Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Primary Links
Colorado Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Association for one Democratic Secular State for Palestine/Israel - Colorado Section
Between the Lines
Islam Denounces Anti-Semitism
Israel Imperial News
Jewish Friends of Palestine
One Democratic Secular State for Israel and Palestine
Organization for Democratic Action (Israel)
Other Palestine Links
Addameer
Al Awda: Palestinian Right of Return Campaign
Al Bushra: Palestinian Catholic Community
Al Haq
Al Nakba / The Cataclysm of 1948
Al Quds Palestina (Spanish)
All About Palestine
Alternative Information Center
A. M. Qattan Foundation
American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights
American Committee of Jerusalem
American Council for Judaism
American Federation of Ramallah
American Muslims for Jerusalem
American Perspectives on the Middle East
Americans Against World Empire (Conservatives)
Americans for Middle East Understanding
Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights
Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem
Arab Human Rights Center
Arab Thought Forum
Arabic Media Internet Network
Artists Against Occupation
Association of 40 (Israel)
Atlanta Palestine Solidarity
Australian Friends of Palestine Association
Australian Jews for a Just Peace
Badil Resource Center
Bat Shalom
Birzeit Institute of Law
The Birzeit Society
Bitterlemons.org
Black Laundry
Brighton Palestine Solidarity Campaign
B'Tselem (Israel)
Cactus48.Com
Canadians, Arabs, and Jews for a Just Peace
Center for Research & Documentation of Palestinian Society
Center for the Study of Islam & democracy
Christian PeaceMaker Teams
Citizens for Fair Legislation
Citizens of Israel Against the Fence
Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel)
Comité Palestine 33
Committee for Peace in the Middle East
Compassionate Listening Project
Communist Party of Israel
Council for the National Interest
Courage to Refuse
DC Palestine Solidarity
Deir Yassin Remembered
Demographic, Environmental, and Security Issues Project
Divest from Israel Campaign
Economic & Social Development Center - Palestine
Electronic Intifada
End the Illegal Occupation of Palestine (Christian)
End the Occupation
European Jews for a Just Peace
Eye to Eye: Palestinian Refugee Children
Foundation for Middle East Peace
Free Palestine
Free Palestine Now!
Freedom Now! (Israel)
General Union of Palestinians Students - Chile (Spanish)
Gush Shalom (Israel)
HADASH: Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Israel)
HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual (Israel)
Harvard/MIT Divest
Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee
Health Development Information and Policy Institute
Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation
Holy Land Trust
Humanity On Hold
Institute of Jerusalem Studies
Institute of Palestine Studies
International Action Center
International Center of Bethlehem
International Solidarity Movement
International Women's Peace Service
Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Islam Denounces Terrorism
Islamic Association for Palestine
Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
Israeli State Terrorism
Jerusalem Forum
The Jerusalem Fund
Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre
Jersualem Quarterly File
Jewish Voices Against the Occupation (Seattle)
Jewish Voice for Peace
Jewish Women for Justice in Israel and Palestine
Jews Against Oppression and Occupation
Jews Against the Occupation (New York)
Jews Against the Occupation (Rutgers)
Jews for a Just Peace (North Carolina)
Jews for a Just Peace (Vancouver)
Jews for Global Justice
Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (Sweden)
Jews for Justice for Palestinians (UK)
Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel
Jews for Racial & Economic Justice
Jews Not Zionists
L'Union des Progressistes Juifs de Belgique
Mandela Institute - Palestine
Middle East Children's Alliance
Middle East Council of Churches
Middle East Research and Information Project
MIFTAH: Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue & Democracy
Ministry of Higher Education (Official)
Movement Against Israel Apartheid (Israel)
Neturei Karta USA
Neturei Karta UK
New Jersey Solidarity
New Profile (Israel)
No Apartheid (Israel)
Not In My Name
The Other Israel
Oznik.Com
Palestine Activist Forum of New York
Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics (Official)
Palestine Children's Relief Forum
Palestine Children's Welfare Fund
Palestine. Dying to Live
Palestine Media Watch
Palestine Planning Center (Official)
Palestine Red Crescent Society
Palestine Remembered
The Palestine Report
Palestine Solidarity Committee of South Africa
Palestine Solidarity Group (N. America)
Palestine Solidarity News
Palestinian Academic Network
Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs
Palestinian Centre for Rapproachment between People
Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group
Palestinian Institute for the Study of Democracy
Palestinian Non-Governmental Organization's Network
Palestinian PMO to the United Nations (Official)
Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet
Palestinian Rights Programme
Physicians for Human Rights (Israel)
Pittsburgh Palestinian Solidarity Committee
PLO Negotiation Affairs Department (Official)
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel
QUIT: Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism
Rabbis for Human Rights
The Rafah Reports
Ramallah Online
Rave Against the Occupation (Israel)
Refusnik Solidarity Network
Remember These Children
Rencontre Progressiste Juive
Sambar Trading
Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Shaml-The Palestinian Diaspora & Refugee Centre
Shministim (Israel)
Add this banner to your site
Stop US Military Aid to Israel
Students for a Free Palestine
Support Sanity
Ta'ayush (Israel)
UN Office of the Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories (Official)
Union of Charitable Societies
Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees
UNRWA: UN Relief and Works Agency
University of California Divestment Campaign
UT Austin Palestine Solidarity Committee
Visions of Peace with Justice in Israel/Palestine
Voices of Palestine
WAFA: Palestinian News Agency (Official)
|
| Israel working hard to sow yet more hatred... |
| 04.30.04 (1:54 pm) [edit] |
[image]CPSC1_1151033596.jpg[/image]
With all the news about US troops sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners, hiring Saddam's henchmen to handle Fallujah for us, and efforts to suppress "unapproved" news & media, it would not be surprising if no one noticed what our little protectorate of Israel has been up to.
Well, they've been busy alright - demolishing over twenty Palestinian houses just today - as well as the usual daily killings of Palestinians (remember - Palestinians kill Israelis a few times a month, whereas Israel murders Palestinians virtually everyday). Anyway, the dead hold no grudges, but all these children picking up the ruins of their lives after the IDF demolishes their homes do. Israel is busy building up the next generation of hatred and has found a fool proof way of doing so.
The US is doing a pretty good job of generating hatred in Iraq, but when it comes to that, no one is as effective as Israel.
[image]CPSC1_595783954.jpg[/image]
[b]IOF Kills Two Citizens, Demolishes 20 Homes[/b], Palestine National Authority International Press Centre, April 30, 2004 http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i...
Excerpts:
[i]SALFIT, Palestine, April 30, 2004 (IPC + WAFA) - - The Israeli occupying forces (IOF) stepped up its military aggression in the occupied Palestinian territories, killing two citizens and wounding a child seriously, while demolishing 20 houses.[/i]
[i]12-year-old Mohammed Zo'rob, a resident of Block "J" area of Rafah, was shot and wounded in the abdomen by an Israeli sniper stationed in a nearby "Zo'rob" military watchtower, doctors said. They added, according to WAFA, that Zo'rob was in critical condition.[/i]
[image]CPSC1_426289703.jpg[/image]
[i]Nearby in the city of Khan Younis, Israeli bulldozers tore down 20 houses in the Khan Younis western refugee camp, bringing back images of dispossession Palestinian refugees suffered back in 1948 and 1967. Security sources mentioned that the Israeli forces invaded the refugee camp today dawn, escorted by a number of heavy military bulldozers. The forces surrounded a block consisting of 20 homes, sheltering 150 citizens, mostly children, and ordered them to leave the houses in five minutes without taking anything with them. The bulldozers then razed the houses and turned them into piles of rubble.[/i]
[image]CPSC1_679715064.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
| |
| US "patriotic" media desperate to ignore US troops... |
| 04.30.04 (10:55 am) [edit] |
I guess the "patriots" are now even censoring "legitimate" (i.e. White Western) media in a desperate bid to be good patriots by ignoring the existence of our troops and spitting in the face of the fallen by pretending it didn't happen...
[b]US TV blackout hits litany of war dead,[/b] The Guardian, April 30, 2004 http://media.guardian.co.uk/s...,14173,1207089,00.html
Excerpts:
[i]Almost a quarter of households in the US will be prevented tonight from seeing an ABC TV network news programme that is to broadcast a list of American servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Eight affiliate stations have refused to take the programme, which is due to go out tonight in America. [/i]
[i]The decision to censor ABC's Nightline programme, which is to broadcast the names and pictures of more than 500 dead US service personnel, has been taken by Sinclair Broadcast Group - a regional company that owns ABC-affiliated TV stations across the country.[/i]
[i]Maryland-based Sinclair, which owns 62 stations and covers 24% of US homes, is claiming ABC's decision to broadcast the show - dubbed "The Fallen" - was "motivated by a political agenda".[/i]
[i]The company said the programme, fronted by anchor Ted Koppel, was a political statement "disguised as news content, and asked why ABC had decided to highlight the loss of soldiers in Iraq and not those killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaida".[/i]
[i]ABC insisted it would stick to its plan to broadcast the show, saying it was intended to be "an expression of respect" to US personnel who have died in the conflict.
It had initially intended to broadcast a list of the 523 soldiers killed in action, but will now extend Nightline by 10 minutes in order to broadcast an additional 200 names of those who have died in accidents, from friendly fire or by suicide.[/i]
[i]The US government is highly sensitive to the impact that coverage of war casualties could have on President Bush's re-election campaign and public support for the continuing US presence in Iraq.[/i]
[i]The Pentagon has barred the release of images of coffins of war dead returning to the country, but the ban was temporarily circumvented last week following legal action by thememoryhole.org, a website dedicated to combating government secrecy.[/i]
[i]Maurice Hinchley, a prominent Democrat congressman, has attacked Sinclair's decision, saying it was motivated by its own political agenda. "The decision by Sinclair... to keep this programme off its stations is being made by a corporation with a political agenda without regard to the wants or needs of its viewers. "This move may be providing a chilling look into the future if we allow media ownership to be consolidated into fewer and fewer hands," said Mr Hinchley.[/i]
[i]In an interview with the New York Times this week, Koppel insisted the motivation for the show was not political. "I have always felt, and I said it when I was in Iraq last year, that the most important thing a journalist can do is remind people of the cost of war," he said. "If the motivation to go to war is good, is justifiable," he said, "then the cost, whether it is 500, or 5,000, or 50,000, is something people will accept. Should the motivation not be good, then five is too many". [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| The "US war on freedom of the press" continues... |
| 04.30.04 (10:34 am) [edit] |
From [b]At US urging, Qatar to seek review at al Jazeera[/b] , Reuters, April 30, 2004 http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a...
[i]Excerpts[/i] & Comments...
[i]WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - Under U.S. pressure, Qatar's foreign minister said on Thursday he would seek a review of Arabic television station al Jazeera's coverage of Iraq after Washington complained it was inaccurate and anti-American.[/i]
[i]The Bush administration has warned Qatar its relations with the United States were clouded by what it called "inflammatory" coverage of Iraq by Jazeera, whose satellite broadcasts have a wide Arab audience.[/i]
I guess if you can't stop the media from airing "news" that hasn't been approved by the US, you can appeal to the government where the media outlet is based and call on them to suppress these "illegitimate" (i.e. independent) viewpoints.
[i]The Bush administration says its Middle East policies promote freedom.[/i]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL - yeah right! That's the funniest thing I've read today. In an article trying to SUPPRESS freedom of the press we find this statement about the US trying to "promote freedom"...LOL - too funny.
[i]Many Arabs accuse the Bush administration of using double standards, by seeking to muzzle the media and what they see as valid criticism that U.S. troops have used excessive force in Iraq in an occupation opposed by many governments.[/i]
Don't these silly Arabs get it yet? They can have NO opinion aside from what Bush cares to approve for them. Stupid little untermensch, where do they get off having opinions? Only Republicans can have opinions...
[i]A State Department official, who asked not to be identified, said earlier this week the United States sought to persuade Qatar to cut funds to Jazeera, arguing it was not in the nation's interests for anti-American sentiment to intensify in the region. Hamad was noncommittal. "We have a free press in Qatar and this part of the free press," he said.[/i]
LOL - well, you have to admit that it really shows how stupid American "conventional wisdom" about the Middle East is when a small Arab monarchy has to explain to the US what a "free press" is.
[i]The pressure on Jazeera came as the Bush administration fights criticism that it sought to keep images of the coffins of American soldiers out of the U.S. media to sanitize the Iraq war and stem a drop in public support for the occupation.[/i]
[i]Jazeera's coverage of the war in Iraq includes more graphic images than its U.S. counterparts of civilian casualties, especially children. Many Arabs, including Arab-Americans, see the network as more accurate than U.S. television.[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Bring the Troops Home! - To war crimes trials! |
| 04.30.04 (10:00 am) [edit] |
There is no need to rehash the torture and sexual abuse practiced by the US soldiers in Saddam's old torture chambers - now our torture chambers - of Abu Ghraib prison. It's all over the news - all the happy smiling troops humiliating, torturing and abusing Iraqis for fun and games.
There is nothing new about this - Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been reporting about this for months now, though of course its only become "news" now that the "legitimate" CBS network has covered the story. There is nothing new about the reports at all, except for the photos.
However, what really galls me are the pathetic excuses being cited by the families of these sicko bastards.
See, for example, [b]Prisoner Abuse-Families[/b], Associated Press, April 30, 2004 http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a...
[i]Excerpts[/i] with comments...
[i]HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) -- A soldier facing a court-martial for his role in the alleged abuse of Iraqi war prisoners says commanders ignored his requests to set out rules for treating POWs and scolded him for questioning the inmates' harsh treatment.[/i]
Bull! It doesn't take a genius to know that the crap they were doing was wrong, unless you're some absolute sadist, in which case you should be in prison - not in charge of one.
[i]Lawson and Martha Frederick, the sergeant's wife, said Frederick was being made a scapegoat for commanders who gave him no guidance on managing hundreds of POWs with just a handful of ill-trained, poorly equipped troops.[/i]
Absolute rubbish. It does not take "guidance" from a superior to know that raping prison inmates, attaching electrical wires to their privates, or forcing them to simulate sex with one another is wrong.
