| Al Jazeera, March 12, 2009 |
|||||
Hundreds of Pakistani lawyers and activists have started a anti-government march from the city of Karachi, the main city of Sindh province. Riot police on Thursday arrested dozens of protesters and stopped cars and buses from collecting hundreds of lawyers assembled at the high court ready for the journey to Islamabad. The lawyers, who are calling on Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, to reinstate judges sacked in 2007 by previous president Pervez Musharraf, instead left the high court on foot and started their march with other anti-government protesters. “We’ve started the march to achieve our goal,” Munir A Malik, a former president of the supreme court bar association and a protest organiser, said. The demonstrators are scheduled to arrive in Islamabad, the federal capital, on Monday, where they hope they will join thousands of other anti-government protesters for a rally outside the parliament. “It is a test for the new government, as to whether it will be in a position to give people their democratic rights,” Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Islamabad, said. “Across the country there has been a heavy clampdown by the security agencies in spite of the fact that the Pakistani prime minister said that there would no problem with the march as long as it is peaceful.” Arrests made The 1,500km-long march comes in spite of a ban on demonstrations in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh, where thousands of troops have been deployed. Police across the country on Wednesday rounded up about 300 people, including members of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan’s main opposition party. Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the PML-N and a former prime minister, had called on Wednesday for people to “change the destiny of Pakistan” by attending the march. The PML-N quit the cabinet last year to protest against the new civilians government’s failure to honour a deadline to reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry, the former supreme court justice, and other judges sacked by Musharraf. Sharif disqualified In February, Pakistan’s supreme court disqualified Sharif from contesting elections, fuelling the bitter power struggle between the PML-N leader and Zardari, who briefly allied in the campaign to force Musharraf from the presidency.
The ruling forced Sharif’s party out of power in Punjab, placing the province under central government control. But in an apparent concession to Sharif, Yousaf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister, said on Wednesday that the government wanted central rule over the province to end. Whichever party has the sufficient mandate to form the provincial government should take over, he said. The PML-N has the most support in Punjab, although it does not have a clear majority to run the provincial government alone. Raja Assad Hameed, the Nation newspaper, said that many of the protesters are looking for the central government to relinquish its control over the province. “They are coming to Islamabad to tell Zardari that the mandate in Punjab, the powerhouse of Pakistani politics, should be given back to the legitimate representatives of the people and that the governor’s rule should be lifted from Punjab,” he said. “The situation could go anywhere from here; the government has lost its credibility and popularity very prematurely.” The growing divide between the government and the opposition has increased concerns over the long-term stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan, a major US ally in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. |
Archive for March, 2009
Pakistan protesters begin march
March 12, 2009Ron Paul: Imagine an Occupied America
March 11, 2009By Ron Paul | Daily Paul, March 10, 2009
Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”
Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.
Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.
Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.
According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.
Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today.
US officials: Iran does not have key nuclear material
March 11, 2009SFGate, Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium — which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred.
Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel’s top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons.
The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015.
Maples said the United States and Israel are interpreting the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions.
“The Israelis are far more concerned about it,” Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The status of Iran’s nuclear program has been the subject of conflicting public statements by top military and intelligence officials recently in the wake of U.N. revelations that Iran has more low-enriched uranium than previously thought.
Earlier this month, Defense Sec. Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm.. Mike Mullen differed over Iran’s capability. While Mullen said Iran has sufficient fission material for a bomb, Gates insisted “they’re not close to a weapon at this point.”
Maples also told the committee that insurgent violence in Afghanistan has gotten more ferocious in the last year even as violence in Iraq declined.
The use of roadside bombs in Afghanistan more than doubled in 2008 over the previous year, and attacks overall increased by 55 percent from 2007 to 2008. Suicide bombings increased by 21 percent and small-arms attacks increased by 33 percent.
Some of these trends reflect more aggressive military operations in Taliban strongholds by U.S. and other NATO forces, Maples said.
Maples said the Somali extremist group al-Shabaab is poised to formally merge with al-Qaida, expanding the terrorist franchise in East Africa. An analysis of the propaganda released by both groups recently highlights their ideological similarities, suggesting a merger is forthcoming, Maples said.
Al-Shabaab conducts almost daily attacks in Somalia. A merger would strengthen al-Qaida’s foothold in East Africa.
The two groups have long been suspected of working together, but they have not yet announced a formal alliance. Al-Qaida has operations in north Africa, Yemen and Iraq.
