to accept a visit by Ahmadinejad if he decided to come during the World Cup.
Holocaust survivor and scholar Arno Lustiger told the rally that any welcome for Ahmadinejad would "be a provocation to all German Jews."
Ahmadinejad has not announced any firm plans to attend. However, Germany's Central Council of Jews has said the presence at the tournament of one of Ahmadinejad's seven vice presidents, Mohammed Aliabadi, already is a provocation.
An estimated 1,200 people, many of them German Jews, demonstrated against Ahmadinejad before Iran's loss to Mexico in its opening World Cup game in Nuremberg last Sunday. Portugal beat Iran 2-0 on Saturday.
The prospect of a possible Ahmadinejad visit has been a delicate issue for the German government, which is involved in diplomatic efforts to defuse a standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Schaeuble has refused to meet his Iranian counterpart, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, during the World Cup.
His ministry said the Iranian embassy in Berlin had asked whether Schaeuble would meet Pourmohammadi during a visit to an unspecified Iran World Cup game. Despite reservations, a ministry statement said, a meeting would have provided a chance to condemn Ahmadinejad's statements and to press the case for early release of a German tourist held in Iran after his boat allegedly strayed into Iranian waters.
However, it said an Iranian official's recent statement that the man would not be released early removed a "significant basis of business" for any meeting.
German Jewish leaders have worried about possible shows of support for Ahmadinejad by Germany's far right.
Police rejected an application from the far-right National Democratic Party to stage a rally in Frankfurt Saturday, and the party did not appeal the ban.
Iran will play its last Group D match against Angola in Leipzig on Wednesday.
Comment: If Israel has a right to exist, then so does Palestine and Iran and every other country out there.
Comment on this Article
Yahoo censors more Chinese than the Chinese
Nick Farrell
The Inquirer
Friday 16 June 2006
Desperately seeking to please
SEARCH ENGINE outfit, Yahoo! is more ruthless at censoring its content in China than the locals, a media watch dog has barked.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said their tests showed that Yahoo.cn blocked a higher percentage of politically sensitive results than Google.cn or the beta version of msn.cn.
The test involved typing the words like "press freedom" or "human rights" into the Chinese versions of Yahoo, Google and MSN, as well as a Chinese-based search engine, Baidu.
A spokesman for the group said that Google.cn is censored, but it's far less than what Yahoo. Even Baidu didn't restrict access to some of the sites that Yahoo did.
Yahoo.cn and Baidu block access to the search engines for an hour in half the cases after a search was conducted using the sensitive keywords.
Yahoo has absolutely no respect for freedom of information, a RSF spokesman told Wired, here.
Comment on this Article
Canadian dollar tumbles after China tightens reserve rules
Last Updated Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:41:10 EDT
CBC News
The Canadian dollar fell by three-quarters of a cent Friday after China took moves to slow its economy - something that could lead to less demand for commodities.
The loonie closed at 89.09 cents US. That was down 0.76 cents US. Analysts said the Canadian dollar and other "commodity-based" currencies began to slide after China ordered banks to increase their reserves - the amount of money they have to keep on hand as cash or in other liquid investments.
A bigger reserve requirement means less lending and therefore less economic growth.
China's central bank raised the required reserve ratio for commercial lenders by half a percentage point to eight per cent.
Last week, Chinese media reported that China's bank loans had risen almost 16 per cent in the past year. China's boom has seen the country's economy growing by about 10 per cent yearly since 2003. The red-hot expansion has been a major driver behind the increase in worldwide commodity prices.
The loonie also came under pressure as the U.S. dollar strengthened after Washington said the U.S. current account deficit shrank by almost $15 billion US to $208.7 billion US in the final quarter of 2005.
Since Monday - when the Canadian dollar closed at a 28-year-high of 91.05 cents US - the loonie has lost almost two cents US. The prices of several commodities, including copper, nickel and gold, have experienced significant corrections in the past few weeks with especially large drops earlier in the week.
Canada's currency, like Australia's and New Zealand's, tends to rise and fall on the strength or weakness in commodity prices since a large part of our exports are commodities.
Comment on this Article
Taunted and jeered, Bolton bolted
Spin watch
14 June 2006
"John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina, retired)
Facing an increasingly hostile group of law students in an Oxford seminar that had somehow gone dreadfully wrong, beads of sweat began to pop out on John Bolton's furrowed brow. Amidst a rising chorus of taunts, jeers, hisses and outright denunciations, Bolton was swiftly surrounded by his entourage of three American security agents and whisked out the door of the seminar room at Oriel College on Friday, the 9th of June.
Pursued by vocal recriminations from angry and frustrated American students who led the incisive questioning and the equally incisive jeering -- with taunts like, "You should be doing a better job!" Bolton bolted. He turned sharply on his heel and took flight out the door and then fled down the mediaeval passageway and into the relative safety and calm of his bullet-proof diplomatic limousine. Bolton swiftly headed out of Oxford, rudely foregoing the well-established tradition of lingering to talk with interested members of the audience.
