When Love Of Profits Clashes With The Love Of The Prophet(1)

[Rory Winter]

Lebanon government joins forces with bid to have Blair tried in Scotland for war crimes
By Neil Mackay


THE Lebanese government is working behind the scenes to bring Tony Blair before the Scottish courts, charged with war crimes for aiding and abetting the Israeli onslaught against Lebanon.

Ali Berro, the Lebanese government’s special adviser on legal affairs, is assisting Lebanese nationals living in Scotland, and their legal team, in their attempt to take the Scottish Executive and the UK government to court for allowing US aircraft to fly “bunker-buster bombs” from America to Israel via Scottish airports.

Berro is providing the legal team, led by the Glasgow-based human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar, with detailed information about alleged Israel war crimes, and also forwarding information on the casualty rates of Lebanese civilians and the type of weapons being deployed by the Israeli army. In total, some 30 lawyers, including QCs, in Scotland and England are helping prepare the case against the government.

Along with his briefing, Berro sent Anwar and his clients this message: “We are laying before you all these facts and we count on you to use all possible means of pressure to put an end to the destruction targeting civilians. We are counting on you and thank you.”

The team is accusing Blair of assisting Israel in carrying out war crimes against civilians, citing various pieces of international legislation, including the Geneva Conventions, which say that it is a war crime to aid and abet a nation carrying out attacks targetted against civilians.

Berro has said he is “angry and astonished” that the UK is “assisting” Israel, claiming the UK can no longer be seen as an “honest broker” in the Middle East.

Anwar said: “The Lebanese government have made it clear that they want this conflict to stop. Both they and us are aware that every time more weapons are supplied to Israel, more Lebanese civilians will die. We wish to indict Tony Blair for war crimes as he is complicit in the war crimes of Israel by allowing the passage of arms through Scotland. This will take time, and that is why the Lebanese government is helping to catalogue information.”

Berro has also supplied a legal briefing to Anwar and his clients outlining which pieces of international law have been violated. Berro said: “Since July 12, 2006, the Israeli army, which has the largest and most advanced military machinery in the region, has committed all kinds of crimes: crimes against humanity, war crimes and mass killings.”

Some 750 Lebanese civilians have died in the attacks – many women and children. Berro said: “Human shreds are scattered amid the destruction.” He also outlined Israeli attacks on petrol stations, warehouses, electricity companies, places of worship, bridges, hospitals and ambulances.

Berro said the Israelis were using phosphorous bombs, and “sending ultimatums to the inhabitants of villages, waiting for them to get out and then hunting them on their way to safety”.

International legislation, which Berro said was breached by Israel, included The Hague Convention, The 1948 Convention Against Mass Killings and The Geneva Conventions.

Azam Mohamad, one of the Scottish-based Lebanese nationals taking the case against the Scottish Executive and the UK government, said: “We took this action as US aircraft are going through Prestwick airport with bombs bound for Israel that will be used to shell our families. We want to stop those bombs.”

Mohamad, the director of Glasgow’s Middle East Society, added: “We are shocked that Tony Blair has allowed aircraft carrying bombs bound for Israel to come through this country. These weapons are illegal as they are used to kill civilians. I cannot find words to explain my unhappiness at Blair’s decision. If we get a chance to take Tony Blair to court, we will do so.

“The Lebanese government will help our cause by giving us as much information as they can. Even the prime minister of Lebanon will help us in our attempt to stop these bombs being sent through Britain to destroy Lebanon. The government in Lebanon appreciates what we are doing to help protect the freedom and democracy of Lebanon.”

The Lebanese community in Scotland and England is now collectively raising the money needed to fund the legal challenge. Members of the 20-strong group of Lebanese, who have put their names to the suit against the government, have lost loved ones in the conflict, had property destroyed and seen their relatives and friends turned into refugees.

Another Lebanese national living in Scotland who is taking the case against the government, Mohamad Saadi, lost his aunt, 55-year-old Khadija, last Friday. She died of a heart attack when her area came under heavy Israeli bombing.

“It is very hard for us,” Saadi said. “Every family is suffering. This is not just about my family – everyone in Lebanon is now my family. We are calling our relatives every hour. While I am talking now something could be happening to my family back in Lebanon. A humanitarian disaster is happening.

“Blair is helping terrorism because what Israel is doing to Lebanon is terrorism – they are attacking and killing civilians. He is utterly in the wrong.”

Both Mohamad and Saadi have raised their children in Scotland and started thriving businesses in Glasgow. They say they have been overwhelmed by support from the people of Scotland towards the people of Lebanon, and on Friday launched a Scottish-Lebanese friendship society. They said that many in the large Christian community in Lebanon were now supporting Hezbollah as the Islamic militia were “the only ones fighting for us and the country”.

Zouheir Swade, another member of Glasgow’s Lebanese community backing the legal action, told how he lost nine members of his extended family just over a week ago when his brother-in-law’s house was hit by an Israeli shell.

“This is just one of many massacres in Lebanon,” Swade said. “A friend and his wife and two children were also killed in their car by an Israeli bomb. I sleep for no more than two hours before I get up and turn on the news. I’m phoning my family all the time. When I hear my mother’s voice I cry.”

06 August 2006

http://www.sundayherald.com/57093

[Rory Winter]

US evangelist leads the millions seeking a battle with Islam
http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/globalnetnews-summary/2006-08/msg00038 .html

The Telegraph is the most conservative broadsheet in Europe. Even
so, a news item like the one below is shocking for the European
audience. Prior to reading this article, I had never heard of Mr
Hagee before, but I know that he does speak volumes for 15-20% of the
US electorate, ie. circa 45-60 million Americans. From a global
perspective, the political alliance between Christian evangelicals in
America and the Zionist leadership in Israel is a troubling
phenomenon, indeed - especially when its leaders advocate a world war
based on a religious crusade to exterminate over one billion Muslims,
a project that dwarfs the final solution of the Holocaust. In the
article below, Mr. Hagee is described as, "one of Israel's most
influential supporters." Neither is it comforting for a global
audience to read that Ehud Olmert has made several personal visits to
Mr Hagee's megachurch which has a model of the wailing wall and
features an Israeli flag.

Michael Carmichael


Hagee

________________________________________________________

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/05/wmid10 5.xml

US evangelist leads the millions seeking a battle with Islam
By Alec Russell in Washington

(Filed: 05/08/2006)

Anyone who wants to understand why Israel has such unwavering support
from the United States should speak to one man.

Fiery television evangelist Pastor John Hagee has emerged as the
rallying voice for thousands of American Christians who believe
Israel is doing God's work in a "war of good versus evil".

When he strode on to a stage in Washington last month, he was cheered
to the rafters by 3,500 prominent evangelicals - as well as by
Israel's ambassador to America, a former Israeli chief of staff and a
host of US congressmen of both parties.

"After 25 years of hammering away at the truth on national
television, millions of people have come to see the truth of the word
of God," Mr Hagee told The Daily Telegraph. "There is literally a
groundswell of support for Israel in the USA among evangelicals."

Twenty-five years ago, Mr Hagee was denounced as a heretic when he
urged his fellow preachers to speak out in support of Israel. He also
met with huge suspicion from Jews who thought that anti-Semitism was
the standard evangelical belief.

When he persevered and hosted a "night to honour Israel" in his
hometown, San Antonio, there was a bomb threat and panicked Christian
followers ran for the door.

But today most of America's 60 million Christian evangelicals, who
make up about a quarter of the US electorate and the essence of the
President's "base", are behind Mr Bush's pro-Israeli position and are
pushing for a showdown with Iran. As many as half of those are
Christian Zionists.

Mr Hagee said: "What we have done is united all of this evangelical
horsepower and said, 'We're not just going to Washington to stand on
the grass and sing Amazing Grace. We're going into the halls of
Congress to see the senators and to see the congressmen face-to-face
and to speak to them about our concerns for Israel'."

His claim of political clout is no idle boast. The President sent a
message of support praising him for "spreading the hope of God's Love
and the universal gift of freedom". They met several times when Mr
Bush was governor of Texas.

America has long identified with Israel against its Arab foes. This
backing has been shored up in Washington by the influential Israeli
lobby. It also reflects a cultural affinity which is greater in the
wake of the September 11 attacks: for most Americans, Israel is on
the front line against terrorism.

Another key factor in this bond, however, is Christian Zionism: a
booming movement based on the idea that Israel's travails fulfil
Biblical prophecy and are a forerunner of the battle of Armageddon
and the Second Coming.

As the head of Christians United for Israel, an organisation linking
hundreds of US evangelical leaders, it is no exaggeration to say that
Mr Hagee is one of Israel's most influential supporters.

Outside his mega-church is a facsimile "Wailing Wall". Inside on a
flagpole is the Israeli flag and tributes from Israeli visitors,
including prime minister Ehud Olmert, who came several times when he
was mayor of Jerusalem.

In his recent book, Jerusalem Countdown - A Warning to the World, Mr
Hagee seeks a showdown between Islam and the West. "This is a
religious war that Islam cannot and must not win," he writes. "The
end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching... Rejoice and
be exceedingly glad the best is yet to be."

He concedes it was a "difficult mountain to climb" to persuade
evangelicals to back Israel. Many dispute his contention that some
Jews can "find favour with God". Traditionally, evangelicals have
argued that Jews will have to convert or face a double Holocaust at
the battle of Armageddon.

[Rory Winter]

Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon
By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK

As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.

Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.

Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.

In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?

Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.

Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.

For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.

Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.

Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.

By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.

The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.

A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.

These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.

• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.htm

[Rory Winter]

ALL FOR THE DOLLAR: WHILE LEBANON BURNS, SAUDIS LAUNDER BILLIONS FOR BUSH
by Ahmed Amr
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/news.html

Behind Condi Rice's cult-like smile, lurks a crazed neo-con fanatic immersed in apocalyptic fantasies. It remains to be seen just how many Lebanese mothers will lose their babies while she entertains her demonic hallucinations...Not to be outdone, the demented war criminal who pollutes the corridors of the White House has vetoed UN cease-fire resolutions and derailed an Italian effort to end the hostilities in Lebanon.

To assure the success of his war-mongering obstructionist policies, Bush dispatched Paul Wolfowitz to the gathering in Rome. Just to rub it in, the architect of the Iraqi war was all smiles as he pressed a handshake on the visibly distraught Lebanese Prime Minister.

As Karl Rove will tell you, the path to victory in November depends on rallying the Armageddon-worshipping, end of time Protestants who drool every time a Palestinian or Lebanese family is blown to smithereens. In their estimate, every crisis in the Middle East brings us one step closer to the rapture. Pray for the end of times and pass the
ammunition.

Given their dismal poll numbers, Bush and the Republicans can hardly afford to alienate Israel's amen corner at the New York Times. Neither can the Democrats afford to lose the affections of militant Likudnik operatives at CNN and FOX. Until the polls close in November, both parties will be competing to determine who can best lick the boots of Ehud Olmert.

In America, Israel is a domestic affair. The ethnic Zionist lobby gets what it wants or sets off brigades of media hyenas to eat the raw flesh of any politician who displays squeamishness about wasting Arab lives. Witness the 'anti-war' Howard Dean accusing anyone opposing Israeli war crimes of 'anti-semitism.' He can't have forgotten that he lost his White House bid when he called for a more 'even-handed' foreign policy in the Middle East. As chairman of the Democrat leadership, he seems to be applying the valuable lesson learned on his ill-fated campaign – don't mess with the Israeli lobby ninety days before a mid-term election.

Some Arab-Americans still entertain silly notions about changing the minds of their congressmen by explaining the other side of the story. Fat chance. One hundred Senators gave unequivocal support to Israel. Under normal circumstances, you can't line up that many Senators to support their own children. True enough, you can always find the occasional Senator willing to express concern about war crimes committed by US marines. But when it comes to Israel, they all studiously avert their eyes from the deliberate targeting of civilians and the systematic destruction of vital infrastructure.

The Israelis can nuke the entire Middle East and still have the audacity to bill the American government for the cost of the operation. Any dissenting Senator can and will be taken to the shed for re-education sessions – but not before getting a campaign crippling lashing from Israel's spiritual brethren who toil in the mass media monopolies.

Every member of our parliament of whores has innocent Palestinian and Lebanese blood on their hands. By giving their unconditional blessings to the mayhem in Lebanon, the Senate was just making the obvious point that no Arab child is safe while the U.S. Congress is in session.

Of the many actors responsible for this blood bath, the Israelis are perhaps the easiest to understand. They never had a need for fig leaves to begin with. As far as Tel Aviv is concerned, this is just an exercise in low intensity warfare. The Israelis simply do whatever they can get away with.

Without ever bothering to charge them, Israel can hold thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians prisoner. But if the other side decides to detain a few soldiers, Lebanon and Gaza can be incinerated. In exercising the 'right to defend itself', Israel reserves the privilege to indiscriminately carpet bomb South Lebanon with guided missiles and cluster bombs. And America gets to replenish Israel's arsenal.

The newest Israeli rule is that all the fighting, killing, abductions and mass destruction can only take place in designated 'Arab' areas. The Israeli army can murder, maim and terrorize anyone on the other side of the Green Line or the Blue Line. In fact, they can cross any red line they want and commit any war crime that satiates their appetite for brutalizing their subjects. And to engrave that rule in stone, Tel Aviv has secured a permanent American license to use collective punishment measures up to and extending to starvation and the systematic destruction of vital infrastructure. Any resistance to Israeli unilateral measures is considered the work of terrorists. Any questions?

As for the United Nations and 'Coffin' Annan, they have become nothing more than an annex of the State Department. Following in the footsteps of his son, Annan is not the kind of man to refuse a lucrative offer – like killing the investigation of how his first born looted Iraqi oil revenues. He has presided over the gutting of the world organization to the point where the UN is now merely another tool of convenience in the arsenal of the Bush administration.

To their credit, some European nations – notably France and Italy – have used their limited influence to bring the hostilities in Lebanon to an end. But, the Bush administration had no problem circumventing these efforts. For an American politician, Israel is more important than the entire continent of Europe.

Moving on to Egypt - a country that no longer matters. Does it really make a difference that 99% of Egyptians are against the war in Iraq and the fire bombing of South Lebanon? The Egyptian government granted a tacit endorsement of Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are seen as extensions of the Muslim Brotherhood – the only real domestic opposition to the Mubarak regime. As they say in this corner of the planet, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

As always, the real Arab elephant in the room is the House of El Saud and its allies in the surrounding oil sheikdoms. Why exactly did the influential Gulf monarchs decide to cast their lot with Tel Aviv? Here we are at peak oil. Petro dollars are flowing by the tens of billions into Gulf coffers. And Saudi Arabia drops its last fig leaf and demonstrates to one and all that it has struck an alliance of convenience with Israel and given the Israeli war machine a green light to ravage Arabs in Lebanon and Gaza.

On the face of it, it doesn't make much sense. The one Arab country that has the leverage to shelter the region from American-financed Israeli mass murder decides to publicly turn on its own people. And King Abdallah has announced that he will pick up the bill for some of the damage inflicted by the Israeli bombings. Israelis bomb. Saudis pay. Such a deal. Unfortunately, for all their wealth, the Saudis have yet to perfect a way to bring back the dead or reattach missing Lebanese limbs. For the Saudis, the Lebanese and Palestinians are 'throw away' people. All this nonsense about Arab solidarity is merely a circus act to shore up the legitimacy of the kleptocrats in the Gulf.

We may never know the precise nature of the secret Saudi agreements with the United States and Israel. In this case, the Saudis probably signed on to fight a proxy war with Iran – which is seen as the sponsor of Hezbollah. The Saudis are experts at proxy wars – having supported and financed Saddam's war against Iran – a conflict that lasted eight long years and cost a million lives on both sides. They participated with gusto in the systematic decimation of the secular Arab national movement. It's no secret that the Saudi monarchy was elated at the outcome of the six-day war – hoping it would bring down Nasser's regime. And the Kingdom's role in the first and second Gulf war is a matter of public record.

Still, it's worth taking a guess as to why the oil monarchies went public with their support for Israel's plan to bomb Lebanon into rubble. Perhaps the Bush administration promised to dampen the influence of Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. Can it be a mere coincidence that Washington is suddenly increasing its troop levels in Baghdad and taking on Moqtada Sadr's militias? Did the Saudis strike a bargain to increase Israeli influence in Lebanon in exchange for a decrease of Iranian influence in Iraq?

Any proxy war against the government in Tehran always finds ready support on the Arab side of the Gulf. As administration insiders have already hinted, 'the new Middle East' will revolve around Saudi leadership of the Arab camp with a supporting cast that includes Egypt and Jordan.

It's doesn't seem to matter that the Saudi regime is not exactly a brilliant model of democratic evolution in the region. It matters even less that Israeli guns are now battering the two most democratic governments in the Arab Middle East – the popularly-elected leaders of Lebanon and the Palestinian authority. All Bush's talk of democracy is nothing but a marketing campaign for domestic American consumption. The Arab intellectuals taken in by this neo-con ruse need to start taking commonsense supplements on a regular basis.

To harness this moment of clarity, it is essential to understand that America's invasion of Iraq needs to be divorced from the Likudnik fantasies of reshuffling the Levant to suit Israel's expansionist whims. At the end of the day, America's military entanglements in the Gulf are a service performed for the richest families in the history of the world. Far from supporting democracy, the grunts in Iraq are there as a mercenary expedition to protect the absolute monarchs who act as custodians of the oil plantations. When it comes to wagging the tail of the American dog, Saudi Arabia and the Israelis get equal opportunity access.

Saudi Arabia and their Gulf allies are major partners in American-Israeli ventures. Most astute observers know that King Abdallah can permanently end all foreign military adventures in the region without firing a single shot. Every last American soldier would be home for Christmas if the oil sheikdoms stopped taking dollars in exchange for their oil. No oil cut off is required. If the Arabs just stopped accepting American currency – the dramatic effect on world economies would lead to major realignments that neutralized American influence in the region. The economic rationale for the American Empire would dissipate into thin air. Washington would pressure Israel to implement resolution 242 in the same manner that it is squeezing Lebanon to implement resolution 1559.

Of course, King Abdallah and his ruling clan are fully aware of this. While they feign impotence, they retain immense leverage over developments in the region. It's not about their lack of ability to influence events in Lebanon. Rather, it is because the Saudis have other priorities – like smuggling oil revenues denominated in petro-dollars to American and European capital markets.

The business of the House of Saud is money laundering on an epic scale.The business of America is currency exporting. Together, the Saudis and Americans impose the dollar as an international currency that accounts for eighty per cent of all international transactions. This allows the United States the luxury of running huge trade deficits by obliging other countries to maintain huge reserves of the only currency the Saudis accept in exchange for their black gold – the American dollar.

