Obama, Zionism and Arbitrary detention (the NDAA)

Early in 2011 a colleague in a political chat group wrote that President Obama was a more virulent form of Bush. After some reflection, I concluded that my colleague wasn’t exaggerating; he was right in thinking that Obama was more dangerous than Bush because he was institutionalizing some of the worst policies of the previous administration. A striking example of President Obama’s ability to enact dangerous legislation is his quiet signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on New Year’s Eve, December 31, 2011.

Obama’s last minute maneuver successfully minimized press coverage, as was its evident intention. Apparently the administration did not wish to highlight a contentious provision of the law which authorized the military to arrest anyone, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, and detain them, possibly for life if they were suspected of “substantially supporting” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.”[i] The effect of the new legislation was to override the jurisdiction of the FBI, apparently in order to skirt the due process that would normally be accorded a detainee if the local police or the Justice Department were involved.[ii]

It’s worth emphasizing that granting the President the power of arbitrary arrest means an end to habeas corpus, the legal right of a defendant to demand that government present evidence justifying the arrest, an indispensable barrier to the tyranny of a police state. In addition, as Alexander Cockburn pointed out (“The Man Who Shot Habeas Corpus,” The Nation, January 23, 2012), President Obama’s New Year’s Eve signature has also rendered a dead letter the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 intended to exclude the military from domestic law enforcement.

In the weeks before a bi-partisan Congress passed the NDAA into law by a Senate vote of 93-7 and by 283-186 in the House, President Obama threatened to veto the bill. Many were at first misled by this veto threat, thinking that Obama intended to defend the due process rights of U.S. citizens and others.  However, as it turned out, there was no such intention, and the President signed the bill with only minor changes, leaving its draconian and alarming provisions in full force.[iii]

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones of Infowars.com noted that the drive to remove longstanding protections came from the White House, not Congress. They point to a floor speech by Democrat co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin who said that it was the Obama administration “that demanded the removal of language that would have precluded Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.”

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.[iv]

President Obama’s sweeping activism on this and other issues would seem to put into question conventional media characterization of him as a weak, compromising, reflective, sober, cautious, moderate executive. On the contrary, on this and many other national security and domestic priorities, he seems focused, manipulative, ruthless, even driven. In any event it may be useful to highlight the means by which the President has succeeded in implementing and “legalizing” such a radical policy as arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention.

As the leader of the Democratic Party President Obama can push through extremist legislation that a Republican president might find difficult or impossible to enact if only because of partisan politics. Obama’s chief enabler on the Senate side seems to be his reliable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, at least in front of the TV cameras, never seems embarrassed by whatever may be demanded by the White House.

Less obvious but arguably just as important in enabling the relatively smooth passage of “anti-terrorist” legislation is the Israel Lobby—aka the Zionist Lobby or the Jewish Lobby. It was this same pro-Israel, anti-Muslim force that infuses the mainstream media as well as making up many of the top levels of the last three administrations that assisted in producing the unpopular and disastrous Iraq war. Since the Bush’s administration’s objective was regime change in the most powerful Arab  counterweight to Israeli area hegemony, they could count on the votes of even such liberal Senators as Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, John Kerry and others for the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution.

Similarly, since the targets of the arbitrary detention provisions of the NDAA policy are understood to be Muslim “terrorists,” policy makers in the Obama administration presumably considered that no perceptible hue and cry would materialize despite the apparent unconstitutionality of the law and its manifest danger to basic freedoms.

Powerful grassroots loyalty to Israel was anecdotally brought home to me not long ago in discussion with a Zionist friend when I argued that President Obama’s decision to employ drone attacks to assassinate an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki and his 21 year old son in October 2011 in Yemen, were criminal acts and a disastrous precedent. My friend responded: “Well, you know, Ron, you and I have different views on these drone attacks.”

I gathered that in my friend’s view such people as had been targeted by the Obama administration —American citizens or not—were to be regarded as “terrorists,” since by definition they were engaged in a war against Israeli as well as U.S. interests. Thus in such cases, the President should be applauded for overriding Constitutional norms.

Author and activist Naomi Wolf expressed a good deal of the anger and frustration of many who felt betrayed by this extraordinary power grab. In a blog post she argued that history showed that there would be payback to those legislators who supported such autocratic legislation, since it was likely that they would be among the first to suffer its consequences.[v]

It might be comforting to find moral shelter in the prospect of such just retribution, but I suspect that an equally persuasive case could be made that as often as not the perpetrators and handmaidens of such villainy go unpunished and live out their lives in with dignity. If, however, in this particular case, Ms Wolf should prove correct, such a turnabout would require a very messy revolution, the likes of which could be expected to shatter many innocent lives along the way.

                  

Similarly, it would seem fruitless to remonstrate with Zionists—those who believe that a Jewish state should supplant the former Palestine—and argue that support for Israel is a pernicious influence on the politics, and on the democratic freedoms enjoyed for two centuries under the U.S. Constitution.  Such arguments might fall on deaf ears because it would be understood that measures like the arbitrary detention provisions of the NDAA are directed at those perceived to be Israel’s enemies. These enemies could include many who now are free to protest what they perceive as Israeli oppression. If legalization of indefinite detention in the U.S. helps to moderate or suppress such protests, it is, from their perspective, all to the good. Supporters of Israel are not the targets of the NDAA; they will not be the victims.

***

Postscript

As I was preparing the reflections above for distribution, I came across Glenn Greenwald’s blog that happened to be on a not dissimilar topic: the victims of the U.S.’s civil liberties assaults.[vi] Greenwald has no hesitation in identifying the victims: they are, he writes,  “racial, ethnic and religious minorities: specifically, Muslims (both American Muslims and foreign nationals).” Interestingly he also points as I do to those who believe that they benefit from these assaults, although he is careful not to name them. Choosing his words carefully, he refers to  “those who dominate American political debates” and he explains that they “perceive, more or less accurately, that they are not directly endangered (at least for now) by this assault on core freedoms and Endless War.”

I thought it was remarkable that one of the most outspoken and widely read Left-wing bloggers seems to feel that it is the better part of valor not to specify Zionists, the Jewish Lobby, the Israel Lobby, the Zionist Lobby.   Perhaps he feels that he would not come out the winner from the backlash that such naming of names could produce.  In that case, his perception could be another indication of Zionist power. In any event, I respect his understanding of his self-interest.

