War Memories III: To Haifa and Far Beyond Haifa (Video)

Sara Taha

July 15, 2006 was the day that confirmed the new war equation that Hezbollah resistance fighters imposed on Israel. This day generated the Israeli “Turning Point” maneuvers, moving the war and danger into the depth of the occupied territories. Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah addressed the Israeli settlers five years ago saying: “I tell the Zionists that you will find out that your new government and leadership is idiotic and stupid, and it does not have any experience in this field. You say in your polls that you believe me. I call on you to listen to me and believe me. We had patience despite the night aggression on the Southern Suburb. There is no difference between the Suburb, Beirut, Bikaa, and Mount Lebanon. This equation is over. I will not tell you today if you hit Beirut or the Suburb, we will hit Haifa.” “You wanted it to be an open war, and we are ready for that..a war at all the levels, to Haifa, beyond Haifa, and far beyond Haifa..and we are not the only ones who will pay the price,” Sayyed Nasrallah announced. Zionist settlers could no longer live a normal life and in peace during Israeli wars against other countries. They will have to face the fear and pain that their governments have been imposing on Arabs for 63 years. Israeli wars are no longer wars on other countries’ lands. They are rather destruction in the depth of Israel. Five years later, Zionist commentators and analysts tell Israel Channel One that the internal front has become the fragile side of Israel. They consider that every spot in the occupied territories could be subjected to intensive rocket attacks by Hezbollah, pointing out that “chaos will spread and everyone will have to face his own destiny.” Hasan Hijazi contributed to this report.

Source: Al Manar TV

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Echoes of the Consultative Meeting for National Dialogue in Syria

(Dp-news)

SYRIA- Three days of talks on reform in Syria have come to an end, with participants issuing a statement calling for the release of political prisoners and detainees who have not been convicted of any crime. The purpose of the talks was to discuss legislation and political reforms that would permit a multiparty system and end the decades-old emergency law that's been the pillar of President al-Assad's authoritarian regime.

The consultative meeting of Syria had discussed constitutional amendments, including the article providing that the Baath party is the leader of state and society, and found that many articles need revising.

The meeting said in a statement that a legal political committee should be formed to review all items of the constitution and present suggestions to work out a new modern constitution which can guarantee the social justice, multi-party system, and the basic rights of human beings.

The meeting has also discussed the proposed drafts of laws of elections, parties and media, and agreed to ask the commissions that were recently formed to prepare the draft laws in order to put forward the final version for endorsement as soon as possible, according to the statement.

The statement said what has been presented were merely "documents and general directions that would be put forward to the national dialogue conference."

After while; the participants called for an immediate release of all political prisoners, stressing that the right of expression should be guaranteed.

Presidential Political and Media Advisor Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban said on Tuesday that the consultative meeting for national dialogue was very successful, and that every issue was discussed.

In a statement to the press, Shaaban said that a good thing that was discovered during the meeting was the youth who are enthusiastic for the peaceful, dialogue-based and democratic path, noting that these youth have a lot of potential and talents.

"Syria's future will be good as long as these young men and women are talking about what should happen and how it should happen and participating to building the new Syria," she added.

Participants in the Consultative Meeting for National Dialogue in Syria affirmed on Tuesday that the meeting's closing statement expressed the hopes and aspirations of the Syrian street in order to preserve national unity, establishing the bases for future Syria as a modern pluralistic country and drawing up the features of the national dialogue conference.

In a statement, Hanin Nemr said that the meeting is a necessity for Syrian society which was expedited by the events, and that it opened new prospects for Syria.

He said that he had hoped for all opposition groups to attend the meeting because the bar was raised beyond the national opposition's standards, affirming that the meeting's success cannot be measured by how much it satisfied some people.

Nemr also noted that the closing statement stipulated for continuing communication and discussions to hold the national dialogue conference, particularly since differences with the opposition are shrinking.

In turn, Dr. Elias Najmeh said that the closing statement sums up the discussions and ideas posed during the past two days and constitutes a step ford, laying down the bases for finding solutions in the future.

He stressed the need for people to understand the importance of this statement in order for it to reflect positively on the situation, particularly since it calls for calming and peaceful dialogue that acknowledges everyone.

For his part, Omar Osi described the closing statement as "powerful by all standards, establishing for future Syria as a modern, pluralistic and democratic country governed by social justice and the rule of law."

He pointed out that the meeting is a historic and pivotal point in Syria's history in term of discussions which tackled the bills for the new parties, elections and media laws and amending the constitution.

In turn, Baha'a al-Din Hasan called on the street to consider the closing statement carefully, saying that it can be used as an agenda for the national dialogue conference.

He added that the statement's articles are in the interest of the street and that they will help put an end to bloodshed and preserve national unity and interests.

For his part, Dr. Abdulsalam Rajeh said that the closing statement fulfilled the street's desire and encompasses all Syrians since it's based on reality.

In turn, Manar Haroun said that all participants agreed that Syria comes first and the same applies to its symbols, and that the closing statement was reached through freedom and accord and that it represents a start for uplifting Syria.

"The Consultative Meeting was democratic… this democracy is new, bold and real… a common formula was reached, expressing the opinion of all participants for the sake of the country so that we do not form a weak point from inside and become an easy target for those outside," she added.

The meeting, presided over by Syrian Vice-President Farouk al- Sharaa, was a prelude for the national dialogue conference that would supposedly lay foundations for the transition of Syria towards a democratic state.

The nearly four-month unrest in Syria has sparked the need for dialogue to find an outlet. However, the opposition activists, most of whom live outside Syria, said it's too late for any effort to bridge the gap between the government and the protesters.

The activists said the security forces have killed more than 1, 400 people across Syria since the beginning of the unrest in mid- March, while the authorities dispute the toll, putting the blame for the unrest on gangs and armed groups that aim to foment a sectarian strife in the country.