The Saudi support for the devastating Israeli assaults on Lebanon and Gaza is nothing more than a political transaction to maintain their lucrative money-laundering franchise. Lebanese and Palestinian civilians need to understand that this is not personal. It's just the way the Saudis do business.

For years, Saudi sponsored media outlets have propagated an image of a benevolent regime that defends the faithful against foreign crusaders. Most recently, the Saudis regime took a high profile role in confronting the insolent Danish publication that insulted the prophet. They went so far as to recall their ambassador. But here we are – a few short months later – and the Saudis are making nice with the American-financed Israeli campaign to dismantle Lebanon and enforce the "Condi/Weisglass" accord – the secret agreement that will allow Olmert's government to annex half of the West Bank.

The key to Arab salvation is in passive resistance to American-Israeli designs on the region. Unfortunately, that key is locked away in the House of Saud. All Arab intellectuals need to harness their efforts to open a public debate to help explain why the Saudis are feigning impotence while Lebanon and Gaza are being mercilessly torched.

To effect a full disclosure of Saudi rationales for supporting the invasion of Iraq and Lebanon, we need to understand and propagate the nature of the American imperial project in the Gulf and the full extent of the Saudi money-laundering racket.

Once the average citizen in the Middle East and the US understands that this is a war to protect the almighty dollar – we can call on people of good will around the world to dump that blood soaked currency. The onus will then fall on the House of Saud to explain why they will not participate in a straightforward dollar boycott to defend their 'Arab brothers.'

Of course, Arab intellectuals can always revert to their old habits of taking inventory of how many innocent women and children are being slaughtered. They can continue to document the vicious destruction of infrastructure and make a fuss about collective punishment and American double standards. There will still be those Arab-Americans who will continue to bang their heads on the wall and waste endless efforts in letter-writing campaigns to convince a single senator that Palestinians and Lebanese are part of the human race.

Forget all that. George Bush doesn't care about Arabs – unless they have deep Saudi pockets. It's a waste of time to appeal to non-existent American compassion. And it's a pipe dream to expect a sudden moral awakening among the policy makers in Washington. You can parcel post a dismembered Lebanese or Palestinian child to the homes of every Senator in Washington and still be met with a blank stare.

One of the qualifications for career advancement at the State Department is to demonstrate complete indifference to the death and mutilation of innocent Arabs. That's just the way America is, and Arabs – especially Arab-Americans – should stop deluding themselves about what makes Washington tick.

So, what to do now that all the fig leaves have fallen? Gather them and burn them with the dollar.

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/message/6017

[Hochih]

It is really??

[Rory Winter]

In the Roots of the Milky Way Tree: The Mayan Lord of Creation and 2012
By John Major Jenkins
http://tinyurl.com/evnvz



Twentytwelvology. You won’t find it in Webster’s dictionary. Not yet. But believe me, before this decade is out, we’ll have that as well as plenty of 2012 -isms and -ographies.

“The 2012 Phenomenon” was recently the subject of a paper written by anthropologist Robert K. Sitler.1 The sub-title of his paper brings focus to his approach: “New Age Appropriation of an Ancient Mayan Calendar.” In his assessment of the writings and statements of popular writers, New Age teachers, and independent researchers (including myself), he sorts the wheat from the chaff and exposes “merely tangential connections to the realities of the Mayan world.” To his credit, he distinguishes the serious work done by myself and Geoff Stray2 from the wild and unfounded speculations of other writers.

Sitler’s area of focus is the Long Count calendar and its 2012 end-date, which is the subject of growing interest and controversy – not so much among academicians, who dismiss it as irrelevant, but among spiritual seekers and people interested in the wisdom attained by ancient civilisations. So, what’s all the clamour and confusion about? What is the Long Count calendar?

The Long Count Calendar

An archeological site that’s been known about for decades preserves an open secret about the culture that invented the Long Count calendar. Izapa, in southern Mexico a few miles from the Guatemala border, was the chief ceremonial observatory of “the Izapan civilisation.”3 It was the transitional culture between the older Olmec civilisation and the emerging Maya, and enjoyed its heyday between 400 BCE and 50 CE. My investigation of Izapa’s carved monuments and the site’s astronomical orientations have revealed a great deal about how they understood the Long Count calendar.4

The earliest monuments carved with Long Count dates were found in the region of Izapa and have been dated to the 1st century BCE. The Long Count notation uses bars to represent 5 and dots to represent 1. Five place values are almost always used, representing the following periods of days:

Kin = 1 day
Uinal = 20 days
Tun = 360 days
Katun = 7,200 days
Baktun = 144,000 days

Thirteen Baktuns equal 5,125 years, which is one World Age in the Maya Creation mythology. The Long Count calendar was recorded on monuments and ceramic vessels for almost a thousand years. Most of the dates refer to local mundane events, like king crowning ceremonies. Some of the Long Count monuments, however, refer to mythological events that occurred at the beginning of the current World Age. Scholars have figured out how the Long Count calendar correlates with our own, so we know that the fabled dawn time – when all the place values were set to zero – occurred on August 11, 3114 BCE. This should be written 0.0.0.0.0 in the Long Count, but the monuments that speak of this date call it 13.0.0.0.0. This is less confusing than it appears, because the two accountings are equivalent. In the same way that 1300 hours (military time) equals 1:00 p.m. (civil time), the Long Count resets to 0 when 13 Baktuns are completed.

This tells us something important about the structure of the Long Count calendar and its chronology of World Ages. Every 13 Baktuns (5,125 years), the Long Count resets to zero. Thus, we should expect that when the Long Count again reaches 13.0.0.0.0, it will reset to zero, the cycle of time will begin anew, and a new World Age will commence. As mentioned, several so-called Creation monuments describe events that occurred in 3114 BCE, during the end-beginning nexus of the previous World Age turnover. The texts associated with these Creation monuments state that “Creation happens at the Black Hole,” at “the Crossroads,” and “the image” will appear in the sky. At that time, a new Solar Age begins and the Sun Lord gets reborn. Creation Lord deities are often portrayed attending the rebirth of the world, including one called Bolon Yokte K’u who is closely associated with God L of the Mayan pantheon.

He is portrayed on the ceramic Vessel of the Seven Lords which contains the date 3114 BCE.5 This doesn’t mean the vessel is 5,120 years old; it simply means that the Classic Period Maya were documenting, around 700 CE, their thoughts about the fabled dawn time.

Mayan Time Philosophy and 2012

Although the philosophy of cycle endings that we find on these Creation monuments refers to past events in 3114 BCE, it can also be applied to the next 13-Baktun cycle ending, which falls on December 21, 2012. Some scholars have been unwilling to accept this analogy, asserting there are no Long Count monuments that refer explicitly to 2012. As we will see, this position can no longer be maintained. Moreover, one scholar understands quite clearly the analogical relationship between the period ending of the previous World Age (in 3114 BCE) and other period endings, great and small, throughout Mayan history: “Zoomorph P and Altar P’ [at Quirigua] were commissioned by Sky Xul as the primary commemorative monuments for his third period ending festival on 9.18.5.0.0 [September 13, 795 CE]. As a celebration of cosmic renewal, the period-ending was considered to be a replay of the events of cosmogenesis, which occurred on 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u [13.0.0.0.0 in 3114 BCE].”6 This means that we can identify a generalised principle of the Mayan concept of period endings: each period ending in the Long Count, including all the various place value levels, were seen to be like-in-kind replays of the great period-ending event that occurs at the end of the 13-Baktun period. As such, the next 13-Baktun period-ending (in 2012) should be a big replay of the events described for 3114 BCE. That scenario involves the rebirth of the Sun Lord from the sky-earth cleft.

The belief that we don’t have “direct statements” about 2012 in the archaeological record ignores the plethora of pictographic images at Izapa that portray a rare celestial alignment that appears in the skies in the years around 2012.7 This galactic alignment is the key to understanding 2012, and it involves the rebirth of the December solstice Sun Lord through the Dark Rift “cleft” in the Milky Way, located between Sagittarius and Scorpio.

It is “the image” that appears in the sky during cosmogenesis. My interpretation of the Mayan 2012 date comes from an interdisciplinary examination of the carvings of Izapa, laid out in my book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. The theory has withstood eight years of debating with scholars, and the ideas are starting to seep into general acceptance. I say “seep” because the unaffiliated source of the breakthroughs will probably go unacknowledged.

The process will most likely follow the sequence mentioned by Thomas Kuhn, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. First, a radical new theory (often proposed by an independent thinker or outsider) will be ignored by the mainstream scholars. Then, as it starts to make inroads, status quo scholars will vehemently criticise and attack it. Finally, after the truth of the new breakthrough is recognised, they will embrace it as if they knew it all along. The three-stage process often takes decades, but may get turbocharged in respect to 2012, since that date looms so close in our future.

Understanding the New Discoveries

My theory about the 2012 end-date finds contextual support in two recent discoveries. One is a Pre-Classic mural depicting the Creation myth and the other is a hieroglyphic text pointing explicitly to the 13-Baktun cycle end date, December 21, 2012.

The Mayan civilisation rose to prominence some 2,000 years ago, in the jungle forests and mountains of Mesoamerica. The Classic Period stretched from 200 CE to 900 CE. However, archaeologists are finding older sites with all the hallmarks of the Classic Period, so the origins of Mayan civilisation are slowly getting pushed further back in time. One of these sites, San Bartolo in Guatemala’s Peten rainforest, preserves stunning murals of the Maya Creation Myth http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0601/feature5/ in what has been called “the New World’s Sistine Chapel.”8 They have now been given the early date of 250 BCE.

Realising that the murals were threatened by looters in the area, archaeologist Bill Saturno recorded the paintings by holding a flatbed scanner sideways against the walls and taking over 350 digital scans. They were digitally pieced together to reveal a very early rendition of the Maya Creation Myth, involving five trees of paradise.

The mural is incomplete in sections, having crumbled over the centuries, but two of the Sacred Trees preserve an interesting feature. Toward the base of the trees we can see a paw sticking out. This feature has been noticed on other portrayals of Mayan Sacred Trees, and has been identified as a jaguar paw, perhaps representing one of the Hero Twins, Xbalanque.

“Balan” means jaguar, similar to “Bolon” (“nine”) and the two terms are often used in word puns. In fact, they are sometimes interchangeable in hieroglyphic passages. The two meanings likewise reinforce each other, as jaguars were night creatures ruled by the nine Lords of the Night. We’ll come back to this in a moment.

Another important fact of the San Bartolo Creation Trees is how closely they resemble trees portrayed at Izapa, the origin place of the Long Count calendar. Upon close examination, we can see that the trees combine caiman and tree symbolism, and the caiman’s head is at the bottom, in the roots of the tree. Izapa Stela 25, 10, and 27 all contain this inverted caiman tree, and are widely acknowledged to represent the Milky Way. The caiman’s mouth represents the “Dark Rift” in the Milky Way – the “Black Hole” of Mayan Creation mythology. Likewise, the Bird Deity in the branches of the San Bartolo trees are often found in the Izapan trees, and represents the Big Dipper constellation.9 He must fall from his tree before the Sun Lord can be reborn at the end of the Age.

This simple comparison means the “Creation Myth” at San Bartolo utilises the same astronomical features the Izapan Creation Myth does. Those features are central to how the 2012 alignment of the solstice Sun and the Milky Way was encoded into Mayan myth.

Another new discovery involves the recent translation of a text from Tortuguero, a Classic Maya site north of Palenque, which explicitly points to December 21, 2012. Drawn by Sven Gronemeyer and translated by Mayan epigrapher David Stuart, the legible part of the text reads: “At the end of 13 Baktuns, on 4 Ahau 3 Kankin, 13.0.0.0.0; something occurs when Bolon Yokte descends.”10

Since the verb glyph describing what happens is effaced, scholars have stated that the text doesn’t really tell us much, but in fact it does.

First off, scholars now have to acknowledge we do have a hieroglyphic text which refers explicitly to the ending of the current 13-Baktun cycle, in 2012. Secondly, a usual suspect in Mayan creation narratives is present, Bolon Yokte. This means that 2012 was thought of as a cosmogenesis, a creation or recreation of the world.

I’ve been arguing this for years, debating doomsayers as well as scholars who would like to think that 2012 is irrelevant within Mayan time philosophy.11 But, as expected, we can now see that 2012 is to be thought of as a world renewal.

We can also determine something very intriguing about the name of the Creation Deity who is present in both 3114 BCE and in 2012 CE. Bolon Yokte means bolon (nine), y- (plural), ok (foot), -te (tree). Although bolon means “nine,” the word is a homophonous pun for balan (jaguar). Mayan folklore and hieroglyphic texts often combine the two designations, for dramatic effect or for emphasising how the Jaguar God is one of the nine Lords of the Night (the Underworld).12 Thus, we have an alternate identification for the Creation Lord Bolon Yokte which means something like “jaguar at the foot/feet of the tree.”

Perhaps the plural “feet” refers to two feet: the foot of the jaguar and the foot of the tree. Thus, the jaguar foot or paw at the foot of the Creation tree likely represents the Creation Lord Bolon Yokte. He was present at the last World Age creation in 3114 BCE and he will be present at the next one, in 2012.

But why is he there? Probably because the spotted jaguar pelt symbolises the stars of night, and the mouth of the jaguar represents the Underworld Portal, which is seen in the sky as the Dark Rift in the Milky Way. This “Black Hole” in which Creation happens also represents the birth cleft of the Great Mother, the Milky Way.

In 2012 the December solstice Sun Lord will have shifted into alignment with the Dark Rift, after making a centuries-long precessional journey though the stars of the night sky. The Sun Lord, and the Age, will be reborn.

Twentytwelvologists, Unite!

We now have a Mayan inscription, from the Classic Period site of Tortuguero, that refers directly to the end of the current World Age of the Long Count calendar. The text indicates the event is to be thought of as a world renewal.

The deity attending the world renewal, Bolon Yokte, was present during the previous World Age shift, in 3114 BCE, and he is a guardian of the portal of rebirth at the Dark Rift “Black Hole” in the Milky Way’s “nuclear bulge” – the Galactic Centre. He waves to us, as the jaguar paw, from behind the base of the Creation Tree on the recently discovered Creation murals from San Bartolo.

These are exciting times as we recover the lost knowledge of the ancient Maya skywatchers. Especially so, since the world-transforming renewal date in the Maya Long Count calendar is right around the corner. That ancient wisdom speaks for a grand precessional paradigm, of how we on Earth experience galactic seasons of change, of how our Sun moves into rebirth at the celestial Black Hole at the base of the Creation Tree.

December 21, 2012 signals the commencement of a new World Age, one that has successfully transformed, purified, and renewed the previous cycle of time. An essential component of this is conscious human participation, a willing openness to the process.

As we pay attention to the changes going on around us and tune into our own evolving journey through the 2012 experience of renewal, we all become twentytwelvologists. Not only by having studied it in the primary sources of Maya Creation texts, but by living it.

Let’s convene in 2013 and share what we’ve learned.

Footnotes:

1. Robert Sitler, “The 2012 Phenomenon: New Age Appropriation of an Ancient Mayan Calendar” in Nova Religio, Vol. 9, Issue 3 (www.ucpress.edu/journals/nr/).

2. Geoff Stray, Beyond 2012: Catastrophe or Ecstasy? A Complete Guide to End-of-Time Predictions, Vital Signs Publishing, 2005. See also his extensive Diagnosis 2012 website www.diagnosis2012.co.uk

3. Michael Coe, Mexico, Thames & Hudson, 1962, pp. 99-101.

4. John Major Jenkins, Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, Bear & Company, 1998.

5. Michael Coe, “The Hero Twins: Myth and Image” in The Maya Vase Book, ed. Justin Kerr, Kerr Associates, 1989.

6. Matthew G. Looper, “Quirigua Zoomorph P: A Water Throne and Mountain of Creation” in Heart of Creation: The Mesoamerican World and the Legacy of Linda Schele, ed. Andrea Stone, University of Alabama Press, 2002, p. 199.

7. See http://alignment2012.com/mayan2012statements.html.

8. William Saturno, “The Dawn of Maya Gods and Kings” in National Geographic, January 2006.

9. Freidel David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker, Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path, William Morrow and Company, 1993; David Kelley, “Mesoamerican Astronomy and the Maya Calendar Correlation Problem” in Memorias del Segundo Coloquio Internacional de Mayistas 1:65-95, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1989; Barbara Tedlock, Time and the Highland Maya, University of New Mexico Press, 1982.

10. See the “Tortuguero” thread at http://groups.google.com/group/utmesoamerica; Sven Gronemeyer’s website www.sven-gronemeyer.de/

11. The argument that a 20-Baktun period has precedence over a 13-Baktun period is faulty. See http://alignment2012.com/app5.htm

12. In fact, Bolon Yokte is associated with one of the three primary gods of the Mayan pantheon, called the Triad Gods. At Izapa, the three primary monument groups are associated with three cosmic centres (zenith, polar, and galactic) presided over by three avatars or deities. For more on the triad cosmology pioneered at Izapa, see chapter 21 in Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 and http://Alignment2012.com/bolon-yokte.html.



John Major Jenkins is a leading independent investigator of Mayan sacred sciences and the origins and meaning of the 2012 calendar. John has authored dozens of articles and many books, including Journey to the Mayan Underworld, Mirror in the Sky, Tzolkin: Visionary Perspectives and Calendar Studies, Mayan Sacred Science, Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, Galactic Alignment: The Transformation of Consciousness According to Mayan, Egyptian, and Vedic Traditions, and his most recent book co-authored with Marty Matz is Pyramid of Fire. John’s Website is an extensive resource for studying the lost Galactic Cosmology of the Maya: www.Alignment2012.com.

SEE ALSO
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=98&pid=300#pid300

[Rory Winter]

Islamophobia at Downing Street, Tony Blair's Bipolarity
By MICHAEL CARMICHAEL
March 24, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/carmichael03242006.html

This week, Tony Blair launched a scathing ideological attack on Islamism. Describing the conflict between Islamism and the world as a, "battle for modernity," he quoted the conservative American historian, Samuel Huntington, in order to refute him. Contrasting his interpretation of a "conflict about civilisation" in a historical chiaroscuro with Huntington's "conflict of civilisations," Blair blasted Islamism as the fountainhead of the world's escalating level of ultra-violence.

Promising to make further keynote speeches to address the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, Blair sought to defend the pointed attacks on Islamic fundamentalism by George Bush and Christopher Hitchens as the raison d'etre for the war in Iraq. In his latest lamentation on the exclusively Islamic sources of ulta-violence, terrorism and war, Blair echoed the mantras of the coterie of deeply Islamophobic neoconservative intellectuals who emerged from the right-wing witches' cauldron of Leo Stein at the University of Chicago.

