Oh mightiest Pharaoh, Let My People Go!

By forcing Palestinians from Gaza back into killing fields and subjecting them to massive collective punishment, Mubarak is in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

On Monday morning, Israeli planes bombed a mosque. The house next to the mosque collapsed and inside, five sisters aged 2 to 10 years old were killed. Mubarak is helping Israel turn Gaza into a modern version of the Warsaw ghetto.

By slamming and sealing the life saving escape route Mubrak signs on to the effects of the scorn of international revulsion, the genocide, the political objective, the empirical objectives of Western dominance of the Middle East for a Greater Israel alongside an Egyptian Kingdom, the religious fanaticism, the psychopathology and the indiscriminate brutality and ruthlessness.

Mubarak’s actions make him complicit in International Crimes outlawed by Article 2 of the Convention on Genocide by assisting in the killing members of a specific ethnic group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Some believe Egypt’s President went further. London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi quote sources who say Egyptian intelligence minister deliberately misled the Palestinian organization about IDF intentions. Hamas sources say this is why movement’s compounds were not evacuated: “Egypt collaborated with Israel in its Gaza attack and lulled Hamas into thinking the Israel Defense Forces would not attack Gaza”, Al Quds al-Arabi claimed in the report, based on Arab diplomatic sources, that Egyptian Intelligence Minister Omar Suleiman told a number of Arab leaders that Israel was intending to attack the Gaza Strip in a limited manner in order to pressure the Palestinian organization into agreeing to a renewed ceasefire.

Hamas sources close to former Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar also reported that Egypt told Hamas on Friday evening that Israel had agreed to begin negotiations about a potential ceasefire and would not attack Gaza before Cairo had attempted to settle the issue.

These sources noted that, in general, Hamas’ internal ministry orders the evacuation of its security compounds following any Israeli threat of operative action. They had not done so this time based on Egypt’s assurance that Israel wouldn’t attack and based on the assumption that an IDF attack would not be launched on Saturday.

Colluding with Israel, the Bush administration and the Palestinian Authority in this aggression toward the Palestinians of Gaza, Mubarak reminds one of the Jews who served the Nazis as capos inside the ghettos of German controlled Europe during World War II, their baksheeh being that that they will be the last to be destroyed.

Text taken from Mr. Mubarak, Tear Down That Wall! by Franklin Lamb / December 30th, 2008 .

A Hundred Eyes for an Eye

Israelis and Arabs "feel that only force can assure justice," I. F. Stone noted soon after the Six-Day War in 1967. And he wrote: "A certain moral imbecility marks all ethnocentric movements. The Others are always either less than human, and thus their interests may be ignored, or more than human and therefore so dangerous that it is right to destroy them."

The closing days of 2008 have heightened the Israeli government's stature as a mighty practitioner of the moral imbecility that Stone described.

Israel's air strikes"have killed at least 270 people so far, injured more than 1,000, many of them seriously, and many remain buried under the rubble so the death toll will likely rise," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies pointed out on Sunday, two days into Israel's attack. "This catastrophic impact was known and inevitable, and far outweighs any claim of self-defense or protection of Israeli civilians." She mentioned that "the one Israeli killed by a Palestinian rocket attack on Saturday after the Israeli assault began was the first such casualty in more than a year."

Even if you set aside the magnitude of Israel's violations of the Geneva conventions and the long terrible history of its methodical collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, consider the vastly disproportionate carnage in the conflict.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," Gandhi said.

What about a hundred eyes for an eye?

It makes some of the world ill with rage. And it turns much of the United States numb with silence. Routinely, the politicians and pundits of Washington can't summon minimal decency in themselves or each other on the subject of Israel and Palestinians.

While officialdom inside the Beltway seems frozen in fear of risking "anti-Semitism" charges by actually standing up for the human rights of Palestinian people, some progress at the grassroots has been noticeable. It includes the growth of groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, Tikkun, and the Shalom Center, where activists have worked to refute the false claims that American Jews are united behind Israeli policies.

At the epicenters of the conflict – where the belief that "only force can assure justice" seems to be even stronger than when I. F. Stone wrote about it 41 years ago – the conclusion has been drawn and redrawn so many times that deadly repetition has become paralytic. While some Palestinian "militants" have terrorized and murdered, the Israeli government has terrorized and murdered on a much bigger scale, using a vast arsenal largely financed by U.S. taxpayers.

From afar, in the United States, it's too easy to shake our heads at the lethal loss of moral vision. Don't they know that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? But the cycle of violence is extremely asymmetrical – while the U.S. government provides Israel with billions of dollars and invaluable "diplomatic" support.

What's going on in Gaza right now is not just an eye for an eye. It's a hundred eyes for an eye. And the current slaughter is not only an ongoing Israeli war crime. It has an accomplice named Uncle Sam.

Text taken from here written by Norman Solomon

American Jews Call for Immediate Ceasefire, End of Gaza Blockade

Expressing views that are surely representative of American Jews as a whole, here's what some American Jews are saying about the violence in Gaza.

J Street has a petition demanding that the U.S. intervene to bring about an immediate resumption of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas; the petition also calls for lifting the blockade of Gaza.

The petition says:

I support immediate and strong U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to urgently reinstate a meaningful ceasefire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets aimed at Israel and lifts the blockade of Gaza. This is in the best interests of Israel, the Palestinian people and the United States.

Jewish Voice for Peace condemned the Israeli attacks on Gaza, calling for an immediate end to attacks on all civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli, and noting that the blockade of Gaza is a violation of humanitarian law and has been widely condemned around the world. Meanwhile they have been organizing support for Israeli high school students who have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in an army that occupies the Palestinian Territories

A World Silence

The tepid response of world leaders to Israel’s ferocious attack on a defenseless Gaza conveys a helpless feeling to all world citizens – brutality rules and we are all vulnerable to attack. EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, commented that “the EU is very concerned by the events in Gaza.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy was quoted as saying he “strongly condemns the irresponsible provocations which led to this situation as well as the disproportionate use of force.”

Are world leaders totally ignorant of the events leading to the massive destruction of Palestinian life? Are they unaware of Israel’s provocations and shrewd manipulation of the facts which allowed them to seem innocent and carry out a plan to destroy the Palestinians? The facts are:

For two years Israel has illegally blockaded Gaza. BBC News (Heather Sharp, Gaza Under Blockade, Nov. 11, 2008) states that the area’s “1.5 million people have been relying on less than a quarter of the volume of imported supplies they received in December 2005” and “virtually no exports have been permitted.” A totally paralyzed economy has tried to exist with reduced fuel supplies, electrical outages and a lack of spare parts. Intermittent hunger and severe physical and psychological damage have been common. Include impacts on sewage treatment, waste collection, water supplies and medical facilities.

Despite a truce between Hamas and Israel, the Israel military continued its attacks on West Bank Palestinians. Some of the provocations:

According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, over the last two weeks, from December 4th - 17th, two Palestinians, including a civilian were killed by Israeli forces, ten Palestinian civilians were wounded by Israeli gunfire and three others were wounded by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Four fighters with the Palestinian resistance, and an unarmed woman were wounded by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip.1

Al Jazeera reports, Dec. 12, 2008, that Israeli forces, during the month, invaded Salfit, Hebron, Bilin, and Khan Younis, injured four Palestinians, and took 18 civilians into custody.

Settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron destroyed Palestinian property and attacked Palestinians after Israel Defense Forces evicted them from a building of disputed ownership. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli figures branded the settler attacks as a “pogrom” against the Palestinians.

How did Hamas react to these provocations – quite normally.

