Saturday, March 3, 2007

US expert on Russian intelligence shot in Washington

1 hour, 41 minutes ago

US authorities were Saturday investigating the shooting of a US expert on Russian intelligence who was shot outside his house in a Washington suburb, an FBI spokeswoman said.

Paul Joyal, 53, was hit several times as he returned home on Thursday evening, FBI spokeswoman Michelle Crnkovich told AFP.

The shooting came four days after Joyal alleged in a a major television network interview that the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin was involved in the radiation poisoning of a former KGB agent in London.

US media reported that Joyal was in a critical condition, but Crnkovich said she could not confirm his state of health although he was still alive.

"The Prince George's County Police Department is doing the investigation and the Baltimore FBI is just available to assist them if they need us to," she said, adding the case was so far being treated as an ordinary crime.

Joyal told NBC's Dateline program that he had struck up a friendship with former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko during trips to London.

Litvinenko died in a London hospital on November 23 and was found to have high levels of the radioactive isotope polonium 210 in his body.

He and his associates have accused Russia of carrying out the poisoning because of his fierce opposition to Putin.

Joyal repeated the accusations in his interview saying: "A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: 'If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you and we will silence you -- in the most horrible way possible.'"

A former police officer, Joyal set up a consultancy in the 1990s specializing in intelligence information for companies wishing to invest in the former Soviet republics. He is often interviewed by US media as an expert on the region.

Don't Start Another War

March 2, 2007

by William A. Niskanen

William A. Niskanen is chairman of the Cato Institute and was a former member and acting chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

President Bush continues to rattle the saber with Iran, declaring openly that Iranian weapons are killing U.S. troops in Iraq, and appearing to establish a pretext for possible military action. But a few blocks east, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have asserted that Bush does not have the authority to broaden the war beyond Iraq's borders.

President Bush wisely warned us that the early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq might lead to a larger regional war, and we should take steps to avoid that. So why does he seem to be preparing for a war with Iran, and maybe Syria? In January, Bush accused the Iranians of "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq," and "providing material support for attacks on American troops," but the administration revealed no evidence of the latter until a military press conference in Baghdad a month later. And as Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said, there is still no evidence that Iran's senior leadership approved the deployment of these weapons to Iraq.

It looks as though the administration is setting Iran up as a bogeyman in much the same fashion it did with Iraq in 2002. Three recent developments strengthen the credibility of Bush's threat to Iran:

Contrary to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission, the Bush administration conspicuously omitted Iran and Syria from the list of Middle Eastern governments with which it will use "... America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq."

Second, Bush announced that he had ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike force and Patriot missile defense systems to the region. BBC news recently reported that Central Command has already prepared a plan for an extensive U.S. air strike on Iran.

And third, U.S. forces have detained Iranian nationals in Iraq, without the approval of the Iraqi government. In December, U.S. troops arrested two senior Iranian officers, both of whom claimed they had diplomatic status and were later released. Later, U.S. forces detained five Iranian officials who claimed they were establishing a consulate in Kurdistan.

Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and White House press secretary Tony Snow denied that the administration was preparing an air strike on Iran, but the announced deployment of an additional aircraft carrier task force and Patriot missiles to the region suggests otherwise.

U.S. forces completely control the airspace in Iraq, and there are few suitable targets for air strikes there, so another carrier is wholly unnecessary to that mission.

The Patriots will be deployed in Gulf states, Bush tells us, "to reassure our friends and allies." But to reassure them against what? The only nations in the region that have medium-range missiles that would threaten these states are Iran and Syria. And in unusually blunt language last year, Iran warned the Gulf states that it would retaliate against them if the U.S. attacked Iran from bases in these states. The deployment of the additional carrier strike force and the Patriot missiles makes sense only if the administration is preparing to do so.

One tragic side-effect of U.S. air strikes against Iran is that they would almost surely lead to the defeat of our mission in Iraq. U.S. ground forces are already stressed to sustain current deployments, and Iran can threaten American interests in Iraq and around the region.