West pushes more for UN action against Syria

Protester near UN- Newyork

Thousands Gather in Damascus to Support National Dialogue and
Reform and to Reject Foreign Interference

• West pushes more for UN action against Syria
• Syria: A Day before Friday

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Hamas considers UNESCO’s listing of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital a grave act

[ 15/07/2011 - 07:47 PM ] 

DAMASCUS, (PIC)-- Hamas condemned listing Jerusalem as Israel's capital on the website of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), considered it “a grave act, a flagrant breach of international laws and resolutions pertaining to Jerusalem and bias in favour of Israel,” and called on the UNESCO to retract.

In a statement on Thursday Hamas said: “We strongly condemn UNESCO’s act of listing the city of Jerusalem as the capital of the Zionist entity. It considers the step as a grave act, a flagrant violation of international laws and resolutions pertaining to the occupied city of Jerusalem and a biased policy in favour of occupation which is carrying on with accelerated Judaization and settlement to change historical features and facts on the ground, with out the UN various organisation lifting a finger to stop such crimes. We urge the UNESCO to immediately retract this classification.”

Hamas also called on the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to immediately make moves to stop such serious acts and intensify efforts to confront Zionist plans to Judaize occupied Jerusalem.

The movement further called on Human Rights Organisations to take the Zionist occupation to international courts for the crimes it is committing against Jerusalem and its Palestinian inhabitants.

• MB Slams UNESCO Decision Declaring Jerusalem As Israeli Capital
• UNESCO criticized after declaring Jerusalem as Israeli capital 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Arab Spring drifts into Summer Stalemates

(DP-News – AP)

Among the protest banners in Cairo's Tahrir Square was a hand-drawn map of the Arab Spring with black target symbols covering each country hit by anti-government uprisings since the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt were ousted, earlier this year.

But the bull's-eyes could easily be replaced with question marks as the groundswell for change has splintered into scattered and indecisive conflicts that have left thousands dead and Western policymakers juggling roles from NATO airstrikes in Libya to worried bystanders in Syria and Yemen.

The stalemates could shift into a deeper holding pattern in August during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, when the pace of daily life traditionally slows as the Islamic world observes a dawn-to-dusk fast and other customs such as temporary truces.

It's a huge and traumatic undertaking to shove aside regimes with decades in power - and sway over nearly every decision down to who gets hired as street sweeper. Iran did it with the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the American-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein cleaned the slate for Iraq and ushered in years of near civil war.

But no such wholesale change appears in the pipeline with the present revolts. That has raised concern that even if the leaders fall, the pillars of the regimes could survive, as happened when military rulers took temporary control after Egypt's Hosni Mubarak stepped down.

"Half revolution doesn't work," a headline last week in Egypt's Al-Ahram Al-Massai newspaper said after demonstrators returned to Tahrir Square to press for swifter political reforms and bolder legal action against officials from Mubarak's regime who were accused of corruption and killing protesters.

But even a halfway mark appears farther along than most of the rebellions against the Mideast's old guard.

A core of loyal security forces in Yemen and Syria keep the regimes hanging on despite relentless protests. In Libya, Moammar Gadhafi could face a moment of truth as rebels press closer to the capital Tripoli and NATO warplanes hammer military sites, yet the anti-Gadhafi militias have no clear leader to prevent possible power grabs to control the country's oil riches if he is ousted.

The country where the Arab Spring began, Tunisia, has been shaken by unrest - including a rise in ultraconservative Islamists - ahead of planned elections in October to elect an assembly that will write a new constitution. Some political groups are urging further delays in the election to give new parties a chance to organize.

Egypt, meanwhile, is questioning when - or if - the ruling military council will surrender power. The caretaker rulers effectively announced a delay of the elections on Tuesday when they said preparations for the vote would start Sept. 30.

"Bring down the military junta," chanted some of the 30,000 protesters Tuesday in Tahrir Square. Hours later, the military made clear its patience was wearing thin - with Maj. Gen. Mohsen el-Fangari wagging his finger and warning protesters against "harming national interests."

Only in tiny Bahrain have authorities apparently tipped the scales clearly in their favor. Security forces - aided by Saudi-led reinforcements - smothered an uprising by the kingdom's majority Shiites seeking greater rights from the Sunni rulers. A so-called "national dialogue" began this month, but it's unlikely that the 200-year-old ruling dynasty will give up any significant hold on power and may need a heavy hand to keep Shiite-led protests from reigniting.

"It's not over, but we are in an ugly situation now," said Christopher Davidson, a lecturer on Middle East and Gulf affairs at Britain's Durham University.

That's why the definition of the Arab Spring is increasingly being stretched. It's both about the current showdowns and the long-term spillover. The upheavals - supercharged by the instant communications of the Web - have given the region a crash course in the clout of the streets. The view from the top is suddenly less comfortable.

Even monarchs have acted swiftly after relatively small-scale clamor. Oman's Sultan Qaboos bin Said promised 50,000 new civil servant posts and allocated $2.6 billion for job programs. Jordan's King Abdullah II has set in motion plans for an elected government in coming years.

In the tightly ruled United Arab Emirates, officials have opened the vaults to fund development programs in poorer regions outside Dubai and Abu Dhabi and plan to expand voting rights in September's balloting for a federal advisory council. It's been trumpeted as a "great leap" for democracy in a country that jailed five activists just for posting Internet appeals to form a true parliament.

"No matter what happens, countries gripped or just touched by the Arab Spring will never go back to what they were," said Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

That leads to the bigger question: How deep can the changes go?

Syrian protesters, for example, know that even if President Bashar al-Assad falls, the underpinnings such as the rank-and-file military and public works staff cannot be purged as well without sending the country into a tailspin.

Omar Idilbi, a spokesman for the anti-regime Local Coordination Committees, which track the protests in Syria, said the opposition has no plans to dissolve the army or even the ruling Baath Party if he is overthrown but will seek to weaken the powers of security agencies.