In order to continue the truce, Hamas issued two responsible demands 

1. Israel halt its devastating economic blockade of Gaza, and 
   
2. Israel observe a truce in the West Bank as well as Gaza.

When Israel refused to meet these humanitarian demands, Hamas refused to continue the truce, as it had promised and as Israel knew would happen. Rocket fire by militants, not clearly identified with Hamas, sent mortars and rockets into Israel. Despite the intensive barrage, not a single Israeli was killed or wounded.

Note: Although any weapons fire against a civilian population is unjustified, rockets are not guided missiles and these mortars are mostly homemade devices that only propel a small explosive a short distance. No mention has been made of the constitution of the barrages - the number of mortars and the number of rockets.

So, world leaders, what do we note?

For two years the people in Gaza have been intermittently starved and left destitute by Israel actions. Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinians continue. Despite no Israelis being harmed in the December rocket and mortar barrages, Israel used the attacks as an excuse to devastate the defenseless Palestinians.

Inaction of world leaders to Israel’s scheme of using deadly provocation (similar to continuing West Bank settlements) to invite retaliation, and then using retaliation that actually did not cause casualties as an excuse for more deadly actions is paralyzing. Equally paralyzing is the lack of realization of the average American to the truth of the situation. If the people of Arizona are a model of US citizen thinking on this issue then the situation becomes more desperate. Take a peek at a forum of the Arizona Daily Star, and be startled.

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, considered a US ally in Beirut, described the Israeli attacks as a “criminal operation” and “new massacres to be added to its full record of massacres.” If the United Nations, European Union and the US administration cannot listen to the Middle East region’s leaders and prevent these atrocities against the Palestinian people, what hope do the democratic and peace loving populations of the world have when confronted with tyranny and aggression?

Text taken from here.

Gaza Strike: The Military Support of United States.

From 2001-2006, the United States transferred to Israel more than $200 million worth of spare parts to fly its fleet of F16's. In July 2008, the United States gave Israel 186 million gallons of JP-8 aviation jet fuel. Last year, the United States signed a $1.3 billion contract with Raytheon to transfer to Israel thousands of TOW, Hellfire, and "bunker buster" missiles. In short, Israel's lethal attack today on the Gaza Strip could not have happened without the active military and political support of the United States.

While Israel's spokespersons may constantly repeat that these attacks are "targeted", but targeted attacks don't kill this many civilians. They don't destroy and cause chaos and panic in entirely residential areas. If we accept – by silence or without questioning – that anything and everyone can be defined as "terrorist infrastructure", then we are designating all civilians in Gaza as being targets. And the targeting continues.

Shabbat Shalom! "Peaceful Saturday." Many don't believe that Israeli leaders appreciate the meaning of this Hebrew greeting given at the start of the weekly Jewish day of rest. No more "Shabbat Shalom," as on Saturday, 27 December 2008, just a few days before the start of a new year, Israeli warplanes dropped bombs on different parts of the Gaza Strip.

The number of deaths resulting from these attacks indicates a willful targeting of the civilian police forces in these locations and a clear violation of the prohibition against willful killings. Willful killings are a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention under Article 147 and therefore, a war crime. Both the time and location of these attacks also indicate a malicious intent to inflict as many casualties as possible with many of the police stations located in civilian population centers and the time of the attacks coinciding with the end of the school day resulting in the deaths of numerous children.

Despite repeated calls from the Palestinian human rights community with regard to Gaza, the international community has failed to act. We are now on the brink of an explosion of violence as result of this failure and are pushed once again to call for action.

In light of the above, Palestinian human rights organizations urge:

1. The UN Security Council to call an emergency session and adopt concrete measures, including the imposition of sanctions, in order to ensure Israel's fulfillment of its obligations under international humanitarian law.
   
2. The High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligation under common Article 1 to ensure respect for the provisions of the Conventions, taking appropriate measures to compel Israel to abide by its obligations under international humanitarian law, in particular placing pivotal importance on the respect and protection of civilians from the effects of the hostilities.
   
3. The High Contracting Parties to fulfill their legal obligation under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to prosecute those responsible for grave breaches of the Convention.
   
4. EU institutions and member states to make effective use of the European Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law (2005/C 327/04) to ensure Israel complies with international humanitarian law under paragraph 16 (b), (c) and (d) of these guidelines, including the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions, as well as cessation of all upgrade dialogue with Israel.

For more than 60 years the Palestinian people had seen their lands taken from them, their olive groves ransacked, their children killed, their young men imprisoned, their women humiliated and beaten. Having deprived the Palestinians in Gaza of their rights, dignity and basic necessities for close to three years, their Israeli tormentors now have the temerity to blame them for the death and destruction in the deadliest bombings in the Middle East since the 1967 war. Admittedly, as Israeli leaders have reiterated time and again, no country would tolerate daily rocket attacks on its towns. But neither should some of the most wretched people on earth have to endure such a protracted and terrible siege. There is no excuse for the indiscriminate and disproportionate slaughter on the battered strip of land, which, at the last count, stood at the lopsided ratio of almost 300 dead Palestinians to one dead Israeli. It is outrageous to justify the murder of innocents by blaming Hamas of hiding terrorist "infrastructure" among civilians. To put the blame squarely on the Islamists for provoking the bloody reprisal is sheer mendacity when it disingenuously disguises the fact that Operation Cast Lead had been in the works even as Israel was negotiating the six-month truce with Hamas in June. With Israel already preparing for war even as it seemed to be making overtures for peace, it is hard to see the murderous onslaught as anything but premeditated, and the barrage of missile and mortar attacks from Gaza as just a convenient casus belli to activate the operation.

“Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War ll. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.”
- John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

"Israel is the victim of aggression and that the Palestinians are the aggressors"

In Israel, the Gaza Strip is becoming the central election issue in a country deeply menaced by political and religious extremism.

Israeli political leaders from right and left are already promising the Jewish public that they will destroy Gaza and murder untold thousands of poor Gazans if only they are elected in the 10 February polls.

Tzipi Livni, leader of the Kadima party, was quoted as saying on Sunday, 21 December, that if she becomes Israel’s next Prime Minister, she will destroy Hamas’s government in Gaza, using military, economic and diplomatic means.

Similar remarks have been voiced by other Israeli leaders, which really underscores the cannibalistic instincts and jingoistic trends permeating through the bulk of the Israeli Jewish society.

After all, experience shows that the more racist, more criminal and more vitriolic a given Israeli politician is perceived, the greater the likelihood he will be elected.

In contrast, an Israeli politician who advocates a humane approach toward the Palestinians, like, for example, calling for lifting the Nazi-like siege imposed on the 1.5 million innocent Gaza inhabitants, will be committing a political suicide. Such a politician would instantly be called “Self-hating Jew,” “Hamas lover,” or even “a Nazi.”

This background is essential for understanding the present situation in Gaza as the huge Israeli propaganda machine would have us believe that Israel is the victim of aggression and that the Palestinians are the aggressors.

Read further Strangling Gaza to Near Death while Pretending to Be Victim by Khaled Amayreh.

Rice Said: Its all about U.S. geostrategical interest.

"And I’m especially, as a political scientist, not as Secretary of State, not as National Security Advisor, but as somebody who knows that structurally it matters that a geostrategically important country like Iraq is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq."

The respond by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice during CNN aired an exit interview. During the interview, reporter Zain Verjee asked Rice if she “regretted her role in the Iraq war.”

Rice’s pride is misplaced. Indeed, leaving aside the fact that the war was predicated on false intelligence, Rice cannot credibly argue as a “political scientist” that invading Iraq was in the interest of the U.S. “geostrategically.”

