Road To Guantanamo

Posted on September 28, 2006 by kf1

Road To Guantanamo

Road To Guantanamo

Copyright © 2006 Samuel Goldwyn Films

The terrifying first-hand account of three British citizens who were held for two years without charges in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Known as the “Tipton Three,” in reference to their home town in Britain, the three were eventually returned to Britain and released, still having had no formal charges ever made against them at any time during their ordeal. The terrifying first-hand account of three British citizens who were held for two years without charges in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Known as the “Tipton Three,” in reference to their home town in Britain, the three were eventually returned to Britain and released, still having had no formal charges ever made against them at any time during their ordeal.Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross (dir.)
Riz Ahmed
Farhad Harun
Waqar Siddiqui
Arfan UsmanThe terrifying first-hand account of three British citizens who were held for two years without charges in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Known as the “Tipton Three,” in reference to their home town in Britain, the three were eventually returned to Britain and released, still having had no formal charges ever made against them at any time during their ordeal.The terrifying first-hand account of three British citizens who were held for two years without charges in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Known as the “Tipton Three,” in reference to their home town in Britain, the three were eventually returned to Britain and released, still having had no formal charges ever made against them at any time during their ordeal.Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross (dir.)

Riz Ahmed

Farhad Harun

Waqar Siddiqui

Arfan Usman

Trailer

Posted in Disclosure, Trailers | Leave a comment

Why Bush Will Nuke Iran – Paul Craig Roberts

Posted on September 27, 2006 by kf1

The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.

The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no troops to send.

Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.

The “coalition of the willing” has evaporated. Indeed, it never existed. Bush’s “coalition” was assembled with bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS’ 60 Minutes on Sept. 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the “coalition.” Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that “you are with us” or “be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.” Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, stated: “‘Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age’ is roughly how U.S. officials are putting their case.”

That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush’s attempt to exercise U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of Pakistan: “One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that’s what I did.” Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush’s “ludicrous” demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the U.S.: “If somebody’s expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views.”

Bush’s defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s defeat by Hezbollah in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as unrest over the American/Israeli violence against Muslims builds to dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian into Jordan.

Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.

Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.

Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America’s will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate.

Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons cause relatively little “collateral damage” or civilian deaths, while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The “fear factor” disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.

University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances, such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of Japan’s sycophantic relationship to the U.S.

There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction.

Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone.

Hirsch believes that the U.S. military’s opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.

It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

Source

Related

Is the Bush Administration Itching to Nuke Iran? –  A Crisis Upon Us By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Posted in Conspiracy, Disclosure, Iran | Leave a comment

Israeli Police in action..

Posted on September 27, 2006 by kf1

Posted in Disclosure | Leave a comment

The Pope’s Evil Legend – Mohammed’s Sword by Uri Avnery

Posted on September 27, 2006 by kf1

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306–exactly 1700 years ago–encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, “walked to Canossa”, standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope’s castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week’s speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush’s crusade against “Islamofascism”, in the context of the “Clash of Civilizations”.

 

* * *

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God’s actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this “war of civilizations”.

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted–of all people–a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had–or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt)–with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.

These words give rise to three questions:

(a) Why did the Emperor say them?

(b) Are they true?

(c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

 

* * *

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. In 1453, only a few years after Manuel’s death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim “Axis of Evil”. Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

 

* * *

IS THERE any truth in Manuel’s argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur’an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: “There must be no coercion in matters of faith”.

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur’an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes–Christian, Jewish and others–in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to “spread the faith by the sword”?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith–and they were the forefathers of most of today’s Palestinians.

 

* * *

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (“Spanish”) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the “peoples of the book”. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service–a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion–because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith.

 

* * *

THE STORY about “spreading the faith by the sword” is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims–the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of “Islamofascism” and the “Global War on Terrorism”–when “terrorism” has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush’s handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world’s oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers’ expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

Source

Posted in Disclosure, History, Religion of Abraham | 1 Comment

Address to the United Nations – Evo Morales – 22 Sep.06

Posted on September 22, 2006 by kf1

It is an enormous satisfaction to be here present, representing my people, from my homeland, Bolivia and especially the indigenous movement.I want to tell you, that after 500 years of be looked down upon, at times considered to be savages, animals, in some regions condemned to extermination, thanks to this consciousness and this uprising and to the struggle for the rights of the peoples, we got here to repair the historic damage, to repair 500 years of damage.

During the republic, we were equally discriminated against, marginalised, they never took into account this struggle of the peoples for life, for humanity during the last 20 years, with their application of an economic model–neoliberalism–that continued the looting of our natural resources, the privatisation of our basic services.

Convinced, and we are convinced, that the way of privatisation of basic services is the best way of violating human rights.