"At the beginning of the uprising when we chanted, 'the people want to bring down the regime,' we did not mean President al-Assad, but the security agencies that interfere in everything from a marriage certificate to the opening of a shop," said Idilbi, who is based in Beirut.

Yemen's president isn't even in the country, yet his regime fights on. A blast last month sent Ali Abdullah Saleh to Saudi Arabia for extensive medical treatment, including more than eight operations. But his son, Ahmed, kept the regime's crucial Republican Guards forces intact.

Washington believes no credible alternative exists for the current regime as an ally to fight the local al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen, which has been declared a major threat to U.S. interests. But President Barack Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, has urged Saleh to accept a proposal that would transfer power to his vice president in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

"The current crisis showed that neither side can win," said Ahmed Obeid bin Dagher, the deputy secretary general of the ruling party. "If there is no national consensus through dialogue, then al-Qaida will be the alternative."

Jordan-based political analyst Labib Khamhawi sees such calls by regime insiders as bids for survival: Protect the system, not necessarily the leader.

"I think it will be very difficult to imagine that the Libyan, Yemeni or Syrian presidents will remain in power," he said. "The faces will be changed, but the system might continue to exist."

Among the kings and sheiks in the Gulf, however, there's not even room for those concessions.

The region's anchor power, Saudi Arabia, which has not seen protests take off, is staking out a role as "sort of the Arab Spring counterrevolution," said Shadi Hamid, director of research at The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar.

"The Arab Spring revolutions may have their moments of self-doubt or seem stalled at times, but they are authentic expressions for change and, to use an overused phrase, on the right side of history," said Hamid. "What began in Tunisia and Egypt is a long, long way from being finished."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Franklin Lamb: US has decided to recognize Libya’s rebels as the legitimate government

Posted on July 15, 2011 by dandelionsalad

Image by Jacob Anikulapo via Flickr

by Franklin Lamb

Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Turkey
July 15, 2011

Image by Jacob Anikulapo via Flickr

 

RussiaToday on Jul 15, 2011

The U.S., along with more than 30 other nations, has decided to recognize Libya’s rebels as the legitimate government of the country. The Libyan Contact Group, convening in Turkey, has also urged Colonel Gaddafi to give up power. Dr. Franklin Lamb – a director of an organisation called Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace – says it’s just another dangerous case of the U.S. misjudging an ally.

‘US picks wrong allies again, cannot accept defeat in Libya’
see

• Andrew Gavin Marshall: Full-Scale NATO Ground Invasion of Libya is Imminent
• Tunisia, Shousha – We are dying slowly
• Risk-Free And Above The Law: U.S. Globalizes Drone Warfare by Rick Rozoff
• France Says NATO Bombing Has Failed by Franklin Lamb
• U.S. and NATO Allies Expanding Global Military Footprint by Rick Rozoff
• Libya on Dandelion Salad
• http://vodpod.com/dandelionsalad/tag/libya

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Sheikh Al-Azhar: Islam Proud of Sayyed Nasrallah

Sheikh Al-Azhar Dr. Ahmad Tayeb said on Friday that Islam has a pride in the presence of the bi Mujaheed Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah (Hezbollah Secretary General). Speaking during a meeting with a number of journalists and political activists who belong to the Nassirite movement, Sheikh Tayeb said that Sayyed Nasrallah alongside his loyal men taught the Zionists some unforgettable lessons. Sheikh al-Azhar noted that Egyptian ousted President Hosni Mubarak has incited him more than once to issue religious fatwas against Shia Muslims in general and Hezbollah in particular. He said that a number of Mubarak regime’s men sought to pressure him until the level of indirectly threatening him to fulfill Mubarak’s demand to doubt the Shia doctrine. Yet, he confirmed that he has always rejected such pressures because he perceived well it was politically motivated.

Source: Website Team

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

"We get fingerprints off of rocket that we can tie biometrically to an individual in Iran"

Via FLC

"...But how is the U.S. so sure that the weapons and training are coming from Iran? 

“We have a very comprehensive understanding of where the rockets are manufactured,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey S. Buchanan, chief spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, said in an interview. “We can identify what factory they were made in by certain markings. We’ve seen markings recently of rockets that were manufactured in Iran in 2010. These are not things that were just buried in old cache sites. They continue to come across the border in very large numbers.”U.S. officials say three Shiite militia groups — the Promised Day Brigade, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah — are responsible for the deaths of at least 18 U.S. troops in the past seven weeks. The groups have been trained and supplied by Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces, who U.S. officials say are crossing the border into Iraq to provide training and materiel. 

Singling out the Kataib Hezbollah, Buchanan said: “We get fingerprints off of a certain cache or a certain rocket that we can tie biometrically to an individual who lives in Iran, he’s a top leader of Kataib Hezbollah, he lives in Iran, he is trained by the Quds Force. All of that together is a very compelling set of evidence.” ..."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Exclusive: ‘Murdoch behind 9/11, Iraq, Afghan wars and financial meltdown’ var addthis_product = 'wpp-261'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

‘Murdoch behind 9/11, Iraq, Afghan wars and financial meltdown’
Veterans Today Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, interviewed by Press TV

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has played a significant role in the elections of three U.S. presidents, as well as some of the events that have happened during their administrations including the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic meltdown, says Gordon Duff, senior editor and writer for Veterans Today.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

“Murdoch is a close associate of a significant criminal conspiracy of industrialists, bankers and others. He is the front man for them… the person who gives them control of governments through bribery and blackmail,” Duff told Press TV’s U.S. Desk on Thursday.

