Sarkozy visit to Damascus signals thaw in relationsIan ...



[pic]

24 July 2010

COUNTER PUNCH

➢ Israel's Fingerprints Surface: The Hariri Assassination……..1

INDEPENDENT

➢ Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'………………………………………………..….4

THE METROPOLITAN

➢ What Hampstead can learn from Syria and Tunisia…..……..7

HAARETZ

➢ Spanish activists to sue Israel over deadly raid on Gaza flotilla………………………………………………………11

YEDIOTH AHRONOTH

➢ The tragedy of arrogance…………………………..……….12

GUARDIAN

➢ Editorial: Unthinkable? Bush testifies to Chilcot.………….15

HOME PAGE

Israel's Fingerprints Surface

The Hariri Assassination

By RANNIE AMIRI

CounterPunch,

23 July 2010,

In the Middle East, the link between political machinations, espionage and assassination is either clear as day, or clear as mud.

As for the yet unsolved case of the February 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, mud might be giving way to daylight.

A crackdown on Israeli spy rings operating in Lebanon has resulted in more than 70 arrests over the past 18 months. Included among them are four high-ranking Lebanese Army and General Security officers—one having spied for the Mossad since 1984.

A significant breakthrough in the ongoing investigation occurred in late June and culminated in the arrest of Charbel Qazzi, head of transmission and broadcasting at Alfa, one of Lebanon’s two state-owned mobile service providers.

According to the Lebanese daily As-Safir, Qazzi confessed to installing computer programs and planting electronic chips in Alfa transmitters. These could then be used by Israeli intelligence to monitor communications, locate and target individuals for assassination, and potentially deploy viruses capable of erasing recorded information in the contact lines. Qazzi’s collaboration with Israel reportedly dates back 14 years.

On July 12, a second arrest at Alfa was made. Tarek al-Raba’a, an engineer and partner of Qazzi, was apprehended on charges of spying for Israel and compromising national security. A few days later, a third Alfa employee was similarly detained.

Israel has refused to comment on the arrests. Nevertheless, their apparent ability to have penetrated Lebanon’s military and telecommunication sectors has rattled the country and urgently raised security concerns.

What does any of this have to do with the Hariri assassination?

Outside the obvious deleterious ramifications of high-ranking Lebanese military officers working for Israel, the very legitimacy of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is now in question. The STL is the U.N.-sanctioned body tasked with prosecuting those responsible for the assassination of the late prime minister. On Feb. 14, 2005, 1,000 kg of explosives detonated near Hariri’s passing motorcade, killing him and 21 others.

It is believed the STL will issue indictments in the matter as early as September—relying heavily on phone recordings and mobile transmissions to do so.

According to the AFP, “A preliminary report by the U.N. investigating team said it had collected data from mobile phone calls made the day of Hariri's murder as evidence.”

The National likewise reported, “The international inquiry, which could present indictments or findings as soon as September, according to unverified media reports, used extensive phone records to draw conclusions into a conspiracy to kill Hariri, widely blamed on Syria and its Lebanese allies ...”

In a July 16 televised speech, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah speculated the STL would use information gleaned from Israeli-compromised communications to falsely implicate the group in the prime minister’s murder:

“Some are counting in their analysis of the (STL) indictment on witnesses, some of whom turned out to be fake, and on the telecommunications networks which were infiltrated by spies who can change and manipulate data.

“Before the (2006) war, these spies gave important information to the Israeli enemy and based on this information, Israel bombed buildings, homes, factories and institutions. Many martyrs died and many others were wounded. These spies are partners in the killings, the crimes, the threats and the displacement.”

Nasrallah called the STL’s manipulation an “Israeli project” meant to “create an uproar in Lebanon.”

Indeed, in May 2008 Lebanon experienced a taste of this. At the height of an 18-month stalemate over the formation of a national unity government under then Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, his cabinet’s decision to unilaterally declare Hezbollah’s fixed-line communication system illegal pushed the country to the brink of civil war.

Recognizing the value their secure lines of communication had in combating the July 2006 Israeli invasion and suspecting that state-owned telecoms might be compromised, Hezbollah resisted Siniora’s plans to have its network dismantled. Their men swept through West Beirut and put a quick end to the government’s plan. Two years later, their suspicions appear to have been vindicated.

Opposition MP and Free Patriotic Movement head Michel Aoun has already warned Nasrallah that the STL will likely indict “uncontrolled” Hezbollah members to be followed by “… Lebanese-Lebanese and Lebanese-Palestinian tension, and by an Israeli war on Lebanon.”