And these small considerations oblige me to say the truth here about the livelihoods of these families, I come to express this sentiment for the humanity of the peoples, from my people. I come here to express the suffering, the product of marginalisation, of exclusion, I come to express above all else, this anti-colonial sentiment of the peoples that struggle for equality and justice.

I want to say to all of the delegates that in my country we have begun to search for deep democratic and peaceful transformations, we are thinking of how to refound Bolivia, refound Bolivia to unite Bolivians, refound Bolivia–not to take revenge against anyone, despite the fact that we have been kept down through discrimination–refound Bolivia, above all, to finish with the disdain, hatred, against the Indian peoples.

I say this because my mother was commenting to me, saying, that when she went to the city, she did not have to the right to walk in the principal plazas of the cities of my country. Indian people didn’t have the right to walk on the sidewalks.

But happily we have decided to pass over from the social, union, communal struggle to an electoral struggle so that we ourselves can be the actors to resolve social problems, economic problems, structural problems, and we are waging for this Constituent Assembly of refoundation, and I would like the United Nations to participate in this process of peaceful and democratic change, which is the best we can do for these abandoned, marginalised families.

Certainly, many countries have the same problems as my country, a country, a nation with so much wealth but also with so much poverty, where the natural resources have historically been stolen, looted, auctioned off by the neoliberal government, handed over to the transnationals.

The time has come, now at the head of this struggle of the peoples for power and land, to recuperate, recuperate those natural resources for the Bolivian state under the control of the peoples.

And when we speak of recuperating our natural resources, via the dirty campaign of accusations, they say that the government of Evo Morales will not respect private property, I want to say to you, in my government private property will be respected.

It is true that we need investment, we need partners, not bosses, not owners of our natural resources, we understand perfectly that an underdeveloped country needs investment, and I want to say, to clarify in front of all of you some worries, some false accusations; if the state exercises the property rights of a natural resource such as natural gas, hydrocarbons, oil, then we don’t expel anyone, we don’t confiscate off anyone.

It will be respected, but we guarantee that they recover their investments and have make an earning, but they will not earn like before, from the (fat) so we are left not being able to resolve the social problems in my country later.

I want to say to you within this framework, I don’t come here to tell you how to govern or to threaten a country, or to begin to put conditions on a country, I only want you as international organisations, as a state with solidarity, as nations with principals of reciprocity, of brotherhood, to participate in this process of democratic change.

We have a great desire, a great interest in their being a conscious of this class in international forums, international reunions such as the United Nations to support, to wager on peaceful changes.

All of you know, especially here in North America as well as in Europe, that there are many Bolivians who go in search of work, before it use to be the Europeans that invaded Latin American, especially Bolivia, now it seems that the situation has changed, it is the Latin American, or the Bolivians, that are invading Europe like they did to the US before. Why? Because in this conjuncture, at this moment there is no job creation.

I want to say to all of you that we want to wager for a just trade, a peoples trade for the people, a trade which resolves the problem of jobs, that trade for companies is important is clear, but trade for micro and small producers, for cooperatives, for associations, collective companies, is more important.

I would like, and this is the one wish I have, that instead of my sisters and brothers going to Europe, how much better would it be that products go there and not human beings, and I believe that this has to do with consciousness in the international community, if we want to resolve the issue of immigration.

I have information that our sisters and brothers are not going there to monopolise thousands of hectares as those that came to Latin America did when they monopolise thousands of hectares, they came to take over ownership of our wealth, of our resources.

I believe that it is important that within this framework of trade, trade that is referred to as free trade, even in my country, affected and eliminated the large producers, the agro-industrialists, imagine the agreement signed by Colombia with the United States over the Free Trade Agreement, is already taking away markets from the soya farmers in Bolivia, from the agro-industrialists in Colombia.

I am convinced that it is important to import what we do not produce and export what we produce and that this would be a solution to the economic problem, the problem of employment.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity, Ms president, to say that there are also other historical injustices, such as the criminalisation of the coca leaf. I want to say, this is a green coca leaf, it is not the white of cocaine, this coca leaf represents Andean culture, it is a coca leaf that represents the environment and the hope of our peoples.

It is not possible that the coca leaf is legal for Coca Cola and that the coca leaf is illegal for other medicinal purposes in our country, and in the whole world.

We want to say, that it is important that the United Nations recognise that with the help of North American universities, with European universities, we have scientifically demonstrated that the coca leaf does not damage human health.

It is very lamentable that due to customs, to bad customs, that the coca leaf is derailed into an illegal problem, we are conscious of that, that is why we say as producers of the coca leaf that there will not be free coca cultivation, but nor will there be zero coca.

The previously implemented policies, that had conditions imposed, talked of zero coca, zero coca is like talking of zero Quechuas, Aymaras, Mojenos, Chiquitanos in my country, this finished with our government, no matter how underdeveloped our country is, a country with economic problems which are a product of the looting of our natural resource wealth.