Blair said National Security Agency is poised to take a lead role in protecting U.S. computer networks from cyber attacks. The NSA — tarnished in the public view by its role in the Bush-era “warrantless wiretapping” program — now conducts clandestine computer attacks on U.S. adversaries, and could use those skills to protect U.S. networks from similar attacks.
He said it must be done under strict oversight to make sure it is not gathering private American information that violates privacy and civil liberties laws.
Blair also stood firm behind former U.S. Ambassador Charles Freeman, his pick for a top analysis job, despite strong congressional criticism.
Freeman, who was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war, had harshly criticized the Israeli government, the Iraq war and the war on terrorism in general.
A policy council Freeman headed also has been criticized for some ties to foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia and China. Blair’s inspector general is investigating those ties while Freeman works with ethics advisers to scrub his personal finances for potential conflicts of interest.
Blair has tapped Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council, which analyzes critical national security issues drawing from all U.S. intelligence agencies. The National Intelligence Estimates are meant to be unvarnished and apolitical.
Blair said Freeman’s strong opinions are exactly why he wants him to be chairman of the council.
“I think I can do a better job if I am getting strong analytical viewpoints than if I am getting pre-cooked pablum,” Blair said.
The seven Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sent a letter to Blair Monday expressing concerns about Freeman’s suitability for the job. They joined more than a dozen members of the House who over the last two weeks have sent similar letters and requested the IG investigation.
Pakistan cracks down on eve of “long march”
March 11, 2009Reuters, Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:58am EDT
By Kamran Haider
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Authorities in two Pakistani provinces banned protests and police began rounding up activists on Wednesday, officials said, a day before a rally by lawyers that could challenge the year-old government.
Anti-government lawyers and opposition parties plan to launch a cross-country protest motor convoy, known as a long march, on Thursday.
“It has been done to maintain law and order, so from now there’s a ban on all sorts of processions, protests and congregations for one month,” Farhan Aziz Khawaja, a senior interior department official in Punjab province, told Reuters.
Sindh province banned protests for 15 days, a top official there said.
Despite the bans, protesters vowed to press ahead with their plans peacefully. They are pushing for the reappointment of a former Supreme Court chief justice who then army chief and president Pervez Musharraf dismissed in 2007.
The lawyers, in league with opposition parties which can mobilize their supporters, pose a significant challenge to President Asif Ali Zardari, who has refused to reappoint the former chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry.
The protesters’ convoy of cars and buses is due to set off on Thursday in the southern provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan and reach Punjab on Friday. They aim to begin a sit-in outside parliament in the capital, Islamabad, on Monday.
The protest is one more problem for a civilian government led by Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) that took power a year ago and is struggling with economic and security crises.
It comes as the nuclear-armed U.S. ally’s two main parties are at loggerheads over a Supreme Court ruling last month that effectively barred former prime minister and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif and his brother, Shahbaz, from contesting elections.
Nawaz Sharif says Zardari was behind the ruling and he has thrown his support behind the protest.
Political worry has weighed on financial markets in recent days, although stocks were flat on Wednesday.
DEFIANT
Tariq Mehmud, a senior lawyer and protest organizer, said the ban on protests would not affect their plans.
“It seems the government is determined to stop the long march … Our plan is in tact. Let’s see what happens,” he said.
Mehmud said police had turned up at his home in Islamabad before dawn aiming to detain him but he managed to slip away. Another protest organizer, Aitzaz Ahsan, said police had come to his home but he was in hiding.
Raja Zafar-ul-Haq, chairman of Sharif’s party, said police had been put under house arrest at his Islamabad home.
“I’m told I have been detained under the maintenance of public order law,” he told Reuters by telephone.
Siddiq-ul-Farooq, a spokesman for Sharif’s party, said scores of their workers had been detained across Punjab.
“We will remain peaceful and will peacefully defy the ban on the long march,” Farooq said.
Sharif was in North West Frontier Province, where he was due to address a rally, while Shahbaz Sharif was due to address a rally in Punjab, party officials said.
Authorities routinely detain opposition leaders and activists in an effort to disrupt protests. Detainees are freed after tension eases.
The government has threatened to prosecute him for sedition if violence erupts during the protest. It has also said the rally will not be allowed into central Islamabad but organizers can use open ground on the city’s outskirts.
Police were seen preparing shipping containers, which are used to block roads, in the city of Rawalpindi, adjacent to Islamabad, witnesses said.
