Ami Ayalon arrived with credentials; a former Labor Party member in the Israeli Knesset, he gains attention by having previously been commander-in-chief of the navy and head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s secret service. The former intelligence agent also arrived with publicity. His Blue White Future organization “that seeks to help achieve a two-state solution, and has developed a radical new unilateral approach to achieve this goal,” so as to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel and keep its blue/white Star of David flag, received space in a New York Times article: Peace Without Partners, By Ami Ayalon, Orni Petruschka and Gilead Sher, April 23, 2012

Add suspicion to the agenda. Note that other Labor party figures, identified with the “peace process,” fired up many and disillusioned all. Recall President Shimon Peres, “father” of the settlements, General and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, originator of “:break the bones of Palestinians” during the 1990 Intifada, and former Knesset member Yosef Beilin’s Geneva Initiative, “a permanent status agreement based on previous official negotiations, international resolutions, the Quartet Roadmap, the Clinton Parameters, and the Arab Peace Initiative,” whose program had no accomplishments. All were members of a Labor Party that, despite its calls for “peace initiatives,” promoted the settlements, the major obstacle to negotiations.

Ayalon’s Peace Without Partners approach maintains that the “greatest threat to the nation is disappearance of the Zionist entity. Israel needs to be a Jewish democracy with a majority of Jews. The children who have been raised with a narrative of 5000 years of Jewish history cannot be betrayed.” From these propositions, Blue White Future concludes that “peace requires two states.” Continuing the thoughts, he suggests that Palestinian leader “Abu Mazen cannot deliver what he promises because he lacks support from Arab heads of state. Nor can Israel promise what former Prime Minister Olmert proposed. Negotiations no longer exist. Only coordinated unilateralism, based on former United States President Clinton’s peace proposals, can resolve the crisis.”

The details of a six point plan

   (1) Israel must take constructive steps to advance the two states based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps − regardless of whether Palestinian leaders agree to accept it.
   (2) Israel should declare willingness to return to negotiations anytime and state that it has no claims to sovereignty on areas east of the existing security barrier. It should end all settlement construction east of the security barrier and in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
   (3) Israel should also enact a voluntary evacuation, compensation and absorption law for settlers east of the fence, so that those who wish can begin relocating before there is an agreement with the Palestinians.
   (4) Israel should develop a strategic plan to help 100,000 settlers who live east of the barrier to relocate within Israel’s recognized border.
   (5) The IDF will remain in the West Bank until the conflict is officially resolved by a final-status agreement
   (6) A Law of National referendum will decide the Israeli population acceptance of the plan.
Coordinated Palestinian acceptance will complete the process – two nations for two peoples and all disputes mutually resolved.

Another benefit − from this approach “the international community will see Israel as an honest player.”

A disingenuous plan, with built in obstacles

The “show stoppers” are so definitive that success with the plan is dubious.

Will any Israeli leader want to have his/her name recorded in history as acquiescing to the halt of the Israeli initiative to control all of Biblical Israel and having relinquished land to the Palestinians?

Ami Ayalon calmly states that “right of return” of any Palestinian refugee to Israel will not be permitted; refugees will return to the new Palestine nation. Will any Palestinian leader agree to that proposal? To them, the Palestinians outside of borderless Israel are not refugees; they are displaced persons who have been forced to live outside of their lands. The present West Bank cannot absorb new populations ─ insufficient agriculture, water, and employment prevent immigration of a large number of new people, and the authority will fear that the in-gathered Palestinians will be those who are most poor, most angry, most restless and most rebellious. In addition, the Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza, Lebanese and Syrian camps want to return to ancestral homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias, and hundreds of other ethnically cleansed villages in Israel. No more than someone removed from Philadelphia would consider returning to Akron, Ohio, will displaced Palestinians consider returning to a territory that is alien to them.

Will Israel cede claims of sovereignty on areas east of the existing security barrier? Prime Minister Netanyahu has declared, “Israel will never cede the Jordan Valley.” On March 2, 2010, the PM told a Knesset committee that the Jordan Valley’s “strategic location makes pullout impossible, even in a peace deal.”

An immediate question; why is Amihai Ayalon telling us this? His proposal has an air of uncertainty and a dreamlike quality. The proposal rests on convincing the Israeli government to proceed with the recommendations − a difficult, if not impossible task. What can Americans do about that, except hope and postpone other endeavors until the Israelis, if ever, proceed? Why is the Labor leader, who must have many associates in Israeli politics, not devoting all of his time and effort to convince his associates and government to start moving the proposition − at least halting new settlements and settler expansions − some small initiative to convince others that this concept has legs. Would not Israel, if it had any interest in the plan, want to show some good faith?

The thrust is singular − a Zionist perspective on only what is good for Israel and not what is good for reconciliation. It essentially legalizes the illegal land seizures and legitimizes the illegitimate actions. No consideration to “right” the “wrongs,” or to allow Palestinians to reclaim water rights, land rights, and human rights.

Most disturbing is the appearance that the Israeli children have been raised with a narrative of 5000 (?) years of Jewish history, rather than the actual sixty years of Israeli history. Archaeology and historical research have disproved the biblical myths of a united Jewish nation that commanded vast territory for centuries in the Levant. Academics lack historical evidence that supports the existence of the Torah’s Hebrew prophets or a common and connected history of Jews through millennia. Other than religious beliefs and some common customs, Falasha, Yemenites, Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, German-American and other Jews have tenuous relations between each other. Relating modern day Israel to ancient tribes, as if the small tribe of a 5000 year-old Abraham walked the land only a few years ago, denies reality.

Careful examination of the proposal, as in most mighty dramas, reveals sub-text. The former Shin Bet leader has knowingly or carelessly framed a document of surrender. This plan serves as a floater, to gauge opinion of a treaty of surrender for the Palestinians, in which Israel unilaterally dictates the surrender terms. The terms may not be exactly as Ami Ayalon has specified, but then the Palestinians, who have sacrificed everything, must make some sacrifices. Expect the terms to be exactly as Israel wants them, with Jerusalem entirely Israeli, all major settlements incorporated into Israel, some unusable Israeli land given to the Palestinians for any loss in West Bank land, all Israeli roads and water provisions remaining as is for Israelis in the West Bank, and the Jordan Valley incorporated into Israel. There will be a new nation with defined borders, the nation of Israel; the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza can declare themselves one or two nations, as they want. Checkpoints will disappear and be replaced by border guards. A visa will be required to enter Israel, even if it is only for passing through new Israeli territory to re-enter Palestinian territory. This will include traversing the Jordan valley to reach Jordan. West Bank Palestinians will be more landlocked and less able to move than brethren in Gaza.

The drama of Peace Without Partners is not much different than that of Partners Without Peace. The characters and their actors are the same. The backdrop and scenery are the same. The plot is identical. The script has been modified, but still controlled by the same director. Without a change in action, the ending will be the same − and there is no discernible change in action.

France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy gains headlines, and mostly for appropriate reasons. He is in the news almost every day – marriage to a celebrity model, leading the charge against dispatched Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, whom he befriended months earlier, scuffling with Germany’s Prime Minister Angela Merkel over how to save the Euro and French banks, camera shots with the new baby, and at an October 7, 2011 meeting in Armenia stating that “Turkey’s refusal to recognize the [Armenian] genocide would force France to make such denials a criminal offense.”

Peoples who suffered genocide have the right to solicit compensation for displaced survivors from the guilty government and to seek means to correct the wrong. Others have an obligation to help. Nevertheless, knowing that President Sarkozy’s statement would irritate Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and force him to reject the bill, there must be more to the French President’s actions and to the French National Assembly December 20, 2011 vote that proposed a year in jail and a fine of $58,000 to those publicly denying the alleged genocide.

Note: The expression ‘alleged genocide’ is used for impartiality. There is neither intention to deny genocide nor assent to a thesis that it did not occur.

What does the bill accomplish for France?

Is denial of an Armenian genocide a polarizing issue in France? Do citizens of La Patria openly debate Ottoman Empire responsibility for an alleged genocide that happened one hundred years ago? Does French jurisprudence need this bill to prevent a significant offense? The necessity to pass a law that makes it a crime to deny the alleged Armenian genocide is baffling. To whom is it directed and what is its purpose?

The bill will not help the victims; after all, they are gone. What happened in the Armenian part of Turkey almost a century ago is not a French issue, and therefore will neither resolve a present or future French problem nor change French life. It is doubtful that many citizens thought about the issue and argued a need for the bill.

The bill will create problems

Old wounds are opened, and with them renewed hatreds will occur. As the western world starts to overcome its prejudices and learns to appreciate the Turkish nation, Sarkozy shakes the world with accusations of criminal behavior by the almost ancient Ottoman government.

Just when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has embarked on reconciliation with Armenia and his own Armenian citizens, a challenge interrupts the peace-minded progress. After decades of hostility, Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement in October 2009 to establish diplomatic relations and open their borders. Unfortunately, neither government has ratified the agreement due to the lack of settlement of a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory that was formally inside Azerbaijan and, since a 1990s war, is occupied by ethnic Armenians.

The bill, written one hundred years after an event, makes it illegal for people to rebut accusations that their ancestors initiated genocide and considers them complicit in the atrocities if they defend their elders. The Turks are probably asking themselves: “If this bill is necessary, why aren’t there bills concerning complicity of many western powers in the mass killings of Indigenous populations in the Western Hemisphere, African populations throughout Africa, which includes slavery in the United States, Asians, most prominently in China, India, and the Philippines, and their own populations in Europe?”

Not stopping atrocities, and then criminalizing words that question the extent of the atrocities, smacks of duplicity; an attempt to hide failures by achieving political correctness. Isn’t there something wrong in a democratic nation when opinions can be made illegal and illegal deeds are not prevented?

Why aren’t remaining effects of previous genocides not directly countered?

Existing effects of previous genocides require more attention than bills that punish people for denying genocide. In North, Central and South America, Indigenous peoples who suffered genocide continue to struggle for cultural survival and to maintain their dignity. Inca and Mapuche from South America, Maya from Central America, and Indigenous peoples in North America remain disempowered in trying to regain the land and resources stolen from them and find themselves slowly decimated and slipping into obscurity. Grief still inhabits their faces and squalor is forced upon them.

Disadvantages arising from past actions have been, and always will, impede descendants of American slaves in their progress. While severe disadvantage is not easily overcome, advantage is capitalized and adds to advantage. African Americans deserve a compensation that enables them to overcome the disadvantages in order to achieve an equal status with White America.

Why are these victims of genocide not being properly helped? The answer is simple: the economic capital (a huge amount to right the wrongs done to the African Americans) will not return a positive political benefit. Note that these genocides are often denied with one statement – a natural course of history – and the detractors are not punished.

What motivated a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged genocide?

Proving hidden motivations for passage of the bill cannot be easily justified or demonstrated. Frame the question in another context: Knowing that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan would disregard President Sarkozy’s statement and vehemently reject the bill, how will others benefit from a bill that criminalizes denial of an alleged Armenian genocide?

Prime Minister Erdogan has taken independent stances that lead many to regard him his courage. His stances and moral attitude have generated opposition and disturbed those who envy his popularity. The French bill shifts the moral compass from Erdogan to Sarkozy and reduces the impact from Erdogan’s independent positions.

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has steered Turkey away from the severe nationalist polices of its militarist predecessors. The bill places Erdogan and his AKP Party in a difficult position. Accept the bill and lose favor with a great majority of the Turkish electorate. Reject the bill and give the appearance of following a renewed nationalist policy.