Bolton's swift exit contrasted sharply with Oxford appearances by two other American politicians earlier this term. Both John Podesta and Richard Perle enjoyed lingering for discussions with Oxford audiences after their talks. John Bolton would have none of it, and the reason was obvious. Throughout the questioning, the audience became increasingly hostile and combative towards his neoconservative agenda.
Numbering over one hundred and consisting of a large contingent of Americans intermingled with British and international students, the audience was eager to hold Bolton accountable for the neoconservative arguments he put forward in his talk. The keen attitude of the audience infused Bolton with a noticeable reticence to remain and exchange viewpoints even though it is a time-honoured Oxford tradition. Bolton's performance was tantamount to arriving late for dinner, wolfing one's food and then leaving abruptly before the cigars and Amontillado.
Bolton had been invited to Oxford for a one-hour seminar organised by The Law Society. His talk would be followed by the routine question and answer session.
Upon his arrival, Bolton announced that his talk would not be a free and open discussion but strictly limited to his few selected topics: UN reform, scandal and the next Secretary General. Predictably, Bolton launched into his standard speech -- little more than a right-wing denigration of the UN as riddled with corruption in the form of the Oil for Food scandal.
Bolton began his broadside with an examination of the principle of 'sovereign equality,' whereby every nation has exactly the same voting rights as every other member of the General Assembly. He adopted an unsophisticated book-keeper's perspective, stating that the contributions made by the USA dwarfed those of many other nations. He argued unconvincingly that even those forty-seven members who paid the bare minimum had the same voting power in the General Assembly as America. This observation failed to impress the audience who were more than well aware of America's financial and economic superiority to the debt-ridden nations in the third world - a superiority accumulated through trade negotiations designed to extract capital from the poorest nations and transfer it to the wealthiest.
Bolton's panacea for the bureaucratic inefficiency was simple - a tax cut for the wealthiest nations. At its core, he implied that a group of sharp-eyed book-keepers backed by accountants, auditors and a hardened core of dues-collectors should run the United Nations along strict financial guidelines as if it were a private club with a dining room and golf course rather than the world's premiere organization mandated to prevent armed conflict between sovereign nations, foster economic development, enhance social equality and cultivate international law. If Bolton is aware of the principles defining the mission of the United Nations, he made no mention of them whatsoever. His sole focus was a totally transparent harangue on the disparity of dues, a tissue of an argument that would not have convinced a fifteen year old - much less Oxford law students.
Turning to his case for corruption, Bolton launched into a literal diatribe about the Oil for Food programme that he described as a substantial scandal. The background to this is important: led by Bolton, neoconservative critics of the UN attempted unsuccessfully to make a criminal case against Kofi Annan and members of his family through the Oil for Food investigation, but their efforts largely were wasted. The investigation did discover some relatively minor official corruption involving a paltry $150,000 paid to one individual. The largest amount of corruption appears to have come in the form of kickbacks and bribes to the government of Iraq by oil companies seeking cheap oil. Of the kickbacks paid to the government of Iraq, 52% came from the US in the form of bribes for cheap oil, a figure that is more than the rest of the planet of 190 nations combined. While a partisan Republican Senator, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, made allegations against one high profile figure, George Galloway a British MP, they have been refuted. The investigation is ongoing, but of 54 internal audits only one has been made public. Bolton did not mention any of these details, nor did he provide any substantive evidence for his charge of serious levels of official corruption at the UN.
Neither did Bolton call attention to the fact that the Oil for Food case pales into insignificance when compared to the massive scandals engulfing American operations in Iraq involving tens and possibly hundreds of billions of dollars or the Abramoff millions and the Enron scandal soaring into billions of dollars. Weak, prejudiced and hostile in its intent, Bolton's case against the UN failed to impress his keen academic audience of law students. Bolton failed to get an indictment from this grand jury.
The final part of Bolton's talk dealt with the next Secretary General of the UN who will take office later this year. He criticized the obligatory rotation of the office, arguing for a review of the rules governing selection of the Secretary General. Although making comments about the need for balance and fairness, Bolton observed that the next Secretary General should come not from Asia but from the ranks of Eastern Europe - a favourite region for Bolton who champions the increasing integration of Eastern European nations and leaders into the American sphere of influence. Bolton left the impression that he is deeply involved in the selection process for the next Secretary General. From his remarks, it is clear that he is making every effort to influence this selection by anointing an Eastern European functionary loyal to the neoconservative agenda of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Perhaps most dramatically, Bolton presented a stark message to his Oxford audience: the UN exists to institutionalize inequalities of power, wealth and national security. In his view, the UN should be a club for powerful nations to manage their relations with poor nations by denying them any real power. As an agent of corporate wealth and institutional power, in his Oxford remarks Bolton focused exclusively on justice for capital and repudiated the notion of a democratic basis for the UN. Bolton demanded that the UN should remain a gated community devoid of power-sharing with its small clique of five Security Council members wielding veto power over the remaining 190 members of the General Assembly.