Giving credence to Nasrallah and Aoun’s assertions, Commander in Chief of the Israel Defense Forces Gabi Ashkenazi, predicted “with lots of wishes” that the situation in Lebanon would deteriorate in September after the STL indicts Hezbollah for Hariri’s assassination.

Ashkenazi’s gleeful, prescient testimony to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs Committee betrays what Israel hopes the fallout from the STL’s report will be: fomentation of civil strife and discord among Lebanon’s sectarian groups, generally divided into pro- and anti-Syria factions. Ashkenazi anticipates this to happen, of course, because he knows Israel’s unfettered access to critical phone records will have framed Hezbollah for the crime.

Israel’s agents and operatives in Lebanon and its infiltration of a telecom network have been exposed. At the very least, the STL must recognize that evidence of alleged Hezbollah involvement in Hariri’s death (a group that historically enjoyed good ties with the late premier) is wholly tainted and likely doctored.

The arrest of Qazzi and al-Raba’a in the breakup of Israeli spy rings should prompt the STL to shift its focus to the only regional player that has benefited from Hariri’s murder; one that will continue to do so if and when their designs to implicate Hezbollah are realized.

It is time to look at Tel Aviv.

Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator. He may be reached at: rbamiri [at] yahoo [dot] com.

HOME PAGE

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle

By Patrick Cockburn

Independent,

24 July 2010,

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.

In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.

He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside."

The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.

Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of standing in the community to allay suspicions.

The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".

Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.

Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.

The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital.

HOME PAGE

What Hampstead can learn from Syria and Tunisia

By Dan Delmar

The Metropolitan (Canadian newspaper)

July 22, 2010

In their fight to prevent the Quebec government from passing Bill 94, niqab and burqa-wearing Muslim women have found support in the most unusual of places: The most heavily Jewish town, statistically, in the entire province.

The face veil – the dehumanization of women – is where most reasonable people would draw the line. And evidently leaders in jurisdictions like France, Belgium, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt agree, having adopted various sorts of niqab restrictions. Why does Hampstead purport to know what is better for Muslim women than a growing number of Muslim nations?

The Quebec government suspended public hearings on the proposed law before the summer, prompting speculation that it will be scrapped. This despite public opinion being largely in favour of a niqab law; according to polling firm Angus Reid, 95 per cent of Quebecers and 80 per cent of Canadians are in favour.

That hasn’t prevented Hampstead city councillors from recently passing an odd resolution – unanimously, no less – calling for the scrapping of the proposed law which would make face-coverings like the niqab prohibited in public institutions.

“It is a serious infringement of those women’s religious freedom,” reads the motion. Bill 94 “violates the sexual equality provisions of the Canadian and Quebec charters as only women wear niqabs and therefore only women are being restricted in what they can wear.”

Why would a council that represents the largest proportion of Jews in any Quebec town go out of their way to weigh in on an issue that affects a fraction of Muslim women in this province and (presumably) no one at all in Hampstead? Is it a heart-warming gesture of cultural rapprochement?

That is perhaps how Mayor William Steinberg, who put forth the motion, hoped it would be perceived; as an attempt to build bridges between communities often at odds. Instead, Steinberg and the entire council showed a lack of understanding of the Niqab issue.

Muslims in Quebec and around the world have largely rejected the niqab or burqa. It is in no way a religious requirement of Islam. Pointing to the Charter’s religious freedom provisions, as Hampstead has, is a stretch. Remember that the Charest government has come to the conclusion that their law would likely survive any possible court challenge.

The origins of the niqab and burqa lie in the more extreme (and among Muslims, disputed) forms of Wahhabi Islam that took root in Saudi Arabia. Its use was not a founding principle of Islam. As leaders at the Muslim Canadian Congress have pointed out, there is no mention in the Qur’an of a need for a face-covering of any sort (the Qur’an, naturally, speaks of modest dress, but many argue this is in reference to the Prophet Mohammed’s wives, and not all Muslim women). Even inherently misogynistic Sharia law contains no reference to the niqab.

Just because a small faction of Islamists say the niqab is a religious requirement, does not make it so. Nor does it make it acceptable, in the name of religion or anything else, to drape women – and only women – in a dark sheet, covering their faces and entire bodies, even in the scorching summer sun.

It is peculiar that the councillors cited “sexual equality” in their motion. Although it is worth noting that there are many examples of gender inequality across the monotheistic faiths, this manifestation of Islam, however, is the only one that advocates the covering of the face. It robs women of their identity and freedom, whether they are conscious of it or not.

A question for Hampstead councillors: How is the law banning niqabs in public institutions a sexist law, but the niqabs themselves not inherently sexist?

