Thursday, September 30, 2010

Scandal in UK Defense Ministry

The British military police are going to investigate how the content of a letter by Defense Secretary Liam Fox to Prime Minister David Cameron could have leaked to the media.

The inquiry into the case was launched right after Liam Fox himself confirmed the information leak. Referring to the incident as an “internal investigation”, the British Defense Ministry decided to get the country’s military police involved. At present, specialists are ransacking the ministry’s building.

It should be noted that the reduction of the British Defense Ministry’s 37-billion-pound annual defense budget by 10-20 percent has been stipulated in the government’s new austerity strategy.

Referring to these cuts as “draconian” in his letter to Mr. Cameron, Liam Fox said they are “likely to have grave political consequences, destroying much of the reputation and capital we have built up in recent years”, especially amid the ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. The Defense Secretary also said that military spending cuts will apparently force Britain’s naval forces to withdraw from areas such as the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean. Fox expressed his deep concern that Britain would probably no longer be able to maintain its naval presence in the Falkland Islands. As the Defense Secretary said himself, he was “appalled” by the leak of this confidential information, especially given the ministry’s almost complete secrecy.

Liam Fox’s letter was printed in the Daily Telegraph a couple of hours before the beginning of a session of the National Security Council, called to focus on budget amendments. According to leaked information, there wasn’t any particular decision made during the meeting. At the same time, David Cameron was reported to have said that the final decision on the issue should be made in terms of strategic, not financial considerations. This statement may have caused the Defense Secretary’s notorious letter.

Meanwhile, some government officials dubbed Mr. Fox’s letter a political game, in view of his earlier statements that the Defense Ministry must resign itself to the cuts. One also cannot rule out that the letter followed the Defense Minister’s recent visit to the United States, where he assured his counterpart Robert Gates that Britain is honoring its commitments before NATO in the security sphere. Liam Fox also said that the U.S. should not be that concerned over defense cuts in the UK, since London intends to maintain its program of producing multi-functional strike-fighters to be used on the two planned British aircraft carriers. Mr. Fox thus made it clear that these vessels will be built in the long run, notwithstanding any upcoming military budget cuts. So, this problem is not worth any trouble in Washington.

Tags:
Great Britain, Society

US Leading the Terror in Afghanistan

The US- led war on Afghanistan is like the US - led war on Iraq- to destroy the country and to indiscriminately kill large numbers of Afghan civilians.The aim is to terrorise the civilian population into submission using the so-called " War on Terrorism " as a cover- up for a US-led war of terror.
_____________________________________________________________________

According to media reports, the number of Afghan civilians killed by US-NATO troops has more than doubled this year. US-NATO forces killed seventy-two civilians in the first three months of 2010, compared to twenty-nine during the same period in 2009. At least 6000 civilians were killed in 2009. While Western media often blame the “Taliban”, Afghan media sources and few Western media outlets continue to report crimes committed by US-led NATO forces.
It is true that US crimes are often ignored or downplayed by Western media. However, most of the information about US-led NATO war crimes in Afghanistan, which the organisation Wikileaks took credit for publishing, is available on the Internet and in some of the print media. There are no new “revelations”. Wikileaks provides confirmation of US-led barbarism against defenceless civilian population.
Today’s Western citizens are carefully manipulated and are too ignorant to care about others. As the philosopher, Bertrand Russell observed: “It is the nature of imperialism that citizens of the imperial power are always among the last to know and care about circumstances in the colonies”. People, particularly in the West, are conditioned not to think and not to ask questions. They are fed a daily diet to promote consumerism and militarism. It is a type of brainwashing that Adolf Hitler and his henchmen would have been proud of. That is why war criminals like George W. Bush, Tony Blair and the Australian John Howard were re-elected to power while their armies were involved in two bloodbaths against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US is the most militarised and dangerous outlaw nation in the world today, second only to the fascist regime in Israel. The US spends more money on its offensive military than all other countries in the world combined, while millions of Americans live in extreme poverty. The stated aim is to project violence on a global scale. US leaders are addicted to violence and there are only a few bloodthirsty fascists outside the US military. General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, head of US Central Command who has a long and violent record of war crimes against defenceless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan said, “It is fun to shoot some people”. Just listen to testimonies by US soldiers themselves to validate their war crimes.
The enormity of the war crimes in Afghanistan even forced the most violent people in the US military to tell the truth. Before his dismissal, former US-NATO commander, Stanley McChrystal, admitted that: “In the nine-plus months I’ve been here in Afghanistan, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it”. McChrystal was not a saint; he was an assassin. He was replaced by a more violent commander, Gen. David Petraeus, who promised to escalate the violence in order to subdue the Afghan Resistance and force them to make a deal with Washington.
Furthermore, in an Op-Ed for The New York Times, former army officers and supporters of US-led war on defenceless nations, David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum have called for a halt on civilian killing. Quoting Pakistani sources, they write that, US unmanned drones had “killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed – a hit rate of 2 percent and hardly ‘precision’”. They believe too much violence is exposing the true goal of US imperialist ideology which is to control Afghanistan’s geo-strategic position in Central Asia.
The principle of US Christian-fascist ideology has always been to intervene in other nations’ affairs, using military threat, terrorism and overwhelming violence against the civilian population. US politicians and US apologists justify this “policy of barbarism” as US “exceptionalism” or a US “right”, which is based on the false assumption that the U.S. and its allies can dominate and change societies through violence and suffering.
There is no evidence to prove Afghanistan’s or any other Muslim nation involvement in the 9/11 attacks. All Muslim nations and organisations have unequivocally condemned the attacks. In order to commit attacks like 9/11, one needs state-of-the-art resources and well-connected contacts. The official story remains unsubstantiated and unproven.
Overwhelming evidence shows that the Israeli Mossad agents, the CIA, and influential US Zionists in the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Early this year, Israeli Mossad agents were able to acquire and counterfeit more than twenty foreign passports to murder a Palestinian politician Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, an act of terrorism that was condoned by several Western nations.
The 9/11 attacks were used as an “opportunity” not only to justify war against Muslim nations, but also to instil fear and disseminate anti-Muslim propaganda. Many People, including most Americans have been coerced and indoctrinated to believe that it was morally justified to attack Afghanistan and Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument advanced by Western politicians and Western media that, “We were attacked and we have to fight back” is preposterous.
According to Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, the US and its allies have no case for self-defence, because: “The necessity for self-defence must be ‘instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice for means, and no moment for deliberation’”. Like the war on Iraq, the war on Afghanistan constitutes an act of illegal aggression in violation of the UN Charter and international law. According to credible media and NGO reports, the Afghan Resistance against the US-NATO war is a collection of native Afghani movements, legitimately fighting to liberate their land from foreign invaders. There are no “terrorist bases” in Afghanistan that threaten Western societies. The biggest terrorist bases in the world are not in Muslim nations, they are in Washington and Tel Aviv. From there, nearly all terror operations are organised and financed. The two countries are war-hungry and rightly viewed by the majority of world’s people as the two greatest threats to world’s peace and stability.
The US has inflicted great suffering on the people of Afghanistan. It is time for US leaders and US allies in the war on Afghanistan to renounce the use of violence and terrorism, and withdraw their forces from Afghanistan.