Those who view Turkey as too independent, too large, and too Muslim seek any excuse to keep Turkey out of the European Union. Add to the list Turkey’s unwillingness to recognize the Ottoman Empire’s culpability in the alleged Armenian genocide.

When friendly with Turkey, Israel rejected recognition of the alleged Armenian genocide. Now that the two nations are declared antagonists, is it possible that Israel, whose Knesset held a renewed discussion on recognizing the Armenian genocide, played a role in promoting the bill in order to embarrass Erdogan?

Armenia has an unresolved situation with Azerbaijan over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian lobby consistently works to keep the atrocity alive and direct sympathy to Armenia.

France has a law that calls genocide denial a criminal offense. People are questioning why the law is applied to the World War II holocaust and not to other genocides.

An Armenian lobby and contributors can play a significant role in the coming French presidential election.

The bill might backfire on President Sarkozy and damage French interests.

An injured Turkey, that has become dubious of a wounded European Union, might shift its allegiance and interchange from the western world to Russia, China and India. If that happens, NATO, who relies greatly on Turkey’s geo-strategic position, will find itself engaging a more difficult partner.

Preventing genocide and assisting its remaining victims has highest priority. However, perpetually aggravating hatred rather than pursuing reconciliation and using a genocide for enhancing a personal or national agenda create suspicion. Making criminals of those who recognize atrocities but deny that ancestors deserve to be included as purveyors of genocide is a controversial afterthought and an arm twister: “Say uncle or go to jail.”

China’s Chang Kai-Shek, Korea’s Syngman Rhee, Vietnam’s President Van Thieu, Nicaragua’s Somoza and in more recent times, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Mexico’s Carlos Salinas de Gortari, Russia’s Boris Yeltsin, and Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili fit the former pattern. These friends of Washington received relatively harmless rebukes for nefarious actions.

Soviet leaders until Mikhail Gorbachev, France’s Charles de Gaulle, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indonesia’s Sukarno, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and Venezuela’s Hugo Rafael Chavez, all of whom confronted American foreign policies, were, regardless of their acomplishments, constantly castigated by the American media.

Description of the castigated grows, graduating from being against American policies to being anti-American, then a serious threat to America and finally a danger to everyone. Nothing good can be said about them; anyone muttering kindly remarks is considered ignorant and slightly warped. After the aversion to the anti-Americans who are a danger to everyone engulfs a large percentage of the population, the media joins the bandwagon, aware it best not contradict the one-sided appraisals.

This conditioning enables U.S. foreign policy planners to gain public support for their rejection of foreign critics and for policies that disturb their critics. Initiation of wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Granada, Panama and other countries could not occur before a mention of the name of the leaders of the antagonist nations had aroused an angry emotional reaction in America’s psyche. Economic warfare against several nations could not be practiced until Americans were made to feel that the economic warfare was morally correct; a necessary action to defeat and replace the criminal leader of the impudent nation.

Despite Hillary Clinton having pressed the reset button, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin clearly broadcasts his disfavor with State Department initiatives. Has he also fallen into the Washington character crusher and being leveled due to his alleged antagonism towards America? American media’s scornful attacks on the Russian premier hint at that possibility.

The Russian Prime Minister is continually presented as a bad boy, a tyrannical, and corrupt megolomaniac who assists his cronies in pilfering Russia’s resources. Lacking is a body of verified evidence to support the allegations. Putin’s critics found an opportunity to provide evidence in the recent legislative elections in Russia and promptly accused the Russian premier of personally stealing the election, labeled him rejected by the Russian people, made him responsible for his Party’s losses, and described him as lucky. To them, Russia’s tremendous growth during Putin’s tenure is only due to high energy prices and not his leadership.

Constant repetition of these charges condition the portrait of Vladimir Putin. Are the charges true, specious, or a matter of perspective? If the facts are obscure, logic overcomes the obscurity.

Putin stole the election

The New York Times echoed the American media approach to the confusing situation.

The United States needs Russia’s cooperation on a host of issues, most notably Iran, and the Obama administration made the right decision to try to ‘reset’ the relationship. But that can’t mean giving Mr. Putin’s authoritarian ways a pass. So it was good to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton express ‘serious concerns’ that the voting was neither free nor fair.¹

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitored the election and presented an analysis on “free and fair” in a press release.

MOSCOW, 5 December 2011 “Despite the lack of a level playing field during the Russian State Duma elections, voters took advantage of their right to express their choice.
“The observers noted that the preparations for the elections were technically well-administered across a vast territory, but were marked by a convergence of the state and the governing party, limited political competition and a lack of fairness.

Although seven political parties ran, the prior denial of registration to certain parties had narrowed political competition. The contest was also slanted in favour of the ruling party: the election administration lacked independence, most media were partial and state authorities interfered unduly at different levels. The observers also noted that the legal framework had been improved in some respects and televised debates for all parties provided one level platform for contestants.

On election day, voting was well organized overall, but the quality of the process deteriorated considerably during the count, which was characterized by frequent procedural violations and instances of apparent manipulations, including serious indications of ballot box stuffing.

Granted the OSCE press release is only a preliminary and abbreviated summary before a final report, scheduled for its 2012 meeting. Nevertheless, its evaluation uses vague expressions — procedural violations, instances of apparent, serious indications — that don’t confirm extensive fraud.

All seven registered political parties were approved to participate in the elections. Is that a narrow field? The Party with the lowest total received only 0.3% of the vote. Did the electorate need more or want more?

Incumbent legislators, certainly those in the U.S., usually have great advantages in elections, monopolize the news and gain more media coverage. Wherever possible, the Party in power slants the election with all its power. What else is new? Proven charges of ballot stuffing and multiple voting demand investigations, but these skewing of elections are minor when compared to the disguised frauds from PACs and lobbies, many of whom control media expressions and campaign funding. Political Parties are shaped to skirt the edges of legality and do everything to assure victory. When the numerical and financial disparity between one political Party and the others is great, as it is between United Russia and its competitors, the favoritism and slant becomes more exaggerated.

By sensationalizing the alleged frauds, constantly repeating and continually re-circulating the same, the media made it difficult to gauge their actual significance. Signals were filtered out and noise amplified so that only the noise was heard. A similar happening occurred with the heavily publicized and videos. Subjectively interpreted, lacking verification and possibly being staged, an unlikely situation, but still a possibility that nobody considered to investigate, an appraisal of the condemning videos places them as images of fraud that look good on Court TV but might be insufficiently convincing for judicial courts. Undoubtedly there were severe irregularities, but were they substantiated as massive and organized or were they more driven by local exuberances and incompetent behaviors?

The table below contains significant details for resolving the debate on election validity. It shows that the election results were close to the trend in the polls and to their final readings. If United Russia (UR) did much better than the polls, then fraud would be a definite probability. By doing worse than predicted, either the UR poorly prepared the mechanisms for illegally augmenting vote totals, or the mechanisms did not exist.

The Russian people rejected Putin

The youthful, Internet-savvy Russians who have turned out in the streets in historic numbers in recent weeks want to end Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s untrammeled rule over their country, but whether they can translate their frustration to the political arena – or even whether they will remain fired up — remains an open question.²

Did voters, who were electing local delegates to the Duma, go to the polls thinking of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin? Unlikely. Interim elections reflect voter opinions on the legislature and somewhat on the president, who is Dmitry Medvedev. In Russia, as in France, the president has considerable power. He nominates the highest state officials, including the prime minister, can pass decrees without consent from the Duma, and is head of the armed forces and Security Council.

The American media might insist that Putin manages everything behind the scenes, but President Medvedev’s performance during the last four years contradicts that assertion. No question that several years ago Putin dealed with Medvedev and promised him support for the presidency in return for a promise that Medvedev would not run for a second term. Knowledge of that agreement might have disturbed voters and swayed their preferences. Nevertheless, Medvedev has operated sufficiently independent during his reign. U.S. media portrays Putin as the Russian leader. Putin is prime minister, but Russians and the U.S. State Department interacted with President Medvedev during the last four years.

Putin’s United Russia was Defeated
“It’s embarrassing enough to do poorly in an honest election. Putin’s party managed to crater despite vigorous measures to rig the vote.”³

Crater? A defeat? Steve Chapman misrepresented the election. Gaining 49.3% of the vote in a five Party system is an astonishing victory, not as large as previous United Russia victories, but a total that any European political Party would envy. In the last national elections in United Kingdom, France and Germany, no political Party received more than 36% of the vote. Don’t weep for UR. They are not too sad.

The electorate normally anguishes when the same political Party dominates its life for a decade. Lower totals for United Russia reflect that usual discontent. After ten years of power, it is surprising that Russia’s leading political organization still retains 50% support from the electorate. Evidently, the populace has not tired of United Russia’s managed economy, which features statist and nationalist positions, both of which have irked the western powers. The statist Communist Party and nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (misnamed) showed increased vote totals from their 2007 vote totals.

Putin was lucky. Yeltsin was unlucky.
“In retrospect, Mr. Putin was lucky to inherit a recovering economy and an incipient oil- and commodity-price boom from Mr. Yeltsin.”⁴

The difference in media treatment between Boris Yeltsin’s government, which brought Russia to poverty and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which brought Russia to a moderate prosperity, proves the thrust of this article: “There must be more than coincidence to the observation that the media’s appraisal of a world leader, which often shapes public opinion, reflects the State Department’s attitude towards the same leader.”

Putin’s Russia has its corrupt and authoritative components. Unfortunately these are common features of a nation where corruption is ingrained into the society, and authoritarian rule has been the norm.

Evgeny Yakovlev and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, “State Capture: From Yeltsin to Putin,” explained the situation.

In contrast to Yeltsin whose political term was notorious for creating and strengthening oligarchs, Putin began his first term in the office by fighting the most famous of them: Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky, and Lebedev. Fighting oligarchs was again high on the agenda during his second election campaign. In addition, Putin attempted centralization process, restricting autonomy of regional political elites and moved political and economic power from the regions to the federal center6. A new tax law, which restricted the use of individual tax breaks, was adopted, as well as a number of laws, aimed at easing the burden of business regulation. A new anti-corruption campaign was launched and some governors who were considered most corrupt, e.g. Rutskoy in Kursk region and Nazdratenko in Primorsky region, were not permitted to run for re-election. The governor of Yaroslavl region, Lisitsin, was under a criminal investigation in early fall of 2004 because of pursuing illegal paternalistic policies towards regional business.

The following graphs show the differences in operation beween “democratic” Yeltsin and “authoritative” Putin.

Note that Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil productions increased during the 1990′s and Russian oil production dropped sharply. Demand was there, but Yeltsin’s policies neither enabled the world’s largest oil producer to produce nor prevented it from halving output within two years. Although oil production and prices bottomed, Yeltsin’s Russia did not. The GDP continued to fall, lowering to 38% of the value at the time Yeltsin took office.

Regard Putin’s administration. Oil production increased rapidly from the day he took office, up 50% in eight years. GDP increased more rapidly than oil production and prices, rising monotonically to an increase of 700% (in nominal terms) in the same eight years. In July 1997, opinion polls showed Yeltsin having about 5 percent of public support. Putin, who once had 70% approval, has been constantly castigated by the American media. Yeltsin, who fell to 5% approval, received mild rebukes.