Indeed, Iraq posed no military threat to the United States in 2003. As Rice herself explained in July of 2001, Saddam Hussein had been unable to reconstitute himself militarily following the 1991 Gulf War.

Shoe-icide

Muslim Arrested Over Head Scarf In Courtroom

A head scarf landed a Muslim woman in jail Tuesday after she refused to remove it during a hearing at the Douglasville Municipal Court.

Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40, was arrested for 'violating a court policy of no headgear', Chris Womack, deputy chief of operations for the Douglasville Police Department said on Wednesday.

Valentine was in court with a nephew who was facing a traffic citation. She was wearing a hijab, the head covering worn by Muslim women.

When she refused to remove it she was handcuffed and taken to Judge Keith Rollins' chambers. He cited her for contempt and ordered her held in jail for 10 days.

Omar Hall, Valentine's husband, said she had been released late Tuesday.

"I can't believe someone would do this in America," Hall said, adding the couple plans to file a lawsuit.

Many Muslim women cover their heads, following an Islamic custom. The practice has created conflict and headlines in courtrooms and schools across the country.

Reported here.

"Aggression Against a President"

The charge against al-Zeidi is "aggression against a president," a provision in the Iraqi "legal code" (and I use the term loosely) that makes it a crime to attempt to murder either an Iraqi or a foreign head of state, punishable by 15 years in prison.

Yet the worst that could have happened to Bush was nothing more than a black eye. It would be laughable to try this as a case of attempted murder. Yet the very idea that Iraq is a place where the rule of law exists is nothing but a very bad joke.

"Aggression against a president?" The real "aggression" here was launched by the chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth when he invaded a country that had never attacked us and posed no threat to our territory or legitimate interests. No word yet on whether al-Zeidi is claiming self-defense, but it makes sense to me. After suffering over 1 million dead and wounded and countless others rendered homeless, perhaps the Iraqi people can be forgiven for making al-Zeidi an instant folk hero. No Iraqi jury will ever convict him.

Read further Muntadar al-Zeidi: Hero, Martyr, Symbol of Resistance. Reach for your shoes…

Cheney Admits Authorizing Torture

In a new interview with ABC News, Vice President Cheney claimed that the case for war had nothing to do with whether Saddam Hussein had WMD; America would have invaded anyway. Today on MSNBC’s Hardball, right-wing commentator Frank Gaffney defended Cheney’s remarks, saying that the “real reason” the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq was because Saddam was a “mortal threat” to the United States.

The weapon of the occupied

Shoes are a weapon of the masses. The fact is that most do not have the means to defend against their foreign invaders equipped with superior American-made weaponry. Shoes, like stones and most other projectiles used by the masses, are not about defeating or causing physical damage to the enemy. It is a symbolic act, and one filled with anger. It is a clear and simple message from the people to the occupiers that they are not welcome. And it is a message that the occupiers and their media so arrogantly refuse to admit.

Do Iraqis need to shower gratitude to the occupiers?

Last month, National Review’s Andy McCarthy was similarly frustrated by Iraqis’ failure to shower their occupiers with thanks and gratitude:

Thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions in taxpayer funds have been expended to provide Iraqis the opportunity to live freely. And this despite the facts that (a) the U.S. interest in Iraqi democracy remains tenuous…and (b) Americans were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that oil-rich Iraq would underwrite our sacrifices on its behalf. Yet, to be blunt, the Iraqis remain ingrates. That stubborn fact complicates everything.

Even President Bush is confused about Iraqis’ frustration, telling Bob Woodward, “I don’t understand that the Iraqis are not appreciative of what we’ve done for them.” Woodward explained, “He thinks we’ve done this magnificent thing for them. I think he still holds to that position.”

An Oxfam report from February 2008 put into startling focus what the U.S. invasion has really meant for Iraqis:

• More than four million Iraqis forced to flee either to another part of Iraq or abroad.
  
• Four million Iraqis regularly cannot buy enough food.
  
• 70 percent are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50 percent in 2003.
  
• 28 percent of children are malnourished, compared to 19 percent before the 2003 invasion.
  
• 92 percent of Iraqi children suffer learning problems, mostly due to the climate of fear.

The Brookings Institute’s Iraq index also notes that the national unemployment rate is somewhere between 25 and 40 percent. Fifty-six percent of Iraqis say things in Iraq are going “quite bad” or “very bad (pdf).” Sixty percent rate economic conditions as “poor” and 75 percent rate security conditions “poor.”

Obama Intends to Investigate Use of Torture by Bush Administration

In August, Salon wrote about an Obama plan to investigate the Administration, should he be elected. Obama has said "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated." Salon reported this week that Obama advisors are developing plans for investigating abuse during Bush's tenure.

Read further the article here.

Aafia Siddique — a woman guilty only of being Muslim

Post-9/11, the “war on terror” has been a jihad against Islam, the colonizers v. the colonized, or what Edward Said called “the familiar (America, Europe, us) and the strange (the Orient, East, them).” 

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is one of its most tragic, aggrieved, and ravaged victims. Her ordeal continues horrifically.

She went to MIT and Brandeis, married a Brigham and Women's physician, made her home in Boston, cared for her children, and raised money for charities. Aafia Siddiqui was a normal woman living a normal American life. To those who knew her, Aafia Siddiqui was a kind, quiet woman living the normal life of a Pakistani expat in Boston. To the FBI, which displayed her photograph at that press conference in May, she was a suspected terrorist with ties to a chief mastermind of 9/11 -- and the knowledge, skills, and intention to continue Al Qaeda's terror war in the United States and abroad. Could one woman embody such diametrically opposed identities?

Against her and others, no evidence exists so prosecutors invent it. Most (or key parts) is kept classified, unavailable to the defense, and trials are judicial equivalents of circuses. Witnesses are enlisted, pressured, coerced, and/or bought off to cooperate. Proceedings are carefully orchestrated. Due process is effectively denied, and juries are intimidated to convict the innocent for political advantage.

Aafia is one of its most aggrieved. She’s been destroyed physically and emotionally. Her former being no longer exists. Her survival is in jeopardy, yet she remains incarcerated, has been indicted, will be tried, likely convicted, and may spend the rest of her life in prison. And for what? For her faith, devoutness, ethnicity, humble charity, all at the wrong time in America. The message to everyone is clear. We’re all Aafia Siddiquis.

Read further the article The Abduction, Secret Detention, Torture, and Repeated Raping of Aafia Siddiqui and WHO'S AFRAID OF AAFIA SIDDIQUI?

Also in wiki here.

Bush Lies About Al Qaeda in Iraq, Is Called On It, Says "So What?"

Iraqi Reporter Throws Shoes at Bush, Calls Him 'Dog'

Watch it.

The shoes missed their target about 15 feet (4.5 metres) away. One sailed over Bush's head as he stood next to Maliki and smacked into the wall behind him. Bush smiled uncomfortably and Maliki looked strained.

Iraqi journalist Muntazir al-Zaidi, who threw the shoes at Bush in Baghdad, shouted "Killer of Iraqis, killer of children." while security guards piled on him.

Read press advisory from CODE PINK.
Watch and discuss video of Iraqi journalist Montadhar Al-Zaydi throwing shoes at Bush.
Watch video of Bush saying that throwing shoes is a sign of a free society.
Read about Iraqi rally for Al-Zaydi.
Watch video of Bush lying about Al Qaeda in Iraq, getting called on it and saying "so what?".
Read how the Bush gang is already refusing to comply with the withdrawal agreement.
Bush Comparison Seen As Unfair to Dogs, By David Swanson.

Is it A Collateral Damage on Mumbai?

When we say, "Nothing can justify terrorism," what most of us mean is that nothing can justify the taking of human life. We say this because we respect life, because we think it's precious.