Blair's diatribe was the performance of a committed idealist, a demagogue mesmerized by his own ideology and not that of an intellectual, an academic, a mainstream politician or a statesman. Blair inhabits that shadowy region of Christianity that sees itself as totally separate and apart from the other faiths stemming from the house of Abraham: Judaism and Islam. In Blair's vision of Christianity, there are no Muslims who accept the messianic status of Jesus; no Christians who launch terrorist atrocities and no Jewish terrorists, either.

In the mind of Tony Blair, the trouble with world terror stems exclusively from the ideology and culture of Islamic fundamentalism. In Blair's deeply bipolar world, Christianity and Judaism are blameless for the rising tide of terror.

In Blair's definition of terror, the lynchings of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the terror bombings of Oklahoma, the brutal beatings of Muslims in Britain, the extra-judicial killings of Palestinians, the Christian bombings of pharmaceutical factories in Sudan and the Israeli military assassinations of Palestinians simply do not exist.

His selective vision of the world is troubling for it emanates from a double standard. Fundamentalist Christian terror does not exist for Blair. Fundamentalist Judaic terror does not exist for Blair. Whether Blair is capable of discerning fundamentalist Hindu terror is--at this point in time--unknown.

The question arises: Is Tony Blair Islamophobic? Islamophobia has emerged as the anti-Semitism of the twenty-first century. Blair recently gave an interview in which he revealed his inordinate commitment to Christianity. Explaining his decision to wage war on Iraq, Blair said that his religious beliefs had shaped his decision to join forces with Bush's neoconservative juggernaut.

Much has been made of Blair's personal religious idiosyncrasy. Married to a traditional Roman Catholic, Blair's solemn devotion to religious orthodoxy has been exposed to the microscope of public scrutiny. In 2004, a Roman Catholic priest was foolish enough to give a press conference stating Blair's personal desire to convert to the Church of Rome. Reliable witnesses have confirmed that Blair and Bush pray together during their wartime summits. The extremist religious ideology of Bush is well-established. His political partnership with Blair is founded on much more than the special relationship between Britain and America. These two men share a common faith in the fundamental veracity of some of the most orthodox and conservative attitudes in Christendom and apparently some of the most extreme ones, as well.

Their's is a partnership that not only prays, but also preys together.

Praying together, Bush and Blair consistently prey on their common enemy - the Islamic culture that has fostered what in their myopic vision is pure "evil"--i.e. terror.

Their common myopia places the bombings launched by Christian fundamentalists, the assassinations committed by Jewish fundamentalists and the religious motivation of the tractor-driving assassin who fractured the skull, severed the spine and crushed the life out of Rachel Corrie outside of their narrowing cone of perception.

Their condition is simply a twin case of visual, optical and intellectual bipolarity. In their world: Islam is evil. Christianity is good. Judaism is invisible. But, does this intellectual bipolarity make Blair Islamophobic? Is he, in fact, as bipolar in his reaction to Islam as the anti-Semitic bigots of the last century?

To date, let it be noted that Blair has not called out in public for the genocidal extermination of the entire Islamic population of the world. Let it also be noted that Adolf Hitler did not publicise his plan for the final solution to what he perceived as the problem posed by the Jews he hated and feared. Hitler's tirades against the Jews led to the public acceptance of anti-Semitism. Will Blair's frontal assault on Islamists lead Britain in the same direction?

We keenly await Blair's future pronouncements on Israel and Palestine.

Michael Carmichael has been a professional public affairs consultant, author and broadcaster since 1968. In 2003, he founded The Planetary Movement Limited, a global public affairs organization based in the United Kingdom. He has appeared as a public affairs expert on the BBC's Today Programme, Hardtalk, PM, as well as numerous appearances on ITN, NPR and many European broadcasts examining politics and culture. He can be reached through his website: www.planetarymovement.org

[moeen yaseen]

Islamic movements move to the fore in the struggle against Zionism

August 2006 / Guest Editorial – Abu Dharr
Muslimedia.com is the internet edition of Crescent International, newsmagazine of the Islamic Movement.



In previous columns, we have examined the methodology of the Islamic Revolution and movement; now we must move to questions concerning the very survival of the Islamic Revolution and movement. As this column is written, the zionist military machine is launching wave after wave of air-raids and naval bombardments on the northern part of the Holy Land – Lebanon. Hundreds of civilians, about a third of them children, have so far been killed by Israeli attacks. The international press is parroting the line dictated by Washington and Tel Aviv, that the war was launched by Islamic Iran acting through Hizbullah as its regionial proxies, with Syria somewhere in between. This is the time to speak the truth as Muslims see it about the real problem in the region, namely the satanic state of zionist Israel.

Once we cut through the extras and etceteras that pad out newspaper editorials and form political opinions, obscuring the fundamental realities of contemporary history, we can state succinctly and straightforwardly that the intensifying military struggle against zionist Israel, supported unconditionally by imperialist America, is going to be an increasingly Islamic one. The Arabian governments that have acted as fenders and shock-absorbers for Israel since its creation are increasingly irrelevant. The latest episode of zionist violence was sparked by the capture of three Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hizbullah. In the normal give-and-take of warfare, these military operations by Hamas and Hizbullah can be considered small, even insignificant. And as militaries operate, Hamas and Hizbullah have operated with the highest military standards and professionalism. Israel, on the other hand, has shown that it cannot meet even normal military standards. Instead of taking on Hamas and Hizbullah on the battlefield, the"Israeli Defense Forces" (IDF), with the political clearance of the Israeli cabinet, decided instead to wage war on the infrastructure of Lebanon, by bombing Beirut International Airport, at least two dozen bridges in Lebanon, fuel-storage terminals, electricity power grids, and residential areas. The Western press, hanging on a laundry-line between Tel Aviv and Washington, tells a misinformed world that Israel is fighting "Islamo-facists" on two fronts: Ghazzah and Lebanon. In their language, we would say that mobilised Muslims are required to fight Judeo-facists on every conceivable front. The constant military aggression by the zionist state, coupled with the hatred of Islam and fear of Muslim self-determination spewing from the zionist-dominated press and media in the West, can only convince Muslims that a steadfast military response is necessary. Hizbullah and Hamas are absolutely within their rights to pursue all military options in standing against the zionist onslaught and for the rights and freedom of peoples subjected to half a century of de-humanising Israeli assaults on them.

The larger fact that is emerging from current confrontations is that the day is quickly coming when an empowered Islamic Ummah will hold the American government to account for the consequences of permitting a terrorist Israel to operate freely across international borders, into neighbouring countries and in civilian populated area, all in the heart of the Ummah. The events in Ghazzah and Lebanon now are doing far more than simply killing hundreds of people and destroying the lives of countless more; they are also accelerating the recognition of the warmongers, who are both zionists and imperialists, but neither Jew nor Christian. At a time when people around the world are recognising the reality of the zionist state, and even many of its friends, allies and supporters are embarrassed by its excesses, the ineffectual government in Washington, which has been commandeered by zionist Jews loyal only to Israel, has again proven incapable of accepting UN resolutions condemning Israeli occupation, aggression and warmongering.

The events of the past few weeks are undoubtedly opening the eyes of Muslims around the world, and attracting a few hundred thousand more Muslims to an undeclared recruitment drive against the criminal regime in Tel Aviv. The Israelis' disregard for international law, along with the US's endorsement of everything it does, will serve to convince confused people that there is no meaning in an international law that is enforced on Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims but then equally waived when it comes to zionists, imperialists, and Israelis.

Events of the magnitude we are now witnessing make us suspect that the delicate balance between Israel and its surrounding Arabian shells (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc) should finally wear away. Let the mask fall; if Israel were to take over governments from Morocco to Iraq, the ordinary Muslim would then see in the clear light of day who is running the show, from the torture-chambers of North Africa to the prisons of Iraq, without the camouflage of "Arab governments" and their "anti-Israeli rhetoric."


What the immediate future holds we cannot know, but what we can say with absolute certainty is that in the long run, all the military campaigns launched by an arrogant and an aggressive Israel will only stiffen the resistance to them. Any deterrent we have rests not in the ten or fifteen thousand missiles that Hizbullah may have, but rather in the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are bound sooner or later to be provoked into a militant response, be that against the zionists directly, or against their allies and agents elsewhere in the world. The failure of Arab states to change their "Israel-friendly positions" can only accelerate the emergence of this Islamic alternative.

The settling of historic dust is a process that can take decades or even generations, but when it happens, people who have liberated themselves of zionist propaganda will wake up to the fact that a raging Israel did what it did because it was armed, financed, and supported by the quislings in Pennsylvania Avenue and Downing Street. Until and unless the powers that be in Washington and London are forced to change their tune on "Israel", or are replaced by others with a clearer view of the world, we will continue to have an imperialist war against Muslims and Islam, driven by the zionists.

It is al-ard al-mubarakah (the Blessed Land) that will bring Muslims back to their true character: a character that fights when there are no other options left. It is al-ard al-mubarakah that will prove how hypocritical international laws and conventions have been when it comes to Muslims and other oppressed people. Hamas and Hizbullah may not be popular with the governments of the world, but they are popular with the Muslims and oppressed peoples of the world. Hizbullah and Hamas have proven that they can counteract the sectarian divisions that are beginning to appear in Iraq. Al-ard al-mubarakah will prove that Muslims are able to close ranks and fight as a compact and united front (“saffan ka-annahum bunyanum- marsus”: al-Qur'an 61:4).

All of this began with the capture of three Israeli soldiers. Jews are supposed to be experts of the marketplace. But they are proving that they know nothing about profitable transactions. Instead of trading prisoners-of-war with prisoners-of-war, they are dragging themselves, the region and potentially the rest of the world into instability, turmoil and mayhem. There is dry tinder deep down inside the almost two billion Muslims in this world. This dry tinder is in need of the fuel that is being spilled on it by American-supported Israeli aggression. The world may ignore the wisps of smoke that periodically emerge, but an anti-Israeli eruption is merely a few sparks away.

Abu Dharr

[moeen yaseen]

[b]Mahathir's Long March to the Sea
by Ahmed Amr August 06 2006

http://europe.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/33792
A service of MMN International Inc. ..where truth prevails
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=30&pid=302#pid302

Ahmed Amr is an American and the former editor of NileMedia.com. His writings have focused on the mass media’s iron grip on the state. He is currently roaming the planet in search of an honest newspaper. He contributed this article to Media Monitors Network (MMN).

Since the Saudis are a party to the dollar conspiracy, a grass roots boycott of the dollar will have the additional benefit of bringing the ”oil for dollar” issue to the Arab public square."

Since the start of the most recent Israeli killing spree in Lebanon and Gaza, the world has stood helplessly by and watched the IDF casually butchers innocents and systematically destroys vital civilian infrastructure. Any conscientious observer of the continuing Israeli carnage should have no problem agreeing that “The destruction and killings by Israeli terrorists would not be possible without the support and collusion of the United States of America and Europe.” These precise words were part of a statement issued by Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia.

But Mahathir’s statement did not stop at condemning the slaughter of Palestinians and Lebanese. Unlike other people of good will, the ex-Prime Minister offered a prescription to put an end to this nonsense. He went on to point out that “the oil-producing countries can stop these atrocities by stopping all transactions in US dollars or British pounds. If the world is sincere in helping the Lebanese and Palestinians, they should reject the use of the dollar in international trade. When the demand for the dollar falls, America will be weakened and it will lack the ability to act as a bully in the global stage."

In calling for a boycott of the dollar, Mahathir has put his finger on the very essence of the American imperial project in the region. What the United States is fighting for in Iraq is not the oil per se. And they definitely have no interest in promoting democracy in the region. Witness the assault on the two most democratic entities in the Arab Middle East – the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon.

The Anglo-American invaders of Iraq have always had a single strategic goal – to maintain the privilege of imposing the dollar as the preeminent means of exchange in international markets. To operate what amounts to a currency exporting racket – the powers that be in Washington need oil to be priced in dollars and sold only in dollars. Of course, the ‘oil for dollars’ policy would not be possible without the collaboration of the dictatorial Arab custodians of the oil plantations.

Mahathir’s call for a popular international insurrection against the dollar can and will change the course of history. It is a beautiful and elegant solution that will immediately attract serious attention from Washington and London. It will expose to Americans and Arabs alike that their leaders are taking them for fools.

Boycotting the dollar is a movement that can immediately be launched at the grass roots level without the consent of the authoritarian governments in the region. It is a much more sensible alternative than a cutoff of oil supplies – which would be considered a belligerent act and is more likely to hurt poor countries before it ever has an economic impact on the United States. A suspension of oil deliveries requires the approval of the very Arab states that are full partners in the scheme to impose the dollar as virtually the only means of international exchange. In contrast, a boycott of any currency is a matter of personal judgment on its relative value as a means of exchange.

While tampering with oil supplies would constitute a breach of international trade agreements, refusing to accept a certain currency is a legitimate act even by State entities. Every nation’s central bank has the sovereign right to hold foreign exchange in whatever currency they choose.

A grass roots boycott of American products is doomed to failure – because goods produced in the United States are simply not present in most markets. In fact, they are hard to find on American shelves – because Americans don’t do that kind of work anymore. Manufacturing has become ‘off shored’ to such an extent that barely one out of every ten American workers is involved in actually producing tangible goods.

These days, America excels in printing currency and figuring out ways to stuff it down the throat of the rest of the world. Currency exporting is such a profitable venture that the folks in Washington are more than willing to incinerate other countries to maintain their lucrative franchise.

A dollar boycott will also expose the lame Arab leaders who constantly claim to be impotent. This is a convenient myth. Never in the modern history of the region have the governments of these supposedly sovereign Arab states been endowed with the leverage they now possess. If Saudi Arabia simply refused to accept dollars for their oil – Washington would turn on a dime – which would suddenly be worth a nickel. It would be a long time coming before another American Secretary of State cheerfully smiled at the sight of mutilated young Palestinian and Lebanese children. Even an intellectual midget the size of George Bush would quickly come to grasp a few basic realities. The Israeli lobby would get a permanent black eye for pushing the region to the brink and bringing on an earth shaking downward spiral of America’s chief export – the dollar.

Since the Saudis are a party to the dollar conspiracy, a grass roots boycott of the dollar will have the additional benefit of bringing the ”oil for dollar” issue to the Arab public square. It will make people think through the real causes of American belligerence in the region. And it will force an answer to one vital question. If the Arab leaders are vested with such incredible power to influence American foreign policy – why do they sit idle while innocent Palestinian and Lebanese children are being publicly executed by an Israeli army supplied by the United States and fortified by unconditional American diplomatic support.

Once the ‘dollar’ issue is part of the public debate – the role of the American peace movement will be to educate our fellow citizens to make them understand the real motives behind American military intervention in the region. The average American is bewildered by the Iraq war and deliberately manipulated by the Likudnik activists who pass themselves off as journalists in the mass media brothels. This explains why Mahathir’s unprecedented call for passive resistance to American hegemony and Israeli brutality was completely ignored by virtually every media outlet in both the United States and the Middle East.

In paving the path to peaceful and effective resistance, Mahathir is emulating the great Mahatma Gandhi. The dollar boycott will be remembered as the 21st century equivalent of Mahatma Gandhi’s long march to the sea to protest the absurdity of the British salt tax. By the time he reached the Arabian Sea, every Indian realized that they had a god given right to make their own salt by evaporating seawater. Likewise, every Arab needs to know that they have the same natural right to shun the use of American and British currency.

Without firing a single bullet, Gandhi’s nonviolent action eventually exposed the vicious exploitative nature of the British imperial project in the Indian sub-continent. Mahathir’s long march to the sea will depend on getting the word out that the dollar boycott is on and it ain’t going to stop until the United States government ends the occupation of Iraq and restrains the war criminals in Tel Aviv.

Mahatma simply urged his countrymen to make their own salt. Mahathir is asking much less of us. “I appeal to the world to take this simple action. Reject the dollar and the pound.” It is and elegant, peaceful, legal proposition and can be very financially rewarding to those who bail out of the dollar first.

The greatest current challenge to Mahathir’s call for passive resistance is the Stalinist news blackout in the West and the Middle East. We need to breach that barrier through the power of the Internet and through protests burning effigies of the dollar and the pound. Our first task is to get the subject on the table and generate an international discussion of Mahathir’s Long March to the Sea. We would have the done no less for Mahatma.


Source:

by courtesy & © 2006 Ahmed Amr

[Rory Winter]

In regard to the above article, earlier on this evening, I watched an atrocious Dispatches programme on C4 with that pompous idiot, Jon Snow, on Islam. Frankly, even as a non-Muslim I found it not only offensive but full of perversions and assumed truths.

Stuff like this is sheer disinformation propaganda by the British Secret State, 'psy ops' as practised by the CIA. Yet this is the kind of poison that is being incessantly churned out by the Mainstream Media which, no doubt, is receiving directives from the secret state and MI5 so to do.

This made me think deeper on the question of public brain-washing through the media (particularly tv).

Although difficult to prove, I believe there is definitely a conspiracy between the State, MI5 and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to produce a never-ending stream of disinformation through, for example, TV programmes such as the C4 Snow Dispatches programme, in order to brainwash the public into believing State propaganda.

Tony Blair, with his CIA/MI5 background, is deeply involved in this.

MI5 is working hand-in-hand with the CIA as well as other sympathetic secret services (including Mossad) to create an enemy out of Islam by associating it with terror. The Neo-cons and Bush are the Executive who are instigating this war whilst creeps like Blair just follow their orders. Behind them are the shadowy figures sometimes referred to as 'the Illuminati'.

What makes me so sure about this is how Snow, for example, kept referring to Islamic terrorists "having caused" 7/7 (and by implication 911). Of course there is no proof of this and in both cases calls for proper investigations were denied.

But how easily this Big Lie has been accepted by a public that cannot see how it has been duped by nothing more than a lie repeated ad nauseum!

Snow also alleges Muslims do not believe in free speech because they reacted so violently to the Danish cartoons! What he studiously ignores is how the 'freedom of speech' is closely monitored and censored by the MSM to suit its purposes and not the public interest, that there is definitely a conspiracy here between the State and the MSM which simply cannot be discussed.

So what happened to 'Free Speech' in Britain 2006?



What does it take to awaken the great British public? Can't they see that Blair is dragging his country into WWIII in the Middle East? Or how much of a Police State he has single-handedly turned Britain into over nine years? How long are we going to allow ourselves to be herded like cattle into the concentration-camp of Blair's New World Order?

How is it possible, Britain, that this despicable quisling is allowed to remain in power?

[moeen yaseen]

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. NERO
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. August 6, 2006

http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=30&pid=305#pid305


Everywhere, in the signs from Southwest Asia and the U.S. and European financial markets, we are seeing, without the slightest cause for equivocation, the announcement of the end, not of history, but of the legend of Francis Fukuyama. The present signs of that are now rising almost everywhere.

So, the U.S.A.'s now proverbial President George W. Nero has not actually even earned the dignity of bearing the blame for the catastrophe which his actions have already unleashed upon TransAtlantic society as a whole. Like a disease, the portion of blame he bears for the effects of his reign, lies not in his virtually non-existent foresights, but in the grave faults of his personal character. He is merely one among the many silly, if nasty fools who played the part assigned to asses like themselves. So, it could be said of all of the putative leading incumbent political authorities of the U.S.A. today — and of western and central Europe, as it was said to Shakespeare's Brutus by Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." Thus, true to the evil tradition of ancient imperial Rome, half-witted George W. Bush, Jr. is the stand-in for Nero on this occasion. Many of our leaders in the Senate, and elsewhere, have also behaved of late as underlings.

In what popular opinion usually mistakes for the historically important figures of these nations today, such putative leaders of ours are, lately, fiercely committed to going to Hell. We saw this in the Senate's tolerant complicity in the rape of the strategically crucial U.S. machine-tool sector and its economic sovereignty by Synarchist Felix Rohatyn. As Cassius warned Brutus: like fabled lemmings, those dedicated underlings of the Senate membership, have nearly doomed themselves, and all of us, too, by their silly worship of the popular tradition which their habituated underling's style of shared, go-along-to-get- along belief in ignorant popular, middle-class Baby-Boomer opinion's blindly ignorant faith in statistical fate, has inflicted upon us all. Like underlings, those members, and we their victims alike, are, momentarily, virtually doomed, like a legendary Croesus, as if by the Pythian Delphic Apollo cult of the "dirty, lousy crooks" of the DLC.

The worst of it all, is that most among us, including most putative political leaders of today, accept that faith which is fit only for the legendary underlings. They chant such pitiable litanies as, "You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." So, they chant, over and over, marching, with an hysterical glint in their eyes, along what is for them the dusty road of "our tradition," moving always toward the same Hell which ancient Sophist's Athens of ancient Pericles brought upon itself in its time.

These critical developments are deadly, but they are not the end of history; they define a critical point of radical changes in the course of history. For example:

Global Asymmetric Warfare
Take the increasing Hellish situation now spreading like a pandemic in Southwest Asia, and beyond.

During the past week's Senate hearings of the testimony of the Defense Department's Donald Rumsfeld et al., one important statement of true facts from the professional military stands out as of crucial historical strategic significance, a point missed by most of the world's habitually stupid, currently leading press.

The testimony from among the professional serving generals, converged upon a discussion of qualitatively significant changes in the military situation on the ground in Iraq. This discussion was relevant in itself; but, those facts, while true, miss the crucial point. The problem in Iraq today, is the situation in the entire region is characterized by a qualitative shift from conventional warfare, so-called, into a different phase, not merely elements of asymmetric warfare, but the generalized asymmetric warfare for which the Bush Administration's Defense Department, and, also, the overwhelming majority in the Congress, are hopelessly unprepared.

This is the change toward what I treated, together with relative other varieties of specialists, under the rubric of "irregular warfare," during the course of the 1980s. At that time, I warned that the combined failure of the Soviet official Andropov, with our parties, to accept President Ronald Reagan's proffer of a discussion of what the President named "A Strategic Defense Initiative," confronted the world as whole, with the inevitability of either general thermonuclear warfare during the course of, probably, sometime during the 1980s, or, in the alternative, a breakdown of the Soviet system during the same approximate time-frame, or the shift of the world as a whole toward an increasing role of the "irregular warfare" which Soviet usage named asymmetric warfare. As usual in matters of long-range forecasting, I was right, and all my opponents in this matter, from both the former western and eastern sides of that 1980s matter, have been proven totally mistaken in the method of their strategic thinking.

Such a qualitative change as echoed in the Senate hearing, is implicit in the aftermath of the earlier commitments, to Bertrand Russell's 1940s doctrine of "preventive nuclear attacks" on the Soviet Union, and the shift of the Russellites, during the 1960s to "mutual and assured thermonuclear destruction." In short, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, regular warfare could be fought by former U.S. allies only to the extent that the military power of Russia and China consented to limiting conflict within non-nuclear bounds of 1980s treaty-agreements on nuclear-weapons proliferation.

By breaking the essential political preconditions for continued agreement on those treaties, and aiming to crush Russia and its near-abroad, China, et al., the Anglo-American, pro-imperial (i.e., pro-globalization) financier interests of the Anglo-Dutch-Liberal-Synarchist cabal have created the axiomatic preconditions for global asymmetric warfare.

The changes in economic and monetary-financial policies, introduced jointly by the U.S. and British governments of the 1970s and 1980s, have destroyed the potential for durable peace, through the effects of the post- 1971-1981 shift to a radically "free trade" form of "floating-exchange-rate" world monetary system. This change introduced a fresh, pro-imperialist, impulse toward eliminating the Franklin Roosevelt design of a Treaty of Westphalia-based world system of cooperation based upon principles of physical progress of nations, per capita and per square kilometer, under sovereign nation-state economy.

We must see this development as rooted in the post-1945, pro-imperialist change from Westphalian principles of international law, as rooted in the global utopian conceptions of H.G. Wells and his accomplice and nuclear-war architect Bertrand Russell. The successful assassination of President John F. Kennedy, combined with the targetting of France's President Charles de Gaulle and the targetting for early ouster of de Gaulle's partner Konrad Adenauer, were important stepping-stones toward the radical destruction of both the Bretton Woods system and Roosevelt revival of the U.S. economy, set into full motion during the 1970-1981 interval.

The drive toward post-industrial utopias and related cultural and economic wrecking-games over the course of the recent three and a half decades, has created a deep cleavage of the quality of common interest on which peaceful cooperation among nations depends. The present George W. Bush, Jr. administration has merely carried such germs of global asymmetric warfare to a state of ripeness at which either that trend is repudiated and dismembered now, or the presently imminent spread of asymmetric warfare into a global form of nuclear and other special kinds of weapons blended with unmitigated asymmetric conflict will blend with the onrushing, chain-reaction collapse of the world economy as a whole, a collapse which would spread rapidly from the TransAtlantic realm and Southwest Asia, spreading like Europe's Fourteenth Century, chain-reaction-style, throughout the world as a whole.

Meanwhile, the world economy in its present form, is at the stage of a chain-reaction collapse. The present world monetary-banking system is hopelessly bankrupt, as only wild-eyed liars and kindred morons and lunatics would still deny.

There is, in short, no way, in which the current trends in world policy, in the U.S.A., or in Europe, can continue without bringing on the early general collapse of civilization as a whole.

The military position of the U.S., and of Israel, in Southwest Asia, is presently utterly hopeless. Get out. Get out now. And bring in an entirely new policy, under which Israel and others submit to the reality that only a Westphalian alternative exists as viable.

History, as conceived by Francis Fukuyama and his like, is now dead. It is time to replace the dead with those who represent a living new, future history for all mankind.

All those who attempt to interpret current trends from a different standpoint than I emphasize here, will continue to be failures in assessment of the most crucial of the global strategic parameters.

[moeen yaseen]

WHO IS BEHIND WORLD WAR 111?
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

August 2, 2006

The renowned psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim once explained, there are some slaves who, then as now, regarded their chains and rags as ornaments to be worn with pretense of pride. Today, the slavish mind says, "Since the system will never change, we can only influence our slave-master (the predators controlling the Democratic Leadership Council or others), by trying to influence that beast from beneath, and take his donations of faith-based-initiatives money when we can." Therefore, now is the time for currently leading political figures of much of the world to stop repeating the silly sophistries of the idiots whispering at their elbows, and, instead, to face the reality of the current global situation.

Consider the following puzzle:

The policies of the current U.S. government are being dictated by those who intend to have an immediate further outbreak of war, with the objective of eliminating all national sovereignties, including that of the U.S.A., by methods of so-called "globalization." This is being directed by the international financier circles which, typified by that same past Synarchist International's Felix Rohatyn of today, are already working to destroy the U.S. from within.

What then should we say of the idiots, including leading circles in Europe, who are reporting that the present impulse toward a form of World War III characterized by nuclear-weapons-enhanced global asymmetric warfare, is an expression of "U.S. Imperialism"? Could any sane person, under these conditions, actually believe that the U.S. government, which is about to be taken over by a foreign occupying power represented by Goldman Sachs's modern copy of Hjalmar Schacht, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson, is the imperial power behind the intent to destroy itself?

It is time to provide the relevant protective camisoles for the representatives of that brainwashed Baby-Boomer booboisie (Fr.: Bo-Bo's) who betray their foolishness by babbling the tell-tale mantra of "I don't believe in conspiracy theories."

As everyone who is not either locked away, or mentally short-handed, knows, the current drift in world policy has been toward what is called "globalization," a scheme otherwise known as "The World Trade Organization." The stated purpose, and effect of these schemes is to drive down the per-capita income of virtually every part of the world, except the personally-worthless-but-super-rich backers of the intellectually challenged President George W. Bush, Jr. and their likenesses. This goal is supposed to be brought about, by destroying investments in capital-intensive modes of scientific and technological progress in agriculture and industry, and shifting production to virtual slave-labor regions. This, already, is exactly what has been done to ruin the U.S.A. and the lower eighty percentile of its family households, since the radical changes made during 1971-1981, by the combination of a floating-exchange-rate system and the savage deregulation launched under the Trilateral Commission.

Although the relevant evidence has been published extensively in numerous locations, it is necessary to present the essential strategic features of the case, summarily here, as follows:

The Strategic Issue Today
Go back a few decades, to the time when the concerted personal attacks on me by the circles of the Congress for Cultural Freedom began. These were the same circles associated with the American Family Foundation, the Henry "Scoop" Jackson version of what is presently George P. Shultz's Committee on the Present Danger, and the Mont Pelerin Society.

The scene was Queens College, New York. The occasion was a late 1971, widely publicized debate between challenger Lyndon H. LaRouche and the putative dean of Keynesian liberal professors in the U.S.A., the specially appointed extraordinary professor at that institution, Abba Lerner. Abba Lerner was otherwise notable at that time as a key associate of Professor Sidney Hook.

The general subject of the debate was my September 1971 challenge to the putative leading economists of that time, in which I had publicly challenged all of them to defend themselves against my charge that the events of August 1971 had exposed the lot of them as virtually "Quackademics." The premise of my charge against that ration of the academic community, was that they had either denied, or evaded the event which I had forecast, a collapse, probably to occur approximately the close of the 1960s, like that caused by President Nixon's mid-August actions, in collapsing the Bretton Woods monetary system.

Professor Lerner was chosen by the relevant academic circles to take me on.

In response to Professor Lerner's counter-challenge, my rebuttal was that Professor Lerner's own policies, as typified by his advice to Brazil, was an echo of the policies of the Hjalmar Schacht who authored the economic policies of the Adolf Hitler regime.

The debate concluded at the point that Lerner almost whimpered his final attempt at rebuttal of my charge of the occasion: "But, if the German Social-Democracy had accepted Schacht's policy, Hitler would not have been necessary"! It was as if to say, that if the Democratic Party would embrace the policies of Felix Rohatyn, a presently threatened fascist tyranny in the U.S.A. would not be necessary.

Indeed, if we look at the role of the direct predecessors of Felix Rohatyn in the world of finance today, we see the echo today of the run-up to the backing of Hitler by circles including the French Synarchist financier circles of Lazard Fre@agres and Banque Worms then.

Professor Sidney Hook, the close associate of Lerner in the leadership of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, said of the debate. "Your man has shown himself to be an effective advocate; therefore, he will never be allowed to intervene" in relevant forms of public policy debate "again." That threat, and more, was carried out by the circles most readily recognized as Hook's own Congress for Cultural Freedom, the American Family Foundation, and the Committee on the Present Danger, from that time to the present day. This means that the U.S. Department of Justice was also a collaborator in implementing the threat delivered by "Captain" Hook.

The record shows that it has been the same category of "wealthy families" of the U.S.A., Britain, and France, which had backed Mussolini and Hitler's Schacht, whose heirs have used their corrupt influence inside the Department of Justice and the courts' system, in addition to the mass media controlled by those same families' influences, who have been the higher authority behind every attack on me and my associates, here and abroad, since the time, in 1973, that the Washington headquarters of the FBI, on the official record, choreographed what they intended to be my personal elimination through violent actions conducted under the auspices of FBI assets inside the National Committee of the Gus Hall Communist Party. They will tell you that I am "a bad guy," but they will never actually tell you why!

No other individual target of prosecutorial, judicial, and related fraud has been targetted with the persistency, international scope, and resort to sheer corrupt practices by official agencies of government and related assets, as I have been targetted during the thirty-five years since Hook delivered the threat during the close of 1971. The same opinion was given, some years past, in a public hearing, by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. There is one principal reason that other individual public personalities have never, during my lifetime, been targetted politically in that way over so long a period of time; the actual reason for this was given as an implied threat by Hook back in 1971. The other critics of current oligarchical policies were, rightly, not considered a serious long-term threat to the cabal of wealthy families which were represented, typically, by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the American Family Foundation, and the Committee on the Present Danger.

The typical futile "opposition" is never treated seriously, because it prides itself in doing nothing of much significance. Besides, as I have been in a position to know this very well, they can usually be purchased, very cheaply: with a rattle of fear, and a jingle of a small amount of money.

There is no reason to consider those connections as mysterious. What actually nationally leading figure of the Democratic Party today, has shown the combination of knowledge and courage to identify the principal internal enemy of the U.S., today, the circles associated with Felix Rohatyn? If leading Democrats would have troubled themselves to be less attracted by the money associated with Rohatyn's circles, and more concerned with the evidence that Rohatyn is key to the ongoing internal destruction of the U.S. republic, they, too, would soon be on the hit-list of Rohatyn and his circles today, as I am. The tip-off to the corruption within the leading national circles of the Democratic Party today, is the avowed shift in orientation to right-wing, upper-middle-class social-economic political values, and in virtual disregard of the obligation to defend the general welfare, not with unredeemable sophistries, but with substance.

Know Our Nation's Enemy!
Go back to the time the Reverend Martin Luther King came to Selma, Alabama. It was not the relevant middle class of the community which welcomed Martin; they tended to shun him. It was the children and the "have-nothings" who were the foundation of the social force which gathered so much of the nation around Martin's great, emerging leadership, here and abroad. It is not the upper twenty-percentile of the population which will fight for our nation today, except as their ox has first been gored, as the "middle class" segment of the auto workers' unions have been gored just recently. It is the lower eighty percentile of our family-income brackets, which are the mass constituency--the present situation's "forgotten man"--on which the political honor of our republic depends in this time of an onrushing, global general breakdown-crisis, as in the roughly comparable situation of the 1932 Franklin Roosevelt Presidential campaign.

In this situation, "single issues" are merely so much diversionary political garbage, fit only for the consumption of "Rove-ing" idiots. Either we force the adoption of the needed changes in law, or our republic is doomed in the near future. As we should be reminded by the wicked carnival of the legislative process now, without a government of the people which forces the legislative process and executive to submit again to the kinds of recovery policies which President Franklin Roosevelt's Administration most nearly typifies in recent memory, there will be soon no United States Federal Republic, but, at most, a caricature of what was in times past.

The enemy of the U.S. today, is the enemy of global civilization. Despite all shortfalls, and backsliding, the U.S. republic represents today the highest level of quality of design of a true republic, a republic largely, if not entirely, freed from those oligarchical traditions of the vastly inferior form of typical European government: a relatively impotent, parliamentary system submitting to supervision by a so-called independent central banking system. In addition, should there be a sudden formal devaluation of the U.S. dollar, as some fools in the U.S.A. and elsewhere propose, the result would be a general, chain-reaction-like collapse of civilization globally, as a hypothetical collapse of the U.S. economy would be an existential catastrophe for China, among others. The chief problem of the world today is, that whereas the world requires an immediate stabilization of the U.S. dollar now--which could be done if the U.S. had a mentally competent President in the Franklin Roosevelt tradition--with the failure to sweep aside the kind of policies which have led the U.S.A. and western and central Europe into their careening state of ruin today, there is no chance of avoiding a prolonged, planetary new dark age for a generation or more to come.

The enemy is not only the fabulous incompetence characteristic of the current U.S. Bush Administration. The enemy is a feral monster, only typified by Felix Rohatyn and his predecessors of the pro-Nazi Lazard Fre@agres and Banque Worms of the relevant past.

This enemy is not prepared to accept a general, rapid chain-reaction collapse of the world's monetary systems. It is their intention, and currently ongoing practice, as in the instance of the monstrous negligence of the U.S. Congress in the Delphi case, to bring about a general breakdown-crisis of the world system; but, their intention is also to foreclose on that ruined system, by means of their present process of gobbling raw materials and production capabilities, to create a new world monetary system with stark resemblances to the medieval alliance between Venice's financier-oligarchy and the crusading Norman chivalry. That threat, is the enemy which civilized nations must unite to defeat, and to crush out of existence.

The present homicidal madness currently spreading throughout Southwest Asia, is an expression of the strategic intention of the supranational financier-oligarchical interests typified in the U.S.A. by the corrupting influence of Felix Rohatyn over the Congress. The enemy is not a nation, not any nation. The enemy is the evil force of principalities and powers, for which the typical expression is the case of the bankers behind Schacht and Hitler, and their descendants, as typified by Rohatyn today.

So many people, in so many nations, large and small, at both high-ranking and lower levels of influence, are so terrifyingly small-minded today.

We are presently moving, like the fabled lemmings, toward what promises to become, soon, World War III, but of a special, spreading, slime-mold-like asymmetric ruin. As of this moment, there is nothing of much political weight inside, or outside the U.S.A., or western and central Europe, which is standing efficiently in the way of preventing the present U.S.-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon and prospective early invasion of Syria and beyond. That Southwest Asia situation, is the detonation, and the state of the world is the principal explosive charge.

To understand this situation, we must take into account certain types of recurring moral flaws in the behavior of ordinary men and women, as the case of Pericles' Athens illustrates: a plunge to doom, from folly to folly, with nothing effective available to stop the pointless insanity! Such were the Seven Years' War, the Napoleonic wars, and the two World Wars accompanied by orchestrated Balkan wars, then and most recently. Israel, under putative U.S. pressures, has launched itself, like a warhead on an explosive mission in wider Southwest Asia; it can not seem to stop itself from continuing this insane plunge toward self-inflicted doom.

However, this is not a U.S.-directed war. The President of the U.S.A. is a mental case, and the Vice-President is a sociopath, neither notable for much in the direction of human intelligence. They are the puppets of the action, not the willful authors. Like Israel itself, they are destined by their controllers from the same international financier circles directing the DLC, to be "used up" as the customary expendables for warfare are.