“We have three presidents of the United States who have essentially been appointed to office and controlled entirely by Rupert Murdoch and the things that happened during their administrations,” he added.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

US Intelligence in the Investigation, KSA: Truth or Stability

Mariam Ali As the accusation fingers are directed to the United States and the Zionist enemy on the politicization of the Special Tribunal of Lebanon, the latter is to be used as a tool to put pressure on Hizbullah and Syria in order to enable "Israel" to perform what could not be achieved on the ground. "Wikileaks" documents published by "al-Akhbar" newspaper shows clear cooperation between the International Tribunal and all of US, Britain and France on one hand, and the begging of Prosecutor in the tribunal Daniel Bellemare to get help from US intelligence in order to develop what he called a legal guide to which his indictment is based, on the other hand. The U.S. cables were capable of showing the size of Arab leaders' complicity with the West against Syria and how they marketed that Syria carried out the assassination of Hariri, even before the investigation was completed. Bellmare Asks US Support In the details, Bellemare stressed according to a telegram No. 08BEIRUT350 issued on the seventh day of March 2008 and classified by the U.S. ambassador at the time Michel Sison that "the size of the work of investigation Commission on 21 cases is so massive (the assassination of Hariri in 2005 and 20 other cases) The commission examines similar investigations, such as FBI investigation in the attack of al-Khobar Towers, in an effort to understand how to manage its and how to win the cooperation of local authorities and the international community. As he warned that time is essential to the process of investigation, Bellemare reiterated his call to get help from various States that might provide intelligence information and temporary experts for work on the ground. As a prosecutor, he needs intelligence information received by the Committee in the form of normal tips that enable him to develop a legal guide to which he can base his indictment decisions once he puts the hat of "General Attorney". "Intelligence centers might provide us with advice and might guide us to the place we should look in and what place we should avoid," Bellemare said providing the example of international crimes in former Yugoslavia, where a tip from a source on the existence of video footage was followed and then the tribunal was able to find this important guide. For example, Bellemare continues "the Commission has footage of potential witnesses that must be identified, but security reasons prevented their publication," to conclude that the "United States can provide assistance through the activation of network informants to identify these people." Bellemare pledged that he will do his best although he needs the US support. "To put the hook in an attempt to find out what you will get is a good thing, but at some point you need to know what you are going to hunt." Bellemare reiterated that the general list which includes types of needed assistance was an attempt to make it easier to obtain the approval of Member States. At the level of staff, Bellemare said that the "US can provide assistance through the provision of experienced investigators to conduct routinely police interrogations on Lebanese territories." He proposed to leave for Washington on April 9 to meet with officials of the U.S. government, adding that he would be "grateful if he would be able to meet with high-level and influential officials." Request for Implementation Bellemare wants to visit Washington on April 9, the day after the delivery of his report to the Security Council of the United Nations. The Charge Daffairs calls to have meetings (at the minimum level) with Assistant Secretary of State for the Near Eastern Affairs Office, and Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. "We also strongly recommend a meeting with Secretary of State or her deputy, if possible." She also requested meetings with investigators from the National Security Council, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration at the highest level if possible. "It would also be useful to that a member of the FBI delegation headed by FBI Director Mueller visit Beirut to meet with the International Commission of Inquiry on the sidelines of the upcoming visit of the Director Mueller to Amman," she recommends. "On aid, the agencies in Washington urge to meet the demands of the International Commission of Inquiry, particularly in relation to the provision of interrogators and intelligence sharing," Charge Daffairs ends her recommendations at this point. According to another cable with the number 08BEIRUT996 and the date of the ninth of September 2008 classified from the Charge Daffaires William Grant, Grant accompanied by the Legal Attaché and one of the diplomatic politicians in the Embassy, met on the ninth of July the Chairman of the International Commission of Inquiry, Daniel Bellemare, at the headquarters of the Commission in Monteverdi. When asked about his recent trip to Paris, Bellemare refrained from going into details, but confirmed to the Charge Daffaires the French support for the Commission and the Special Tribunal is strong revealing that the proportion of French officials support to him reached 120%. Even if it turns out otherwise later, Bellemare announced that he would go ahead and that nothing will stop him but the Security Council of the United Nations. Bellemare said: "France is unable to provide assistance similar to those provided by the U.S. Justice Department and Scotland Yard, because most of the French investigators lack mastery in the English language, and therefore, according to Bellemare, France will provide other types of support." Praise to US Support Bellemare praised much Paul Coffey, the investigator from the US Department of Justice, who was recommended by US government and had recently joined his team. He told us that he still needs criminal analysts. Answering the Charge Daffaires on the status of the investigation, Bellemare disclosed that to some extent of the investigation, he did everything he could through search, and now hopes to activate eavesdropping service on all ground telephone lines. In Lebanon, eavesdropping falls in the authority of the Lebanese army intelligence or internal security forces. Bellemare feared leaks from these two sides. US Arabs Confront Syria In parallel, a report issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (05CAIRO9134 Date 7 December 2005) mentions details of the meeting between Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on 6 December in Cairo, as reported