So what are we to make of those who care nothing for life, not even their own? The truth is that we have no idea what to make of them, because we can sense that even before they've died, they've journeyed to another world where we cannot reach them.

One TV channel (India TV) broadcast a phone conversation with one of the attackers, who called himself "Imran Babar." I cannot vouch for the veracity of the conversation, but the things he talked about were the things contained in the "terror emails" that were sent out before several other bomb attacks in India. Things we don't want to talk about any more: the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the genocidal slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, the brutal repression in Kashmir.

"You're surrounded," the anchor told him. "You are definitely going to die. Why don't you surrender?"

"We die every day," he replied in a strange, mechanical way. "It's better to live one day as a lion and then die this way." He didn't seem to want to change the world. He just seemed to want to take it down with him.

If the men were indeed members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, why didn't it matter to them that a large number of their victims were Muslim, or that their action was likely to result in a severe backlash against the Muslim community in India whose rights they claim to be fighting for?

Terrorism is a heartless ideology, and like most ideologies that have their eye on the Big Picture, individuals don't figure in their calculations except as collateral damage.

It has always been a part of, and often even the aim of, terrorist strategy to exacerbate a bad situation in order to expose hidden fault lines. The blood of "martyrs" irrigates terrorism. Hindu terrorists need dead Hindus, Communist terrorists need dead proletarians, Islamist terrorists need dead Muslims. The dead become the demonstration, the proof of victimhood, which is central to the project.

A single act of terrorism is not in itself meant to achieve military victory; at best it is meant to be a catalyst that triggers something else, something much larger than itself, a tectonic shift, a realignment. The act itself is theater, spectacle, and symbolism, and today the stage on which it pirouettes and performs its acts of bestiality is Live TV. Even as TV anchors were being condemned by other TV anchors, the effectiveness of the terror strikes was being magnified a thousand-fold by the TV broadcasts.

Through the endless hours of analysis and the endless op-ed essays, in India at least, there has been very little mention of the elephants in the room: Kashmir, 2002 Gujarat genocide, and the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

Read further 9 Is Not 11 (And November Isn't September) by Arundhati Roy

Read also Organized Crime, Intelligence and Terror: The D-Company's Role in the Mumbai Attacks.

Barack Obama: “America’s First Jewish President”

by James Petras / December 12th, 2008

Obama asks Shimon Peres: “What can I do for Israel?” – Haaretz, November 17, 2008

The UN Special Rappateur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories (Richard Falk) has said Israel’s policies there amount to a crime against humanity…He said the UN must act to protect the Palestinian population suffering what he called ‘collective punishment’…He said the International Criminal Court should also investigate whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law. – BBC News, December 10, 2008

We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them than their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything we believe in…We may have to tighten up those sanctions…and give them a clear choice…whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way. – President-Elect Obama on NBC Meet the Press, December 7, 2008

According to a nationally prominent Zionist spokesperson, former Congressman, Federal Judge, White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton and early backer of Obama, Abner Mikvner, “Barack Obama is the first Jewish President”. Mikvner’s affirmation reflects both Obama’s one-sided and longstanding commitment to the State of Israel and loyalty to the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the United States, as well as the long-term and successful effort of a network of financially and politically powerful Jewish Zionists to ‘embed’ Obama to their ‘Israel First’ political apparatus. What is striking about the latter is the demeaning and arrogant claims made by some leading Jewish Zionist about their ‘central roles’ in the making of Obama’s professional and political careers – in effect denying the President-Elect any credit for his own academic or professional success. (Historically this has been mirrored in the continuous claims of some American Jews to have fought and won the battle of Civil Rights in the 60’s on behalf of African Americans – essentially denying black Americans any independent political role in their own struggle.) Even their personal flattery about his ‘wisdom’, ‘brilliance’ and ‘intellectual acuity’ is always linked with his unconditional support of the State of Israel. One can envision how quickly his Zionist colleagues would replace their plaudits with crude insults regarding his intelligence if he suggested Israel end its starvation blockade of Gaza… Needless to say the Zionists know their man, as they confidently proclaim, he is a cautious and prudent politician, who measures power before he speaks, especially as he has filled the White House, economic councils and security apparatus with Zionist zealots.

Read further the article here.

Britain Leaves Iraq in Shame. The US Won't Go So Quietly

by Seumas Milne
Global Research, December 12, 2008
The Guardian

Obama was elected on the back of revulsion at Bush's war, but greater pressure will be needed to force a full withdrawal.

If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham, until recently Britain's most senior law lord, as a "serious violation of international law", the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead - it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.

In the case of Britain, which marched into a sovereign state at the bidding of an extreme and reckless US administration, the war has been a national disgrace which has damaged the country's international standing. Britain's armed forces will withdraw from Iraq with dishonour. Not only were they driven from Basra city last summer under cover of darkness by determined resistance, just as British colonial troops were forced out of Aden 40 years ago - and Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places, before that. But they leave behind them an accumulation of evidence of prisoner beatings, torture and killings, for which only one low-ranking soldier, Corporal Payne, has so far been singled out for punishment.

It's necessary to spell out this brutal reality as a corrective to the official tendency to minimise or normalise the horror of what has evidently been a criminal enterprise - enthusiastically supported by David Cameron and William Hague, it should be remembered, as well as Tony Blair and his government - and a reminder of the dangers of escalating the war that can't be won in Afghanistan. It was probably just as well that the timetable for British withdrawal from Iraq was given in a background military briefing, after Gordon Brown's earlier schedule for troop reductions was vetoed by George Bush.

But in any case, in the wake of Barack Obama's election on a partial withdrawal ticket, the latest plans look a good deal more credible. They are also welcome, of course, even if several hundred troops are to stay behind to train Iraqis. It would be far better both for Britain and Iraq if there were a clean break and a full withdrawal of all British forces in preparation for a comprehensive public inquiry into the Iraq catastrophe. Instead, and in a pointer to the shape of things to come, British troops at Basra airport are being replaced by US forces.

Meanwhile, the real meaning of last month's security agreement between the US and Iraqi governments is becoming clearer, as Obama's administration-in-waiting briefs the press and officials highlight the small print. This "status of forces agreement", which replaces the UN's shotgun mandate for the occupation forces at the end of this month, had been hailed by some as an unequivocal deal to end the occupation within three years.

There's no doubt that Iraq's Green Zone government, under heavy pressure from its own people and neighbours such as Iran, extracted significant concessions from US negotiators to the blanket occupation licence in the original text. The final agreement does indeed stipulate that US forces will withdraw by the end of 2011, that combat troops will leave urban areas by July next year, contractors and off-duty US soldiers will be subject to Iraqi law and that Iraqi territory cannot be used to attack other countries.

The fact that the US was forced to make such commitments reflects the intensity of both Iraqi and American public opposition to the occupation, the continuing Iraqi resistance war of attrition against US forces, and Obama's tumultuous election on a commitment to pull out all combat troops in 16 months. Even so, the deal was denounced as treason - for legitimising foreign occupation and bases - by the supporters of the popular Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, resistance groups and the influential Association of Muslim Scholars.

And since his November triumph, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasise his commitment to maintaining a "residual force" for fighting "terrorism", training and protection of US civilians - which his security adviser Richard Danzig estimated could amount to between 30,000 and 55,000 troops.

Briefings by Pentagon officials have also made clear this residual force could remain long after 2011. It turns out that the new security agreement can be ditched by either side, while the Iraqi government is fully entitled to invite US troops to remain, as explained in the accompanying "strategic framework agreement", so long as its bases or presence are not defined as "permanent". And given that the current Iraqi government would be unlikely to survive a week without US protection, such a request is a fair bet. Combat troops can also be "re-missioned" as "support units", it transpires, and even the last-minute concession of a referendum on the agreement next year will not, the Iraqi government now says, be binding.