Tags:

Ayodhya ruling: Fearing unrest, India ups security

The destruction of the mosque led to widespread rioting between Hindus and Muslims in which some 2,000 people died. ______________________________________________________________
The Allahabad High Court will deliver its verdict on the 60-year-old Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit today (Thursday) and bracing for it the government has beefed up security and warned that any attempt to breach peace will be dealt with firmly.
The verdict in the title suit will be a landmark one particularly for Justice D V Sharma, who is set to demit office on Friday. The other judges on the Lucknow bench of the High Court are S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal.
The Bench is slated to begin the delivery of its verdict at 3:30 p.m. in Court Number 21 in the High Court premises which now resembles a virtually impregnable fortress as the area surrounding it has been declared as a "no access zone". Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Home Minister P Chidambaram appealed to the people to accept the verdict and maintain peace and tranquility. They also stressed that no attempt should be madeby any section of the people to provoke another section after the verdict.
Only persons related to the title suit will be allowed entry in Court No. 21 and no exit from the room are permitted till the verdict has been delivered, Lucknow District Magistrate Anil Kumar Sagar said here.
Any overt display of victory or defeat after the pronouncement of verdict has also been banned by the administration. "Any such attempts will be firmly dealt with," Deputy Inspector General Rajeev Krishna said.
The state police have detained nearly 1,500 persons across the city where about 2,000 paramilitary have been deployed to maintain vigil. However, Krishna said there were no restrictions on movement of people anywhere in the city except in the area surrounding the High Court. He said that schools, colleges and offices will remain open tomorrow.
The only hurdle in the pronoucement of the verdict was cleared by the Supreme Court Tuesday when it dimissed the petition by a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi for deferment of the keenly-awaited judgement.

Tags:

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

India’s Soft Corner for Israel

By Sajjad Shaukat

India established its diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, but recently these ties have accelerated as India has a soft corner of Israel.

In this connection, in the last week of July this year, Israel hosted a delegation of Indian visiting editors and correspondents. The delegation visited the famous security fence, Jerusalem and Sderot. The members of the group were taken on helicopters along the Israeli border with Gaza and Lebanon.

In this respect, Tel Aviv also arranged a briefing regarding recent developments such as increase in humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, which was exaggerated the Israeli requirement to secure its coastline in the form of continued sea blockade, economic progress of the West Bank and Israeli efforts for peace. A similar type of trip was also arranged for all the foreign journalists based in Israel.

During the second week of July 2010, Tel Aviv had also received a delegation of the Indian parliamentarians for the same purpose after the incident of Israeli attack on the aid flotilla. Notably, that delegation consisted of the members from all the major Indian political parties like Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janta Party, Biju Janta Dal, Shiromani Akali Dal and Rashtriya Lok Dal.

Strengthening of Indo-Israeli ties could also be judged from the fact that when this delegation of Indian parliamentarians met Israeli president, in his speech, he admitted the Indian culture and political wisdom, while comparing the Indian leader Mahatama Gandhi with one of the earlier Prophet of the Bani-Israel.

It is of particular attention that in the recent past, Israel received worldwide condemnation in wake of protests due to its brutal attack on the naval aid flotilla which was carrying basic necessities of life for the besieged people of Gaza. In this regard, Tel Aviv felt politically isolated. But India is one of the countries which did not openly condemn Israeli action. However, this new move to invite the media and parliamentarian delegations, starting with New Delhi is an effort of Israel to improve its image in the world. In this context, having soft corner for Israel, India hastened to send its two delegations.

It is notable that both India and Israel which had openly jumped on Bush’s anti-terrorism enterprise in the aftermath of September 11 catastrophe, are covertly supported American agenda of neo-conservatives by acting upon a secret diplomacy, targeting Pakistan, China and Iran in particular and some other countries of the region like Syria and Lebanon in general.

In this context, proper media coverage was not given to the Indo-Israeli secret diplomacy, which could be assessed from the interview of Israel’s ambassador to India, Mark Sofer published in the Indian weekly Outlook on February 18, 2008. Regarding India’s defence arrangements with Israel, Sofer had surprisingly disclosed “We do have a defence relationship with India, which is no secret. On the other hand, what is secret is the defence relationship”. And “with all due respect, the secret part will remain a secret.”

Indo-Israeli nexus remained under wraps till 2003, when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited India to officially reveal it. In this respect, Indian ‘The Tribune’ wrote on September 10, 2003, “India and Israel took giant leaps forward in bolstering the existing strategic ties and forging new ones” and Tel Aviv has “agreed to share its expertise with India in various fields like anti-fidayeen operations, surveillance satellites, intelligence sharing and space exploration.” From anti-missile systems to hi-tech radars, from sky drones to night-vision equipment, Indo-Israeli defense cooperation has known no bounds in recent times.

Recent defence purchases by New Delhi from Tel Aviv include fast attack naval craft, electronic warfare system and unmanned aerial vehicles. Besides, Indian secret deal entails submarine launched cruise missiles,micro-satellite systems, laser guided systems etc.

The matter is not confined to purchasing of military equipments only, Indo-Israeli overt and covert links are part of a dangerous strategic game in Asia. In this connection, the then Israeli premier, Benjamin Netanyahu had already made it clear in July 1997 saying, “Our ties with India don’t have any limitations�as long as India and Israel are friendly, it is a strategic gain”.

There are other reasons behind Indo-Israeli secret nexus. Fast growing economic power of China coupled with her rising strategic relationship with the Third World has been misperceived by the Americans and Indians. Owing to this jealousy, tactical support of Washington to New Delhi, indirect military aid through Israel, the US-India nuclear deal�all are part of American desire to make India a major power to counterbalance China in Asia as both of them see Beijing a “future strategic competitor”.