[i]CBS's "60 Minutes II" broadcast pictures of the alleged abuse and an interview with Frederick on Wednesday. Some of the soldiers were smiling in the photographs obtained by CBS, which showed naked prisoners stacked in a human pyramid and being forced to simulate sex acts.[/i]
"Duh, nobody told me this was wrong..." Bull.
[i]Lawson, of Newburg, W.Va., said his nephew was being portrayed "as a monster."[/i]
Cause his sicko nephew IS a monster and I think this guy trying to defend his nephew's actions is just about as sick.
[i]Daniel Sivits -- whose son, 24-year-old Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits, is also facing court-martial -- said the young man "was just doing what he was told to do."[/i]
Sorry - that particular defense was repudiated in the Nuremberg Trials. "I was just following orders" is not a defense for anyone engaged in activity that is beyond all question wrong. But it is appropriate to see US soldiers resorting to the defense of the Nazis...
[i]Sivits said his son isn't a trained military police officer. "He's a trained wheeled-vehicle mechanic," he said.[/i]
And this is supposed to mean that he has absolutely no concept of acceptable human behavior? Yeah, right.
[i]The newspaper cited unidentified Army officials in naming Sgt. Javal S. Davis, 26. His wife, who also spoke to the newspaper, defended her husband. "We really don't know how those prisoners are behaving," said Zeenithia Davis, who is in the Navy in Mississippi. "There's a line between heinous war crimes and maintaining discipline."[/i]
Did this sicko actually say this with a straight face? "maintaining discipline" by sexually abusing them? Oh, well maybe for subhuman Arabs... Sick bitch.
[i]The alleged abuses of prisoners were "stupid, kid things -- pranks," Terrie England said. "And what the (Iraqis) do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, does that apply to everybody or just us?"[/i]
Oh and of course there is the usual "relativist" argument.... What exactly are "they" - the prisoners - doing to the Americans? But at least this person was honest enough to openly imply that we are absolutely no better than the worst of Saddam's thugs - She's right about that much.
[i]Frederick's civilian lawyer, Washington-based Gary Myers, said he has urged the commanding general in Iraq to treat the case as an administrative matter, like those of the seven officers. "I can assure you Chip Frederick had no idea how to humiliate an Arab until he met up" with higher-ranking people who told him how, Myers said.[/i]
Now this may be true and its absolutely criminal that the Pentagon is hiding the names of the "CIA, FBI, and military intelligence" officials that reportedly encouraged this behavior. I guess that's the good thing about rank - you're above the law.
[i]In civilian life, Frederick has been a correctional officer for six years at the Buckingham Correctional Center in Dillwyn, Va., his wife and a state agency spokesman said.[/i]
And this is even worse - if this guy really had no idea that his sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners was wrong, just what the hell was he doing in his prison job in the US?
And of course these sick bastards will get a slap on the wrist from the Pentagon and in a few years will be out on the streets again. But maybe at least a couple of them will meet some big guy in prison who will give them a first-hand lesson in how sexual abuse isn't a fun thing...
|
|
|
| |
| Iraqi "Republican Guard" - an example of Orwellian policy change |
| 04.30.04 (8:56 am) [edit] |
Back in march of 2003 the airwaves were full of stories about the fanatical "Republican Guard" - die-hard Saddam loyalists who represented the worst of the evil Ba'athist regime we were out to "liberate" the Iraqi people from.
See, for example: [b]Republican Guard gets last chance against U.S. forces[/b], USA Today, March 27, 2003, http://www.usatoday.com/news/...
Excerpts:
[i]WASHINGTON — The road to victory for U.S.-led forces in Iraq runs through the Republican Guard. A dozen years after Saddam Hussein's best divisions failed to defeat U.S. tanks and infantry in the deserts west of Kuwait, the elite Iraqi units will get one more chance — this time to save the Iraqi leader's life.[/i]
[i]But now the Iraqis are fighting for their homeland within sight of their capital city. They have learned from their defeats in the 1991 war and picked up tricks from the way the Serbs fought back against U.S. airpower in Kosovo. Unlike lower-paid conscripts in the regular Iraqi forces, many of whom have melted away rather than fight, Republican Guard units are expected to give U.S. invaders an intensely violent battle.[/i]
[i]Iraqi leaders have promised that the Republican Guard will fight to the death. "They are ready to sacrifice to the level of martyrdom to defend their leader, their country and their sanctities," the official Iraqi News Agency said March 1.[/i]
[i]What concerns coalition commanders about the Republican Guard is not their armaments but their loyalty. Commanded by Saddam's younger son, Qusay, the Republican Guard troops are drawn mostly from Iraq's minority Sunni population, Saddam's branch of the Muslim faith. After several coup plots in the 1990s turned out to include Republican Guard officers, Saddam conducted a purge and installed cronies from his hometown of Tikrit as senior officers.[/i]
[i]Before U.S. troops can drop surrender messages or bombs on the Republican Guard, they must find them. Guard forces are scattered and dug in, according to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar. To avoid systematic destruction by U.S. airpower, many Guard units have positioned themselves in residential areas, where killing Iraqi tanks and fighters could mean killing Iraqi families.[/i]
[i]Within Baghdad itself is a separate and possibly more dangerous force, the Special Republican Guard, an elite force of between 15,000 and 25,000 trained in urban warfare tactics. In addition there are between 9,000 and 12,000 members of Iraq's Military Intelligence Service and Military Security Service in Baghdad, organizations devoted to covert operations and Saddam's personal security.[/i]
And yet now (as in today), it turns out that we are employing Saddam's loyalists to do some of our dirty work for us - like in Fallujah...
See, for example, [b]Former Iraqi officer forms force to calm Falluja[/b], Reuters, April 30, 2004, http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a...
Excerpts:
[i]BAGHDAD, April 30 (Reuters) - A former officer of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard said on Friday he was forming a military unit to restore calm to the bloodied Iraqi town of Falluja in agreement with besieging U.S. forces. Jasim Mohamed Saleh, who a relative said had been chief of staff of a Republican Guard brigade, told Reuters the force would help Iraqi security forces bring order to the town, so U.S. forces would not be needed.[/i]
[i]"We have now begun forming a new emergency military force to help the forces of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps and the Iraqi police in completing the mission of imposing security and stability in Falluja without the need for the American army, which the people of Falluja reject," Saleh said. Hundreds of people waving Iraqi flags and Iraqi security forces cheered Saleh, wearing his old army uniform, when he entered the town centre and gave a speech on Friday.[/i]
[i]The New York Times reported on Friday that U.S. military commanders had proposed transferring the task of ending the Falluja insurgency to a new force of Iraqi soldiers, led by officers once loyal to Saddam.[/i]
[b]The lesson being - Loyal Ba'athists & Saddam supporters are EVIL, unless they work for us, then they are GOOD. It's all very Orwellian - one day they are the fanatical enemy, the next the best of good fellows - the only thing that changed was the official party line. Orwell would be proud...[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq's 'new flag' - what is wrong with this picture? |
| 04.28.04 (8:53 pm) [edit] |
[b]Here is every ARAB flag in the world - not every Muslim flag, just the flags of the world's sixteen Arab states.[/b]
[b]And here is the new occupation flag of Iraq...[/b]
[image]CPSC1_74877849.jpg[/image]
[b]Hmmm...doesn't seem very Arabic, but it does seem to recall at least one other flag in the region...let's see - blue & white, two blue bars, a religious symbol in the center...hmmm, what could it be? Maybe...[/b]
[image]CPSC1_158638945.gif[/image]
[b]Hmmmmm...[/b]
[b]This little absurdity notwithstanding, Iraq only has one legitimate flag...[/b]
[image]CPSC1_1282965797.gif[/image]
|
|
|
| |
| Does the Geneva Convention apply to the Palestinian Territories? |
| 04.28.04 (6:37 pm) [edit] |
Not that it is terribly important, in that the entire world community - even the US - rejects the empty babbling Israeli attempts to legally dismiss the validity of the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, nevertheless, since they like to constantly regurgitate the same nonsense its always fun to counter it.
Anyway, today I received the following in one of my email accounts...
[i]Dear friends,[/i]
[i]T[/i][i]he 1949 Geneva Convention and UN Resolution 242 are the most frequently quoted documents by Israel's detractors. A few days ago I sent you George F. Will brilliant article on Resolution 242. Now, here is the truth about the Geneva Convention.[/i]
[i]As I wrote to you on many occasions, the 1949 Geneva Convention does NOT apply nor relates to the Middle East conflict and the Israeli control of the territories of Judea, Samaria ("The West Bank") and Gaza. By definition, and in actuality, these territories are NOT "occupied territories" according to international law, despite all the lies and propaganda you hear from the Arab-Palestinians, the media, the Islamic world and most of the world community, most notably, Europe. [/i]
[i]Here is a letter Under Secretary of State in the Johnson Administration EUGENE V. ROSTOW wrote to the NY Times 12 years ago, clarifying the reasons why Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not "occupied territories" and why the Jewish communities there are justified and legal.[/i]
[i]Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.[/i]
[i]EUGENE ROSTOW LETTER IN NY TIMES - HISTORIC BETRAYAL AHEAD
By David Basch[/i]
[i]The text of the letter that appears below in full was written to the editor of the New York Times by Eugene V. Rostow in 1992 -- a former Undersecretary of State in the Johnson Administration. It presents evidence that Israeli governments have and are betraying the Jewish people's rights to their lands in the Mandate of Palestine.[/i]
[i]THE NEW YORK TIMES
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992
EDITORIALS/LETTERS[/i]
[i]Israeli Settlement and the Geneva Convention[/i]
[i]To the Editor:[/i]
[i]I apologize for an error in "Agreements Don't Bar West Bank Settlements" (letter, March 18), on the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which states that "international lawyers differ on whether the 1949 Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, because Israel is not a
signatory." Both Israel and Jordan did sign and ratify the
convention, Israel with a reservation.[/i]
[i]The error does not affect my argument, however. Article 2 of the convention provides that the agreement applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a high contracting party." Thus the convention cannot apply because the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip have never been
generally recognized as territories of Jordan. Jordan
administered them as a belligerent occupant between 1948 and 1967 after a war of aggression against Israel in 1948. Jordan's attempt to annex these areas in 1950 was recognized only by Britain (except for Jerusalem) and perhaps by Pakistan.[/i]
[i]EUGENE V. ROSTOW[/i]
LOL - now, who can find the problem here?
Okay. The gist of this guy's argument is essentially:
[i]The error does not affect my argument, however. Article 2 of the convention provides that the agreement applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a high contracting party." Thus the convention cannot apply because the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip have never been
generally recognized as territories of Jordan. [/i]
Now why do they think that Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is some vague mystery item that cannot be easily and quickly looked up by anyone at anytime? It isn't that they really believe this, they just know most Americans are too lazy to actually do so, so who can question their claims? Why think when your local Zionist propagandist is willing to do so for you?
Anyway, let's take a quick look at Article 2 of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 - http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b... -:
[i]ARTICLE 2[/i]
[i]In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.[/i]
[i]The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.[/i]
[i]Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.[/i]
Notice the selective quoting by the Hasbaraniks (Zionist propagandists)?
To illustrate:
Rostow: [i]"to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a high contracting party." [/i]
The actual article: [i]"the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall [u][b]also[/b][/u] apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party,"[/i]
The key omission by the Hasbaraniks is the [u]ALSO[/u]. The convention is not ONLY applicable to the occupation of territories of High Contracting Parties, but is [u]ALSO[/u] applicable to any and all armed conflicts (whether war is declared or not) between High Contracting Parties.
For the record - each of the countries that Israel attacked in 1967 were High Contracting Parties to the fourth Geneva Convention. Egypt (1952); Iraq (1956); Jordan (1951); Lebanon (1951); & Syria (1953) http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/W... . Therefore, [i]the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, [/i]which of course includes the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regardless of whose land this was at the time.
The rest of Rostow's argument is just window dressing and diversionary. Rostow is correct that the West bank was not recognized as Jordanian, but the point is utterly irrelevant regarding the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Whether or not the land in question was Palestinian (the view of the Palestinians, Egypt [who controlled Gaza], and the Arab League) or whether it was Jordanian (the view of the Hashemite monarchy, the UK, and Pakistan) is completely beside the point as the land certainly wasn't - [u]and isn't [/u] - Israeli, though it was acquired through an armed conflict between High Contracting Parties to the fourth Geneva Convention.
Of course this has been repeatedly reaffirmed through a myriad of UN resolutions (both General Assembly & Security Council) as well as special convenings of all the High Contracting Parties to the convention. No country on Earth, even including the US, denies the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the OPTs, except the warcriminals themselves, and that can't be too surprising. Therefore, pointing out the obvious is rather pointless. Nevertheless as long as the Hasbaraniks continue rehashing the same old tired and easily disproven lies, it will always be a prudent idea to show their lies for what they are.
[i]Not to mention - it's fun![/i]
|
|
|
| |
| The Fallujah / Lidice Massacre comparison |
| 04.28.04 (4:10 pm) [edit] |
[b]Earlier there was some discussion on one of the comment sections of this blog comparing the current Fallujah to the Nazi Lidice in what is now the Czech Republic. The same motivation and the same tactics. Apparently the people discussing this online aren't the only ones to see the obvious similarities.[/b]
[b]"Washington Unleashes Bloodbath in Iraq"[/b]
Tehran Times, April 29, 2004, http://www.tehrantimes.com/De...