by the Egyptian presidential adviser Suleiman Awad. "Awad said mediator asked Mubarak to play the mediator role between the Syrian President, and the French President Jacques Chirac and to convince the Saudis to reject a presidential statement that might be issued by the UN Security Council after Mehlis second report." Awad added that Mubarak refused to respond al-Shara request: He said that Syrian cooperation (with the International Commission of Inquiry) was until recently below the level, but Mubarak praised the Syrian step to send witnesses to Vienna for questioning. Mubarak said that "Syria relied heavily on Russia," adding that "to prevent the issuance of a resolution or presidential statement by the Security Council would be impossible." According to the report, al-Shara asked Mubarak to help ensure that the tribunal that will be established to try Hariri's killers will not be international, but rather belong to the Arab States League". Awad said that Mubarak also refused to respond to this request, saying that "discussion of the tribunal was premature and demonstrates the recognition of being guilty." Awad added that afterward "Mubarak asked al-Shara asked if Syria had killed Hariri." However, al- Shara asked to hold an Arab summit, but Mubarak replied that Algeria (as the current presidency) has refused to do so. When asked to have a mini-Arab summit, Mubarak rejected the idea clarifying that "Egypt and Saudi Arabia can only help Syria if Syria fully cooperates with the Mehlis." Saudi Arabia: Truth or Stability In addition, the official at the French Foreign Ministry, Herve Bazansno revealed during a meeting with diplomats from the U.S. Embassy in Paris on 17 December 2005 the Saudi position, as quoted by its ambassador in Beirut (Abdel Aziz Khoja) to his French counterpart Emié (05PARIS8544 date of 20 December 2005). According to what the Americans quoted him, Bazansno said: "The Saudi pessimism on the developments in Syria and Lebanon is growing." adding that the Saudi ambassador spoke of "concessions that U.S and France may need to conduct with Damascus." Khoja concluded that "the international community may be in a position to choose between the truth on one hand and stability on the other hand, in the sense that we all know that Hariri's assassination could not happen without the knowledge of Bashar al-Assad, but there is no alternative to Bashar in Syria." A Secret Jordanian Visit A report issued by the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan (05AMMAN9329 date of 1 December 2005) indicates that the advisor to King Abdullah II to National Security and the Mandate President of the Jordanian government, Marouf al-Bakhit made a secret trip to Damascus during the last week of November ( 2005) in order to convey a message to President (Bashar) al-Assad. Bakhit presented to the ambassadors of the (G8), including U.S. Ambassador to Jordan David Hale, and the ambassadors of EU countries the results of his trip during a lunch with the king. He told al-Assad that " there is no option for the regime in Syria but to cooperate fully with Mehlis investigations (Chairman of the International Commission of Inquiry in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Detlev), and that he should fully implement all relevant Security Council resolutions." Explaining to al-Assad that "the king of Jordan personally wants to know who killed his friend Rafik Hariri," al-Bakhit got an answer from President al-Assad that "he wants to cooperate fully, but he needs the Jordan help on legal proceedings related to Mehlis investigations with Syrian officials." Bakhit stressed, according to the U.S. report, that "he didn't reveal to al-Assad that there is another choice that allows him to provide anything less than full cooperation with the Mehlis." The report adds that "Bakhit's secret visit prevented the Syrians to announce it as if it falls in the line of Jordanian support toSyria." Change in Qatari Position Under the title "Qataris see the truth in the Mehlis report, but they are cautious», a report of the U.S. ambassador in Doha Shays Ontrmir reveals facts of a family dinner with Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani (05DOHA1779 Date 24 October 2005). Ambassador began his report by saying that Sheikh Hamad "did not defend (Syrian President Bashar) al-Assad". The report added: "In the past, when the U.S. officials asked the prince on Syria, he strongly defended al-Assad, adding that the "U.S. must support him to confront those who were close to his father." Ontrmir concluded that "the Prince answer is essentially an acknowledgment that the father and the son share the same close circle to them." The prince said that the United States will harm itself if it interferes in Syria, but later added that it is unlikely that US makes such an intervention." Ambassador Ottrmir continues in his report: "the senior Qatari officials met their Syrian counterparts during the last year to play a mediating role in relation to Lebanon and the United States. It is interesting that the Syrian President had spent six hours with Qatari Prince during the month of July of this year (2005). "To install the political efforts, Qatar signed a memorandum during the same month for the establishment of an investment company with a capital of a hundred million dollars to increase investments in Syria," the US Ambassador added to conclude the following: "The special Qatari diplomatic efforts may have changed its course, and the position of the country in the Security Council would be in the interface." Amr Moussa's Conditions: For his part, the Secretary-General of the Arab States League Amr Moussa revealed during his meeting with U.S. Ambassador in Cairo Francis Rchiardoe the facts of his discussion between with President Bashar al-Assad on 15 November 2005 (05CAIRO8617 Date November 15, 2005). Moussa said that when he met with al-Assad before his last speech, "he promised to have full cooperation with the Mehlis, and that he will say to any senior official called for an investigation to cooperate, but he could not send anyone to be investigated in Lebanon sinse it is offensive and non-secure ." Moussa clarified to ambassador Rchiardoe that "al-Assad told me he would prefer that the investigations are made in the UN centers in Syria, which raises the flag of the United Nations and the Syrian President asked about the possibility of using the Arab League headquarters for this purpose." Moussa answered according to US telegram that there are four conditions for this: "first Mehlis approval, secondly, the Egyptian government's agreement, Lebanese agreement, and fourthly, to an official Syrian request to the Arab League to use its headquarters." Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