Although advocating government intervention in the homes or private places of worship of niqab-wearing women would be taking the State’s reach too far, in the public sphere, it is a different matter. I do not believe any Canadian should have the right to wear a mask in public, whether it is at a hockey riot, at the licence bureau, at a hospital or in bank. It poses inherent security risks and renders the most basic of human interactions and transactions problematic.

The most troubling part of the Hampstead motion actually has a lot more to do with Judaism than Islam.

“Discrimination against any minority inevitably leads to discrimination against other minorities,” the motion reads, “and to an intolerant and racist society.”

Setting aside the façade of cultural rapprochement, this seems to be the crux of the Hampstead councillors’ twisted logic: First they will come for the niqab, and then they will come for the yarmulke, the beards, the wigs...

The councillors had the chutzpah to ask the Quebec government to “carefully reflect upon the poem written by pastor Martin Niemoller after he was released from a German concentration camp following World War II:”

“They came for the Communists, and I didn’t object — For I wasn’t a Communist,” the poem reads. “They came for the Socialists, and I didn’t object — For I wasn’t a Socialist. They came for the labour leaders, and I didn’t object — For I wasn’t a labour leader. They came for the Jews, and I didn’t object — For I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me — And there was no one left to object.”

With their oddly-worded motion, Hampstead councillors have now joined the pantheon of politicians who use absurd Holocaust analogies, much like American Tea Baggers, who compare President Barack Obama to Hitler and his healthcare plan to Nazi genocide.

It is unfortunate to witness local leaders use this type of cheap scare tactic to curry favour with their constituents. There was only one Hitler; only one Holocaust. Hampstead councillors should know that better than most Quebec politicians and they ought to think twice before getting carried away with alarmist analogies.

An attempt by the Quebec government to force a handful of misguided religious fanatics to show their faces in public institutions is not a slippery slope toward religious intolerance; it is simply reaffirming Western values and adapting to a multicultural tapestry in flux. It is legislating common sense, putting into law what a free society must protect – transparency, openness and equality of the sexes.

HOME PAGE

Spanish activists to sue Israel over deadly raid on Gaza flotilla

83-page document accuses Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his forum of top six cabinet ministers and the Israel Navy for crimes against humanity during May 31 interception of Mavi Marmara.

By Danna Harman and Haaretz Service

Haaretz,

24 July 2010

Three Spanish activists who were aboard a humanitarian aid convoy raided en route to the Gaza Strip will file a law suit against Israel on Friday for alleged crimes against humanity.

The 83-page document takes aim at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his forum of top six cabinet ministers and the Israel Navy, whose commandos stormed the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara on May 31 and killed nine activists.

The three Spanish activists told the Republica newspaper that Israel had arrested them illegally and deported them by force, after subjecting them to hardships during the raid.

At least nine lawsuits will likely be filed against Israel from within nine European countries over the raid, which yielded significant international outcry and forced Israel to rethink its blockade on the Gaza Strip.

Former president of the International Criminal Court, Canadian Philippe Kirsch, will head the committee investigating the events of the raid on behalf of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The Israel Defense Forces earlier this month released the findings of its own probe, which concluded that it was carried out with poor intelligence and coordination, but ultimately defended the Israel Navy's decision for a commando operation to intercept the ships.

Turkey has demanded that Israel apologize for the raid and compensate the families of the nine victims - a request that Jerusalem has denied.

HOME PAGE

➢ Haaretz: 'Germany and Israel fail to agree on submarine sale'..

HOME PAGE

The tragedy of arrogance

Op-ed: Israel’s troubles rooted in belief that we are better, wiser than Arabs, gentiles

Amnon Shmosh

Yedioth Ahronoth,

23 July 2010,

Each person and every nation cultivate their pride. This is a natural human need, yet not everyone can distinguish between pride and arrogance. This requires intelligence, wisdom, and modesty.

Having pride inflate into arrogance has been an obstacle for individuals, groups, and nations since early history. The ancient Greeks characterized arrogance (or hubris, as they called it) as a sin that would necessarily lead to tragedy. History has proven them right.

Arrogance is “built into” the people of Israel from its very inception. We are the chosen people. The whole world is against us. God is on our side. God willing. We forget how briefly we enjoyed independence throughout our history, despite our national arrogance and God’s support.

The Biblical arrogance gained momentum with the State of Israel’s inception, which gave rise to nationalism and turned security into a supreme value. Our Air Force is the best. The IDF is the world’s most moral army.

