| News Analysis by Khalid Amayreh | Palestinian Information Center, May 4, 2008 |
|
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas feels quite depressed these days, having been unceremoniously told by President Bush that the US administration won’t pressure Israel to halt Jewish settlement expansion nor commit itself to a total Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Some of Abbas’s aides have described his recent visit to Washington as the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” Abbas himself described the visit as “a clear failure.” One Palestinian commentator from Ramallah labeled the visit “ a gigantic and monumental fiasco,” arguing that it amounted to a virtual breakdown of Abbas’s entire strategy of counting on the Bush administration to create a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. According to sources in Amman, Abbas informed Bush that he wouldn’t run for a second term as Chairman of the PA. One source quoted an aide to Abbas as saying that the chairman concluded his meeting with Bush by telling him “you can look for another donkey to preside over the Palestinian Authority.” The PA chairman reportedly asked Bush to declare his support for the creation of a Palestinian state on the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem and also to pressure Israel to put an end to Jewish settlement expansion in the occupied territories, especially East Jerusalem. Abbas, according to aides, was stunned when Bush told him that he couldn’t meet Palestinian demands since that would violate the letter of guarantees he gave former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April, 2004. Bush further argued that any departure from the infamous letter would lead to the downfall of the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government. “President Abbas felt as if he was talking to the wall,” one Palestinian official was quoted as saying. “Both Bush and (US Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice refused to discuss details related to the current peace talks with Israel. We are very depressed.” Rice arrived in Israel-Palestine Saturday evening, 3 May, apparently to save “the peace process” from an imminent danger of collapse. Rice told the Israeli media that the purpose of her visit was to press Defense Minister Ehud Barak to remove some of the roadblocks the Israeli occupation army maintains throughout the West Bank in order to punish, torment and control the estimated 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank. |
Archive for May, 2008
Abbas’s moment of truth
May 5, 2008How under-the-gun Iran plays it cool
May 5, 2008Asia Times, May 2, 2008
By Pepe Escobar
More than two years ago, Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker how President George W Bush was considering strategic nuclear strikes against Iran. Ever since, a campaign to demonize that country has proceeded in a relentless, Terminator-like way, applying the same techniques and semantic contortions that were so familiar in the period before the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq.
The campaign’s greatest hits are widely known: “The ayatollahs” are building a Shi’ite nuclear bomb; Iranian weapons are killing American soldiers in Iraq; Iranian gunboats are provoking US warships in the Persian Gulf. Iran, in short, is the new al-Qaeda, a terror state aimed at the heart of the United States. It’s idle to expect the American mainstream media to offer any tools that might put this orchestrated blitzkrieg in context.
Here are just a few recent instances of the ongoing campaign: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists that Iran “is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons”. Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action” when it comes to Iran. In tandem with US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus, Mullen denounces Iran’s “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq, although he claims to harbor “no expectations” of an attack on Iran “in the immediate future” and even admits he has “no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership [of Iran] is involved”.
But keep in mind one thing the Great Saddam take-out of 2003 proved: that a “smoking gun” is, in the end, irrelevant. And this week, the US is ominously floating a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf.
But what of Iran itself under the blizzard of charges and threats? What to make of it? What does the world look like from Tehran? Here are five ways to think about Iran under the gun and to better decode the Iranian chessboard.
Musharraf Aides Aim to Block Restoration of Judges
May 5, 2008Garowe Online, May 4, 2008
Aides to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf are trying to block a parliamentary resolution to reinstate judges who were removed from their posts during a six-week emergency rule last November.
Former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, reached an agreement to reinstate the judges with co-chair of the Pakistan Peoples Party ( PPP ), Asif Ali Zardari, during talks in Dubai last week.
The coalition will reinstate the judges by tendering a resolution in parliament, Sharif said on Friday. All the deposed judges would be restored by May 12, Sharif said.
Musharraf removed some 60 senior judges from their posts after declaring emergency rule last November. The president wanted to prevent the Supreme Court from challenging the legality of his re-election.