Excerpts:
[i]In Fallujah, US forces on Tuesday escalated their attack, with AC-130 gunships firing cannon rounds into crowded residential areas. The city was also pounded by fire from helicopter gunships, jet fighters, tanks and machine guns.[/i]
[i][u]In one instance, tank fire was used to topple the minaret of a local mosque.[/u] Marines reportedly closed the last entrance to Fallujah, barring any more of the residents who had fled earlier fighting from returning to their homes. The action was seen by observers as the prelude to the renewal of a full-scale assault on the city of 300,000, which has been a center of resistance to the US occupation. [u]One Marine commander referred to the city—comparable in size to Birmingham, Alabama or Newark, New Jersey—as a “huge rats’ nest.” [/u][/i]
[i]In Najaf, Pentagon officials claimed Tuesday that US occupation forces killed scores of members of the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr. Missile-firing helicopter gunships were called in to mow down some 60 militiamen, according to US officials. [u]Local hospital staff, however, reported that the casualties included unarmed civilians. It was also reported that US troops had seized a major hospital and were denying access or supplies to those seeking to treat wounded Iraqis.[/u][/i]
[i]What is being prepared is a wave of mass killing aimed at terrorizing the Iraqi people into accepting the continued occupation of their country by the US military. [b]Lacking anywhere near the forces necessary to police a country of 25 million people, Washington is determined to make an example out of Fallujah and Sadr’s movement, much in the same fashion that the Nazi occupiers of World War II Europe leveled the Czech town of Lidice and razed the Warsaw ghetto.[/b][/i]
[i]Since the beginning of April, 122 US troops have lost their lives in combat. [u]During the same period, ten times as many Iraqis have been killed, many of them women and children[/u].[/i]
[u][i]Laying siege to cities, attacking hospitals and mosques, denying medical care, food and other essential services to entire civilian populations and imprisoning close to 20,000 Iraqis without charges or hearings are all war crimes, and they are being carried out in the name of the American people.[/i][/u]
[u][i]While millions of Americans oppose this war and watch with revulsion as the killing escalates, the onslaught against the Iraqi people enjoys the full support of the US establishment and both of its political parties. That the bloodletting in Iraq is the consensus policy of the entire ruling elite was made clear by editorials appearing in two influential dailies this week.[/i][/u]
[i]That the US occupation is an expedition devoted to looting rather than liberation was spelled out last month in a revealing interview by the American official first placed in charge in Iraq. Retired General Jay Garner told BBC reporter Greg Palast that the US administration had drawn up detailed plans for the privatization of the Iraqi economy and its oil wealth as early as 2001. Garner was removed from his post, he said, because his call for early elections cut across US plans to implement by decree this economic program of plunder and seizure. Nothing could more clearly testify to the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have nothing to do with “democracy,” and everything to do with transferring the country’s wealth into the hands of the US oil monopolies, banks and corporations.[/i]
[i]Part of the plan, Garner added, was to establish Iraq as a US military base for operations throughout the Middle East. He said Iraq would serve much the same function as the Philippines did in projecting US naval power in the Pacific after the crushing of nationalist guerrillas in that country at the end of the 1898 Spanish-American War.[/i]
[i]Tens of thousands of Iraqis are resisting—with undeniable popular support—the overwhelming military superiority of the occupation forces. While they are routinely described by US officials and the media as “terrorists,” “thugs,” and “extremists,” they have every right to fight for an end to the illegal occupation and colonial conquest of their country.[/i]
[u][i]The “liberal” argument that the US occupation must continue because without American troops Iraq would descend into civil war is as old as colonialism itself, and merits only contempt. The worst alternative in Iraq would be the “success” of this imperialist project. It would entail the permanent occupation of Iraq and endless bloodletting, while paving the way for new and even more catastrophic wars.[/i][/u]
[i]The Democratic and Republican parties are united in their determination to exclude from the elections any debate over the continuation of the US occupation. For both Kerry and Bush, the antiwar sentiments of tens of millions of Americans are illegitimate and must be suppressed.[/i]
[b][i]The struggle against war cannot be waged on the basis of the facile politics of “anybody but Bush.” It requires the building of a new and independent mass political movement of American working people fighting to unite their struggles with those of working people internationally.[/i][/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Good article: "The dynamic of occupation" |
| 04.28.04 (11:39 am) [edit] |
"The dynamic of occupation" by Azmi Bishara, Al Ahram, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/20...
Excerpts:
[i]Given the mountain of written words coming out of Iraq -- reports, commentaries, observations, journalism -- it sometimes seems writers outnumber soldiers by some 1,000 to one. Yet it is the outpourings of researchers and intellectuals affiliated with the US administration that are most astonishing and, unfortunately, far more significant than the flood of information coming out of Iraq. Many of these people produced one book after another in the 1980s as they climbed up the academic ladder. Now they find themselves advising the occupation authorities in Baghdad. They are now, then, in a rare position for academics: they can put their theories into practice. Washington's voracious appetite for ideology has given these academics-cum- advisers a chance to dictate approaches to the Greater Middle East.[/i]
[i]These administration-affiliated academics conveniently define the Middle East as that area designated as such by US Central Command. Such a glib formulation saves any speculation on whether the Middle East is Arab or not, or on why it should include Pakistan and not Turkey, etc. [/i]
[i]Does it make any sense that the US administration cannot explain to its own public, or to itself, the nature of the Iraqi resistance? What is happening in Falluja? Why did the Americans expect Al-Sadr to backtrack once threatened with detention, only to be faced with a Shia uprising? Why have things become so desperate that troops of an advance party of marines, sent to replace the intelligence unit of the 82nd Airborne (the devil knows what these terms mean) are told to grow moustaches to win over a local population which supposedly equates moustaches with manliness? [/i]
[i]The Americans have bombed a mosque because five marines were injured by shots from within it. It is as if America is not supposed to pay any price for occupation, as if an injured marine justifies the bombardment of a mosque and the killing of 50 civilians. What can this conduct be if not an amalgam of fundamental fanaticism, imperial arrogance and barbarism?[/i]
[u][i]The US has created a new dynamic in Iraq and it is the dynamic of occupation. Once the occupation was in place and once its intentions became known (regarding Iraq's form of government, regional relations, wealth, Arabism, and future military role), conflict became a question of when, not if. A young leader, one whose office is named after his father (a victim of Saddam's dictatorship), one who cannot credibly contend for power, not even within his own community, took up the cause. This is a classic model of what happens under occupation and we have yet to see the last of it. America, a country that boasts about democracy and the rule of the law, issues an arrest warrant for the young cleric in connection with a murder case but then uses the warrant as a bargaining chip to make him alter his political stand. This is also a part of the occupation dynamic. The occupying authority is now above the law. It furthers its own interests in whatever manner it deems suitable, and the manner is invariably imperialist.[/i][/u]
[u][i]The occupation is rebuilding the economy in the way it sees best. The foreign army arrives accompanied by another army of fortune-seeking civilians, individuals who the locals are bound to identify with the occupiers. These are the people who will sign fat reconstruction contracts. During ensuing tensions the fortune hunters are targeted. The horrific acts of mutilation that happened recently are a case in point.[/i][/u]
[i]Resistance is a fire that spreads through the timber of communal aggravation. We may not know much about the Iraqi resistance, but it mirrors both the people and the country, both the good and the bad. Resistance may be accompanied by chaos as well as fanaticism, vitality as well as backwardness. But what we now see in Iraq is an armed uprising against a merciless foreign occupation, an occupation that symbolises everything backward, fanatical, and bellicose about America. [u]What we see in Iraq is an armed civilian uprising, and there is no contradiction in terms here. The Iraqi combatants are civilians under arms.[/u] [/i]
[u][i]I find it absurd that US officers grumble about how the resistance fighters mingle with civilians so that occupation forces cannot distinguish between the two. Well, these combatants are actually civilians under arms. What does the US army expect them to do, set up a camp outside Falluja? The combatants mix with the civilian population because they are civilians, because they live in civilian homes. The occupation comes without civilians because it is far removed from home, because its soldiers are not sleeping in their own homes -- they only bomb the homes of others. The aerial bombardment of a civilian house leaves mutilated bodies. The media has just carried scenes of the Israeli bombardment and its effect on the bodies of Al- Rantisi and his companions. What was that if not mutilation? [/i][/u]
[i]But America cannot even impose its will: Iraq is undemocratic and a pain in the neck, a pain that comes in many shapes and forms. Even America's men in Iraq, with and without moustaches, now find it convenient to distance themselves from US actions. When opportunists begin deserting expect the worst.[/i]
[u][i]The US occupation is not a model one. Remember Afghanistan? Well, you will soon enough. The US elections will bring it to mind, for the US president and his administration need a foreign policy accomplishment to boast off, Iraq being out of the question. Let's remember Afghanistan. Elections there have been postponed from June to September because, more than three years after the occupation only 15 per cent of eligible voters have registered. Afghanistan elections will have to be held before November's US elections, more for the sake of US than Afghan democracy. Let's also remember that the Afghan president is basically the mayor of Kabul, that Afghanistan still produces three-quarters of the world's opium, that pro-US militias live on revenue from narcotics and that the Taliban still has checkpoints in parts of Afghanistan? [/i][/u]
[i]Under these circumstances any hope pinned on the roadmap is pointless. Any Arab politician claiming otherwise is deceiving himself and his people. US policy has put an end to wishful thinking. Arab nations can no longer see US policy in Iraq and Palestine except as an all out war against them. Arab regimes are left with no face- saving options. And if you think this is just a phase the region is going through, think again. [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Heroic IDF slaughters 14 year-old... |
| 04.28.04 (11:11 am) [edit] |
[b]Fourteen year old Islam Zahran, from the village of Deir Abu Misha'al, near Occupied Ramallah, died yesterday of wounds he received after being shot by the IDF nine days ago. This photo was taken before his funeral.[/b]
[image]CPSC1_624043641.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
| |
| The Sharon plan and the one-state perspective |
| 04.28.04 (10:59 am) [edit] |
Being an avid one-state supporter - one democratic secular state with equal rights for everyone regardless of religion, ethnicity, &c. - I am generally opposed to any ethno-national separatist moves in Israel/Palestine. Therefore it can come as no surprise that I am opposed Israel's current ghettoization schemes. I use the term "ghettoization" intentionally because contrary to the more common expression, Israel is not creating "bantustans" akin to the separatist project in South Africa, but instead are creating ghettos - much more akin to Nazi separatist schemes in Occupied Poland than anything that ever happened in South Africa. The Gaza plan was just one more expression of this - a massive Palestinian ghetto, completely surrounded and completely controlled by the IDF.
"Ghettoization" notwithstanding, it seems that the Israeli Right is unwilling to part with even enough land for the ghettos. Yesterday's rally against "disengagement" at Gush Katif even surprised its organizers - bringing out between 60,000 (Ha'aretz) and 70,000 (Jerusalem Post) opponents to Sharon's "disengagement" plan. I personally am happy to see this. All said nothing much would change either way, just a very minor "restructuring" of the occupation, nevertheless if Sharon loses his Likud referendum it will - I suspect - convince the Israeli Left that the time for assorted separatist schemes, such as the "Geneva Accord" is long past so they can start dealing with the only two real options - integration on a one-state model or "transfer" (systematic forced ethnic cleansing). Therefore I sincerely hope that the Likud Right defeats Sharon's little scheme. From the Palestinian side nothing much will change either way, they get virtually nothing with or without "disengagement".
One really wonders just what the hell Sharon is thinking - if anything at all. Just shy of two years ago Mitzna ran at the head of Labor calling for unilateral "disengagement" and led Labor to one of its most severe defeats ever, earning the scorn and derision of all Likud (including Sharon) and alienating the hawkish mainstream Labor rank & file. What precisely led Sharon to think that adopting Mitzna's line would win him acclaim from the Right?
Anyway, now Sharon is considering resigning if he loses his referendum...
Sharon said likely to resign if disengagement fails to pass referendum, Israel Insider, http://web.israelinsider.com/...%5El3573&enZone=Politics& enVersion=0&
Excerpts:
[i]Associates of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that if members of the Likud Party vote down the disengagement plan in their referendum on Sunday, Sharon would be unable to continue to serve in his position. Officials in the Prime Minister's Office downplayed yesterday's massive Gush Katif solidarity rally, saying that most of the more than 70,000 people who attended were not members of the Likud Party. [/i]
[i]"A failure in the vote would not enable him to continue to serve as prime minister," Sharon's associates said, according to an Army Radio report. According to the report, it was as yet unclear if Sharon will publicly threaten to resign if his plan to have Israel unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip is rejected by the Likud. [/i]
So...the question is, would it matter at all? I personally don't think so. Even if Sharon were to resign, Likud would remain firmly in control because labor is playing the same game in Israel that the Democrats are in opposition to the Republicans - both Labor & the Democrats are following the patently absurd strategy of trying to defeat the Right by adopting the Right's positions across the board. Meretz and the further Left are in no position to make any significant gains - having invested so much time and energy into their now largely ignored separatist "Geneva Accord" scheme. Bibi might re-win office in the face of a Sharon resignation, but he wouldn't be able to do anything more or less than Sharon has been able to - limping along impotently with no idea how to break the impasse and slaughtering Palestinians out of lack of anything better to do.
The only good defeating Sharon's plan would lead to would be a strong repudiation of the suggestion that separatism is even a viable possibility today. Israel had its chance in 1993-1996 and blew it - too bad, no more strictly "Jewish State". The only real harm coming from the realization of the Gaza plan would be to temporarily give the separatist an additional straw to grab at in their hope for ethnically controlled states.
Nevertheless - here is one of the ironies of being a one-state supporter...at least in this particular instance, I sisncerely hope the settlers win the referendum. Whether Sharon resigns or not doesn't matter in the least.
|
|
|
| |
| War for oil? Duh, of course it was - with more to come... |
| 04.27.04 (9:33 am) [edit] |
[b]US: Procuring the world's oil[/b], By Michael Klare
Asia Times, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/...