On the other side, a ‘nuclearized’ Pakistan, depending upon minimum deterrence, having close ties with Beijing is another major target of the Indo-Israeli secret diplomacy. As regards Islamabad, India, Afghanistan and Israel are in collusion as part of a plot to ‘destabilize’ Pakistan for their common strategic interests.

The fact of the matter is that by availing the ongoing international phenomena of terrorism, Jewish-Hindu lobbies are collectively working in America and other European countries to exploit the double standards of the west in relation to terrorism and human rights vis-�-vis Pakistan and China. Israel and India are equating the ‘war of independence’ in Kashmir and Palestine with terrorism. If India considers Pakistan as its enemy number one, Israel takes Iran in the same sense�especially due to its nuclear programme which is also negated by the US. Tel Aviv is also against Pakistan as it is the only nuclear Islamic country. However, these similarities of interest have brought the two countries to follow a common secret diplomacy with the tactical support of Washington, targeting particularly Pakistan and China including other states like Nepal, North Korea, Bangladesh, Iran, Syria etc.

The cause of concern to Pakistan and the Muslim world, however, has little to do with India-Israel trade relations. It concerns the ‘secret’ defence ties referred to by Mr. Sofer. While already analyzing these in the December 6, 2004 edition of The Middle Eastern Review of International Affairs (Meria), Harsh V. Pant wrote, “A flourishing Indo-Israeli relationship has the potential to make a significant impact on global politics by altering the balance of power, not only in South Asia and the Middle East, but also in the larger Asian region.”

Another regrettable point is that irresponsible attitude of some Indian, Israeli and Western politicians has introduced dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by equating the “war on terror” with “war on Islam” and acts of Al Qaeda with all the Muslims. Their media have also been contributing to heighten the currents of world politics on cultural and religious lines with the negative projection of Islam. In this connection, reprinting of the caricatures about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and release of a Dutch film against the Holy Quran in the recent past might be noted as an example.

It is because of these developments that a greater resentment is being found among the Muslims who think that the US in connivance with the Indo-Israeli lobbies is sponsoring state terrorism, directly or indirectly from Kashmir to Palestine.

Nevertheless, by manipulating the present phenomena of world terrorism and anti-Muslim approach of the west, both India and Israel have been availing this golden opportunity to achieve their covert goals by convincing the US-led European states that a ‘nuclearized’ Pakistan is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan and Kashmir. And Iran and Syria are doing the same act in Iraq and Lebanon. In this regard, equation of ‘war of liberation’ in Kashmir and Palestine with terrorism has become the main target of New Delhi and Tel Aviv which intend to divert the attention of the west from their own atrocities, being perpetrated in the occupied territories.

Most alarming point in this respect is that Indo-Israeli nexus for the sake of delaying the solution of Kashmir and Palestine under the pretext of so-called Islamic terrorism is not only sabotaging world peace, but is also taking the world to the brink of clash of civilizations.

Nonetheless, Indian silence or sluggish policy over Israeli atrocities in Gazas, Palestinians, intervention in Lebanon, a deadly attack on the aid flotilla and Tel Aviv’s violations of a number of UN resolutions show that without any doubt, India has a soft corner for Israel owing to its secret strategic interests.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations. Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Tags:

Fallacy of terrorism

Mahboob A Khwaja

In today’s world, ambiguous issue as is, who is the real terrorist? It could a matter of opinion, not factual reality to determine what constitutes “terrorism’? The on going envisaged global irony in “war on terrorism” enlists cruel combination of probabilities, often self-defeating purpose and inhuman tragedies as plausible definitions and explanations. The American led “war on terrorism” exposes this bewildering and cynical framework of greed and tyranny being imposed on others. “Either you are with us or against us”, proclaimed President Bush, the draconian slogan shortly after the September 11 attacks in the US. The alleged Al-Qaida link to 9/11 attacks and Osma bin Laden, the accused mastermind, are not the stranger but part of the American global engagement history. Arundhati Roy said it well (the Infinite Algebra of Mercy): Bush and Osma are both extremists and unacceptable choices to the rest of the world…Osama bin Laden was created by the CIA and is wanted by FBI.

Financed by the corporate interest, the Western mass media is building vigorously the public psyche and perception to see the Muslims as the culprits waging war against the Christian West. The alleged myth that Islamic faith and Muslim culture are the breeding ground of terrorism remains a racially manufactured assumption and highly questionable theory in the real world affairs. The Project for the New American Century – PNAC, was formed in 1997 (long before the 9/11 crisis), with the participatory blessings of the American oil and gas cartel, better known as neo-conservatives including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz and many other leading agents of influence working in Strategic Policy Planning and the Defense portfolios within the American political echelon. All committed to dominate the global economy and the political powerhouse for America to become unrivaled superpower in the New World Order. 9/11 provided that much-needed conflict making opportunity to the PNAC visionary goals, strategic priorities and George Bush’s continued Presidency. The ‘war on terror’ is a self-contradictory phenomenon that represents the grand delusion of the 21st century proponent of the oil led American corporate leadership. Its sole aim is global monopoly of politics and economy by dehumanizing the rest of the living humanity. Geared towards the frenzy of World War Three, the American neocons leadership is increasingly becoming politically isolated, militarily belligerent and morally bankrupt and defeated, more so, the day photos of Abu Ghraib prison were made known to the morally conscientious humanity.

Their unilateral military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq are producing disastrous human consequences for the people all over the globe. The American administration seems to have ignored the lessons of political and moral failure of the British Empire and colonialism. In a September 2005, interview with the CBC, American Congress Woman Eleanor Norton made a thought provoking observation when asked about the administration role and help to the people in New Orleans after the hurricane Katrina: “Americans are not used to being embarrassed and ashamed at the same time.” What happened in Louisiana and other gulf states after the storm, offers a glimpse of the overburdened and failing mind setting of the American leadership with no consideration for its people and their miserable plight.

They prepared America on a war footing, not for a legitimate cause but to control the oil industries and maintain the dollar market value.