The reinstatement of the judges will probably lead to a challenge to Musharraf’s rule and could eventually remove him from the presidency.
Clinton: I would still ‘obliterate’ Iran
May 5, 2008Democratic hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton says she has no regrets over her threats to ‘totally obliterate’ Iran if Israel is hit with a nuclear bomb.
“Why would I have any regrets?” Senator Clinton said Saturday in response to ABC News’ question as to whether she had any regrets about threatening Tehran.
“I am asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for,” the Democratic hopeful continued.
The former first lady added that she sought to make it ‘very clear’ for Iranian echelons what to expect if they ever draw up a plan for attacking Israel.
“I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing,” Clinton expounded.
Speaking to ABC News on April 22, the 60-year-old Democrat had threatened to attack Iran and ‘totally obliterate’ it if Tehran were to wage war on Israel in the ‘next 10 years’.
Clinton’s remarks stirred up fierce controversy both in the US and around the world.
While the recent US National Intelligence Estimate indicates that Iran’s nuclear program is not diverting into a military one, it is reputed that with her remarks the senator seeks only to influence public opinion ahead of the nominating showdowns in Indiana and North Carolina.
Multinationals make billions in profit out of growing global food crisis
May 5, 2008The Independent, May 4, 2008
Speculators blamed for driving up price of basic foods as 100 million face severe hunger
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Giant agribusinesses are enjoying soaring earnings and profits out of the world food crisis which is driving millions of people towards starvation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. And speculation is helping to drive the prices of basic foodstuffs out of the reach of the hungry.
The prices of wheat, corn and rice have soared over the past year driving the world’s poor – who already spend about 80 per cent of their income on food – into hunger and destitution.
The World Bank says that 100 million more people are facing severe hunger. Yet some of the world’s richest food companies are making record profits. Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543m (£275m) to $1.12bn. Its profits increased from $1.44bn to $2.22bn.
A Brief Exposé of a Fraudulent War
May 4, 2008The Smirking Chimp, May 1, 2008
by R.W. Behan May 1, 2008 – 4:18pm
article tools: email print read more R.W. Behan
The “War on Terror” is a fraud and a façade, a mere label concocted and trumpeted by an Administration known for its signature dishonesty. The label conceals the Bush Administration’s international crimes of unprovoked military aggression—the armed invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, two sovereign nations the Administration meant to attack from its first days in office.[1]
With its pathological lying, secrecy, and brilliant propagandizing the Administration has prevented a compliant mainstream press from communicating fully the realities of the war. But now, as the country chooses a new president, the truth must prevail, to foreclose another catastrophic Administration—candidate McCain says “No surrender!”—and to make certain instead the fraudulent war is terminated with dispatch.
The “War on Terror” was launched in retaliation for 9/11, we were told, to apprehend Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then, justifying a quantum escalation in the war with 935 deliberate lies, the Bush Administration sought “regime change” in Iraq.[2]
These alleged objectives were elements of the façade. Osama bin Laden could have been brought to justice easily and without armed conflict. Regime change in Iraq could have been achieved with equal facility. George Bush rejected both opportunities.
Saddam Hussein, hoping to forestall warfare, yielded a series of increasingly attractive concessions to the Bush Administration, finally offering to leave his country for exile in Egypt. [3],[4] But the Bush Administration was unalterably committed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If “regime change” were to be achieved by Saddam’s voluntary departure, there would be no excuse for proceeding with the attack: the Administration kept the offers from public view—and ignored them all.
The harsh reality of the Middle East conflict
May 4, 2008The Dissident Voice, May 3, 2008
Dan Lieberman
A century old conflict between the state of Israel and stateless Palestinians, many of whom have been dispossessed from lands that created the Israel state, has precipitated a argument: Is it preferable to have two states living side by side or have one state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River that includes Jews and Palestinians without prejudice and with equal rights for all?