None of this means there won't be a substantial withdrawal of troops from Iraq after Obama takes over the White House next month. But how far that withdrawal goes will depend on the kind of pressure he faces both at home and in Iraq. The US establishment clearly remains committed to a long-term stewardship of Iraq. The Iraqi government is at this moment negotiating secret 20-year contracts with US and British oil majors to manage 90% of the country's oil production. The struggle to end US occupation and control of the country is far from won.

The same goes for the wider shadow of the war on terror, of which Iraq has been the grisly centrepiece. Its legacy has been strategic overreach and failure for the US: from the rise of Iran as a regional power, the deepening imbroglio of the Afghan war, the advance of Hamas and Hizbullah and threat of implosion in Pakistan - quite apart from the advance of the nationalist left in Latin America and the growing challenge from Russia and China. But at its heart has been the demonstration of American weakness in Iraq, the three trillion-dollar war that helped drive the US economy into crisis.

No wonder the US elite has wanted a complete change of direction and Bush was last week reduced to mumbling his regrets about the "intelligence failure in Iraq". For Obama, the immediate foreign policy tests are clear: if he delivers on Iraq, negotiates in Afghanistan and engages with Iran, he will start to justify the global hopes that have been invested in him. If not, he will lay the ground for a new phase of conflict with the rest of the world.

Rumsfeld, Bush, Implicated in Torture by US Senate

It is official. According to a bipartisan Senate report, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush bear responsibility for the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo and the tossing aside of the Geneva Conventions, which are part of US law.

Read also Many High Bush Officials Violated Anti-Torture Laws.

“2009 – Year for détente, disarmament and non-proliferation”

Moscow 9 December 2008
Comments by Hans Blix, Chairman of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission

Are we in a new Cold War?
It is sometimes said that nothing is as strong as an idea whose time has come. It seems clear that in 2009 time has come for the idea of global forceful measures to tackle the risk of climate change.

Is 2009 also the time for the idea of disarmament? Many will shake their heads and say that there is winter rather than warming in the global political climate. They might point to some “inconvenient truths”.

• In 2007 the world spent some 1.300 billion dollars on military expenses. Nearly half fell on the US ; 4 -5 % each on China , France and the UK , and 3 % on Russia . (Sipri Yearbook for 2008).
• The US is proceeding to deploy parts of its missile shield on the doorsteps of Russia in Poland and the Czech Republic .. Russia may react by stepping up its own missile program and installing missiles in Kaliningrad .
• US armed forces have had joint exercises with Georgian troops and after the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia US naval units that navigate in the Black Sea have delivered emergency equipment to Georgia .
• Russia has given notice of withdrawal from the post Cold War agreement about Conventional Forces in Europe .
• Russia is sending nuclear capable bombers on patrol far away from home and is engaging in joint naval maneuvers with Venezuela in the Caribbean.
• In the US the outgoing Bush administration has advanced proposals for the designing and building of a new standard nuclear weapon. In other nuclear weapons states efforts are, likewise undertaken to modernize their nuclear capacities.
• China is building a blue sea navy and has shot down a satellite of its own, demonstrating a capability for action in space.
  

What has happened to the successful political cooperation, arms control and disarmament that began at the end of the Cold War?

After the end of the Cold War consensus decisions became common in the Security Council that had often earlier been paralyzed by the veto. Important joint decisions and actions became possible. Many peace-keeping operations were agreed to and in 1991 the Council agreed to stop Iraq ’s aggression against Kuwait and authorized the Gulf War. President Bush the elder spoke about ‘a new international order’. There was general euphoria that the UN Charter prohibition of the use of force had been enforced and that, at long last, the system for collective security had worked.

• The nuclear stockpiles in the US and Russia were reduced from levels that were absurdly high and cost too much.
• In 1993 the Convention against Chemical Weapons was concluded after some 20 years of negotiation.
• In 1995 the Non-Proliferation Treaty was extended without any final date.
• In 1996 a Treaty comprehensively prohibiting all nuclear weapons tests was adopted.
  

Détente peters out. US reliance on military superiority

• However, while the Warsaw Pact disintegrated and the Russian military power crumbled, the NATO alliance survived and expanded. The US became the sole military superpower determined never to lose that position.
• The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that had been signed by the Clinton administration in 1996 was rejected by the US Senate and the moratorium on nuclear tests that has been respected by the P 5 was ignored in 1998 by India, Pakistan and -- later – by North Korea.
• The disarmament process stagnated. START II never went into effect and a planned START III Treaty between the US and Russia failed to materialize;
• The Disarmament Conference in Geneva went into coma. For over ten years it has been unable even to adopt a work programme.
  

With the entry of the Bush administration in 2001 and the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in the autumn of 2001 the US moved to a greater reliance on its military supremacy and a corresponding lesser reliance on seeking solutions through the give and take of negotiations, through multilateralism, treaties and disarmament.

“War” was declared on terrorism – not simply coordinated international action by police and intelligence.

While broad international support and UN authorization underpinned the US military intervention that freed Afghanistan from the Taliban government that had hosted the Al Qaeda, many other actions were unilateral and some have seriously eroded the international détente that prevailed in the first half of the 1990s. For instance,

• The US formally withdrew from the bilateral US-Soviet the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.
• In 2002 the US almost single-handedly prevented adding verification mechanisms to the Biological Weapons Convention;
• In 2002 a new US National Security Strategy flatly declared that in the era of missiles and terrorists a right to use armed force in self-defense only in cases where ‘armed attacks’ were occurring or were ‘imminent’ would be insufficient. This was tantamount to giving public notice that the US would not feel restricted by the rules of the UN Charter. The armed attack on Iraq in 2003 was launched without authorization by the Security Council.
• The 2005 Review conference of the Non Proliferation Treaty ended in bitterness and without result. The five nuclear-weapon states parties rejected the criticism that they were not fulfilling their duty under Art. VI of the treaty to negotiate toward nuclear disarmament.
• Recent budgetary allocations in the US have demonstrated a determination to maintain global military supremacy. Although the US Congress has imposed some restraints – for instance not funding the nuclear bunker buster -- it has not until now provided a major break. We could recently watch the turmoil and convulsions before the main financial crisis program of some 700 billion dollars was accepted. At the very same time hardly a murmur was heard when with great speed and smoothness about the same amount – 700 billion dollars – was approved for the military budget.
  

2008 is still a military year
In 2005 I was invited to Stanford University to lecture on the subject “Will there be a new arms race?” My answer was a cautious no. I said that it “takes two to tango and at least two to create an arms race.” At that time I could see only the United States racing itself and – after the threat of Iraq ’s weapons of mass destruction had proved empty – I doubted that the US tax payer would be willing to continue paying huge arms bills unless new threats materialized into significant actions.

Perhaps I was unduly influenced the situation in Europe where countries were spending 1.9% of GDP on military expenses whereas the US was spending some 3.5%. In 2005 European countries no longer felt a need for military means to keep each other at bay, nor did they see Russia as a threat requiring strong territorial defense. In many European countries a main role of armed forces was seen to be participation in UN or other peace keeping operations.

Today, I must regrettably note that

• the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan together with the controversies with the DPRK and Iran still persuade US Congress – and the US taxpayers – to accept a military budget of unprecedented size; and that
• Russia, China and others are joining the military tango. Unlike the US they may be not be significantly motivated by the threats of terrorism and non-proliferation problems.. However, while they cannot aim at catching up with US strength they may want to avoid trailing even further behind;
• the chill in relations with Russia after the war in Georgia has led some in Western Europe to upgrade the importance of territorial defense.
  