Was Yeltsin, who created his own problems, unlucky? Was Putin, whose administration knew what to do, just lucky?

Those who continue with the crushing of Vladimir Putin are tending to bring back the era of Yeltsin and the oligarchs, a time when Russia was a paradise for five to ten persons and a weak antagonist to U.S. military adventures.

1. “Not What Mr. Putin Planned,” New York Times, December 7, 2011.
2. Washington Post, December 19, 2011.
3. Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman, Dec. 15, 2011.
4. The Economist, February 28, 2008.

How could the U.S. behave so recklessly, not realize it was responsible for the atomic arms race and for allowing and even moving others to obtain the bomb? Why does it not consider in its policies the argument that those most likely to use the bomb are more important than those who have the bomb? Answers to both these questions expose an almost purposeful U.S. policy to drive others to obtain the “doomsday explosive” and, if we concede the Islamic Republic is developing a bomb, give meaning to Iran’s determination to develop a nuclear weapon. A simple proposition can deaden that determination, and not only for Iran; the world’s major powers can give any nation that entertains a “first strike” a rethink: do it and get demolished.

The consequence of not facing down to India and Pakistan defines the real arms race; nuclear weapons in the military depots of nations that contain extremist elements who kill mercilessly and, if able to obtain the weapons, would apply them worldwide, including at the United States. Iran’s possibility of obtaining a nuclear capability is conjectural and not as significant as the actual; Pakistan has many bombs and Pakistan is politically stable. The laxity is emphasized by the lack of control on previous actions by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s (in)famous nuclear physicist.

In 2004, Dr. Khan indicated he had provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with designs and centrifuge technology to aid in nuclear weapons programs. Where was the CIA when Khan roamed the world? Pondering about Iran, no doubt, and developing policies that have driven North Korea to develop a nuclear deterrent and motivating Iran to do the same.

Noting U.S. intensive hostility towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), coupled with its extensive military presence in Japan and South Korea, shouldn’t the Pyongyang leaders be apprehensive? Their apprehension inspired them to welcome previous treaties.

In October 1994, President Clinton negotiated the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework:

North Korea agreed to freeze its existing plutonium enrichment program and be monitored by the IAEA;
Both sides agreed to replace by 2003 North Korea’s reactors with light water reactors, financed and supplied by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO);
The United States agreed to provide heavy fuel oil to the DPRK for energy purposes until atomic energy was available;
The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations;
Both sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula; and
Both sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

What happened to this anxiety relieving treaty? The charges, countercharges, truths, and distortions are difficult to unravel.

Not debatable is that the George W. Bush administration signaled North Korea with unfriendly intentions. Despite it being the most significant milestone in the treaty, the first reactor, promised for delivery by 2003, was pushed up until 2008 at the earliest. A leaked version of the Bush administration’s January 2002 classified Nuclear Posture Review mentioned North Korea as a country against which the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons.

After starts and stops, self-destruction of nuclear facilities and reconstruction of the same facilities, the DPRK proceeded to definitely develop nuclear weapons. Their arguments for this posture had validity. The United States did not meet its most important commitment, President George W. Bush designated North Korea as part of an “axis of evil,” the State Department continually equated not having a peace treaty with Pyongyang violations of human rights, and Washington carelessly inferred that, if hostilities developed, North Korea could expect a nuclear attack. What did the Bush administration expect of the ‘hermit state’ leaders? The U.S. State Department evidently imagined, by being conciliatory, Kim Jong IL would take advantage and secretly develop an atomic bomb. However, by not being conciliatory, it assured the DPRK would be provoked into securing a nuclear weapon.

Except for the United States’ offensive attack against Japan, the nuclear club nations that signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty developed the weapons as deterrents. The Soviet Union needed to neutralize USA power. Great Britain and France requisitioned a nuclear arsenal to defend against the Soviet Union. China had the greatest fear; it was surrounded by a world of enemies.

Of those who have not signed the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons — India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel — all, except Israel had deterrent as an immediate reason. India feared China, Pakistan feared India and North Korea feared the United States. When Israel allegedly started nuclear weapons developments in 1963, none of its antagonists were even thinking nuclear.

The United States claims that Iran must be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons because Iran’s developments will provoke a Middle East nuclear arms race. However, by allowing Israel to develop the weapons, the U.S. and friends already stimulated the Middle East arms race. It is mainly due to the United States, Great Britain, and France that Israel has nuclear capability. As a consequence, Middle East nations sought means to neutralize the Israel bomb.

Saddam Hussein clearly expressed this dilemma in a speech he made at al-Bakr University, 3 June 1978.

“When the Arabs start the deployment, Israel is going to say, ‘We will hit you with the atomic bomb.’ So should the Arabs stop or not? If they do not have the atom, they will stop. For that reason they should have the atom. If we were to have the atom, we would make the conventional armies fight without using the atom. If the international conditions were not prepared and they said, “We will hit you with the atom,” we would say, “We will hit you with the atom too. The Arab atom will finish you off, but the Israeli atom will not end the Arabs.”¹

France started Israel on the road to nuclear capability with the sale of a nuclear reactor and uranium fuel.

“Franco-Israeli nuclear cooperation is described in detail in the book Les Deux Bombes (1982) by French journalist Pierre Pean, who gained access to the official French files on Dimona. The book revealed that the Dimona’s cooling circuits were built two to three times larger than necessary for the 26-megawatt reactor Dimona [supplied by France] was supposed to be — proof that it had always been intended to make bomb quantities of plutonium. The book also revealed that French technicians had built a plutonium extraction plant at the same site. According to Pean, French nuclear assistance enabled Israel to produce enough plutonium for one bomb even before the 1967 Six Day War. France also gave Israel nuclear weapon design information.”²

Great Britain paved the road for Israel to reach the bomb. When he was UK prime minister, Harold Wilson supplied Israel with plutonium.

“In Harold Macmillan’s time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona — heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make ‘six nuclear weapons a year.’”³

The United States looked the other way.

“After the United States discovered the Dimona reactor in 1960, U.S. nuclear specialists inspected Dimona every year from 1965 through 1969, looking for signs of nuclear weapon production. It is not clear what they found, but in 1968 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported to President Lyndon Johnson its conclusion that Israel had already made an atomic bomb. In 1969, Israel limited inspection visits by U.S. scientists to such an extent that the Americans complained in writing. Without explanation, the Nixon administration ended the visits the following year.”²

After tacitly agreeing to Israel’s nuclear weapon developments and permitting India and Pakistan to go nuclear, the United States engages Iran in a similar manner to its engagement with North Korea — provoking Iran to develop a bomb in another “lose-lose” situation.

Blind to the effects on Iran’s posture, the U.S. stages its military in adjacent nations to Iran, constantly harangues Iran about its human rights record and its despotic government and accuses Iran of all sorts of terrorist activities. None of the activities are specified nor does the charge consider that Iranians are mysteriously getting assassinated, their facilities are blowing up, their computers are attacked by the Stuxnet virus, and CIA spies are being uncovered and arrested by them and Hezbollah. Who are doing these nefarious activities? Aren’t they terrorists?

Although insurgents in Iraq carry U.S. weapons, the U.S., without proof, accuses Iraq of arming them. In Afghanistan, the U.S. rails against alleged Iranian assistance to the Taliban, although the Taliban is an enemy of Iran and is interfering with a myriad of business deals the Iranians are arranging with the Karzai government, with whom it is friendly. By deeds the U.S. is telling Iran: “If you want to survive, get yourself a deterrent.” The U.S. policies towards Iran, similar to most State Department policies, are counterproductive and push Iran to invest in nuclear weapons.

Shouldn’t the U.S. State Department consider in its policies the argument that those most likely to use the bomb are more important than those who have the bomb? Great Britain has the bomb, but there is no possibility it will use the weapon. There is little probability that even if about to be defeated, the DPRK will use the bomb — against whom, their own brethren? Only Pakistan radical elements and Israel can effectively use the bomb in an offensive manner; the former because they have suicidal tendencies, and the latter because it does not face nuclear retaliation.

Pakistan’s present government won’t use it, but it is entirely possible that anarchy in Pakistan can deliver bombs to radical groups that have no compunction against using the deadly weapon.

If Israel faces defeat, it could use the bomb. In several wars, especially during the December 2008 invasion of Gaza, Israel demonstrated a disregard for enemy life. Even if an engaged nation had a nuclear weapon, and presently none of Israel’s foes have a mass destruction device, Israel’s small size and closeness to Arab peoples give it an advantage in a nuclear war. The possibility of inflicting severe damage to innocent Arab populations hinders a retaliatory action. Israel’s principal reason to have the bomb is for the threat, real or imagined, it poses to any nation that counters its policies, including Iran, who is concerned about the possible loss of Muslim holy places in Jerusalem and is disturbed about Israel’s expansion and oppression of the Palestinian people.

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel faced possible defeat, a fear existed that unless the United States assisted Israel with more armaments, Israel might use nuclear weapons against its adversaries. A large U.S. airlift of military aid finalized the battle in favor of Israel. A French official explained the situation.

In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, was quoted in the press as saying that France and Israel had worked closely together for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin said that the United States had agreed that the French scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project could apply their knowledge at home provided they kept it secret. But then, Perrin said, ‘We considered we could give the secrets to Israel provided they kept it a secret themselves.’ He added: ‘We thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say ‘if you don’t want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs. ‘⁴

The Islamic Republic cannot use nuclear weapons for an offensive purpose. Any attempt to do that and Iran’s enemies will extinguish the Islamic Republic in a flash of the radioactive light. Its bomb can only neutralize other bombs.

Which leads to the only ways to halt nuclear proliferation in the Middle East — either dismantle all existing bombs or neutralize them.

Better yet — signal that a first nuclear strike by any nation will be met by a severe strike on that nation with conventional weapon from the great powers of the United Nations Security Council. Give them an offer they can’t refuse. Not far fetched!

1. Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC) Record No. SH-PDWN-D-000-341, “Speech at al-Bakr University,” 3 June 1978
2. Israel’s Nuclear Weapon Capability: An Overview, The Risk Report, Volume 2 Number 4, July-August 1996
3. Secret sale of UK plutonium to Israel, Meirion Jones, BBC Newsnight, 10 March 2006
4. Ibid

After Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Istanbul mayor from 1994 to 1998, established the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the year 2001 and subsequently won a victory in the 2002 election, a new Turkey successfully emerged from a severe economic crisis and its runaway inflation. Since becoming Prime Minister in 2003, Erdogan has diverged from the post-Ottoman laicism (secular), authoritative, and nationalist philosophy of the Turkish Republic’s founder, Kemal Ataturk, and steered Turkey in a direction more consistent with western democratic philosophy.

What enables this nation to operate independently and grow in a dependent and declining western world? Can it sustain its growth? Can it reject Kemalism without military interference? These are only three of many questions concerning Turkey’s foreign, economic and social policies, all of which contain contradictions, doubts, and problems. Problems? Turkey excels in problems. There is the Kurdish problem, Cyprus problem, Islamic influence problem, writing a new Constitution problem, relations with adjacent nations problem, entry to the European Union problem and of course, problems with Israel and the United States

A trip through Turkey, sponsored by the Washington based Rumi Forum, an interfaith and peace organization, featured meetings with parliamentarians, journalists, academics and businessmen, and provided insight into Turkey’s (1) ability to confront its problems, (2) strength to continue an independent path, and (3) role as a model for the Arab nations that are struggling from a revolutionary spring into a bright and peaceful future. Istanbul revealed the ‘think tanks that define the present.” Ankara provided the parliamentarians that shape the future. In Sanliurfa and Gaziantep, one learns of an ancient past and gains insight into Turkey’s nationwide progress and the role of its Kurdish community.