Those who propose a single-state do so because they sense the two-state solution is nonviable and those who propose two-states do so because they sense the one-state solution is unacceptable. The argument is doomed to irresolution because Israel has overwhelming military power, faces no countervailing power, doesn’t intend for the Palestinians to have a viable state and won’t approve a single state for all. If Israel intended to allow a viable Palestinian state, would the Israeli government proceed in the continuous construction of West Bank settlements? Would the present Israeli government demand recognition as a Jewish state and then concede to evolve into a multi-ethnic state? The endless debate concerning the shape of a Palestinian state allows Israel to comfortably proceed with its own agenda — seizing most of the West Bank, populating desirable lands with its own citizens, capturing aquifers and reducing the Palestinians to impoverishment.
Israel proceeds with a “we must have all or we will someday have nothing” program, which insinuates Israel will be destroyed unless it destroys all of its antagonists. The Palestinians react with a “if we lose, we lose everything” program, which insinuates they will be destroyed unless they stop Israel. The two antagonists have succeeded in establishing a “no win-no win situation” that affects the security and stability of the world and must be resolved by the world’s institutions. Starting with more salient arguments might provide an approach that turns minds to a solution. If the arguments seem to favor one side it is only because oppression and threat favor one side; the side of the oppressed and the threatened.
United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp
May 4, 2008The London Times, May 4, 2008
Michael Smith
The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.
Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.
However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.
“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province.
They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.
Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran.
Bush admits he approved torture
May 4, 2008The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 2, 2008
Helen Thomas
WASHINGTON — The American people have heard President Bush and his spokespeople say many times that the U.S. government does not engage in torture.
Whether Bush was believed or not is another story — especially in light of the photographic evidence of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. It’s understood that many of the photos are too sadistically graphic to be made public.
Still, the official U.S. denials of torture continued until earlier this month when Bush acknowledged in an interview with ABC-TV that he knew about and approved “enhanced interrogation” of detainees, including “waterboarding” or simulated drowning.
“As a matter of fact,” Bush added, “I told the country we did that. And I told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.”
The president added, “I didn’t have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew.”
“He was the person who ordered the suicide attack — I mean, the 9/11 attacks,” Bush said. “And back then, there was all kind of concern about people saying, ‘Well, the administration is not connecting the dots.’ You might remember those — that period.” Bush said.
Bush also said in the interview that he had been aware of several meetings his national security advisers held to discuss “enhanced interrogation” methods.
Surely he is aware of the U.S. commitment to international treaties barring “cruel and inhumane” treatment of prisoners.
American and Israeli War Crimes: Same Atrocities, Different Responses
May 3, 2008Published on Friday, May 2, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
by Dave Lindorff
In the last few days, both the Israeli military and the US military have fired missiles into homes, in an effort to target what they said were terrorists, in the process killing many innocent civilians.
But what a contrast we see in both the reporting on these events, and in the response within the two countries!
In the Israeli case, the IDF fired a missile into a family home in Gaza, killing a mother and her four young children, who were eating breakfast at the time. The children were aged 6 through 15 months. While the IDF and the Israeli government blamed the tragedy on Hamas, saying it operates in proximity of civilians and is thus responsible for their deaths, an Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, has caqlled for a criminal investigation into the killings, saying that Israel and the IDF have violated internation law by firing the missile in a densely populated area where civilian casualties would be likely. A spokesman for the group, Sarit Michaeli, says that Israeli claims that it is not responsible for such deaths are incorrect, and adds that under international law, “Even if you attack a legitimate military target, the anticipated damage has to be in proportion to the anticipated gain.”
How does such a moral calculus apply to American military policy? The most recent example of US military tactics in this regard came yesterday, when American forces, in clear violation of international law regarding national sovereignty, fired a missile into a house in Somalia (a nation that the US is not at war with), reportedly killing an alleged leader of the Al Qaeda organization in Somalia, Aden Hashi Ayro, but also another nine people — all unidentified. Reports suggest that many of those killed and another seven who were wounded, were innocent civilians who happened to be sleeping in the house in question.
To date, no American human rights group has protested this action as a criminal violation or a violation of international law. No member of Congress has decried the attack.
Peace and Justice Post 