Following recent Iranian military exercises in the Persian Gulf, including the test-firing of a medium-range anti-ship missile, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that "if the United States were to attack Iran, the country would respond by striking U.S. interests all over the world." The U.S. mission in Iraq has sought to create a unified, effective, democratic and independent government there, and though that objective may always have been a fantasy, it would surely be sacrificed by broadening the war.

More fundamentally, the October 2002 war resolution provides authority for the use of U.S. military forces only to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," a narrowly defined mission that was accomplished in the first few weeks of the U.S. invasion in the spring of 2003.

No other nation is mentioned in this resolution, and it would take an exceptionally tortured interpretation to sanction war with any nation other than Iraq. So the President has no authority for a broader war.

Congress and the press would serve us well if they questioned the administration forcefully about its reasons for deploying additional military forces to the region, and whether they think they need additional authority for strikes beyond Iraq's borders.

This article appeared in the Sacramento Bee on February 23, 2007.

Iran War: Don't Think It Can Happen? Think Again

Jon Soltz
03.02.2007

Please take a moment to look at the introductory video blog below that StopIranWar has done, featuring me and Wes Clark. We'll be doing more of these in the weeks ahead, which look at different aspects of the planned attack on Iran and what it would mean.

There have been growing reports in the last week which lend credence to the idea that the US has a plan together for a war with Iran, which would include nuclear weapons.

Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, published what is probably the most in-depth reporting on the matter. I know others have written about it, but if you haven't taken a look yet, please do, and pass it on.

The White House did announce that it would take part in a round table discussion organized by the Iraqis, which would include representatives from Iran and Syria. What remains to be seen is whether the administration is really committed to diplomacy, or whether they are merely going through the motions, like they did before going to war with Iraq.

That's why it is absolutely critical that you make your voice heard. Go to StopIranWar.com to send a letter to your representatives and senators, the White House, and your local papers, demanding an escalation... of diplomacy.

READ MORE: Iran

Jon Soltz, the Co-Founder and Chairman of VoteVets.org, is a powerful leader in the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans community and is originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From May to September 2003, Soltz served as a Captain during Operation Iraqi Freedom, deploying logistics convoys with the 1st Armored Division. During 2005 Captain Soltz was mobilized for 365 days at Fort Dix New Jersey, training soldiers for combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also served his country with distinction in the Kosovo Campaign as a Tank Platoon Leader between June and December 2000. Soltz is a graduate of Washington & Jefferson College with dual degree in Political Science and History.

He has completed graduate work at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. He also served as the Veterans for John Kerry Pennsylvania State Coordinator. He was a lead spokesman for IAVA (then Operation Truth) and has been interviewed by the Associated Press, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Associated Press and the LA Times. He has made numerous media appearances including Jim Lehrer’s Newshour on PBS, CNN’s Inside Politics, National Public Radio and the Alan Colmes show.

I Am For Terrorism…


I Am For Terrorism…
By Nizar Kabbani


--> Thanks to MWC News to have published my images to illustrate this beautiful poem by Nizar Qabbani.

The Twilight Zone / Victims of the fence

By Gideon Levy

A still-life image: a building covered with Jerusalem stone, a large memorial poster hanging high up on one of the floors, and below, a sign in broken English over the "Paradise Cafe." Second image: a makeshift soccer field, empty, on which a huge puddle formed on Sunday of this week. Across the road a barbed-wire fence encircles the abandoned airfield of Atarot, once touted as "Jerusalem's international airport." Along the fence runs a ditch - into which the boy fell and, according to witnesses, bled for a long time until he died. He was struck by a bullet in the leg and lay there, dying in agony.

Was he only playing soccer? Did he just run to get the ball, which had fallen into the ditch along the fence, as his friends say? Or did he sabotage the fence and try to take the metal for his family's livelihood, as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the next day?

What difference does it make? What does make a difference is the appalling question of what prompted a soldier, or a Border Policeman, to open fire from a long way off at the boy and then to leave him bleeding on the ground until he died. What goes through the mind of the shooter, in the moments before and after he takes the life of an adolescent, who was in no way putting anyone at risk - even if he touched a fence that must not be touched? Three fences surround the abandoned airport, and last Sunday we saw no hole in any of them, three days after the unnecessary, criminal shooting.