And we are now here to dignify ourselves, and we have begun to dignify our country, and within this process of dignifying I want to say, that the best proposal for the struggle against narco-trafficking has been voluntary reduction, agreed upon without deaths or injuries.

Happily I have heard the report from the United Nation, which recognises that this honest, responsible effort, in the struggle against narco-trafficking, has increased efficiency by 300% as opposed to confiscations which seize drugs,.

Nevertheless, yesterday I heard a report from the government of the United States, it says, that they do not accept the cultivation of coca, and that they are putting conditions on it that modify our norms.

I want to say with great respect to the government of the United States , we are not going to change anything, we don’t need blackmail and threats, the so-called certification or decertification in the fight against narco-trafficking is simply an instrument of recolonialisation or colonialisation of the Andean countries, that is unacceptable, that can not be permitted.

I want to say to you that we have, and we need, an alliance to fight against narco-trafficking, but one that is real and effective, so that the war on drugs can not be used as an instrument, a pretext, for them to subjugate the countries of the Andean region, just like they invented preventative wars to intervene into some countries of the Middle East.

We need a real fight against narco-trafficking, and I call on the United Nations, I invite the government of the United States to make an agreement, an effective alliance to fight against narco-trafficking, so that the war on drugs is not used as a pretext to dominate us, or to humiliate us, or to try to establish military bases. In our country they use the pretext of the fight against narco-trafficking.

I take use of this opportunity to say that, within this process of change, we want justice, that justice be carried out is important for our peoples, but I feel that via the Constituent Assembly we are going to decolonise the law in order to nationalise justice, real justice.

That the people implicated in the violations of human rights, peoples threaten with military interventions, there will never be justice there, we are obliged as presidents, as head of states to dignify humanity by ending impunity.

In the previous governments in my country, they massacred people that struggle for their economic demands, for their natural resources, and it is not possible that perpetuators of genocide, corrupt criminals, escape in order to live in the United States, in a developed country such as United States .

I ask with a great deal of respect, expel these perpetuators of genocide, criminals, corrupt ones that come to live here, if they have nothing to do with it, why don’t they defend themselves in the Bolivian justice system.

I am obliged, as president, to demand that these authorities be tried in the Bolivian justice system, and I believe that no country, no head of state can protect, hid, delinquents, the perpetuators of genocide.

Hopefully with the help of the North American people, hopefully via international organisations, the people that have done so much economic damage, damage to human rights, will be tried, given that they have never respected human rights.

I have a recommendation for the permanent forum of the indigenous peoples, in front of the debates about the rights of indigenous peoples, in front of the debates about the rights of indigenous peoples that are in the subcommission of the rights of indigenous peoples in the United Nations in Geneva, in the Organisation of American States, I have information that this debate has reached this maximum instance of the United Nations.

I want to ask you in the name of the indigenous peoples of the world, especially of Abyalala, now called America, to urgently approve this declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples of the world, the right to self-determination, the right to live in community, collectively, the right to live in solidarity, in reciprocity, and fundamentally the right to live in brotherhood.

There are regions were communities live without private property, there is collective property, the indigenous peoples only want to live well, not better, to live better is to exploit, is to loot, to rob, but to live well is to live in brotherhood and that is why it is very important, president, that the United Nations urgently after the decade of the indigenous peoples, that this declaration of the rights of the indigenous peoples, the right to natural resources, the right to look after the environment, be approved.

Finally president, the indigenous peoples, the poor come especially from a culture of life and not a culture of war, and this millennium will really have to be to defend live, to save humanity and if we want to save humanity we have the obligation to save the planet. The indigenous peoples live in harmony with mother earth, and not only in reciprocity, in solidarity, with human beings.

We feel greatly that the politics of hegemonist competitions are destroying the planet. I feel that all countries, social forces, international organisms are important, let us begin to debate truthfully, in order to save the planet, to save humanity.

This new millennium, the millennium that we find ourselves in needs to be a millennium of life, not of war, a millennium of people and not of empire, a millennium of justice and equality and that any economic policy needs to be orientated towards ending, of at least lessening these so-called asymmetric differences between one country and another country, those social inequalities.

We are not trying to implement policies that allow the economic humiliation or economic looting; when they cannot loot according to the norms, they use troops.

I want to ask with great respect, that it is important to withdraw troops from Iraq if we want to respect human rights, it is important to withdraw economic policies that allow the concentration of capital in only a few hands.

And for this, I feel president, that these events should be historical in order to change the world and to change economic models, interventionalist policies. Above all else we want them to be times that allow us to defend and save humanity. Source

Posted in Disclosure, Speeches | Leave a comment

US threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11, Musharaf says

Posted on September 22, 2006 by kf1

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan says that after the September 11 attacks, the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with the US campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Mr Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show 60 Minutes that will air in the US on Sunday, said the threat came from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Mr Musharraf’s intelligence director.