(Additional reporting by Zeeshan Haider; Writing by Robert Birsel)
<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
See also: Can the Ides of March eliminate Zardocracy: What’s in store for the PPP in Pakistan?
UN Condemns Britain’s Role in Torture Cases
March 11, 2009Calls for investigation over Government’s involvement in US rendition programme
Britain was condemned last night for its complicity in the American programme of rendition and alleged torture of hundreds of terror suspects, in a highly critical United Nations report.
Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, returned to the UK after being held captive in the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for four years (PA)The UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin said the US was only able to create its system for moving terror suspects around foreign jails because of the co-operation of allies, naming the UK alongside Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Canada and Georgia.The report led to a clamour of calls for a full and independent investigation into the Government’s involvement in the detention and movement of suspects since the start of the “war on terror” eight years ago.
Mr Scheinin’s findings follow accusations made by British resident Binyam Mohamed, who claims to have evidence of MI5 telegrams sent to the CIA, which he says were used to direct his alleged torture during his 18-month detention in Morocco, before he was sent to the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. Some individuals faced “prolonged and secret detention” and practices which breached bans on torture and other forms of ill treatment, the report says.
“Evidence proves that Australian, British and US intelligence personnel have themselves interviewed detainees who were held incommunicado by the Pakistani secret intelligence service … where they were being tortured,” the report concludes. “UK intelligence personnel, for instance, conducted or witnessed just over 2,000 interviews in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.”
Mr Scheinin says countries are “responsible” if they help other states carry out human rights violations.
“Grave human rights violations by states such as torture, enforced disappearances or arbitrary detention should place serious constraints on policies of co-operation by states, including by their intelligence agencies, with states that are known to violate human rights,” he said. “The prohibition against torture is an absolute and peremptory norm of international law. States must not aid or assist in the commission of acts of torture … including by relying on intelligence information obtained through torture,”
The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Ed Davey, called on the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, to make a decision now on whether to ask the police to investigate Mr Mohamed’s allegations. He added: “It is shameful that we now seem to be reliant on outside organisations to uphold the rule of law in our own country.”
The Conservative national security spokeswoman, Baroness Neville-Jones of Hutton Roof, said: “Constant allegations which are not answered are damaging the good name of this country and undermining the credibility of the Government’s position that it neither practises nor condones torture.”
Along with Romania, Poland, Germany and Italy, Britain is accused of using laws designed to protect national security to “conceal illegal acts from oversight bodies or judicial authorities, or to protect itself from criticism, embarrassment and – most importantly – liability”.
The Foreign Office said: “We unreservedly condemn any practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’ to torture. We have always condemned torture. The UK Government, including its intelligence and security agencies, never uses torture for any purpose, including obtaining information. Nor would we instigate action by others to do so.”
Can Congress Save Obama from Afghan Quagmire?
March 11, 2009by Robert Naiman | CommonDreams.org, March 10, 2009
A progressive Presidency is a terrible thing to waste. It only comes around once every so often. Wouldn’t it be a shame if Americans’ hopes for the Obama Administration were squandered in Afghanistan?
Members of Congress who want the Obama Administration to succeed won’t do it any favors by keeping silent about the proposed military escalation in Afghanistan. The actions of the Obama Administration so far clearly indicate that they can move in response to pressure: both good pressure and bad pressure. If there is only bad pressure, it’s more than likely that policy will move in a bad direction. In announcing an increase in U.S. troops before his Afghanistan review was complete, Obama partially acceded to pressure from the military. If we don’t want the military to have carte blanche, there needs to be counterpressure.
Some Members of Congress are starting to speak up. Rep. Murtha recently said he’s uncomfortable with Obama’s decision to increase the number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly defined, AP reports. Sen. Nelson is calling for clear benchmarks to measure progress in Afghanistan, and said he may try to add benchmarks to the upcoming war supplemental bill this spring, CQ Today reports.
But these individual expressions of discomfort will likely not be enough to stop the slide towards greater and greater military escalation.
Eight Members of Congress (Walter Jones, Neil Abercrombie, Roscoe Bartlett, Steve Kagen, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ed Whitfield, and Lynn Woolsey) have initiated a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider his support for military escalation. The letter argues that military escalation may well be counterproductive towards the goal of creating a stable government that can control Afghanistan, noting that a recent Carnegie Endowment study concluded that “the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency’s momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.” [You can find the letter – and ask your Representative to sign it – here.]
There is political space for challenging the logic of escalation.