Factors that may impact on future levels of military expenses
The US presidential election confirmed public support for a militarily strong US but it also showed some tiredness with military engagements, in particular with the war in Iraq . Whether the US public will support a long military engagement in Afghanistan remains to be seen. In any case it may be doubted that such an engagement will necessitate a new generation of nuclear weapons, new aircraft carriers or extensive preparation for space war. In the absence of new terrorist attacks in the US or on US assets abroad demands for a slimmed military budget might get broad public support. The need to find budgetary resources for the huge financial rescue measures may further support cuts on the military side.

Reliance on the threat or use of military force has not been successful.
It is often argued in the US that more emphasis should be placed on ‘soft power’, meaning diplomacy, economy, culture, legal system. The other side of this argument is recognition that a strong reliance on the threat or use of military strength – as we have seen in the last eight years – has not been successful but proved horribly expensive in lives and resources.

Iraq was meant to be a quick operation removing an odious dictator, eliminating weapons of mass destruction and introducing democracy and a US friendly regime that would – like Korea , Japan and Germany – be glad to host US forces for an indefinite time. It did not turn out as envisaged. The operation is now in its fifth year and the costs in lives and resources are enormous – for the US and even more for Iraq . Contrary to faulty intelligence there were no weapons of mass destruction; democracy is a hard plant to cultivate and requires more than the removal of a dictator; and the continued presence of some US troops is meeting with Iraqi reservations.

The Israeli armed action in Lebanon started as a justifiable retaliation against Hezbollah incursions into Israel and hostage taking. The US encouraged development of the action into an all out military effort to eliminate Hezbollah in Lebanon proved a failure. Eventually the UN had to be called in to guard a fragile peace.

In the case of the small and destitute DPRK it must have been realized early that the huge US military power could not be used to destroy the nuclear programs. Theoretically, the reprocessing plant and other nuclear installations in Nyong Byon could be bombed. However, the risks of North Korean retaliation practically precluded military action.. With many million inhabitants Seoul lies within artillery range from North Korea .

Several years were lost before diplomatic negotiations in the shape of the six power talks were started in Beijing and these years were used by the DPRK to produce plutonium for several more nuclear bombs. Some of the economic pressures exerted by the US and others may have had an effect. Others may simply have made the DPRK intransigent.

It will be of the greatest importance for détente in North East Asia that the talks in Beijing lead to an acceptable result. A further development of North Korean nuclear weapons could have scary domino effects in the region. The cooperation between the big powers is also in itself a useful exercise for them to adjust to each other in order to produce a common position that will be more effective than separate individual positions.

On the whole it would seem that carrots more than sticks have provided leverage. Deliveries of oil and rice to the impoverished country have been and remain important parts. Perhaps promises of diplomatic relations with the US and Japan and guarantees against any attacks provide the best leverage to bring the ostracized regime to abandon its nuclear program.

In the case of Libya it has clearly been talks and promises of an end to isolation that persuaded Mr. Khaddaffi to scrap his nuclear weapons program. He was rewarded by a lifting of sanctions and opening of economic relations and the social and diplomatic ostracism was ended by a procession of Western visitors: Mr. Blair, Mr. Chirac, Mr. Sarkozy and Ms. Rice.

In the case of Iran , there has been no lack of military threats from the US . Again and again it has been declared that ‘all options are on the table’ and several US air craft carriers have been stationed with their ready cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf . It seems that these threats have only strengthened the hardliners in Iran and rallied public opinion in national support of the government. Until now the US – and, indeed, the Security Council -- has taken the stand that direct talks with Iran can only take place when Iran has agreed to suspend its program for the enrichment of uranium. It is not surprising that Iran has proved unwilling. Who gives away the strongest card before the game?

If, contrary to Iran ’s denials, the reason for the enrichment program should be to shorten the distance to a nuclear weapons option one must examine whether the importance of the option can be eliminated. In many cases the incentive to acquire nuclear weapons comes from a perceived compelling need for security or a wish to be recognized. During the 1980s, when Saddam Hussein developed a nuclear program aiming at weapons, Iran may well have felt a need to get closer to the option. Today, none of Iran ’s neighbours would pose a nuclear threat to Iran if Iran stayed away from enrichment.. Only the US might be perceived as such a threat.

Similarly, the isolation of Iran as part of ‘the axis of evil’ is chiefly inspired and pursued by the US . Against this background it might well be that direct talks with Iran and a US offer of guarantees against armed attack and against subversive actions and offer of diplomatic relations would prove more persuasive than military threats. As long as such chips have not been put on the table it is hard to claim that the diplomatic means have been exhausted.

Are there potential conflicts that justify the enormous current armaments?
Wars between nations used most often to be about borders and land. There are certainly still some conflicts of this kind, but hardly between the major military powers. In Europe, the European Union was created to forge a co-operation so close as to rule out armed conflicts. No one can imagine a war between the US and Mexico today and armed conflicts also seem unlikely between states on the South American continent.

Wars of national liberation were numerous in the first decades after World War II, but these conflicts are largely a thing of the past. After the end of the Cold War it is also hard to imagine any further conflicts based on ideology or religion. There will be no wars of civilizations.

There may be more armed conflicts in Africa, where borders were often drawn without regard to tribal and other relevant conditions. We can also not exclude the risk of more armed conflicts in the Middle East, and of civil wars in various places. However, with the Cold War over it is hard to imagine that such conflicts in Africa or the Middle East could cause armed conflicts between major military powers. Admittedly, part of the reason would lie in the existing US military superiority. However, even with a greater balance in the military sphere it is hard to believe that they would allow themselves to be drawn into a major direct military confrontations. Even during the Cold War they did not do that.

Many will suggest that competition about oil, gas and raw materials will lead to armed conflicts. It is not difficult to see that various states seek to establish close relations with countries that have rich resources of oil and gas – Arab states and Iran in the Middle East, Libya and Algeria in North Africa , Sudan, Angola, Nigeria in black Africa, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in Central Asia. There is evidently a competition to have access to energy sources and to safeguard means and routes of transport, like pipelines and sea routes. However, is it not most likely that competition about access to oil will play out in price increases rather than in armed conflicts?

I am left with the question whether the huge military apparatus that has been retained and developed by the US and the sizeable military machines that are now being strengthened in Russia, China, India and elsewhere, are really meaningful. Some will undoubtedly find the question naïve. However, unless there are important terrorist actions or developments that make China and Russia look like threatening vital Western interests or that make the West look like threatening vital Russian or Chinese interests, the climate should be favourable for significant reductions in military budgets, for arms control and disarmament.

However, I believe decisive efforts to create a new détente are needed for such a revival. With new leadership in the US and several other big powers détente should be possible. Let me make some comments regarding measures to foster détente and then turn to measures of disarmament.

Measures for détente
I begin with the question of expansion of NATO. Today it concerns Georgia and Ukraine. However, Senator Lugar, who was the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged that the Alliance should be open also Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and Mr. McCain proposed that it should be open to all democratic states and that a League of Democratic states should be established.

I believe these efforts are misdirected. Some of the independent states that were earlier part of the Soviet Union might well want NATO protection. They have the right to join any security arrangement that is open to them. However, before exercising a right they have, states and alliances as well as people assess what the consequences may be – whether it is wise. It is realistic to assume that the Russian government and Russian public opinion would view further NATO presences on Russia ’s doorsteps as a Western policy of encircling Russia . Stronger nationalism, more defense spending and more tension might well be the result. This seems to be well understood in several major European states that I think wisely aim at closer economic ties – but not military ties—with the states in question.