A discussion of Turkey starts with its youth.

A modern country

New airports, new super highways, massive construction of modern buildings in expanding cities that now contain 75% of the population with a median age of 28.5 years, highlight the growing Turkey.

A western oriented nation reflects a Mediterranean appearance. Buildings, offices, restaurants, hotels and institutions use warm colors; brown, beige, orange, together with neutral white, black and lilac; colors associated with steadfastness, simplicity, friendliness, and dependability. The warm colors made large rooms look cozier, while the orange proved mentally stimulating as well as sociable.

A subjective appraisal notes a nation of hard working purposeful and dedicated people, well organized and progressive. Turkey reflects vision and mission. Youthful representatives satisfied the vision.

Faik Tunay, at 30 years, is the youngest parliamentarian for the The Republican People’s Party (CHP). The CHP is the oldest political party of Turkey and is currently the main opposition in the Grand National Assembly. Best described as a modern social-democratic party, it is faithful to the principles of Kemal Ataturk, the Party’s founder.

The deputy for Istanbul, member of the Foreign Affairs committee, speaks five languages, and has been invited by the Eisenhower Institute to visit America, In addition to being an elected member of the Grand National Assembly, he is involved in several family businesses and some of his own – construction, agriculture, advertising. His ambition – although born as a White Turk, a member of a privileged class, he wants to leave as a Black Turk, as a member of the masses.

The youngest member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly is only 27 years old, one of three members under 32 years of age. Bilal Macit represents an Istanbul district for the AKP, but insists he represents the state and not the civil authority, does not represent youth nor will limit his activities to youth policies. He has traveled widely, matured in a global world and learned to think independently. Cognizant that his Party’s leader changed politics, Parliamentarian Macit won’t allow his independent attitude to harm the Party. Surprisingly, he offered the opinion that youth does not represent the Arab revolutionary movements, suggesting the movements are more complex and widely distributed. The youthful parliamentarian attributes some of his success to his previous association with the Young Civilians, a movement he helped to found.

Young Civilians

Fatih Demirci, who graduated with a manufacturing system engineering degree and is now an Istanbul entrepreneur, is another 27 year-old founder of the Young Civilians and still an active member. At a dinner meeting, he explained the operations of the organization whose name indicates its thrust — contrasts to Kemal Ataturk’s Young Turks who led the 1908 revolution and the Young Officers who won Turkey’s independence.

Organization? The Young Civilians have no formal organization. Corresponding by Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, they gather compatriots at demonstrations. Their symbol is the sneaker, a sharp difference from the military boot that shaped the nation. Similar to America’s flower children of the 1960′s with a dash of France’s 1968 rebel Cohen-Bendit’s “Ask for the impossible,” the Young Civilians “demand the possible but perfect.”

They grimace at any military or nationalist demonstrations, such as the May 19 Youth and Sports Day national holiday. On that day, in 2003, the group organized its first gathering at Parliament to protest the style of the festivities and become known. They became well known, even internationally, with coverage by the New York Times. Reducing military appearance in social and political life, gaining equal rights for all forty-two ethnicities, and no-holds barred allowance for religious and national expressions dominate their thinking. Removing visa requirements and opening the border between Armenia and Turkey would please them.

Will the Young Civilians (who are growing older) be only a humorous irritant to Turkey’s elite or will it become a serious movement that contributes to all Turks embracing one another with equal expression, regardless of religion or ethnicity? Does the answer lie with the flowering of the flower children of the American 60′s, who became more conservative as they moved on in years?

The Young Civilians might already be superfluous. The Kemalism they want defeated and the military coup they fear are quickly being subdued with no appearance of immediate revival.

Kemalism

After Kemal Ataturk died in 1938, almost any government that threatened the principal tenets, the six arrows of Kemalism, triggered a military coup.

Republicanism–a broadly based republican system.
Nationalism–a distinctly Turkish identity
Populism–a more classless society
Revolutionism–wholesale, rather than gradual, change
Laicism-cancellation of the power of religion in the state, and
Statism–state-led development of the economy and society

were inviolate until the AKP gained power.

Prime Minister Erdogan’s instant and bold challenge in 2003 to the tenets of Kemalism did not provoke a military coup. Nevertheless, the military and allied Kemalists have been accused of preparing a conspiratorial response in 2007 that was uncovered in 2009.

Why did Erdogan proceed so boldly and why was it difficult for the military to instantly respond to the AKP’s removal of several of the six arrows of Kemalism from its quiver? AKP parliamentarian Bilal Macit explained; “Before 2002, the military exercised control of most facets of society except for the economic system. Their political and social control promoted economic stagnation and decline.” Erdogan’s deft handling of the economy apparently impressed much of the military to favor his administration.

Markar Esayan, editor of the independent Taraf newspaper, suggested that the Prime Minister correctly gauged a change in society and recognized he had wide support. The year 2002 is now a milestone in Turkish history – the year the military was no longer the principal authority.

Mesut Ulker, a former army colonel, presently a strategist for a think tank and a well-known television personality, added a simple comment: ‘The army has rapidly changed.”

Professor Dr. Yasin Aktay, Director of the Institute of Strategic Thinking, summarized the situation in a strategic context: “The shift of the population to urban areas created an expanding middle class with new social demands. The population requested an allocation of resources, a new identity and a new constitution. The ideological state (Kemalism) with its stress on Turkic identity and secularism created problems.”

Yusuf Acar, Zaman newspaper journalist and world news editor for magazine Aksiyon, echoed the decline of Kemalism and military domination. “Power has shifted to president office #1, Parliament as #2, and then the military. Nevertheless, the state still comes before the citizen.”

A journalist for Zaman, which has become one of Turkey’s principal newspapers, with a circulation of about one million, might be prejudiced in its observations. Yusuf Acar admits Zaman is often accused of being a government supporter and receiving assistance. However, except for sharing a state run television station and agency with the government, he denies the state has any involvement with the newspaper.

Ozcan Yeniceri, previously a university professor, and presently a parliamentarian for MHP (The Nationalist Movement Party) speaks passionately and in great length on all topics. By gaining 53 seats in the 2011 general elections, his Party remained the third largest parliamentary group. Previously characterized as an ultra-nationalist party, which has recommended martial law in Kurdish territory, the MHP has tempered its extremist views.

In Ozcan Yeniceri’s opinion, nationalism has ontological meaning, a striving for security, and struggle for independence. It unites the country against invading forces. He considers his Party is less nationalistic than that of President Obama and would not resort to the killing of leaders that Obama has done. (Evidently referring to the assassination of Osama bin Laden and NATO attempts on Moammar Gadaffi’s life.) “Liberal criticisms about the establishment of the Republic are wrong in the claim that Ataturk did not introduce democracy. Ataturk was a pragmatic and not actually a Kemalist. He understood the times and adapted. Turkey’s divisions have been between left and right with left defined as communist and right defined as capitalist. Now there is a rapid change in democracy in all areas with an increase in human rights.”

Kemal Ataturk’s framed portraits still adorn the walls of public sector rooms and halls. Gigantic banners and posters of his image are noticeable. Prime Minister Erdogan has wisely retained the reverence to Turkey’s George Washington but abruptly replaced Ataturk’s nationalist and statist policies with an agenda more compatible with the global system and more in harmony with democratic dictates.

Nevertheless, the AKP, despite its widespread support, still has severe antagonists. The charge of an ongoing coup against the government has resulted in mass arrests of well known public figures, has divided the National Assembly and disturbed leaders from several sectors of society. In mid-November 2011, after several judicial reviews and hearings, a 264-page indictment accuses 143 suspects, 66 of them in pre-trial detention, with an attempt to overthrow the government.

The indictments have provoked a question: Is Erdogan using tactics similar to those of the military forces, exaggerating threats to squash opposition? Will the trial of civilians and officers associated with Operation Sledgehammer destabilize the stable nation?

Operation Sledgehammer

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan insists that nobody has been jailed in Turkey because of their profession as a journalist; only due to their membership in an illegal organization. Others are skeptical.

Markar Esayan and his independent Taraf newspaper received credit and fame for exposing the proposed 2007 coup, which had as objectives: undermine the stability of the AKP and create chaos. Esayan would not expose those who presented his newspaper with the documents, but insisted they were authentic and with signatures of known generals. He said plans had been made to bomb two major mosques in Istanbul, assault a military museum by people disguised as fundamentalists, and increase tension with Greece by instigating dogfights between the fighter planes of the two countries over the Aegean Sea. The allegations included shooting down a Turkish plane and blaming it on Greece. Subsequently, he said, prosecutors found supporting documents at military headquarters.

Faik Tunay senses that the revelations spurred citizens to support Erdogan and harmed opposition Parties. Although he believes the alleged coup plotters should be punished, he senses some plotters, especially journalists, have been accused only because of personal association with alleged plotters — guilt by association.

Zaman’s Yusuf Acar said that the “society did not accept reports of military intervention,” but after “armaments in a military home were found to match some terrorist activities, belief became widespread. Changes became apparent when the Prime Minister chaired the Military Council and the General Chief of Staff no longer stood at his side.”

Professor Dr. Yasin Altai claimed that the military often created problems to justify its existence. He has been spied upon and a file prepared on him. Now the civil can try the military.

All top generals, one of whom died, resigned. Some interpreted the resignations as an attempt to create anarchy, others as a protest to the arrests.

What seems to many as an obvious and serious plot against the government, which must be dealt with in a legal manner, is viewed by others as a bumbling proposal by a few who drew others in with arguments and not with definite alliances. All words and no action. So where is the plot?

The decline of Kemal Ataturk’s political course and weakening of the military dictates a new direction. Can that direction continue without a new constitution? What constitution? The subject is being vigorously debated.

The Constitution

A commission, composed of representatives from the three major Parties and a pro-Kurdish group, has been appointed to prepare a Draft Constitution. One limiting factor: each article must be approved unanimously, an impossible task. Without a new constitution, Kemalism cannot be entirely decomposed. Without a new Constitution, it is doubtful Turkey can gain admittance to the European Union.

The Young Civilians want a total change and absolutely new constitution. Bilal Macit noted that it is difficult to change the first three articles of the constitution; secular, socialist, modern. Article 4 of the present Constitution declares the immovability of the founding principles of the Republic defined in the first three Articles and bans any proposals for their modification. Regardless, Macit claims that no division exists between secularists and Islamists. Both want a pluralist society.

If the Constitution is modified, will it contain some references to Sharia Law? The Kemalists and western world have one question in common: To what extent is the AKP an Islamic Party?

The Islamic Party

A consensus rejects the AKP as an Islamist party. Nothing in its agendas, in its cabinet, and in its operations suggests a relation with an Islamic movement.

Nasuhi Güngör, columnist for the Star newspaper, said that the AKP “no longer represents Islamic identity,” and he should know. He admits that the Star, which has a moderate circulation of 130K daily, is owned by businessmen aligned with the government and, although critical at times, still close to the AKP. “Many AKP members practice Islam and believe that forward movement requires affiliation with Islam. However, they don’t go beyond believing that the Islamic religion can play a satisfactory role in society and wanting its adherents to be able to practice the religion in accord with their own rules.” One clue, Güngör noted, is that the AKP has not brought the wearing of the scarf issue to the table, perceiving it as human rights rather than religious issue. If the AKP raised the issue then it would be marked as an Islamic Party.