"Israel" Eyeing Reoccupation of Sinai

Egyptian police pull-back seen as opportunity to reintroduce military By F. Michael Maloof WASHINGTON -- An “Israeli” official in Washington refuses to comment on the prospect that its military forces may try to reoccupy the Sinai Peninsula in response to an Egyptian pull-back of its police, the continued sabotage of a natural gas pipeline that supplies the Jewish state with more than 40 percent of its energy, and the growing perception that the Zionist state could face attacks from there. In laying groundwork for such an event, high level “Israeli” officials are pointing to what they say is increasing infiltration by al-Qaida and Hamas who could launch attacks from the Sinai into "Israel." When asked to comment on the prospect that “Israel” may attempt to regain the Sinai militarily, “Israeli” Embassy spokesman Jonathan Peled refused to respond to the inquiry, thereby raising concern that such a possibility exists. “Israel's” counter-terrorism bureau recently issued an instruction that told of "updated information that terrorist organizations are continuing their efforts to abduct Israeli tourists in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula for bargaining purposes" and that "terror agents that are residing in Sinai are coordinating plans for such attacks with local Bedouin collaborators." Since the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in January, “Israeli” officials have expressed increasing concern with the security in the Sinai, a stretch of land that is three times the size of “Israel’s”pre-1967 border area, or some 23,000 square miles. Sources say that “Israeli” concern centers over Hamas bringing in rockets from the Gaza Strip and shooting them into “Israel” along the 140- mile border between the Zionist state and the Sinai Peninsula. Israeli official: the Sinai is already known as a lawless land Egyptian authorities also claim they no longer can maintain security in the region. Egyptian police are abandoning their remote stations and checkpoints which are coming under increased attacks from Bedouin tribesmen in the region. Bedouin tribesmen ransacked numerous abandoned government facilities and have threatened to attack South Sinai oil installations and tourist resorts. "The Sinai is already known as a lawless land," according to a senior “Israeli” defense official. "There is real concern that if the Egyptians don't get the Sinai back under their control, it could develop into a major threat to Israel." Egypt now is under control of a military council which has agreed to uphold existing treaties and agreements with “Israel,” an issue which is causing increasing opposition among the population. If the September elections bring in a government hostile to those agreements, “Israeli”oficials believe it would put the country in an even more precarious position. The “Israelis” have undertaken an aggressive effort to bring "Israeli" oil companies into Lebanese waters As one “Israeli” defense official said: "If a hostile regime takes over in Egypt, the (Israeli Defense Forces) will need to restructure itself and would be pushed to the limit in its ability to deploy adequate resources on the various fronts." “Israel” initially agreed to Cairo sending some 800 Egyptian soldiers into southern Sinai at the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, the first time since the countries signed the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. However, “Israel” turned down a request to deploy more Egyptian forces out of concern for "a complete breakdown of the peace treaty with Cairo." In addition, Egypt in late May reopened permanently the Rafah border crossing on the Egyptian-Palestinian border in the northern portion of the Sinai. It brought about initial “Israeli” concern that Egypt would not be able to halt attacks from the Sinai. In a May 30 meeting of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed concern that Egypt would have "difficulty" in exercising its sovereignty over the Sinai. He pointed out that "international Islamist terrorist groups dominate" the Sinai and warned that Hamas is consolidating its position there. For the “Israelis,” all of this has heightened the threat of increased attacks from al-Qaida, which “Israel” claims some 400 members have infiltrated into the Sinai, and other militant groups. The “Israelis” also have expressed concern over the flow of illegal migrant workers from Egypt that can infiltrate into ”Israel” along its extended border with the Sinai, leading some analysts to suggest that “Israel” inevitably will need to militarily reoccupy the area due to increased security threats. The “Israelis” have undertaken an aggressive effort to bring "Israeli" oil companies into Lebanese waters for the purpose of natural gas exploration In addition, a pipeline running through the northern Sinai that supplies natural gas to Israel and Jordan had been blown up four times since Mubarak’s ouster. While Egypt has repaired the pipeline, it has refused to resume the flow of gas to “Israel.” The pipeline supplies 40 percent of “Israel’s” natural gas needs. Consequently, “Israel” is looking for alternative natural gas sources. The Zionist state currently is in a growing confrontation with neighboring Lebanon and Palestine over disputed oil and gas drilling rights in the Mediterranean. This issue alone could lead to war with Lebanon. The “Israelis” have undertaken an aggressive effort to bring "Israeli" oil companies into Lebanese waters for the purpose of natural gas exploration. It just presented to the United Nations a maritime boundary plan which seriously conflicts with a Lebanese boundary plan provided last August to the U.N. The Lebanese plan has the support of the United States. In recent days, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has warned the “Israelis” that Hizballah will defend Lebanon’s oil fields against any “Israeli” incursion on oil deposits which extend into Lebanese waters. Given Israel’s ongoing disputes with neighboring Lebanon and Palestine and the shutdown of natural gas through the pipeline in the Sinai, natural gas from previously developed "Israeli" fields and other potential sites in the Sinai becomes an increasingly important target for “Israel.” The Zionist state captured the Sinai Peninsula during the June 1967 Six Day War. In addition to the Sinai, “Israel” also acquired the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights from Syria. With the signing of the 1979 peace treaty, however, “Israel” began a three-year withdrawal from the Sinai and departed by 1982, leaving behind the city of Yamit that “Israel” established in 1968. Israel will not break the treaty unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically “Israel” also had discovered and developed the Alma Oil Field, which is valued at more than $100 billion. If “Israel” had held onto it, it would have assured the country’s energy independence, sources say. Taking back the Sinai is an issue which did not escape “Israeli” strategists in 1982 and, given “Israel’s” security concerns, it may be reviving an old policy strategy. In a February 1982 document titled, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties," Oded Yinon who was a foreign policy strategist with the “Israeli” Foreign Ministry at the time raised this prospect of “Israel” reoccupying the Sinai. Sources say that his 1982 report had formed some basis for the conduct of “Israeli” foreign policy in the Middle East and appeared to be a rough blueprint for administration policy of President George W. Bush. The Yinon document proposed an Israeli strategic policy to "balkanize," or politically fragment, the Middle East and North Africa region to prevent its Arab influences from uniting and offering a potential threat to “Israel” and Western security interests. "Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history," the Yinon report said. "The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run," Yinon wrote. "Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts," his report added, "and it could be driven back to the post-1967 war situation in no more than one day...Egypt in its present domestic political picture is already a corpse...Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front." The description of Egypt in 1982 doesn't appear to be much different from the country's condition in 2011. With the Sinai becoming what “Israel” perceives as a terror haven, and the prospect of allowing Egyptian forces into the area being even more dangerous, “Israel's” next move may be an ominous one. F. Michael Maloof is a former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. michaelmaloof@hotmail.com Al-manar.com.lb is not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed in this article are the author's alone.

Source: Al-Manar Website

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Leon Panetta a Defense Secretary With a Long History of Cooperation with Israel

Leon Panetta Takes Over As U.S. Secretary Of Defense

Differences Loom in Background on Unilateral Israeli Action on Iran

by Nathan Guttman

Learn how the new Pentagon chief, Leon Panetta, a Catholic budget wonk, became a friend of Israel and won the trust of American Jews.

Washington — Four decades in the political limelight have made newly minted Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta a familiar and trusted figure to the Jewish and pro-Israeli communities.

A middle-of-the-road politician known for his management skills, Panetta has taken the helm at the Pentagon at a time when defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is as strong as ever, a trend that should continue under his guidance, Israeli and American officials say.

During his recently completed stint as CIA director, Panetta worked closely with Israeli intelligence, which reportedly has shared information about Iran and about terror threats.