Excerpts:
[i]When first assuming office in early 2001, President George W Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction - or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to US markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50 percent of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's "energy crisis" was his most important task as president.[/i]
[i]As the NEPDG began its review of US energy policy, its members saw the US was faced with a grave choice between two widely diverging paths. It could continue down the road it had long been traveling, consuming increasing amounts of petroleum and - given the irreversible decline in domestic oil production - becoming ever more dependent on imported supplies. Or it could choose an alternate route of reliance on renewable sources of energy and gradually reducing petroleum use.[/i]
[i]The National Energy Policy Development Group wrestled with this dilemma and completed its report during the early months of 2001. After a careful review, Bush anointed the report as the National Energy Policy (NEP) and released it on May 17. At first glance, the NEP, or the Cheney report as it is often called, appeared to reject the path of increased reliance on imported oil in favor of renewable energy. The NEP "reduces demand by promoting innovation and technology to make us the world leader in efficiency and conservation", the president declared as he released it. However, for all its rhetoric about conservation, the NEP does not propose a reduction in oil consumption. Instead, it proposes to slow the growth in US dependence on imported petroleum by boosting production at home through the exploitation of untapped reserves in protected wilderness areas. [/i]
[i]However, careful examination of the Cheney report leads to an entirely different conclusion. Aside from the ANWR proposal, nothing in the NEP would contribute to a significant decline in US dependence on imported petroleum. In fact, the very opposite is true: [u]The basic goal of the Cheney plan is to find additional external sources of oil for the US. [/u][/i]
[i]The fact that the Bush energy plan envisions increased rather than diminished reliance on imported petroleum is not immediately apparent from the president's public comments on the NEP, or from the first seven chapters of the Cheney report itself. It is only in the eighth and final chapter, "Strengthening Global Alliances", that the true intent of the administration's policy becomes fully apparent. Here, the tone of the report changes markedly from a professed concern with conservation and energy efficiency to an explicit emphasis on securing more oil from foreign sources. The chapter begins, "US national energy security depends on sufficient energy supplies to support US and global economic growth." The report further states, "We can strengthen our own energy security and the shared prosperity of the global economy," by working with other countries to increase the global production of energy. It is a mandate to "make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy". [/i]
[i][u]One-third of all the recommendations in the report are for ways to obtain access to petroleum sources abroad. Many of the 35 proposals are region or country-specific, with emphasis on removing political, economic, legal and logistical obstacles.[/u] For example, the NEP calls on the secretaries of energy, commerce and state "to deepen their commercial dialogue with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and other Caspian states to provide a strong, transparent and stable business climate for energy and related infrastructure projects". [/i]
[i]Applying the Cheney energy plan will have major implications for US security and military policy. [u]Countries expected to supply petroleum in the years ahead are torn by internal conflicts, harbor strong anti-American sentiments, or both. Efforts to procure additional oil from foreign sources are almost certain to lead to violent disorder and resistance in many key producing areas. While US officials might prefer to avoid the use of force in such situations, they may conclude that the only way to guarantee the continued flow of energy is to guard the oil fields and pipelines with soldiers. [/u][/i]
[i]To add to Washington's dilemma, troop deployments in the oil-producing areas are likely to cause resentment from inhabitants who fear the revival of colonialism or who object to particular US political positions, such as US support for Israel. Efforts to safeguard the flow of oil could be counter-productive, intensifying rather than diminishing local disorder and violence. [/i]
[i]US policy with regard to the protection of Persian Gulf energy supplies is unambiguous: When a threat arises, the US will use whatever means are necessary to ensure the continued flow of oil. This principle, known as the Carter Doctrine, was first articulated by president Jimmy Carter in January 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the shah of Iran. It has remained part of US policy ever since. In accordance with the principle, the US used force in 1987 and 1988 to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers from Iranian missile and gunboat attacks, and then in 1990 and 1991 to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.[/i]
[i]Although Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction was cited as the main reason for acting in this manner, Cheney gave equal importance to US energy security in his much-quoted speech of August 26, 2002. "Should [Saddam's] ambitions [to acquire weapons of mass destruction] be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East and the United States," he told the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat at the top of 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends throughout the region." [/i]
[i]Officials told the public that oil had nothing to do with the motives for the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. "The only interest the United States has in the region is furthering the cause of peace and stability, not in [Iraq's] ability to generate oil," White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said in late 2002. But a closer look at the administration's planning for the war reveals a very different picture. In a January briefing by an unnamed "senior defense official" on US plans for protecting Iraqi oil fields in the event of war, the Pentagon leadership revealed that General Tommy Franks and his staff "have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to preserve those prior to destruction".[/i]
[i]The senior official, who presumably was Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, indicated that the Bush administration sought to capture Iraq's oilfields intact to provide a source of revenue for the reconstruction of the country. Under the Saddam regime, Iraq was a major oil supplier to the US. It provided an average of 566,000 barrels per day in 2002, or 5 percent of total imports. [u]Many in Washington hope to obtain far more oil from Iraq in the future.[/u] According to the US Department of Energy, Iraq possesses proven reserves of 112.5 billion barrels, more than any other country except Saudi Arabia, and it is thought to possess another 200 billion barrels in undeveloped fields. [u]Iraq could become a leading oil supplier in the decades ahead, if a stable government is established that opens territory to exploitation by US firms.[/u] [/i]
[i]The need to increase Saudi production is particularly pressing. With one-fourth of the world's known oil reserves, an estimated 262 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia is the only country other than Iraq capable of satisfying ever-increasing petroleum demands. [u]According to the Department of Energy, Saudi Arabia's net petroleum output must grow by 133 percent over the next 25 years, from 10.2 mbd in 2001 to 23.8 mbd in 2025, in order to meet anticipated world requirements at the end of that period. [/u]Expanding Saudi capacity by 13.6 mbd, which is the equivalent of total current production by the US and Mexico, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It also will create enormous technical and logistical challenges. [u]Western analysts believe the best way to achieve this increase is to persuade the Saudis to allow substantial US oil-company investment. The Cheney report calls for exactly that. However, any effort by Washington to apply pressure on Riyadh is likely to meet with significant resistance from the royal family, which nationalized oil holdings in the 1970s and is fearful of being seen as overly subservient to the US.[/u] [/i]
[i]The strong US ties to the Saudi royal family are unpopular with the regime's many opponents. Additionally, growing numbers of young Saudis have turned against the US because of its close ties to Israel and what is seen as Washington's anti-Islamic bias. It was from this milieu that Osama bin Laden recruited many of his followers in the late 1990s and obtained much of his financial support. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Saudi government cracked down on some of these forces, but underground opposition to the regime's military and economic cooperation with Washington persists. Finding a way to eradicate this opposition while persuading Riyadh to increase its oil deliveries will be one of the most difficult challenges facing US policy makers in the years ahead. [/i]
[i]Although the US will remain dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf area for a long time to come, officials seek to minimize this dependency to the greatest degree possible by diversifying the nation's sources of imported energy. "Diversity is important, not only for energy security but also for national security," Bush declared on May 17, 2001. "Over-dependence on any one source of energy, especially a foreign source, leaves us vulnerable to price shocks, supply interruptions, and in the worst case, blackmail." To prevent this, the administration's energy plan calls for a substantial US effort to boost production in a number of non-gulf areas, including the Caspian Sea basin, the West Coast of Africa and Latin America. [/i]
[i]The administration was reluctant to see Caspian oil flow through Russia on its way to Western Europe, since that would allow Moscow a degree of control over Western energy supplies. Transport through Iran was prohibited by US law because of that country's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. So Clinton threw his support behind a plan to transport oil and gas from Baku in Azerbaijan to Ceyhan in Turkey via Tbilisi in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Before leaving office, he flew to Turkey to preside at the signing ceremony for a regional agreement permitting construction of the $3 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. [/i]
[u][i]While concentrating on the legal and logistical aspects of procuring Caspian energy, the Clinton administration also addressed the threat to future oil deliveries posed by instability and conflict in the region. Since many of these states were wracked by ethnic and separatist conflicts, the administration initiated a number of military assistance programs aimed at strengthening their internal security capabilities. This entailed providing arms and training along with conducting joint exercises. [/i][/u]
[u][i]Until September 11, 2001 US involvement in the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia had been restricted mostly to economic, diplomatic and military aid agreements. To combat the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, however, the Department of Defense deployed tens of thousands of combat troops in the region and established military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The administration recalled some of these troops, but apparently plans to maintain bases and a permanent military presence. This is supposedly intended to assist in the "war against terrorism", but it is also to safeguard the flow of petroleum. The administration deployed military instructors to Georgia to provide counter-insurgency training for special units that will eventually guard the Georgian segment of the BTC pipeline. [/i][/u]
[i]Finally, the Cheney plan calls for a significant increase in US oil imports from Latin America. The US already obtains a large share of its imported oil from the region. Venezuela is now the third largest supplier of oil to the US, after Canada and Saudi Arabia; Mexico is the fourth largest, and Columbia is the seventh. As indicated by the secretary of energy, "President Bush recognizes not only the need for an increased supply of energy, but also the critical role the hemisphere will play in the administration's energy policy." [/i]
[u][i]But US efforts to tap into abundant Mexican and Venezuelan energy supplies will hit a major snag. Because of a long history of colonial and imperial predation, these two countries have placed their energy reserves under state control, establishing strong legal barriers to foreign involvement in domestic oil production. While they may want to capitalize on the benefits of higher volume exports to the US, Latin American countries are likely to resist more US participation in their energy industries and any significant increase in oil extraction. [/i][/u]
[i]The NEP calls on the secretaries of commerce, energy, and state to lobby their Latin American counterparts to eliminate or soften barriers. However, in Mexico, reform bills to ease entry of private oil companies have encountered stiff resistance in Congress. In Venezuela, a new constitution adopted in 1999 bans foreign investment in the oil sector, and in 2003, President Hugo Chavez fired managers of the state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA who favored links with foreign firms. [/i]
[i]In its pursuit of petroleum, the US is intruding in the affairs of the oil-supplying nations. In the process, it exposes itself to increased risk of involvement in local and regional conflicts. This reality has already influenced US relations with the major oil-producing nations and is sure to have an even greater impact in the future. [/i]
[i]These critical points would necessarily include areas that are petroleum sources. Whether or not the administration consciously linked energy with its security policy, Bush undeniably prioritized the enhancement of US power projection at the same time he endorsed increased dependence on oil from unstable areas. [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Lieberman: dissent "encourages our enemies" |
| 04.27.04 (9:04 am) [edit] |
[b]Bush is going to win the upcoming election because the mainstream Democrats are trying to sell themselves as "Republicans Lite". Why would anyone vote for a "Republican Lite" when you have the option of a true-blue Republican?[/b]
[b]Anyway, now Lieberman is joining the Republican chorus that dissent and the political process (i.e. discussion & debate) "encourages our enemies"....[/b]
Lieberman-Iraq , Associated Press, http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a...
Excerpts:
[i]"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman on Monday urged an end to partisan bickering over the Iraq war, saying such debate hurts U.S. efforts on the battlefield by demoralizing soldiers and encouraging the enemy.[/i]
[i]But he said partisan bickering -- expected to follow Thursday's scheduled testimony by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney before the independent Sept. 11 commission and Saturday's first anniversary of Bush's speech celebrating the fall of Baghdad -- hurts the country's efforts on the battlefield.[/i]
[u][i]"We can no longer afford such partisan politics as usual" because it "encourages our enemies" and confuses or demoralizes the soldiers serving in Iraq, Lieberman said.[/i][/u]
[i]But the two sides, he said, must "secure a political peace here at home to help achieve a military victory in Iraq."[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| LOL - nothing quite like "blowback" |
| 04.26.04 (1:58 pm) [edit] |
[b]The US has great habit of having to fight people it trained and armed - Noreiga in Panama, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Qa'eda, and so on. One would think that the lesson is - stop spreading militarism by training people to kill and arming them, since it seems we have to go after them all the time. And yet, here we go again...[/b]
IRAQ: U.S. Facing Opponents it Trained
BAGHDAD, Apr 26 (IPS) http://www.ipsnews.net/print....
Excerpts:
[i]A U.S.- trained Iraqi soldier stands guard. The guard says he signed up in the new Iraqi Army to keep Baghdad safe from looters and thieves, but that if the Mehdi Army of the Shia leader Muqtada al- Sadr who has taken on the United States tries to take the municipal building, he will abandon his post. He carries a photograph of Muqtada al-Sadr and his father Ayatolla Mohammed Sadik al-Sadr in his wallet. The soldier explains he was imprisoned by Saddam's regime in 1979 -- the same year the government executed Muqtada al-Sadr's uncle Mohammed Bakir al-Sadr for refusing to support the ruling Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party. While he was in prison he says he met many members of Muqtada al-Sadr's father's organisation. He says he has great respect for Ayatolla Mohammed Sadik al-Sadr, who was killed by Saddam's regime in 1999. He draws a distinction between the Sadr family and the terrorists he has sworn to fight. ”I was in prison with this family,” he told IPS, ”and even before they were arrested I respected all of them.” [/i]
[i]Across the centre and south of Iraq, the U.S. trained Iraqi military is refusing to fight an increasingly popular insurgency. This week U.S. officials acknowledged that half of its Iraqi Army refused to fight when the U.S. Marines began a massive assault on Fallujah April 5. The assault was launched to crush rebel supporters of al-Sadr. ”Forty percent walked off the job because they were intimidated, and 10 percent actually worked against us,” Maj-Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters. Reuters reports the U.S. military has thrown 200 Iraqi servicemen in prison after they refused to participate in the attack on Fallujah. [/i]
[i]”It's kind of a revolution,” Majid al-Samarai, columnist for an Iraqi newspaper and former TV talk-show host during Saddam Hussein's regime told IPS. ”It's kind of a reaction to what the Americans didn't know about. They made a very big mistake in Fallujah. They try to say they were fighting foreign Arabs and terrorists like Zarqawi but they were not -- just regular Iraqis in their houses who were tired of the occupation.” [/i]
[i]Bremer clearly has a long way to go in constituting a new Iraqi Army. Even before this month's defections, the Iraqi Army numbered only about 6,000, with 32,450 serving in the paramilitary Iraqi Civil Defence Corps. That is fairly small compared to the 350,000-member military Bremer dismissed when he arrived in Baghdad last May (END/2004)[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| A view of the "Falluja Insurgents" or, "Al Jazeera's Lies" |
| 04.26.04 (1:47 pm) [edit] |
Story: Doctor reveals Falluja's horror toll
Al Jazeera, Friday 09 April 2004, 20:48 Makka Time, 17:48 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/35D16627-E2 68-4ACE-B0E0-553C6624058D .htm" title="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/35D16627-E2 68-4ACE-B0E0-553C6624058D .htm" target="_blank"http://english.aljazeera.net/...