Advertisement

In this terrible place the children of Qalandiyah and its surroundings are killed like flies. At least eight have been killed here in the past few years, along the death fence. In this space we wrote about 11-year-old Yasser and his brother, Samar, 15, the two children of Sami Kosba, who were killed at the fence a month apart, in February, 2002; about Omar Matar, 14, killed in April, 2003; and about Ahmed Abu Latifi, 13, in September, 2003. And there was Fares Abed al-Kader, 14, killed in December, 2003. Now there is also Taha Aljawi, February, 2007.

It's said that he was a good boy, the kind of boy who goes with his father to pray in the morning and evening. And he was Jerusalem-born, the bearer of a blue ID card, like us. Taha Aljawi, a nice kid from Jerusalem, not yet 17 at his death.

The Hamas memorial poster shows dripping blood. In the Fatah poster the photograph is more recent: Taha looks a little older and has the shadow of a mustache. The Al-Aqsa Mosque appears in both posters - a rare instance of Palestinian national unity these days, in the paradisical cafe in Kafr Aqab, a Jerusalem neighborhood whose residents carry blue ID cards and pay municipal taxes, but which has nevertheless been fated to be on the other side of the separation fence, north of the capital, on the way to Ramallah.

The men sit in the big space of the cafe, which has been transformed into a mourning room, and eat lamb with rice in yogurt, as is the custom. Two weeks ago we were offered the same fare in nearby Anata, on the occasion of the killing of an 11-year-old girl, Abir Aramin, by the Border Police.

Taha's bereaved father, Mahmoud Aljawi, worked for the Jerusalem Municipality part-time for 11 years as a school janitor, until he was forced to take early retirement a few months ago. He is 48 and the father of six children, including the dead Taha, who was the second child. To supplement his income, Mahmoud also made leather garments in the Old City, and had a kiosk that sold sweets at the Qalandiyah checkpoint. He learned basic Hebrew at a beginners' course at the Gerard Behar cultural center on Bezalel Street in Jerusalem. Until three years ago the family lived in the Old City, but because of the overcrowding moved to Kafr Aqab. Their rented apartment is above the Paradise Cafe.

Last Thursday, Mahmoud went to the offices of the National Insurance Institute (NII) in Jerusalem, to arrange for his unemployment insurance. Taha had a free morning: In the past few weeks the authorities lengthened the school hours on the first four days of the week and canceled classes on Thursdays. He was a 10th-grader at the school for orphans in the Old City, opposite Al-Aqsa, an educational institution for the children of poor families. He got up at 5 every morning and went with his father and his two brothers, Mohammed, 18, and Suleiman, 8, to the adjacent mosque to pray, and then at about 7:30 left for school via the checkpoints. It was 40 minutes each way, if there were no problems.

Taha wanted to learn the printing profession. He was weak in English and also got into problems with the teacher. Not long ago his father had a talk with him and explained that if he wanted to work in the print industry, he would have to be articulate in both English and Hebrew. Taha was thinking about enrolling in Hebrew lessons at a center near the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem.

Last Thursday Taha returned from the mosque at 7 A.M., after his last prayer, as it turned out. Mahmoud made breakfast for his son and at 7:30 his friends came by and asked him to play soccer with them on the field on the other side of the Ramallah road. The word "road" is a bit misleading: It's actually an intercity route peppered with potholes and puddles, flanked by garbage on both sides, on which traffic moves slowly.

According to the testimonies of Taha's friends, as related to the grieving father, shortly after the game started, the ball flew over another road that abuts the improvised playing field. Taha ran to retrieve the ball and then the kids heard a few shots. They say they ran in panic, but saw Taha slump into the ditch. No one knows for sure what happened after that. The children told Mahmoud that the shots had come from the direction of the skeleton of a tall building, which is under construction next to the soccer field. They say that the soldiers hid high up in the building and that they opened fire at Taha. Usually, they said, there are no soldiers in that building - only on that particular day.