I should add that there are also things that in my view Russia as the big power could do to promote détente, in particular, to pursue the policy of the good neighbor. Here, as in so many other situations, the use of carrots may lead to better results than the waving of sticks. Making it clear that Russia has no wishes or intentions to seek the reintegration of any of its neighbors would go a long way to restore détente and counter suspicions of revanchism. It seems to me that the excellent Russian relations with Finland could be a good model.

The proposal advanced by Senator McCain for a League of Democracies may have appealed to some in the US who are particularly negative to the UN and would wish to circumvent possible vetoes by Russia or China in the Security Council and get a stamp of international legitimacy for measures that would not be approved. Their anger is somewhat misplaced. A large number of decisions are, in fact, taken by consensus in the Security Council. Russia and China have not be alone in sometimes doubting the wisdom of proposed far-reaching sanctions.

Turning to the plans to deploy parts of the US missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, I note that the Russian leaders have not claimed that the links will deprive Russia of a second strike capability. However, they undoubtedly feel that these measures on their doorsteps are provocative and suspect that a further development of the installations could have substantial security implications. Regardless of what they say it should not be difficult for US military strategists to understand such reactions.

The military gains of these measures hardly seem to stand in any proportion to the political damage they do. If, as is asserted, the measures aim only to protect against missiles from rogue states or terrorists, it would seem rational that other states – including Russia and China – be invited to join in a common defense effort. Mr. Obama seems to have generally supported the missile shield if it can be shown to work. This might be a good reason to shelve the measures. Both Russia and the US will need to move cautiously to avoid loss of face on either side. Big powers should avoid challenging each other.

For continued détente with China the new US leadership will need to act in such a way as to minimize the concern in Beijing over the nuclear cooperation agreement that has been made by the Bush administration with India and that will increase India’s capability to make nuclear weapons and is designed to draw India in a closer strategic cooperation with the US. The agreement allows India inter alia to import uranium fuel for power reactors and thereby enables the country, if it so chooses, to enrich its indigenous uranium to bomb grade level.

A verified cut-off agreement could help to undo some of the suspicions that might arise. The five nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT appear already to have stopped producing fissile material for weapons as they have more than they need. However, with the adherence of all to a verified cut off agreement, Pakistan, India and China would be able to feel confident that none of them is increasing the stocks of bombs and bomb grade material. Without such an agreement there would be no confidence but a risk of an arms race.

Arms control and disarmament
In the US presidential campaign Mr. Obama certainly sought support by reminding the voters of his opposition to the war in Iraq war and of his readiness to talk to adversaries. However, on many issues he presented a centrist position. Not surprisingly, he rejected any idea of unilateral US disarmament and spoke in favour of an orderly exit from Iraq .

When you carefully study Mr. Obama’s positions you cannot avoid the impression that although he is not a dove he is inclined to listen to adversaries, to understand them and, if possible, solve controversies by negotiation. You also get the impression that he strongly and genuinely favours arms control and disarmament.

If steps are taken in 2009 that begin to lead to détente on significant issues – notably the missile shield and further NATO expansion – the outlook for progress on arms control and disarmament will also brighten in 2009.

Several issues are burning. The START 1 agreement between the US and Russia will expire at the end of next year unless agreement is reached on a prolongation. Without a prolongation of this agreement all rules concerning mutual inspection and verification between the two states will lapse. Another instrument requiring urgent care is the comprehensive agreement on Conventional Forces in Europe . Understandably dissatisfied that it has not been brought up to date Russia has given notice of withdrawal. It needs updating and it is absurd that it has not happened earlier.

Mr. Obama is on record as fully supporting the dramatic appeal by the former US Secretaries of State, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of Defence, William Perry and the former Senator Sam Nunn. It urges the US to take the initiative with Russia and other nuclear weapon states to seek the elimination of nuclear weapons and to begin moving to that goal by seeking a number of important arms control and disarmament measures.

While hawks in the US do not wish to take this initiative seriously it has very broad support among experts in security and foreign affairs. Non-governmental organizations, international disarmament groups such as ours and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission that I headed (report in www.wmdcommission.org) and think tanks also strongly advocate this proposal from inside the US . Campaigning should accelerate in 2009.

The accelerating interdependence of states – including the big powers – lead them to cooperate to preserve the environment, to prevent the spread of diseases, to maintain and restore financial and economic equilibrium, to prevent terrorism and proliferation. The Cold War is over. There are no substantive controversies of significance. No reasons to further delay building an international society based on cooperative security.

Mr. Obama is on record specifically to support that the US Senate should review the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and ratify this agreement that it rejected over ten years ago. No other measure could send a stronger signal that the disarmament process has restarted.

I shall not review the many other measures that my Commission, the American elder statesmen and many others have recommended. One that interestingly had the support of Mr. McCain was the withdrawal of NATO nuclear weapons from Europe . They are left-overs from the Cold War. If matched by a Russian withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons further into Russia the separate measurers would contribute to restore détente.

A measure of considerable importance that I have mentioned would be the negotiation of a verified agreement to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons -- enriched uranium and plutonium (FMCT). Such an agreement has been on the drafting board – but not the negotiation table – for very long. It would close the tap for more nuclear weapons material. Together with reductions in existing warheads and stocks of nuclear material it would gradually reduce the world’s supply of nuclear explosives.

A relatively simple measure that would allow us to sleep better would be an agreement to take nuclear war heads off what is called ‘hair trigger alert’. It would reduce the risk of releases by accident or misunderstandings. With many thousands of nuclear weapons – by far most of the in the US and Russia – there would be some comfort to know that they are not ready for immediate firing.

Arrangements will further need to be reached not only to strengthen IAEA safeguards through a general adoption of the so called Additional Protocol but also to strengthen the controls of the use, transport and trade in radioactive materials. We must reduce the risk that such material may come to be used in ‘dirty bombs’, i.e. bombs that do not explode but spread their material and cause contamination and panic.

Lastly I must mention that in a world that will have many more nuclear power reactors than the some 450 that we now have the incentive to build plants for production of nuclear fuel also needs to be reduced. A plant built to enrich uranium to fuel grade – less than 5 % -- is also capable of enriching to the grade needed for weapons. It will not be possible to establish an international licensing system for such plants. However, incentives can be created for states with few power reactors to forego fuel cycle installations of their own. There is a good starting point: it is not economic to build enrichment plants for small nuclear power programs.

The EU's blind eye to Israel

By
David Morrison, The Electronic Intifada, 10 December 2008


The EU continues to upgrade it relations with Israel despite the latter's illegal occupation of the territory of several countries. (Rami Swidan/MaanImages)

On 1 September 2008, the European Union decided that meetings with Russia about a new partnership agreement would be postponed until the latter ended its military occupation of Georgia. In contrast, on 16 June 2008 the 27-member EU decided to "upgrade" its relations with Israel. This has now been put into effect by a decision of the EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels on 8 December.

Was this in recognition of Israeli adherence to previous agreements with the EU, or progress in the peace process with the Palestinians? On the contrary, by the EU's very own standards it appears to have been a reward for Israel's military occupation of the territory of several countries, and gross violations of human rights and international law, as well as specific commitments made to the EU. If the conditions applied to Russia today were applied to Israel, the EU would immediately terminate its partnership agreements with Israel.

In 2004, Israel became an EU partner within the framework of the EU's European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), which encompasses both the EU's Mediterranean and eastern European neighbors. Under the ENP, according to the policy stated on its Web site, the EU's relations with other states are "a privileged relationship, building upon a mutual commitment to common values (democracy and human rights, rule of law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable development)." Moreover, the ENP offers "a deeper political relationship and economic integration." However, this is not unconditional, as "the level of ambition of the relationship will depend on the extent to which these values are shared."