“The intelligence director told me that (Mr Armitage) said, ‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'” Mr Musharraf said.

“I think it was a very rude remark.”

Mr Armitage was not immediately available to comment and a Bush administration official said there would be no comment on a “reported conversation between Mr Armitage and a Pakistani official”.

“After 9/11, Pakistan made a strategic decision to join the war on terror and has since been a steadfast partner in that effort,” the Bush administration official said.

“Pakistan’s commitment to this important endeavour has not wavered and our partnership has widened as a result.”

Mr Musharraf is now in Washington and is due to meet President George W Bush in the White House on Friday.

The Pakistani leader, whose remarks were distributed to the media by CBS, said he reacted to the threat in a responsible way.

“One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that’s what I did,” Mr Musharraf said.

Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Pakistan was one of the only countries in the world to maintain relations with the Taliban, which was harbouring Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and many Pakistanis were sympathetic with the neighbouring Islamic state.

But within days of the attacks, Mr Musharraf cut his Government’s ties to the Taliban regime and cooperated with US efforts to track and capture Al Qaeda and Taliban forces that sought refuge in Pakistan.

The official 9/11 Commission report on the attacks and their aftermath, based largely on Government documents, said US national security officials focused immediately on securing Pakistani cooperation as they planned a response.

Documents showed Mr Armitage met the Pakistani ambassador and the visiting head of Pakistan’s military intelligence service in Washington on September 13 and asked Pakistan to take seven steps.

Support for bin Laden

The seven steps included ending logistical support for bin Laden and giving the United States blanket overflight and landing rights for military and intelligence flights.

The report did not discuss any threat the United States may have made, but it said Mr Musharraf agreed to all seven US requests the same day.

Mr Musharraf said in the CBS interview he was irked by US demands that Pakistan turn over its border posts and bases for the US military to use.

He said some demands were “ludicrous”, including one insisting he suppress domestic expression of support for terrorism against the United States.

“If somebody’s expressing views, we can not curb the expression of views,” Mr Musharraf said.

Mr Musharraf reacted with displeasure to comments by Mr Bush on Wednesday that if he had firm intelligence bin Laden was in Pakistan, he would issue the order to go into that country.

“We wouldn’t like to allow that. We’d like to do that ourselves,” Mr Musharraf told a news conference.

Mr Musharraf’s comments came days ahead of the publication by New York-based Free Press of his memoir “In the Line of Fire.”

– Reuters

Source: Reuters

Posted in Disclosure, Pakistan | Leave a comment

Australian Government Steps Up Attacks on Muslims – 21 Sep.06

Posted on September 21, 2006 by kf1

September 21, 2006

“I Certainly Don’t Want People of that Type in Australia”

Australian Government Steps Up Attacks on Muslims

By RICK KUHN

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has used the Pope’s association of Islam with violence as another opportunity to target Muslims, criticising them for overreacting. This fits into a pattern. Since July 2005, his conservative Coalition Government has been explicitly generating hostility to Muslims in Australia.

Shortly after the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, however, the Prime Minister said ‘I think the most special of all measures is for me to use the authority of my office to remind all Australians that our quarrel is not with people of Arab descent, our quarrel is not with people of the Islamic faith.’ And his Government stuck to this stance for almost four years.

What has changed?

It is not that the Howard Government has recently begun to use racism to build support. Appeals to racism have long been part of John Howard’s political arsenal. As leader of the opposition in August 1988, he raised concerns about the level of Asian immigration to Australia. This did not go down well in his own party. Howard lost the Liberal leadership within a year, only regaining it in 1995.

But claiming that Aboriginal landrights were a threat and that the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission was corrupt proved much more successful during and after the 1996 election campaign. The Coalition won, thanks to this racist tactic, widespread disillusionment with the Labor government’s neo-liberal economic policies and the appeal of the conservative’s contrasting claim that they would make Australian’s ‘comfortable and relaxed’.

Howard soon expressed understanding for the concerns raised by the right-wing populist Pauline Hanson, as her support for her grew between 1996 and 1998. She railed against immigration and allegedly preferential treatment given to Aborigines and Asians in Australia.

The Tampa and ‘children overboard’ affairs, together with the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 were key episodes in the Coalition’s 2001 election campaign. The government did not allow refugees, picked up from a small, sinking boat by the Norwegian freighter Tampa, to land on Australian territory. Instead they were sent to an Australian-funded concentration camp on the independent Pacific island of Nauru. Later Howard and his ministers falsely claimed that refugees on another boat threatened to throw their children into the sea if a nearby Australian naval vessel didn’t pick them up. In fact they were signalling for help because their boat was sinking.

Kevin Dunn’s research has demonstrated that racism in Australia is particularly directed against Muslims, who make up about 1.5 per cent of the population, roughly 300,000 people. A large proportion of the refugees arriving in Australia by sea were Muslims. So the government’s encouragement of public paranoia about them could invoke anti-Islamic racism without being explicit.