Such reflections lead to consideration of such high profile figures on the Left as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Phyllis Bennis and others who, as far as I can tell, to this day seem to deny the power of the Israel Lobby to influence and direct U.S. Middle East policy.[vii] I gather that the reason for their position is that they view the U.S. as the mighty imperialist bully, the great font of evil. Thus, by definition a tiny client state like Israel cannot dominate the greater power in any meaningful regard.

And what are we to make of those pundits on the Left who smell the whiff of anti-Semitism in those who point to—or even mention—the existence of Jewish power (the title of a book it so happens by journalist and author, J.J. Goldberg)? Such Leftists seem to be acting as assistant enforcers, attempting to ensure that such notions are not permitted within the borders of serious policy debate.

In a recent article on “The Mess in the Middle East,” (Middle East Policy, Winter 2011) (former) Ambassador (to Saudi Arabia) Chas W. Freeman Jr. cited the 20 standing ovations, which a special session of Congress in May 2011 presented to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In his speech, Netanyahu had openly rebuked President Obama for his “1967 Border Plan” which had outlined a proposal to resolve key differences between Israel and the Palestinians. Freeman was outraged at the “spectacle of members of Congress bouncing up and down like so many obsequious yo-yos” which he saw as “irrefutable proof of Israel’s hammerlock on U.S. policy.” 

           

A measure of the depths to which U.S. political culture has fallen is that those who dominate American political debates were heartened, not dismayed, by the Congressional display.        

---

[i] See Alexander Cockburn “The Man Who Shot Habeas Corpus,” The Nation January 23, 2012, who points out that “associated forces” “can mean anything, as can the phrase, “directly supported,” referencing those alleged in support of terror groups. The substance of “directly supported,” writes Cockburn, “will adjust itself to the whim of any ingenious prosecutor.”

[ii] See Chris Hedges on Democracy Now (January 17, 2012) for press reports that the arbitrary detention provisions were opposed by elements of the security establishment “the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence.” “Journalist Chris Hedges Sues Obama Admin over Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Approved in NDAA,”

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_admin

Similarly, according to a New York Times editorial (“Politics Over Principal,” December 15, 2011) “Nearly every top American official with knowledge and experience spoke out against the provisions, including the attorney general, the defense secretary, the chief of the F.B.I., the secretary of state, and the leaders of intelligence agencies.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/politics-over-principle.html?_r=4

[iii] Drilling down into the comments section of Naomi Wolf’s article—see Note 5 below—Roger Mattingly on January 1, 2012 illuminated the weasel wording of the arbitrary detention provisions of the NDAA. He explains that while the bill seemingly inoculates U.S. citizens since it does not REQUIRE detention in those cases, yet it is PERMITTED.

[iv] “Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement Is Meaningless,” http://www.infowars.com/obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-is-meaningless/

[v]Naomi Wolf,  “How Congress is Signing its Own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest Bill,” December 12, 2011.  http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/

[vi] Glenn Greenwald, “”Who Are the Victims of Civil Liberties Assaults and Endless War?” January 16, 2012.  http://www.salon.com/2012/01/16/who_are_the_victims_of_civil_liberties_assaults_and_endless_war/singleton/

[vii]  An informed observer pointed out nuance among the three. He writes that while Chomsky dismisses the notion of a powerful Israel Lobby, “Bennis and Finkelstein  minimize its influence although Bennis had acknowledged that an attack on Iran would be a war for Israel and Finkelstein has admitted that the Lobby does shape US policy regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict but, ahistorically, believes it has ‘little influence on overall US policy in the Middle East.'”

Obama and Palestine: We're easily satisfied

It seems less often than more when published political analysis reflects reality. But I was rewarded for my patience in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books (July 15, 2010) when I  read the following in David Shulman’s article on “Eyeless in Gaza.”

Maintaining the occupation is, of course, incompatible with making peace, and indeed it should be clear by now to all that the present Israeli leadership has no interest in resolving the conflict. Quite the contrary: the ongoing proximity talks with the Palestinian Authority are no more than a diversion. I know of no one in Israel who takes them seriously, least of all the Netanyahu government. Gaza itself provides another helpful distraction. The very idea of peace based on mutuality, compromise, and at least minimal respect for the dignity of the other side is anathema to the men and women in the Cabinet who are making the decisions. [dated June 16, 2010; Shulman is identified as a Professor of Humanities Studies at the Hebrew University]

Perhaps I liked Prof Shulman’s clarity because it was not inconsistent with my own suggestion that Obama's Middle East policy is really Rahm Emanuel's Middle East policy, which has opportunistically stood on the shoulders of the previous Bush-Cheney-Eliot Abrams Middle East "policy."

Bush administration policy was to give free rein to the most right wing elements in their administration to do their worst to the Palestinians. Accordingly they (very cleverly we must admit) engineered the Hamas electoral victory in January 2006. They insisted on going through with the election because they knew Hamas would win. And they also engineered the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007.

[See The Gaza Bombshell Vanity Fair 2008

According to Dahlan, it was Bush who had pushed legislative elections in the Palestinian territories in January 2006, despite warnings that Fatah was not ready.]

Thus Washington and Tel Aviv  had a perfect pretext to starve Gaza –NOT into submission -–submission to what? – -- but to starve them in preparation for the next step: expulsion and mass murder whenever  the political situation should be deemed appropriate. The Israelis are in no rush. They know time is on their side. (And their timetable has been speeded up by a decade or more by Bush and now Obama.)

Thus the purpose of Operation Cast Lead of December January 2008-2009 -- which Obama could have stopped. Destroy as much of Gaza’s infrastructure as possible. So the Israeli blockade against building materials going to Gaza makes sense since the Israelis have no intention of allowing what they destroyed to be rebuilt. It’s a plan that couldn’t be implemented without the approval of the Obama administration.

Here as in almost every other critical area, Obama makes a mockery of his theme of change, as by this time, 18 months into his term of office,  he stands exposed as having no independent policy or plan other than to allow and assist Israel to do its worst. Just like Bush-Cheney.

Many are familiar with the Hebrew song, Dayenu, which is traditionally sung on Passover: Dayenu means: it is sufficient for us; we are satisfied: or in the case below:  we would be satisfied.

With a slight twist to the lyrics we might sing to Obama: Dayenu: We understand that you have no intention of lifting the blockade of Gaza. That’s ok. But perhaps you can do something to repair Gaza’s sewage system destroyed in Cast Lead so that the many tons of raw sewage that flow daily into the Mediterranean can instead be treated and the Palestinians and their guests can once again enjoy their beaches. Dayenu.

Obama’s Plan A was to bark loudly about an end to settlement activity, a plan that was intended to fail. So little thought was given to the plan that the U.S. was caught by surprise when the Abbas “Authority” cleverly decided to take it seriously and refused to negotiate with the Israelis until it was implemented.