Although Turkey might not be considered an Islamic run nation, will its identification with the Islamic religion serve as a model for the newly liberated Arab nations?

Turkey as role model

The world expects the Turks to guide the Arab revolutions in the same direction as Erdagon’s movement. Consensus does not adhere to that theme and has Turkey envisioning itself only as another European a nation. Rather than being a role model, Turkey wants absolute friendship with Arab neighbors, a lack of which distracted the Ottoman Empire and impeded progress of the Kemalist programs.

Star Daily journalist Güngör, who is the newspaper’s expert on the Middle East, believes the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has close similarities to the incipient AKP, but has never governed and is 30 years behind the AKP operations. He declared that if any of the Islamic parties gain control in the Arab nations, and they have already in Tunisia and Morocco (whose Islamic Party is also named Justice and Development), that country will make a big mistake.

His views on Hamas and Hezbollah are sanguine. Both, he claims, are maneuvered by Iran and are too militaristic. Nevertheless, he recommends that Turkey continue its relationship with Hamas.

Zero problems with neighbors

As others have said: “Turkey’s pursuit of zero problems with neighbors has morphed into zero neighbors without problems.”

All commentators agreed that Turkey has failed in this pursuit. Turkey has problems with neighbors and this is partly due to its own initiatives and independent policies. PM Erdogan’s commendable moral imperative, which identifies friendship with moral agendas rather than with what one nation can do for the other, creates misperceptions and misconceptions.

Misperception of the moral imperative solicits charges of arbitrary judgment of others and intention to establish a neo-Ottoman agenda. Erdogan has a misconception that these policies can succeed in a world of mistrust and self-interest.

Trespassing on Iraq sovereignty by engaging in military attacks on Kurds in Northern Iraq, requesting the resignation of Syria’s President Bashar Assad, demanding Israel apologize for the killing of Turkish citizens during an attempt to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, installing NATO missile radar detection equipment to deter Iran, and refusing to pay compensation to Bulgaria for Ottoman eviction of Bulgarians in eastern Thrace, are only a few examples of Turkey’s conflicts with neighbors.

MHP Parliamentarian Özcan Yeniceri described the policy. “Turkey previously consulted the Pentagon for regulating its relations with Iran, Russia and others. After the fall of the Soviet Union, everything changed, and this allowed Turkey to reach potential. Still, its relations with the U.S. hindered relations with neighboring nations.”

And a host of other problems: resolution of the Kurdish question, entry into the European Union, and engagement with Israel and its principal supporter.

The Kurdish

Strategists outside of Turkey consider the Kurdish insurgency as Turkey’s number one problem. Despite continuous attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), punishing government counterattacks, and arrests of suspected PKK associates, correspondents considered the Kurdish question to be a declining problem. They noted that the Kurdish population is no longer demanding separation, feel more Turkic and sense the government is addressing their grievances. Turkey’s minority of 20 million does not maintain a unique Kurdish language and many dialects are prevalent. As for the Kurds being an organized ethnicity with direct relations in several nations, the Turkish Kurds don’t directly relate to the Kurdish populations in the other nations of Syria, Iraq and Iran. Kurdish irredentism is irrelevant to Turkey’s Kurds.

No longer considered to be a military problem, the Kurdish situation is defined as a civil and human rights problem. Former army colonel Mesut Ulker expressed the opinion succinctly: “It is a civic problem that will be resolved in 2-3 years.”

MHP Parliamentarian Ozcan Yeniceri presented a more rigorous analysis: “One third of the population has Kurdish relatives, intermarriage between ethnicities is high, and Kurds are well integrated. The Kurdish independence problem appeared after the fall of the Soviet Union, when new states formed. Nationalist Kurds asked: ‘Why not a Kurd state?’

“The PKK thought that after reforms, the government would become weak, eventually collapse and the country would divide into several divisions. Demands for democracy and freedom are not essential for the Kurds. They are only a Trojan horse. Nevertheless, the government should acknowledge rightful claims, and the conditions of the Kurds are showing improvement. Demand for a separate Kurdish language to be used in all facets of everyday public life comes from the PKK movement. In response the government has granted a Kurdish language television station, which broadcasts cultural programs.” Dunya TV has a satellite channel, and a footprint that reaches to Kurdish speaking peoples in all adjacent countries.

Ozcan Yemceri believes in equal rights for all ethnicities and private courses for Kurds, in their own language, which the government now allows. He closed with a wry remark: “America might face similar problems with its own minorities,” evidently referring to the multicultural and multilingual aspirations of Hispanic groups.

Apparently, the Turks believe that as their democracy develops it will encompass all minorities and diminish ethnic demands for separation. Developments in the Balkans, Iraq and Spain have not substantiated that belief.

European Union

As a member of the European Customs Union, Turkey has common tariffs in trade with EU nations. Petitioning the European Union for complete admission has faltered. Now, observers note that due to the contrast between Turkey’s growth and strength and a weakening Europe, it might no longer be favorable to Turkey to become a EU member.

Parliamentarian Bilal Macit agreed: “It is not important.”

Dr. Burak Erdenir, Deputy Undersecretary at Ministry for EU affairs, disagreed.
Three reasons for his intransigence:

(1) As a member of the Customs Union, Turkey is part of the decision taking but not part of the decision making.
(2) The European Union has been incorrect in its behavior towards Turkey and that behavior must be corrected.
(3) The EU process is supported by all political Parties

Dr. Erdenir spoke frankly. “EU refusal to grant admission to Turkey is entirely due to prejudice. To achieve candidate status, 35 articles must be approved. Seventeen are constantly blocked. Although Bulgaria and Romania have been given admission, Turkey is refused. The EU believes Turkey is too big, too poor, and too Muslim. The Austrians in particular have a mindset that that equates today’s Turkey with that of the Ottoman Empire 18th century attack on Vienna.

“However, things have changed. Turkey has the sixth largest economy in Europe, 159 universities, and the most stable economy. The EU has lost credibility and behaves dishonestly.”

Israel and America

Commentators condemned Israel for its policies towards the Palestinians and criticized the United States for its support of Israel and for its other Middle East policies. From observations, Israel has little support in Turkey, regardless of Party affiliation.

CHP Parliamentarian Faik Tunay included discussions of U.S. foreign policy as one factor in his Party’s quarrelsome manner. Despite Erdogan’s angry attitude towards Israel, which he supports, he claims the U.S. supports the AKP. His validation – Due to the AKP government, demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Iraq were limited.

MHP Parliamentarian Özcan Yeniceri established Israel and its support by the United States as the prime foreign policy issues. “The American image is deteriorating internationally and includes instability within NATO, in which the US has played a key role. The direction of its fight with Radical Islam and Al Qaeda will soon include all Islam. The U.S. shouldn’t be a military empire, but should base policies on values. U.S. mentors have become the Evangelists and Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations.

The U.S. interfered in Iraq and now tries to restrict Iran in its developments. Unlike Iran, the U.S. has the nuclear weapon and has used it, signs of hypocrisy and loss of credibility. The same can apply to Israel. If the U.S. changed its policy in regard to Israel, the region will change drastically. The effort would be a game changer.”

Two industrialists, who manufacture food containers for export to European nations, posed a simple question: ‘Why can’t Israel be satisfied with its nation to the Green Line? Why is it constantly expanding?”

Economy

Officials from TUSKON, the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists Worldwide, which has offices in major cities worldwide, highlighted Turkey’s economic progress. Since the AKP achieved governance, GDP and exports have tripled, while the inflation rate has fallen from 30 percent to 7.5 percent. Unemployment, which had been 14 percent in 2010, has dropped to 9.5 percent. A GDP of 735 billion dollars places Turkey 17th in the world and 7th in Europe, excluding the Russian federation. An export driven economy has increased exports to 135 billion dollars.

All the statistics are moving in proper directions, and although the inflation rate, interest rate (6%) and unemployment are high by western standards, they are acceptable by Turkish standards. Actually, the real interest rate (interest rate minus inflation) is negative, a deflationary anomaly that was not explained, and could hinder investment. Another major concern is the monotonically increasing negative trade balance, which was 42 billion dollars (2010).

If a fall in the European economy intensifies the negative trade balance, negative real interest rate, and relatively high unemployment rate, Turkey’s growth could come to a screeching halt. The vigorous economy has fragile elements.

Conclusion

Few, if any world leaders, have received as much admiration from the domestic and international public as has Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. His open manner, sincerity and moral challenges contrast with the covert, duplicitous and self subscribing attitudes of most world leaders. If his policies are out of step with most nations, they might prove that in the present global environment an independent course is a route to success.

• Europe’s and America’s economies falter. Turkey continues with rapid growth.
• Nations split apart from nationalism. Turkey enhances national identities.
• Western nations sanction Iran. Turkey increases trade with the Islamic state.
• Military control increases in most nations. Military control is constrained in Turkey.
• China and other fast growing nations pursue statist polices. Turkey eschews statism.

As in most nations, continued governing by the AKP depends upon the continued success of its economic policies. With Europe being the primary source for Turkey’s exports, a forecasted faltering of the European Market could drastically affect Turkey. Or will it? Is it possible that Erdogan’s pragmatism will lead Turkey to realign allegiances and markets and shift them to Iran and Russia, trading finished products for energy supplies? Turkey seems to be in the driver’s seat.

But not entirely. The AKP needs prosperity to advance democracy, which will enhance civil and human rights and prevent the electorate from considering Kemalism as an antidote for Turkey’s problems.

Kemalism will soon be proved as either past history or a spoke in the cycles of history. As the wheel turns, will Kemal Ataturk’s visions and policies return and challenge another Turkish Republic? The verdict is still not rendered.

United Nations Declaration 181, which partitioned Palestine, thrust the Palestinians into an ongoing crisis, a subset of the conflict that serves as a violent testimony to its consequences. As their agony recedes from international conscience, the fearful and overriding conflict emerges – one masked by valid attention to the fate of the Palestinians – that between Israel and the Arab world, and now spreading to other parts of the Muslim world – add Iran and Turkey. This larger conflict has many roots, and each uncompromised root is sufficient to cause mass destruction to the Middle East and neighboring regions.

It is doubtful the Arab world will ever accept the entrance of a European styled nation into a major position in the Middle East. It is doubtful the presently constituted Israel will modify its preferences – aligning itself with the western nations and not integrating into the Middle East world. An Arab Spring, which has brought the Muslim Brotherhood to credible invocation in Egypt and Libya, and allowed those of similar characteristics to gain acceptance and popularity, the Ennahda Islamic Party in Tunisia, now considered Tunisia’s strongest political force, and the Sahwa, who are actually being accepted as the largest and best organized non-state group in Saudi Arabia, heighten these insinuations. On the other hand, Israel has moved from a secular managed and somewhat tolerant nation to a more religious dominated and more intolerant nation. Israel’s inflexibility combined with its military power easily dominated the Palestinian Fatah flexibility and lack of military power. Clash replaces dominion in a changing Arab region that portrays inflexibility and renewed power.

The real conflict had origins in 1905, when Naguib Azoury, an Ottoman official aroused Arab nationalism with a proclamation: “Two important phenomena … are emerging at this moment in Asiatic Turkey. They are the awakening of the Arab nation and the latent effort of the Jews to reconstitute on a very large scale the ancient kingdom of Israel…. [They] are destined to fight each other continually until one of them wins.”