‘I certainly don’t want people of that type in Australia’ John Howard said during the ‘children overboard’ affair, leaving Australians to draw their own conclusions about the ‘type’ he was referring to. It was left to other commentators to connect the dots, for those slow on the uptake.

Despite an economic slow-down, the Government won the election and wedged the Labor Party.

The Government knows that questions of race, especially when tied to supposed physical threats to Australians, is good ground for it, especially compared with industrial relations, privatisations and cuts in social welfare.

The concrete message of Australian participation in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the preparations for them was that the Muslim inhabitants of Afghanistan and Iraq did not have the right to themselves settle accounts with their oppressive rulers; these incompetent (Muslim) people needed the strongest state in the world and its allies, with an agenda primarily driven by issues of strategic power and oil rather than terrorism, to impose new rulers on them.

From 2004, the Howard Government’s ability to mobilise support on a racist basis, one of its strongest policy assets, declined dramatically.

The prolonged campaign by activist groups against the harsh treatment of refugees and their imprisonment was turning public opinion around, to the extent that even Liberal parliamentarians started raising public criticisms. Then the scandals of the detention, as an illegal immigrant, of Australian permanent resident Kornelia Rau and the deportation of Australian citizen Vivienne Solon to the Philippines erupted.

The inquiries into these events thoroughly discredited Australia’s immigration detention policy and administration. The Government initiated reforms and released a large proportion of the imprisoned refugees.

It was now much harder to generate fear of refugees. In August this year, a revolt by some Coalition members of parliament even forced the Government to drop legislation designed to shove all asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat into camps on Pacific islands.

But the turning point was a year earlier, in 2005. John Howard used the London bombings to recast his manipulation of racism. He attacked Australian Muslims explicitly for the first time, claiming that some mainstream Islamic leaders in Australia were not ‘as strong in denouncing these acts as they should have been’.

His summit with Australian Muslim leaders, on 23 August 2005, was designed to demonstrate that the Government regarded Muslims as a problem and security threat.

Treasurer Peter Costello chimed in with talk about expelling radical Muslim clerics. Brendan Nelson, then Minister for Education, said that special steps were being taken to teach Muslim children about ‘Australian values’, especially about Simpson and his donkey. People who ‘don’t want to live by Australian values’ could ‘clear off’.

The new method of generating racial fears was soon deployed to good political effect. Just before ACTU mass rallies against new industrial relations legislation, on 15 November, the Government staged raids on Muslims allegedly plotting terrorist acts and scheduled debates on anti-terrorist legislation.

Government policy helped to create the political climate that led to the mob violence against Muslims and Arabs in the Sydney beach-side suburb of Cronulla, on 11 December. Just as John Howard denies that his own policies have anything to do with racism, in commenting on the Cronulla riot he denied that there is ‘underlying racism in this country’.

In February this year, evidence presented to the inquiry into the bribes paid by AWB, the monopoly marketer of Australian wheat, to secure sales to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq became very embarrassing for the Coalition. The Prime Minister and Treasurer again criticised Muslims.

But John Howard shifted his campaign against Australian Muslims into high gear a few weeks ago, to distract attention from issues that are heavy going for the Government: a jump in petrol prices, higher interest rates, the privatisation of the state-owned telecommunications giant Telstra and the health insurer Medibank and slower growth.

Howard raised concerns about the ‘integration’ of Muslim migrants and their acceptance of Australian values. As usual, the nature of these values was left vague. He focuses on the tolerance, attitudes to women or democratic beliefs of ‘a small group of Muslim migrants’ is an appeal to prejudice. Much higher numbers of Australian-born, Anglo-Celtic Christians have bigoted attitudes towards and even physically assault people they regard as different; harass or rape women or, more genteelly, oppose women’s right to control their own fertility; and support the authoritarian right.

On the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, he again raised concerns about Muslim integration.

It seems to be the special task of former director and election campaign manager of Howard’s Liberal Party, parliamentary secretary Andrew Robb, to maintain the anti-Muslim momentum. He has tied fear of Muslims into a discussion of tightening Australia’s citizenship laws.

He recently said ‘Muslim communities in Australia have been stigmatised unfairly.’ So Muslims must take the lead and assume ‘primary responsibility’ for their own integration. In other words, if Muslims are suffering it’s their problem and not a responsibility of government to stop encouraging attacks on them.

Explicit targeting of Muslims in Australia indicates that the government is worried about its prospects and the declining effectiveness of its racist appeal. Particularly if the economy falters, in the run up to the next federal election, John Howard will stoke up anti-Muslim racism as an issue that is good for it. But, during August, there were demonstrations, of up to 50,000 people in Sydney, against Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the Howard government’s support for it. These rebuilt the self-confidence of Australian Muslims and Arabs. They and their allies are now better placed to combat Howard’s latest racist tactics.