But it doesn’t matter. The Palestinians can refuse all they want. The surprise is that the White House doesn’t seem to have a face saving Plan B other than to show the white flag of surrender.

Here’s a nice symptom  of the surrender flag from Mondowiess’s invaluable site.

by Adam Horowitz on July 7, 2010

http://mondoweiss.net/

Robert Dreyfuss reports:

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu set up another illegal Jewish settlement, this time on the White House lawn. And, it appears, President Obama has agreed to serve as its armed guard.

So complete was Obama’s identification with Israel yesterday that he actually referred to Israel as “us” before correcting himself:

“We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are leveled against us – against it, that Israel has unique security requirements.”

One often hears things like: Hamas isn't hurt by the blockade since they get plenty of revenue from their taxes on what comes through the tunnels on the Egyptian border. It's the ordinary people of Gaza who are hurt. This of course is true, but surely the U.S. and Israel are aware of what’s going on.

Which goes to show that the blockade isn't intended against Hamas. Like Arafat, Hamas is Israel's friend, giving the government all the pretext they need to impose as much hardship and cruelty and oppression on the Palestinians as they can devise each month.

Yes, the blockade is intended to immiserate the Gazans and the larger Palestinians community. It’s a signal that the Israelis have the power to tell them they don't belong in land which Israel covets and to prepare themselves for  the day when they are to be shown the door.

Ah, if only Hamas would agree to give up Gilad Shalit. Unconditionally. That would show the Israelis that the Palestinians want peace. I actually heard this from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist on NPR, on a liberal talk show.

The last thing the Israeli government wants is the return of Gilad Shalit –which if they really wanted him back, it could be done in 48 hours. Like Arafat and Hamas, Shalit is a poster boy for Palestinian intransigence. If Shalit were returned, he'd only have to be replaced --probably at the cost of 15 or 20 or 1,000 or more Palestinian lives. 

Unmasking Obama’s Middle East policy

What's going on in Israel U.S. relations? Since Israel’s recent slap in the face of their greatest protector and supporter during VP Biden’s visit, there’s been a lot of noise in the media about the incident's effect on U.S. Israeli relations. But since there’s no visible policy change either in Tel Aviv or in Washington, we can surmise that the brouhaha is simply a distraction from the Obama administration's deeply hostile intentions towards the Palestinians in their struggle for justice and for their human and national rights.

Many Obama supporters had hoped that with the departure of the Bush-Cheney regime there would be some respite from their open malevolence and vicious hostility to the whole Arab and Muslim world. We didn’t expect real justice for the Palestinians, we weren't hoping for miracles. We understood the fealty that that the power of the Zionist lobby imposes on Congress and the White House and that the cause of one person, one vote, a country for all its citizens was not going to be on the agenda.

Nevertheless we had hopes that at the very least, the worst of the previous administration's animus towards all things Palestinian was behind us. But as we approach the first days of spring 2010, we find that behind the latest public drama between the two countries, we are facing the depressing and brutal truth that the Obama administration, with its agenda seemingly set by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a committed Zionist, has the same ruthless intentions towards the Palestinians as had the previous U.S. regime.

What's the evidence? In a word: concrete, as in: By their actions ye shall know them. Israel's bloody Operation Cast Lead in December-January 2009-2010 (an operation that could have been headed off or curtailed by President-elect Obama, a point we didn't realize until a year later) was intended and was successful in destroying the best part of Gaza's remaining infrastructure, its schools, hospitals, government buildings, farms, factories, hothouses, much of its housing and on and on. ** It was a brutal, pitiless, more than twenty-day operation against an absolutely helpless and trapped population, which if it happened to Jews, would have been termed the greatest pogrom against them in more than 50 years. But since Jews conducted this attack, it has been accepted as a legitimate defensive action in much of the Western world.

Bad enough, but what about the aftermath? The Gaza community wasn’t asking for much under the circumstances. At the very least they might have expected that the Obama administration do what was necessary to allow them to import concrete and building materials so that they could begin putting something of their lives back together. One can imagine some of the behind- the-scenes pleading by Palestinian representatives and their supporters to the Obama administration: Can’t you at least allow us to rebuild some of the damage?

No, answers back the U.S. We can't. We won't. The U.S. doesn't say that outright, or at least I haven’t heard such a thing. In fact I haven't heard one statement made by a high or not so high U.S. official on the subject, although I'm sure there's a State Department document somewhere to the effect that Israel has every right to defend itself in the ways it sees fit.

No, the only people I've heard on the subject are Israeli spokespeople who most often are unembarrassed to intone: Sorry, we'd love to let you have as much concrete as you want except that we're scared that if you do so, well, who knows what you might do with it? You might use it to cast stones at us if and when we are required to cross the border again with our infantry and our tanks and F-15s.

The effect of U.S./Israeli policy is to ensure that the damage done to the infrastructure of Gaza, which was the apparent point of the Cast Lead operation, is never repaired so as to make it as difficult as possible for the Palestinians to live in their land and to struggle for their rights.

It’s called creeping transfer, creeping expulsion and Obama, led by Rahm Emanuel, has chosen to cast his lot with those who support Israeli policy.
***

**Wikipedia’s entry on the subject documents much of the damage caused by the Cast Lead operation. [Numbers in brackets refer to the footnotes they cite.]

On 27 December Israel began a wave of airstrikes [26] on the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping the rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the territory,[27][28] damaging or destroying tens of thousands of homes,[29] 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 43 of its 110 primary health care facilities,[30] 800 water wells,[31] 186 greenhouses,[32] and nearly all of its 10,000 family farms[33]; leaving 50,000 homeless,[34] 400,000-500,000 without running water,[34][35] one million without electricity,[35], and resulting in acute food shortages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War

***

Note:
Just as I was finishing my latest bout of editing this blog entry, I noticed that Alex Cockburn and my mentor, colleague and friend, Jeffrey Blankfort, had recently weighed in on the same subject. I decided not to read their articles before I posted mine, partly because I was afraid that I’d want to modify my own too long delayed post. --RB

See Alexander Cockburn, March 19 - 21, 2010
"My Fellow Americans, Tonight I'm Going to Talk Frankly About a Pesky Little Nation Called Israel ... " http://counterpunch.org

Jeffrey Blankfort, “A Crisis in U.S. / Israeli Relations? Sure. But ...
Why Israel Always Prevails,” March 19 - 21, 2010
http://counterpunch.org/blankfort03192010.html


Special mention also of recent posts by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski, author of The Transparent Cabal, an important study of neocon influence in promoting the Iraq War, who has been following these issues and shedding much light.