During the question period, Bolton recognized a law student who politely asked him to justify the application of a double standard in the Middle East that favors Israel over Syria or other Muslim nations. Detecting the student's accent, Bolton pointedly asked, "Where are you from?" The student was Syrian. On that note, Bolton refused to answer the question, and instead he criticized Syria for what he deemed to be its unwarranted interference in the Middle East and Lebanon even though they withdrew their final 15,000 troops last year. From a historical perspective, it is ironic that Bolton would have cited this case, for Syria was invited to provide security operations in Lebanon by the Maronite Christians with the tacit approval of the United Nations and the support of the Arab League. The hypocrisy at the heart of his own case - since he represents a hegemonic power with more than one hundred and thirty thousand uninvited troops on the ground in Iraq, thousands more uninvited troops in Afghanistan and which now threatens to launch a new war against Iran - was lost on Bolton. But, Bolton's hypocrisy was not lost on his perceptive audience who now zeroed in on him with a barrage of pointed questions.
The next question to Bolton was why should the UN be based on dues paid and the wealth and power of its members i.e one nation, one vote -- instead of population, which would mean -- one man, one vote. Detecting another foreign accent, Bolton asked, "Where are you from?" The student was from India. Bolton said that any alteration in the current articles of the UN charter to reform on a demographic basis would change the nature of the institution, and he indicated that principle, i.e. democracy and one man, one vote - remained totally unacceptable to the United States as a basis for the United Nations. Quite.
In what was rapidly becoming his interrogation, a woman from America questioned Bolton about the need for a balanced approach where America would represent the best interests of the world at large rather than its own particular regional self-interest. At that point, Bolton fumbled. In a clumsy and misguided attempt to turn the tables on his adroit and incisive challengers, Bolton threw out a question of his own. He called for a show of hands of those in the audience who were British. Bolton then asked how many of them wanted the British Ambassador at the UN to represent the interests of Britain. Only one or two hands were raised. Then he asked to see a show of hands of those British subjects who wanted the British Ambassador at the UN to represent not only the interests of Britain but also the collective interests of the other members as well. At least a dozen hands went up into the air. Stunned, Bolton was dumbfounded and said rather witlessly, "I would have gotten a different result in America."
At that point, the crowd was warming to the battle unfolding before them and led so capably by the incensed Americans in the audience. With their voices rising in taunts and jeers and more than a dozen hands demanding to be recognized to put more questions to him, Bolton's attention turned to his phalanx of security agents who surrounded him drawing the question and answer session to an abrupt close. In retrospect, Bolton's was a disgraceful performance, one committed to an ancien regime of property, monetary wealth and military power in diametrical opposition to the democratic rights of humanity. John Bolton showed himself to be a behemoth of corporate greed and corrupt political influence in world diplomacy. My view is that his appointment to the Ambassadorship of the United Nations was tantamount to appointing Vito Corleone to head the FBI.
The primary purpose of Bolton's visit to Britain was not made public, but it was clear nevertheless from his public remarks. With a history of trips to Europe to demand the sackings of officials for whom he has a personal dislike, Bolton's visit to Britain was obviously to demand the sacking of the Deputy Secretary of the UN, a British subject, Mark Malloch Brown. Bolton appeared on the influential BBC4 Today programme, where he was interviewed by Jim Naughtie. Deputy Secretary of the UN Brown was Bolton's first target. Brown's speech critical of US policy vis a vis the UN had clearly irritated Bolton. Brown had criticized the US for using the UN to take care of many foreign policy problems while US officials hypocritically attacked it back home in red state America. By pointing this out, Brown touched a sensitive nerve in Bolton's neoconservative brain. For starters, Bolton falsely accused Brown of criticizing the American people - a sheer fabrication. Then, Bolton lashed out at Brown for making remarks that would injure the UN. Coming from Bolton, this appraisal sounded more like a threat than serious criticism. In explaining the US position on the UN, he stated, "I think that the administration has told the truth about the UN - the good, the bad and the ugly," a strange choice of metaphors for a man with as controversial a reputation as Bolton.
Naughtie turned to the Iran crisis, and Bolton reiterated the official White House line: the situation remains under negotiation but volatile. Either Iran will acquiesce to the demands placed upon it, or it will face dire consequences including military intervention. Leaving no doubt that Bush and Bolton propose unilateral action, Bolton confirmed that Iran would be a test case to determine whether the UN Security Council could be effective in the war against terrorism.
When interviewed on the same day by the Financial Times, Bolton quashed the concept that the Bush administration was holding out the possibility of a "grand bargain" with Iran. In Bolton's mind, the terms of the negotiations are focused exclusively on the Iranian nuclear programme and do not encompass diplomatic recognition or the normalization of relations. Far from detente, Bolton's definition of the process is simple: the US is threatening Iran with war unless they submit to terms which Iran finds unattractive - the cessation of what they state is peaceful research into nuclear energy.
Given his very public actions as exemplified by his statements in the UK and the US, Bolton should now be considered to be functioning as the US Secretary of State. It would not be surprising to see him elevated to that post in the event of Condoleezza Rice leaving the State Department or upon the election of a new Republican administration in 2008.