Rick Kuhn is the author of Henryk Grossman and the recovery of Marxism and editor of Class and struggle in Australia and a contributor to Socialist Alternative. He can be reached at Rick.Kuhn@anu.edu.au.

Source

Posted in Disclosure | Leave a comment

Address to the United Nations – Hugo Chavez – 20 Sep.06

Posted on September 20, 2006 by kf1

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, ‘Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'” [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] “It’s an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what’s happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time,” [flips through the pages, which are numerous] “I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I’m sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

“And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here.” [crosses himself] “And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: “The Devil’s Recipe.”

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent’s statement — cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I’m quoting, “Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom.”

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother — he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there’s an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then — and this he said himself, he said: “I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace.”

That’s true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They’ll say yes.

But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what’s happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What’s happening? What’s happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela — new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He’s thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, “We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples — to the peoples of the world. He came to say — I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home.” I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed — fully, fully confirmed.

I don’t think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let’s accept — let’s be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.

Oh, yes, it’s good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel’s yesterday, or President Mullah’s . Yes, it’s good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we’ve heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That’s step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression — and that is something everyone’s calling for — of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we’ve always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar’s home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let’s see. Well, there’s been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there’s no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela’s thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said “helplessly optimistic,” because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that’s why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I’m here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don’t worry, I’m not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter — more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, “Oh, Fidel was going to die.” But they’re going to be disappointed because he didn’t. And he’s not only alive, he’s back in his green fatigues, and he’s now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I’m now closing my file. I’m taking the book with me. And, don’t forget, I’m recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We’ve proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

Posted in Speeches | Leave a comment

Address to the United Nations – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – 16 Sep.06

Posted on September 19, 2006 by kf1

Address before the 61st Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, 19 September 2006
by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Madam President,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Distinguished Heads of Delegation,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

I praise the merciful, all-knowing and almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.

I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.

Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the truth, devotion to God, quest for justice, and respect for the dignity of human beings.  Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire to a world free from decadence, aggression, and injustice, and replete with love and compassion.  The youth have a right to seek justice and the truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion, and tranquility.  And I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

Madame President,
Excellencies,

What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth, and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering, and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs, and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes, their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the truth, to justice, and to human dignity.  The fundamental question is that, under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice?  Who or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression?  Where is the seat of global justice?

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.

A. The Unbridled Expansion of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons.  What do they need these weapons for?  Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy?  Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments?  How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?  What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons?  How can they be held accountable before the international community?  And are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals?  Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics, and wisdom instead of these instruments of death?  Aren’t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons?  If wisdom, ethics, and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away, and no reason will remain for conflict.  This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.

People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion, and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us.  Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred, and animosity among nations?

B. Occupation of Countries and Exacerbation of Hostilities

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years.  Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood.  The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq.  Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability.  Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?

Who can ensure Iraq’s security?  Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region.  Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council?  Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War.  Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that war, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression, and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the war survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. T his is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history.  Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land.  Can any logic, law, or legal reasoning justify this tragedy?  Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d’être of this regime, as it has.  The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others.  Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region.  Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime.  But these are sheer facts and not myth.  History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worst yet is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.

Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land.  People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys.  But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection.  Why?

At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory.  But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government?  And why can’t the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:

For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs, and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily.  We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire.  The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated.  Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident.  When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?

C. Lack of Respect for the Rights of Members of the International Community

Excellencies,

I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT.  All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful, and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors.  Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights?  Which governments object to these rights?  Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle.  Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or council should address these injustices?  Is the Security Council in a position to address them?  Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries?  Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.

Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council.  The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn’t it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council?  Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?

Excellencies,

A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that, regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.

  • Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory, and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;
  • Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;
  • For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations.  But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law, and justice have no place or value.  This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime.  It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned, or besieged; that does not violate human rights.
  • Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law.  Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.
  • Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers.  But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire.  Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?
  • The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries.  They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies,

The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation, and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account?  Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations?  Has this ever happened?  In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse.  If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and, as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner.  Is this a just order?  Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and clearer evidence of injustice?

Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision-making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies,

How long can such a situation last in the world?  It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization, and its affiliated agencies.

The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness.  It must be acknowledged that, as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just, and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective.  Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established.  We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition, and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago?  Doesn’t this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?

Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary.  Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected.  The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state.  In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege.  The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President,
Excellencies,

It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations.  Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of divine prophets, justice, freedom, and human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression, and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God’s creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others.  No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the “international community.”

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe, and America are all equal.  Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.

Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security, and tranquility in the world.

It is for this reason that we state:

Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion, and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress, and security.

We are all members of the international community, and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love, and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today’s world.

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.

Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality, and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek good, virtue, perfection, and beauty.  Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection.  Whether we like it or not, justice, peace, and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of almighty God.  It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

The almighty and merciful God, who is the creator of the universe, is also its lord and ruler.  Justice is his command.  He commands his creatures to support one another in good, virtue, and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

He commands his creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression.  All divine prophets from the prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love, and compassion.  Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love, and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity and, above all, longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace, and brotherhood on the planet.

O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation.  Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

 

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The English translation of Ahmadinejad’s address was made available by the Web site of the President of Iran.

Posted in Disclosure, Iran, Speeches | Leave a comment

Putting Words in Ahmadinejad’s Mouth – VIRGINIA TILLEY

Posted on August 30, 2006 by kf1

Is Iran’s President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”?
Putting Words in Ahmadinejad’s Mouth
By VIRGINIA TILLEY

Johannesburg, South Africa

In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let’s get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran’s president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly “committed to annihilating Israel” because the “mad” or “reckless” or “hard-line” President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.

The most infamous quote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”, is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word “map” or the term “wiped off”. According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was “this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah’s regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the “occupying regime” in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, “This too shall pass.”

But what about his other “threats” against Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his supposed comment later in the same speech, “There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world.” “Stigma” was interpreted as “Israel” and “wave of assaults” was ominous. But what he actually said was, “I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world.” “Wave of morality” is not “wave of assaults.” The preceding sentence had made clear that the “stain of disgrace” was the Muslim world’s failure to eliminate the “occupying regime”.

For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian’s Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006. Radio Free Europe reported that he said “that the ‘main cure’ for crisis in the Middle East is the elimination of Israel.” “Elimination of Israel” implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing, terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair denounced the translated statement as “”quite shocking”. But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this. According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said was “The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first.”

Nefarious agendas are evident in consistently translating “eliminating the occupation regime” as “destruction of Israel”. “Regime” refers to governance, not populations or cities. “Zionist regime” is the government of Israel and its system of laws, which have annexed Palestinian land and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation. Many mainstream human rights activists believe that Israel’s “regime” must indeed be transformed, although they disagree how. Some hope that Israel can be redeemed by a change of philosophy and government (regime) that would allow a two-state solution. Others believe that Jewish statehood itself is inherently unjust, as it embeds racist principles into state governance, and call for its transformation into a secular democracy (change of regime). None of these ideas about regime change signifies the expulsion of Jews into the sea or the ravaging of their towns and cities. All signify profound political change, necessary to creating a just peace.

Mr. Ahmadinejad made other statements at the Organization of Islamic Countries that clearly indicated his understanding that Israel must be treated within the framework of international law. For instance, he recognized the reality of present borders when he said that “any aggressor should go back to the Lebanese international border”. He recognized the authority of Israel and the role of diplomacy in observing, “The circumstances should be prepared for the return of the refugees and displaced people, and prisoners should be exchanged.” He also called for a boycott: “We also propose that the Islamic nations immediately cut all their overt and covert political and economic relations with the Zionist regime.” A double bushel of major Jewish peace groups, US church groups, and hordes of human rights organizations have said the same things.

A final word is due about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s “Holocaust denial”. Holocaust denial is a very sensitive issue in the West, where it notoriously serves anti-Semitism. Elsewhere in the world, however, fogginess about the Holocaust traces more to a sheer lack of information. One might think there is plenty of information about the Holocaust worldwide, but this is a mistake. (Lest we be snooty, Americans show the same startling insularity from general knowledge when, for example, they live to late adulthood still not grasping that US forces killed at least two million Vietnamese and believing that anyone who says so is anti-American. Most French people have not yet accepted that their army slaughtered a million Arabs in Algeria.)

Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has started to take hold in the Middle East not because people hate Jews but because that narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to “defend itself” by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East publics are so used to western canards legitimizing colonial or imperial takeovers that some wonder if the six-million-dead argument is just another myth or exaggerated tale. It is dismal that Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to belong to this sector.

Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.” He actually said, “In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets.” This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself – i.e., “myth” as “mystique”, or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the “cult” or “ghost” of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.

Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized? Need we ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statements has been bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran’s (nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme.

The current fuss about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is playing out so identically to US canards about Iraq’s WMD that we must wonder why it is not meeting only roaring international derision. With multiple agendas regarding Iran — oil, US hegemony, Israel, neocon fantasies of a “new Middle East” — the Bush administration has raised a great international scare about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. (See Ray Close, Why Bush Will Choose War Against Iran.) But, plowing through Iran’s facilities and records, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program. The US intelligence community hasn’t found anything, either.

All experts concur that, even if Iran has such a program, it is five to ten years away from having the enriched uranium necessary for an actual weapon, so pre-emptive military action now is hardly necessary. Even the recent report by the Republican-dominated Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, which pointed out that the US government lacks the intelligence on Iran’s weapons program necessary to thwart it, effectively confirms that the supposed “intelligence” is patchy and inadequate.

