Friday, 5 December 2014

In 2007 Bush was supporting "Islamic Terrorists" just like Obama is today


“Islamic Terrorists” supported by Uncle Sam: Bush Administration “Black Ops” directed against Iran, Lebanon and Syria

Global Research, May 31, 2007
31 May 2007


"Islamic Terrorists" supported by Uncle Sam: Bush Administration "Black Ops" directed against Iran, Lebanon and SyriaThe Bush administration has admitted that covert actions of an aggressive nature were applied against Iran and Syria. The stated objective was to wreck the countries’ economies and currency systems.  The infamous Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) created in early 2006, integrated by officials from the White House, the State Department, the CIA and the Treasury Department, had a mandate to destabilize Syria and Iran, and bring about “Regime Change” :
“The committee, the Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group [ISOG], met weekly throughout much of 2006 to coordinate actions such as curtailing Iran’s access to credit and banking institutions, organizing the sale of military equipment to Iran’s neighbors and supporting forces that oppose the two regimes.” (Boston Globe, 25 May 2007)
ISOG had also been providing undercover assistance to Iranian opposition groups and dissidents. The group’s propaganda ploy consisted in feeding disinformation into the news chain and “building international outrage toward Iran”. (Boston Globe 2, January 2007)
About-Turn in Iran-Syria Policy?

Washington has recently announced an apparent about-turn: no more treacherous covert ops directed against “rogue enemies”  in the Middle East. The Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) has been disbanded on the orders of President Bush.  The US will no longer be involved in “[covert] aggressive actions against Iran and Syria”, according to State Department officials. 
“The group had become the focus for administration critics who feared that it was plotting covert actions that could escalate into a military conflict with Iran or Syria. The air of secrecy surrounding the group when it was established in March 2006, coupled with the fact that it was modeled after a similar special committee on Iraq, contributed to those suspicions. 
A senior State Department official,… said the group [ISOG] was shut down because of a widespread public perception that it was designed to enact regime change. State Department officials have said the focus of the Iran-Syria group was persuading the two regimes to change their behavior, not toppling them.” (Ibid)
Believe it or not? 

Foreign policy analysts have described Washington’s decision as proof of  a welcome “softening” of US strategy in the Middle East. The Bush administration is said to have discarded ” regime change” in favor of a more flexible approach, consisting of constructive dialogue with Tehran and Damascus. Aggressive covert actions, we are told, have been swapped for bona fide international diplomacy:
The [dissolution of ISOG] comes as the Bush administration has embarked on a significant new effort to hold high-level meetings with Iran and Syria.
…
Shortly before the Iran-Syria group was shut down, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched a major initiative to engage Iran and Syria in a regional effort to stabilize Iraq, reversing longstanding U.S. policy against high-level contact with the countries. 
For years, the Bush administration has shunned meetings with Syria. …But Rice met this month with Syria’s foreign minister in Egypt, the first such high-level meeting between the two countries since 2004, and on Monday, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, is scheduled to meet his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad. 
Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the U.S. Congress, said he did not think it was a coincidence that the Iran-Syria group was disbanded at the same time the State Department began its diplomatic outreach. 
“I think the rationale for that group was promoting regime change, and Rice is going in a much different direction from that,” Katzman said. “The regime-change school within the administration has really gotten quite a bit weaker.” (Ibid)
The decision to dismantle ISOG is largely cosmetic. Most of these intelligence operations remain intact. ISOG was one among several covert initiatives to destabilize Iran and Syria. Regime change and outright war are still part of the Administration’s agenda. In fact, destabilizing covert intelligence operations directed against Iran and Syria have been stepped up in the course of the last four years. Moreover, these operations are closely coordinated with Israeli and NATO war plans, which constitute an integral part of the US sponsored military operation directed against Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

The covert ops have been synchronized with the military road map, including the various US war scenarios envisaged since the launching of ” Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT) in May 2003, barely a month after the invasion of Iraq. These war-like scenarios explicitly envisage regime change:
… Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.” (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)
The US is on a war footing and the various covert operations and Psy-Ops –which routinely feed despicable images of the Iranian head of State into the news chain–, are an integral part of the military-intelligence and propaganda arsenal.

In turn, the covert ops are coordinated with US, Israeli and NATO military deployments in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf including the conduct of major war games, which have been carried out almost continuously since Summer 2006.