Iraq and Afghanistan were seen as a necessary requisite to deceive the American public that Arabs and Muslims are the extremists and pose threats to American political hegemony. Whereas, today, more than 80% of the Muslim countries and rulers are maintained by the West and are under the direct political and economic control of the US and British Governments. One wonders, how could the subservient people and the rulers dare to challenge the colonial masters? Is it not the ruling America and British colonial elite actively engaged in terrorizing the Muslims all over the globe? Are they fearful of the new educated generations of Muslims and their democratic indoctrination that could undo their inherited lordship in the former colonies? After all, Muslims were considered just as ‘subjects’ of the Empire, not citizens with rights and entitlement to human ‘freedom.’ Is that a page of the history? Or is it news to the former colonial bandmasters? Was the colonialism a choice of the liberal democracy? Wars do not grow anything consumable but destroy human lives and habitats. Whereas the corporate interests and markets have no human social values, nor do they have moral accountability. It is increasingly action-reaction game masked and staged at the global theatre of absurdity starring Bush, Blair, Militarism, the mass media and General Musharaf as an added attraction to ensure smooth services of trilateral businesses across the globe. Exsorbent profits looted by the oil companies are not going to be reimbursed to the public at gas stations. Would the American neocons rebuild the lost lives and human habitats in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan? After carpet bombing of the Afghan graveyards and major Iraqi towns, could they bring to life what was deliberately destroyed under the PNAC planned “war on terrorism”? Their goal was ‘regime change’ but they alleged WMD which could not be found throughout the international search in Iraq. It was a lie, a false pretext acclaimed tactfully to deceive the mankind. Could Bush, Blair and the neocons be held responsible under the international Geneva protocols of crimes against the humanity?

Humans have faces, bodies and souls but the modern warfare knows neither body nor face when it comes to killing. Hitler and Mussolini were the by- products of the European nationalism but after ages, the European once again failed to impart real world knowledge and experience of the two World Wars to safeguard the future generations from the scourge of national wars and colonialism. The American administration appears active and persistent to wage traditional and innovative new wars against the newly created and targeted enemy – Islam and Muslims.

They do need conflicts and wars for economic and political survival and control of the global resources. PNAC philosophy embedded in American unilaterism sees war as a positive necessity for development and domination. Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath are not taken seriously as the first installment of Godly reminders to the American leadership for causing deaths and destruction in Iraq. Even if President Bush and his faithful neocons pretend that ‘it is business as usual’, the prevalent realities on the ground speak a different language. The American masses are reasonably conscious of being dragged into the Iraq war, they disapprove and protested. Cindy Sheehan and her movement offer a peaceful role model for political activism across the United States. But the controlling interest of the ‘war on terror’ rests with Bush, Cheney and the instigator neocons, wherein the American masses appear helpless spectator, not active participants in the making and running of the liberal democracy, more of a forged democracy of the few. In 1990, Dick Cheney, then the Secretary to Senior Bush wrote: “whoever controls the flow of the Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well.” The obsession of that stranglehold rests with Bush, Cheney and Blair – all actively supporting the crusade against Islam and Muslims. It is the humanity that suffers, not the affluent leaders. There are serious dangers to enflame the ethnic and religious wars across the globe. Robert Fisk, the British journalist recently noted: “Before the (Iraq) war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us, the threats that do exist.”

The American led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have made the global system of states redundant and the United Nations particularly, an impotent body meant for discussions and ineffective role play in peace making or sustainable system of the working of the member states according to its mandate. The UN has failed to stop American and British encroachment in the Middle East, ethnically charged “war on terror”, the global village and the ideals of the safety and security of the world. The ideals of international peace and harmony have been dashed away by the few – be it President Bush or Osma bin Laden, none of them are acceptable choices to the civilized humanity.

They pursue self-motivated greed complementing ignorance, is the driving force to manipulate the world, overwhelmed with action-reaction strategies of the past, dull, dead and irrelevant history. For their self-centered survival, they appear devoid of the reason, human spirit and intellectual foresight to face the realities of living history. Most of the humanity is acutely aware of the fallacy of the terrorism myth, for it is not Islam, Christianity or Judaism but those few who act and react to stranglehold the humanity for oil resources and monetary controls. History shall judge the leaders and nations by their action, not by their claims.

Tags:

CIA-RAW nexus out to malign ISI

Bob Woodward`s book `Obama`s war` part of smear campaign.
Author concocted ISI chief``s confession on Mumbai attacks.
______________________________________________________
This is now common knowledge that the infamous American spy outfit Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carries out overt and covert operations across the world. Its latest target has been Pakistan’s national intelligence agency ISI. In fact, the CIA picked up on the ISI to unleash a smear propaganda trying to malign Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency of being behind the Mumbai attacks. This time, the CIA has used the services of one Bob Woodward who has authored and published a book titled ‘Obama’s war’. The contents of the book, pages after pages, have alleged that the Mumbai attacks were the doing of an ISI-sponsored squad.
It may be recalled that after the 9/11 Twin Towers tragedy, the US Congress approved a bill providing massive funding to the media in the third world countries to project American interests.
Not only this, the author has also created a so-called confession of ISI chief saying: “Less than a month after the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan's spy agency ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha had admitted before the CIA that the terror strikes had ISI links but claimed it was not an "authorised" operation, but was carried out by "rogue" elements. Then he proceeded claiming that the CIA later received reliable intelligence that the ISI was directly involved in the training of those who carried out the Mumbai attack. But what has surprised independent observers the most is the fact that whatever he has written in the book remained an exclusive possession of the author and no one ever, at any level, mentioned a word about such a self-created and concocted confession of the ISI chief.
Nor did the American administration ever question the Pakistan government regarding its intelligence agency’s involvement in the tragic Mumbai attacks. These observers are of the candid view that the publication of the book is an outcome of the CIA-RAW nexus because both have the common cause of undermining the ISI. It is with this background that both of them do not spare any opportunity to cast aspersions on the apex Pakistani spy agency.
Americans are bitter against the ISI because their military commander believe that the tough resistance being faced by their forces, including NATO and ISAF forces, in Afghanistan is due to the ISI influence over Taliban and Mujahideen groups holding a vast area in the country’s north. Similarly, the Indian leadership and its spy masters shift the entire blame of their army’s failure to handle the on-going struggle in Indian Occupied Kashmir. To cover up their day to day embarrassments, the Indian commanders also accuse the ISI of what is happening in the Valley.
When The Daily Mail contacted a former chief of the ISI for his comment on Bob Woodward’s book, he said on condition of anonymity: “This is not the first attempt on part of the CIA. In 1989, a conference of the American and European intelligence chiefs hosted by Pentagon and sponsored by the CIA had a single-item agenda, i.e. clip the wings of the ISI before it assumes the characteristics of German Gestapo.”
He said that the Pakistan government should initiate legal proceedings against the author of the book who is guilty of narrating his own imagination as facts in a bid to serve the interests of the CIA and the RAW. “Inaction or indifference on the part of Islamabad would lead people to start believing in what has been written in the book,” he warned.