The bullet slammed into Taha's left leg, above the knee. At the time, his father was near the government compound in East Jerusalem, on the way to the NII. Mahmoud's brother, Kamal, phoned him to say that Taha had been wounded. The two brothers rushed to Kafr Aqab. They tried to call Taha on his mobile phone - Mahmoud says he got his son a phone so he would always know where he was - but the boy didn't answer. Next to the house, people had already gathered; they related that Taha had been taken to the hospital in Ramallah. Kamal set out for Ramallah, while the distraught Mahmoud said he felt he had to stay with the mother and other children to calm them.

At the hospital, Kamal was told that Taha had been dead on arrival. He saw his nephew's body - with one bullet hole above the knee. In most cases, a bullet in the leg will kill you only if it causes a massive loss of blood. Taha apparently lay in the ditch for a long time: The children told Mahmoud that at least an hour went by before the soldiers arrived to collect their victim and take him to the Qalandiyah checkpoint. From there a Palestinian ambulance was summoned - even though Taha was Israeli - to take him to Ramallah. Kamal called his brother and told him to come to the hospital to identity his son's body. Taha was buried that evening in the cemetery on Saladin Street in East Jerusalem, next to the post office.

"I always made sure that my children were with me. I watched over them, like over my eyes," Mahmoud says. "On Fridays I would walk with them to pray at Al-Aqsa, go by the grandparents' place, have a bite to eat, always staying close together. Everyone who knows me knows how I watched over them. I hear a lot from people: You have good children - they pray, they are getting a good education, they have no problems, quiet children. Sometimes people would ask: Who is Taha's father? Good for you, having a well-educated boy like that. In the winter he went to play computer games, in the summer he went to the Casablanca Pool in Ramallah, and other than that he was with me. Maybe 18 hours a day with me. We are a family that respects its children and the children respect their father.

"How can we know what he was doing there, next to the fence? It's not important. A boy of that age, he didn't endanger the soldiers - a shy boy, not violent, quiet. I didn't see what he was doing next to the fence. I didn't see, but what if he even cut the fence? And why should he cut the fence? He has a blue ID card. I always taught him to keep away from things like that."

The response of the IDF Spokesperson's Office: "On February 1 during the morning an IDF force spotted four suspicious youths next to the Qalandiyah refugee camp south of Ramallah, while they were still engaged in sabotaging the security fence and trying to breach it. The force fired at the lower body of one of the youths and hit his leg. Minutes later an IDF medical team arrived, which worked to stabilize the wounded person's condition, but without success."

We go out to the killing field. Mahmoud hasn't been there since his son fell by the fence. It's empty, even though people live all around it. We stop at the road, looking at the fence from a distance and at the ditch where Taha bled to death. Within seconds a Border Police Jeep barrels out of the abandoned airport terminal - a long way from us - and we scatter, in panic.

One Million Blogs for Peace

To End the Iraq War

[Concept] [Pledge] [Who's Eligible] [Sign Up!] [Timeline] [Guidelines] [Help] [The Blogs] [Our Blog] [Link Buttons]

--MORE--

Apartheid in Israel

Jordan Times - 01/03/2007

(MENAFN - Jordan Times) Michael Jansen

The latest report published by the UN rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories compares Israel's policies there to those of South Africa during the apartheid era.

John Dugard, a South African law professor and former anti-apartheid campaigner, called upon the international community to give "serious consideration" to his recommendation that the International Court of Justice in The Hague issue an advisory opinion on Israel's policies and actions.

In the 24-page document, posted on the council's website, Dugard states: "The international community, speaking through the United Nations, has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights — colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation" and accuses Israel of practising all three.

Of the three, Israel is most incensed by being accused of instituting apartheid in the occupied and colonised Palestinian territories.