Yet nationalism is an ill-fated, dangerous outgrowth of a healthy national sense. Nationalism comprises constant demands, self-righteousness, and a sense of supremacy. It feeds arrogance and turns healthy patriotism into wickedness.

Arrogance gives rise to belittling other. All others, and mostly those we know from up close. The basic assumption is that their human qualities are different, lesser, and inferior to ours. There is no comparison, for example, between an Arab, Persian, or German mother and our own “Yiddishe mame.” Yet from that point, shifting to the assumption that an Ashkenazi Jewish mother should not be compared to a Moroccan or Ethiopian Jewish mother is a natural, necessary step.

The basic, fateful errors on the political-security front are the very same errors on the ethnic and religious front. It’s a circle within a circle. These two circles are the product of arrogance and human wickedness; they will end up threatening our very existence as a state, should we fail to restrain them.

Let’s start with the political-security theater. When we aim to estimate how our neighbors or enemies (or enemy neighbors) will react to our initiatives, arrogance prevents us from stepping into their shoes and understanding that they would react precisely as we would had we been in their position.

The similarity in behavior, character, and human qualities is greater than the differences, even in respect to remote nations that are physically and genetically remote from each other, and certainly when it comes to nations that are geographically, historically, and genetically close.

Notably, two of our four matriarchs come from the Aramaic people, that is, Syria and Iraq. King David is a descendent of Ruth the Moabite, and Moses married a Midianite.

Making the same mistakes

In simulations undertaken by our security forces, the false basic assumption that necessarily leads to failure is that the Arab perception is the opposite of our own, that their wisdom is lesser, that their freedom fighters are despicable terrorists wholly different from the Jewish terrorists we admired during British rule, that life is not sanctified by them as it is by us, and that if they won’t get coriander and sweets they would topple Hamas’ rule, which they stupidly elected.

The results of the above thinking have been the same for 100 years now, because we keep making the same mistake.

There are zealous murderers among the Arabs, just like there are decent and moderate people among them. Some of them are smart and others are dumb. They have wise leaders and corrupt ones, just like we have here. And as long as we fail to understand it and internalize that they are no better or worse or more just than ours, just like we are no better or worse or more just than them, we shall continue to kill each other and bury the sons of Ishmael, Israel and Rachel, who herded the sheep of Laban, the Aramaic.

We butcher each other based on the same dumbness. We bring misery not only to the families of our and their casualties, but also to thousands of families of the wounded, whose lives were completely destroyed. And all of this stems from arrogant thinking that the Arabs only understand force, that there is no partner for peace, and that had our neighbors been Scandinavian we would enjoy peace and tranquility.

As long as we convince ourselves that everything depends on our neighbors and that we are doing all the right and decent and logical things, we move further away from resolving any problem.

The religious and ethnic arrogance we see in Emmanuel and in Lithuanian yeshivas stems from the same source: Our arrogance towards the Arabs, and towards the gentiles in general. This arrogance threatens our existence to the same extent. It breeds wars, which are the gravest human tragedies: At times we see them in Lebanon or Gaza, and at times they take place in Emmanuel or Beit Shemesh.

If we fail to get out of this concentric circle of “I’m better and more just than anyone else,” we shall find ourselves facing an irreversible process that will divide us into two peoples in two states – a Jewish state led by God’s rabbis, and a democratic, secular Israeli state with manmade laws. Each state would weaken the other, until we reach the final act in this classic Greek tragedy, whose climax we are now approaching.

Amnon Shamosh is an author and poet

HOME PAGE

Unthinkable? Bush testifies to Chilcot

As partners in the coalition of the willing, are we not equally accountable to one another?

Editorial,

Guardian,

24 July 2010,

Jack Straw was yesterday considering whether to accept an invitation from the US Senate foreign relations committee to explain his role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The committee said the former justice minister was in "a unique position to help us to understand several questions still lingering from this decision". Maybe he is. But surely this principle works both ways: are not George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in a similarly unique position to help the Chilcot inquiry explain a few of those lingering questions about the decision to invade Iraq? The inquiry has already met people like Paul Bremer, the US administrator of Iraq in the aftermath of invasion, and David Kay, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, on a visit to both Washington and Boston in May. But these meetings were held in private. They were not treated as formal evidence and no transcripts were made. Such discretion was not reciprocated by Robert Menendez, the US committee chairman, when he summoned Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, and its justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, over the Megrahi release. Both men declined his invitation and denied they had been lobbied by BP. As partners in the coalition of the willing, are we not equally accountable to one another? Surely there is no one in a better position to shed light on our road to war than the people who took the real decisions in Washington. It might even explain one or two of those known unknowns.

HOME PAGE

-----------------------

1

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download