Forty-two percent of Americans think troops in Afghanistan should be increased, up from 34 percent in January, CBS News reports, no doubt reflecting the largely uncritical press treatment that the proposal for military escalation has received. But the same CBS News/New York Times poll still found that more people thought that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be decreased (24%) or kept the same (23%) – i.e. 47% thought troop levels should be decreased or stay the same, rather than increased.
If we want the US government to seriously pursue diplomacy, there must be serious counterpressure against sending more troops without end. If you want recycling, you have to discourage the establishment of new landfills. If you want economic development and human rights to be at the center of trade policy, you have to jam up corporate trade deals. If you want diplomacy, there has to be a significant political pushback to military escalation.
America wants Nato boost in Afghanistan
March 11, 2009| Al Jazeera, March 10, 2009 | |||
Joe Biden, the US vice- president, has appealed to Nato to help Washington tackle worsening security in Afghanistan, saying the alliance was struggling to deal with a threat to the West as a whole. Addressing representatives of the military alliance in Brussels on Tuesday, Biden said: “The deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat not just to the United States but to every single nation round this table. “We are not now winning the war, but the war is far from lost.” Biden also said talking with Taliban moderates in Afghanistan was a tactic “worth exploring”. Taliban advances Western powers are increasingly concerned not only by the Taliban’s advances in Afghanistan but also by its growing influence in Pakistan, where Muslim fighters have disrupted Nato’s supply convoys to Afghanistan and are securing concessions from the government in Islamabad. Biden said Barack Obama, the US president, wanted to consult with allies on a strategy review for the region and that Washington would “expect everyone to keep whatever commitments were made in arriving at that joint strategy”. The vice-president said the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US and the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 were planned “from the very same mountains” along the Afghan-Pakistan border. He said: “This is not a US-centric view. A terrorist attack in Europe is viewed as an attack on us.” Regarding discussions with Taliban moderates, Biden said: “It’s worth exploring. The idea of what concessions would be made is well beyond the scope of my being able to answer. “I do think it’s worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state.” Earlier on Tuesday, Biden held talks with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato secretary- general. De Hoop Scheffer, calling on Nato to boost efforts before Afghan elections due in August, said: “It is important that this alliance delivers in the short-term.” Obama announcement Last month, Obama approved the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan as Washington and other Nato nations try to stabilise the country. There are currently about 70,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, of which the US supplies 38,000. Obama has said he will make announcements about US policy on Afghanistan before a Nato summit in France in April. The policy review is expected to stress the need for better co-ordination of the international effort and enhanced efforts in areas like police training, governance and development as well as a regional approach involving Afghanistan’s neighbours. |
Solidarity convoy gets to Gaza Strip
March 10, 2009Monday 09 March 2009

THE Viva Palestina solidarity convoy finally crossed into Gaza on Monday.
After a tense day in which the planned crossing into Gaza was called off by organisers due to wrangling with Egyptian officials, the convoy began entering the besieged territory via the Rafah crossing at 9am local time.
The Viva Palestina volunteer crews brought the vehicles – which include a British fire engine, 12 ambulances and scores of lorries loaded with medical supplies, food, toys and clothes -from London to the occupied territory via a 9,000-mile route that passed through France, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.
But, with just 30 miles standing between the solidarity activists and the Rafah crossing, the convoy was attacked on Sunday night in the Egyptian town of El Arish by unidentified youths hurling stones, bricks and bottles.
Three voluteers were injured, with two of them treated in hospital for their injuries, and several vehicles were daubed with anti-Hamas graffiti.
Respect MP George Galloway was adamant that the thuggery would not detract from the convoy’s message “of hope and friendship.”
Mr Galloway, who headed the convoy, said: “Our convoy, which set out from London on St Valentine’s Day with 100 vehicles, has grown to almost 250 and the mile-long caravan stretched for more than three miles as more vehicles joined us.
“We’ll leave behind more than £1 million in Gaza, but, more than that, the legacy will be a symbolic one of hope and friendship.”
Mr Galloway emphasised that the “message of the convoy is that the majority of British people abhor the Israeli attacks on the densest packed piece of earth on the planet and the blocking of essential supplies to the Palestinian people in Gaza.”
Meanwhile, an Israeli human rights group charged in a court petition on Monday that Tel Aviv is violating international law by exploiting the West Bank’s mineral resources for its own benefit.
In the petition filed to Israel’s Supreme Court, the Yesh Din group charges that 75 per cent of the rock and gravel removed from 11 West Bank rock quarries is transferred to Israel.