Dugard says that Israel's policies "certainly resemble aspects of apartheid". He points out that Israel is committing many violations of the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and cites Israel's restriction of Palestinian movement, construction of walls and fences to separate Israelis and Palestinians, building of Israeli settler only cities, towns and roads, and demolition of Palestinian houses built without Israeli permits. He compares Israel's lists of security risks — 180,000 names long — who may not pass through the hundreds of checkpoints to South Africa's notorious "pass laws" which obstructed the free movement of black Africans.

Dugard challenges Israel's contention that West Bank checkpoints, barriers and blockades are intended to protect Israelis from attacks by Palestinian fighters and suicide bombers. He states: "It has become abundantly clear that the wall and checkpoints are principally aimed at advancing the safety, convenience and comfort of [Israel's 430,000] settlers" who live in the West Bank in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Dugard singles out the example of the wall being constructed in East Jerusalem, characterising it as an "instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaisation of Jerusalem by reducing the number of Palestinians in the city". As proof, he states: "The wall is being built through Palestinian neighbourhoods, separating Palestinians from Palestinians, in a manner that cannot conceivably be justified on security grounds."

He asks: "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group — Jews — over another racial group — Palestinians — and systematically oppress them?" He observes: "Such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report."

Israel and its apologists angrily reject the apartheid accusation, charge those who make it with being anti-Semites and call upon Israel's friends to refute the charge. Amongst those whom Israel has tried to censure or smear are former US president Jimmy Carter and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu, former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town and head of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Other figures making the charge include Arun Gandhi, grandson of the Mahatma Gandhi; Winnie Mandela, former wife of South African leader Nelson Mandela; Michael Ben Yair, who served as Israel's attorney general from 1993-96; Ami Ayalon, a former admiral in Israel's navy and head of Shin Bet, the country's internal security agency; Tommy Lapid, head of Israel's Shinui Party; and Meron Benvenisti, former deputy mayor of Jerusalem.

Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, warned that if a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was not found, the two communities would be forced to dwell separately, with one living comfortably and the other in poverty. Brzezinski's prediction has come true.

According to the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, nearly half of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza have no food security. In a report issued this week, these two agencies say that Israel's closures and blockades and the Western financial boycott of the Palestinian Authority are depriving Palestinians of essential nutrition.

Forty-six per cent of Palestinians are food insecure or vulnerable, in comparison to 35 per cent in 2004, even though during 2006, the WFP increased food aid by 25 per cent, providing for 260,000 non-refugees in Gaza and 400,000 in the West Bank. Meanwhile, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees expanded its rolls of refugees entitled to food aid to meet the needs of those who had been self-sufficient as far as food was concerned.

It is important for Israel to silence or smear anyone who compares Israel to apartheid South Africa. On the one hand, Israel argues that the Jewish state has a moral basis for existence: recompensing the Jews for centuries of Western persecution. While Israel's founding fathers admitted that the creation of Israel involved the commission of injustices against the Palestinians, they argued that the Israeli option was the "line of least injustice", a contention which Palestinians could never accept. To maintain the notion that it is a moral entity, Israel must prevent the international community from accepting the contention that Israel, like South Africa, has adopted apartheid to deal with its native population.

On the other hand, Israel seeks to evade punishment through sanctions for practising racial discrimination to the same extent as the apartheid South African regime. Many critics of Israel's policies call for sanctions to be imposed on Israel until it ends its occupation of the territories conquered in 1967, halts settlement activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and reverses the apartheid measures it has adopted. Amongst the prime movers on the sanctions front have been mainstream Protestant churches in the US. They have called for divestment in US and other companies providing Israel with bulldozers to build settlements and destroy Palestinian houses and orchards.

Some have suggested divesting from US and other Western organisations — like local pension funds — which have links to Israeli public institutions.

These attempts to punish Israel have raised a storm of protest from Israel and its friends and forced the churches to reconsider their positions. If divestment becomes widespread, Israel will be under considerable public pressure to end the occupation and its colonisation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and renounce apartheid. Oddly, Israel's occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, which is far more damaging than separation to Palestinian interests and threatens to deprive Palestinians of self-determination, does not raise the sort of emotional objections apartheid does even though apartheid is, in this case, an ineluctable consequence of occupation and colonisation.