A large influx of uninvited Europeans crossing the Mediterranean Sea, violating the natural demarcation between the Middle East and European world, creating permanent settlements and forcing out the local peoples, jarred the Arab psyche, just as an influx of uninvited Europeans crossing the Atlantic Ocean, violating the natural demarcation between America and Europe, creating colonies in the “New World” and forcing out the Indigenous peoples.

From an Arab perspective, the real conflict exploded when a relatively small number of European persons who had a need for locating themselves in the British Mandate, and could have located elsewhere in a safer and more habitable area, and a moderate number of European persons with self-dictated and subjective wants to relocate to the Mandate, replaced the needs of magnitudes greater number of Arab people who had an irrevocable bond with the land they had tilled for generations and ignored the wants of tens of millions of Arab peoples who rejected any European incursion into their territory.

The established conflict between a western supported Israel and the Arab world continued to generate reasons for pursing the conflict.

After the 1948 war, Arab nations had a new imposed role – contain and support the refugees – which they did, and as best they could without assuming Israel’s responsibility and inheriting Israel’s problem. Despite the impoverished state of all Arab nations in the mid-twentieth century, these nations provided land and facilities for international agencies to assist the Palestinian refugees. After a period of time, Jordan granted citizenship to the refugees, Syria gave them almost full citizenship, Iraq supported them with special privileges, Libya housed many for decades, and the wealthier Arab nations gave them education and employment. Only Lebanon reacted with an excessive hostility, maintained the Palestinians in their midst in refugee camps and denied them economic and social benefits appreciated by Lebanon citizens.

Israel heralded its efforts to assist and welcome the Jewish refugees (Mizrahim) from Arab nations. A better description is that Israel encouraged the emigration at a measured pace, used the new immigrants to immediately inhabit homes of Palestinians left vacant by those who moved several kilometers in order to escape hostilities, and treated the Mizrahim with racism and prejudice.

The mass immigration of Mizrahi Jews was received by Ashkenazi old-timers with mixed feelings. They thought that any immigrant was an asset to the new Jewish state, but they had neither expected nor wanted so many Mizrahi immigrants. The marginality of Mizrahim in the Yishuv was a precedent that augured ill for the new immigrants. The immense volume of immigration (the population doubled during 1948- 52) caused food and housing shortages, unemployment, and the near collapse of state services. The old-timers regarded the appearance and customs of the Mizrahi newcomers as strange and inferior and soon became alarmed by the dangers of Mizrahi immigration to the new Jewish society and state – demographic swamping, cultural erosion, and breakdown of democracy. The precious Zionist project that had been constructed for over fifty years was in jeopardy. These widespread fears prompted the government to practice the above-mentioned policy of selective immigration. Yet, the alleviation of the old-timers’ apprehensions required preventing the new Mizrahi immigrants from becoming a major force in Israeli society in order to insure the old-timers’ continued control of state and society.¹

If Israel treated its Arab Jews as inferiors, how did the Arabs expect Israel to treat Arab non-Jews? Instead of the western world demanding that Israel permit the return of the Palestinian refugees to their rightful homes, its apparently co-opted media circulated the bizarre assertions that the Arab nations were responsible for creating the refugee problem and were not being responsive to the needs of their Arab brethren. The circulation of these preposterous assertions throughout the American media and their acceptance by the American people must have angered the Arab populations.

Israel’s use of the Palestinian crisis for territorial expansion fueled the conflict.

Regardless of damage to the Palestinian community, due to Israel’s actions and policies, Israel explained everything with the word security.

Build settlements on West Bank hilltops – security
Seize Palestinian agricultural lands for military use – security
Divert West Bank water supply to settlers – security
Build roads that bypass Arab communities – security
Block Arab roads – security
Build a wall that passes through Palestinian lands – security
Take over the entire Jordan valley – security
Take over homes nightly for the army – security
Move troops into villages, kill people and take others to prison without legal proof for the actions – security
Destroy Palestinian wells, factories, olive fields – lapse of security

Similar to reversing responsibility for the Palestinian refugees, the western world and media reversed the use of the Palestinian crisis.

Disregarding the obvious, that Israel used any pretext for seizing Palestinian lands, expanding territory, rallying its people, and subduing Palestinian reaction, and not realizing the sub-text, that the Middle East crisis is only a seized upon opportunity for Israel to accomplish its territorial objectives, American media continually portrayed the Arab nations as blaming the crisis for faults in their economic and social fabrics. The wars, refugees, border attacks, loss of lands, and financial costs arising from the Middle East conflict have affected several Arab nations, but is there any record of Arab leaders cynically exploiting the plight of the Palestinians to excuse internal problems? Certainly not since the Egyptian and Jordanian treaties with Israel. What documented evidence proves otherwise?

Without reconciling the initial and highly volatile conflicts with the Arab world, Israel enlarges the battlefield with its attempt to permanently annex all of East Jerusalem.

Annexing all of East Jerusalem into the Israel nation essentially surrounds the ‘old city’ and endangers Muslim control of the Muslim Haram-al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) with its Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosques. This tactic expands the conflict from an Israel-Arab conflict to an Israel-Muslim conflict, with Iran prominent in objections to Israel’s actions.

Historical and religious perspectives support the Muslim attitude towards Jerusalem. From 637 AD until Israel conquered all of Jerusalem in the contemporary year of 1967, Muslims, of various nationalities, ruled and worshipped in Jerusalem. The Muslims left significant testimonials and structures that display their control. Absolute Hebrew control dates back to ancient history, to the Hasmoneans who ruled Judea and surrounding regions for only the 25 years between 140 and 116 B.C.E. Previous centuries had some Hebrew kings, but sketchy control. David and Solomon, two of the Biblical kings, have still not passed from Bible to authentic history. The Jews’ attachment to Jerusalem is principally spiritual and more supported by words than by concrete structures. Except for the Western Wall, which is only a reflection of spirituality, some houses and tombs, there are no significant structures in Jerusalem that attach modern Israel to ancient Israel. The Israeli government has been trying to discover attachments by characterizing excavations in unproven terms, such as naming a hill outside of the ‘old city walls,’ which contains structures from the tenth century B.C., the City of David, despite no evidence of any King David having resided on the premises.

A Jerusalem municipality twenty year plan increases green space, which is a euphemism for preventing Palestinian construction of homes and destroying those in the intended park zone, tourist complexes, and new housing for Palestinians in areas away from the historic sections, another euphemism for removing any traces of Arab history. A New York Times article relates that “The focus is clearly on Jewish heritage, however. In the larger government plan, much of the presentation is being shaped by a group with a right-wing Zionist approach, emphasizing ancient Jewish religion and history, even near mostly Palestinian neighborhoods.”²

In a past decade, when he fully controlled his leadership position, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in an interview with the Cairo weekly tabloid, Rose El-Youssef, warned: “…a compromise over Jerusalem would lead to uncontrollable violence in the Middle East…no Arab or Muslim can relinquish rights to East Jerusalem and its holy sites.” He must know.
Behind every conflict is a hidden agenda, who controls the economic resources. In this case the resource is water.

IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, analyzed the situation:

Israel, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) all fall well below the internationally accepted threshold of 1,000 cubic metres of water per person per year (cmwpy). According to the IISD, Israel has natural renewable water resources of 265 cmwpy, Jordan 169, and OPT just 90. Only Lebanon and Syria have water surpluses, with Lebanon having a potential of 1,220 cmwpy and Syria 1,541.

The absence of hydro-diplomacy reflects conflict in the region. In 1965, Syria and Lebanon began the construction of channels to divert the Banias and Hasbani, preventing the rivers flowing into Israel. The Israelis attacked the diversion works, the first in a series of moves that led to a regional war two years later. In 2002, when the Lebanese constructed a pipeline on the River Wazzani intended to supply households in southern Lebanon with water, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared the action a causus belli. In the July War of 2006, Israeli warplanes targeted southern Lebanon’s water network. Bassam Jaber, a water expert at Lebanon’s Ministry of Energy and Water, argues the Shebaa is critical to Israel’s water needs, “especially because fresh water is critical when all sources within Israel are salty. The flows from the area help to regulate the saltiness of Lake Tiberius”. And it is not just the direct overland flow that the Shebaa provides Israel. According to the Lebanese Water Ministry’s Comair, 30-40 percent of the River Dan’s water flows into it through underground supplies originating in the Shebaa. “Israel is worried that if Lebanon gains control of the Shebaa, it can then control the flow to the Dan River,” said Comair.³)

Optimists predict the water shortages will bring consultation and not confrontation. A basic need to survive will force the involved Middle East nations to settle their differences and cooperate. Except for antiquated agreements between Israel and Jordan and Israel and The Palestinian Authority, this is not happening.

The problems and predictions:

Despite the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian Treaty – which established comprehensive guidelines regulating the distribution, preservation and availability of water from the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers – conflicts over water have risen to the forefront of relations between the two countries. Jordan, fed only by underground sources and the Jordan River, has experienced an escalating water deficit – one that is expected to reach 250 million cubic meters (nearly 1/3rd of current annual consumption) by 2010. At the same time, Israel – currently utilizing almost all available water from its National Water System (consisting of the West Bank Mountain Aquifer, the Coastal Aquifer and the Lake Kinneret Basin) – has been forced to resort to overexploitation of available resources for expanding agricultural and industrial ventures.

A breakdown of relations between Jordan and Israel could lead to water grabs by either side. Plagued by escalating populations that are stretching water availability beyond sustainable levels, Jordan has placed increased value on its ‘hydraulic imperative,’ a move that has created growing Israeli fears of a Hashemite grab of resources. For its part, Israel, facing reductions of internal water sources as a result of expanding Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, may soon eye the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers as important enough to risk conflict over.⁴

Note that Lebanon and Syria have water surpluses, giving them an advantage in any negotiations with Israel. Except for soliciting Israel with offers that paralyze Israel and compromise its military dominance, why would Lebanon or Syria negotiate with Israel? With that realization, if Israel reaches a route to an empty tap, will it seek a military option to quench its thirst?

Looming in the near future are other confrontations. The discoveries of gas off the coasts of several Mediterranean nations promise financial dividends to these nations, and promise disputes of who owns and who can sign treaties for the gas.

A U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Levant Basin Province, encompassing parts of Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Cyprus, could contain as much as 122 trillion cu. ft. of gas and 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Possible disputes: (1) The maritime border between Israel and Lebanon is a source of friction. (2) Agreements made by Israel with Cyprus without Turkish approval will provoke the Turks. (3) An underlying feeling has the Arab world being cheated again; the gas deposits belong to the displaced Palestinians, who once again observe how a western world decision deprived them of their livelihood and security.

The Palestinian crisis is concluding, and not with a beneficial conclusion for the Palestinians. From the embers of that crisis arises the greater conflict. The closer the Arab nations get to achieving nationalist aspirations and political acceptance of its Muslim Brotherhoods, the more intense becomes their conflict with Israel. That trend has happened, and with it the conflict’s trajectory becomes predictable.