John Bolton has a fascinating back-story. A Lutheran from Baltimore, Bolton studied law at Yale. The extreme right-wing presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater politicized him, and in the late 1970s, he emerged as a top legal advisor to the extreme racist Republican, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. A description of Bolton's political extremism records, "A veteran of Southern electoral campaigns, Bolton has long appealed to racist voters." (John Bolton, Right Web) During the 2000 Florida vote fiasco, Bolton played a high profile partisan role. Working under Jim Baker, Bolton led the so-called "white collar riot" that brought a halt to the counting of ballots in Florida.
Throughout the 1980s, Bolton was a leader of Republican Party efforts to undermine voting rights for minorities. Forming an alliance with James Baker, Bolton served in both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. During the Clinton years, Bolton served as an assistant to Baker when he worked as Kofi Annan's envoy in the Western Sahara. It is somewhat ironic that Bolton is now the principal critic of Annan. Additionally, Bolton spent time at the usual right-wing and neoconservative institutions including: the American Enterprise Institute; Project for the New American Century; Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. Before his appointment as US Ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.
In the mid-1990s, Bolton was involved in a political money-laundering scandal that opened a channel for funds from Taiwan to Republican candidates. (ibid.) Prior to his appointment as UN Ambassador, Bolton was deeply involved in the Bush administration's overt campaign to undermine international law. Bolton masterminded the systematic abrogation of several key international treaties including: the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty; the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. During his work for the Reagan administration, Bolton supported the Nicaraguan contras and sought to deny federal investigators access to key evidence in the Iran Contra scandal. (John Bolton, Officialssay)
Personal scandals have also tarnished John Bolton. A woman accused him of hostile intimidation that led to a case of sexual discrimination. Larry Flynt published evidence that Bolton's first marriage had collapsed after he forced his wife to have group sex at Plato's Retreat during the Reagan administration. (Rawstory)
When Bush nominated him for the UN Ambassadorship, Bolton suffered intense scrutiny. He failed to get the endorsement of the Foreign Relations committee, and a ranking Republican, George Voinovich of Ohio, openly opposed him. When the nomination came to the floor of the Senate, the Democrats launched a filibuster. When a small group of Republicans attempted to invoke cloture to stop the debate, the motion failed for lack of support. During a congressional recess, Bush was forced to appoint Bolton in what is called a "recess appointment." This weakens Bolton's stature, and the law demands that his appointment must be renewed early next year by the Senate in spite of the embarrassment it will cause him.
An embarrassing incident occurred last month that confirms the suspicions of Bolton's polite Syrian questioner at Oxford. In remarks to B'nei Brith International, the Israeli ambassador to the UN identified Bolton as "a secret member of Israel's own team at the United Nations," underlining his confidence in Bolton by stating, "Today the secret is out. We really are not just five diplomats. We are at least six including John Bolton." (Haaretz)
During his Oxford harangue, Bolton said that America is a democracy where people vote for change and the policies they believe to be right. His own role in the racist politics of the South, the cessation of vote counting in 2000 and the obstruction of the Iran Contra investigation transforms every word he ever says claiming America as a model of democracy into the ne plus ultra of political hypocrisy. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton are a comfortable clutch of hypocritical politicians, and their approval ratings now demonstrate that they are not the agents of democracy. Quite the opposite, the democratic disconnection - the increasing disparity between popular opinion and government policy - in Bush and Bolton's America is a scandal of global proportions that could well be driving the United States over the precipice and into the abyss of failed and failing states.
Comment on this Article
Europe
French PM: Fight against terrorism must be legal
Reuters
Fri Jun 16, 2006
PARIS - The fight against terrorism must observe the rule of law, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said on Friday in a thinly-veiled criticism of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"In order for the fight against terrorism to be as effective as possible we have to act while respecting our values and our rules," de Villepin said during a speech at the Institute of Higher Studies of National Defense.
"Let us avoid zones where there are no rights, let us reject anything that can give rise to arbitrariness, whether this means military interventions without the international community's authorization, exceptional tribunals, or detention centers outside the framework of international law," he said.
"The greatest determination in the face of terrorism, yes, but always while respecting the rule of law."
The U.S. military is holding 460 foreigners at the Guantanamo prison, many of whom were captured in Afghanistan in the U.S.-led war to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda after the September 11 attacks. Nearly all are being held without charge.
President Bush acknowledged on Wednesday that the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where three detainees committed suicide last weekend, has damaged the U.S. image abroad and said it should be shut down.
However, Bush added a plan for relocating the prisoners was needed first and said he also was awaiting a Supreme Court decision about the forum for handling detainee cases.
Comment on this Article
Germany urges nuclear powers to disarm
Reuters
Sat Jun 17, 2006
BERLIN - Germany called on Saturday for the world's leading nuclear powers to reduce their atomic arsenals as they press Iran to curb its nuclear program.
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- to make concessions in the context of the Iran dispute, Spiegel magazine reported.
"I am in fact of the view that, beyond the current Iran conflict, we must review the worldwide nuclear armament status," Steinmeier told Spiegel.