The Bush administration’s casual neglect of North Korea’s nuclear program indicates that nuclear weapons are not, in fact, the issue here. The neocons are intent on changing the regime in Iran and so have deployed their propagandists to promote the “nuclear weapons” scare just they promoted the Iraqi WMD scare. Republican rhetoric and right-wing news commentators have fallen into line, obediently repeating baseless assertions that Iran has a “nuclear weapons program,” is threatening the world and especially Israel with its “nuclear weapons program,” and must not be allowed to complete its “nuclear weapons program.” Those who nervously point out that hard evidence is actually lacking about any Iranian “nuclear weapons program” are derided as naïve and spineless patsies.

Worse, the Bush administration has brought this snow-job to the UN, wrangling the Security Council into passing a resolution (SC 1696) demanding that Iran cease nuclear enrichment by August 31 and warning of sanctions if it doesn’t. Combined with its abysmal performance regarding Israel’s assault on Lebanon, the Security Council has crumbled into humiliating obsequious incompetence on this one.

Like all phantasms, the nuclear-weapons charge is hard to defeat because it cannot be entirely disproved. Maybe some Iranian scientists, in some remote underground facility, are working on nuclear weapons technology. Maybe feelers to North Korea have explored the possibilities of getting extra components. Maybe an alien spaceship once crashed in the Nevada desert. Normally, just because something can’t be disproved does not make it true. But in the neocon world, possibilities are realities, and a craven press is there to click its heels and trumpet the scaremongering headlines. It doesn’t take much, through endless repetition of the term “possible nuclear weapons program,” for the word “possible” to drop quietly away.

Evidence is, in any case, a mere detail to the Bush administration, for which the desire for nuclear weapons is sufficient cause for a pre-emptive attack. In US debates prior to invading Iraq, people sometimes insisted that any real evidence of WMD was sorely lacking. The White House would then insist that, because Saddam Hussein “wanted” such weapons, he was likely to have them sometime in the future. Hence thought crimes, even imaginary thought crimes, are now punishable by military invasion.

Will the US really attack Iran? US generals are rightly alarmed that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would unleash unprecedented attacks on US occupation forces in Iraq, as well as US bases in the Gulf. Iran could even block the Straits of Hormuz, which carries 40 percent of the world’s oil. Spin-off terrorist militancy would skyrocket. The potential damage to international security and the world economy would be unfathomably dangerous. The Bush administration’s necons seems capable of any insanity, so none of this may matter to them. But even the neocons must be taking pause since Israel failed to knock out Hizbullah using the same onslaught from the air planned for Iran.

But Israel can attack Iran, and this may be the plan. Teaming up, the two countries could compensate for each other’s strategic limitations. The US has been contributing its superpower clout in the Security Council, setting the stage for sanctions, knowing Iran will not yield on its enrichment program. Having cultivated a (mistaken) international belief that Iran is threatening a direct attack on Israel, the Israeli government could then claim the right of self-defense in taking unilateral pre-emptive action to destroy the nuclear capacity of a state declared in breach of UN directives. Direct retaliation by Iran against Israel is impossible because Israel is a nuclear power (and Iran is not) and because the US security umbrella would protect Israel. Regional reaction against US targets might be curtailed by the (scant) confusion about indirect US complicity.

In that case, what we are seeing now is the US creating the international security context for Israel’s unilateral strike and preparing to cover Israel’s back in the aftermath.

Is this really the plan? Some evidence suggests that it is on the table. In recent years, Israel has purchased new “bunker-busting” missiles, a fleet of F-16 jets, and three latest-technology German Dolphin submarines (and ordered two more)- i.e., the appropriate weaponry for striking Iran’s nuclear installations. In March 2005, the Times of London reported that Israel had constructed a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz facility in the desert and was conducting practice bombing runs. In recent months, Israeli officials have openly stated that if the UN fails to take action, Israel will bomb Iran.

But Hizbullah, Iran’s ally, still threatens Israel’s flank. Hence attacking Hizbullah was more than a “demo” for attacking Iran, as Seymour Hersh reported; it was necessary to attacking Iran. Israel failed to crush Hizbullah, but the outcome may be better for Israel now that Security Council Resolution 1701 has made the entire international community responsible for disarming Hizbullah. If the US-sponsored 1701 effort succeeds, the attack on Iran is a go.

As Israel and the US try to make that deeply flawed plan work, we will doubtless continue to read in every forum that Iran’s president – a hostile, irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” — is demonstrably irrational enough to commit national suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear weapon against Israel’s mighty nuclear arsenal. The message is being hammered home: against this media-created myth, Israel must truly “defend itself.”

Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science, a US citizen working in South Africa, and author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005). She can be reached at tilley@hws.edu.

Source

Posted in Conspiracy, Disclosure, Iran | Leave a comment