If Dennis Ross is Appointed as a US Envoy to Iran, He Will Work for Israel, Not the US, Will Work for War, Not Peace
March 10, 2009DAILY.PK, March 1, 2009
|
Dennis Ross was the main figure behind dragging the US to war against Iraq in 1991, instead of allowing Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait without a war. He did that to guarantee the destruction of Iraq, as a strong Arab state, in order to safeguard the hegemonic Israeli position in the oil-rich Middle East region (See The Gulf War: Overreaction & Excessiveness). Thus doing, he paved the way for the Zionist Israel-firsters Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Feith to plan and execute the disastrous 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, for Israel, which resulted in the destruction of the Iraqi state and the collapse of the US financial system. More than $ 5 trillion have been added to the US national debt, as military spending, in order to achieve the Israeli paramount goal of controlling the Middle East, using the US money and blood. For these Zionist Israel-firsters, it does not matter if the US collapses as a result, and retreats from the world stage defeated and poor.
Today, there’s a lot of talk about an imminent announcement by President Barack Obama appointing the Zionist Israel-firster, AIPAC operative, and agent of Israeli interests, as his envoy to Iran. If this happens, God forbid, it means that Obama is no different from the two Bushes and Clinton, a figure head. The show is still run completely by the Zionist Israel-firsters, who work only for the Israeli occupation government, in its bid to be the coming world super power, after subjugating the Middle East with US resources and blood. Zionists want Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, in order to guarantee that only Israeli aggressors have nuclear weapons, which are used as a threat to all nations of the Middle East. Zionists, including Dennis Ross, want to make sure that no Arab or Muslim state in the Middle East attempts to have any deterrence to the Israeli nuclear threat. If they truly want a peaceful solution, then they should put the Israeli nuclear weapons on the table for negotiations. If the Israeli racist-Zionist state is disarmed of its nuclear weapons, then there is no reason for Iran or any other Middle Eastern state to seek for a deterrent. Make no mistake about it, Dennis Ross will represent Israel, not the United States, when he goes to Tehran. Ultimately, he will make sure that the United States is going to attack Iran, or at least allows the Israeli occupation government air forces to attack the Iranian nuclear sites and military installations with protection from the US forces stationed in the Middle East. This is a recipe for killing millions of Iranians and other Muslims in the Middle East. The appointment of Dennis Ross means that there’s no change in the US policy towards the Arab and Muslim worlds, as President Obama wanted to assures Muslims in his interview with Al-Arabiya TV. It will confirm to Arabs and Muslims worldwide that the US is following a policy of systematic invasions and wars against them, on behalf of Israel. This is not in the national interest of the United States. Period. Neither Dennis Ross nor any Zionist Israel-firster should be allowed to make decisions on behalf of the United States. It’s time for American patriots in the US Department of Justice to make their move and stop the systematic destruction of the United States by these Zionist Israel-firsters. Dennis Ross should not be allowed to occupy any position in the US government. He is an agent of a foreign government. Appointment of Dennis Ross as Presidential Envoy to Iran President Obama told Al-Arabiya that the US would in the next few months lay out a general framework of policy towards Tehran. “It is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of US power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran…. As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us. ” Obama had been expected to appoint former ambassador Dennis Ross, president Bill Clinton’s special Middle East envoy, to a third post that would handle US relations with Iran. But Ross’s aggressive campaign for the post, as well as his close association with key groups that make up the Israel Lobby, appears to have incited a backlash among key Obama advisers, reportedly including Clinton herself, that may have delayed his appointment, according to Jim Lob. Dennis Ross, an Iran baiter, has supported the war on Iraq which Obama has opposed. Ross has also served with the pro-Israel think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) as well as with the Jerusalem-based “Jewish People Policy Planning Institute” (JPPPI). Dennis Ross has co-authored the report “Meeting the Challenge: US Policy towards Iranian Nuclear Development”. This report alludes to an Iranian nuclear program that has been debunked by the CIA National Intelligence Report (Nov 2007) that said that the Iran nuclear program was on hold. The report calls for the military encirclement of Iran, pressure on Iran to abrogate its nuclear programme and thus leading to its logical extension where “war becomes inevitable”. To borrow Prof. Gary Leupp, “by appointing Dennis Ross, Obama is sending the Iranian leaders a clear message. He is associating himself with the most extreme alarmist positions currently articulated, including those of Norman Podhoretz.” Ross co-authored an op-ed with Richard Holbrooke, R. James Woolsey, and Mark D. Wallace entitled, “Everybody Needs to Worry About Iran.” The op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal Sept. 22, 2008, stated: “Iran is now edging closer to being armed with nuclear weapons, and it continues to develop a ballistic-missile capability.” As Prof Gary Leupp stated: “This contradicts the conclusion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies (Central Intelligence Agency, Army Military Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, etc.) as of November 2007. Those authors reported: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” In other words, in the world of empirical methods, critical thinking and analysis–the world of hundreds of trained professionals who’ve actually researched Iran’s nuclear program, with access to spy satellite data, reports from agents in the field, electronic surveillance–Iran has no nuclear program. Mohamed El-Barade’i and IAEA staffers on the ground have consistently said that Iran has been thoroughly cooperative and that there are no signs of any diversion for a military program But in the world of this Chicken Little group Iran is edging ever nearer to nukes.” The editorial describes the nuclear program as “destabilizing” (while noting that Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel all have nuclear weapons) and repeats the old Cheneyism that since Iran has so much oil it can’t have any possible real need for a civilian program. (The Iranian nuclear program was encouraged by the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations when the Shah was in power and supported by General Electric and other U.S. firms.) It repeats the old charge that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the map (adding that he’s said it could be done with one nuke) and generally assembles all the Bush-era anti-Iran talking-points: Iran sponsors Hizbollah and Hama terrorism, the regime’s repressive towards women and homosexuals, Iran could shut off the Strait of Hormuz, etc. In conclusion the authors announce their establishment “along with other policy advocates from across the political spectrum” of the nonpartisan group United Against Nuclear Iran. Prof. Gary Leupp says Ross is known to favor the recommendations of a September 2008 report by something called the Bipartisan Policy Center. These include forcing Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and meet other demands by imposing blockades on Iranian gas imports and oil exports (acts of war) as well as striking “not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.” So it looks like the official Obama line towards Iran, at least for the beginning, will be the Cheney-neocon line. And that is worrisome. Hassan El-Najjar ———————— See also Veteran Mideast Envoy Ross Named as Clinton’s Adviser on Iran |




Israel Lobby Defeats Freeman Appointment
March 12, 2009Robert Dreyfuss | The Nation, March 10, 2009
The withdrawal of Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, following two weeks of vituperative attacks on him by the amen chorus of the U.S. Zionist lobby is a black mark on the Obama administration.
As I wrote two weeks ago, when the campaign against Freeman began, if Barack Obama can’t stand up to the likes of Marty Peretz, Jonathan Chait, Steve Rosen, and other snarky critics, and if the White House can’t defend a critical intelligence pick when that person is savaged by Republican sharks smelling blood in the water, then how can we expect Obama to stand up to Bibi Netanyahu and his even more radical ally, Avigdor Lieberman, when they confront Obama over Middle East policy?
It’s sad, and worrying.
Expect gloating in the pages of The New Republic, National Review, The Weekly Standard, at Fox News, in the corridors at the American Enterprise Institute and AIPAC, and in the right-wing and neocon blogs.
Joining in on the trashing of Freeman were the (let’s face it) hard-line Jews of the Democratic Congress, including Senator Charles Schumer of New York, Rep. Steve Israel (yes, he is actually named “Israel”) of New York, and of course, that former Democrat, Joe Lieberman — all of whom crowded into the amen corner with AIPAC.
The Post, writing this morning about opposition to Freeman by seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, quoted Freeman from 2007: “The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending. … American identification with Israel has become total.”
You can, apparently, believe anything but that.
Nearly four years ago, I interviewed Freeman about the disastrous appointment of Porter Goss as CIA director, who was installed by then-President Bush as a political watchdog over an agency that is supposed to speak truth to power. Goss, Freeman told me then, was sent to Langley to “impose a vision on [the CIA] that its analysts and operatives reject as simply not based on reality,” he told me. “It’s totalitarian. We are going to end up with an agency that is more right-wing, more conformist, and less prone to produce people with original views and dissenters.”
I guess we know, now, that there’s no room for dissenters in the intelligence community, now, either.
Late on Tuesday, Freeman issued the following statement:
I’ll be updating this post during the week, so stay tuned.
Share this:
Tags:AIPAC, American Enterprise Institute, Barack Obama, Chas Freeman, National Intelligence Council, U.S. Zionist lobby, United States
Posted in Commentary, Uncategorized, USA | Leave a Comment »