"We are in favor of effectively applying the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It contains the promise of the nuclear powers disarming, and we should press them to do that," he said.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a 1970 global pact against the spread of atomic weapons which is policed by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Germany, a non-nuclear power, and the five permanent U.N. Security Council members have offered Tehran a package under which Iran would get trade and technology benefits if it halts uranium enrichment work.
"So far we have not had a clear sign, or a real reaction," Steinmeier said of the offer made to Iran. "What is positive, however, is that we are apparently for the first time seeing Iran in a state of reflection."
Steinmeier added that he hoped Iran's leadership would "find the way through the open door."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday the United States had heard some positive statements from Tehran over the offer.
Iran says its nuclear program is for power generation. The United States says it is a front for building nuclear arms.
Comment on this Article
Two more middle-of-the-night blasts hit Corsica
AFP
June 16, 2006
AJACCIO, France - Two bomb blasts caused damage but no casualties in Corsica overnight, hitting a bar and a holiday home, a security services source said Friday.
In the seaside town of Porticcio, in the south of the island, an empty brasserie was badly damaged by a blast at 4am.
"There was substantial damage," the source said, without giving further detail.
The other blast happened at the site of a holiday home under construction at Piana, another southern seaside spot, the same source said.
No one immediately claimed responsibility for the blasts.
In recent months two rival pro-independence groups have issued competing statements calling for a resumption of "armed struggle" against French rule of the Mediterranean island.
Corsica has been prey to three decades of unrest which targets symbols of French authority, mostly through night-time bomb attacks against empty buildings.
The all-important tourist trade on the island has been mostly unaffected, although such blasts frequently destroy vacation homes belonging to non-Corsicans.
Comment on this Article
Militant farmer Jose Bove to run for president in France
AFP
June 14, 2006
PARIS - Anti-globalization icon Jose Bové said Wednesday he would run in the French presidential election next year, pledging to pull off left-wing votes from the main opposition Socialist Party (PS).
"I am running to unite the anti-globalization left, the left that stands for the environment, and against the obsessive focus on productivity and economic liberalism," he said, deeming himself the man for those "to the left of the Socialists".
The militant farmer, who helped rally the French against the European Union constitution last year, told the newspaper Libération he was "ready to take on the responsibilities of going to Elysée Palace", referring to the presidential office in Paris.
He suggested that no other leader from existing parties had the "capacity to bring together" all of France's disparate, and often quarrelsome, far-left factions.
He also said likely candidate Ségolène Royal, who has not officially decided to run, hailed from the "Socialists' right-wing and has left it wide open for an anti-liberal candidate from the PS."
Socialists gave a frosty response to Bové's presidential aspirations. Party leader François Hollande, who is also Royal's long-term companion, chided that the French extreme left was "no longer the most revolutionary, perhaps, but definitely the most election-obsessed".
Rivals to Bové's far-left bid were equally unwelcoming, with the Communist Party reminding him "there is no man of the hour".
Bove has become an anti-globalization cult figure, staging media-savvy stunts which have included destroying genetically modified crops, vandalizing a McDonald's and offering himself as a human shield in the Palestinian territories.
The self-declared "anarcho-syndicalist", a sheep farmer, also founded the Conféderation Paysanne, a radical movement focused on defending small farmers' rights.
Comment on this Article
Villepin shows stubborn streak in Suez merger
AFP
June 16, 2006
PARIS - French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said Friday he would press with plans for state-controlled gas company Gaz de France (GDF) to be absorbed by Suez, an energy and utilities group, despite strong opposition within his own party.
Saying he was "determined to move forward" on the matter, Villepin added however that it was time for "realism, determination and at the same time, to take care to confer" with those involved in the process.
He was responding to a report in the French daily Le Monde that said the project to partially privatise GDF, a necessary step before the deal could take place, might be shelved.
The government revealed a plan in February for GDF to be absorbed, and therefore privatised, by Suez after it emerged that the Italian energy goup Enel was poised to make a hostile bid for Suez.
The Suez-GDF deal, which would create the fourth-biggest energy company in the world, was widely seen as a way of making Suez too big for Enel to swallow, although Suez and GDF said they had been working on the plan for some time.
But deputies from de Villepin's governing UMP party have joined Socialists and others who are hostile to the plan, saying they want to protect consumers from price rises that would likely follow a privatisation of GDF.
A source close to the government said Friday that "it was useless to try and push through" a deal.
Villepin's government has suffered several major setbacks in the past six months, and the next French presidential election is less than a year away.
Comment on this Article
Down the Tubes
Green goo globs up Great Lakes
CNN
Thursday, June 15, 2006
TRAVERSE CITY, Michigan (AP) -- Call it the return of the green slime.
Back in the 1960s, foul gobs of algae along Great Lakes shorelines made swimmers and sunbathers miserable before a crackdown on phosphorus pollution repelled the invasion.
Now, the algae are mounting a comeback and controlling it may be tougher this time, according to the Michigan Environmental Council, an umbrella organization for a host of environmental and public interest organizations in the state.
"The nightmare may be poised to repeat itself," the council said in a statement accompanying a report released Wednesday.
Algae blooms have been on the rise since the mid-1990s in parts of all of the Great Lakes except Lake Superior, whose icy waters are not as hospitable to the slimy aquatic plants.
The problem has worsened recently and is particularly severe on shallow, warm Lake Erie, experts said.
"It's very much the same story on our coast" on Lake Michigan, said John Berges, a biologist with the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee's Great Lakes Water Institute.
Out-of-control algae look bad and smell worse but there are more serious dangers, the environmental council's report said.
Swimmers and pets who accidentally swallow algae-choked water can get sick. Algae blooms can reduce oxygen levels in the waters, causing fish kills. Some clumps are thick enough to block water intake pipes.
The surge four decades ago was blamed on excessive phosphorus, an essential plant nutrient. A single pound of phosphorus can stimulate growth of up to 500 pounds of algae, the report said.
Legislatures in Michigan and some neighboring states imposed limits on phosphate laundry detergents in the 1970s that were credited with significantly reducing the algae buildup.
But phosphorus continues flowing into the lakes from fertilizer runoff from farms and residential lawns, pet and livestock waste and leaky residential sewage systems, the report said.
Also, although Michigan was among the first states to virtually ban phosphorus in laundry soaps, it exempted dishwashing machine detergents -- a loophole the environmental council wants the state Legislature to close.
But Berges said he was skeptical that dishwashers are a primary culprit in the green slime's return.
A more likely cause -- and the reason the problem may be harder to solve this time -- is the arrival in the 1980s of two exotic species of mussels, the zebra mussel and its cousin, the quagga mussel, he said.
The mussels filter water, making it clearer, allowing sunlight to penetrate deep into the lakes, possibly enabling algae to thrive at greater depths than before, Berges said. The mussels also eat microscopic algae and excrete nutrient-rich wastes, he said.
Phosphorus levels are lower in the lakes than they were in the 1960s, increasing the likelihood the mussels are the leading cause of the algae's resurgence, he said.
The report recommends banning phosphorus in lawn fertilizer and dishwasher detergents, helping farmers and landowners create strips of natural vegetation along waterways to absorb excess phosphorus and patching up septic and municipal sewage systems.
Comment on this Article
Earth's heart of gold
Stephen Pincock
ABC Science Online
Thursday, 15 June 2006
There's enough gold buried deep within the Earth's core to cover the entire land surface of the planet to a depth of half a metre, an Australian researcher says.
Professor Bernard Wood, a geologist from Macquarie University, in Sydney made his remarkable calculations based on research published in today's issue of the journal Nature.
Wood and colleagues chart the early history of our Earth's development starting with the birth of the solar system more than 4.5 billion years ago.
In particular they focus on the formation of Earth's molten metal core.
"By looking at other stars that are currently at the state our Sun was in then, we can see that they are surrounded by a flattened disc of dust and gas," Wood says.
"We know that within about 10,000 years these formed into small bodies that were about 10 kilometres across."
Radioactive dating has shown that over the next 100,000 to one million years, those small "planetesimals" collided to form Moon-to-Mars sized planetary embryos.
Within 10 to 100 million years, larger planets had formed. "In the case of Earth, it was around 30 million years," Wood says.
Magma ocean
Early in its history, the Earth was probably covered in a sea of molten rock, hundreds of kilometres deep.
During the planet's development, this "magma ocean" reacted with metals in the planetesimals, extracting many of the most important and interesting elements, including gold, and eventually depositing them in the Earth's own iron-rich core.
To calculate how much gold was in the Earth's core Wood compared the composition of the Earth's crust with that of meteorites, which can be used to represent planetesimals.
He and other researchers have found that the meteorites had similar levels of all elements that would not normally dissolve in iron.
But they also noted that meteorites had higher levels of elements such as gold, platinum and nickel.
"This tells us that the Earth is chemically very similar to those meteorites, but the Earth's crust is depleted in all those elements that like to dissolve in iron," Wood says.
There's only one place those elements can have gone - the molten core.
"We can say that more than 99% of the Earth's gold is in the core," Wood says. "It's a nice image to think we could all step outside and be knee-deep in the stuff."
Comment on this Article
Monsoon rains flood northeastern Bangladesh
AFP
Fri Jun 16, 2006
DHAKA - Large swathes of northeastern Bangladesh were under water following heavy monsoon rains in neighbouring India.
Around 100 square kilometres (40 square miles) and an estimated 76,000 people were affected in seven sub-districts of the northeastern Sylhet region, said district relief officer Mohammed Mosao-Ir on Friday.
"The water is about one foot deep. The rivers are flowing above the danger level because of the rains upstream in India but so far there have been no reports of any casualties and communication links have not been cut," he said.
In the neighbouring Indian state of Assam flooding has forced nearly 500,000 people out of their homes and 16 people have died since the end of May.
Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation which is criss-crossed by a network of 230 rivers, suffers regular floods with at least a fifth of the country inundated each year.
In July and August in 2004 flooding left more than 700 people dead and 38 percent of the country submerged, forcing millions to flee their homes.
Comment on this Article
Canada finds bird flu case, plans further testing
By Louise Egan and Marcy Nicholson
Reuters
Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:55pm
OTTAWA/WINNIPEG - Canada has detected a case of H5 avian flu in the eastern province of Prince Edward Island and plans further testing over the weekend to determine whether it is the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain, government officials announced on Friday.
A gosling in a small backyard poultry flock in the western end of the tiny province contracted the disease but there is a low risk of human illness from the outbreak, officials said.
The last Canadian outbreak occurred in November 2005 on the other side of the country, in British Columbia, and involved low-pathogenic H5N2 strain. In that case no birds actually showed signs of illness but 60,000 ducks and geese were culled nonetheless.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said there is no evidence that the latest bird flu case is the high-pathogen H5N1 strain that has spread to 48 countries so far since its resurgence in 2003.
If it is, it would be the first case in the Americas. The H5N1 strain has killed 129 people in nine countries since 2003, mostly in Asia.
"Just because the virus was there does not mean that's what killed the geese," said CFIA veterinarian Jim Clark.
"Ducks and geese are natural reservoirs for avian influenza viruses. The viruses exist quite nicely in their intestinal tract and cause absolutely no illness or death in the birds. That would be the situation in this case," he said.
A sample from the non-commercial flock of about 35 ducks, geese and chickens was brought to the Atlantic Veterinary College for testing after four goslings became sick on June 4, Clark said. The geese were not imported and there were no known links to Asia.
The CFIA has culled the entire backyard flock and is monitoring a 3 km (2 mile) zone around the property.
Prince Edward Island has only seven commercial chicken farms -- compared with over one thousand in top producer province Ontario -- and there are none within a 10 km (6 mile) radius of the affected farm, industry group Chicken Farmers of Canada said.
"We are alert but not alarmed, at this period in time," said Lisa Bishop-Spencer, a spokeswoman for the group. "We're going to wait for the results before we really react ... the fact that other birds appeared healthy is a very good sign in our eyes."
Not all H5 viruses are highly pathogenic and not all will cause severe disease in poultry.
Prince Edward Island's health officer, Dr. Lamont Sweet, told Reuters that the results of further bird flu tests were expected next week.
He downplayed any risk of transmission to humans but issued a warning nonetheless.
"People need to continue washing their hands carefully after handling poultry," Sweet said.
Canada, which has had numerous low pathogenic outbreaks, reported a case of H5N9 bird flu in 1966, which was highly pathogenic, and a case of high pathogenic H7N3 in 2004.
Comment on this Article
Ariz. Wildfires Force Hundreds to Evacuate
Monday June 19, 2006
Associated Press
SEDONA, Ariz. (AP) - Hundreds of homes and businesses were threatened early Monday by a wildfire that blacked 1,000 acres in an unincorporated area of northern Arizona's scenic Oak Creek Canyon.
The fire started Sunday afternoon and spread quickly through the parched region, forcing the evacuation of about 400 homes and businesses in Oak Creek Canyon and another roughly 100 homes in five Sedona subdivisions.
Fire crews were positioned Monday to try to protect homes from the fire, which had burned to within a mile of some of the buildings. There were no reports of any homes being damaged or destroyed but the potential remained.
"It's going to be quite a fight not to lose them,'' said Kristy Bryner, a fire information officer.
Oak Creek Canyon, more than 90 miles north of Phoenix, contains a mix of homes, including upscale houses and mobile home parks, said Brenda Grey, a spokeswoman for Coconino County. It also contains hotels, resorts and stores scattered throughout the canyon.
Helge Zipprich, who lives in a mobile home in Oak Creek Canyon, said he and his three sons were in Sedona at the time of the evacuation so they didn't have time to get anything from their home. They arrived late Sunday at a Sedona evacuation shelter in Sedona with only their clothes.
Zipprich said the worst part was not knowing what's happening. "If the fire does spread and gets my home I wouldn't know,'' he said.
The fire ignited in a wooded area and quickly led to the evacuations in the Sedona subdivisions, including Cibola Hills, Rim Shadows, Painted Cliff, Shadow Rock Circle and Casa Contenta.
Evacuations followed in Oak Creek Canyon, a popular scenic area between Sedona and Flagstaff. The cause was under investigation. It was unclear how many people the evacuations included.
Melissa Wenzel, a spokeswoman for the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Red Cross, said about 50 people checked in at a shelter at a Sedona school. Only six were sleeping there as of early Monday. Only about two people checked in at a second shelter in Flagstaff on Sunday. She said other people were staying with friends or in hotels.
Comment: "Arizona burns"
Comment on this Article
Out of this world
Rat study shows dirty better than clean
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
Fri Jun 16, 2006
WASHINGTON - Gritty rats and mice living in sewers and farms seem to have healthier immune systems than their squeaky clean cousins that frolic in cushy antiseptic labs, two studies indicate. The lesson for humans: Clean living may make us sick.
The studies give more weight to a 17-year-old theory that the sanitized Western world may be partly to blame for soaring rates of human allergy and asthma cases and some autoimmune diseases, such as Type I diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. The theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, figures that people's immune systems aren't being challenged by disease and dirt early in life, so the body's natural defenses overreact to small irritants such as pollen.