“It is important to understand that despite differences on Middle East policy, the military and intelligence relations between the U.S. and Israel were extremely strong,” said Jim Colbert, policy director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. “Director Panetta was closely involved on these issues.”

Despite Panetta’s strong relationship with Israel, the security relationship between the two states could still be heading into troubled waters as each side decides how to deal with the nuclear threat posed by Iran.Panetta already entered the fray on Iran when he made an unannounced visit to Israel in January 2010 as CIA chief. According to press reports, he warned the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against venturing into a unilateral attack against Iranian nuclear sites. Panetta was later quoted as saying that Netanyahu “understands that if Israel goes it alone it will mean trouble.”
The warning that Panetta carried was reiterated publicly shortly afterward, by Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Both Israel and the United States have made a point of denying any discord on Iran. Israeli leaders made clear that, for now, they support the administration’s drive to influence Iran through international sanctions.

As CIA director, Panetta did not take the Iranian threat lightly. Although his focus was on Afghanistan, an issue that provided him with his highest achievement to date — the killing of Osama bin Laden — he also oversaw a reform process in the CIA that led to the changing of the official stance of the United States toward Iran’s nuclear program. Under Panetta, the CIA revised its 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which had originally concluded that Iran was not aspiring to achieve nuclear weapons. The intelligence-working assumption Panetta is leaving behind in the CIA is that Iran is indeed in pursuit of military nuclear capabilities.

The Pentagon did not respond to request to interview Panetta for this article.

Panetta, who took over at the Pentagon on July 1, comes to the post after a long career in public life that has growing links to the Jewish community.

A son of Italian immigrants, Panetta took his first steps in politics on the Republican side, where he served in the Nixon administration, working on civil rights issues. Frustrated by what he saw as a rightward turn in the GOP, Panetta switched sides and ran for Congress as a Democrat in his home district in California. He served nine terms and won the influential position of chairman of the House Budget Committee before being asked by President Clinton to be his White House chief of staff.
At first, Panetta showed practically no sign of interest in Jewish issues.

“He didn’t stand out on issues that the Jewish community worked on,” recalled Doug Bloomfield, who at the time was a lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Panetta had little to do with issues relating to Israel and was focused mainly on government budget concerns. “He has a reputation of a no-nonsense guy,” Bloomfield added.

That changed to some extent during his years in Inside the Beltway Democratic politics. Panetta shared a house in Washington with a prominent Jewish roommate, Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer. This partnership helped lead to Panetta’s first visit to Israel.

In 1991, Schumer helped put together a congressional mission to Israel, organized by the Anti-Defamation League. Panetta was the senior congressman in the group, which also included Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat George Miller and Rep. Martin Russo, an Illinois Democrat. Both Miller and Russo were also roommates of Schumer and Panetta.

The numbers cruncher made an immediate positive impression on the Israelis.

“He was very open and very interested,” recalled Jess Hordes, the former ADL (Anti Defamation League) Washington director who accompanied the group in Israel. Panetta, a devout Catholic, showed special interest in Israel’s Christian religious sites. “He was very sympathetic to Israel, its story and its people,” Hordes added. Panetta’s immediate challenge as secretary of defense involves dollars. He entered the Pentagon just as the White House announced plans to shave $400 billion off the defense budget. Panetta, who spent the better part of his career advocating budget discipline, will now be tasked with accepting the needs for spending restriction in a government branch that in recent years was seen as immune to cuts.

See original article in : Jewish Daily Forward
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com

Also see:

• Schumer Recalls Roomate Panetta

• Latest Posts:
• U.S. Department of Defense Contract Awards for Jul 15, 2011
• Army Releases June Suicide Information
• Veteran Benefits Fair   

 River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Will the U.S. Really Leave Iraq?

U.S. officials are now expressing second thoughts.

by Dr. Lawrence Davidson

“Although the Iraq invasion was launched under false pretenses, U.S. troops stationed there are “defending our country.” Defending it from who?”

Part I – Second Thoughts
The time for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is coming closer. In 2008 the United States and Iraq agreed to a Status of Forces Agreement that set a deadline of the end of 2011 for all American troops to leave the country. However, just like someone who starts to beg off a promise when the time for action approaches, U.S. officials are now expressing second thoughts.
Back on May 24^th outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he “favored extending the American presence, noting that the Iraqi military will need help with logistics, intelligence and defending its airspace and that a continued U.S. military presence will send a ‘powerful signal that we’re not leaving, that we will continue to play a part.’” We will continue to pursue “our role in the region.” Considering that we have known for some time that the Iraq war was waged for largely contrived reasons and constituted a violation of international law (the waging of illicit and unnecessary war), it is difficult to know just how Gates defines “our role.” To date in Iraq, that role has equaled the removal of one dictator (who we once supported) at the price of killing over one and a half million Iraqis (and approximately 4500 Americans), the maiming of an even greater number, the destruction of the nation’s infrastructure, and the creation of conditions for multiple civil wars. Washington has also opened the way for Iran’s influence in Iraq to eventually become predominant. In accomplishing all of this the Americans have nearly bankrupted their country. Given such achievements, one would think the reasonable thing would be to cut one’s losses and get the heck out.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates, left, greets the man designated to be his successor, Leon Panetta, during an April 28 news conference at the White House. (Jim Watson / Agence France-Presse)