1. The Journal of Israeli History, 27(1), March 2008, 1-27. The mass immigrations to Israel: A comparison of the failure of the Mizrahi immigrants of the 1950s with the success of the Russian immigrants of the 1990s, Sammy Smooha.
2. “Parks Fortify Israel’s Claim to Jerusalem,” by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kerschner, May 9, 2009.
3. Analysis: Shebaa Farms key to Levant hydro-diplomacy, Beirut, 10 September 2009 (IRIN
4. Ilan Berman and Paul Michael Wihbey, The New Water Politics of the Middle East, Strategic Review, Summer 1999.

Those who regarded the war as a simple rebellion of oppressed masses against an illegitimate and brutal dictator are as naive as those who believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had to be immediately defeated. Subscribing to Muammar Gaddafi’s removal for imposing his dubious Green philosophy on the nation and for his harsh and autocratic tactics might have been correct. Those are issues, but not the issues. Revelations from the Libyan civil war expose the issues, which are significantly disturbing and demand careful attention:

• The internationalization of only this local conflict, which was not different and less compelling than similar conflicts throughout the world, notably in Syria, Bahrain, Nigeria, and other places.
• Use of an unverified story to justify immediate NATO intervention — prevention of Gaddafi forces from taking violent retribution against the citizens of Benghazi.
• Media failure to accurately report the conflict, and replaced by an unusual and intensive propaganda that favored the rebels.
• Rejection of compromises to resolve the conflict while the nation was being destroyed and many were being killed, a contradiction to NATO’s reasons for entering the conflict.
• NATO impolitely going beyond the original Security Council Resolution to only provide a “no-fly” zone and instead leading the rebel offensive by a cowardly method — bombing a defenseless nation that had had no military means to counter the attacks.
• The constant and one-sided demonizing of leader Gaddafi, while not knowing if antagonists were any better.
• Neglect of examining Libya’s real problems of being a rentier nation that supports its population from principally oil exports, whose supply is limited and whose derived wealth needs careful distribution.

Internationalization of the conflict

Still no satisfactory explanation of how or why NATO, constituted for defense against a Soviet attack on West Europe, and which evolved into an organization that endorses offense before defense against its self-proclaimed enemies, had been threatened by Libya, nor why the voices from Africa’s nations, all of whose nations had major reasons to be concerned with the Libyan conflagration, went unheard. At a meeting between the UN Security Council and the African Union (AU) High Level Ad hoc Committee on Libya on June 15, Dr Ruhakana Rugunda, Uganda’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, summarized the African Union position on NATO’s invasion of Libya:

The NATO attacks, noted the Addis meeting, had gone beyond the scope of the United Nation Security Council resolution 1970 and 1973….Whatever the genesis of the intervention by NATO in Libya, the AU called for dialogue before the UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 and after those Resolutions. Ignoring the AU for three months and going on with the bombings of the sacred land of Africa has been high-handed, arrogant and provocative. This is something that should not be sustained.

Those whom the conflict affected (Africans) are not consulted. Those whom the conflict did not affect (Europeans) make a unilateral decision.

No need to discuss the obvious; other rebellions, such as in Syria and Bahrain, which had more urgency than that of Libya, have been brutally suppressed. Bahrain’s self-proclaimed King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, with approval from the world’s guardians of oppressed peoples, invited Saudi Arabia to behave opposite to the NATO action by rough necking the insurgency and militarily assisting the oppressor government. In unison and patently contrived, the made for consumption public relations machines of the world’s savior nations proclaimed: “We can’t do anything, but we must do something.” Assistance is selective and random. If you are lucky you get attacked.

The reasons for the UN Security Council Resolution points to urgings by the Arab League, all of whose members detest the Libyan leader’s exposures of their gluttony and corruption, and a whim by French President Nicholas Sarkozy. France and its aggressive leader provoked the western community into the endeavor with Great Britain following the lead. U.S. President Barack Obama gave an impression of a reluctant suitor, who did not want to spoil the affair. Why did Sarkozy promote the attack on Libya? To help the rebels? Possibly, but why didn’t France assist rebellions in Nigeria and other mutinous nations?

August 25, 2011, Paris (Reuters):

France has taken a leading military role in the NATO force backing the rebels. Britain’s defense minister said on Thursday that NATO was helping with intelligence and reconnaissance in the hunt for Gaddafi and his sons. Many analysts believe France, Britain and Arab allies, notably Qatar, may have some special forces on the ground in Tripoli working with Libyan commandos.

One year ago, Muammar Gaddafi came to France and met with Sarkozy. Both leaders were all smiles to one another. What changed?

Conjecture – Revenge for Gaddafi’s previous attacks on French civilians and interests, personal animosity to Muammar Gaddafi due to his egotistic nature and deadly tactics, desire to increase French presence and prestige on the world stage, consolidate its position in Africa, and expect economic benefits from a new Libya.

Nations that didn’t support the early military actions, such as Turkey and Russia, subsequently joined the rebel cause. Their evolved positions seemed to validate NATO’s efforts. Consider that after NATO determined the outcome, these nations sensed it was more beneficial to end the war quickly by supporting the National Transition Council.

An unverified story to justify immediate NATO intervention

The principal excuse for the NATO intervention suggested that leader Gaddafi, after retaking Benghazi, intended to liquidate at least 100,000 of his opponents, a slight exaggeration and an obvious impossibility. According to President Barack Obama, “Gaddafi declared that he would show no mercy to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment.”

Reuters reported large differences between Gaddafi’s remarks and President Obama’s rendition:

Gaddafi Tells Rebel City, Benghazi, ‘We Will Show No Mercy,’ March 17, 2011.

Muammar Gaddafi told Libyan rebels on Thursday his armed forces were coming to their capital Benghazi tonight and would not show any mercy to fighters who resisted them. In a radio address, he told Benghazi residents that soldiers would search every house in the city and people who had no arms had no reason to fear. He also told his troops not to pursue any rebels who drop their guns and flee when government forces reach the city.

Logic tells us that few Benghazi residents could even have guns to hide, and Gaddafi’s forces were too limited to carry out any large scale purge, Gaddafi’s comment (much different than Obama’s presentation) was directed only to fighters and meant to create fear. Would any leader tell his people he intended to kill masses of them? If so, they had nothing to lose by fighting. Why encourage them?

Media failure to accurately report the conflict

Although battles raged throughout The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, destruction occurred, and combatants and civilians were killed and wounded, the news reports never seemed definite. Who controlled what wavered with each morning’s cup of coffee. How many rebel fighters, how large was the Libyan government’s military, who was most responsible for civilian damage – Libyan government forces, rebel fighters or NATO? Substantiated facts, wide view images, interviews, and on spot reporting were either suspect of being selective, lacking in depth, or contradictory.

Fact could not be separated from fiction, bias or propaganda. Was this a revolution or a civil war between a huge discontented portion of the society and its entrenched beneficiaries? The mass of citizens didn’t seem to care and went about trying to do their daily chores. Huge demonstrations for the rebels were not reported, and the gathering of new recruits and local assistance after victories were not apparent. Even after the liberation of Tripoli, the city of one million didn’t exhibit a massive celebratory environment. Widely dispersed and relatively moderate numbers of dedicated combatants characterized the rebel effort. A token number of willing fighters backed by missiles and sparse civilian support characterized the government effort.

The war’s final stage demonstrated the inaccuracy of the reporting. While media spoke of the impossibility of the rebel forces to enter Tripoli for weeks and insisted they would be encountering about 45,000 loyal and well equipped government troops, the rebel forces, who wisely didn’t listen to the media, just walked in, encountered moderate resistance and, within a few days, controlled most of the capital city. An intense NATO bombing of Tripoli, which preceded the rebel strike, indicated close coordination between European and rebel forces.

CNN broadcast intense and dramatic situations of foreign correspondents being held hostage by ‘gunmen’ at the Rixos hotel.  Matthew Chance, CNN’s Tripoli reporter, insisted:

They told us we couldn’t leave the hotel. They were very keen to perpetuate the idea that they had been ordered by the Gaddafi regime to protect us. They said our lives would be in danger if we left. The clear implication of the way they cocked their guns was that the danger came from them, but they didn’t say that.

What nation, that had its capital city under attack and fighting close to a hotel, would permit the hotel guests to leave and wander the city? Rather than being in danger within the hotel, they were obviously being safely guarded. Nothing happened to them, and once the situation was clarified, all hotel guests left freely.

CNN’s Arwa Damon, who previously reported from Syria, toured in what she described as a luxurious Recreational Vehicle (RV), equipped with two golf carts on Muammar Gaddafi’s farm, and presumably owned by him. “The Libyan people wished they had this,” she said. Ms. Damon was also told (by whom?) that the Libyans did not realize the luxurious life that Gaddafi lived. Joe Johns, CNN correspondent, who undoubtedly recognized the standard RV as an ordinary U.S. vehicle, gulped as he exclaimed, “Yes, a RV with two golf carts, what luxury.”

Rejection of compromises to resolve the conflict

NATO declared its principal objective to be the protection of civilians and refused every opportunity to achieve that objective. Although the most direct means to limit casualties was to negotiate an end to the conflict, the European powers did nothing to convince the NTC to enter into negotiations. Maybe negotiations would not resolve the situation, and maybe they would lead to compromises not fully acceptable to the NTC, but, if successful, lives would have been saved, and a humanitarian crisis would have been averted. European powers were determined to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and replace his government, regardless of suffering of the Libyan people.

NATO impolitely going beyond the original Security Council Resolution

The main details of UN Resolution 1973 authorizing action to protect Libyan civilians:

• A no-fly zone is an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities.
• It authorises UN member states to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
• It decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians.
• It calls on member states to intercept boats and aircraft it believes may be taking arms and other items to Libya.
• Member states should ensure domestic businesses exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in Libya if the states have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians.
• It requests that the UN secretary general create a group of up to eight experts to oversee the implementation of the resolution.

With no UN authority to proceed with offensive actions, and no eight experts to oversee the implementation of the resolution, NATO aircraft conducted more than 20,000 sorties including 7,635 strikes. In effect, NATO served as the air force arm of the rebel military, or the other way around, the rebels served as the ground troops for NATO.

After the fall of Tripoli, “The alliance said its planes struck a command bunker and a convoy of 29 military vehicles in Sirte, where Gaddafi’s tribe, the Qaddafa, remain fiercely loyal to the ousted dictator. The rebel leadership had hoped the city would surrender peacefully, but tribal leaders have rejected all entreaties,” The Associated Press reported.

Does bombing a convoy of hopeless and helpless military vehicles protect civilians in a city that does not welcome NATO’s presence?

The constant and one-sided demonizing of leader Gaddafi

Muammar Gaddafi has been a tyrant who acted mercilessly against his opponents. However, all of that was in the past. Since the year 2003, after Libya no longer engaged the world, had halted developments into weapons of mass destruction, and began to recover from economic sanctions, the nation has been considered trustworthy. During 2008-2010, Gadhafi negotiated deals with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and released several hundred of its followers in return for promises to renounce violence and depart from a radical brand of Islam.

So, why when Libya was on a path to prosperity and becoming a respectable nation among other nations, was it suddenly mandatory that Gaddafi and his government be forcibly displaced?

Only one perspective of Muammar Gaddafi and his leadership has been provided; that of a mad, fumbling, bumbling tyrant who led his nation into mismanagement and catastrophe. Gaddafi did not lack vision in a world of self-seeking and self-promoting Arab leaders who have used terror to control their citizens and their nation’s oil wealth and acquire immense riches for themselves. His self-written Green Book claimed that in western parliamentary democracies, special interests compete for and gain power without representing the people. The book suggests a grassroots government that features “Popular Conferences and People’s Committees.” It could be true that the desired governance has created anarchy and forced a few to make the difficult decisions. Not much different from the US, where major problems are only contained and never resolved.