Amira Hass (November 2007): Powerless in Gaza: Drinking Dirty Water; And Sewage Untreated

Perhaps there are others like myself for whom Amira Hass is hard to read because the celebrated (and in certain circles, excoriated) Israeli journalist describes everyday reality with unfailing precision and economy. The reality she describes is hard to take because there is little hope for change. There is little hope for change in part (in large part?) because for Zionists the Palestinian people are dehumanized. In this context dehumanizing Palestinians means that whatever is done to them, even the slow genocide that is ongoing, is basically OK, or at worst something to be tolerated. Supporters of Zionism rationalize and tolerate these State crimes against millions of people because to be critical of them would represent a challenge to the cause of a Jewish state in the former Palestine. A Jewish state somehow rises above its crimes against non Jews. A Jewish state means that there can be no crimes against non Jews.
Ronald
***



Ha'aretz | 07 Nov 2007

http://peoplesgeography.com/2007/11/12/amira-hass-a-moment-before-the-lights-go-out/

A Moment Before the Lights Go Out

by Amira Hass

Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent kidnapped in Gaza, related in an interview that at a relatively early stage, he started suffering from all kinds of aches because of the water he drank. This was the same water that the kidnappers drank, but Johnston’s unaccustomed body sent warning signals: This is not water that is fit for drinking. And this is the water that reaches most of the taps in the Gaza Strip. Salty, in a few places brackish to contaminated, with an oily consistency. That is clearly felt when bathing.

The reason is an ancient one: overpumping because Gaza must make do with the waters from its aquifer alone. It is as if we were to say to the residents of Be’er Sheva: make do with the water that flows nearby. The water sources in the rest of the country are not for you.

Over the last few years, there have been some improvised private and public solutions. Private water purification plants in homes and commercial companies that sell purified water.

The municipalities, for their part, set up large brackish water desalination facilities and several central taps. Thousands of people go there daily to fill up jerry-cans with water that will not taste like it came from a puddle and will not cause diarrhea, infections, kidney problems and who knows what else.

The electricity and fuel supply to Gaza has already been reduced to below the level of basic human needs. An additional reduction will affect the above solutions to the water problem, and beyond. “To darken Gaza,” as some of the security experts among us have recently proposed, does not end merely with darkened homes at night. You don’t have to be an expert in public health to realize that it would create an endless chain reaction of public health problems and environmental blights.

Today, around a year and a half after Israel bombed the transformer station in Gaza, only 193 megawatts out of the 240 or so it needs is supplied to the Strip.

The water network is the biggest energy consumer in the Gaza Strip: it requires approximately 25 megawatts of the 240 megawatts the Gaza Strip needs.

The 135 wells across the Gaza Strip that supply water, poor quality as it may be, cannot function if the electricity and diesel fuel supply is cut further. The same is true of sewage treatment plants.

Already now, each day, no water is supplied to around 15 percent of the Strip’s residents. Each area receives water only every other day. The water is pumped electrically and stored in home reservoirs on every rooftop. Power outages are frequent.

When a power outage in a given area occurs on a day when the municipalities channel water to it, the houses are denied water for three, and sometimes even four, days.

The water network also needs around 150,000 litres of diesel fuel per month. The sewage system needs around 100,000 litres.

The Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, the supplier of sewage and water services in the Gaza Strip obtained only 60,000 liters of diesel fuel in October, because the quantity of fuels sold from Israel to the Gaza Strip was reduced. And this is before “the darkening” proposed by Ehud Barak and Matan Vilnai.

The water company must choose to favor the sewage system over the water system. As the deputy CEO of the company, Maher Najjar, explains: The collapse of the sewage system entails a bigger humanitarian threat.

Just imagine a huge flood of sewage. Hence, for example, the seven wells in the northern Gaza Strip that are diesel operated were allocated only 2,000 litres of diesel in early November, instead of the 10,500 liters needed to operate them.

Even before the lights go out, Israel is prohibiting the entry of raw materials into the Gaza Strip.

No one is talking any more about dozens of development projects that have consequently been frozen, such as the one to desalinate well water that serves the residents of the El Bureij refugee camp. Let them continue drinking the water that endangers their health.

Raw material is not the only thing Israel is barring entry of: Vital spare parts are also being barred entry. In the Gaza City sewage treatment facility there are several minor malfunctions.

However, Israel is barring the entry of the spare parts needed to repair them. Sewage undergoes only minimal treatment before it flows into the sea. And the sea, of course, doesn’t stop at the Erez or Rafiah checkpoints.

***

Jennifer Lowenstein: US/Israeli policy triumphs in Palestine

Jennifer Loewenstein brilliantly and econmically explains that the Hamas "victory" is not a defeat but a victory for the Bush doctrine and for Israel. Not exactly news to many readers, but cogently and importantly argued.

Lowenstein might have added Iraq as a similar triumph, and as she notes, the "terror" states have the same in mind for Syria and Lebanon. As she writes, Israel is "'a terrorist state that seeks the destruction of Palestine.' Seeks and is succeeding in it."

Now all we need to do is find a way to make that truth as clear to the West as it is to the victims of Israeli/US policy.

See below for a couple of my quibbles.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
***
June 25, 2007
Brothers-in-Arms
The Triumph of US/Israeli Policy in Palestine
http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein06252007.html
By JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN

Contrary to the many claims that the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip represents the failure of US and Israeli policies in Palestine, the violent civil infighting that has dominated the Gaza Strip over much of the last year and a half and that led directly to the Hamas coup of June 2007, marks yet another major foreign policy victory for the occupiers. Hamas will never be allowed to remain in power in Gaza so we must fear for the future of that tiny, desperately overcrowded strip of land and its 1.4 million inhabitants; additionally, Abbas ­in order to maintain his role as "Good Guy"- will have to accede to the dictates of Israel and the United States or suffer the same fate as his predecessor, Yassir Arafat.

Western nations are standing by in silence as the deadly siege of Gaza and the dismemberment of the West Bank continue unabated. What we are witnessing in full view each day are unprecedented steps taken by the world's only superpower and its favorite client state, Israel, to ensure the death of a nation. While friction between the two key political factions in the occupied Palestinian territories has long undermined the smooth functioning of internal affairs, it was the direct, cynical involvement of US and Israeli policy-makers in these affairs that guaranteed the breakdown of internal stability and paved the way for the Hamas "coup" in Gaza.

Media reports have been careful to leave out important facts leading up to the coup such as that Hamas was the legitimate, democratically elected ruling party in the Palestinian territories following the January 2006 Palestine Legislative Council elections; that it was the US-Israeli dismissal of those election results that fueled the civil infighting between Hamas and Fatah; that obvious US backing of Fatah against Hamas helped create popular mistrust of Fatah increasing Hamas' popularity in Gaza and leading directly to Hamas' takeover of the Fatah military apparatus in the Gaza Strip. In other words, there were real and understandable reasons for the coup. But in the end, Hamas' seizure of the power it should have had in the first place ends up serving the interests not only of Mahmoud Abbas and the warlord Muhammad Dahlan. It also provides the perfect opportunity for US-Israeli policy in the region to move forward with even fewer objections, if that is possible to imagine, than have heretofore been made. Who will stand up for a "terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of Israel"? The line has been beaten into our heads with every mention of the word "Hamas" for years. We should not expect a change in the behavior of the American public or of other western audiences until, when Israel is mentioned, we immediately say to ourselves, "a terrorist state that seeks the destruction of Palestine." Seeks and is succeeding in it.


II.

Watching the barbarous killing between brothers in Gaza, a power struggle between rival factions seething in frenzy like the great prison in which they thrive, Israeli and American political analysts can rest their cases with confidence. Across the spectrum of debate, these experts can expect vindication by the media juries who, in sanctimonious indignation at the brutality meted out by partisans of Fatah or Hamas, have assembled all the "evidence" they need to justify our righteous war against Muslim-Arab terrorists and their internecine blood feuds.

That the US has temporarily chosen a weak, compliant leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the power thirsty warlord, Muhammad Dahlan, to back during the bitter strife between key Palestinian factions testifies not to a belief that one side is trustworthy and deserves our support, but rather to the ease with which the Americans and their clients pick and choose their pawns in their bitter regional cockfights. Today's statesmen were yesterday terrorists, their titles dependent on the needs of the superpower and its clients: yesterday Fatah was on the US State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations and its leader, Yassir Arafat, was a declared "terrorist," "irrelevant," and exiled in his presidential compound in Ramallah until his mysterious death. Fatah's military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is still listed as a foreign terrorist organization. Neither of these factors apparently bothers the current leadership which understands that power and prestige are most easily acquired and unchallenged when bequeathed from above.

Truth be told, the Abbas/Dahlan alliance elicits far greater contempt in the eyes of the masters than the more independent and genuine resistance faction headed by Hamas. The numerous meetings and photo-ops between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas, and US President George Bush and Abbas, are little more than tactical stunts to make it look as though genuine negotiations are taking place. In fact, Abbas has been repeatedly by-passed and shunned when Israeli and US negotiators make the real policy decisions; decisions that remain one-sided and dismissive of any demands-other than those that are entirely self-serving-that Abbas and his entourage have made. The arms and funding channeled through Abbas' Fatah (for his clique represents only one of the many spin-off Fatahs that emerged during the second Intifada) signify little more than the conduit through which US-Israeli policies can be secured. For all the claims about US backing of Fatah, neither Abbas nor Dahlan have yet to benefit on the ground from this "support". Indeed, the ease with which Hamas was able to wrest control of Gaza indicates just how little US support for Fatah was worth there. Nevertheless, the same pipeline of support for "Fatah" has done a great deal to bolster perceived US and Israeli national security interests in the same region.


III.

Once again the pictures on our television screens in our newspapers are intended to suffice for missing substance; the context of empire is invisible or deliberately obscured ­in Palestine as in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. If the takeover of Gaza by Hamas was unanticipated, its success was a gift of immeasurable value to the overlords; a welcome but unforeseen consequence of fueling divisions among a weakened and oppressed people, undermining any steps toward positive change. Abbas and his underlings have foolishly offered up Palestine cut in two to the occupation regime that worked so hard to end the charade of a single Palestine to begin with.

[A quibble here: Lowenstein's word --foolishly -- implies that there was some choice in the matter. As she points out Palestinians were chosen for their compliance. Similarly Israel's policy has been to remove any Palestinian who it could not bend to its control which explains Arafat's long tenure and their assassination and torture policies.]

This was a coup for Israel in its on-going quest for regional hegemony, and a triumph for America's "War on Terror." For all the talk about a one-, two- or bi-national state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, the reality is that no state solution for Palestine is on the near or distant horizon. Palestine is a series of disconnected pieces whose division into still smaller parts continues month after month.

Those fretting about a "Hamastan" in the Gaza Strip ought to be worried not about its viability or longevity or about whether or not Islamic law and social mores will be imposed. Hamas' presence in Gaza will be but a short-lived, transitory phenomenon entirely at the mercy of the US-backed Israeli military which has not left Gaza alone for a single day since Hamas' coming to power despite a yearlong ceasefire called by its leaders and scrupulously observed. Those concerned about a Hamas-controlled Gaza ought instead to be wondering how they are going to justify Hamas' destruction within the Strip and all the suffering, chaos and death that will ensue over the shameful silence of the international community.

[Here I'm not sure what Lowenstein means by the destruction of Hamas aside from the expulsion of the 1.4 million Gazans -- and where exactly are they supposed to go? The only thing we know is where Israel and Elliott Abrams want them to go.]


IV.

Claims that Hamas' "victory" in the Gaza Strip is a sign that the Bush Doctrine in Palestine has failed are misguided. While no one can foresee all of the events that might take place in a region as volatile as the Middle East, Hamas' takeover in Gaza will ultimately benefit Israel and the United States. It will benefit Israel by giving it a free hand to destroy Hamas, permanently sever the West Bank from the Gaza Strip, and re-"negotiate" with its newly appointed "partners" the remaining islands of economically unviable territory that will soon be entirely encircled by a concrete and barbed-wire wall, cut off from their supplies of water and fertile land, and separated internally by "Arab-free" roads. It will benefit Israel and the United States by assuring another compliant puppet regime adjacent to Jordan, friendly to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and hostile to Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, even as the fault lines harden. It has already benefited both Israel and the United States by reassuring them that their tactics for undermining indigenous experiments in democracy have once again proven effective; that the people who have dared to defy those tactics learn quickly how painful it is to advocate or practice popular sovereignty and the rule of law.

Mahmoud Abbas has already learned how well complicity and collaboration are rewarded. Having dismissed Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, dissolved the national unity government, declared a new, 'legitimate' government under his rule and appointed his friends to work beside him, he recently stepped into the limelight with an address on Palestine TV, broadcast in the US on C-SPAN, by announcing how he would further "enhance democracy." This would begin by no longer speaking to "murderers," by which he meant Hamas.

Clearly, his membership application into the club of the Good Guys has been, for the time being, approved.

Jennifer Loewenstein is the Associate Director of the Middle East Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a member of the board of the Israeli Coalition against House Demolitions-USA branch, founder of the Madison-Rafah Sister City Project and a freelance journalist. She can be reached at: amadea311@earthlink.net

Mike Whitney: The CIA and Fatah; Spies, Quislings and the Palestinian Authority

06/20/07 "ICH" -- - When Hamas gunmen stormed the Fatah security compounds in Gaza last week they found huge supplies of American-made weaponry including 7,400 M-16 assault rifles, dozens of mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, 7 armored military jeeps, 800,000 rounds of bullets and 18 US-made armored personnel carriers. They also discovered something far more valuable--- CIA files which purportedly contain "information about the collaboration between Fatah and the Israeli and American security organizations; CIA methods on how to prevent attacks, chase and follow after cells of Hamas and the Committees; plans about Fatah assassinations of members of Hamas and other organizations; and American studies on the security situation in Gaza." (Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily.com)

If the documents prove to be authentic, they will confirm what many critics of Fatah believed from the beginning; that US-Israeli intelligence agencies have been collaborating with high-ranking members of the PA to help crush the Palestinian national liberation movement. The information could be disastrous for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his newly-appointed “emergency government”. It could destroy their credibility before they even take office.

The extent of Fatah’s cooperation with the CIA is still unknown, but an article in The New York Sun, (“Hamas Takes over Gaza Security Services” 6-15-07) suggests that the two groups may have been working together closely. Former Middle East CIA operations officer Robert Baer, who was interviewed in the article, said that the discovery of the documents was “a major blow to Fatah” and will show “a record of training, spying on Hamas”.

Baer added ironically, “Fatah equals CIA is not a good selling point.”

Baer is right. The uncovering of the documents is “big trouble” for Abbas who is already facing a loss of public confidence from his closeness to Israel and for his appointment of Salam Fayyad, the ex-World bank official who the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz calls “everyone’s favorite Palestinian.”

Perhaps more significant is the fact that members of Hamas who spoke with WorldNetDaily claimed that “the files contain, among other information, details of CIA networks in the Middle East” and that Hamas plans to “use these documents and make portions public to prove the collaboration between America and traitor Arab countries.” Imagine what a headache it will be for the Bush administration if Hamas exposes the broader network of US spies and Arab quislings operating throughout region.

Bush Support for “Regime Change” in the PA

It’s no secret that the Bush administration has been funneling money to Palestinian militias that are preparing to overthrow Hamas. On Monday, Condoleezza Rice announced that the US would resume “full assistance to the Palestinian government” and end the year long boycott to the people in the West Bank. The new aid—which could amount to as much as $86 million---will be used to shore up the PA security apparatus and pay the salaries of officials in the “emergency government.” The uncovering of the CIA documents in Gaza will cast a cloud over the administration’s largesse and make Abbas look like a Palestinian Karzai who gets financial treats from Washington to follow their diktats.

Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was given the task of outlining the administration’s new policy vis-à-vis the Abbas’ “emergency government”. The Bush team had already decided the night before that they would throw their full support behind Abbas and his “unelected” clatter of pro-western stooges. Rice could hardly contain her glee the next day when she ascended the podium and began wagging her finger reproachfully at Hamas:

"Hamas has made its choice,” Condi growled. “It has sought to attempt to extinguish democratic debate with violence and to impose its extremist’s agenda on the Palestinian people in Gaza, now responsible Palestinians are making their choice and it is the duty of the international community to support those Palestinians who wish to build a better life and a future of peace."

This typically Orwellian statement was intended to justify the deposing of the legally-elected government of Palestine. No matter; Rice’s pronouncements are always reiterated verbatim in the media without challenge regardless of how incongruous they may be.

The Bush administration had plenty of time to observe developments on the ground and make an informed decision about what to do next. There was no need to hurry. Instead, they decided to blunder ahead and launch their “West Bank First” policy which commits US support to Abbas without any consideration of the public mood. The frantic pace of the decision-making, makes it look like Bush and Olmert are elevating Abbas to promote their own political agendas. Naturally, the Palestinians can be expected to resent this conspicuous outside meddling.

Former President Jimmy Carter was the first to blast Bush’s new plan. He said that “the United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements…. Carter said that Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government and that the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was ‘criminal.’”

Carter’s comments appeared in just one newspaper--the Jerusalem Post. The ex-president has been increasingly marginalized since he dared to imply that Israel is an apartheid state. But Carter's analysis is dead-on---Bush is just aggravating an already tense situation. He’d be better off trying to bring the two sides together and reconciling their differences rather than igniting a potentially explosive confrontation. Besides, Abbas’ close ties to Washington and Tel Aviv doesn’t bode well for his government’s long-term prospects. The US and Israel are widely reviled in the occupied territories and, as author Khalid Amayreh says, “Palestinians won’t accept a Vichy Government.

Three days ago Abbas disbanded the Hamas-dominated parliament and sacked Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Abbas had no legal justification for this action. In fact, the "Basic Law" which applies to this case stipulates that “The President cannot suspend the legislative Council during a state of emergency” and there is “no provision whatsoever for an emergency government”. The president does not even have the authority to “call for new elections”---let alone, replace the elected representatives of the people. Abbas only support comes from political leaders in Tel Aviv and Washington and their reluctant accomplices in the EU.

The key issue here is whether democratic elections have any real meaning or if they can simply be rescinded by executive decree?

This question should be as relevant to Americans as it is to Palestinians. After all, both people now face a similar predicament; the flagrant abuse of executive authority to enhance the powers of the president. In both cases, the president must be forced to conform to the law. Democracy cannot be decided by fiat.

Free elections are not a crime---that is, unless one lives in the Occupied Territories. Then voting for the candidate of one’s choice provides the justification for cutting off food, water, medicine, and financial resources—as well a stepping up a campaign of illegal detentions, destruction of personal property and targeted assassinations.

This is what the “Bush Doctrine” looks like in the Gaza Strip today. The occupants of the “most densely populated place on earth” participated in the balloting at insistence of the Bush administration and they’ve been rewarded for their cooperation with a savage boycott and daily brutality.

If Bush didn’t want democracy, then why did he force it on the Palestinians?

Political powerbrokers in the US and Israel immediately rejected the election results and initiated a plan to scuttle Hamas through economic strangulation, persistent harassment and covert warfare. For the last year, the newly “elected” government has shown remarkable restraint under constant assault. Hamas has kept its word and refrained from suicide bombings in Israel even though hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed or injured during that same time. In fact, there has NOT BEEN ONE HAMAS-BACKED SUICIDE BOMBING SINCE THE PARTY TOOK OFFICE. (This fact is invariably ignored by the media which is far-more sympathetic to the Israeli position) We should remember that suicide bombing has been used for years as the excuse for putting off “final settlement” negotiations. Now that the bombing has stopped, Israel has invented an entirely new excuse to avoid dialogue, that is, that Hamas “refuses to recognize the state of Israel”.

Actually, it is Israel that refuses to accept Palestinian statehood---a fact that is further underlined by its relentless efforts to topple the Hamas government.

Hamas has done nothing illegal since they were elected. The Qassam rockets which are fired into Israel are the unavoidable corollary of the 40-year long occupation. How is Hamas supposed to stop these sporadic attacks? If Israel seriously believed that Hamas was responsible for the rockets, they wouldn’t hesitate to arrest or kill every leader in the current parliament. The fact is, Israel knows that Hamas is not instigating these attacks. It’s just another red herring.

Regardless of what one may think about Hamas, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has shown that he is a man who can be trusted to keep his word. In an interview in the Washington Post with Lally Weymouth, Haniyeh and asked him if Hamas sought the “obliteration of the Jewish people”? (another myth propagated in the western press)

Haniyeh answered, “We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody.”

This, of course, is not the response that neocon extremists in the US-Israeli political establishment want to hear. It undermines the rationale for the ongoing military occupation and expansion of illegal settlements. They would rather promote the image of Palestinians as vicious radicals bent on the Israel’s complete annihilation. But how accurate is that image?

In a particularly affecting editorial in the Washington Post, Prime Minister Haniyeh stated his case in simple terms. He said:

“As I inspect the ruins of our infrastructure---all turned to rubble once more by F-16s and American-made missiles -- my thoughts again turn to the minds of Americans. What do they think of this?

They think of the pluck and "toughness" of Israel, "standing up" to "terrorists." Yet a nuclear Israel possesses the 13th-largest military force on the planet, one that is used to rule an area about the size of New Jersey and whose adversaries there have no conventional armed forces. Who is the underdog, supposedly America's traditional favorite, in this case?

I hope that Americans will give careful thought to root causes and historical realities, (of) why a supposedly "legitimate" state such as Israel has had to conduct decades of war against a subject refugee population without ever achieving its goals.

Israel's nearly complete control over the lives of Palestinians is never in doubt, as confirmed by the humanitarian and economic suffering of the Palestinians since the January elections. Israel's ongoing policies of expansion, military control and assassination mock any notion of sovereignty or bilateralism. Its "separation barrier," running across our land, is hardly a good-faith gesture toward future coexistence.

But there is a remedy, and while it is not easy it is consistent with our long-held beliefs. Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion. Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner.

This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun”.

Haniyeh’s appeal to the American people helps us understand that what Hamas really wants is for Israel to conform to “unanimously approved” UN resolutions “predicated on historical truth, equity and justice.”

Does that sound unreasonable? Wasn't the same demanded of Saddam?

Haniyeh is not a madman nor is he an “Islamofascist.” In fact, it may be that Haniyeh’s dreams are not that different from the average Israeli citizen.

Consider the polls that were conducted just days after the election of Mahmoud Abbas. One survey showed that nearly 80% of Israelis supported immediate peace talks with the new Palestinian president. The Israeli leadership, of course, stubbornly refused even though Yasir Arafat had died a month earlier. The Israeli political establishment is resolutely against peace talks or negotiations. Unlike the vast majority of Israeli citizens--Israel's ruling elite reject the principle of "land for peace!”

Perhaps, Arafat wasn’t the “obstacle to peace” after all. Perhaps it was just a PR swindle to avoid real dialogue?

Israeli leaders have no intention of negotiating with the Palestinians, regardless of what the Israeli public wants or who’s sitting in Ramallah. The Zionist “grand plan” will not be compromised by conferences or bartering. The military occupation and settlement activity will continue until US support dries up and Israel is forced to the bargaining table. Until then the onslaught will continue.

Another Siege of Gaza?

Ha’aretz reports that Israel is planning to launch a military operation in Gaza aimed at crushing Hamas.( “Barak planning military operation in Gaza within weeks” 6-17-07) The invasion will involve 20,000 troops, armored vehicles, tanks, and air support.

But what is the justification? Is it because the US-Israeli plan to overthrow Hamas with Palestinian militias failed? Or is it because the duly-elected government has reclaimed the power it was given at the ballot box?

According to an Israeli official, the invasion will be in response to the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel or another suicide bombing.

In other words, Israel is devising a pretext for “regime change” EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE ATTACKED. Until then, the border crossings will remain closed, the blockade will be tightened, and the economic asphyxiation will continue.

In the face of US-Israeli plotting, consider the comments of Prime Minister Haniyeh, who articulates as well as anyone, the aspirations of the Palestinians people:

“We do not want to live on international welfare and American handouts. We want what Americans enjoy -- democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps.

We present this clear message: If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality”.

Hamas history of violence is problematic, but it should not be an insurmountable obstacle to peace. The IRA had a similar history and, yet, those issues were ultimately resolved through the Good Friday peace accords. Now, the warring factions have joined together in a power-sharing agreement and there’s reason to believe that the armed struggle phase of the conflict is over. A similar remedy is possible between Israel and Palestine.

Hamas entry into the political system should be seen for what it is--- a step in the right direction. It is an indication that they are tired of the armed struggle and want to pursue a political solution. Israel and the US should be receptive to this. They should reward Hamas’ efforts to stop the suicide bombing and agree to backchannel negotiations. That will determine whether common ground can be reached on any of the main issues. If the violence resumes, Israel can always return to its present strategy but, it’s certainly worth a try.

At the very least, Bush and Olmert should respect the will of the Palestinian people and allow Hamas to perform its duties without further hectoring, sanctions, violence or sabotage. The US and Israel have no right to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign government. If Hamas perpetrates violence against Israel, then Israel has every right to respond. But until then, they should show restraint and try to play a constructive role in strengthening the emergent Palestinian democracy.