CIA ” Black Ops” directed against Iran

Coinciding with the announcement on the closing down of ISOG, “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, according to current and former officials in the intelligence community… ” (ABC News Report 22 May 2007). This parallel CIA sponsored initiative, which “received approval by White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community”, has broadly the same mandate as that of the defunct ISOG:
“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions. 
“I can’t confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime,” said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region. 
A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, “The White House does not comment on intelligence matters.” A CIA spokesperson said, “As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity.” (ABC News Report 22 May 2007)
The CIA plan was apparently “designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq.”  The covert operation, according to US officials, was a softer alternative to that of a military strike on Iran, an option which was favored by Vice President Dick Cheney and other hawks within the administration:
“Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran. 
“Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike,” said former CIA official Riedel, “but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides.” (Ibid)
The covert intelligence operations directed against Iran and Syria is not an alternative to military action. Quite the opposite. The CIA plan was designed to support Washington’s strategy to destabilize Iran and Syria, through both military action and non-military means including covert intelligence operations.

Unleashing The Islamic Brigades Inside Iran

In relation to Iran, US intelligence has been supporting a Pakistani based terrorist group, Jundullah (Soldiers of God), that has conducted terrorist raids inside Iran. The group operates “from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan ‘tri-border region’.” According to a report by ABC News:
“A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News. 
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.  
It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.” (ABC News, 2 April 2007)
Abd el Malik Regi, the leader of Jundullah, commands a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters “that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera, … Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.” (Ibid)

US government sources have acknowledged that Jundullah’s leader  “had regular contact with US officials” but denies any “direct funding” of Jundullah by US intelligence.
Inherent in CIA covert operations, the Agency never grants funding “directly”. It invariably proceeds through one of its proxy organizations including Pakistan’s  Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which historically, since the Soviet-Afghan war, has provided support to Islamic terror groups, including the funding of the training camps and the madrassahs, always acting on behalf of the CIA. In fact this insidious role of  Pakistan’s ISI (on behalf of the the CIA) is candidly acknowledged by US intelligence:
“American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan’s intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.” ( Brian Ross and Christopher Isham, The Secret War Against Iran, April 03, 2007
Other channels used by US intelligence in funding terrorism is through Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where foundation money is funneled to various militant Islamic groups on behalf of Uncle Sam.  “Some former CIA officers say the arrangement [with regard to Jundullah] is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s [reminiscent of the Iran-Contra affair].” (Ibid)

Consistent Pattern: Historical Origins of “Islamic Terrorism”

Ironically, the Islamic groups are portrayed as working hand in glove with Tehran. Iran, a predominantly Shia country, is accused of harboring Sunni Islamic terrorists, when in fact these Islamic terrorists are ” intelligence assets” of the United States, supported indirectly by Washington.

This role of US intelligence in support of “Islamic terrorists” is well established. The covert op applied in Iran are part of a consistent pattern

The not so hidden agenda of US intelligence, applied throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, is to trigger political instability and foment ethnic strife by supporting “Islamic terrorist organizations”, ultimately with a view to weakening the Nation State and destabilizing sovereign countries.

From the onslaught of the Soviet-Afghan war and throughout the 1990s, a central feature of CIA activities has consisted in providing covert support  to ” Islamic terrorist organizations”:
In 1979 “the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA” was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.(See Fred Halliday, “The Un-great game: the Country that lost the Cold War, Afghanistan, New Republic, 25 March 1996): Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research,  2005, Ch. 2.)
With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence, “some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.” (See Chossudovsky, op cit)

These covert operations in support of the “Islamic Brigades” continued in the post-Cold war period. The ISI’s extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war. The CIA continued to support the Islamic “jihad” out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Middle East and the Balkans. Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus essentially “served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia.” (Ibid). “Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia established themselves in the Muslim republics of the Former Soviet Union as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State.” (Ibid)
A similar pattern emerged in the Balkans. Starting in the early 1990s, the Clinton Administration supported the recruitment of Al Qaeda Mujahideen to fight in Bosnia alongside the Bosnian Muslim Army. Ironically, it was the Republican Party in a document published by the Republican Party Committee of the US Senate which accused Clinton not only of a “”hands-on’ involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline” but also of collaborating with the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), “a Sudan-based, phony humanitarian organization  believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden,… ” (The original document can be consulted on the website of the US Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm )

Since the launching of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the wake of September 11, 2001, many of the official documents, which single out the insidious relationship of US intelligence to the “Islamic terror network”, have been carefully removed from the public eye.

US Sponsored “Islamic Terrorists” inside Lebanon

The recent killings of civilians in Palestinian refugee camps in northern Lebanon, resulted from the confrontation between Fatah Al Islam and the Lebanese armed forces. Fatah al-Islam is a predominantly non-Palestinian Sunni fundamentalist group, operating inside the refugee camps. Fatah Al Islam is also inspired by the Wahabi sects of Saudi Arabia, which were part of the CIA’s covert operations since the onslaught of the Soviet-Afghan war.