But no, Gates’s attitude has carried over to that of the present Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta recently made his first journey to Iraq to “hold close door meetings with Iraqi officials…to press them for a decision on whether they will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country….” And, by the way, Washington has increased the price for continued assistance. The U.S. wants the Iraqi government to shut down those subgroups that are closest to Iran. Thus, as Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it “Iran is directly supporting extremist Shi’ite groups that are killing U.S. troops and any agreement to keep American forces there beyond the end of the year would have to address this problem.” Of course, such a demand, if actually met by the Iraqi administration, would mean the collapse of their government because those “extremist Shi’ite groups” are part of the present parliamentary coalition. It could also hasten the outbreak of civil war.
Has anyone in the U.S. government thought this through? Well, certainly not Defense Secretary Panetta. He seems to be too taken up with righteous indignation. “In June we lost a hell of a lot of Americans [in Iraq] as a result of those attacks [allegedly by ‘Shi’ite groups].” Panetta said that the anti-American Shi’ites were being supplied with ever more powerful weapons by Iran. He continued, “we cannot just simply stand back and allow this to continue to happen….because, very frankly, they [Iran and the Iraqis they support] need to know that our first responsibility is to protect those that are defending our country. And that is something we are going to do.” One hears the words and their meaning appears straightforward. Well, that is if you are the average man or women from Peoria or Spokane. But maybe someone in Washington (or even Peoria and Spokane) ought to ask what Panetta’s words seem to say in Basra or even Baghdad. Here is one interpretation:

Nouri al-Maliki

1. The United States invades Iraq, massacres its population and destroys its infrastructure, but those who insist America withdraw its troops and physically resist their presence are “extremists.”

2. The U.S. can pour billions of dollars worth of weapons into Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, putting them into the hands of select groups who will ally with Washington, but Iran, operating on a much smaller scale, cannot do this without being labeled as a supporter of terrorism and extremism.

3. Although the Iraq invasion was launched under false pretenses, U.S. troops stationed there are “defending our country.” Defending it from who? From those Shi’ite extremists? They do not threaten the USA, the USA threatens them and that is why they are being belligerent! From Iran? American troops virtually surround Iran while Washington calls for the overthrow of its government. Come now Mr. Panetta, just who is threatening who?

Part II – The Rational Thing To Do And Why

A rational analysis of the American position in Iraq would demand adherence to the Status of Forces Agreement and the withdrawal of all American troops from the country at the end of 2011. To do so would:
– Put an end to what was and is, after all, an immoral war and a disastrous occupation.
– .Prevent the U.S. from possibly being dragged into a new Iraqi civil war. Given what we have done to that country, another round of civil war is quite probable. The Sunni gunmen are still out there, they too are anti-American, and some of them are really extremist (though they are not al-Qaeda operatives and certainly have nothing to do with Iran). So, if we are “in country” when Iraq goes through the next phase of violent upheaval, American troops will be attacked by both Sunni and Shi’ite militias.
– Avoid a possible direct confrontation with Iran. Panetta threatened to “go after” those endangering American troops “unilaterally.” We have seen where the logic of such statements have taken the U.S. in the past. Will Washington end up attacking “sanctuaries,” or “supply trails,” or “training bases” in Iran? That is a formula for “mission creep.”
– Save a near bankrupt nation (the U.S.) a lot of money.

Part III – Prolonging The Disaster
From the first moment of the American invasion of Iraq, the men and women in Washington did not know what they were doing. When confronted with reality they retreated into fantasy. The result was that their perceptions of what was real in Iraq were so off the mark, so far from what was actually the case, that the subsequent occupation was a gigantic deadly mess. That was the doing of the Bush White House–A bunch of neo-con ideologues and right-wing religious zealots. You would think that the Obama White house could do better. And maybe they will. Perhaps all this talk by Panetta and Mullen is just posturing to serve as a cover for the ultimate retreat. Perhaps the Iraqis will tell us to get out and thus save us from ourselves.

However, some things have not changed from the time of the Bushites to that of the present administration. For instance,
1. The need to avoid finger pointing by the opposition party (in this case the Republicans) is a constant political requirement. Come the 2012 election, President Obama does not want the Republicans telling the American electorate that the Democrats “lost” Iraq, and all those dead soldiers died in vain.
2. The lobbies that pushed for the invasion of Iraq back in 2003 are still their behind the scenes in today’s Washington. Some of the most important ones wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein for the sake of Israel (not for the sake of the Iraqis) and an outcome that turns Iraq over to Iranian influence would be a disaster for them. Therefore, they must be pushing for a continued American presence in that country. Keeping the U.S. in and Iran out of Iraq is probably “our role” as far as those lobbies are concerned.
3. All the politicians in Congress and the White House still breathe the hallucinogenic air of American exceptionalism. In that atmosphere there can be tactical mistakes, but never strategic ones. And defeat is seen as unnatural, somehow against the will of divine providence. Viet Nam must never occur again.
The reader should note that all of these constants reference domestic politics and image. That is, perhaps, a key to the American problem. Foreign policy decisions, especially in the Middle East, most often reference domestic political forces and their desires and needs. They do not necessarily reference the reality of the foreign situation in question. It is like walking a cliff line with your thoughts a thousand miles away. So, the American desire to stay in Iraq is a function of politics configured in Washington and not Baghdad. If the Iraqis concur, the disaster will just be prolonged.
Read more by this author here.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gilad Atzmon: Israeli Contamination at the Heart of America

Friday, July 15, 2011 at 7:42AM Gilad Atzmon

 

Ynet reported this morning about the arrest of an Israeli man on suspicion of blackmailing some 100 US girls.

The Israeli man was detained on suspicion of hacking the computers of the girls and threatening to circulate their intimate photos, unless they perform indecent acts on their webcam.

Almost 100 girls aged 12 to 17 were among the victims. . The Israel man is believed to have hacked their computers, seeking embarrassing photographs and later approaching them on online social networks and threatening them.

The man allegedly told the girls that should they fail to comply with his requests, he would circulate the photos among their acquaintances and relatives, and at their schools.

The girls, who were alarmed by the threats, complied with the suspect's demands.

Sources in Israel already confirmed that the sex offender suspect is not the former Israeli president Mr. Moshe Katsav.

It is not clear yet whether the American administration may seek an extradition in order to indict to sex offender in America. However, it will be interesting to find out how the Israeli Lobby will react to such a possible request. At the end of the day, the Lobby also use vile intimidation tactics to achieve their goals.

I am left wondering whether Israel can possibly produce any good news.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian