Oct 8, 2009
ALGIERS (AFP) – The Algerian army in September destroyed 5,163 landmines laid by French troops along the country's eastern and western borders, the APS news agency said.
The weapons were part of a total of 415,829 mines destroyed by the army in a latest operation by September 30, according to APS.
The landmines date back to Algeria's war of liberation from French rule in 1954-62.
Since 1962, the army has destroyed more than eight million of the 11 million mines laid along the borders of the country.
In 2007, France gave Algeria maps of the minefields laid on what were known as the Challe and Morice Lines on the eastern and western borders between 1956 and 1959.
The mines were laid to prevent infiltration into Algeria from Morocco and Tunisia by fighters of Algeria's National Liberation Army (ALN).
October 09, 2009
Warmonger Wins Peace Prize
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
October 9, 2009
It took 25 years longer than George Orwell thought for the slogans of 1984 to become reality.
“War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” “Ignorance is Strength.”
I would add, “Lie is Truth.”
The Nobel Committee has awarded the 2009 Peace Prize to President Obama, the person who started a new war in Pakistan, upped the war in Afghanistan, and continues to threaten Iran with attack unless Iran does what the US government demands and relinquishes its rights as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.
The Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland said, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”
Obama, the committee gushed, has created “a new climate in international politics.”
Tell that to the 2 million displaced Pakistanis and the unknown numbers of dead ones that Obama has racked up in his few months in office. Tell that to the Afghans where civilian deaths continue to mount as Obama’s “war of necessity” drones on indeterminably.
No Bush policy has changed. Iraq is still occupied. The Guantanamo torture prison is still functioning. Rendition and assassinations are still occurring. Spying on Americans without warrants is still the order of the day. Civil liberties are continuing to be violated in the name of Oceania’s “war on terror.”
Apparently, the Nobel committee is suffering from the delusion that, being a minority, Obama is going to put a stop to Western hegemony over darker-skinned peoples.
The non-cynical can say that the Nobel committee is seizing on Obama’s rhetoric to lock him into the pursuit of peace instead of war. We can all hope that it works. But the more likely result is that the award has made “War is Peace” the reality.
Obama has done nothing to hold the criminal Bush regime to account, and the Obama administration has bribed and threatened the Palestinian Authority to go along with the US/Israeli plan to deep-six the UN’s Goldstone Report on Israeli war crimes committed during Israel’s inhuman military attack on the defenseless civilian population in the Gaza Ghetto.
The US Ministry of Truth is delivering the Obama administration’s propaganda that Iran only notified the IAEA of its “secret” new nuclear facility because Iran discovered that US intelligence had discovered the “secret” facility. This propaganda is designed to undercut the fact of Iran’s compliance with the Safeguards Agreement and to continue the momentum for a military attack on Iran.
The Nobel committee has placed all its hopes on a bit of skin color.
“War is Peace” is now the position of the formerly antiwar organization, Code Pink. Code Pink has decided that women’s rights are worth a war in Afghanistan.
When justifications for war become almost endless--oil, hegemony, women’s rights, democracy, revenge for 9/11, denying bases to al Qaeda and protecting against terrorists--war becomes the path to peace.
The Nobel committee has bestowed the prestige of its Peace Prize on Newspeak and Doublethink.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Source
October 9, 2009
It took 25 years longer than George Orwell thought for the slogans of 1984 to become reality.
“War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” “Ignorance is Strength.”
I would add, “Lie is Truth.”
The Nobel Committee has awarded the 2009 Peace Prize to President Obama, the person who started a new war in Pakistan, upped the war in Afghanistan, and continues to threaten Iran with attack unless Iran does what the US government demands and relinquishes its rights as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.
The Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland said, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”
Obama, the committee gushed, has created “a new climate in international politics.”
Tell that to the 2 million displaced Pakistanis and the unknown numbers of dead ones that Obama has racked up in his few months in office. Tell that to the Afghans where civilian deaths continue to mount as Obama’s “war of necessity” drones on indeterminably.
No Bush policy has changed. Iraq is still occupied. The Guantanamo torture prison is still functioning. Rendition and assassinations are still occurring. Spying on Americans without warrants is still the order of the day. Civil liberties are continuing to be violated in the name of Oceania’s “war on terror.”
Apparently, the Nobel committee is suffering from the delusion that, being a minority, Obama is going to put a stop to Western hegemony over darker-skinned peoples.
The non-cynical can say that the Nobel committee is seizing on Obama’s rhetoric to lock him into the pursuit of peace instead of war. We can all hope that it works. But the more likely result is that the award has made “War is Peace” the reality.
Obama has done nothing to hold the criminal Bush regime to account, and the Obama administration has bribed and threatened the Palestinian Authority to go along with the US/Israeli plan to deep-six the UN’s Goldstone Report on Israeli war crimes committed during Israel’s inhuman military attack on the defenseless civilian population in the Gaza Ghetto.
The US Ministry of Truth is delivering the Obama administration’s propaganda that Iran only notified the IAEA of its “secret” new nuclear facility because Iran discovered that US intelligence had discovered the “secret” facility. This propaganda is designed to undercut the fact of Iran’s compliance with the Safeguards Agreement and to continue the momentum for a military attack on Iran.
The Nobel committee has placed all its hopes on a bit of skin color.
“War is Peace” is now the position of the formerly antiwar organization, Code Pink. Code Pink has decided that women’s rights are worth a war in Afghanistan.
When justifications for war become almost endless--oil, hegemony, women’s rights, democracy, revenge for 9/11, denying bases to al Qaeda and protecting against terrorists--war becomes the path to peace.
The Nobel committee has bestowed the prestige of its Peace Prize on Newspeak and Doublethink.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Source
Iran welcomes foreign investment in energy industry
October 8, 2009 
)
Iran, holder of the world’s second- largest gas reserves, is open to foreign companies investing in its energy sector, the country’s deputy oil minister said.
“Many companies that belong to the government now will become private very soon,” Azizollah Ramezani, deputy Iranian oil minister, said on Tuesday in an interview in Buenos Aires. “I think the Iranian energy sector in very interesting for foreign companies, including American companies.”
Iran is executing a plan to sell 80 percent of its major state-owned companies to boost the economy and stock values, following a 2006 order by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. At least three- quarters of the Iranian economy is controlled by the state.
The National Iranian Gas Company is also open to potential ventures with private groups, said Ramezani, who’s also managing director of the state-owned gas producer.
“We are ready to negotiate partnerships,” he said. Iran plans to invest $50 billion during the next 10 years on liquefied natural gas projects. The country plans to export as much as 8 million tons of the fuel, known as LNG, by 2012, Ramezani said.
Iran is seeking to develop its mineral assets amid United Nations sanctions and the threat of military action over what Western nations say are its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
Global gas demand will probably rise between 2 percent and 3 percent a year for the next 20 to 25 years, with India and China the main markets for Iran’s gas exports, Ramezani said.
“All of our liquefied natural gas will be exported,” Ramezani said. “We will invest in the development of the projects and infrastructure, like plants.”
Liquefied natural gas is gas that’s cooled to a liquid to allow transport on tankers. Russia is holder of the world’s largest gas reserves.
The country also aims to increase natural gas exports by fivefold to 60 billion cubic meters a year by 2014, from 12 billion in 2009, he said.
“The world market for natural gas is not mature yet,” Ramezani said. “The demand will grow faster than for oil and for coal.”
---------$15 billion a year
Iran is investing $15 billion a year to expand its annual gas output capacity to 300 billion cubic meters in five years, from 170 billion, the deputy oil minister said.
Economic growth in Brazil, Russia, India and China, known as the BRIC nations, is prompting rising gas demand for use in power generation and industry. Demand in many so-called emerging economies is rising, while the economic crisis has curbed gas use in the U.S. and Western Europe, Repsol YPF SA Chief Executive Officer Antonio Brufau also said Wednesday.
“Brazil is too far and Russia has its own gas reserves,” Ramezani said. “China and India should be the main destinations for our natural gas exports.”
Still, the Iranian government has sought to increase ties with Latin American countries in talks with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Relations with Brazil have “no limits,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told reporters in New York Sept. 24.
-------------Brazil development
Iran can help Brazil in the development and the exploration of the South American country’s new oil reserves and in the construction of refineries, Ramezani said. “Brazil is a good potential partner,” he said.
Oil prices will probably remain at around $70 a barrel for the next year and rise “gradually” in 2011, according to Ramezani. “I believe $70 is a bottom level for oil prices,” he said.
(Source: Bloomberg)
Berlusconi now open to prosecution
Press TV - October 7, 2009
 |
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi |
Italy's Constitutional Court has stripped the country's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of his immunity against legal action.
The ruling by the court, the highest tribunal in Italy, came on Wednesday to the consternation of the premier's colossal public fan base, AFP reported.
Berlusconi has invoked his exception from the course of justice in a number of cases, which now threaten to be revived thanks to the annulment.
The premier could face charges of corruption, tax fraud, false accounting and illegal financing of political parties. There have also been some rumors regarding a possible connection with the Italian Mafia.
The 73-year-old slammed the adjudicators as "11 left-wing judges."
"We must govern for five years with or without the law," Berlusconi said following his earlier suggestions that legal complications should not get into the way of governance.
October 08, 2009
Israel Plans 'Environmental' Crusade
'Israel not after real peace with Palestine'
Press TV - October 8, 2009 06:11:46 GMT
Lieberman has been urged to employ a zero tolerance policy for instances of anti-Semitism. |
The Israeli Foreign Ministry's documents suggest Tel Aviv is not after a real peace deal but rather a shelter from international frustration and Palestinian armed response.
An unapproved document outlining Israel's future foreign policy states that the government should not attempt to reach a permanent settlement with the Palestinians but should focus instead on a temporary accord to prevent US and European frustration.
The draft, handed to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday, was composed by Naor Gilon, Lieberman's former counselor for political affairs, and is scheduled to be presented before the ministry's directorate within the coming days in order to be approved as Israel's official foreign policy.
Gilon argues that 'the attempt at imposing a settlement with the Palestinians has failed in the past', warning that future attempts would lead to more disappointment on the part of Israel's Western allies and a harsh Palestinian response.
"We need a realistic attitude - the arrival at a temporary accord without dealing with the core issues. This is the maximum that can be achieved, if we want to be realistic," Ynet news website quoted the document as saying.
It also advises Lieberman to reestablish ties with African, Latin American, Balkan, Asian, and moderate Arab nations, countries which Israel has abandoned for many years.
Gilon has also urged Lieberman to employ a zero tolerance policy for instances of anti-Semitism and international isolation, suggesting that Israel should focus on environmental and economic issues in order to improve its global image.
Israel turns to face-saving measures amid mounting challenges it faces from the international community over war crimes committed during Tel Aviv's 23-day military onslaught against the Gaza Strip, which left more than 1,400 people — mostly civilians — killed.
Tel Aviv's Western allies are also pushing for a freeze on its illegal settlement construction activity in the occupied West Bank to pave the way for resuming long-stalled peace talks with Palestinians.
An unapproved document outlining Israel's future foreign policy states that the government should not attempt to reach a permanent settlement with the Palestinians but should focus instead on a temporary accord to prevent US and European frustration.
The draft, handed to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday, was composed by Naor Gilon, Lieberman's former counselor for political affairs, and is scheduled to be presented before the ministry's directorate within the coming days in order to be approved as Israel's official foreign policy.
Gilon argues that 'the attempt at imposing a settlement with the Palestinians has failed in the past', warning that future attempts would lead to more disappointment on the part of Israel's Western allies and a harsh Palestinian response.
"We need a realistic attitude - the arrival at a temporary accord without dealing with the core issues. This is the maximum that can be achieved, if we want to be realistic," Ynet news website quoted the document as saying.
It also advises Lieberman to reestablish ties with African, Latin American, Balkan, Asian, and moderate Arab nations, countries which Israel has abandoned for many years.
Gilon has also urged Lieberman to employ a zero tolerance policy for instances of anti-Semitism and international isolation, suggesting that Israel should focus on environmental and economic issues in order to improve its global image.
Israel turns to face-saving measures amid mounting challenges it faces from the international community over war crimes committed during Tel Aviv's 23-day military onslaught against the Gaza Strip, which left more than 1,400 people — mostly civilians — killed.
Tel Aviv's Western allies are also pushing for a freeze on its illegal settlement construction activity in the occupied West Bank to pave the way for resuming long-stalled peace talks with Palestinians.
‘The Times’ lets everyone off the hook on Goldstone
The New York Times is covering the Goldstone Report. Where is it covering it? Well: the furor over the report among Palestinians. We’re pretty sure this is a good story. Neil MacFarquhar is on it. But it’s really not The Story, it’s just an angle of a hugely-important international story, and the only angle the Times is covering.
Here’s what the Times refuses to cover:
–the furor over the Goldstone report on the part of the Israel lobby in the U.S., and the pressure it’s put on the Obama administration, number one. Even J Street has been quiet about the Goldstone report, while it puts out a statement applauding an Israeli Nobelist.
–and what about the political jockeying over the report, the decision by the Obama administration to bury it and make the Palestinian Authority do the dirty work? Important story. Nothing. Mike Hanna of the Century Foundation said two weeks ago that the report’s troubling findings were going to be very "tricky" diplomatically for the Obama administration. He was right. He knows what’s gone down. Why isn’t the Times calling him for comment?
–the incredible discomfort that Goldstone, a Jewish judge who denounced apartheid, has created among liberal American Jews who know that Gaza was a horror but are afraid to face these facts. Nine dead Israelis, 1400 dead Palestinians: of whom the majority were civiilans. The Israelis destroyed the only remaining flour mill, destroyed chicken farms with bulldozers, and dropped white phosphorus on children. American Jews were never silent about napalm in Vietnam. Here they are tonguetied and helpless, and the Times is helping them to avoid this important question by suppressing the news.
–Nothing in the Times about the many Jews here who have supported Goldstone, including Jews Say No!
–No editorial yet in the Times.
This is about discourse suppression. It is related to the fact that the New Yorker, the leading cranial IV for the Establishment, has said nothing at all about Gaza in 10 months. No: Gaza and the persecution of the Palestinians there is an untidy embarrassment to the liberal Establishment.
The New Republic has actually been more responsible than the Times and the New Yorker here. By publishing raving maniacs like Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi, it has at least informed its readers where it hurts, that this is ideologically disputed territory. The Times has told its readers, Only Palestinians care about this. More mush from the wimp.
One other point. Mainstream liberals are quick to call for people to speak out on Third World countries and once upon a time in Eastern Europe when human rights are suppressed. It’s easy to condemn the Soviet Writers Union or ministries in Africa for not speaking out against genocide. What’s hard is to report and speak out on issues that cause your own readers to squirm. The true measure of intellectual courage is, you go ahead and do it anyway. The Washington Post, the Times, the New Yorker and others have failed this test.
Following al-Aqsa clashes, Israel mulls banning Islamic movement
Sheikh Raed Salah has been banned from Jerusalem for 30 daysBy Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, 8 October 2009
The Israeli government announced yesterday it would consider banning Israel's Islamic Movement at the next cabinet meeting, in a significant escalation of tensions that have fueled a fortnight of bloody clashes in Jerusalem over access to the Haram al-Sharif compound of mosques.
The move followed the arrest of the movement's leader, Sheikh Raed Salah, on Tuesday on suspicion of incitement and sedition. Police accused Sheikh Salah of calling for a "religious war" in recent statements in which he warned that Israel was seeking a takeover of the Haram, which includes the al-Aqsa mosque.
Sheikh Salah was released a few hours later on condition that he stay away from Jerusalem for 30 days. The decision was widely interpreted as a move to damp down a possible backlash from Israel's 1.3 million Palestinian citizens, many of whom regard the sheikh as a spiritual leader. Police were deployed in large numbers throughout Jerusalem yesterday.
An Islamic Movement spokesman, Zadi Nujeidat, told the Haaretz newspaper: "We will continue our activities and call for a continued presence in and around the mosque. We are used to arrests."
The move against the Islamic Movement follows a series of pronouncements from Sheikh Salah, echoing statements from Palestinian officials in the occupied territories, that have infuriated the Israeli government.
This week he called on Muslims who could reach the compound -- access to which has been heavily restricted by the Israeli police -- to "shield the [al Aqsa] mosque with their bodies." Sheikh Salah himself has been barred by the courts from entering the Haram compound for several months.
At his annual "Al-Aqsa is in danger" rally in his hometown of Umm al-Fahm in northern Israel last week, he warned tens of thousands of supporters that Israel was trying to prize away control of the compound from the Islamic religious authorities. He added that, should Israel force a choice between martyrdom and renouncing al-Aqsa, "we will clearly choose to be martyrs."
Like many other Palestinian leaders, Sheikh Salah fears that, as well as "Judaizing" East Jerusalem, Israel is engineering a takeover of the Haram -- known to Jews as the Temple Mount because the remains of the destroyed first and second Jewish temples are believed to lie under the mosques.
He has raised repeated concerns that Israel is secretly digging under the mosques, as it did before opening the Western Wall tunnels in 1996. Then, clashes led to the deaths of 75 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers.
A delegation of Palestinian leaders from inside Israel who visited the compound yesterday warned that there was strong evidence of such excavations.
In an interview with Haaretz on Monday, Sheikh Salah also warned against "infiltration of extremist Jewish elements" into the compound -- a reference to Messianic cults that want the mosques destroyed so a third temple can be built.
Muslim leaders throughout the region have expressed growing concern that the Israeli police are secretly escorting such groups into the compound following a decision by Israel in 2003 to allow non-Muslims to visit the Haram without oversight from the Islamic authorities.
Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, meanwhile, are unable to reach Jerusalem, and Israel has increasingly limited access to the mosques for Palestinians with Israeli IDs.
During clashes at the compound on Sunday, the Islamic Movement's deputy, Kamal Khatib, and the Palestinian Authority's minister in charge of Jerusalem, Hatem Abdel Khader, were arrested. Both were released on bail and banned from Jerusalem for 15 days.
Calls from Israeli officials for Sheikh Salah's arrest and restrictions on the Islamic Movement have been growing all week.
The deputy prime minister, Silvan Shalom, of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, told Israel Radio on Tuesday: "Sheikh Raed Salah should be behind bars."
The cabinet meeting on Sunday will discuss a law to ban the Islamic Movement being drafted by the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party of Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister. The bill is expected to be presented to ministers a week later.
The interior minister, Eli Yishai, of the Shas party, announced on Tuesday he would withdraw funding for imams who "incited" against Israel and was investigating whether he could fire them.
The Islamic Movement has rapidly grown in popularity by focusing on charitable and welfare work and has won control of several councils since the 1980s.
Despite eschewing terrorism, the movement is regarded with great suspicion by Israeli officials, who have shut down its charities and newspaper on several occasions. Sheikh Salah and four other leaders of the Islamic Movement were arrested in 2003 accused of supporting terrorism but released two years later in a plea bargain that significantly reduced the charges.
It is unclear how Israel would ban the Islamic Movement.
Analysts say the government could use the 1945 emergency regulations from British rule but the move would be unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. Traditionally, the security establishment has argued that it is better not to push the Islamic Movement underground.
The US state department was reported this week to have expressed concern to Israel that it and the Palestinian Authority not "inflame tensions" over the Haram al-Sharif.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
Richard Falk on Palestine and the Goldstone report
October 7, 2009
The Palestinian leadership has backed a move to defer a UN vote on the Goldstone report that accuses Israel of committing war crimes during its offensive in Gaza.
Richard Falk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a special UN rapporteur on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, talks to Al Jazeera about the possible motivation behind the decision.
The Palestinian leadership has backed a move to defer a UN vote on the Goldstone report that accuses Israel of committing war crimes during its offensive in Gaza.
Richard Falk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a special UN rapporteur on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, talks to Al Jazeera about the possible motivation behind the decision.
After Goldstone, Hamas faces fateful choice
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 8 October 2009
The uproar over the Palestinian Authority's (PA) collaboration with Israel to bury the Goldstone report, calling for trials of Israeli leaders for war crimes in Gaza, is a political earthquake. The whole political order in place since the 1993 Oslo accords were signed is crumbling. As the initial tremors begin to fade, the same old political structures may appear still to be in place, but they are hollowed out. This unprecedented crisis threatens to topple the US-backed PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, but it also leaves Hamas, the main Palestinian resistance faction, struggling with fateful choices.
Abbas, accustomed to being surrounded by corrupt cronies, sycophants and yes-men, badly misjudged the impact of his decision -- under Israeli and American instructions -- to withdraw PA support for the resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, forwarding the Goldstone report for further action. After all, the PA had actively sabotaged measures supporting Palestinian rights at the UN on at least two occasions in recent years without much reaction.
This time, torrents of protest and outrage flowed from almost every direction. It was as if all the suppressed anger and grief about PA collaboration with Israel during the massacres in Gaza last winter suddenly burst through a dam. "The crime at Geneva cannot pass without all those responsible being held accountable," the widely-read London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi stated in its lead editorial on 8 October. The newspaper called for the removal of Abbas and his associates who betrayed the victims of Israel's massacres and "saved Israel from the most serious moral, political and legal crisis it has faced since its establishment."
Naming collaboration -- even treason -- for what it is has always been a painful taboo among Palestinians, as for all occupied peoples. It took the French decades after World War II to begin to speak openly about the extent of collaboration that took place with the Nazi-backed Vichy government. Abbas and his militias -- who for a long time have been armed and trained by Israel, the United States and so-called "moderate" Arab states to wage war against the Palestinian resistance -- have relied on this taboo to carry out their activities with increasing brazenness and brutality. But the taboo no longer affords protection, as calls for Abbas' removal and even trial issued from Palestinian organizations all over the world.
Hamas too seems to have been taken by surprise at the strength of reaction. Hamas leaders were critical of Abbas' withdrawal of the Goldstone resolution, but initially this was notably muted. Early on, Khaled Meshal, the movement's overall leader, insisted that despite the Goldstone fiasco, Hamas would proceed with Egyptian-mediated reconciliation talks with Fatah and smaller factions scheduled for later in the month, stating that reaching a power-sharing deal remained a "national interest."
As the tremors continued, however, Hamas leaders escalated their rhetoric -- seemingly following, not leading, public opinion. Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, labeled Abbas a "traitor" and urged that he be stripped of his Palestinian nationality. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, speaking before a hastily convened session of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said Abbas was personally responsible for the "crime" committed in Geneva, and a senior officer from the Hamas-controlled Gaza police force held a press conference to announce that Abbas and his associates would be subject to arrest if they set foot in Gaza.
All of this puts Hamas in a bind. Before the Goldstone report crisis, Hamas had signaled that it accepted the most recent Egyptian proposals for reconciliation. The Egyptian position paper can be described as technocratic -- it deals with mechanisms for elections, release of prisoners, the formation of committees and other matters. It does not resolve core political and philosophical differences over the role of resistance and armed struggle, which Abbas rejects and Hamas defends. Nor does it deal with the problem of PA "security coordination" with Israel which has resulted in the killing and arrest by the PA of numerous Palestinian resistance fighters and the closure of hundreds of Palestinian organizations and charities.
Despite the remaining gulf, Hamas wanted to sign a unity deal. Being part of a Western-recognized PA would be Hamas' ticket to the "peace process" -- something Meshal has made no secret that Hamas seeks, although on its own terms. Abbas was less keen on a unity deal, as he and his cronies still resist dealing with Hamas as a political force that has popular legitimacy. But after Goldstone, Abbas needs Hamas.
Hamas now cannot have it both ways: it cannot talk about "unity" and "reconciliation" with people that it -- and many Palestinians -- view as "traitors." To seek unity with such people is in effect to say that Hamas wishes to join a government of traitors. For the moment, Hamas is buying time and has asked Egypt to postpone the scheduled Cairo meeting later this month.
Hamas' long-term strategy of trying to join the slowly crumbling edifice of the Palestinian Authority now makes no sense. It now seems more likely that the deal will not go ahead, although Hamas is maneuvering to avoid blame, and to maintain its lifeline to Egypt, which backs Fatah. Perhaps the more likely outcome, at least in the short term, is a continued stalemate, where Abbas, now entirely dependent on Israeli and American forces to remain in power, limps on even though he has no legitimacy or credibility, and is widely despised.
The more difficult question for Hamas will be, what comes next? Will it try to muddle through as it has, or will it rally the Palestinian public to oppose and resist Abbas until the collaborationist PA is dissolved? This would be an enormous strategic shift -- Hamas would likely have to drop the trappings of "government" it has taken up since it won the 2006 legislative elections and return to its roots as a social movement and a clandestine organization.
It will not have much time to decide where it is going. The hopes raised by the Obama Administration's initial foray into peacemaking have been dashed in the wake of Obama's surrender to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over settlements, even though US Middle East envoy George Mitchell continues with utterly sterile "diplomacy" aimed at bringing the rejectionist Israeli government face to face in "negotiations" with the political corpse of Abbas. As Israel accelerates its colonization of the West Bank and its ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, there is increasing talk of a new intifada.
The political collapse underway offers all Palestinians -- including Hamas -- a new opportunity: to build a broad-based, internationally legitimate popular resistance movement that mobilizes all of Palestinian society as the first intifada did, and to reconnect with Palestinians inside Israel who face an existential threat from escalating Israeli racism. This movement must work with and enhance the global solidarity campaign to put maximum pressure on Israel -- and its collaborators -- to end their repression, racism and violence, and hasten the emancipation of all the people of Palestine.
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.
 |
| The political collapse underway has put Hamas, including Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, in a bind. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages) |
The uproar over the Palestinian Authority's (PA) collaboration with Israel to bury the Goldstone report, calling for trials of Israeli leaders for war crimes in Gaza, is a political earthquake. The whole political order in place since the 1993 Oslo accords were signed is crumbling. As the initial tremors begin to fade, the same old political structures may appear still to be in place, but they are hollowed out. This unprecedented crisis threatens to topple the US-backed PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, but it also leaves Hamas, the main Palestinian resistance faction, struggling with fateful choices.
Abbas, accustomed to being surrounded by corrupt cronies, sycophants and yes-men, badly misjudged the impact of his decision -- under Israeli and American instructions -- to withdraw PA support for the resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, forwarding the Goldstone report for further action. After all, the PA had actively sabotaged measures supporting Palestinian rights at the UN on at least two occasions in recent years without much reaction.
This time, torrents of protest and outrage flowed from almost every direction. It was as if all the suppressed anger and grief about PA collaboration with Israel during the massacres in Gaza last winter suddenly burst through a dam. "The crime at Geneva cannot pass without all those responsible being held accountable," the widely-read London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi stated in its lead editorial on 8 October. The newspaper called for the removal of Abbas and his associates who betrayed the victims of Israel's massacres and "saved Israel from the most serious moral, political and legal crisis it has faced since its establishment."
Naming collaboration -- even treason -- for what it is has always been a painful taboo among Palestinians, as for all occupied peoples. It took the French decades after World War II to begin to speak openly about the extent of collaboration that took place with the Nazi-backed Vichy government. Abbas and his militias -- who for a long time have been armed and trained by Israel, the United States and so-called "moderate" Arab states to wage war against the Palestinian resistance -- have relied on this taboo to carry out their activities with increasing brazenness and brutality. But the taboo no longer affords protection, as calls for Abbas' removal and even trial issued from Palestinian organizations all over the world.
Hamas too seems to have been taken by surprise at the strength of reaction. Hamas leaders were critical of Abbas' withdrawal of the Goldstone resolution, but initially this was notably muted. Early on, Khaled Meshal, the movement's overall leader, insisted that despite the Goldstone fiasco, Hamas would proceed with Egyptian-mediated reconciliation talks with Fatah and smaller factions scheduled for later in the month, stating that reaching a power-sharing deal remained a "national interest."
As the tremors continued, however, Hamas leaders escalated their rhetoric -- seemingly following, not leading, public opinion. Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, labeled Abbas a "traitor" and urged that he be stripped of his Palestinian nationality. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, speaking before a hastily convened session of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said Abbas was personally responsible for the "crime" committed in Geneva, and a senior officer from the Hamas-controlled Gaza police force held a press conference to announce that Abbas and his associates would be subject to arrest if they set foot in Gaza.
All of this puts Hamas in a bind. Before the Goldstone report crisis, Hamas had signaled that it accepted the most recent Egyptian proposals for reconciliation. The Egyptian position paper can be described as technocratic -- it deals with mechanisms for elections, release of prisoners, the formation of committees and other matters. It does not resolve core political and philosophical differences over the role of resistance and armed struggle, which Abbas rejects and Hamas defends. Nor does it deal with the problem of PA "security coordination" with Israel which has resulted in the killing and arrest by the PA of numerous Palestinian resistance fighters and the closure of hundreds of Palestinian organizations and charities.
Despite the remaining gulf, Hamas wanted to sign a unity deal. Being part of a Western-recognized PA would be Hamas' ticket to the "peace process" -- something Meshal has made no secret that Hamas seeks, although on its own terms. Abbas was less keen on a unity deal, as he and his cronies still resist dealing with Hamas as a political force that has popular legitimacy. But after Goldstone, Abbas needs Hamas.
Hamas now cannot have it both ways: it cannot talk about "unity" and "reconciliation" with people that it -- and many Palestinians -- view as "traitors." To seek unity with such people is in effect to say that Hamas wishes to join a government of traitors. For the moment, Hamas is buying time and has asked Egypt to postpone the scheduled Cairo meeting later this month.
Hamas' long-term strategy of trying to join the slowly crumbling edifice of the Palestinian Authority now makes no sense. It now seems more likely that the deal will not go ahead, although Hamas is maneuvering to avoid blame, and to maintain its lifeline to Egypt, which backs Fatah. Perhaps the more likely outcome, at least in the short term, is a continued stalemate, where Abbas, now entirely dependent on Israeli and American forces to remain in power, limps on even though he has no legitimacy or credibility, and is widely despised.
The more difficult question for Hamas will be, what comes next? Will it try to muddle through as it has, or will it rally the Palestinian public to oppose and resist Abbas until the collaborationist PA is dissolved? This would be an enormous strategic shift -- Hamas would likely have to drop the trappings of "government" it has taken up since it won the 2006 legislative elections and return to its roots as a social movement and a clandestine organization.
It will not have much time to decide where it is going. The hopes raised by the Obama Administration's initial foray into peacemaking have been dashed in the wake of Obama's surrender to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over settlements, even though US Middle East envoy George Mitchell continues with utterly sterile "diplomacy" aimed at bringing the rejectionist Israeli government face to face in "negotiations" with the political corpse of Abbas. As Israel accelerates its colonization of the West Bank and its ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, there is increasing talk of a new intifada.
The political collapse underway offers all Palestinians -- including Hamas -- a new opportunity: to build a broad-based, internationally legitimate popular resistance movement that mobilizes all of Palestinian society as the first intifada did, and to reconnect with Palestinians inside Israel who face an existential threat from escalating Israeli racism. This movement must work with and enhance the global solidarity campaign to put maximum pressure on Israel -- and its collaborators -- to end their repression, racism and violence, and hasten the emancipation of all the people of Palestine.
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.
Japan Threatening to Oust US Troops From Okinawa
New Japanese Govt Seeks to Force Negotiations
by Jason Ditz, October 07, 2009
Faced with their first major change in governance since World War 2, Japan’s new Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ruled government is seeking to relieve long-standing grievances regarding the massive US military presence.
US bases (red) cover much of Okinawa
But the US ruled out holding any negotiations with the new government regarding its 60+ year long military presence, insisting they made all the agreements they need with the outgoing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
The DPJ is reportedly playing hardball now, however, threatening to kick the US military off the island of Okinawa, which is where the bulk of their presence is situated. The islanders have long complained about the major burden of tens of thousands of US soldiers occupying a large chunk of their island.
The LDP’s solution was to pay the US billions of dollars to relocate one of their bases. The DPJ however insists that if the US wants a sustainable alliance with Japan it will return to the bargaining table, and soon.
Related Stories
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