The relevant power which we must defeat, is the financier-oligarchy, only typified by Felix Rohatyn, which was behind Hitler earlier, and is the intended winner in a return of this planet to something like that medieval system of Crusades which concluded with the Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age. These forces are to be recognized by their advocacy of "globalization." That is the enemy; that is the author of the onrushing threat of a modern nightmare of asymmetric World War III.

We must stop that enemy now, while it is still possible to do so.

Our task is to arouse and unite the mass of the population, including both the poor and those not-so-poor who are either capable, or redeemable as a force, to bring about the urgently necessary change, and to defeat the great forces of evil typified in the state of mind of those dupes who defend the lunacies of globalization and a world trade organization today.

[Rory Winter]

Gilad Atzmon - Operation Security Roof
Monday, August 07, 2006


Migrant workers setting up the test phase of the latest Israeli security project.

It might not be such a terrible thing for Gilad Atzmon to have his computer be tapped by the various bodies of Intelligence around the world. As we all know, they are far from what their name implies at times, and there are on occasion some Top Secret documents and projects that filter out. This is the latest in a series of super-reserved documents that Gilad has been able to obtain from Israel and share with the general public. This appears to be a version of a press release or a journalistic dispatch, which is more or less the same thing at the end of the day, and not only does it show the creativity of Israel, it gives us a glimpse into the dynamism of a typical brainstorming meeting of the top cabinet. To be informed is to be armed, as they say, so brothers and sisters, arm yourselves and take a look at the latest idea Israel has to guarantee the Security of the Jewish State.

Operation Security Roof
Developing Story
by Gilad Atzmon

Following the IDF difficulties in defeating Hezbollah’s and Hamas’s ballistic warfare, the Israeli Government is now searching for contractors with some advanced experience in large scale reinforced concrete constructions. The mission ahead is the building of a solid concrete roof over the entire Jewish State (known as ‘Greater Israel’). PM Olmert is determined that the only way to defend Israel’s populated area is to cover the Jewish State with a thick layer of iron and cement.

The Israeli Government’s decision to build a concrete roof followed a considerable debate within the cabinet. Defence Minister Amir Peretz insisted that a massive extension of the current Security Wall would be enough to provide the goods. Peretz maintained that a substantial increase of the wall to the height of 90,000 ft. would be more than sufficient to stop missiles from entering Israeli territory. Peretz sensibly argued that Israeli youngsters would benefit from seeing the blue sky when they raise their eyes above. Prime Minister Olmert and the Chief of Staff, Major General Dan Halutz, couldn’t agree less. Being fully aware of the nature of ballistic warfare, both Halutz and Olmert agreed that the only way to provide the Jewish State with the ultimate security is to cover it from above with a reinforced concrete shield. Shimon Peres, the legendary peace enthusiast, offered a compromise inspired by the idea of a trampoline. Peres suggested that a Security Wall’s 90,000 ft. extension made of an elastic net would do the job. The elder statesman argued that an elastic net will guarantee that every Arab missile aimed at Israel would bounce back to the Arab territory once it hits the net. Olmert and Halutz dismissed Peres’s suggestion. They argued that considering the excessive Israeli usage of artillery and missiles against its Arab enemies, the Jewish State would suffer far more from the erection of such a ‘bouncy net’. “Israel,” said Halutz, “would never survive the extent of its fierce artillery barrages bouncing back on itself.”

In a press conference following the heated cabinet debate, the Government spokesman Mr Zion Zioni stressed that “following the total success of the Security Wall in stopping Palestinian suicidal terror, ‘Security Roof’ is obviously the natural way to proceed.” Mr Zioni maintained as well that the new Israeli project will turn the Jewish State into a “sealed Jewish Bunker”. “In fact,” Zioni emphasised, “‘Operation Security Roof’ brings the Zionist adventure into its final destination. We are now moving from the ‘Iron Wall’ phase into the ‘Concrete Roof’ future. With a reinforced concrete ceiling from above, a Security Wall in the East and the Mediterranean Sea in the West, the Jewish State will eventually become the safest haven for world Jewry. Herzl’s dream comes true. Long Live Israel!”

Yet, some technical difficulties lay ahead. Probably the most crucial problem has something to do with breathing. Like the rest of the humankind, the Israeli people consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Apparently, the Israeli cabinet Ministers were made aware of this very crucial fact by the Health Minister. Olmert, being a man of action, responded immediately. Already in the cabinet meeting he authorised the Defence Ministry to explore different solutions to the acute problem.

We already learned from the Defence Ministry spokesman Lt. Galileo Galilee that ‘Filter on the Roof’, the Israeli-American High Tech chemical giant (traded on Wall Street, operated from Gush Katif) has been contracted to deal with the problem.We have learned as well from Lt. Galilee that Filter on the Roof has already come up with more than a few solutions. Although some of the solutions are rather radical, it is crucial to mention that they are all extremely innovative, as you would expect from an Israeli-American High Tech venture. Probably the most conventional and practical solution proposed by the chemical giant was to bore as many as 6 million ventilation holes in the roof. Peres, Peretz and Sh-Meretz rejected the possibility without even thinking twice. “Considering our traumatic collective memory of the holocaust,” so they said, “turning the Jewish State into a big room with holes in the ceiling is simply unacceptable.”

Probably the most radical suggestion made by the Israeli-American company was to train the Jewish population in Israel to breath like fish. By the time the Israeli people are well trained, all that is left to do is just to fill the Jewish bunker with seawater. In other words, Filter on the Roof suggested to turn the Israeli State into a ‘giant Jewish tropical aquarium’. Though this option seems to be very radical and even inconceivable, most cabinet Ministers reacted enthusiastically. They all agreed that such a solution would fit nicely with the concept of modern Jewish life in general and Zionism in particular. Israelis love the sea. Israelis are not afraid of water. Once the entire Israeli society is covered with water, no one would ever consider throwing them to the sea.

We will be following this developing story and keeping you informed.

http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/08/gilad-atzmon-operation-secu rity-roof.html

[Rory Winter]

Please sign Online Petition asking Arab League to Defend Arabs



To: Arab League

Insofar as internationally, we Arabs have allowed many organs to represent us, we Arabs and friends of Arab peoples, address you as our representatives. I trust that you hold our interests and our wellbeing in the highest regard, and that is why we take this opportunity to call upon you to act as our true representatives to the world, and insist that all Heads of State in the Arab League, and that all representatives of the International Community that have economic, social and political ties with any of our nations, demand an immediate stop of Israel's belligerent aggression against our brothers and sisters in Palestine and Lebanon.

It is impellent that you take immediate action, to validate the trust that citizens have placed in you, as well as for pragmatic reasons of your own survival as a body that can claim to represent people of Arab nations. There are many ways to diplomatically impose a halt of Israel's violence. There are many peaceful actions that can impose upon it a determined change in policy. All of these tools are able to be implemented in full compliance with international law, and as in the situation of South Africa, have been proven to be effective and furthermore, have gained widespread international support both within the masses and at the level of governments of civilised nations.

In choosing to not take advantage of any of these instruments, you have allowed the onus of the defence of our people to fall on the Hamas and the Hezbollah. Whether or not this has been your intention, the fact remains that you are an internationally recognised representative of the States and therefore of the citizens and residents of the Arab nations, and you are theoretically ultimately responsible for the coordination of their political approaches to situations of international crisis that involve them, especially where the lives of our people are being sacrificed. If you have chosen to abandon the Arab people at this time, it is clear that you serve no purpose whatsoever, and in that case, it would be wise to withdraw from the international scene and disassemble yourselves.

We implore you to act now, or forever disband. Israel must not be allowed to commit any more War Crimes against Arabs, or the UN for that matter. Violence against Arabs must cease and desist. It is your responsibility.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

CLICK BELOW TO SIGN PETITION
http://www.petitiononline.com/Umma2006/petition.html

[Rory Winter]

One-sided approach
(Monday 07 August 2006)

SOMEONE should certainly be in the dock over the secretive use of Prestwick airport by Washington to transport lethal weapons to Israel for its onslaught against Lebanon.

But it is not the seven Trident Ploughshares campaigners who were arrested at the airport yesterday and are to appear in court today.

And it's not the four people who have been held in custody since Sunday after breaking through security fencing and running onto the main runway and who face court proceedings tomorrow.

Those who oppose Israel's destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and who expose the collaboration between Tel Aviv and the leading imperialist states, the US, France and Britain, are acting in the interests of peace and international law.

Tony Blair has a team of spin doctors working full-time to try to persuade us that he is leaving no stone unturned in his personal efforts to create the conditions for a permanent, lasting settlement.

But his efforts are devoted to grinding down international opposition to a UN resolution that offers Israel a chance of achieving through diplomacy what it has been incapable of winning militarily.

Western leaders have made much of their support for Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, stressing a new chapter for the country following the withdrawal last year of Syrian forces from Lebanon.

But their objections to occupation of Lebanon aren't based on principle. They change with the identity of the occupier.

The US-French resolution envisages a ceasefire and demobilisation of Hezbollah while the Israeli occupiers are given carte blanche to consolidate their occupation of southern Lebanon.

This one-sided approach designates Hezbollah as the main problem rather than Israel's penchant for invading its neighbours, annexing their land, murdering their civilians in huge numbers and holding thousands of Arabs indefinitely in their jails.

If Paris and Washington had any real empathy with Mr Saniora, they would not have rejected his own serious peace proposals.

These involve an immediate ceasefire, followed by the release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners, Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, including the Shebaa Farms region, and the return of Lebanese displaced by the fighting.

Israel and those who act in its interest are opposed to the return of refugees to south Lebanon, since they have convinced themselves of the need for a "buffer zone" in the area to safeguard Israel's security.

There is no such thing as unilateral security. There will be no lasting security for Israel as long as it imposes insecurity, death and destruction on its neighbours.

The current war ought to have concentrated the minds of the imperialist states on the need to deal with the root cause of conflict in the region, Israel's denial of the Palestinian people's national rights.

Instead, they are continuing their time-dishonoured twin-track approach of combining pitiless military pressure with the search for pliable local representatives.

If Mr Blair can't offer anything more imaginative than that, then he should go on holiday without delay and, preferably, stay there.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index2.php/free/comment/one_sided_a pproach

[Rory Winter]

Deporting Blair: Mr Blair, before you raise the subject of deportation, you need to look in the mirror
by Yamin Zakaria

August 25, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca


"I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar or who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values & people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage." (Lord McCauley in his speech of Feb 2, 1835, British Parliament)


Mr Blair, before you raise the subject of deportation, you need to look in the mirror, and remember that the entire episode of migration started approximately four hundred years ago; when your ancestors arrived on our shores, without a visa, without invitation and without anything to offer. They (East India Company) arrived claiming to be traders, but constantly plotted and eventually, colonised the entire continent and plundered its resources; proving to be pirates disguised as businessmen. At that time, India was a fairly prosperous nation, as testified by Lord McCauley, by the time your people left in 1947/48 it was one of the poorest.

Unlike the Mogul rulers that they replaced, they never settled into the country, but pillaged its abundant raw materials, following the footsteps of their Dutch (Dutch East India Company) rivals in Indonesia. The building of roads and railways in India leading to the ports had one central purpose, transporting India's rich raw materials, which gave employment to your populated cities. The goods manufactured in England were sold back into the Indian market. It made everyone wealthy, except the Indian population who owned those resources in the first place.

Likewise, in South Africa, all the Gold and Diamond mined has effectively been stolen, this naturally made your ancestors very rich but left the native Africans very poor. Then the missionaries tried to sugar-coat the grand theft by selling them the Bible. Those who resisted British Imperialism physically, like the Zulus were no doubt the "terrorists" of that time, in their own lands, and those who opposed using political means must been the preachers of "hate"

Many of the indigenous members who personally benefited from your rule, naturally argued in favour of British Imperialism, there are always profiteers selling their loyalties in every society. The likes of Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham MP) who passionately supports "your" (or the US) foreign policies; he supports the actions of your armies that are helping the larger US armed forces to invade nations that have not attacked or threatened the UK or US, consequently, men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan have been murdered in their tens of thousands. The latest reports from Iraq, confirmed by humanitarian organisations, [1] highlight that even children are being imprisoned, raped and tortured at the hands of foreign forces. So now you are "liberating" Iraqi children to deliver them into the clutches of sadists and paedophiles that fill that ranks in your armies, something you can't deny, as the world has seen the Abu Ghraib evidence. From Abu-Ghraib to children, surely you have now excelled Saddam Hussein.

The self-serving individuals in our midst are like the coolies that served your forefathers in the British Raj. They argue in collusion with some of the Muslim moderates in favour of deportation, desperately trying to preserve their self-interest. How is it that immigrants are now behaving like those on the far right, by using a language that is racist? Too often, I get asked the same question by those so-called "free" thinkers with a coolie mindset - why do you live here if you oppose the policies of the British government. Am I obliged to agree with the government on every issue or leave? I thought all citizens were equal and had right to disagree, the right to speak freely against wrongs, which is also an evidence of a free democratic society? In reality questions of what are you doing here then?” are posed in desperation when they are unable to intellectually answer the arguments posed to them. It would be far more accurate to call such people non-thinkers, the neo-coolies of today who believe the only legitimate view, is that of their masters.

Anyway, Mr Blair, you may have left India and most of Africa but it is doubtful you have left the other parts of the Islamic world where you and/or your American cousins continued to rule through proxy (neo-colonialism), by imposing dictatorships that align with your interests and are supported or go off script and then get toppled (Saddam for instance). A further illustration is your early version of X-Factor, where your foreign policy found such talent amongst those illiterate Bedouins in the deserts, as they herded their goats, that you immediately recognised them as royalty and turned them all into Princes and Kings. After 80 years of "independence" these Arabs are still incapable of extracting and refining oil by themselves, as those hand-picked Arabs have no interest, no desire and no will to become independent, as long their tribes are getting fatter than the camels. It is said that if there is a will there is a way so the reverse must also be true. In short, styles may have changed, but good old fashioned colonialism of exploiting the resources of other nations, has not!

It is definitely unfair to continue to blame your government for all the ills in the Islamic world. However, you do still play a significant role in maintaining Western interests, by keeping the Islamic world divided into small artificial nations, as opposed to the Caliphate you have so strongly rejected. Now why would you not want the Muslims to be united and in control of their own people, resources and lands, I wonder? Maybe it is because you want to continue making lots of money? So you frown at the idea of a unifying Caliphate, and you consider it a crime for the Muslims to unify but not the Europeans or the Anglo-Saxon world. Many thanks for clarifying what you mean by democracy for the Islamic world, as many of the moderates are under the impression that you want the Muslims to decide their own destiny.

Your fanaticism against the unification of the Muslims was exposed, when Iraq invaded its own former province of Kuwait (which you had divided some 40 years earlier). It was enough to move you into military action to maintain your puppets and interests. You killed indiscriminately, women, children, the old and the retreating soldiers on the road to Basra (highway of death) without remorse, but none of that is terrorism or genocide. Let us be honest for once, the US General said if Kuwait grew carrots we would not give a dam about its fate and I suppose your inaction over the real genocide in Rwanda is further proof of the reasons behind your militarism in the region. Iraqis never hurt your people, but you think in your arrogance you have right to do as you please.

The continuous destruction of our economies through maintaining these despotic puppet rulers, burdening our nations under crippling loans, strangling domestic industry and craft by dumping your subsidised over productions into our lands and the resulting misery, these are the main reasons why you have so many economic migrants, not counting those displaced by wars fought in your name or interests. Your successive governments have maintained colonialist foreign policies that have made our countries unliveable and ungovernable. Those ugly despotic puppets are not interested in anything beyond their tribal interests, and that suits you as long as your economic interests are met. A recent example of this petty self interest from ruling elites is the Tsunami disaster; the meanest contributors were the richest Islamic countries. Only recently we saw those same miserly regimes donating 20 million pounds to a French Museum that apparently has an "Islamic" section, while the mothers and children in Niger, Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan starve and bleed to death.

Now, Mr Blair, you threaten to expel second and third generation Muslims who have lived peacefully in the UK. You push for their assimilation, capitulation and complete subservience to your dictates; at the same time repeating your mantra of upholding multi-cultural identity and freedom. Being drunk with imperial arrogance you do not see the internal contradictions of your message. Note the distinction; we live in the UK as law abiding citizens that have made substantial contributions towards this society, unlike the example of your colonisers in our lands with stealth bombers and cruise missiles. However, deportation may not be such a bad idea, if it is carried out consistently and we all know inconsistencies are traits of hypocrites and liars, the selective application of UN resolutions naturally comes to mind!

So, deport the Muslims from UK, and in return Christian Anglo-Saxons should be expelled from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America, Caribbean, South Africa, Zimbabwe etc where they have not integrated, they have refused to learn the language despite living their for years, refused to accept the desirability of the indigenous peoples culture and practises, and have instead used violence and extremism, preached hate for their neighbour, totally destroyed their way of life, and abused their hosts hospitality. We welcome your bold and courageous steps, and welcome your applying these rules consistently across all such extremist, violent and racist communities wherever they are. Also don't forget to close all the embassies and remove the military bases and the multinational companies from the Islamic world.

Who knows, eventually the Celts in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland may also demand the deportation of your tribes. Effectively, then you would be quarantined to a section of your own tiny island. Then you can enjoy the company of Nick Griffin, Richard LittleJohn and all the other like minded little-people and enhance your "cultural" diversity, while the rest of the world can finally live in real peace.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ZAK200 50825&articleId=859

[Rory Winter]

‘Values’ of Extremist Blair
2006-08-07, Yamin Zakaria, London UK

Mr Blair, now you want to re-examine the US inspired policy of “war on terror”. For sure, it is not because you feel remorse about the butchery and destruction that you have unleashed, on the defenceless people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Will George Bush listen to your viewpoint as you claim to have a special relationship? The British establishment are under the impression that you can influence George Bush. However, the truth is: they delude themselves thinking that you are a junior partner with George Bush, because they are too ashamed to face the reality that you are his doormat or the more popular expression, “his poodle”.

Many people say that your reason for giving blind support to Bush is so that you will feed on his leftovers, like a vulture feeding on the dead carcasses. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Bush will take your opinion on the “war on terror” seriously. He is much more likely to respond in the following manner: “Yo Blair, get your ass back to England and wait for my instructions, in the meantime let Condie do the thinking and talking.” Forget George Bush, will you be able to convince the fanatical neo-con gangs around him, that the “war on terror” is actually a war of terror; it has not eliminated terror, but created more terror. The reality is - it is the Islamic world that has been terrorised; they are the real victims of state terrorism.

Inflicting violence will alienate the masses, and not win their hearts and minds. Naturally, the strategy of war on terror has simply failed to achieve the desired result of: bombing the Islamic world to submit to your values. Of course you will not impose your values directly by force, as you are an advocate of ‘democracy’, and the old fashioned colonialism is no longer politically correct!

Instead, like an extremist, by force you tried to impose your values through the natives, who collaborated with your scheme for their personal benefit. If they succeed, they would claim it as a victory for democracy, and your media would amplify that, and predict that the rest of the region would follow suit. But your plan has gone sour; you do not want just a regime change but a change in the value system. This means “win it at the level of values as much as force” - because “you can’t defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.” Therefore, you have now recognised the difference between the use of force and persuasion. The former is a potent tool for annihilating a nation or for defeating its army, where as the latter is apt for gaining converts to your values.

In terms of your values, you and Bush divide the world into moderates (allies) and extremists (foes). Your moderate friends do not oppose your foreign policy of neo-colonialism, where as the ‘extremists’ do. Due to the resistance from the ‘extremists’, you describe the Islamic world as an arc of ‘extremists’, but we also know it is an arc of the largest reservoir of oil and other minerals. Those who are helping you by their overt support or through their silence, to ‘secure’ access to the raw materials, they are the real moderates. Therefore, this term of moderate or extremist has little relationship with being a devout Muslim. Otherwise, why the non-Muslim Chavez of Venezuela has also been labelled as a militant by the US, as was Saddam Hussein, who was a secular Arab nationalist. Likewise, a devout Muslim, who is apolitical toward your foreign policy, is considered a moderate.

Let us face reality; there is no great mass movement in the Islamic world to embrace your values Mr Blair, as you and your neo-con friends arrogantly predicted prior to the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein has been taken out for sometime, we have had elections in Iraq but no real government with authority has been produced. Those who participated in the Iraqi election were driven by their sectarian interests and not by your values. As for your prediction of a domino effect in the region has also gone pear shaped, in Palestine Hamas came into power by a landslide victory, the Muslim Brotherhood also made substantial progress in Egypt. Islamic parties have also made progress elsewhere in the region.

So, you want to defeat the ideas held by the extremists (Muslims) with their “fanatical ideology” (Islam) by proving that your values are stronger. In that case, why do you avoid communicating with the ‘extremists’? By all means challenge them and show the rest of the world how ineffective they are against values of democracy and freedom. Instead, like a fanatic you resort to censorship while preaching free speech to them! Do you not see that makes you a hypocrite? I know it is a lot more comfortable to engage in a monologue with your moderate friends, but that will not help your cause.

Instead of bombing us to accept your values, you want to invite us to embrace the Western values. I am sure everyone would welcome such a move, provided that you are serious about it. The Muslims would accept your invitation, even though Abu-Ghraib and Camp-X-Ray may be causing you some discomfort. As you said: “unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world” , and you know that you have hardly been fair, since you have suspended the due process of law in places like Camp-X-ray, Belmarsh, and Abu-Ghraib.

Dialogue is a two-way lane, we have accepted your invitation but we should also get the same opportunity to invite the West to embrace Islam? Now here the communication breaks down, usually your camp responds negatively, because you do not approve of our views and values. But surely this is what a dialogue is all about; if the two parties did not differ, there would be no need for a dialogue. Also, expressing opposing views is part of free speech. Therefore, it is part and parcel of the Western values, the very thing you are calling us to. Yet now you want to suspend this rule of exchanging viewpoints, like you suspend rule of law and justice for the kidnapped people in Guantanamo Bay and in places like Abu-Ghraib.

Only few weeks back you were saying that Muslims had a false sense of grievance against the west, implying that it was largely a figment of our imagination. This is difficult to repeat as we are seeing the pictures of the slaughter in Lebanon daily. Do you remember the heaps of lies about Iraq’s WMDs, the dodgy dossier, the 45 minute attack from Iraq? Mr Blair, apart from such naked likes, you also constantly display duplicity. In a recent press conference, you were asked why do you think Israelis response is not disproportionate, you did not answer the question, and stated that blaming a particular party in the conflict in Lebanon will not help. But, you stated this after solely blaming Hizb-Ullah for the conflict. As if Hizb-Ullah took the Israeli soldiers as prisoners without any justification!

I guess deep inside you believe that Arabs/Muslims are just violent terrorists that needs to be tamed, like your ancestors also held similar belief as justification for their murderous campaign, going back to the days of the Medieval Crusades. As for Israel, it has nothing wrong to date according to you; Israel is always the innocent virgin. I think your wife with her children would have greater probability in convincing the world of being an innocent virgin! Even according to your version, Hizb-Ullah attacked the Israeli soldiers and Israel ‘retaliated’ by killing civilians en masse, yet Hizb-Ullah is the terrorist, and not Israel?

Hence, now do you Blair see why the Islamic world does not see any honesty or consistency in your statement, as it is difficult to take the word of a proven liar and a hypocrite at face value? Hence, the primary reason for rejecting your values is not because we disagree with it, but neither you nor George Bush upholds it. Furthermore, it is arrogance for you to think that suddenly we will simply embrace your values, as if we have nothing of our own, and such conduct is a sign of a real extremist.

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
London, UK

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=170

[Rory Winter]

Why will nobody play Brutus to Blair’s Caeser?

Tony Blair is cutting an increasingly isolated figure even within his own cabinet - we are told. His shameless support for Israel’s slaughter has shaken even New Labour diehards - we are told. Ministers are deeply embarrassed by the prime minister’s deranged remarks about a Muslim “arc of extremism” - we are told.

What we are not told is why he still clings to office. Why are these senior Labour politicians so keen to brief journalists of their profound concerns, yet so reluctant to speak out publicly, or follow through the logic of their position and wield the knife?

Not one of these conspirators has the guts to play Brutus to Blair’s Caesar.

This pathetic display underlines the corruption of the entire leadership of the Labour Party. They stood by Blair’s imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - and now they find themselves paralysed by the stench of blood on their hands, powerless to hold the prime minister back over Lebanon.

If the Labour Party cannot act to end the premiership of this paranoid murderous wretch, then the responsibility falls on the people that party once claimed to represent. The anti-war movement, so visible and vibrant last Saturday, must surge forwards in their thousands to Manchester next month. Only we have the power to cast Blair down.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9447

[Rory Winter]

CHILDHOOD DESTROYED BY THE WAR

http://images.ifun.ru/f/fVrf2BcUsW.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/f/fBrYjAniMY.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/r/rZNHcO6ytM.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/p/PlPDRnnM5P.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/g/gickASM0JG.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/e/EXckmKBzV3.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/u/uzoJ4Sehn6.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/m/MDeo3SKKOn.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/x/xqoHhYxrVt.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/4/44cwIhDPT0.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/t/TkPYmWuyiD.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/r/RWAPt1tb22.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/k/k9CoX65igP.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/f/fzSPUEmg5a.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/p/pm8ex7IpEC.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/i/IKKlBmsHUQ.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/d/dLZBhjfGTi.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/b/BSUXFNHa7i.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/4/4RNAXS86gT.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/c/cQarfmzQwC.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/y/YNx0I9NduX.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/z/z9syU6GT23.jpg

http://images.ifun.ru/7/7alufRRT2T.jpg


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/islamiccommunitynet/message/10376

[Rory Winter]

The Orator is Naked
Jihad Abu Az Zamman


The great world leader in a delicate moment of concentration

“We will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force”
Tony Blair

Tony Blair, a qualified war criminal, a man who lead his country head first to an illegal war, a man who is personally responsible (according to the Geneva Conventions) for the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and hundreds of thousands of refugees, a man who had lied to his cabinet, parliament and his people providing forged documents and misleading intelligence, a man that is currently leading himself and his government towards diplomatic isolation, a man who just two weeks ago gave the Israelis the green light to destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure and to displace half a million of its citizens, a man who currently lets America’s deadly supply to Israel refuel in British air bases, a man who together with Bush and Olmert is pushing for a global war, a man who is already at odds with his cabinet, his party, the EU, the UN and the British public - this very despicable man is as well a great orator, and despite all the above, he has the audacity to come up and suggest some moral guidelines. Tony Blair is now preaching to us all about ‘values’ and even ‘global values’. In the name of tolerance, righteousness and peace, the British PM has managed to produce one of the most Islamophobic texts this world has ever seen.

Like many others I read Tony Blair’s speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5236896.stm). But somehow, the more I engaged myself in the text, the more I realised that the last thing one can offer is a scholarly criticism of what seems to be the lowest form of Zionised Western bigotry. The shallow level of argumentation performed by the British PM would shame even a Zionist speaker at the Hyde Park corner. It is obvious that Blair’s speech exposes a severe lack of understanding of current world affairs at the very heart of British government. The PM falls short of elementary understanding of the Arab world, Islam is well beyond his reach. More worryingly, the man lacks any intellectual integrity; the notion of consistency is totally foreign to him.

I do not believe in prejudice and, as far as texts are concerned, I do not let myself be too judgmental. Generally speaking, I try to read as much as I can. I probably learn the most from texts I do not agree with. At the end of the day, ‘if you want to win you better know your enemy’. It was Benjamin Netanyahu, who helped me understand the logos behind the 3rd Reich. Nathan Sharansky served as a glimpse into Bush’s fascination with ‘democracy’ and Judeo-Centric Neoconservatism. Among my sins I have read Hitler’s Mein Kampf and ‘Hitler’s Second Book’. Indeed these two books helped me to further my understanding of militant racist nationalism. In practice, it was Hitler who helped me understand where Zionism is aiming. In an ideal world, Blair’s text should have fit nicely into my reading list. He is no doubt a major member in the ever-growing exclusive club of ‘World’s Greatest Evils’. Yet, unlike Hitler, Netanyahu and Sharansky, Blair’s intellectual sophistication is as low as the Dead Sea. It is not easy to admit, but the man is actually thick as wood and his reputation of being dim is growing by the second. The list of British politicians, Labour backbenches, world leaders and humanists who criticise his shallowness is now turning into a global mass movement. As bizarre as it may sound, Blair and his ideological twin on the other side of the Atlantic actually present us with the strongest possible argument against democracy and the Anglo-American ‘value system’. You look at Blair and Bush and think to yourself, “If this ‘leadership’ is what people choose when they are given a ‘free’ choice, democracy may be far from an attractive option.”

PM Blair, a man who already made it into the history of British politics as a compulsive liar took the opportunity and used the Los Angeles stage to preach his new message to the world. This time he is teaching us ‘values’ and even ‘global values’. One may stand up and ask, “What exactly are Mr. Blair’s personal values? Is lying to his people about WMDs one of his values?” Is trying to rob Iraqi oil in the name of democracy just another value of his? Does supporting Israel’s ultimate aggression against innocent Lebanese civilians represent just one of PM Blair’s ‘global values’? Is breaching the Geneva Conventions and invading Iraq while not being able to secure its civilian safety Blair’s ‘ultimate global value’? Most importantly, the more we know Blair, Bush and the ideologically flawed Neoconservatism, the more clear it is that some of us indeed believe that killing others in the name of a ‘value system’ is itself a value.

Saint Tony

In Los Angeles Mr. Blair, the great orator, presented himself as a dovish carrier of moderation and peace. “We” so he says, “will need an alliance of moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other.”

Clearly, Blair’s excessive use of calming words such as: ‘moderation’, ‘peace’ and ‘harmony’ gives the impression that the man tries to distance himself from his American twin. This isn’t very surprising. After being titled by the British press as Bush’s poodle, after being caricatured in the Independent walking side by side with Bush while his tongue is shoved up Bush’s behind, Blair is craving for an assertive dignified image of a ‘peace broker’. Verbally he pretends to provide the goods, at least that is what he thinks. He is sure that he knows how to bring peace to the “Muslim, Jew and Christian.”

Being myself an ex Jew, I just can’t stop myself from waiting for the prophetic message by the newly emerging Saint Tony.

Apparently, I do not have to wait too long. “We,” he continues, “will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world.”

Wonderful, isn’t it? I reassure myself, for a change I can relax for a short while. The people who flattened Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Najaf are now going to teach us all what ‘fair and just’ are all about. The man who supported the erasure of Southern Beirut just two weeks ago is now telling us what ‘even-handed’ is. All that is left for me to say is: welcome to the fantastic world of Saint Tony.

Tony The Toddler

Painfully, it is crucial to admit that Blair’s world of international affairs is not that far off a cosmos from a one-year-old toddler’s. It is rather established that toddlers in their early stages have a very limited sense of history and even lesser realisation of causality. For toddlers, events around them are relevant as long as they are intrinsically orientated around some immediate needs: a baby is hungry, he cries, he gets milk, end of story. It is rather shocking to find out that Blair’s vision of current world affairs isn’t far more developed. Events are meaningful as long as they are set within his short-term oratory need. As it seems, Blair’s History starts on 9/11.

“9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in Madrid, the countless terrorist attacks in countries as disparate as Indonesia or Algeria, what is now happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia, the continuing conflict in Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the same thing. What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred?”

The following is a brief sketch of toddler Tony’s pictorial political universe:

"Once upon a time, there was a world. This world was peaceful, beautiful and democratic and it was called ‘the West’. But then, one day (9/11), totally out of nothing, completely out of the *’n blue, a bunch of evil ‘fanatics’ called ‘Reactionary Muslims’ broke in through the sky and blew up its shrine known as the World Trade Centre. Only then, the good people of the West decided to globalise their goodness.”

Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, this seems to be Blair’s vision of the past. ‘We’ (The West) are innocent! ‘They’ (the ‘Reactionary Fanatic Muslims’) are the ‘baddies’. This very form of binary opposition is probably the essence of the Zio-centric banality of evil that is already deeply settled at the very core of the contemporary Anglo-American political discourse. Within the Anglo-American world, hegemony is granted to the one who manages to charismatically communicate the simplest idiotic tale. This may as well explain how come a man who holds the most vulgar, not to say idiotic, vision of current world affairs has been democratically elected three times in a row.

But then, is there any available educational strategy to deal with a toddler PM? With young kids you usually bear in mind that all you have to do is just to wait a bit. Give them time, one year, two years, and they will learn. On the contrary, the case of the British PM is very much the opposite. It seems as if the man is going through a rapid process of intellectual shrinking, what may be described pathologically as a form of a severe intellectual regressive disorder. The PM is by far more stupid now than he was ten years ago. Everyday he stays in office, the more we learn about his reactionary views. The king is naked and his oratory is empty. In the case of Toddler Tony there is not much hope. It seems as if no one can really explain to him that the state of Islamic resistance is nothing but a direct outcome of very many years of Anglo-American colonialism orientated mainly around oil thirstiness.

Toddler Tony is totally convinced as well that the Israeli Palestinian conflict started with Sharon’s unilateral disengagement. “When Prime Minister Sharon took the brave step of disengagement from Gaza,” says the regressive PM, “it could have been and should have been the opportunity to re-start the process.” How are we going to inform Tony that the disengagement had nothing to do with the core of the conflict? How can we tell him that had nothing to do with the Palestinian cause? How shall he learn that it didn’t aim at a resolution of the grave situation created by the 1948 expulsion of the Palestinian people by the young Jewish state? How should we notify the ignorant prime child about the 1917 Balfour declaration? It’s a big question indeed. Shall we seek some help from cartoonists? Young kids are visually orientated. Shall we provide him with some colourful drawings? We may as well have to consider recruiting the Teletubbies for a highly educational classified state mission. Indeed we are left with a major question: how should we approach a democratically elected toddler?

But PM Blair isn’t just a war criminal, compulsive liar and a toddler, he is an expert on Islam as well. He knows how to differentiate between what he calls “reactionary Islam” and “moderate mainstream Islam”. For him the difference is rather clear. Reactionary Islam is: Iran, Syria, Saddam’s Iraq, Taliban. For Blair all those are nothing but ‘fanatics’. Why exactly are they fanatics? I guess that in Tony’s world a Muslim who opposes Western colonialism is simply ‘reactionary’ and a ‘fanatic’. On the contrary, when Blair mentions ‘moderate Muslims’ he obviously refers to those who are serving Western interests, those who allow his Royal navy to dock, those who trade oil with British Petroleum. Amongst Blair’s ‘moderate Muslims’ you will find the most corrupt, non-democratic and murderous regimes around. The PM obviously turns a blind eye to their crimes.

Needless to say, Saddam’s Iraq was far from being a reactionary Islamic state. Needless to say, Syria is a secular Arab state. Saddam’s resistance wasn’t Islamically orientated. Syria’s opposition to Israel is purely territorial. However, to oppose Western colonialism, whether on a religious ground or any other ground is more than legitimate. It is neither reactionary nor fanatical. In fact it is nothing but exercising the notion of freedom.

Terrorism or Freedom Fighting

On the face of it, it seems as if the British PM doesn’t really know the difference between terrorism and freedom fighting. Terrorism is all about scoring points by spreading fear. This is obviously something Britain, America and Israel are practicing daily in Beirut, Baghdad, Basra and Kabul. Freedom fighting, on the other hand is to oppose Zionised Anglo-American terrorism. Freedom fighting is to claim your land and to fight an invader. This is exactly what the Hamas, the Hezbollah, and the Taliban are engaged with. Yes Mr Blair, Hezbollah’s war isn’t terrorism, it is a purely legitimate struggle grounded on a consistent humanist approach. As we all know, Hezbollah vowed to disarm when Sheeba Farm, occupied by Israel, is returned to Lebanese hands. May I tell you Mr Blair, if you were not a compulsive liar lacking any moral integrity, you would probably find yourself supporting the Hezbollah like most Arabs and Muslims do. You would as well support Arab resistance very much like every free spirit humanist on this planet. But somehow instead, you prefer to support the Zionist criminal tale. No wonder you have chosen a wealthy Zionist to be your prime fund raiser.

The Bigot and State Bigotry

In his speech Blair insists upon changing the ‘Muslim value system’. It is “not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned... The banner was not actually ‘regime change’, it was ‘values change’.” A moralist may ask, what exactly grants one the ethical right to impose one’s values on others? My answer is simple: to assume that one’s value system is superior to others is called supremacy. However to use military might and violence in order to impose one’s value system is nothing but bigotry. Seemingly, the British PM, who happens to be a war criminal, a liar, a toddler and an expert on Islam happens to be a bigot as well. And the policy he advocates is nothing but state bigotry. To drag Britain into that form of crude bigotry is to turn the entire British society into bigots. The implications of such a policy are devastating indeed. It’s no wonder why the vast majority of the British public are tired of the PM. It is about time, British democracy will use its correcting powers to get rid of this shameless man. It is probably the Labour Party that should lead this move. They better take action before it is too late. It isn’t about politics anymore. We are dealing here with world peace and it is a British PM together with America and Israel who are gravely endangering this peace.

Is it a coincidence that Blair fails to see it all? Not really: after being involved in so many devastating war crimes from Kabul to Beirut through Baghdad and Basra there is not much room left for doubts. Blair sees one truth; his own. The man is fully blind, ethically and morally. Yet, he is politically aware. In spite of being blind, he has managed to survive any political challenge so far. Like a proper serial murderer he is rather concerned with the penalty rather than with the moral consequences of his own crime. Blair knows very well that once he is out of office, he will have to confront some serious legal challenges to do with the carnage spread all over the Middle East. He will have to confront the families of British soldiers he sent to die in an illegal war as well. The man may realise already that he is going to spend some time behind bars. He will stick to his chair as long as he can.

Jihad Abu Az Zamman is a roaming guest writer we happen to like a lot. While not tying these articles to a homing pigeon so that we can have them, he claims that he is currently active transcribing “The Ring Cycle” for Minjayrah, Rabab and Shabbabah. We wish him luck.


http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/

[Rory Winter]

Galloway: 'The Violence Will Go On'

George Galloway has spoken out in support of Lebanon, saying he believes Hizbollah is justified in attacking Israel. The Respect MP also lambasted media coverage of the war and said the UN resolution means nothing.

CLICK BELOW FOR VIDEO
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806  ,00.html#

[Rory Winter]

Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong
The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1839280,00.html

Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.

But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

www.monbiot.com

[Rory Winter]

Israel, Oil and the "planned demolition" of Lebanon
MIKE WHITNEY

August 7, 2006

"The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them…Hitler—as odious as he is to us—has given this idea a good name in the world." Ze’ev Jabotinsky; Ideological founder of the Likud Party "One Palestine Complete" p 407


"The raw logic of Israel’s distorted self-image and racist doctrines is exposed beyond confusion by the now-stark reality: the moonscape rubble of once-lovely Lebanese villages; a million desperate people trying to survive Israeli aerial attacks as they carry children and wheel disabled grandparents down cratered roads; limp bodies of children pulled from the dusty basements of crushed buildings. This is the reality of Israel’s national doctrine, the direct outcome of its racist worldview." Virginia Tilley "The Case for Boycotting Israel" Counterpunch


By bombing the highways and main bridges into Beirut, Israel has cut off the capital from the outside world and put the entire nation under siege. Israel can now execute its plan to pummel Lebanon into rubble without the threat of foreign intervention.

The north has been effectively severed from the south allowing the IDF to continue its ethnic cleansing operations as well as its search-and-destroy missions for Hezbollah fighters. They have meticulously destroyed all the main points of entry at the Syrian border and blockaded the coastline. Israel believes that their earlier occupation (which ended in year 2000) failed due to the unrestricted flow of supplies and weaponry from Syria and Iran. The Bush administration has assisted this effort by providing crucial intelligence from the NSA about the movement of material from the outside.

By now, it should be apparent that Israel’s military campaign has nothing to do with Hezbollah’s capturing of the 2 Israeli soldiers on July 14. The present plan, which was drawn up more than a year ago (and which high-ranking members of the Bush administration were fully briefed) is designed to establish a new northern border for Israel at the Litani River and create an "Israel-friendly" regime in Beirut.

The plan to annex the land south of the Litani River dates back to the founding of the Jewish state when Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion described the country’s future borders this way: "To the north the Litani River, the southern border will be pushed into the Sinai, and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan." (See Map of post WW1 Zionist plan for region http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story1045.html )

In 1978 the IDF launched Operation Litani with the intention of annexing the southern part of Lebanon and setting up a Christian client-regime in Beirut that would take orders from Tel Aviv. Israel said that it needed a "buffer zone" for its security, the same excuse that it uses today. The 1982 invasion devolved into an 18 year onslaught which ravaged the Lebanese economy and killed more than 20,000 civilians. In 2000, Israel was driven from Lebanon by the persistent attacks of the Lebanese resistance organization, Hezbollah.

The media portrayal of the current conflict is blatantly absurd. It has nothing to due with "captured soldiers" or Israel’s "right to defend itself". This is a traditional war with clear territorial and political objectives. The border controversy is nonsense. Israel is trying to seize more land to realize its vision of "Greater Israel" while reducing an adjacent Arab country to a "permanent state of colonial dependency". This explains the vast and deliberate destruction to Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure. Israel’s dominance requires that its neighbors endure abject poverty and oppression. By destroying the infrastructure and life-support systems, Israel hopes to eliminate the rise of a potential rival as well as to diminish the ability of the Lebanese resistance to wage war against the Jewish state. Once Lebanon is decimated, it will be delivered to Zionists at the World Bank (Paul Wolfowitz) who will apply the shackle of reconstruction loans and structural readjustment, which will keep Lebanon as an indentured servant to the global banking establishment. This model of economic servitude has been used throughout the developing world with varying degrees of success. It anticipates Israel’s regional ascendancy while ensuring that Lebanon’s sovereignty will be compromised for decades to come.

The United States has played a unique role in Israel’s war on Lebanon. In its 230 year history the US has never deliberately assisted in an attack on an ally. That record will end with Lebanon.

Lebanon was demonstrably "pro-American" government on friendly terms with Washington. In fact, American NGOs and intelligence organizations helped to activate the "Cedar Revolution" which gave rise to the Fouad Siniora government and the eventual expulsion of Syrian troops. To a large extent, Washington and Tel Aviv had achieved what they wanted to by meddling in Lebanon’s political affairs. The country was singled out as a shining example of Bush’s "global democratic revolution", which was the stated goal of American intervention in the Middle East.

Lebanon has since been rewarded for its cooperation by the total obliteration of its economy and infrastructure. The Bush administration has abandoned any pretense of being an "honest broker" and is now providing Israel with precision-guided missiles to prosecute a war against a (mainly) civilian population. They are also actively collaborating with the Olmert regime to foil all plans for an immediate ceasefire. The United States is a fully-engaged partner in the premeditated destruction of a democratic country. It is as much a part of the Israeli aggression as any IDF tank commander rumbling towards Beirut.

The United Nations has been sidelined by the administration’s obstructionism at the Security Council. The efforts of the Bolton-Rice team are tantamount to a "declaration of war". So far, the Israeli offensive has uprooted nearly 1 million people in the south; making refugees of approximately 25% of the Lebanon’s total population. The UN has done nothing to respond to this calamity. Its ineffectiveness casts doubt on whether it will survive the present crisis. Security in the new century will ultimately depend on alliances between the individual countries. The UN model of one, monolithic international institution trying to "preserve the peace" has proved to be a wretched failure.

The scene in the south of Lebanon is hauntingly similar to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948; the Nakba. Once again, Israel is seen driving Muslims from their homes in an attempt to expand its territory. The "deliberate" attack on Qana, which killed 57 civilians, as well as the bombing of clearly marked ambulances and "white flag-waving" mini-buses chock-full of fleeing villagers, shows that the Israeli high-command still understands the importance of using terror as a means of controlling behavior. Israel’s carefully calculated atrocities have had the desired effect; triggering the mass-exodus of hundreds of thousands of frightened civilians and leaving Hezbollah guerillas to fight it out with the IDF.

The Bush administration is now attempting to pacify its critics by pushing a resolution that calls for a "full cessation of hostilities". The resolution does not demand that Israel stop attacking Hezbollah nor does it require the IDF to leave Lebanon. It is Munich all over again; a miserable "sell-out" by the Security Council that guarantees a steady increase in the violence as well as an intensification of the rage that is sweeping across the Muslim world. The UN has unwittingly endorsed Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and created the foundation for another generation of terrorists. The resolution shows that the UN is nothing more than a "cat’s paw" for US/Israeli geopolitical ambitions and that the "post-colonial" European allies are willing to succumb to the neocon plan for a "New Middle East".

The UN is not an "honest broker"; its bumbling attempts at peace have only provided the cover of international legitimacy to Israel’s rampage. Israel will now continue its crusade unobstructed; setting up outposts throughout the south, pushing the Shia off their land, attacking Hezbollah as they see fit, and installing an Israeli-client in Beirut.

Israel will never return to its "internationally recognized" northern border unless it is beaten-back by the Lebanese national resistance, Hezbollah.

What does Israel want?

The only way that Israel can maintain its dominance in the region is by becoming a main-player in the oil-trade. Otherwise it will continue to be dependent on the United States to strengthen its military and defend its interests. Israel’s determination to "stand on its own 2 feet" is outlined in the neocon plan for "rebuilding Zionism" in the 21st century; "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The document is the blueprint for redrawing the map of the Middle East and eliminating rivals to Israeli power. Most of the attention has been focused on the parts of the paper which presage the attacks on Iraq, Lebanon and Syria; including this ominous passage:

"Securing the Northern Border:

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which America can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syria is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove to be insufficient, string at select targets in Syria proper." ("A Clean Break"; Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser)


Clearly, this is the basic schema for US/Israeli aggression in the region. What has been overlooked, however, is Israel’s determination to "break away" from its traditional dependence on American support. As stated in the text:

(Israel intends to) "forge a new basis for relations with the US—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform. Israel can make a clean-break from the past and establish a new vision for the US-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity, and mutuality—not one narrowly focused on territorial disputes. (Israel) does not need US troops in any capacity to defend it…and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past….No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace it seeks. When Israel is on sound footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it".


Israel’s "economic freedom" depends in large part on its ability to become a central petroleum-depot for the global oil trade. In Michel Chossudovsky’s recent article "Triple Alliance: US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon", the author provides a detailed account of the alliances and agreements which underscore the current war. As Chossudovsky says, "We are not dealing with a limited conflict between the Israeli Armed Forces and Hezbollah as conveyed by the Western media. The Lebanese War Theater is part of a broader US military agenda, which encompasses a region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean into the heartland of Central Asia. The war on Lebanon must be viewed as 'a stage’ in this broader 'military road map’".

Chossudovsky shows how the recently completed Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline has strengthened the Israel-Turkey alliance and foreshadows an attempt to establish "military control over a coastal corridor extending from the Israeli-Lebanese border to the East Mediterranean border between Syria and Turkey."

Lebanese sovereignty is one of the unfortunate casualties of this Israel-Turkey strategy.

Most of the oil from the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline will be transported to western markets but, what is less well-known, is that a percentage of the oil will be diverted through a "proposed" Ceyhan-Ashkelon pipeline which will connect Israel directly to rich deposits in the Caspian. This will allow Israel to supply markets in the Far East from its port at Eilat on the Red Sea. It is an ambitious plan that ensures that Israel will be a critical part of the global energy distribution system. (See Michel Chossudovsky, ,The war on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 2006)

Oil is also a major factor in the calls for "regime change" in Syria. An article in the UK Observer "Israel Seeks Pipeline for Iraqi Oil" notes that Washington and Tel Aviv are hammering out the details for a pipeline that will run through Syria and "create and endless and easily accessible source of cheap oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia." The pipeline "would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria, and solving Israel’s energy crisis at a stroke."

The Israeli Mossad is already operating in northern Iraq where the pipeline will originate and have developed good relations with the Kurds. The only remaining obstacle is the current Syrian regime which has already entered the US/Israeli crosshairs. The Observer quotes a CIA official who said, "It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel’s energy supply as well as that of the US. The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream, and is now a viable project—albeit with a lot of building to do."

Former US ambassador James Atkins added, "This is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally."

The Middle East is being reshaped according to the ideological aspirations of Zionists and the exigencies of a viciously-competitive energy market. Behind the bombed-out ruins of Qana and the endless sorties laying Lebanon to waste, are the tireless machinations of the energy giants, the corporate media, the banking establishment and Israel.

Don’t expect a quick return to peace. This war is just beginning.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25528&hd=0&size=1&l=e

[Rory Winter]

Blair says: Embrace our values or we bomb you
http://www.hizb.org.uk/pressnew/index.php?id=3348

In an extraordinarily frank speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on the1st of August, Tony Blair laid out a fanatical vision for the 'War on Terror' from the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, to Israel's terrorism of the people of Palestine and Lebanon. He admitted that the violent interventions in the Muslim world had alienated people, rather than winning over hearts and minds. He called for "a complete renaissance of our strategy" with an acknowledgement that the US led war on terror had not seen the "even-handed, fair and just" application of western values to the world, values supposedly championed by London and Washington.

Blair described a future where political Islam would be defeated allowing the dominance of what he terms 'moderate Islam'. "For me, a victory for the moderates means an Islam that is open: open to globalisation, open to working with others of different faiths, open to alliances with other nations." In short, an Islam that is open to political, economic and intellectual colonisation according to his worldview, and that of like minded neoconss and liberal imperialists.

The speech made clear that the mass murder, invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were not just about changing regimes but about "changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually 'regime change' it was 'values change'." This revision of history may anger some in the United Kingdom who remember the lies they were told about WMD. However, it should prompt doubt in the minds of all people about the sincerity with which he now changes the justification for a foreign policy that is failing so spectacularly, and that increasingly brings shame upon ordinary citizens in western societies. Bush and Blair are part of an arc of extremism that says to the Muslim world: "embrace our values or we bomb you".

Similarly, his repeated claim that Muslims have a "presumed sense of grievance" belittles the suffering caused not only by direct US led terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, but by the decades of oppression people have endured under western backed dictators in the Muslim world.

Blair sought to repeatedly push the blame for the world's situation on Muslims and extremism. Indeed, in saying "not any religious extremism; but a specifically Muslim version" he confirmed the feelings of many that his war is no less than a war on Islam. He dismissed the role of US/ UK policy for the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq and justified (even glorified) Israel's current terrorist assault on a civilian population. This is not surprising bearing in mind that Blair allows the transfer of US bombs to Israel via UK airports at a time when these very bombs are used to kill Lebanese civilians.

He presented a four-point plan to further his extremist vision:

First, to support those in the Muslim world who comply with his world view. Second, secure Israel?s ability to continue its occupation and aggression, by negotiating a permanent recognition of its right to do so. Third, continue the policies that have brought anarchy and chaos to Iraq and Afghanistan. Fourth, he issued a threat to Iran and Syria to capitulate to his policies or see themselves go the same way as Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon.

Blair's speech was a look into the mind of a fanatical ideologue and those who think like him. Their inability to recognise their own failings is monumental. This speech stretched his ability to spin the genuine grievances of the Muslim world beyond a credible point.

Those grievances are the invasions and occupations that kill and harm so many; the support given to dictators over the decades; the endless interference in the region for the interests of western corporations; the hypocrisy of preaching about superior values whilst implementing the policies of Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib; the arrogance that wants to define to the world what it should believe in; and the colonialist policies of western governments in general.

Muslims the world-over want to be liberated from this occupation, dictatorship, exploitation and colonisation through a Caliphate. The groundswell of popular opinion for this throughout the Muslim world is so immense that Blair and others have tried to destroy this opinion through bombs, propaganda and oppressive laws. His speech is undoubtedly an admission that he has not managed to destroy that opinion.


2nd August 2006
Members of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

[Rory Winter]

HeZBoLLaH ALL Da WaY!



Click Below for Videos
http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/
See More Videos on Hizbullah here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1e3zWQmM08&mode=related&search=

[Rory Winter]

Clearing the path for US war on Iran
By Gareth Porter
Aug 10, 2006
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH10Ak05.html

WASHINGTON - Israel has argued that the war against Hezbollah's rocket arsenal was a defensive response to the Shi'ite organization's threat to Israeli security, but the evidence points to a much more ambitious objective - the weakening of Iran's deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites.

In planning for the destruction of most of Hezbollah's arsenal and prevention of any resupply from Iran, Israel appears to have hoped to eliminate a major reason the US administration had shelved the military option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program - the fear that Israel would suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah's rockets in retaliation for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

One leading expert on Israeli national-defense policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the US administration's mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, says administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.

But Israeli officials saw a war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak.

The risk to Israel of launching such an offensive was that it would unleash the very rain of Hezbollah rockets on Israel that it sought to avert. But Luttwak believes the Israelis calculated that they could degrade Hezbollah's rocket forces without too many casualties by striking preemptively.

"They knew that a carefully prepared and coordinated rocket attack by Hezbollah would be much more catastrophic than one carried out under attack by Israel," he said.

Gerald M Steinberg, an Israeli specialist on security affairs at Bar Ilon University who reflects Israeli government thinking, did not allude to the link between destruction of Hezbollah's rocket arsenal and a possible attack on Iran in an interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last week. But he did say there is "some expectation" in Israel that after the US congressional elections, President George W Bush "will decide that he has to do what he has to do".

Steinberg said Israel wanted to "get an assessment" of whether the United States would "present a military attack against the Iranian nuclear sites as the only option". If not, he suggested that Israel was still considering its own options.

Specialists on Iran and Hezbollah have long believed that the missiles Iran has supplied to Hezbollah were explicitly intended to deter an Israeli attack on Iran. Ephraim Kam, a specialist on Iran at Israel's Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, wrote in December 2004 that Hezbollah's threat against northern Israel was a key element of Iran's deterrent to a US attack.

Ali Ansari, an associate professor at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and author of a new book on the US confrontation with Iran, was quoted in the Toronto Star on July 30 as saying, "Hezbollah was always Iran's deterrent force against Israel."

Iran has also threatened direct retaliation against Israel with the Shahab-3 missile from Iranian territory. However, Iran may be concerned about the possibility that Israel's Arrow system could intercept most of them, as the Jaffe Center's Kam observed in 2004. That elevates the importance to Iran of Hezbollah's ability to threaten retaliation.

Hezbollah received some Soviet-era Katyusha rockets, with a range of 8 kilometers, and hundreds of longer-range missiles, after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. But the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, citing a report by Israeli military intelligence at the time, has reported that the number of missiles and rockets in Hezbollah hands grew to more 12,000 in 2004.

That was when Iranian officials felt that the Bush administration might seriously consider an attack on their nuclear sites, because it knew Iran was poised to begin enrichment of uranium. It was also when Iranian officials began to imply that Hezbollah could retaliate against any attack on Iran, although they have never stated that explicitly.

The first hint of Iranian concern about the possible strategic implications of the Israeli campaign to degrade the Hezbollah missile force in south Lebanon came in a report by Michael Slackman in the New York Times on July 25. Slackman quoted an Iranian official with "close ties to the highest levels of government" as saying, "They want to cut off one of Iran's arms."

The same story quoted Mohsen Rezai, the former head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, as saying, "Israel and the US knew that as long as Hamas and Hezbollah were there, confronting Iran would be costly" - an obvious reference to the deterrent value of the missiles in Lebanon. "So, to deal with Iran, they first want to eliminate forces close to Iran that are in Lebanon and Palestine."

Israel has been planning its campaign against Hezbollah's missile arsenal for many months. Matthew Kalman reported from Tel Aviv in the San Francisco Chronicle on July 21, "More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's main purpose in meeting with Bush on May 25 was clearly to push the United States to agree to use force, if necessary, to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program. Four days before the meeting, Olmert told CNN that Iran's "technological threshold" was "very close". In response to a question about US and European diplomacy on the issue, Olmert replied, "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous."

At his meeting with Bush, according to Yitzhak Benhorin of Israel's ynetnews, Olmert pressed Bush on Israel's intelligence assessment that Iran would gain the technology necessary to build a bomb within a year and expressed fears that diplomatic efforts were not going to work.

It seems likely that Olmert discussed Israel's plans for degrading Hezbollah's missile capabilities as a way of dramatically reducing the risks involved in an air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, and that Bush gave his approval. That would account for Olmert's comment to Israeli reporters after the meeting, reported by ynetnews but not by US news media: "I am very, very, very satisfied."

Bush's refusal to do anything to curb Israel's freedom to cause havoc on Lebanon further suggests that he encouraged the Israelis to take advantage of any pretext to launch the offensive. The Israeli plan may have given US Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld new ammunition for advocating a strike on Iran's nuclear sites.

Rumsfeld was the voice of administration policy toward Iran from 2002 to 2004, and he often appeared to be laying the political groundwork for an eventual military attack on Iran. But he has been silenced on the subject of Iran since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took over Iran policy in January 2005.

Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

(Inter Press Service)

[Rory Winter]

Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Government minister resigns over Lebanon.
posted by lenin
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/government-minister-resigns-ove r.html

The cabinet split has been well reported on: now the first resignation has taken place:

Jim Sheridan, MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, resigned as a parliamentary private secretary to the defence team.

He said: "The reason I am resigning is the current conflict in the Middle East."

The 52-year-old said he believed the Palestinian situation had been put on the back burner.

He added: "I don't expect my resignation will have any significant impact on the prime minister's objectives in the Middle East, which I genuinely believe to be honourable on his part, but I don't believe they reflect the core values of the Labour Party or indeed the country."

In a letter to Tony Blair, he said that the decision to allow US aircraft travelling to Israel to stop off in the UK did not sit comfortably with the International Convention on Human Rights.

I suggest that had there been no protests over Lebanon, this MP would still be sitting in his ministerial [update: the guy was a PPS, not a minister] seat, wrestling quietly with his conscience. Obviously we'd prefer heads to roll, particularly Blair's: and when I say 'roll', I mean fall into a basket from a wooden block, tipping it over and tumbling to the feet of a large, baying crowd who then improvise a game of footy. However, the strains are showing, the cracks are there, and we have to drive the wedge in deeper. The direct action at Prestwick and at Raytheon's plant in Derry are examples of what can be done. The next big chance to hammer the government will be outside the Labour Party conference in Manchester on September 23rd. We've got to make that massive.

[Rory Winter]

The key to the crisis in the Middle East
John Rees, author of an new book on imperialism and resistance, answers some frequently asked questions on the conflict between Lebanon and Israel

What caused the war?

Israel is the biggest recipient of US military aid in the world. It is the only state in the world that can make purchases directly from US arms companies without US government oversight, just as if it was an internal department of the US administration.

It is the only state in the world that can use US military aid to purchase from non-US arms firms. It is the only state in the world that can use non-military US aid for military purchases.

All this is not simply for use against Palestinians, but for use against any challenger to US power in the whole Middle East.

The attack on Lebanon could not take place with such intensity and for such duration without the agreement of the US (and Britain). So the key question is - why has the US given this agreement now?

The answer lies in the catastrophe in Iraq. The US and Britain know, as last week’s leaked report from the departing British ambassador in Baghdad proved, that they are losing control of Iraq. They know that the dominant political current in the “new Iraq” is the Shia current sympathetic to Iran.

They know that, without a strong, pro-Western government in Iraq, Iran can emerge as the regional superpower.

The US and Britain would like to humble Iran. But they are, for the moment, too tied down in Iraq and too embattled by the anti-war movement at home to mount a direct attack.

So the attack on Hizbollah is a proxy war, an attack by the US’s imperial agent in the Middle East on a political movement sympathetic to Iran. It is a second front in the Iraq war.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon stands in the same ­relationship to Iran as the invasion of Afghanistan stood to Iraq.

It is a preparatory phase through which the US and Britain must pass before moving on to the main goal - in this case an attack on Iran or Syria.

This is why Tony Blair made his “arc of extremism” speech in the US last week connecting Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah.

As the Economist put it this week, “This particular conflict is not primarily between Israel and Lebanon at all so much as it is between Israel and Iran, Hizbollah’s mentor, and between America and Iran.”

Should socialists take sides?

This is not a war between two equal sides. This is a conflict between David and Goliath. Israel has state of the art Apache attack helicopters, F15 and F16 fighter-bombers, tanks and illegal nuclear weapons.

Hizbollah’s main weaponry is the Katyusha rocket - first introduced to service with the Russian army in 1942. The death rate, ten Lebanese killed (most of them civilians) for every Israeli, reflects this military imbalance.

Hizbollah is a popular resistance movement. One of the best known papers in Lebanon, the Beirut Daily Star, ran a poll last week which saw 87 percent support for Hizbollah’s military struggle.

Last Saturday, as we marched in London, even the BBC had to report that a huge demonstration, including Christians as well as Muslims, Sunni as well as Shia, marched in support of Hizbollah in Beirut.

Moreover, if the US, Britain and Israel triumph against Hizbollah the road will open to an attack on Iran or Syria and the prospect of a general Middle East war.

But the real counterweight to US and Israeli arms does not and cannot exist with the Lebanese resistance alone. It exists on the streets of the Arab world, most importantly in the capital of the Arab world, Cairo. It is to this force, especially its growing working class component, that socialists look.

Put bluntly, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would halt the imperialist plans for the region more completely than any other development, including the victory of Hizbollah. This requires that we encourage forces with specifically socialist politics.

Should the Stop the War Coalition support Hizbollah?

The main task of the anti-war movement in Britain is to force our government to break with George Bush’s imperial project.

To do that it must unite everyone who shares this goal, whether or not they support the Lebanese or Palestinian resistance.

To get rid of Tony Blair will be immeasurably more difficult if we repel from the anti-war movement all those people who want peace, but who do not support the resistance. We want pacifists, we want those who just want an end to the fighting, to be marching with us in Manchester on 23 September.

The decision of the National Union of Students executive not to support the Manchester demonstration because some people in the movement support Hizbollah is a sectarian error on their part, which must be reversed as soon as possible.

To do this socialists have to make it clear that support for the resistance is not a precondition of support for the Stop the War Coalition.

Socialists have two equally important duties. We must advance our own view honestly about the resistance. At the same time we must also be the guarantors of the unity and breadth of the movement.

This means making a special effort to include all those - and they are much more numerous than we are in the working class as a whole - who want an end to war, but who are not yet anti-imperialists.

If these people are not with us we cannot win. And if we cannot win against Blair, no one can. Hizbollah and Hamas cannot unseat Blair. Only we can do that.

That cannot happen without a broad, united movement in which all those who, for whatever reason, want to break with the “war on terror” act together.

© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9463

[moeen yaseen]

Israel’s war in Lebanon a new front in the West’s global campaign against the Islamic movement

August 2006 / Editorial
Muslimedia.com is the internet edition of Crescent International, newsmagazine of the Islamic Movement.

Watching events unfolding in Lebanon over the last month, it has been impossible to avoid a sense that we have seen it all before, that what is now happening is merely a replay of what we have seen so many times already. Lebanon’s modern history has been dominated by Israeli attacks and interference, most notably in 1982, when the Israeli military devastated the country with air strikes and occupied Beirut itself. Gradually, over the next 18 years, it was forced to withdraw from the lands it had occupied by the popular resistance led by Hizbullah, the Islamic movement inspired by the Revolution in Iran. The deaths of over 50 members of just two families, most of them children, in an Israeli air strike on a house in Qana on July 30 merely emphasises the sense of deja vu, coming as it does ten years after the first Qana massacre, in which more than 100 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli shelling as they sheltered in a UN base. From now on, Qana will symbolise Israeli brutality and Lebanese resistance in Muslim minds, not for one appalling and tragic war crime, but for two.

There is, however, a major difference between this episode of zionist brutality and previous ones. Israel has long been recognised as a Western creation in the heart of the Muslim world and a key US ally in undermining and destabilising the Middle East. However, the degree of cooperation between the two has been debatable, with arguments possible about whether the US is the dominant partner, using Israel as a regional agent, or Israel the dominant partner, bending US policy to its purposes by means of the power of the Jewish vote, dollar and lobby in the US. As so often, the truth has probably been a combination of the two. In the past, Israel’s actions could be explained primarily by its zionist agenda and local geo-political considerations, with the US’s unbending support for it attributed to the influence that zionists wield in the corridors in Washington. Questions have regularly been raised about whether the US gains any significant strategic advantage from Israel’s presence in the Middle East, or whether it is actually a liability to US interests.

This time, however, the Israeli offensive against Lebanon, which is clearly a full-scale invasion, can only be explained in terms of wider American policy in the region, all Israel’s claims to be pursuing a limited agenda in pursuit of its own security notwithstanding. The timing of the attack was clearly determined in advance, rather than being a spontaneous response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah; it is now clear that the troops were actually captured in Lebanon during an Israeli incursion, not during a Hizbullah raid into Israeli territory. It is also clear that an attack of this scale of the attack must have taken months of preparation. And, for all Washington’s denials, Israeli officials and other sources have let it be known that the US had had prior knowledge of the plans and had approved them, and as well as authorising Israel to maintain its murderous bombing even as the world was reeling in shock at the Lebanese losses and demanding a ceasefire.

This being the case, how do we explain the development? First thing to note is that there is no particular Israeli interest that explains it. Israel was not particularly threatened by Hizbullah’s strength in Lebanon, particularly having succeeded in pushing the Syrians out of the country last year. It was no more troubled by the Katyusha rockets now than at any other time in the last couple of years. Indeed, given its problems in Ghazzah and the West Bank since the election of Hamas, it could be argued that it is actually a bad time for Israel to launch a new adventure in Lebanon. Given the potential for a long and unsuccessful involvement in Lebanon, it is highly unlikely that Israel would view such a development as a merely useful distraction from its on-going war in Ghazzah. For the same reason, it would make no sense from an Israeli perspective for prime minister Olmert and his new team to take such a strong stance against Hizbullah merely to create the impression of a strong government, as some commentators have suggested. Even if it were true that Hizbullah had captured the two missing soldiers in a raid on Israeli soil, it is clear to everyone that a more limited response would have had more chance of achieving their freedom. Even as most of the Western media and analysts have followed the Israeli line that they are acting to free the soldiers and destroy an intolerable terrorist threat on their borders, many commentators have discreetly questioned the coherence of such as explanation.

What is interesting, however, is the constant US and Israeli attempt to draw Iran into the Lebanon war. While it is true that the Islamic State and the Hizbullah have close ties, few knowledgeable observers regard Hizbullah as an Iranian proxy; on the contrary, it is a highly credible, popular movement with deep roots in southern Lebanese society and culture, and clearly independent of outside pressure in terms of setting its policies and priorities. Even its ties with Syria, which had forces in Lebanon until last year, have been exaggerated; to suggest that it merely an extension of Iran, and an unwelcome foreign presence in Lebanon, is nonsensical.

Yet the Israelis’ and Americans’ parroting of this nonsense provides a clue as the best explanation of the reason for the Israeli attack on Hizbullah at this time: it is first and foremost part of the US’s attempts both the increase the political pressure on Iran, at a time when its attempts to pressure Iran on the nuclear issue have foundered, and to distract attention from its manifest failures in domestic issues, in Iraq, Afghanistan and against al-Qa‘ida. Faced with the reality of failure in so many arenas, and the unpalatable realization that the American people are beginning to recognise this failure, despite the best efforts of the right-wing media to distract attention from it, the Bush administration’s natural instinct is to go on the offensive against some new target, some new enemy that can be presented as posing a serious threat to the US and its interests. The creation of a new foreign crisis at this time is perfect, given that midterm elections due to take place in November, the first primaries for which begin on August 1.

The Israeli attack on Lebanon is perfect for this purpose in so many ways: Iran has already been cultivated as a hate figure for Americans, but attacking Hizbullah is not attacking Iran directly, which the US dare not do after their embarrassment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hizbullah is a far smaller and less scary proposition, with any possible complications being restricted largely to Lebanon, a country with little direct US involvement. And, an attack on Hizbullah can easily be portrayed as a response to terrorism rather than an act of aggression. What is more, from Washington’s point of view, this is an American war fought by Israeli troops, so America’s own exposure is limited. The American public has already been primed with the belief that any attack on Israel is an attack on America (although many refuse to accept this canard), and that Israel is an ally in the fight against terrorism, so they can easily be persuaded that the US must support poor little Israel against the terrorist threat. It is also an opportunity to draw more countries back into the supposed alliance against terrorism, as allies will be far more willing to contribute forces to an international force promoting Israel’s interests in southern Lebanon under UN auspices that to follow the US into Iraq or Afghanistan again. The image of the US leading an international coalition against terrorism, and doing so successfully and firmly, is maintained for the US electorate.

As we have said so often before, the US knows that Iran, and Islamic movements following its revolutionary line, of which Hizbullah is the main example, are the real leading edge of the Islamic movement, even as they prefer to focus on marginal and irrelevant figures such as Usama bin Laden and Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi.The attack on the Hizbullah is best seen as another front opened by the US against this wing of the movement, with numerous other benefits to boot. The Israelis have no doubt been promised even more US support for their own plans in Palestine as a reward for their cooperation, and must know that they cannot afford not to cooperate with their main ally and benefactor in the world. The suffering people of Ghazzah and Lebanon, meanwhile, are just more victims of a ruthless political Leviathan that minds not whom it crushes nor what suffering it inflicts in singleminded ed pursuit of its selfish goals.

[moeen yaseen]

Israel's Strategic Failure
http://www.hizb.org.uk/opinions/index.php?id=3370

The current brutal war of aggression Israel has unleashed against Lebanon has shown just how murderous the Israeli state can be; it feels quite at ease to kill innocent civilians and destroy the infrastructure of an entire country on the most feeble of pretexts.

Yet, the current Israeli strategy of 'shock and awe' brings into entire question the thinking of Israeli policy planners. Israel could not destroy Hezbollah in it's previous occupation of Lebanon. Humiliatingly it had to withdraw in 2000 after 18 years of failed occupation. If it could not destroy Hezbollah then, why should one have anymore reason to believe that it will succeed this time round where it failed before?

On the contrary, support for Hezbollah has only skyrocketed in the last few weeks. Not just in multi-ethnic and religious Lebanon, but across the Muslim world and beyond as people seek to show their solidarity with a people locked in a truly modern David and Goliath battle. Indeed the current situation in Lebanon brings into sharp focus the Israeli state and it's policies over the last sixty years. One has to question, have these policies brought security for the Jewish people as desired in the aftermath of World War 2? Whatever one feels about Israel, an objective answer to this question requires that one examine the strategic realities that Israel is subject to.

The truth of the matter is that Israel has never been accepted by the people of the Middle East. This is because Israel has been founded on land which was first occupied and then stolen from the Palestinians. In this process of colonisation it expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who became refugees. Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist….There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

As a result of this, Israel has never gained the legitimacy it seeks. Instead, Israel has always sought to ensure it's sustainability by developing itself into a heavily militarised state. It has added teeth to this by pursuing equally aggressive policies. It's wars with Egypt, Syria and Jordan, it's brutal suppression of the Palestinians virtually from it's inception and it's occupations and wars in Lebanon all demonstrate this. The fact that most of it's leaders have either been guerrilla movement leaders or Generals in prior careers is telling.

However, Israel has paid a heavy political price. It has shown it is a brutal coloniser and is hated in the Muslim world; even outside the region Israel is regarded with much disdain. A nation which seeks to exist in it's neighbourhood cannot afford to be in such a position. In the case of Israel the lack of integration means it's trade and economic ties in the region can never fully develop, something that is vital for a nation's well being.

The other fallout from this policy is the huge economic input it needs to maintain it's military. For a population of just 5 million, it has a bloated army of 650,000 plus, together with much sophisticated imported hardware including nuclear weapons. Consequently it relies on both economic and military assistance to maintain this disproportionate militarised state. This is despite having one of the world's highest per capita incomes. This assistance comes from the outside; last year America provided $10.5 billion dollars worth of assistance and sold $4.2 billion worth of arms. The European Union is Israel's biggest trading partner. The natural result of such dependency is the fact that countries such as America and the European Union will always influence Israeli policy and therefore the region. True independence and security is not just about securing your borders; it also means having economic strength and the ability to formulate your own policies.

Together with these issues, Israel also faces other strategic problems. It faces a demographic crisis with a shrinking Jewish population together with dwindling supplies of water in the region which is almost certain to generate future conflict. Most crucially, the fact Israel believes it has ‘peace treaties’ with Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, is perhaps it's biggest folly of all. The rulers of these countries together with the other Western backed puppet rulers in other Muslim countries are also equally loathed and hated. It is simply a matter of time before they fall. Without having popular support, Israel's peace treaties for the long term are meaningless; to build a solid future one builds on a solid foundation. The current regimes amount to no more than quicksand.

The Muslim world stands on the brink of political change. The return of the Caliphate is near. It will reunite the Muslim lands which were artificially divided into petty nation states. When Muslims call for end of Israeli occupation, they do not do so because Israel’s inhabitants are Jews. The conflict is political, not religious. Israel is challenged because of the fundamental injustice that was done to the inhabitants of the area more than 50 years ago. Equally, this does not mean that Israelis will be "driven into the sea". The Caliphate will absorb Israel and all it's citizens just as it will remove Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and other Muslim nation states, absorbing all of their citizens as well.

As history shows it is the West which has persecuted Jews. Large Jewish communities lived along side Muslims and Christians under the Caliphate for almost 1300 years. When Spain was carrying out it's Inquisition in the 15th century against both Jew and Muslim, the Jews were given sanctuary in the Ottoman Caliphate. This is because the Islamic Sharia guarantees the rights of minority citizens and is an article of faith for Muslims. It is not subject to any negotiation or politician's whim.

Western support of Israel is largely borne out of the major powers interest; Israel serves as a military outpost. Tomorrow if the political landscape changes in the Muslim world, Western policy is also bound to change. What guarantee does Israel have that it will continue to receive generous Western support?

Stability in the Middle East will only return with the return of the Caliphate. It will remove the external meddling of the last 100 years that has blighted the region with bloodshed. In it's place security and rights for all it's citizens will be guaranteed, including Jews. As a state, Israel has failed to achieve normal relations. Yet Israel's aggressive policies of the last 60 years have only borne it bitter fruit while lasting peace and security have proved elusive. The fact that Israel was simply carved out by colonial powers for colonial interests to whom Israel will always be beholden to, guarantees yet more of the same.