The Lebanese armed forces have been involved in raids on the camps, leading to the uprooting of the Palestinians refugees. The number of Fatah al Islam militants (made up of Saudi, Syrian, Yemeni and Moroccan fighters), inside the camp was of the order of 150-200 according to press reports. The Lebanese military offensive has been disproportionate, resulting in countless civilian casualties.
“Yet, the massively disproportionate assault on the camp has been unconditionally endorsed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “The Siniora government is fighting against a very tough extremist foe,” Rice said. “But Lebanon is doing the right thing to try to protect its population, to assert its sovereignty and so we are very supportive of the Siniora government and what it is trying to do.” 
Lebanon has used the police action against this tiny group to ask the US for $280 million in military assistance to help put down what it grandiosely calls an “uprising.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the request for funds, $220 million of which would go to the Lebanese Armed Forces and another $60 million to security forces, was being considered by Washington. The US gave $40 million in military aid to Lebanon last year and an additional $5 million so far this year. (Chris Marsden, 27 May 2007)
Fatah Al Islam has been presented in media reports, in an utterly twisted logic, as an organization linked to the Fatah movement in Palestine, a secular organization, founded by Yaser Arafat. From an ideological standpoint, Fatah al Islam, is similar to Al Qaeda, which is known to financed out of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and supported by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)  in liaison with its US counterpart.

According to Seymour Hersh, Saudi Arabia is providing funding as well as covert support to Fatah Al Islam, in close consultation with the Bush administration

Hersh points to a “private agreement” between top NeoCon officials and Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, who worked closely with CIA Director George Tenet, when he was Saudi Ambassador in Washington. The Lebanese government is also involved in this intelligence operation:
“The key player is the Saudis. What I [Hersh] was writing about was sort of a private agreement that was made between the White House, we’re talking about Richard—Dick—Cheney and Elliott Abrams, one of the key aides in the White House, with Bandar [Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser]. And the idea was to get support, covert support from the Saudis, to support various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon, who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah—the Shia group in the southern Lebanon—would be seen as an asset, .as simple as that..  We’re in the business now of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia, against the Shia in Iran, against the Shia in Lebanon, that is Nasrullah. Civil war. We’re in a business of creating in some places, Lebanon in particular, a sectarian violence..”(CNN Interview with Seymour Hersh, CNN International’s Your World Today, 21 May 2007) 
The pattern of Saudi support to Fatah Al Islam is part of a US sponsored covert operation similar to those conducted by the CIA in the 1980s in support of Al Qaeda.
Well, the United States was deeply involved. This was a covert operation that Bandar ran with us. Don’t forget, if you remember, you know, we got into the war in Afghanistan with supporting Osama bin Laden, the Mujahideen back in the late 1980s with Bandar and with people like Elliott Abrams around, the idea being that the Saudis promised us they could control — they could control the jihadists so we spent a lot of money and time, … in the late 1980s using and supporting the jihadists… And we have the same pattern, … using the Saudis again to support jihadists [Fatah Al Islam], Saudis assuring us they can control these various group, the groups like the one that is in contact right now in Tripoli with the government. (CNN Interview with Seymour Hersh, CNN International’s Your World Today, 21 May 2007) 
Staged Event in Lebanon? Building a Humanitarian Justification for Military Intervention

Fatah Al Islam is an “intelligence asset” financed by Saudi Arabia. While the Bush administration accuses Damascus of supporting Fatah Al Islam, there are indications that the killings in the Palestinian refugee camps were the result of a carefully staged military intelligence operation..

Since the Summer 2006 following the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, NATO forces are present inside Lebanon as well as off Syrian-Lebanese coastline. The UN Security Council Resolution  allowing for the deployment of NATO peace-keeping forces was the first step in this process, which followed the 2005 withdrawal and Syrian forces from Lebanon.

The objective of the military roadmap, is to create sectarian violence inside Lebanon which will provide a pretext  “on humanitarian grounds” for a stepped up military intervention by NATO forces under a formal UN mandate. This humanitarian military NATO intervention in liaison with Israel, is envisaged as a sequel to the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005 and the Israeli bombings of 2006. If it were to be launched it could lead to a situation of de facto foreign occupation of Lebanon as well as the enforcement of a economic blockade directed against Syria.

The pretext for these stepped up military actions are Syria’s alleged support of Fatah Al Islam and Damascus’ supposed involvement in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. The timely “investigation” into Hariri’s assassination and the setting up of a kangaroo court are being used by the coalition to foment anti-Syrian sentiment in Lebanon. From a military and strategic standpoint, Lebanon is the gateway into Syria. The destabilization of Lebanon supports the US-NATO-Israeli military agenda directed against Syria and Iran. US intelligence sets loose its Islamic brigades, while also accusing the enemy of sponsoring terrorist groups, which are in fact covertly supported and financed by Uncle Sam.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The Palestinian left straddled between Fatah’s ‘paradise’ and Hamas’ ‘fire’

A masked Palestinian fighter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), holds up his rifle on Tuesday in Gaza City during a rally. AFP/Jiji

Published Thursday, December 4, 2014
The Palestinian left is hostage to the bipolar political division in Palestine. The left has been unable to become a sizeable force compared to other factions, or develop an independent identity in the political equation post-Oslo.
We shed light on the reality of the left in Palestine in light of the dominance of Fatah and Hamas over the political landscape, and the fact that their policy choices of negotiations and resistance respectively, have reached an impasse or a state of uncertainty coupled with limited options.
Gaza – The new generation in the Arab region almost knows no other players in Palestine other than Fatah and Hamas, the two constantly sparring factions, while the name of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad comes to the fore from time to time during Israeli wars and retaliations. Beyond these three names, there is almost no voice for the Palestinian left-wing factions, though they had initiated resistance against Israeli occupation, long before the Islamists.
In light of the dichotomy between Fatah and Hamas, the following equation has been cemented for the past eight years: In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority subsumed Fatah, and subjected the cities of the West Bank to security and economic ‘domestication’. In Gaza, Hamas is suffering from clear confusion as a result of its problematic regional links, after Hamas chose – based on its ideological identity – to align itself with a camp that was recently besieged. This prevented Hamas from reaping any fruits after the recent war, despite the impressive performance of all resistance factions.


Despite the current crisis, left-wing factions of various backgrounds failed to draft new programs and solutions, whether in relation to the struggle and liberation, or services and growing socioeconomic problems. The primary reason for this is that most of these groups were absorbed into the “Oslo regime,” while others have reduced themselves to spawning NGOs after NGOs that abide by the ceiling of donor countries and their conditions, countries that are mostly Western.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the role of the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), in the Gaza war. The Brigades’ operations and rocket units went against the overall decline of the Palestinian left, specially as it follows a dispute at the PLO between the PFLP and the Palestinian Authority/Fatah, with threats to cut off the PLO budget allocations to the group.
The PFLP’s resurgent operational role in the context of resistance against Israel made a ripple in otherwise stagnant waters. But it also raised a number of questions regarding whether it can take advantage of it to conduct a comprehensive review of its military and political approach, and whether it can develop a unified identity since the movement is divided between a pro-Hamas wing and a pro-Palestinian Authority one. Even as the left played a mediation role between Fatah and Hamas recently, it remained largely absent, as the two main factions proceeded to reach reconciliation without consulting other factions.
Factors behind the decline
It would be unfair to say that the decline of the Palestinian left is solely the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are both subjective and objective factors predating and following the Gorbachev era.
Left-wing groups had imported ready-made Soviet, Maoist, and Guevaran theories and projected them on the Palestinian reality without trying to factor in its specific characteristics. Furthermore, their ideological identity often vacillated between Marxist nationalism and communism, as most Palestinian leftist groups had their roots in pan-Arab nationalist movements with the exception of the Palestinian Communist Party (the People’s Party currently), which has its roots in the Syrian Communist Party.
This ideological dilemma produced a sharp split between Palestinian nationalists and communists following the position declared by the Communist International (Comintern) during the Stalinist era regarding the Zionist movement and its endorsement of the partition plan of 1947, while recognizing the state of Israel. Organizational divisions also played a pivotal role in breaking up the unity of leftist forces, especially after the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) split from the Popular Front.
This is in addition to the inability of the left-wing movements to pair social struggle and the rigidity of their central organizational structure that created a chasm between the leadership and the popular base.
Adel Samara, writer, explains this further. He said,
“The Palestinian left, from the beginning, was exposed to attempts at marginalization through the massive funding of the right-wing to absorb the majority of Palestinian youths, specifically as concerns the PFLP, which was hit by fragmentation due to early defections (Ahmed Zaarour’s group, Ahmed Jibril, the DFLP, and Abu Shihab’s revolutionary front).”


This in turn led to the decline of the left, which had shined in the 1960s and 1970s and staged formidable operations. The decline deepened in the 1980s with the rise of religious sentiment and Islamist forces (Islamic Jihad then Hamas), in addition to major events in the region such as the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, the Iranian revolution, the Gulf wars, and the PLO’s exit from Lebanon.
All the above aggravated division of the Arab region, creating left-wing factions attached to the ruling authorities in the Arab countries that were drawn to the US sphere. It is possible here to place the decline of the Palestinian left in the context of the decline of the Arab left.However, characteristics specific to the Palestinian situation made this decline have a twofold impact for the left-wing factions that are part of the PLO, as the latter became involved in the Lebanese civil war, and as the inflation of its apparatuses pushed it away from the masses. The faction most affected was none other than the PFLP.
The PLO’s position supporting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait also drove another wedge in the already weakened leftist body. Gulf financial assistance that supported the Palestinian National Fund – of which the left benefited – stopped, something that the Palestinian Authority would use later to blackmail the left.
In this regard, Rabah Muhanna, a member of the PFLP political bureau, says,
“Financial assistance is not charity from anyone. It is the right of the PFLP, especially as it is not subordinate to any Arab regime or regional interests.”
He adds,
“Abu Ammar (Yasser Arafat) and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) used this issue to put pressure [on the PFLP].”
Breaking point
Ever since the first two years of the first intifada, it has been evident that the left’s presence declined greatly. Left-wing factions could not formulate strategies that can dislodge the dominant right-wing ‘comprador’ segments in the PLO. Immediately after the end of Soviet financial and logistical support for the PLO, the Palestinian People’s Party (formerly the Communist Party) changed its name and started wooing Fatah, until it became a carbon copy of the latter seeking to insert itself in every government lineup in Ramallah.
During that intifada, the PFLP was closer to Hamas, but it paid a price for this through stalled financial support from the PLO. After the West Bank and Gaza came under the control of the Palestinian Authority (Oslo 1993), armed left-wing groups were thrown into the prisons of the Palestinian Authority as leftist groups saw the Oslo accords as surrendering the cause. Nevertheless, these groups could not maintain that position for long, and soon joined the Oslo regime and dealt with it as a fait accompli, after which many left-wing figures joined the Palestinian security apparatus in return for privileges, albeit they, on the surface, are in the opposition and ostensibly mediate between Fatah and Hamas.
Not only this, but the left followed in the footsteps of Fatah in running in the legislative election and pumping conditional Western money in its NGOs and bodies, currently saturating the West Bank and Gaza. But the surprise was that Hamas won by a landslide in the 2006 parliamentary election, while leftist forces obtained only 2 percent of the seatsbecause of their alignment with Fatah. These forces did not accept that small proportion, and called at the time for re-running the election based on the proportional system rather than the district-based system.


A year later, the Palestinian split occurred and Hamas took over Gaza, in 2007.Leftist factions sided with Fatah implicitly, and the former Assistant Secretary-General of the PFLP Abdel-Rahim Mallouh blamed Hamas for everything that happened in Gaza.
While the Palestinian Authority pursued the two-state program, which cedes more than 70 percent of historic Palestine to the Occupation, theleftist factions affiliated to Fatah did not form any real bloc to oppose negotiations and security coordination with Israel. Some leftist figures even took part in normalization meetings; for instance, DFLP central committee member Qais Abdel-Karim was present at one of the infamous normalization meetings between President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli students.
Despite the gloomy state of the Palestinian left, there are other voices outside the mainstream, whose positions have cost them in terms of their financial allocations. One example involves MP Khalida Jarrar in the Legislative Council, who pulled out from one of the sessions of the PLO Executive Committee to protest negotiations and corruption at the PLO. At the time, tensions rose dramatically between the PFLP and Mahmoud Abbas, who proceeded to sever ties with the PFLP and suspend its financial allocations.
In parallel, the positions of left-wing youths and students in universities in opposition to the negotiations and the Oslo program have become a real concern for the Palestinian Authority and the leftist groups that support it. Adel Samara, commenting on this, says,
“The PFLP has an internal struggle between the revolutionary generation and the right-wing leadership, pushing many to split from the group despite the attempts of the martyred Abu Ali Mustafa to set things straight with the return of some leaders to the West Bank and Gaza – which is something that…George Habash was opposed to.” Samara added, “The revolutionary national and socialist spirit did not die in the PFLP. When there was a chance to return to armed struggle, like in the recent war, the PFLP fighters did their best despite the lack of weapons and cash.”
To return to the issue of participation in the political process, a leftist source who requested anonymity told Al-Akhbar,
“True, the PFLP running in the legislative election was an example of ideological weakness, but despite our weakness inside the PLO and outside, we are a source of permanent anxiety for the Palestinian Authority, specially after the seventh national conference, where there were clear signs of strong opposition to the Palestinian Authority’s policies and practices, and of noticeable convergence with Hamas’ positions.”


The source continued,
“The People’s Party, for example, has become more right-wing and liberal than Fatah. Its political bureau member Nafez Ghoneim serves as director in one of the Palestinian Authority’s agencies and is paid 8,000 shekels ($2,200) per month for adopting Abbas’ rhetoric and defending the president against left-wing dissidents.”
He added, “
The Popular Struggle Front, led by former Labor Minister Ahmed al-Majdalani even demanded at a meeting of the Executive Committee to cut salaries and cancel treatment abroad for the people of Gaza to punish them because they did not rise up against Hamas.”
It is no secret that other prominent figures are subjugated using the same tactics. For example, Yasser Abed Rabbo was appointed secretary of the Executive Committee, while Abdul-Rahim Mallouh receives a monthly salary between $ 4,000 and $6,000 and other privileges, as he is accusedby some leaders, in return for thwarting decisions made by the PFLP from within in the course of opposing Oslo, Palestinian Authority policies, and seeking to withdraw from the PLO Executive Committee.
Armed struggle: PFLP as a model
Most left-wing factions have laid down their arms, though they were the pioneers of armed resistance from the early 1960s. However, the PFLP’salignment with the armed resistance was demonstrated clearly in the recent war on Gaza. Years had passed since its attempt to assassinate Israeli Tourism Minister Reham Zeevi (October 17, 2001), but the PFLP was the first to break the truce and respond to the Occupation’s assaults, with al-Quds Brigades (Islamic Jihad), before the outbreak of war.
Rabah Muhanna explains that that the PFLP in the recent round took part in resistance using appropriate tactics commensurate with its limited financial capabilities, saying these need to be expanded as the PFLP has proven it had not abandoned armed resistance. Muhanna recalled that the seventh national conference had stressed the rejection of the Oslo regime, its repercussions, and current political polarization.
Regarding the absence of the left, Muhanna attributes this to the lack of a unified leftist framework with a clear vision versus the bipolarity of Fatah and Hamas as well as other factors.
He continued,
“As is known, the influential leaders of the left are in the prisons of the occupation. But internal change is happening, albeit slowly.”
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
RELATED
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Thursday, 4 December 2014

Violent clashes in Grozny

The Saker

Dear friends,

There is a lot of speculation about what really happened in Grozny in the past hours and some are even suspecting that the US has somehow re-ignited the Wahabi underground for a new insurrection.

This is far from being the case.

What really happened is that one of the major Wahabi terrorist groups which was traveling in three cars was blocked at a checkpoint.  The Wahabis opened fire and killed all the cops.  However, the alarm was given and special forces were brought in at which point the Wahabis feld into a nearby building.  They were surrounded and eventually killed.

This means that at the cost of the lives of 10 dead Chechen police and security officials one of the major Wahabi terrorist organizations as been destroyed.

Furthermore, please keep in mind that modern Chechnia is one of the safest places in Russia.  Not only do the Chechen authorities have a very large and sophisticated security apparatus (counter-terrorist/SWAT, counter-intelligence, rapid-reaction, intelligence, etc.) but they have the support of the vast majority of the local population.  And should that not be enough, the Federal Authorities have a massive and truly formidable military presence in and around Chechnia.  For obvious political reasons the Federals try to keep a low profile and let the Chechens deal with Chechen terrorists, but they are there and they can be instantly activated if needed.  The bottom line is that Chechnia is safe and stable.

The situation is much more dangerous in neighboring Daghestan, although it is improving.  If the AngloZionists decide to try to re-trigger an insurgency, they are much more likely to try to do that in Dagestan or outside Russia, in Kazakhstan or Tadjikistan (although these two states have also been preparing for any security threats and can count on more or less total Russia support.

Here is some raw footage of the events in Grozny.  See for yourself that we are talking about combats around one building.  Not all over Grozny.

The Saker

Violent clashes in Grozny

Dear friends,

There is a lot of speculation about what really happened in Grozny in the past hours and some are even suspecting that the US has somehow re-ignited the Wahabi underground for a new insurrection.

This is far from being the case.

What really happened is that one of the major Wahabi terrorist groups which was traveling in three cars was blocked at a checkpoint.  The Wahabis opened fire and killed all the cops.  However, the alarm was given and special forces were brought in at which point the Wahabis feld into a nearby building.  They were surrounded and eventually killed.

This means that at the cost of the lives of 10 dead Chechen police and security officials one of the major Wahabi terrorist organizations as been destroyed.

Furthermore, please keep in mind that modern Chechnia is one of the safest places in Russia.  Not only do the Chechen authorities have a very large and sophisticated security apparatus (counter-terrorist/SWAT, counter-intelligence, rapid-reaction, intelligence, etc.) but they have the support of the vast majority of the local population.  And should that not be enough, the Federal Authorities have a massive and truly formidable military presence in and around Chechnia.  For obvious political reasons the Federals try to keep a low profile and let the Chechens deal with Chechen terrorists, but they are there and they can be instantly activated if needed.  The bottom line is that Chechnia is safe and stable.

The situation is much more dangerous in neighboring Daghestan, although it is improving.  If the AngloZionists decide to try to re-trigger an insurgency, they are much more likely to try to do that in Dagestan or outside Russia, in Kazakhstan or Tadjikistan (although these two states have also been preparing for any security threats and can count on more or less total Russia support.

Here is some raw footage of the events in Grozny.  See for yourself that we are talking about combats around one building.  Not all over Grozny.

The Saker

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Obama Falsely Claims Human Rights Law Does Not Apply To Syrian Mercenary Training



Buried down in a report about Pentagon plans to train more "mercenaries" to fight against Syria we find this declaration of intend by the Obama administration to (again) break the law:
The military screening plan came together after the Obama administration determined that the training program for the Syrians would not be subject to what are known as the Leahy laws, which typically govern U.S. security assistance to foreign forces.Under those laws, a small office at the State Department works with U.S. embassies overseas to ensure that recipients of State or Defense Department security assistance aren’t linked to major human rights abuses.
...
Because the Syrian rebels will not be part of a state-sponsored force, the laws will not apply, U.S. officials said.
Wait a second. The U.S. congress has set aside $500 million to train, equip and pay these fighters. The U.S. military will do the training. And the Obama administration claims that these are not "state-sponsored forces"? Is the U.S. no longer a nation state?

Besides that the Leahy law as codified for the Pentagon in Section 8057 of the 2014 Omnibus bill does not say anything about "state-sponsored forces":
(1) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for the members of a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.(2) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a decision to provide any training, equipment, or other assistance to a unit of a foreign security force full consideration is given to any credible information available to the Department of State relating to human rights violations by such unit.
There is nothing about "state-sponsored" in the Pentagon relevant portion of the Leahy law. Will these trained be "foreign"? Yes. Will they be "security forces"? Arguably because they will likely bring more insecurity to Syria than security. But they will have weapons, will be organized in units and will fight. That seems to fit the expression "foreign security force".

Additionally the Pentagon Leahy law parts differ from the parts (Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as amended most recently in January 2014)) relevant to State Department sponsored training which explicitly refers to a "unit of the security forces of a foreign country".

When Congress codified the law it decided to limit the State Department version to "security forces of a foreign country". The Pentagon version was limited to "a foreign security force" which is a wider frame and does not necessitate those forces to be related to a foreign country.

The Obama administration obfuscation of Leahy relevance is faulty on two counts. If the Leahy restrictions were really to "state-sponsored forces" than the state sponsoring by the United States should count too. But the Leahy law as relevant is not restricted to "state-sponsored forces". It applies to "a foreign security force" which any Syrian group trained by the Pentagon will actually be. (Though again one might argue correctly that these forces will bring more insecurity to Syria and thereby are no "security forces" but the Obama administration does not make that claim.)

All the groups the CIA has trained and equipped to fight against Syria have committed major human rights violations. But the Leahy law does not apply to the CIA. Now as the Pentagon takes over the training of such groups the Leahy law becomes relevant. I dare anyone to find a group of Syrian insurgents fighting against the Syrian government that has not indiscriminately shelled civilians and not committed other major human rights abuses. There is none.
The Obama administration wants to avoid the applicability of the Leahy law because applying it would leave the Pentagon without any potential recruits to train as mercenaries against the Syrian government. It decided to break the law by using an interpretation that actually not covered by the laws wording. It has thus decided to break the law.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

DR. STRANGELOVE IS BACK IN D.C.; OBAMA DOES IT AGAIN; THE GOOD NEWS AND THE BAD NEWS



The good news is the new Obama candidate for Secretary of Defense is not an artificially inseminated, unmarried black, Hispanic or Jewish lesbian Harvard Law School graduate fighting AIDS.  The bad news is that the president picked a pinkish-white, Gentile reincarnation of General Curtis LeMay; educated at Yale and Oxford as a theoretical physicist; with nary a day of service in the military but infected with a pugnacity worthy of a Pit Bull on amphetamines.  Ashton “Ash” Baldwin Carter is the Anointed One.  The Republican war criminals are already celebrating the reigniting of Cold War II by predicting Carter’s smooth approval at the hands of a demented new Congress of blue-haired imbeciles itching for a new Operation Barbarossa – this time, led by a chastened Germany with America cheering on in the bleachers.  But, will the Germans play along?


Carter is a Ph.D. in theoretical physics which means he sees the universe in terms of unknowns and untestables.  He predicts facts which cannot exist in the real world we inhabit and, therefore, we can expect his tenure at the Pentagon to be other-worldly, possibly even macabre, bizarre or just kooky.  His education in physics probably means he understands Einstein’s General and Special Theories, an especially desirable qualification when one is serving “President Relativity” himself.

He was educated at Yale with a major in physics and a minor in medieval history.  Both disciplines are indicators that our new candidate is equipped to deal with modern scientific concepts, but, with the mentality of a Templar Knight.

He received his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Oxford University while on a Rhodes Scholarship.  That was former president Clinton’s status, also, at Oxford.  Unfortunately, the once prestigious Rhodes institution has undergone some changes to its presumed grandeur and allure occasioned by the association with America’s sex-addicted, porn-peddling, borderline pedophile and libertine ex-prez who has created an automatic subliminal connection with gross satyriasis, lechery and tawdriness coupled with marriage to a maladroit, carpet-bagging termagant whose porcine orbs are fixated on that 21st Century bawdyhouse on Pennsylvania Avenue.  It almost seems like science fiction, doesn’t it?  Stepford Wives Meet the Body Snatchers on Dune.  
      
Like George Wallace’s somewhat eyebrow-raising pick for a vice presidential nomination, General Curtis LeMay, whose unique view of the world (and its demolition) was satirized in Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” in the form of Brig. General Jack D. Ripper, played by the late Sterling Hayden, Mr. Carter has his own peculiar methods for initiating Armageddon. By jingo,  he actually and seriously proposed a scheme to wipe out North Korea’s planned launching of an ICBM in 2006 using cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads!  If it had not been for George W. Bush’s emergency trip to Crawford to attend to his prize bull, Buford, suffering from some intestinal disorder, SyrPer and its readers may not have been in existence in 2014 to compose and read this elegant draft, (respectively).

John McCain is reportedly “head-over-heels” with the nomination of Dr. Strangelove.  He is everything a war monger could possibly want.  Carter is expected to view Jabhat Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda) as a natural ally in the war against secularism in Syria.  Given his Oxonian credentials, he’ll find the right kind of sophistry to distinguish America’s actions against ISIS in Iraq from those in Syria.  Already, Saudi monkeys are greeting the news by cracking open thousands of crates of bananas in Jedda and Yanbu’ to commemorate the arrival of their Savior, the One who will bring down the progressive government of Dr. Assad in Damascus and replace it with a mind-strangling bale of mental tortoises with claws tenaciously rooted in the Wahhabist Dark Ages.  Hosanna in the Highest!

    If Curtis LeMay had his way, nobody would have outlived him in the Endloosung he planned for humanity.   

Well, as you all begin rehabilitating your bomb shelters and replenishing your supplies of pork and beans, dried prunes, and half-gallon bottles of Kessler Whiskey, remember, it may not all be that bad.  He is an Ivy Leaguer – those same rudderless, epicene stuffed shirts who have been misguiding this country for the last 100 years.  If Carter is as typical an Obama appointee as I think he is, he’ll mostly likely wind up facing his most serious challenges at the Pentagon in covering up his own sexual assault cases, outing gays and buying a cheaper toilet seat.  ZAF
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

“Green Light” to War on Russia, Legislation in US Congress: Say No To War with Russia under H. Res. 758 “Russian Aggression”

Global Research, December 02, 2014
CONGRESS
If you agree, please contact your congressperson today, 202-224-3121, and ask them to vote against H. Res. 758.
Sincerely,

Dennis
—-
US – Russia relations have deteriorated severely in the past decade and they are about to get worse, if the House passes H. Res. 758.
NATO encirclement, the US-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border, a US nuclear first-strike policy, are all policies which attempt to substitute force for diplomacy.
Russia’s response to the terror unleashed by western-backed neo-nazis in Crimea and Odessa came after the local population appealed to Russia to protect them from the violence. Russia then agreed to Crimea joining the Russian Federation, a reaffirmation of an historic relationship.
The Western press begins its narrative on the Crimea situation with the annexation, but completely ignores the provocations by the West and other causal factors which resulted in the annexation. This distortion of reality is artificially creating an hysteria about Russian aggressiveness, another distortion which could pose an exceptionally dangerous situation for the world, if acted upon by other nations. The US Congress is responding to the distortions, not to the reality.
Similar distortions are developing now in the coverage of events in the eastern part of Ukraine, in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Tensions between Russia and the US are being fueled every day by players who would benefit financially from a resumption of the Cold War which, from 1948 to 1991 cost US taxpayers $20 TRILLION dollars (in 2014 dollars), an amount exceeding our $18 trillion National Debt.
With wars re-igniting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Syria being a staging ground for an ongoing proxy war between the great powers, the US treasury is being drained for military adventures, our national debt is piling up, and we are demonstrably less safe.
Tomorrow the US House will debate and vote on H. Res. 758 which is tantamount to a ‘Declaration of Cold War’ against Russia, reciting a host of grievances, old and new, against Russia which represent complaints that Russia could well make against the US, given our nation’s most recent military actions: Violating territorial integrity, violations of international law, violations of nuclear arms agreements.
Congress’ solution? Restart the Cold War!
The resolution demands Russia to be isolated and for “the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense [my emphasis] under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies…” In other words, ‘let’s get ready for war with Russia.’
This is exactly the type of sabre rattling which led to the initiation and escalation of the Cold War. It is time we demanded that the US employ diplomacy, not more military expenditures, in the quest for international order.
It is time the US stepped out of this expensive dialectic of conflict and seek to rebuild diplomatic relations with Russia and set aside the risky adventurism in the name of NATO.
If you agree, please contact your congressperson today, 202-224-3121, and ask them to vote against H. Res. 758.
Sincerely,

Dennis
@Dennis_Kucinich
www.facebook.com/Dennis.kucinichThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!