The new studies, one of which was published Friday in the peer reviewed Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, found significant differences in the immune systems between euthanized wild and lab rodents.
When the immune cells in the wild rats are stimulated by researchers, "they just don't do anything they sit there; if you give them same stimulus to the lab rats, they go crazy," said study co-author Dr. William Parker, a Duke University professor of experimental surgery. He compared lab rodents to more than 50 wild rats and mice captured and killed in cities and farms.
Also, the wild mice and rats had as much as four times higher levels of immunoglobulins, yet weren't sick, showing an immune system tuned to fight crucial germs, but not minor irritants, Parker said. He said what happened in the lab rats is what likely occurs in humans: their immune systems have got it so cushy they overreact to smallest of problems.
"Your immune system is like the person who lives in the perfect house and has all the food they want, you're going to start worrying about the little things like someone stepping on your flowers," Parker said.
Challenged immune systems - such as kids who grow up with two or more pets - don't tend to develop as many allergies, said Dr. Stanley Goldstein, director of Allergy & Asthma Care of Long Island.
Parker said his study has drawbacks because he can't be sure that the age of the wild and lab rodents are equivalent, although he estimates the ages based on weight. He also could not control what happened in the past to the wild rats to see if they had unusual diseases before being captured and killed.
It would have been more useful had Parker studied extremely young wild rodents because, according to the hygiene hypothesis, that's when the protection from dirty living starts, said Dr. Stuart Levy, director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University.
Human epidemiological studies have long given credence to the hygiene theory, showing that allergy and asthma rates were higher in the cleaner industrialized areas than in places such as Africa. Parker's studies, looking at animal differences, may eventually help scientists find when, where and how environmental exposure help protect against future allergies and immune disorders, said Goldstein, and Dr. Jeffrey Platt of the Mayo Clinic in Minn., both of whom were not part of Parker's studies.
Parker said he hopes to build a 50-foot artificial sewer for his next step, so that he could introduce the clean lab rats to an artificial dirty environment and see how and when the immunity was activated.
That may be the biggest thing to come out of the wild and lab rodent studies, Platt said: "Then all of a sudden it becomes possible to expose people to the few things (that exercise the immune system) and gives them the benefit of the dirty environment without having to expose them to the dirt."
Comment on this Article
To Profit Or Explore Might Be The Meaning Of Life
SPX
Jun 16, 2006
London, UK - People are constantly pulled between profiting from the things they know will reap rewards and exploring new options - but it is exploration that uses high-level regions of the brain, according to a study by UCL (University College London) scientists published in Nature on 15th June.
By analysing how people's brains work while gambling, the team led by Dr Nathaniel Daw and Dr John O'Doherty, have found that trying out new things uses the human frontopolar cortex and intraparietal sulcus, whereas falling back on familiar territory involves areas of the brain associated with reward and pleasure.
This brain activity may reflect the fact that exploring new options requires overriding the desire for immediate profit.
Dr Daw, UCL Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, said: "Whether you are a stockbroker, a gambler choosing between slot machines or an animal trying to forage for food, the desire to select what seems the richest option is always balanced against the desire to choose a less familiar option that might turn out to serve better. This exploration is often critical to survival.
"Most people switch between exploring and exploiting seamlessly and this has always made it hard to distinguish between someone who is doing something they know will offer the highest pay-out and a person who is testing out new options. By using some of the systems used to program robots to learn and make decisions, we have now found which areas of the brain are responsible for these different behaviours."
The team studied the behaviour of 14 subjects while they were gambling for money using on-screen slot machines. To find out whether the subjects were using exploitative or exploratory gambling strategies, the team compared the human behaviour with the decisions made by intelligent robots. fMRI scans were used to measure brain activity to show which brain areas were activated when exploring or exploiting.
After the task, subjects were asked to describe their choice of strategies. The majority of subjects reported occasionally trying the different slot machines to work out which had the highest payoffs (exploring) and at all other times choosing the slot they thought had the highest payoffs (exploiting).
Comment on this Article
Phasers on Stun: Weapons in Space
Leonard David
Livescience.com
June 16, 2006
U.S. President George Bush is expected to unveil a new space policy for the nation, perhaps this month.
For all you peaceful uses of space (or is it useful pieces of space?) advocates, take note of recent remarks by John Mohanco of the U.S. State Department Deputy Office Director of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs Division of the Department of State.
Looks like Mohanco may have floated a bit of the policy out in front of a Conference on Disarmament meeting in Geneva earlier this week.
"The high value of space systems has led the United States to study the potential of space-related weapons to protect our satellites from potential future attacks, whether from the surface or from other spacecraft. As long as the potential for such attacks remains, our Government will continue to consider the possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting out assets," Mohanco noted.
In response, one space peacenik told me: "Pretty strong statement...the party line in the past was to avoid the mention of space weapons and simply tout the "we don't need no stinkin' treaty" line.
Comment on this Article
Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world!
Send your article suggestions to: sott(at)signs-of-the-times.org