Yet, despite Israel's manifest failure to meet its obligations under earlier agreements with the EU, Israel was in the first group of seven states with which the EU agreed ENP "action plans" in December 2004. The "action plan" was based on a 2004 European Commission report which openly states that Israel has systematically discriminated against its Palestinian minority throughout its existence and that human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, are a continuous feature of Israel's actions in the occupied territories. One might have thought that a state which indulged in "religious discrimination" and "extrajudicial killings" would be deemed unfit by the EU for an ENP relationship built on common values. However, the EU turned a blind eye to these violations and granted Israel an ENP partnership.

In April 2008, the European Commission, the EU's secretariat, published a progress report on Israel's implementation. It concluded that there had been "little concrete progress" on the issues cited in the 2004 action plan. Yet, just months after it reported this lack of "concrete progress," the EU took its decision to further "upgrade" its relations with Israel.

The Barcelona Declaration
The EU's disregard of Israel's violations has a long pedigree. Israel became a partner of the EU in November 1995 with the signing of the Barcelona Declaration, which established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. This Partnership encompassed 15 EU states plus 11 states in the Mediterranean region (Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey) and the Palestinian Authority. Signatories to the Barcelona Declaration agreed to behave according to international norms in their relations with other states, promising to "act in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other obligations under international law."

The signatories also entered into a number of specific obligations in respect of their "partners" in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. This included:

(1) Refrain, in accordance with the rules of international law, from any direct or indirect intervention in the internal affairs of another partner;

(2) Respect the territorial integrity and unity of each of the other partners;

(3) Settle their disputes by peaceful means, call upon all participants to renounce recourse to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another participant, including the acquisition of territory by force, and reaffirm the right to fully exercise sovereignty by legitimate means in accordance with the UN Charter and international law.
In 1995, when Israel signed the Barcelona Declaration and undertook to abide by these principles, it was occupying southern Lebanon and had annexed the Syrian Golan Heights. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that Israel was refraining from intervention in the internal affairs of its Lebanese and Syrian partners, or respecting their territorial integrity, or settling disputes with them by peaceful means. Manifestly, when it signed the Barcelona Declaration, Israel was openly contravening the agreement's three core obligations.

At that time, Israel was also in breach of the general obligation in the Barcelona Declaration to "act in accordance with the United Nations Charter." As an occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza, it remains in violation of Articles 2.4 of the UN Charter. It is also in violation of the requirement in Article 25 that UN member states "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council." Indeed, by 1995, Israel was in violation of some 25 Security Council resolutions requiring action by it and it alone. These included demands to: cease the building of Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA).

Double standards
The EU's double standards do not only target Russia. In the Barcelona Declaration, Israel also agreed to pursue "a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems." In addition, it agreed to work to "prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as excessive accumulation of conventional arms."

Israel is the only state in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons. So, its disarmament of these weapons is a necessary, and probably a sufficient, condition for bringing about a "Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction," as required by the Barcelona Declaration. However, progress in bringing this about has been noticeable by its absence since Israel signed up to "pursue" this objective in 1995.

There has been no progress either on the Security Council's Resolution 487 that calls upon "Israel [to] urgently ... place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards." Passed on 19 June 1981, Israel has yet to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection, nor is there any noticeable pressure from the EU to make it do so, let alone disarm in order to produce a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, which parties to the Barcelona Declaration are supposed to "pursue."

By contrast, Iran's nuclear facilities, including its uranium enrichment facilities, are open to IAEA inspection. It is worth noting that, after extensive inspection in Iran, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or ever had one. By contrast, Israel has possessed nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them for around 40 years. It is estimated that today Israel has around 200 nuclear warheads and various delivery systems, including by submarine-launched missiles. Israel is capable of wiping Iran, and every Arab state, off the map at the touch of a button. Despite the European Neighborhood Policy requirement regarding weapons of mass destruction, the EU is actively pressuring Iran about its nuclear activities, but not Israel.

Rewarding Israel's "collective punishment" of Gaza

In November 1995, Israel signed an Association Agreement with the EU under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Commonly known as the Euro-Med Agreement, it gave Israel privileged access to the EU market from 2000. The Euro-Med Agreement also contains human rights obligations, in particular "respect for human rights and democratic principles." Compliance with these provisions is an "essential element" of the agreement.

Israel has continuously failed to live up to these obligations, the most recent example being its economic strangulation of the Gaza Strip over the past 19 months. John Holmes, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, explained to the Security Council on 26 February 2008 that "the effective Israeli isolation of Gaza is not justified, given Israel's continuing obligations to the people of Gaza. It amounts to collective punishment and is contrary to international humanitarian law."

Moreover, the EU itself has described the economic strangulation of Gaza as "collective punishment." The EU's External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner stated on 21 January 2008 that "I am against this collective punishment of the people of Gaza. I urge the Israeli authorities to restart fuel supplies and open the crossings for the passage of humanitarian and commercial supplies."

So, the UN and the EU are of the firm opinion that, by its economic strangulation of Gaza, Israel has violated international humanitarian law. Moreover, this policy of collective punishment has been openly acknowledged by the Israeli government for at least two years. Famously, when Israel limited commercial shipments of food into Gaza in 2006, Dov Weissglas, an adviser to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, explained that "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger."

In spite of these repeated violations of its human rights obligations, the EU continues to turn a blind eye to Israel's actions. Indeed, there seems to be no violation Israel can commit that will persuade the EU to halt its favorable treatment, let alone downgrade its relations.

David Morrison is a political officer for the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The above is based on "The European Union's Blind Eye: How the EU ignores Israel's failure to fulfill its obligations under EU agreements," which was published by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign in October 2008 and can be downloaded here [PDF].

The 8th Year of Occupation in Afghanistan

The occupation of Afghanistan is entering its eighth year, and yet the situation for the U.S. is getting worse, not better. American casualties are rising. The Taliban is resurgent and newly confident about challenging both U.S. troops and government forces under the command of U.S.-backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

At the same time, segments of the Afghan population that once expressed gratitude toward the U.S. for removing the Taliban from power and took a wait-and-see attitude toward the ongoing U.S. presence are growing increasingly angry.

The reasons are many. First and foremost, the U.S. has increasingly relied on air strikes to suppress the growing influence of the Taliban–to a jaw-dropping extent. U.S. fighters flew only 86 bombing raids in all of 2004; in 2007, the number of air strikes grew to nearly 3,000. The bombing continued to rise in 2008, with 600,000 pounds of bombs dropped on Afghanistan in June and July alone, almost equal to the amount dropped in all of 2006.

While the Taliban has carefully avoided causing harm to civilians in areas under its control and thus succeeded in winning some new bases of support, the U.S. has used its air superiority with a recklessness that undermined what little reserve of good will remained among the Afghan population.

In early November, U.S. air strikes killed 65 civilians in a wedding party–a horrific toll but not unprecedented, as such parties, with their large concentrations of people, have been targets of air strikes in the past.

“The Americans are hitting civilian houses all the time,” exclaimed Mohammad Tawakil Khan, a provincial council member in Baghdis, whose two sons and a grandson were killed along with four others in a U.S. air strike the same week as the wedding party massacre.

“They don’t care, they just say it was a mistake…Afghan officials are only offering their condolences. After some 100 times that they have killed civilians, we have to take revenge, and afterward say our condolences to them.”

Read further Challenging the Myths of the “Good War” by Eric Ruder.