Guardian/New York Times El Baradei's remarks re Cheney's crazies raises US ire

My current guess is that Cheney recognizes that now is not the time to attack Iran: it's simply too crazy as El Baradei says, and would have just too many obvious (domestic) repercussions, not least might be $100 or $200 oil. For the moment they're going to have to be satisfied with the destruction that they are causing in Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine and the tension they are provoking with Syria and Russia. It's interesting that Rice has gone to the trouble of highlighting El Baradei's remarks. I wonder if it's her way of fighting back against Cheney.
--Ronald
http://desip.igc.org

Chris wrote to Guardian Letters::
2nd June,2007

Dear Sir,

When Mohamed ElBaradei speaks "against the views of ``new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran.''' , he speaks for most of the world. We all know whom he is talking about. We have all read the lunatic Cheney comments and the threats from the insane NeoCons who drove US/UK into the war in Iraq which has already cost nearly a million lives.

Condoleezza Rice speaks for herself and these neoCons and the utterly discredited Bush administration. She might claim to live in her daydream world but the rest of us do not, except perhaps for a small coterie living in or around Downing Street.
--Chris


Excerpts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6678102,00.html

Rice: U.S. Not Preparing for War Vs Iran

Saturday June 2, 2007 2:46 AM


AP Photo MF807, FS809, DO814

By ANNE GEARAN

AP Diplomatic Writer

MADRID, Spain (AP) - The U.S. is not preparing for war against Iran and Vice President Dick Cheney supports that policy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, taking a swipe at a U.N. official who says he's worried about ``crazies'' who want to start bombing.

``The president of the United States has made very clear what our policy is. That policy is supported by all the members of his Cabinet and by the vice president of the United States,'' Rice said Friday.

``The president has made clear that we are on a diplomatic course,'' she said in regard to U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Rice, in Spain at the close of a European visit, was asked about the comments of the chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. Mohamed ElBaradei was quoted by the BBC as warning against the views of ``new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran.'''

Cheney is frequently the administration's most hawkish voice on Iran, but Rice said she did not know to whom ElBaradei referred. The United States does not rule out military action but says there is no plan or intention to attack Tehran.

Cheney has not publicly advocated an assault on Iran, but he used the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf last month to warn Tehran that Washington would prevent the Islamic republic from dominating the Middle East.

Also stepping up pressure on Iran was President Bush, who demanded Friday that Iran ``immediately and unconditionally'' release four Iranian-Americans detained for alleged espionage and provide information about a former FBI agent missing in the country.

``I strongly condemn their detention at the hands of Iranian authorities,'' the president said in a written statement.

Rice was clearly annoyed by ElBaradei's remarks, which were part of an interview the International Atomic Energy Agency head gave for a documentary. The remarks were posted Friday on the BBC Web site.


[snip]
***

New York Times
Excerpts

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/world/middleeast/02diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

June 2, 2007
Rice Plays Down Hawkish Talk About Iran
By HELENE COOPER
MADRID, June 1 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought Friday to minimize any sense of division within the Bush administration over Iran after the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency delivered a pointed warning against what he called the “new crazies” pushing for military action against Tehran.

“The president of the United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a diplomatic course,” Ms. Rice said here. “That policy is supported by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of the United States.”

Ms. Rice’s assurance came as senior officials at the State Department were expressing fury over reports that members of Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff have told others that Mr. Cheney believes the diplomatic track with Iran is pointless, and is looking for ways to persuade Mr. Bush to confront Iran militarily.

In a news conference on Friday, Ms. Rice maintained that Mr. Cheney supported her strategy of trying to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy. A senior Bush administration official separately denied that there was a deep divide between Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney on Iran.

But, the official said, “The vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about any divide within the administration.

The reports about hawkish statements by members of Mr. Cheney’s staff first surfaced last week in The Washington Note, an influential blog put out by Steve Clemons of the left-leaning New America Foundation. The reports have alarmed European diplomats, some of whom fear that the struggle over Iran’s nuclear program may evolve into a decision by the Bush administration to resort to force against Iran.

In interviews, people who have spoken with Mr. Cheney’s staff have confirmed the broad outlines of the reports, and said that some of the hawkish statements to outsiders had been made by David Wurmser, a former Pentagon official who is now the principal deputy assistant to Mr. Cheney for national security affairs. The accounts were provided by people who expressed alarm about the statements, but refused to be quoted by name.

“The vice president and his staff fully support the president’s position on Iran” a spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Megan McGinn, said.

During an interview with BBC Radio broadcast Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he did not want to see another war like the one still raging in Iraq four years after the American-led invasion there.

“You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, ‘Let’s go and bomb Iran,’ ” Dr. ElBaradei said. “I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are dying.”

Dr. ElBaradei, who has urged Western powers to consider allowing Iran limited uranium enrichment on its own territory, is already facing criticism from Bush administration officials who say he should stick to monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and leave diplomatic policy to the six countries that have banded together to confront Tehran’s ambitions.

But several Western European officials echoed his concern, and said privately that they were worried that Mr. Cheney’s “red line” — the point at which he believed Iran was on the brink of acquiring a nuclear weapon and a military strike was necessary — may be coming soon. “We fully believe that Foggy Bottom is committed to the diplomatic track,” one European official said Wednesday, referring the State Department. “But there’s some concern about the vice president’s office.”

Dr. ElBaradei told the BBC that one could not “bomb knowledge.” Asked who the “new crazies” were, he said, “Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose our will by force.”

[snip]

Wayne Madsen: US poised to Control Northern Lebanon Airrbase

US poised to take control of Kleiaat airbase!!

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

May 21, 2007 -- Last month, WMR reported, "Our Lebanese sources now report that a NATO base is to be built soon on the grounds of the largely abandoned airbase at Klieaat in northern Lebanon. The base will serve as the headquarters of a NATO rapid deployment force, helicopter squadrons, and Special Forces units. The base will provide training for the Lebanese army and security forces. The base was pushed by elements in the office of the US Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Bush administration had recently warned Lebanon about the presence of "Al Qaeda" teams in northern Lebanon."

Just as if acting on cue from the Bush White House, a new "terrorist group" called Fatah al-Islam commenced operations in the vicinity of the Kleiaat airbase during the evening of May 20. Fath al-Islam laid road traps to prevent Lebanese army units from Tripoli from reaching the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, the scene of fighting between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam that resulted in the killing and wounding of tens of Lebanese troops.

Fatah al-Islam was reportedly started with funding and other support from the CIA and Lebanese Phalangist forces to act as a counterweight to Hezbollah.

In reality, Fatah al-Islam is designed to give the Bush administration, NATO, and the Fouad Siniora government a pretext for granting the U.S. military and NATO access to northern Lebanon and the Kleiaat airbase. Fath al-Islam's activities are already being blamed on "Al Qaeda" units operating in the north of the country.