Tags:

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

How to tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter

The UN Security Council returns to the discussion of the "international terrorism" term. So far there is neither a general definition nor a common comprehension of what terrorism and especially international terrorism is.

The UN has always had difficulties with this term. During the Cold War, when the world was divided into two camps, every state defined this concept in line with his ideological position and geopolitical interests. In that situation the same persons could be regarded as terrorists in the West and freedom fighters in the Communist camp and vice versa.

The end of the Cold War did not bring single-mindedness on this issue. While the US called some people in the Middle East terrorists, they were declared freedom fighters by some developing countries.

Dramatic differences in the comprehension of international terrorism occurred not only between governments but also among people.

After the unprecedented terrorist attacks in New York on September 11, 2001 the US was faced with the unpleasant fact that it was the state everyone sympathized with. Notably, in Russia where people lived through explosions in residential blocks in Moscow and many other terrorist attacks, people expressed sincere sympathy to Americans, laying flowers in front of the US embassy. At the same time, there was mass exultation on Palestinian territories.

Americans and other Western people drew their conclusions. The US responded to September 11 with two wars and secret jails for tens of thousand of suspects connected to terrorists. But the thereat of the international terrorism has not become smaller, Fyodor Lukyanov, the chief editor of the "Russia in global policy" journal says.

"The unprecedented terrorist attacks on September 11 seriously influenced the comprehension of terrorism by the leading nations as well as the fight against terrorism. They employed significant human resources to fight terrorism but we have not seen any significant progress. The wars which began after September 11 in Afghanistan and Iraq have not reduced the terrorist threat. I would say, on the contrary, the number of those who fight against the US has increased."

After September 11, the West did its best to find a shared understanding of the international terrorism. However, they have only been partly successful, Lukyanov says.

"International terrorism is no more in the center of world policy. If 5-7 years ago it was the key issue now it is clear that it is impossible to build an international political system on a common attitude towards international terrorism."

It seems that the world's nations are not ready to unite into an international anti-terrorist coalition. The comprehension of terrorism remains different in different countries. Perhaps this is the reason why envoys of Chechen insurgents who engineered terrorist attacks in Russia receive political asylum in Great Britain.

ماسکو کے میئر

ماسکو کے میئر کو انکی ذمہ داریوں سے فارغ کردیا گیا

ٹیگز: سیاست , خبریں

28.09.2010, 17:38

صدر روس دمیتری میدویدیو نے ماسکو شہر کے میئر یوری لوژکوو کو انکی ذمہ داریوں سے فارغ کر دیا ھے- متعلقہ صدارتی آرڈنینس میں اس کی وجہ یہ بتائی گئی ھے کہ لوژکوو صدر کا اعتماد کھو بیٹھے ھیں- اول ڈیپیوٹی میئر ولادیمیر ریسین کو قائم مقام میئر کو مقرر کردیا گیا – یوری لوژکوو 1992ء سے ماسکو کے میئر رھے- پیچھلے عرصے میں انکی سرگرمیوں پر شدید تنقید کی گئی- انٹرفیکس ایجنسی نے سرکاری ذرا‏ئع کے حوالے سے اطالع دی کہ شائد یوری لوژکوو سیاسی پارٹی "یدینایا روسیا" یعنی "متحدہ روس" کی قیادت میں بھی اپنے عہدے سے محروم ھو جائیں گے-

Farooq’s murder linked to Rift in MQM

The Scotland Yard investigation into the murder in London of the leading MQM politician Dr Imran Farooq has been told that rows within his own party may have led to his assassination. Farooq, 50, was stabbed to death earlier this month during an attack in which he was also beaten near his home in Edgware, north London. Farooq was a senior figure in the Muttahida Qaumi Movement party, and was in exile in London at the time of his death. The murder is being investigated by Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism branch because of the political dimension to the killing.
Sources say intelligence suggests his death was linked to rows within the MQM.
Farooq, once prominent in MQM, had taken a back seat. A senior Pakistani source said he may have been about to endorse or join a new party set up by Pakistan's former military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf. The source said of the motive: "It lies within the MQM. Dr Farooq was probably going to join Musharraf."Asked about his reaction to Farooq's murder, Musharraf said: "It is terrible that such an assassination could happen in a place like London."
Imran Farooq, who was married with two young sons, claimed UK asylum in 1999 alongside Altaf Hussain, the MQM's leader. Altaf, who also lives in exile in London, has said "enemies of the MQM" killed Imran Farooq and they will try to kill him. Pakistan's media reported him as saying on Friday: "Now the enemies of the movement are after my life, but I want to tell them I am not afraid of anyone, whether it's a superpower like the United States or its Nato allies or their Pakistani agents … I fear the Almighty Allah and will never bow down before the conspirators even if they get my British citizenship rescinded."
Police in London are still hunting an attacker who, one witness said, appeared to be an Asian man. Analysts say the MQM has longstanding rivalries with ethnic Pashtun and Sindhi parties in Karachi. The MQM has also been driven by occasional internecine violence. Before entering the UK, Imran Farooq spent seven years on the run in Pakistan from criminal charges while the MQM was engaged in a violent battle for control of Karachi. He remained a key party figure. While MQM leader Altaf Hussain is protected by private guards and rarely appears in public following death threats, colleagues said Imran never believed he was at risk and had played a smaller role in the party since the birth of his sons, now aged five and three.
When The Daily Mail contacted an MQM spokesman, he said that the MQM is an organised party and all the reports linking Imran Farooq’s murder to a rift in the party are baseless.

Pakistan's political scene has grown more complex with widespread speculation that Altaf Hussain, the self-exiled leader of Muttahida Qaumi Movement party who lives in London, has issued a kind of "will" through an open letter to workers.
The Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief, who fled Pakistan late in 1992 when security agencies were investigating criminal allegations against him, issued a rare, emotional appeal to his political followers to stay united as he said he faced serious threats to his life at the hands of an international lobby.
His open letter to workers surfaced after the British media linked the murder of Dr Emran Farouq in Edgware, north London, with party feuds. Farouq was a Muttahida Qaumi Movement founding member and decades-old comrade of Hussain who ended up in London after being on the run for seven years in Pakistan due to criminal charges.
Hussain alleged "international powers" were working to eliminate him, for which party workers "should be mentally prepared".
The Muttahida Qaumi Movement has been run solely by Hussain from London for more than a decade where he claimed UK asylum. He holds party meetings and speaks to his party workers by phone.
Despite being the most trusted ally of former military dictator Pervez Musharraf, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement claims to have struggled against generals, feudal lords and chieftains who assumed "power through unfair means".

Tags:

Pervez Musharraf

Muttahida Qaumi Movement

Russian model: leadership, sovereign democracy, national champions

Shiraz Paracha

Russia has become a leading world power because of its leader Vladimir Putin’s vision and political strategy. Prime Minister Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have introduced new concepts of team leadership and ‘Sovereign Democracy’ in Russia’s political system.

The relationship between Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev is harmonious, they speak with one voice. The West is looking for fault lines in Putin-Medvedev relationship but, till date, the Western media and policy makers have not been able to create misunderstandings between Putin and Medvedev. Both leaders stand shoulder to shoulder to defend Russia.

Russia rejected the Western model of democracy that United States and its allies were trying to impose upon former Soviet states following the split of the USSR. The Russian Federation was searching for a political model that suited its needs. The search continued for more than 10 years.

In 2006, Vladimir Putin, who was then the President of Russia, coined a new political term “Sovereign Democracy”. It meant no foreign interference in Russian affairs. The 56-member Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was very critical of Russia. The United States, which is not in Europe, but as an OSCE member led the criticism. Similarly, international financial institutions as well as Western NGOs and pressure groups ‘failed’ Russia on several accounts. Putin and his team argued that their government actions and policies should be evaluated only by the Russian public, not outsiders. Interestingly, Putin enjoyed highest approval ratings at home when he was criticised by the West for human rights violations and suppressing press freedoms, and not practising the Western brand of democracy. Despite Western criticism of Russia under Putin, the Russian public still loves their leader who has been in the government since 2000.

Putin has also pioneered the idea of ‘National Champions’. Under this concept the State interferes in national economy through state companies. Instead of privatising State-owned companies, Russia has devised a system where State companies or ‘National Champions’ such as energy giant Gazprom, hydro power agency RusHydro, telecom company Rostelecom, Unified National Electric Grid and Sberbank and Vneshtorgbank participate and compete in businesses like private companies but they are totally or partially owned and controlled by the State. The State-owned companies seek profit but at the same time ‘National Champions’ also advance national interests. Western corporations and governments are irritated by the policy but, so far, the innovation has proved fruitful for Russia. The State-owned companies have been success stories and the number of State-owned companies, especially, in the energy sector has grown significantly. Now the State controls the use of many other natural resources more closely.

The trend has sparked anger in the West but Russians say that the energy sector is a special area and in almost all commodity-dependent countries is led by the State. The creation of ‘National Champions’ is Russian response to the global hegemony of Western multi-national companies and corporations. Russians argue that they have to protect a domestic industrial sector from foreign competition.

Prime Minister Putin has very successfully used huge Russian energy resources as a foreign policy tool to counter Western pressures, including the eastward expansion of NATO. His aggressive and clever use of energy as a foreign policy tool has already created rifts in the Western alliance. There are divisions within the European Union on how to deal with Russia because Russia provides 25 percent of the total gas to the EU.

Russian strategy seems to be well thought out. Indeed Pakistan can learn positive lessons from Russian leadership. President Asif Ali Zardari has introduced a concept of team leadership in Pakistan by delegating powers to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani but Pakistan needs to do more to be an effective regional power.

In 1991, after the split of the Soviet Union, Russia became a wild place governed by an alcoholic—Boris Yeltsin. Criminal gangs roamed the streets and mafias were on the rampage. The West, especially the United States showed disrespect and contempt for Russia.

Throughout the 1990s, the West looked down at Russia with victors’ arrogance. Ridicule of Russians was common. Some in the West believed that Russians were disillusioned and disoriented following their defeat in the Cold War that culminated at the disintegration of the Soviet Union. According to the Western narration of history, Russians lost to the West because they were incompetent and corrupt.

At the end of the ‘Cold War’ George Bush senior announced a ‘New World Order’ and a part of that new Order was to export democracy, culture and civilisation into the former Soviet republics.

Western corporations and big businesses rushed to Russia like vultures to grab natural resources in the region. Western financial institutions raced to capture the new opportunities. Western energy companies wanted share and perhaps control of Russian oil and gas. Knowledge and access to Russian military secrets and hardware were also important targets. Another goal was to find out about Russian advances in space technology and spheres of science under the Soviet Union.

Western NGOs and think tanks sponsored by the US State Department and other governmental and non-governmental bodies embarked on a mission to change societies in the former Soviet republics by organising sermons on democracy and trainings on human rights.

Hundreds and thousands of Christian missionaries arrived in the former Soviet republics to baptize atheist Soviet societies.

Hundreds of English teachers from the United States and the West spread in urban and rural areas of the former Soviet republics. A majority of those were members of the US Peace Corps.

There were other enthusiasts who carried flags of press freedom to defend freedom of expression in the former Soviet republics.

The West had defeated the Soviet Union, now they wanted to be rewarded and one way was to patronise and control the ‘subjugated enemy’. The people in the former Soviet Union were humiliated for their ‘Soviet mentality’.

Between 1991 and 2000, the West exploited Russia, encouraged anarchy and chaos.

In this backdrop President Boris Yelstin brought Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin to Moscow who was working in St. Petersburg. A former KGB officer, Putin is a unique and charismatic character. He was born in October 1952. His grandfather was a cook for Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. His mother was a factory worker and his father served in Russian military.

Putin is fluent in Russian, German, French and English. He flies military jets and is a master in judo. He was based in East Germany when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. He is strong, strict and yet very popular. Russian public loves and the West hates the man who rebuilt Russia just in 10 years.

When Putin was elected as president the average pay in Russia was USD80. Five years later the average income reached USD640. Putin’s policies transformed Russia into the World’s seventh largest economy in purchasing power in a short period of time. There was 72 percent growth in the GDP under Putin. The foreign investment grew by 125 percent. Russia’s GDP was 22nd in the world; under Putin it increased manifold. Now Russia is among the top ten in the world in terms of GDP growth.

The Putin administration took measures to reduce the poverty. By 2008 there was 50 percent decrease in the number of people living below the poverty line while the middle class in Russia grew from eight million to 55 million.

Putin also devised policies to help small businesses and industries by bringing dramatic and successful changes to the tax system that included introduction of a flat tax of 13%, and 11 percent reduction in corporate tax rate. Due to Putin’s economic management the Russian economy bounced back.

After serving his country for eight years as a president, in May 2008, Putin left the office of President. He vacated the position for his colleague Dmitry Medvedev who won the presidential election with Putin’s support. Once Medvedev was elected as president he nominated Putin to be country’s prime minister. On 8 May 2008, Putin took charge of the prime minister’s office. Since then Putin and Medvedev have led Russia successfully.

Putin and his team mates are not Communists. The Communist Party of Russia is opposed to the policies of Putin’s United Russia Party, which is a pro-business party but Putin and Medvedev have brought a strong sense of nationalism and national pride in Russia.

On the foreign policy front Putin is a strong supporter of a world with several power centres. He has been very critical of the Western foreign policies and he is against the US hegemony in international relations. He wants to talk to the West as an equal partner and demands respect. He is opposed to the United States' use of force in international relations. Once Putin said that due to the US policies "no one feels safe!” He is opposed to weapon deployments in the space.

Within a short period of 18 years, Russia has achieved stability, it has recovered from the economic crisis and it has restored its prestige in the world. Russia did so because it is a former superpower that possesses huge natural resources, territory and technological and scientific know-how.

Unlike Russia, Pakistan has not been able to stand on its feet due to its weak economy and poor infrastructure. Another reason for the prolonged crisis in Pakistan is its failed foreign policy. Pakistan depends on Saudi Arabia and she is part of a defence system that only serves the US interests. Few Pakistani generals have benefited from the flawed foreign policy that is in practice since the 1950s.

Neighbouring countries do not trust Pakistan. India-centric Pakistani foreign policy has also harmed the country. A major shift in Pakistan’s policy towards India will be the first step in the right direction. Also warm and friendly relations with resource-rich Russia and Iran and further deepening of relations with China can bring long term benefits to Pakistan.

Shiraz Paracha is an international journalist and political analyst. His email address is: shiraz_paracha@hotmail.com

Tags:

Cauldron of Kashmir on the boil again

Asif Haroon Raja

India-held Jammu & Kashmir (IHK) is under illegal occupation of India since 1947 and the people suffering under the oppressive rule denied of their basic rights desire freedom. They have been waging struggle for the last 63 years to get freedom from Indian yoke and have resorted to both democratic and violent means. Savage methods have been employed by Indian occupation forces to suppress the people and make them submit to Indian illegal occupation. Brutal force has failed to stifle the yearning desire for freedom which has now taken a new shape in the form of stone-throwing by teenagers. On the other hand, Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) was liberated from the hold of Maharaja Hari Singh’s Dogra Army and Indian Army by the freedom fighters of Kashmir and tribesmen from FATA/NWFP in October 1947.

People of AJK are living in complete freedom and enjoying all the concessions of an autonomous state. There has never been any movement for democratic rights or regional autonomy. Selig Harrison’s biased article appearing in Jewish-controlled New York Times in August apart from creating a sensation through his false reporting of presence of large number of Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and Pakistan’s decision to hand over GB to China has also tried to equate the situation of AJK with IHK by stating that AJK is being brutally suppressed. There couldn’t have been a bigger lie than what has been fabricated by Harrison to please the Indians. Blinkered and prejudiced Harrison somehow cannot hear or see the cries of the Kashmiris in IHK. Through his coloured glasses he sees Indian forces showering roses on Kashmiris and the latter gratified by their benevolence chanting pro-India slogans.

Pro-independence nonviolent movement which triggered on 11 June 2010 as a consequence to killing of a 17-year-old boy by Indian occupation forces has turned into a mass movement. This is the third bout of political agitation by peaceful means since summer of 2008. In the last 3½ months, 107 innocent people have been killed by occupation forces, mostly young boys and women, and thousands injured. Police and paramilitary troops have been firing indiscriminately upon peaceful protestors chanting slogans of ‘Azadi’ and ‘go India go’ to suppress them. Brutal methods are being employed to break the momentum of the movement which has now spread to all parts of occupied Kashmir including some of the Muslim-majority districts of Jammu.

Police instead of using water canons or rubber bullets to disperse stone-pelting protesters, aims tear gas shells at their heads. This crude practice results in deaths. On August 2, a policeman thrust his baton in the mouth of an 8-year-boy Sameer in Batmaloo due to which boy’s lungs ruptured and he is still fighting battle of life and death. Besides using tear gas shells excessively, troops fire volleys of live bullets direct into the crowds and their rifles point towards chests and heads of the protestors. Many bystanders including some children playing in playgrounds have been killed because of wholesale firing.

The new generation having grown under the boots of Indian occupation forces has become fed up of the continued oppression of occupation forces. They hate their hypocritical Kashmiri rulers acting as puppets of India and want to get rid of them. They are disillusioned with other so-called moderate Kashmiri leaders of APHC who had been induced by Indian rulers and had agreed to indulge in fruitless talks. United Jihad Council chairman Sayyed Salahuddin’s effigy was burnt on 2 August since he had appealed to general public to show restraint and protest in a phased manner so as not to hamper schooling. Likewise when Syed Ali Shah Geelani sent a message of truce to the puppet government of Omar Abdullah and requested for lifting of curfew, the people got enraged and threatened to burn his house.

Young Kashmiris are extremely unhappy with rulers of Pakistan who since 2004 have stopped extending them even moral and diplomatic support and have been promoting Indian scheme of solving Kashmir dispute. Whatever arbitrary pro-Kashmir statements made is mere lip service. They have not forgotten Zardari equating Kashmiri freedom fighters with terrorists, or saying that India is a friend and Pakistan has no threat from it. Their disenchantment and frustration has reached such a high pitch that no amount of brutality inflicted upon them scares them away. Tender aged boys as small as 8 years are more enthusiastic and are seen leading the processions. Each death of their colleagues adds to their pent up anger and further steel their resolve to continue with their civil disobedience movement. Not knowing how to counter the hail of bullets, young boys hurl stones on the soldiers and police.

APHC leaders have joined the popular movement not as leaders but as followers of the youth. Pro-independence slogans resound in all cities, towns and even in remotest villages of Kashmir valley. Tens of thousands of demonstrators led by the youth and carrying banners of ‘Quit Jammu & Kashmir’ come on the streets daily. Women including young girls are also taking active part and shouting independence slogans. Their fervour and motivation is so high that people from all walks of life have joined the young ones. Scale and intensity of mass rebellion by stone-pelters has demolished Indian propaganda that freedom struggle in IHK is not indigenous but Pakistan sponsored. It has also negated Indian claim made after 2008 state elections that Kashmiris do not want freedom but want to remain part of Indian Union.

Kashmiris having been betrayed and oppressed for too long are least interested in futile talks aimed at buying time and getting out of difficult situation. They have rejected the offer of dialogue, autonomy and economic package. They want concrete steps to be taken before agreeing to hold talks. Outcome of abortive talks between foreign ministers of India and Pakistan in Islamabad is fresh in their minds. Krishna was remote controlled from New Delhi and had to refer back home even for minor points. Talking points given to him were confined to terrorism alone; he was specifically told not to touch upon any other issue. He was debarred from talking on core issues that were part of composite dialogue. It had exposed the hypocrisy of Indian leaders who had been stating repeatedly for several months that they were ready for talks and would talk on all issues. By narrowing the talks to terrorism only, it was a clear indication that India was interested in talks premised on secret arrangement worked out with Gen Musharraf led team and not otherwise. Krishna visited Islamabad only to while away time and to fulfill the requirement of USA.

Manmohan and Chidambaram flabbergasted by the building storm are resorting to old tactics of someway defusing it through a mix of sweet talk, brute force and blame game. They are still blaming Pakistan for having instigated Kashmiri youngsters to resort to stone throwing tactics. New methods are being devised how to suppress the stone throwers without killing them. A new laser gun has been manufactured to dazzle the protesting crowd but it has the potency to cause permanent blindness. Syed Geelani has spelled out that for creating conditions conducive for fruitful tripartite talks, India should first immediately stop the massacre of innocent Kashmiris, free political prisoners, nullify black laws which have given a licence to kill to trigger-happy occupation forces, completely demilitarise the heavily militarised valley, accept Kashmir as an international dispute and stop singing the nauseating song that Kashmir is integral part of India. Mirwaiz having judged the aggressive mood of the Kashmiris has endorsed what Geelani has said.

The UN and international community will have to rise to the occasion to urgently solve this oldest unsolved dispute which has caused immense pains to the people of Kashmir.

The writer is a retired Brigadier and author of a book ‘Kashmir battles of 1948, 1965 &1971 and ongoing freedom struggle’. His next book ‘Tangled knot of Kashmir is being published. Email: asifharoon7751@yahoo.com

Tags:

Jammu and Kashmir

Srinagar

Syed Ali Shah Geelani

India

Kashmiri people

All Parties Hurriyat Conference

Breaking Israel’s stranglehold over American foreign policy

Maidhc Ó Cathail

If Israel’s stranglehold over US foreign policy is to be broken, Americans will need to be informed about the harm that Washington’s unconditional support for the Jewish state is doing to American interests, say leading analysts of US-Israeli relations.

According to John J. Mearsheimer, co-author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, “The only plausible way to weaken the lobby’s influence on US foreign policy is for prominent policymakers and opinion-makers to speak openly about the damage the special relationship is doing to the American national interest.”

“Plenty of people in the United States, especially inside the Beltway, know that Israel is an albatross around America’s neck,” says Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. “But they are afraid to stand up and say that for fear that the lobby will attack them and damage their careers.”

“Hopefully, some of them will develop a backbone,” he adds.

Philip Giraldi, executive director of the Council for the National Interest, believes that Tel Aviv’s stranglehold over Washington can be broken “only by directly challenging the power of the Israel lobby and the false narrative about how it is of value to the United States.”

Giraldi, a contributing editor to The American Conservative, says that “it must be done from the bottom up as Israel cannot be challenged in the mainstream media, Congress, and in the White House.”

“The American people must learn that Israel is and always has been a strategic liability that has done immense damage to the United States and its worldwide interests,” concludes the former CIA officer.

If there is to be an end to Israel’s decades-long “sway over Congress and intimidating presidents,” says Jeffrey Blankfort, a prominent Jewish American critic of Israel and its American lobby, “it will require appeals and actions beginning on a local level that inform the American people not so much about what Israel has done to the Palestinians but what its unregistered agents in the U.S., euphemistically described as ‘lobbyists,’ have done to destroy what little is left of American democracy and the attendant costs in flesh and blood, as well as its tax dollars.”

A long-time pro-Palestinian activist noted for his trenchant critique of Noam Chomsky, Blankfort attributes the failure of such efforts to get off the ground to "the continued unwillingness of the leading figures of the Palestinian solidarity movement in the U.S. to acknowledge the invidious power of the Zionist Lobby," who, following Chomsky's anti-imperialist analysis, prefer to "place the primary responsibility for Israel's crimes and U.S. Middle East policies at Washington's doorstep."

"So the first steps," Blankfort suggests, "may be to publicly challenge these figures while at the same time moving past them and addressing the American people directly."

No American president will ever have enough latitude to resolve the conflict in Palestine "unless and until enough Americans are informed enough to make their democracy work," according to Alan Hart, former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Britain's Independent Television News.

"In other words," explains Hart, who was also a BBC Panorama presenter specialising in the Middle East, "if President Obama or any of his successors is ever going to be free to confront and defeat the Zionist lobby's stooges in Congress and the mainstream media, there has got to be created a constituency of understanding about why it is not in America's own best interests to go on supporting Zionism's monster child right or wrong."

The essence of the problem, Hart argues in the three-volume American edition of his book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is that "Americans have been conditioned, brainwashed, to believe a version of history, Zionism's version, which is a pack of propaganda lies."

Jeff Gates, former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, believes that "transparency, accountability and better design" are required to break Israel's hold on American foreign policy.

"At present, the American public is ignorant of Israel's all-pervasive influence. Its control includes the media-enabled deployment of fixed intelligence to induce this nation to war for Greater Israel," says Gates, author of Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War.

"We will know that accountability is underway when we see federal grand juries convened to consider charges against Israel's agents, assets and sayanim (volunteers). When a jury brings in the first verdict for treason, Americans will know that the rule of law is being restored. We will know that a solution is within sight when the many appendages of its lobby are required to register as foreign agents."

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan

Tags:

United Nations General Assembly