Photos all from Al Jazeera - current homepage & archives
[b]PATRIOTS! TURN THE CHANNEL! (see previous entry)[/b]
[image]CPSC1_1092947700.jpg[/image]
In Baghdad an aide to a member of the interim Governing Council said on Friday more than 400 Iraqis had been killed and 1000 wounded in a six-day US offensive against insurgents in Falluja. "To this day, more than 400 Iraqis have been killed and more than 1,000 others wounded in Falluja," said Hatim al-Husayni, an aide to council member Muhsin Abd Al-Hamid from the Iraqi Islamic Party.
[image]CPSC1_545997966.jpg[/image]
"These numbers were given to us from Falluja, from all hospitals, and they are correct 100 percent," he told AFP. The Iraqi Islamic Party was leading mediations to evacuate casualties, bring in supplies and end hostilities in the town west of Baghdad.
[image]CPSC1_1316835732.jpg[/image]
"As of noon today coalition forces have initiated a unilateral suspension of offensive operations in Falluja," Paul Bremer told reporters on Friday. But, the US-led occupation's deputy director of operations, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, denied the reports of a ceasefire. Minutes after Bremer's announcement, US forces carried out a fresh offensive on Falluja, bombing the town from the air. Scores of residents were injured in the attack, reported our correspondent.
[image]CPSC1_220545714.gif[/image]
Aljazeera, meanwhile, has learnt that during negotiations to end the military offensive, US forces imposed many conditions including getting Aljazeera crew out of the town.
[image]CPSC1_480622188.gif[/image]
|
|
|
| |
| Heroic IDF uses gas & bullets to murder little girls |
| 04.23.04 (12:34 pm) [edit] |
[image]CPSC1_660901393.jpg[/image]
The photo above is of four year old Asma' Abu Qlaig, who was gassed to death by the IDF today (April 23).
[i]Dr Mahmud al-Asali, director of Jabalya hospital in Gaza, said four-year-old Asma Jlaiq was admitted with respiratory problems. "Her skin had turned blue as a result of her inability to breathe and she soon died," he said. "We have enough proof to declare that gas inhalation caused her death."[/i] http://english.aljazeera.net/...
[image]CPSC1_1073450041.jpg[/image]
This photo shows both Asma' Abu Qlaig 4, left, and Mona Abu Tabaq, 11, right, killed by the IDF in Beit Lahya City, north of Gaza. Abu Qlaiq died from Israeli "tear-gas" while Abu Tabaq was killed after after being shot by the IDF in the abdomen.
[b]Other related articles:[/b]
Palestinian children die in Israeli raid http://english.aljazeera.net/...
OF Resumes the Mass Killing: Six Citizens Killed in Less Than 24 Hours http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i...
WAFA news Photos http://english.wafa.ps/newsp....
تشي 10;ع جثم 75;ني طفل 78;ين شما 04; قطا 93; غزة http://www.wafa.pna.net/cphot...
Craving for cookies costs Gaza girl her life http://www.reuters.co.uk/news...
Israelis kill two young girls in Gaza http://www.gulf-news.com/Arti...
2 Palestinian girls killed in Israeli raid http://www.bahraintribune.com...
IDF raid kills two Gaza girls; 3 gunmen killed in TulKarm http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/...
|
|
|
| |
| How to address US massacres? "Change the Channel" |
| 04.23.04 (9:55 am) [edit] |
[b]CNN to Al Jazeera: Why Report Civilian Deaths?[/b]
Commondreams Progressive Newswire
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0415-09.htm" title="http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0415-09.htm" target="_blank"http://www.commondreams.org/n...
Excerpts:
[i]NEW YORK - April 15 - As the casualties mount in the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, Qatar-based Al Jazeera has been one of the only news networks broadcasting from the inside, relaying images of destruction and civilian victims-- including women and children. But when CNN anchor Daryn Kagan interviewed the network's editor-in-chief, Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday (4/12/04)-- a rare opportunity to get independent information about events in Fallujah-- she used the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian deaths were really "the story" in Fallujah.[/i]
Al Jazeera has recently come under sharp criticism from [i]U.S. officials, who claim the Iraqi casualties are 95 percent "military-age males" (AP, 4/12/04). "We have reason to believe that several news organizations do not engage in truthful reporting," CPA spokesman Dan Senor said (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4/14/04). "In fact it is no reporting." Senior military spokesman Mark Kimmitt had a suggestion for Iraqis who saw civilian deaths on Al Jazeera (New York Times, 4/12/04): "Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies."[/i]
[i]CNN's argument that a bigger story than civilian deaths is "what the Iraqi insurgents are doing" to provoke a U.S. "response" is startling. Especially in light of official U.S. denials of civilian deaths, video footage of women and children killed by the U.S. military is evidence that needs to be seen.[/i]
[i]And Al Jazeera is not alone in reporting a reality very different from the one U.S. officials describe. Authorities have been able to keep a tight rein on the information flow from Fallujah, with only one small television network pool in the city that "travels and operates" under the watch of the Marines (Television Week, 4/12/04). (It's noteworthy that the U.S. has reportedly demanded, as a condition for lifting the siege of Fallujah, that Al Jazeera cameras be removed from the city-- IslamOnline.net, 4/9/04.)[/i]
[i]But independent journalists reporting from Fallujah have described a scene consistent with the one broadcast by Al Jazeera. Rahul Mahajan, a U.S. journalist in Fallujah, estimated that of the 600 Iraqis killed in Fallujah, 200[/i] [i]were women and 100 young children, with many of the adult male casualties also non-combatants. He reported witnessing "a young woman, 18 years old, shot in the head" and "a young boy with massive internal bleeding" at a clinic(CommonDreams.org, 4/12/04). Mahajan recounted that during the "cease-fire," "Americans were attacking with heavy artillery but primarily with snipers"-- with ambulances among the targets. The sniper activity was also reported by U.S. journalist Dahr Jamail (NewStandardNews.net, 4/11/04): "Fallujah residents say Marines are opening fire randomly on unarmed civilians and have attacked clearly marked ambulances."[/i]
[b]Other stories on this topic:[/b]
[b]U.S. battles for public opinion through media in Iraq[/b]
Reuters, April 12, 2004
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp" title="http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/locale...;:407adee4:ef209fd542bc9f 1?type=worldNews&locale=e n_IN&storyID=4804894
[b]Fallujah hangs in the balance[/b]
Knight Ridder Foreign Service, April 12, 2004
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/2004 /04/12/news/nation/841022 5.htm?1c" title="http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/2004 /04/12/news/nation/841022 5.htm?1c" target="_blank"http://www.twincities.com/mld...
[b]U.S. defends its war news from Fallujah [/b]
The Seattle Times, April 13, 2004
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001 901859_iraqdig13.html" title="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001 901859_iraqdig13.html" target="_blank"http://seattletimes.nwsource....
[b]Aljazeera rejects US accusations[/b]
Al Jazeera News, April 14, 2004
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/377573F3-54 24-44B1-8220-75826DE8C528 .htm" title="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/377573F3-54 24-44B1-8220-75826DE8C528 .htm" target="_blank"http://english.aljazeera.net/...
[b]Military might [/b]
The Cairo Times, Issue 7 vol 8
http://www.cairotimes.com/content/archive08/pre ss0807.html" title="http://www.cairotimes.com/content/archive08/pre ss0807.html" target="_blank"http://www.cairotimes.com/con...
[b]Change the Channel?[/b]
The Progressive, April 13, 2004
http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx041304.html" title="http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx041304.html" target="_blank"http://www.progressive.org/we...
[b]The Carnage According to Gen. Kimmitt: Just Change the Channel[/b]
Counterpunch, April 14, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley04152004.html" title="http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley04152004.html" target="_blank"http://www.counterpunch.org/t...
|
|
|
| |
| 'Rebuilding Iraq' using Saddam's secret police for the US |
| 04.23.04 (8:27 am) [edit] |
[b]CIA plans new secret police to fight Iraq terrorism[/b]
By Julian Coman in Washington, News & Telegraph / The Independent, (Filed: 04/01/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/0 4/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/ 04/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_ requestid=116465" title="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/0 4/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/ 04/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_ requestid=116465" target="_blank"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
Excerpts:
[i]Ni[i][/i]ne months after the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime and his feared mukhabarat (intelligence) operatives, Iraq is to get a secret police force again - courtesy of Washington. The Bush administration is to fund the new agency in the latest initiative to root out Ba'athist regime loyalists behind the continuing insurgency in parts of Iraq. The force will cost up to $3 billion (£1.8 billion) over the next three years in money allocated from the same part of the federal budget that finances the Central Intelligence Agency.[/i]
[i]Its ranks are to be drawn from Iraqi exile groups, Kurdish and Shi'ite forces - in addition to former mukhabarat agents who are now working for the Americans. CIA officers in Baghdad are expected to play a leading role in directing their operations.
A former United States intelligence officer familiar with the plan said: "If successfully set up, the group would work in tandem with American forces but would have its own structure and relative independence. It could be expected to be fairly ruthless in dealing with the [/i][i]remnants of Saddam. The secret police will be the latest security force created by the US and its Iraqi political allies in an attempt to quell the insurgency.
The Pentagon and CIA hope to organise the various and sometimes competing groups into a single force with the local knowledge, the motivation and the authority to hunt down pro-Saddam resistance fighters. According to officials in Washington, the new agency could eventually number 10,000. Initially at least, salaries will be paid by the CIA, which has 275 officers on the ground in Iraq.[/i]
[i]Former CIA officials compare the operation to the Phoenix programme in Vietnam, which was launched in 1967. That programme sought to destroy the civilian infrastructure supporting the Vietcong through assassinations and abductions secretly authorised by Washington. Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counter-terrorism, said: "They're clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did in Vietnam." He said that small units of US special forces would work with their Iraqi counterparts, including former senior Iraqi intelligence agents, on covert operations.[/i]
[i]The force is intended to take on a crucial role for Washington in post-Saddam Iraq. The Pentagon and CIA have told the White House that the organisation will allow America to maintain control over the direction of the country as sovereignty is handed over to the Iraqi people during the course of this year. "The creation of a well-functioning local secret police, that in effect is a branch of the CIA, is part of the general handover strategy. If you are in control of the secret police in a country then you don't really have to worry too much about who the local council appoints to collect the garbage."[/i]
[i]In the short term, CIA officials expect that the very existence of a strongly pro-American security force will terrify civilians who are currently supporting the insurgency into refusing assistance and aid to Ba'athist rebels. Despite the capture of Saddam last month, attacks on US personnel and Iraqis co-operating with them have continued into the New Year. "The presence of a powerful secret police, loyal to the Americans, will mean that the new Iraqi political regime will not stray outside the parameters that the US wants to set," said Mr Pike. "To begin with, the new Iraqi government will reign but not rule."[/i]
[b]U.S. Recruiting Hussein's Spies[/b]
Washington Post, By Anthony Shadid and Daniel Williams, Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 24, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=a rticle&contentId=A37331-2 003Aug23¬Found=true" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=a rticle&contentId=A37331-2 003Aug23¬Found=true" target="_blank"http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Excerpts:
[i]BAGHDAD, Aug. 23 -- U.S.-led occupation authorities have begun a covert campaign to recruit and train agents with the once-dreaded Iraqi intelligence service to help identify resistance to American forces here after months of increasingly sophisticated attacks and bombings, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. [/i]
[i]The extraordinary move to recruit agents of former president Saddam Hussein's security services underscores a growing recognition among U.S. officials that American military forces -- already stretched thin -- cannot alone prevent attacks like the devastating truck bombing of the U.N. headquarters this past week, the officials said.[/i]
[i]Authorities have stepped up the recruitment over the past two weeks, one senior U.S. official said, despite sometimes adamant objections by members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, who complain that they have too little control over the pool of recruits. While U.S. officials acknowledge the sensitivity of cooperating with a force that embodied the ruthlessness of Hussein's rule, they assert that an urgent need for better and more precise intelligence has forced unusual compromises.[/i]
[i]The emphasis in recruitment appears to be on the intelligence service known as the Mukhabarat, one of four branches in Hussein's former security service, although it is not the only target for the U.S. effort. The Mukhabarat, whose name itself inspired fear in ordinary Iraqis, was the foreign intelligence service, the most sophisticated of the four. Within that service, officials have reached out to agents who once were assigned to Syria and Iran, Iraqi officials and former intelligence agents say.[/i]
[i]Another official called the recruitment part of an ongoing struggle between principle and what he called the practical needs of the occupation. "Pragmatically, those are people who are potentially very useful because they have access to information, so you have to compromise on that," he said. "What we need to do is make sure they are indeed aware of the error of their ways."[/i]
[b]U.S. to Reach Out to Former Iraq Military[/b]
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 42&e=12&u=/ap/20040412/ap _on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_s ecurity_040412180825" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 42&e=12&u=/ap/20040412/ap _on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_s ecurity_040412180825" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Excerpts:
[i]WASHINGTON - U.S. commanders in Baghdad said Monday they will reach out to former senior members of Saddam Hussein's disbanded army to try to stiffen Iraqi security forces who have proved disappointing against a growing insurgency. [/i]
[i]In the past, U.S. officials have sought to avoid relying on former senior members of the Iraq army that existed under Saddam. But Abizaid indicated this approach would have to change. "It's also very clear that we've got to get more senior Iraqis involved — former military types involved in the security forces," he said. "In the next couple of days you'll see a large number of senior officers being appointed to key positions in the ministry of defense and the Iraqi joint staff and in Iraqi field commands." [/i]
[b]Moving Targets [/b]
Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, Issue of 2003-12-15
Excerpts:
[i]Americans in the field are trying to solve that problem by developing a new source of information: they plan to assemble teams drawn from the upper ranks of the old Iraqi intelligence services and train them to penetrate the insurgency. The idea is for the infiltrators to provide information about individual insurgents for the Americans to act on. A former C.I.A. station chief described the strategy in simple terms: “U.S. shooters and Iraqi intelligence.” He added, “There are Iraqis in the intelligence business who have a better idea, and we’re tapping into them. We have to resuscitate Iraqi intelligence, holding our nose, and have Delta and [/i][i]agency shooters break down doors and take them”—the insurgents—“out.”[/i]
[i]A former intelligence official said that getting inside the Baathist leadership could be compared to “fighting your way into a coconut—you bang away and bang away until you find a soft spot, and then you can clean it out.” An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, “The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.”[/i]
A[i] former C.I.A. official with extensive Middle East experience identified one of the key players on the new American-Iraqi intelligence team as Farouq Hijazi, a Saddam loyalist who served for many years as the director of external operations for the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service. He has been in custody since late April. The C.I.A. man said that over the past few months Hijazi “has cut a deal,” and American officials “are using him to reactivate the old Iraqi intelligence network.” He added, “My Iraqi friends say he will honor the deal—but only to the letter, and not to the spirit.” He said that although the Mukhabarat was a good [/i][i]security service, capable, in particular, of protecting Saddam Hussein from overthrow or assassination, it was “a lousy intelligence service.”[/i]
[i]The official went on, “It’s not the way we usually play ball, but if you see a couple of your guys get blown away it changes things. We did the American things—and we’ve been the nice guy. Now we’re going to be the bad guy, and being the bad guy works.”[/i]
[b]United States to reinstate some Baathists in Iraq, [/b]04/22/04 (Reuters) http://194.90.101.35/gsnlib_a...
Excerpts:
[i]BAGHDAD, April 22 (Reuters) - Some senior Iraqi officials sacked in a purge of those connected with Saddam Hussein's regime will be brought back in an overhaul of the policy, a spokesman for the U.S.-led administration said on Thursday.[/i]
[i]Last week, however, a few former Iraqi generals were brought back to help run the nascent armed forces being created to replace those disbanded by Bremer last May. A U.S. military spokesman, Brigadier General Mark Kimmet, said more former Iraqi officers would be recruited. "As the organisation gets bigger, there's going to be a need for high-ranking officers," he said. "Obviously this is not a skill level you can get in a matter of weeks."[/i]
[i]The United States is also considering a policy change to allow some ex-Baathists join an interim Iraqi government being put together by the United Nations, the White House said. "We are reviewing how the policies are being implemented and looking at how we can better balance the need for expertise and experience that some Iraqis have with the need for justice," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. McClellan said there was a need for experienced people in the Iraqi government. "You want to make sure that people are being held accountable and being brought to [/i][i]justice, but you also have to balance that and look at the need to have expertise in the sectors within Iraq," he said.[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Support the Troops - by ignoring they exist, it's patriotic |
| 04.23.04 (8:20 am) [edit] |
[image]CPSC1_639500782.gif[/image]
Since the start of the US occupation against Iraq the "patriotic" elements in the United States have been "supporting the troops" by steadfastly ignoring that they exist, belittling their situation, and turning their heads away in disgust whenever someone shows them what is actually going on. One might be forgiven for thinking that the "patriots" in fact hate our troops and consider their sacrifices petty and insignificant for all the attention that they pay to the them.
Anyway, a cargo handler in Kuwait took some forbidden photos of flag draped coffins, in direct violation of Pentagon orders to ignore America's dead. As a consequence, they cargo handler was fired, but the photos went public and are on all the major networks and many major newspapers across the country today - except of course, FOX News who alone hates the troops so much that they refuse to acknowledge their existence at all.
A few stories on this and comments:
[b]U.S. contractor fired for military coffin photo[/b]
23.04.2004 1:46:00 Reuters World Report
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/GSN2004/2004_ 04/20040423/246429.html" title="http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/GSN2004/2004_ 04/20040423/246429.html" target="_blank"http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a...
Excerpts & Comments:
[i]WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - A U.S. contractor and her husband have been fired after her photograph of 20 flag-draped coffins of American troops going home from Iraq was published in violation of military rules. "I lost my job and they let my husband go as well," Tami Silicio, who loaded U.S. military cargo at Kuwait International Airport for a U.S. company, told Reuters in an e-mail response to questions.[/i]
Hey - collective punishment - another new American virtue. Don't just go after the offender, but go after their friends and family too. Just like the US kidnappings of Iraqi relatives of wanted resistance fighters.
[i]The Pentagon tightly restricts publication of photographs of coffins with the remains of U.S. troops and has forbidden journalists from taking pictures at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, the first stop for the bodies of troops being sent home. John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense who oversees the policy, told reporters the Pentagon was not involved in the decision to fire Silicio, but refused to say whether she should be rehired.[/i]
They know what they are doing. It is much easier for the "patriots" to ignore the troops if they are not confronted with images of these ignored and neglected corpses being snuck back into the US. Be a patriot - ignore the troops!
[i]But the Air Force said that, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it released to a Web site (http:/www.thememoryhole.org) on April 14 more than 300 photographs showing the remains of U.S. service members returning home. Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the request to make the photographs public initially was denied by Dover Air Force Base, then was granted by the Air Force Air Mobility Command. But Cassidy said the Pentagon had decided the release violated its own rules and had decided no further copies of the pictures will be made public.[/i]
Whoops - the Air Force dropped the ball on this one. Now come on, recite after me - "there are no dead troops, the Iraqis love us, and nothing bad is going on". Just ignore those pesky photos and we'll be sure not to disturb patriotic tranquility by releasing any more.
[i]Silicio's former employer, Colorado-based Maytag Aircraft Corp., a subsidiary of Mercury Air Group Inc., said the couple was dismissed for violating U.S. government and company regulations. "Maytag deeply regrets these actions and fully concurs with the Pentagon's policy of respecting the remains of our brave men and women who have fallen in service to our country," said Maytag President William Silva.[/i]
"Respecting" - what a nifty new euphemism for ignoring and hiding...
[i]Katz said Silicio, whose own son died from an illness, took the picture to show the "respectful death ritual" for slain soldiers and not to make money or become famous. Other contractors and soldiers had taken similar pictures, she said. "Tami Silicio was only pledging allegiance to our flag and to our heroes laying beneath it," Katz said.[/i]
Traitors! How dare they acknowledge our war dead!
[b]Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins [/b]
The Washington Post, Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A23 via Information Clearinghouse
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6078.htm" title="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6078.htm" target="_blank"http://www.informationclearin...
[i]Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets. To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases. [/i]
[i]In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.[/i]
[i]A White House spokesman said Bush has not attended any memorials or funerals for soldiers killed in action during his presidency as his predecessors had done, although he has met with families of fallen soldiers and has marked the loss of soldiers in Memorial Day and Sept. 11, 2001, remembrances. [/i]
[i]President Jimmy Carter attended ceremonies for troops killed in Pakistan, Egypt and the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran. President Ronald Reagan participated in many memorable ceremonies, including a service at Camp Lejeune in 1983 for 241 Marines killed in Beirut. Among several events at military bases, he went to Andrews in 1985 to pin Purple Hearts to the caskets of marines killed in San Salvador, and, at Mayport Naval Station in Florida in 1987, he eulogized those killed aboard the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf.[/i]
[i]But in early 1991, at the time of the Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon said there would be no more media coverage of coffins returning to Dover, the main arrival point; a year earlier, Bush was angered when television networks showed him giving a news briefing on a split screen with caskets arriving.[/i]
[i]But the photos of coffins arriving at Andrews and elsewhere continued to appear through the Clinton administration. In 1996, Dover made an exception to allow filming of Clinton's visit to welcome the 33 caskets with remains from Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown's plane crash. In 1998, Clinton went to Andrews to see the coffins of Americans killed in the terrorist bombing in Nairobi. Dover also allowed public distribution of photos of the homecoming caskets after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000.[/i]
[i]The photos of coffins continued for the first two years of the current Bush administration, from Ramstein and other bases. Then, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, word came from the Pentagon that other bases were to adopt Dover's policy of making the arrival ceremonies off limits. "Whenever we go into a conflict, there's a certain amount of guidance that comes down the pike," said Lt. Olivia Nelson, a spokeswoman for Dover. "It's a consistent policy across the board. Where it used to apply only to Dover, they've now made it very clear it applies to everyone."[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli Terror Report for April 20, 2004 |
| 04.21.04 (12:44 pm) [edit] |
[b]Palestinians murdered: 7[/b]
Khaldoun Jarad, 21, and Mu’tasim Nasseir, 18, were shot and killed by the IDF near the Al-Nada residential project of Beit Hanoun, north of the Gaza Strip. Dr. Mahmoud Al Assail, director of Kamal Edwan hospital of the nearby Beit Lahia City, stated that both Jarad and Nasseir were shot dead with live bullets in their heads. Later three others died of injuries received during the Israeli onslaught, including Mohammed al-Tannani, 19, Ibraham Rian, 18, and Mohammed al-Hinnawi.
Mujahed Abu Awad, 20, was murdered by the IDF in Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron) during the IDF attack on the Al Fawar refugee camp (see below). Ha'aretz indicated that he was unarmed.
The clinically dead Jamal Khariosh, 20, was turned over to Dr. Hassan Barqawe of Jericho hospital by the Israeli District Coordination Office (DCO). Khariosh had earlier been shot by IDF snipers in Tulkarem, where he worked, and then was abducted by the IDF from Dr. Thabet Thabet hospital in Tulkarem where he was in critical condition after being shot by the Israeli snipers in the head and chest. In critical condition when the IDF abducted him from the Tulkarem hospital, he was returned on the 20th clinically dead.
[b]Palestinians wounded: 33+[/b]
Along with the five murders (see above), another 32 were wounded by IDF indiscriminate gunfire near the Al-Nada residential project of Beit Hanoun, north of the Gaza Strip. Dr. Al-Assail said that more than 23 Palestinians have been shot and wounded by the IOF in that area, most of them were hit in the upper parts of their bodies, including a critical injury. Later WAFA reports upped this number from twenty-three to thirty-two. Six of these were listed as being in critical condition.
In the Al Juneinah neighborhood of Rafah medical sources of the local hospital “Abu Yousef Al Najar” stated that Hussein Al Sha'er, 32, was shot in the left thigh when the Israeli soldiers positioned in Al Barazil neighborhood, close to the borderline with Egypt, started shooting heavily towards the citizens’ houses. He was listed as being in critical condition.
[b]IDF abductions of Palestinians: 23+[/b]
While imposing the new closure of Silwad, north of Occupied Ramallah (see below), more than eight people were abducted by the IDF including Mohmmed Mari’, Hassen Mari', Adeeb Mari’, Ahmed Abu Shara, Nai’m Abed Al Fatah and his son, Nai’m Mari’ and his son, Ahraf Hamad and Zakria Ayad as well as the Imam of the village mosque and his brothers. Most of these abductees are relatives of Ibrahim Hamad, the most wanted Hamasnik in the West Bank. This follows standard Israeli procedure of kidnapping friends and relatives of wanted men to use as hostages and leverage against the wanted individual. The Associated Press reported that almost 70 people were arrested, including friends and relatives of Khaled Mashaal, the Hamas leader in Damascus, Syria, who was born in Silwad.
The IDF attacked the Palestinian town of Kafer Dan, near Occupied Jenin, abducting Yehia Sokyia, 32, and Redda Sokyia, 20.
At the Wadi Al Grous district east of Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron) where radical right-wing settlers from Kiryat Arba began razing Palestinian land under IDF protection a clash developed between the farmers and the IDF who were protecting the rampaging settlers. In the process, the IDF abducted three Palestinians - Ayman Al Ja’bari, 18, Khaled Jwelis, 19, and Mohammed Jwelis, 30.
Mohammed Dawoud (a taxi driver), 28, from Beit Leid was beaten and then abducted by the IDF at the Annab military checkpoint, east of Tulkarem
Yehya al Sawky, 34, and his brother Hamza al Sawky, 31, were abducted from Kufr Dan village.
Talal Kadwra, 17, was abducted during an IDF raid on al_Zawya village.
Two Palestinians were abducted from the Rafidya neighbourhood of Occupied Nablus - Ibrahim Abu Laban 31, and Omar Mansour, 20.
Nabil 'Akoob was abducted by the IDF from the Ras al-Ein neighborhood of Occupied Nablus.
At Taqqo'a, near Occupied Bethlehem, Abed al-Sabah 21, and Sharif Atwa 24, were abducted by the IDF.
[b]New closures & crufews for non-Jews in the OPTs: 3[/b]
Selwad, north of Occupied Ramallah, was placed under military closure and the IDF
The IDF attacked and placed under closure Al Fawar refugee camp, south of Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron).
At Sylat Al Harethia in the northern West Bank, Occupied Palestine, the IDF closed two palestinian schools that happened to be close to a new illegal (even under Israeli law) road that has recently been built in the area by settlers. Later the entire village was placed under curfew.
[b]Incidents of Palestinian property destroyed: 2[/b]
Militant Right-wing settlers, from the Jews-Only settlement of Kiryat Arba in Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron) - with IDF protection - began razing Palestinian land in the Wadi Al Grous district.
At Dier al-Balah, the IDF demolished a gas station owned by "Akila family.
[b]Palestinian retaliations: 4[/b]
At the massacre in the Al-Nada residential project of Beit Hanoun, wherein five Palestinians were murdered and another 32+ were wounded, one IDF soldier was injured from "shrapnel" though no other information is given and another four soldiers were lightly injured after being hit with stones.
The Jerusalem Post reported that three grendades were thrown at IDF positions in Rafah, though reported no Israeli injuries or damage.
An anti-tank missile was fired at a convoy travelling to the Jews-Only settlement of Netzarim in Gaza, though no injury or damage was reported.
A bomb was reportedly detonated near IDF soldiers in Occupied Tulkarem, though no injuries or damage was reported.
http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=51 7" title="http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=51 7" target="_blank"http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a... http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli...
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli Terror Report for April 19, 2004 |
| 04.20.04 (12:24 pm) [edit] |
[b]Palestinians murdered: 3[/b]
Diya Abdelkarim, 24, of Biddu village died at Almaqased Alkhayriya hospital in Occupied Al Quds (Jerusalem) after the IDF attacked civilian protesters against the Apartheid Wall in the village.
An unidentified Palestinian was shot to death near the greenhouses of the Jews-Only settlement of Netzarim, northwest of Khan Younis in Gaza. Although the Israeli press initially reported that the man was armed, the later admitted that he was not.
An undercover IDF force encircled a house in a village south of Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron), searching for a wanted man believed to have been carrying an explosive belt. One of the individuals in the house attempted to flee and was shot dead by troops, who, according to army sources, had followed the rules of engagement. The individual was unarmed and it was later confirmed that he was not the man the troops were seeking.
[b]Palestinians wounded: 17[/b]
Mohammad Jamal Hamed, 15, Silwad refugee camp (nr. Occupied Ramallah) was shot by the IDF with a live bullet during a stone throwing clash. The child was shot in the stomach and listed as being in critical condition.
Sixteen Palestinians were wounded when the IDF attacked protesters against the Apartheid Wall at Biddu village. Eight of them were listed as being in critical condition after being shot in the head and chest.
[b]Palestinians abducted by the IDF: 7[/b]
Seven Palestinians were abducted by the IDF in Occupied Bethlehem and Occupied Ramallah. Among these were Nadir Al-Atrash, 23, Rami Musleh, 26, Mo'tasem Eid, 20, Mohammad Sanad, 24, all of Deheishe refugee camp, near Occupied Bethlehem.
[b]Palestinian homes demolished by the IDF: 1[/b]
The IDF demolished the house of Mahmoud Abu Samra, Director of Palestinian Agriculture Ministry, in the central Gaza Strip city of Deir Elbalah. The family was not allowed to remove their belongings before the IDF demolished the house.
[b]Curfews imposed on non-Jews in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: 2[/b]
In the Silat Alharthiya suburb of Occupied Jenin the IDF closed down three seperate girl's schools.
After the IDF closure of Barqa village (near Occupied Nablus, see April 18), on April 19 they forcibly closed the village's school, forcing out 360 Palestinian children.
[b]Palestinian retaliations: 7[/b]
A Qassam hit the Jews-Only settlement of Nissanit in Gaza yesterday, landing adjacent to sanitation worker Yehuda Aberjil. He was evacuated to Ashkelon's Barzilai Hospital with serious shrapnel wounds to the legs. He was operated on for seven hours and remains in intensive care.
A rocket hit a house in the Kfar Darom settlement, causing damage but no casualties.
In the afternoon, an additional rocket hit a pizzeria in the center of the Jews-Only settlement of Nissanit, causing no casualties. The establishment was damaged. The Al Quds Brigade, the militant wing of Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility.
At around 8:30 P.M., a third salvo of Qassam rockets slammed into the Jews-Only settlement of Nissanit, one of them scoring a direct hit on the Shahar family home. Yael, Tal and Or Shahar, a 4-month-old infant, were in the room adjacent to where the rocket hit. The three were evacuated to hospital where they were treated for shock. Serious damage was caused to the house from the rocket's impact and a fire that subsequently broke out.
Palestinian gunmen opened fire on an Israeli bus traveling near Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron). There were no casualties.
Palestinians threw a burning car battery at a military vehicle in the Hawara checkpoint south of Nablus. An IDF career soldier traveling in the vehicle was moderately wounded and evacuated to Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva settlement.
Two Israeli Palestinians opened fire on a Border Police vehicle in the Galilee. In the resulting gunfight, one Israeli Palestinian was killed and the other wounded. There were no police casulties. The Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack.
http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/n ews2004/2004_04/123.html" title="http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/n ews2004/2004_04/123.html" target="_blank"http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://news.com.au/common/sto...,4057,9323552%255E1702,00 .html http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli... http://www.imemc.org/newsbrie...
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli Terror Report for April 18, 2004 |
| 04.19.04 (10:23 am) [edit] |
[b]Palestinians murdered: 2[/b]
An unidentified Palestinian was murdered near the Jews-Only settlement of "Kesofim", just south of Deir Elbalah Town, Central Gaza Strip, security sources reported, giving no further details.
Ahmad Abdulrahim of the Quseen Village (near Occupied Nablus) was murdered by being beaten to death by the IDF at Beit Ebba military checkpoint. Abdulrahim was beaten until unconscious and died later on that evening at the hospital of Rafidia.
[b]Palestinians wounded: 24[/b]
Islam Zahran, 13, of Deir Abu Mishaal village (nr. Occupied Ramallah) was shot in the head by the IDF. Al Sheikh Zayed children hospital listed Zahran in critical condition.
Mohammed Daghlas, 13, of Barqa village (near Occupied Nablus) was wounded in an IDF raid on his village, being shot in the head with a "rubber" (steel coated in a layer of rubber) bullet.
Mohammed Hamed, 15, of Selwad refugee camp near Occupied Ramallah was shot in the abdomen and was listed in critical condition.
Sharif Abu Sarhan, 17, was shot in the right leg by the IDF at the Bilal Ben Rabah mosque north of Occupied Bethlehem. He was listed as being in moderate condition.
Eight Palestinian protesters at Dura, near Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron) were wounded when the IDF attacked the demonstration. Among those wounded in this incident was Ahmad Jaradat, 14, who was shot in the head by the IDF and Halima Nasser al-Deen, 50, who was wounded in the left foot. Most of the others only suffered light injuries due to tear gas inhalation.
Basema Hejazi, 27, of Rafah and two others were shot by IDF soldiers stationed at the Jewish-Only settlement of "Rafih Yam", near Rafah. Hejazi was shot while inside her home by standard IDF indiscriminate firing. She was shot in her thigh and was listed in serious condition, whereas the other two victims were listed in moderate condition.
Nine civilians in Occupied Nablus were wounded when an IDF tank based in the Al-Amal neighborhood (west of the city) fired a shell on the house they were in. Among the wounded were two children aged seven and nine.
[b]New abductions of Palestinians by the IDF: 5[/b]
Two Palestinians - Majed al-Sha'rawi, 26, and Taysir al-Lossos, 30 - were abducted by the IDF at Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron).
Three brothers of the Abu Haddaf family - 'Azmi, Jamal and Sulieman - of the Wad-Alsalqa area, close to Deir Elbalah Town, Central Gaza Strip were abducted by the IDF.
[b]New curfews for non-Jews: 5[/b]
The IDF imposed a strict curfew on non-Jews at Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron) after major demonstrations against the extra-judicial execution of Dr. Rantisi in Gaza.
The IDF decided on Sunday to close its military "Abu Holi" checkpoint located in central Gaza Strip for three consecutive days. The Palestinian security sources said that they were informed that IOF would close the checkpoint for three days as from Monday from 8:00 am until 8:00 pm. This closure would cut the Gaza Strip into two alienated parts, and would bar hundreds of thousands of Gazans from access to their workplaces, schools and universities.
The IDF imposed a total closure Barqa village, near Occupied Nablus.
The IDF imposed closure on Seelat Al-Dahr and Rummaneh, near Occupied Jenin.
[b]Palestinian retaliations: 5[/b]
A military source said Sunday that two Qassam shells were launched at a settlement in the Negev; the shells were fired from the Gaza Strip. No one was wounded but a local water main was damaged.
Three "Molotov Cocktails" were thrown at IDF soldiers in Tulkarem, resulting in no injuries.
A settler at the Jews-Only settlement of Kiryat Sefer claimed that an Arab laborer tried to stab him and then ran away. No injuries reported.
At the Jew-Only settlement of Kfar Darom, a mortar shell was reported, causing no damage or injuries.
An anti-tank rocket was allegedly fired at the Jews-Only settlement of Atzmona in the Gaza Strip, though no damage or injuries resulted.
http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/n ews2004/2004_04/121.html" title="http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/n ews2004/2004_04/121.html" target="_blank"http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...%20Rocket%20Attack http://www.israelnationalnews...
|
|
|
| |
| IDF uses 12 yr-old Palestinian & Rabbi as human shield - BBC, RHR, PNA, &c. |
| 04.18.04 (2:19 pm) [edit] |
From: http://www.imemc.org/headline...%20shield.htm
[image]CPSC1_427233803.jpg[/image]
[i]Local sources in the village of Biddu, northwest Jerusalem, reported that during the protests against the construction of the separation wall on Thursday, soldiers assaulted a 12-years-old child, tied him at the front side of their military jeep and used him as a human shield.
The child's mother, as she saw soldiers assaulting her child, asked international and Israeli peace activists to rescue him.
Rabbi Arik Asherman, from Rabbis for Human Rights, accompanied by two international and a Palestinian peace activists from the International Solidarity Movement were arrested as well and used as human shields as they approached the soldiers demanding that they should stop beating the child and should release him.
Rabbi Asherman told reporters that the kid was trembling as soldiers tied him at the front of the military jeep. "The three of us were arrested and forced to stand in front of the second military jeep and were used as a human shield" he added.
According to Rabbi Asherman, soldiers refused his continued demands to provide the child with medical care and to stop using the group as a human shield. "They even refused to allow me to cover the kid, who was shaking from fear and cold, with my coat" he added.
The child was released to home after four hours, Asherman and his fellows were moved to Pisgat Zeive settlement police station.
Israeli and International peace activists were released later in the day.
The Army denied repeated claims that Palestinians are being used as human shields during army operations inside Palestinian areas and protests.
Army did not comment yet on the photos of the kid tied to the military jeep, nor to the story of Rabbi Asherman. [/i]
[b]After noting the funny discussion on the "comments" section here is some supplemental information regarding this story added on 04/19/04:[/b]
[b]Press Release from Rabbis for Human Rights[/b]
Child Used as Human Shield after Beating http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs10...
[i]Four arrestees, including a 12 year old boy, RHR Executive Director Rabbi Arik Ascherman, an additional Palestinian and ISM activist, were used as human shields in Bido on Thursday. After local Palestinians and Israeli activists saw a young boy being beaten by border police, the boy's mother sent a Palestinian man to try and help him and Rabbi Ascherman also approached the police. Both were arrested, along with a Swedish ISM activist.[/i]
[i]The boy, crying, shaking from fear and eventually cold, was sat on the hood of a jeep and tied to the bars protecting the glass. The other three arrestees were bound and placed in front of a second jeep. After the arrests, local Palestinians began throwing stones, a number of them hitting the jeeps. The unit commander was Shahar Yitzhaki.[/i]
[i]Rabbi Ascherman repeatedly requested over the next few hours that they not be used as human shields, that the boy receive medical attention and that the officers identify themselves. He also asked to lend his coat to the child and to stand in front of the child to protect him from stones. All these requests were met with physical and verbal threats, orders to "shut up," and/or derision. The division commander, "Benny," also visited the site during these events. Rabbi Ascherman also directed his requests to him. Rabbi Ascherman was eventually told that the boy had been checked by a medic before Rabbi Ascherman was arrested.[/i]
[i]Rabbi Ascherman was seized by his throat and head butted by Yitzhaki upon arrest. The arrestees were moved from the scene after several hours, but kept outside. The child was allowed to go home around 8:30. By this time, the adults were also shaking from cold and sharing Rabbi Ascherman's coat. They were released, but Yitzhaki "rearrested" them and took them to the Givat Zeev Police station. There, after continuing to be held outside, Rabbi Ascherman convinced the attending officers to allow them to sit inside. The Palestinian was aken to Ofer, while Ascherman and the ISM activist were conditionally released late that night.[/i]
[i]Rabbis For Human Rights
42 Aza St. Jerusalem, 92384, Israel
Tel: 972-2-563-7731
Fax: 972-2-566-2815
Mobile: 972-50607034
info@rhr.israel.net
Website: www.rhr.israel.net[/i]
[b]Palestine National Authority State Information Services[/b]
"Israeli Troops Use a Child and a Peace Activist as Human Shields" http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i...
[i]BIDDUE, April 17, 2004 (IPC+Agencies)-- Most gravely, the Israeli occupying soldiers pummeled a 12-year-old Palestinian boy from Biddu , northwest of occupied Jerusalem-that is facing a wide scale of land expropriation for building the apartheid wall- and afterwards, the soldiers tied him to the front of the military jeep to be used as “human shield” to prevent the anti apartheid wall demonstrators to throw stones toward them. [/i]
[image]CPSC1_79294733.jpg[/image]
[i]The Israeli soldiers at afternoon Friday had arrested four peoples including the 12-year-child, the Director General of Human Rights of Rabanim Areik Asherman , a local activist and a Swedish activist from international solidarity with the Palestinian (ISM) , all were used as human shields.[/i]
[i]Sheirman accounted on that “the child was bewailing and shuddering of fear when the Israeli soldiers placed him in front of the jeep and tied him off to be a human shield “. He added that he along with two peace activists were tied with the next military jeep.[/i]
[i]Sheirman accounted on that “the child was bewailing and shuddering of fear when the Israeli soldiers placed him in front of the jeep and tied him off to be a human shield “. He added that he along with two peace activists were tied with the next military jeep.[/i]
[b]More about this story being added 04/23/04:[/b]
Israel faces human shield claim
BBC Friday, 23 April, 2004, 11:24 GMT 12:24 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/36507 91.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/36507 91.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...
Excerpts:
[i]Rabbis for Human Rights say that Mohammed Badwan was tied by police to a jeep during a recent demonstration in the West Bank village of Bidou. The police apparently hoped this would stop Palestinians from throwing stones during a protest against Israel's West Bank barrier. [/i]
[i]Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman said: "It's unclear what happened, we do not expose civilians to physical damage willingly." The case is to be investigated by the Israeli Justice Ministry. [/i]
[i]Mohammed later told the Reuters news agency: "I was scared when they got me at first, I thought they would put me in prison. I was scared a stone would hit me." Mohammed's father, Saeed, said: "When I saw him on the hood of the jeep, my whole mind went crazy - he was shivering from fear."[/i]
[i]Marwan Dalal, of Israeli Arab rights organisation Adalah, said there was evidence that despite the Supreme Court ban, the use of human shields by Israeli security forces was continuing. He it said it was more common for soldiers to use Palestinians as human shield during military operations rather than against stone throwers. [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli Terror Report for April 17, 2004 |
| 04.18.04 (2:10 pm) [edit] |
April 17 is Palestinian Prisoners Day. See: http://www.imemc.org/headline...
[b]Palestinians murdered: 5[/b]
In the extrajudicial assassination, Hamas leader Dr. Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, 56, was murdered when the IDF launched a missile strike on him from a US built and suipplied Apache helicopter gunship in Gaza. Rantisi died shortly after the attack after being critically wounded. Rantisi, his son and two body guards were driving along al-Nasser street in the Sheik Radwan neighborhood of Gaza City, when the helicopter gunship attacked. The IDF fired three missiles at the car. Also murdered was Mohammad al-Rantisi, 27, Dr. Rantisi's son. The other two murdered were Akram Nassar, 35, Rantisi's personal body guard and Ahmad Jhura, 32, Rantisi's driver. Click here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in... for a BBC slide show showing pictures of the Rantisi murder.
At Abu Yousef Al-Najjar Hospital in Occupied Rafah, Fathy Abu-Ghali, 22, a Palestinian security officer, died of wounds he received during a previous IDF raid into Rafah.
[b]Palestinians wounded: 12+[/b]
Mohammed Shaqour, 11, and Saed Abu al-'Aila, 15, both Occupied Tulkarem were wounded when shot by the IDF. According to Thabet Hospital, Shaqour was moderately wounded when shot in the arm by the IDF while Abu al-'Aila was seriously wounded after being shot in the stomach.
Between ten and fifteen (depending on the report) were wounded in the airstrike that murder Dr. Abdel-Aziz Rantisi in Gaza City.
[b]New Palestinians abducted by the IDF: 11+[/b]
At least ten unnamed Palestinians were abducted by the IDF outside of Occupied Tulkarem though most were released several hours later.
Saed Abu al-'Aila, 15, (see above under wounded) was temporarily abducted by the IDF after being shot in the stomach.
[b]Palestinian retaliations: 3[/b]
A Palestinian suicide bomber, Fadi al-Amudi, 22, from Beit Lahiya detonated himself at Erez crossing between Gaza and Israel, killing one Israeli soldier and wounding three others. Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades claimed joint responsibility for the attack. The killed soldier was as Corporal Kfir Ohayun from Eilat. The other three were not named though one of them was in serious condition and the other two suffered light injuries.
Ez Ed-Deen Al-Qasam brigades, the military wing of Hamas, released a statement and announced that its shelled "Kfar Azza" settlement east of the Gaza Strip. No injuries or damage were reported in the Israeli press.
According to the Israeli National News, an Israeli motorist was "lightly injured" when a rock was thrown at his car near Occupied Jericho.
http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=48 7" title="http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=48 7" target="_blank"http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli... http://www.imemc.org/newsbrie... http://www.israelnn.com/news....
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli Terror Report for April 16, 2004 |
| 04.17.04 (4:40 pm) [edit] |
[b]Palestinians murdered: 2[/b]
Hussein Awad, 17, of Betonia village (nr. Occupied Ramallah) was murdered by the IDF after being shot in the head during a protest against the Apartheid Wall. The IDF used live ammunition against the 100 stone-throwing teenage protesters.
Mustafa Sarsoor, 63, died of wounds he received on March 22 as he was one of the innocent bystanders hit at the Israeli air assault against Shaykh Ahmed Yassin.
[b]Palestinians wounded: 47+[/b]
Murad Edrees, 14, of Occupied Al Khalil (Hebron) was beaten by Israeli settlers while returning home from Friday prayers.
Forty six demonstrators were wounded at Biddu, near Occupied Ramallah, when the IDF opened fire on 300 demonstrators against the Apartheid Wall. Twenty one of the wounded were admitted to Ramallah hospital for treatment while the others were treated on site and released. These almost daily demonstrations, organized by foreign activists with the International Solidarity Movement, Israeli peace activists as well as local Palestinians have been completely peaceful until the IDF opens fire almost everyday.
[b]New Palestinians abducted by the IDF: 18[/b]
An IDF force raided the village of Sannour, near Occupied Bethlehem, abducting four residents: Ziad Gharabia 40, Shehada Habaiba 37, Mo'tasem Habaiba 22, and Karem Jawad 18.
In another IDF raid, Khalil Zawahreh, 35, and "Omar" Ayesh, 24, of Artas village, near Occupied Bethlehem were abducted by the IDF.
At Sailat al-Haresia village, near Occupied Jenin, the IDF abducted an unidentified man.
At the anti-Apartheid Wall demonstration at Biddu (see those wounded above) one resident Palestinian, three International Solidarity Movement activists, and four Israeli peace activists were abducted by the IDF. The four Israeli activists as well as one ISM activist were released later the same day. Later the two remaining ISM activists were released on condition that they not enter Biddu village for ten days. The Palestinian abductee remains in holding. All of those abducted were severely beaten by the soldiers using sticks and gun butts.
Four unnamed Palestinian protesters were abducted by the IDF in Occupied Al Quds (Jerusalem).
[b]New curfews imposed on non-Jews by the IDF: 2[/b]
The IDF imposed a new travel restriction on all Palestinians between the ages of 16 and 35 from leaving the Gaza Strip to any other destination. This closure effects 80% of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip.
The IDF imposed a curfew on non-Jews in Tulkarem refugee camp.
http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=48 3" title="http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=48 3" target="_blank"http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://www.imemc.org/headline...%20wounded.htm http://www.imemc.org/headline... http://www.gsnonweb.com/gsnli... http://www.arabnews.com/?page...§ion=0&article=43258&d=17 &m=4&y=2004&pix=world.jpg&category=World%22 http://www.washtimes.com/upi-...
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli Terror Report for April 15, 2004 |
| 04.16.04 (11:30 am) [edit] |
[b]Palestinians wounded by IDF: 22+[/b]
Ahmed al-Deek, 35, of Kufr al-Deek (shot)
Yousef al-Deek, 36, of Kufr al-Deek (shot)
22 unnamed persons at Rafah. The IDF used a US built and supplied Apache helicopter gunship to fire a missile into a civilan protest in the Al Shau’t district of Occupied Rafah, wounding twenty defenseless civilians. Dr. Ali Mossa, director of Abu Yousef Al Najar hospital confirmed that twenty-two people were wounded, four critically.
The IDF's special "Metsada" unit conducted a "search" of wards 9, 10, and 11 of Nafla Prison in the Negev shooting many Palestinian abductees with rubber bullets at point-blank range. Exact number of the wounded abductees remain unknown.
Palestinians, as well as Israeli and foreign, anti-wall activists were assaulted by the IDF, wounding many.
[b]New Palestinian Abductions by IDF: 12[/b]
Ahmed al-Deek, 35, of Kufr al-Deek
Yousef al-Deek, 36, of Kufr al-Deek
Diya' al-Titi of al-'Aroob Refugee Camp near Occupied Al-Khalil (Hebron)
Five Palestinians abducted from the al-Walaja neighborhood of Occupied Bethlehem, three of whom were brothers of the al-Shaikh family
Rami al-'Adam, 24, of Taqqo'a village (nr. Occupied Bethlehem)
Murad al-Badan, 23, of Taqqo'a village (nr. Occupied Bethlehem)
Ghassan Mar'i, 22, of Occupied Nablus
Wael Hnaini of Beit Dajan village (nr. Occupied Nablus)
Mazen Abu Hatb, 20, from Occupied Jenin
[b]Palestinian House Demolitions by IDF: 3+[/b]
Tulkarem Refugee Camp, the house of 'Atyia al-Kuleibi, completely destroyed.
Beit Jala, the house of Issa al-Battat, completely destroyed.
Occupied Bethlehem, the house of Mohammed 'Allan, completely destroyed.
"Several" homes in the Block O area of Rafah were demolished by the IDF. Two additional homes were demolished in Block J and the Al Salam neighborhood. included were the homes of the Barhom family, Saleh Al Ajrami and Musleh Qeshta.
[b]New curfews imposed on non-Jews by the IDF: 1[/b]
Curfew was imposed on non-Jews at the village of Beit Ajza near Occupied Al Quds (Occupied Jerusalem).
http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=46 9" title="http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=46 9" target="_blank"http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://english.wafa.ps/body.a... http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i... http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/i...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's concessions to Sharon... |
| 04.16.04 (9:17 am) [edit] |
On the Palestine issue, Bush's recent letter to Sharon endorsing his "disengagement plan" has monopolized all the headlines.
The entire Bush statement can be found online via the radical Right-wing "National Review Online" at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/bush20040415 0918.asp" title="http://www.nationalreview.com/document/bush20040415 0918.asp" target="_blank"http://www.nationalreview.com...
A few notable excerpts:
[i]Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations.[/i]
That is, all states in the region must side with Israel and in favor of Israel's continued Occupation.... A little insight into the weird fantasy world in which Bush lives.
[i]Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations.[/i]
That is, Israel has US permission to continue its nearly daily terror raids into Palestinian areas....
[i]The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. [/i]
That is, despite "disengagement", the Palestinian areas will remain completely encircled by and completely controlled by Israel, including the borders, the water, the airspace, what comes in and goes out, &c. Essentially this is just a slight restructuring of the Occupation not an end by any means.
[i]It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel. [/i]
That is, the refugees can only go to the extended Palestinian ghettos, not to their original places of origin. Nevertheless, there is nothing particularly new about this. The US government has essentially supported such measures since the matter was brought up at Madrid in 1988. The only thing that is new is that the White House made a public statement reflecting this long held US policy.
[i]In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. [/i]
Although a lot has been made of this comment in the international and Palestinian press, all said, there is nothing particularly new about this either. Even in 1993 when everyone was optimistic about the outcome of Oslo, everyone - including the PNA - recognized that there would be some "mutually agreed" exchanges of territory altering the formal Green Line.
[i]Accordingly, the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel. These actions would be true contributions to building peace in the region. [/i]
From my perspective, this is by far the most dangerous comment made in the Bush letter. All neighboring states have worked long and hard to disengage themselves from the Palestinian issue. Despite Zionist pretensions that all "Arab peoples" owe something to Palestine, the simple truth of the matter is that the Palestinian people represent a unique and distinctive Arab nationality, with its own leadership, views, and interests which cannot be "usurped" by any other Arab national group. Peace must come from negotiation with the PALESTINIANS, not the Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, or anyone else. After all, Israel and Egypt and Jordan are already at peace.
Worse, the suggestion that neighboring states have "special responsibilities" to the Palestinians has become something of a "code" used by the Israeli ethnic cleansing advocates (Molodet, Kach, the Likud Right, &c). Like it or not, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and other neighbors are fully sovereign states representing their own unique Arab national populations and their own unique interests and as such do NOT have any "special responsibilities" to the Palestinians. The only state in the region that has a special responsibility to the Palestinians is Israel and Israel alone since Israel conquered all of Mandatory Palestine in 1967. (Prior to 1967 it could be justly argued that Egypt and Jordan also had responsibilities toward the Palestinians, but that has not been true for thirty-seven years.) The efforts to "reengage" neighboring states is a necessary precursor for "voluntary transfer", i.e. the Israeli ethnic cleansing crowd's euphemism for making life for Palestinians absolutely impossible in Israel thereby "encouraging" emigration.
Since Egypt's failure to usurp Palestinian political representation at Camp David in 1979 and Jordan's ceding its claims to the West Bank to the PLO in 1988, both of these states have specifically sought to disengage themselves from the Palestinian situation, as is their prerogative as sovereign states.
If Israel wants peace, it must make peace with the Palestinians - not the neighboring states. Bush's comment hints that he intends to help the Israeli radical Right by forcing neighboring states to get back involved in Palestinian affairs. We can only hope that these neighboring Arab states - knowing full well that the intention is to shift Israel's burden for the Palestinian people (incl. the refugees) onto them - will successfully resist the US pressure Bush has hinted at here.
Luckily, Bush's letter really means nothing all said. He has no ability to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians and as expected, the Palestinians are refusing to recognize his attempt to do so. This is just one more Israeli attempt to "impose" peace by "negotiating" with ANYONE except the Palestinians themselves. And as happened in 1948, 1967, 1979, and 1988 this effort will fail as usual. If Israel wants peace it simply has to deal with the people it is fighting, despite the failure of Madrid and Oslo. To quote Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen:
[i]"To achieve lasting peace and security, Israel still has to reach agreement with the Palestinian people ... It remains the case that Israel has to make peace with its enemies, not its friends. Israel and the United States are not in conflict,"[/i]
From: http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a...
-John S.
|
|
|
| |
| Welcome to the CPSC Blog! |
| 04.16.04 (5:51 am) [edit] |
With so much going on that deserves comment, not only with Palestine/Israel, but around the world, we've decided to launch this blog in order to comment on current events. We hope you find something here a bit useful and please feel free to comment on posts. However, do be aware that we reserve the right to delete crude or inappropriate comments and block the creators of such comments.
Enjoy!
Colorado Palestine Solidarity Campaign
http://palestineday.ecmei.net" title="http://palestineday.ecmei.net" target="_blank"http://palestineday.ecmei.net...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