The Christian Science Monitor, July 12, 2010 showed a different side of Libya.  ”Libya’s Path From Desert to Modern Country-Complete With Ice Rink” by Sarah A. Topol:

[There's] now on the economic side a pretty unstoppable momentum…. It’s the place to be,” says Dalton, now an analyst at Chatham House in London.

Libya’s nominal gross domestic product (GDP) rose from 16.7 billion dinars ($12.8 billion) in 1999 to 114 billion in 2008, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The year after the US lifted sanctions, the country’s economy surged 10.3 percent in 2005. Foreign direct investment increased more than 50 percent from $1.5 billion in 2000 to $2.3 billion in 2007, according to the World Bank.

In Tripoli, the capital, cement skeletons along the city’s airport road will soon be sleek luxury high-rises as Libya tackles a 500,000 unit housing shortage. Known as the Bab Tripoli complex, the government-funded plush Turkish development is valued at some $1.3 billion and is set to be completed in November 2011. It boasts 115 buildings with 2,018 apartments as well as office spaces, and a giant mall complete with a 22-lane bowling alley, a movie theater, a five-star hotel. The changes aren’t just limited to Tripoli. In Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city, two government-funded housing projects consisting of 20,000 units, costing approximately $4.8 billion, are half way to completion. To combat income disparity and alleviate the growing pains of privatization, the Libyan government has set up social fund to provide 222,000 families approximately $377 dollars per month from investment funds financed by oil profits.

The European powers neglected to observe the lessons from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In that conflict, U.S. intelligence failed to vet the Iraqi dissidents, principally Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi, who urged the charge into Mesopotamia and managed to deliver Iraq into friendly relations with Iran. The occupying administration allowed Saudi Arabia’s rejected Salafists and Afghanistan’s displaced Al-Qaeda to pour into Iraq and establish a strong presence. Could Mahmoud Jibri, NTC chairperson, be another Chalabi? Will the already well established Libyan Islamic Fighting Group take advantage of the expected disorder in the new Libya? Will NATO send a temporary clone of L. Paul Bremer, former head of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, to perform similar duties in Libya? If western policies follow form, expect positive responses to all the above.

The first two propositions are particularly intriguing. Gaddafi, for all his faults, was in the front line in the battle against Al-Qaeda and did not have good relations with Iran. Already, the Islamic Republic’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has congratulated NTC head Mustafa Abdel Jalil on the the NTC victory and invited him to visit Iran. In many ways Gaddafi benefited the west by remaining in power. In the war against Radical Islamic terrorism, Libya’s role in that battle is now less known.

None of the mayhem created by Gaddafi can be pardoned. However, compare Gaddafi’s brutality to Western nations’ punishing actions, and the intense focus on Gaddafi becomes suspect. Count in hundreds the deaths and maimed due to Gaddafi’s actions (none of which can be excused) and count in millions the deaths and maimed caused by western nations in several aggressive wars and assistance to homicidal tyrants since World War II.

Neglect of examining Libya’s real problems.

Colonel Gaddafi outlived his usefulness to the Libyan people and had to leave. A consensus of world leaders seemed to approve these propositions. However, is Gaddafi the problem, or is it the condition of Libya, a mildly prosperous nation ($14,000 per capita GDP) that must balance the spending of today with assuring survival after the oil runs out? Finding other than low service employment in a nation that has few large businesses outside of oil extraction and refinement is not a defect due to poor organization or negligence; it’s a difficult task in all single resource nations.

A 2008 article in Libyan newspaper The Tripoli Post describes a meeting at which Muammar Gaddafi discussed the issue.
Opinion: On the Distribution of Wealth in Libya by Sami Zaptia, 22/11/2008 15:54:00:

On Wednesday October 12, the Leader of the Revolution Muammar Al-Qathafi met with the Secretariat of the General People’s Congress and the Secretariat of the General People’s Committee and discussed the issue of the distribution of Libya’s wealth and its consequences. In the lively debate that followed, which was broadcast live on Libyan TV, different views on this issue were freely discussed.

Those who have reservations on the re-distribution of wealth, and specifically the abolition of some bureaucracies or General People’s Committees (ministries) was based on: the fear of short term economic chaos, hyper inflation, loss of the dinar value, uncontrolled consumption and frittering away of the oil income on consumer products, a balance of payments deficit and a real fall in the incomes of people. They stressed that the oil money ought to be centrally invested in long term projects and investment portfolios on behalf of the Libyan people to increase production, long term growth and development. However, history and the track record of centralized bureaucracy and administrators are not good. The General People’s Committees and administrators have had much time and even much more money to try and fix things – and they seem to have failed.

There has been increased oil production, increased oil income and Libya’s general non-oil income has increased. There are new and increased income flows from investments and portfolios. Moreover, Libyans’ expectations have risen, are rising and continue to rise. They see all these signboards going up and construction projects going on all over Libya. They note these new towers, hotels, offices, marinas, railways, metros, and leisure complexes being constructed. They say to themselves there must be a lot of money about and ask when is it going to trickle down to them. And they are right. There is much money about. There are huge and increasing annual budgets. Libya’s GDP for 2006 was about US$68 billion (PPP) and is estimated at US$ 83 billion plus for 2008. That is a per capita income of over $8,000 for 2006 and estimated at over $12,000 for 2008. Libya’s real unemployment level is estimated at 30% whilst that of Dubai is only 2.4% Moreover, 33% of Libya’s population is under 15 years of age. This young population is full of expectations and needs vital investment in education, health and all the other sectors.

Conclusion

Would Gaddafi the authoritative, Gaddafi, the self-chosen defender of the world’s dominated, and Gaddafi the conspirator exist if the western nations, most represented by the United States, treated The Third World fairly and did not interfere in the affairs of other nations for their own interests? It is unlikely he would have any raison d’être.

If NATO felt that the Libyan leader had physically, morally and economically harmed his people, and therefore warranted disposal, then it has set a precedent for interference in any nation of the world; albeit a bit late. During the first eight years of the twenty first century, a U.S. leader led his countrymen into military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost the lives of several thousand of Americans, brought havoc to the Iraq population, with hundreds of thousands killed and two million displaced. Add to the horrific actions against his own and foreign populations, an economic mismanagement which caused a severe recession and generated mass unemployment.

NATO, where were you when the United States most needed you?

Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.

— Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, testifying against a bill to raise the minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether

Dark economic clouds are dissipating into an emerging blue sky of opportunity.

Democracy functions best when we have an active citizenry.

— Rick Perry

Election of poorly equipped persons to highest office reveals a larger problem – a sizable portion of the electorate, possibly fifty percent, subscribe to the simplistic economic thinking that thwarts economic recovery – “It’s the government’s fault,” “Only business can create jobs,” “Get the government out of our lives,” and the latest, “We only have to return to God.”

And what thinketh the other fifty percent? Well, the Wall Street Journal has a huge and trusting readership who use its words to plan their economic futures. Combine Tea Party, Libertarian, and Wall Street Journal (WSJ) subscriptions, and we have, with some overlap, economic thought that defies analysis because there is no thought to analyze.

Tea Party proposals for economic growth are self-refuted due to their lack of depth, slogans and simplistic expressions.

Libertarian economics derives from libertarian philosophy, a single-minded approach to all issues. The economics have been challenged in a previous article by the writer:

How to Create an Economic Downfall, exactly what these miscreants are preparing for their nation.

Close association between Wall Street Journal and barren right wing economic ideologues are revealed in a WSJ editorial. Each line of the editorial is either a self-refutation, an inaccuracy, a distortion, a made-up issue, or an outright deception. Is that serious? Yes, it is serious – the electorate is almost entirely captured by inadequate economic proposals that will sink America. And the politicos think only of catering to the electorate; not educating it with sensible policies, and only interested in winning an election. The United States is moving towards an economic sinkhole in which the Tea Party and Wall Street Journal complement one another.

Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2011 Editorial:

These examples show that China is no ‘miracle.’ Running a trade surplus while accumulating and sterilizing foreign reserves succeeds for a time. But inflation is only deferred, and the more that is stored up, the worse the hangover afterward. Investments that were predicated on the good times lasting forever must then be written off. Subsidized exports must shrink to a more appropriate share of the economy. There is some irony here in that one of the reasons Beijing has refused to change its monetary arrangements is that it doesn’t want to repeat the experience of Japan. That was understandable during the Asian monetary turmoil of the late 1990s and again during the panic of 2008-2009. But in economics what can’t continue won’t. Tokyo pursued a policy of reserve accumulation for too long, making a difficult transition inevitable. Stagflation is a warning to Beijing that it is running out of time to avoid that fate.

— Wall Street Journal (subscription required)

China is no “miracle”.

If we speak of a German miracle and Japanese miracle, then certainly China deserves the expression China miracle. Like all the others, the ‘miracle’ was actually worthwhile economic policies.

Running a trade surplus while accumulating and sterilizing foreign reserves succeeds for a time.

Does the patronizing WSJ believe the Peoples Republic government, which has steered a totally deprived nation to become the second largest economy in only thirty years, doesn’t know the care of foreign reserves? Meanwhile, the country is growing at a rapid rate.

Does China sterilize foreign reserve? Doesn’t the government buy the dollars, increase its money supply and invest the dollars in foreign assets?

Inflation is only deferred, and the more that is stored up, the worse the hangover afterward.

In 1995, China had a 25% inflation rate and a minuscule trade balance. Now it has a 6% inflation rate and a major positive trade balance. A 6% inflation rate is already a relatively high rate and so the government is not storing up anything.

Subsidized exports must shrink to a more appropriate share of the economy.

Does China subsidize exports more than other nations?

“According to the GATT/WTO trade agreements, a country with a value added tax (VAT) such as China can legally rebate to its exporters the VAT taxes they pay on exports. US manufacturers face this problem when competing with the Chinese, but also with the Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and many other nations.”

Charging China with manipulating its currency in order to favor exports is not easily proven. The moderately high six percent inflation rate offsets other factors that push the Renminbi to an increased value. Nevertheless, the Renminbi is still not an international currency whose value can be comfortably compared with other currencies. As for, general subsidies, they are no more than the U.S. subsidies for its agricultural industry, which floods the world market with foodstuffs, which are competitive due to the subsidies.

Economist Eswar Prasad of Cornell University argues that cheap credit and subsidized land and energy further enhance the price competitiveness of Chinese exports.

Cheap credit? Has Eswar Prasad confused nations?

Similar to the policies of other industrialized nations during the economic slowdown, Beijing originated stimulus plans with easier credit to invigorate the economy. Unlike other industrialized nations, the Chinese stimulus maintained a low unemployment rate (4.5%) and an escalated GDP growth (9%).

The benchmark interest rate in China was last reported at 6.56 percent.

The benchmark interest rate in the United States was last reported at 0.25 percent.

The Cornell university economist is comparing a minor green technology trade dispute with the United States, which Beijing has settled by agreeing to stop subsidizing wind power firms that use domestic parts at the expense of imports,

Examine the U.S. government assistance to the energy sector.

U.S. government support for renewable energy may plunge from record levels, setting back the use of wind and solar power before they can compete on their own with oil, gas and coal. Written into the federal tax code are benefits valued at $24.2 billion for renewable energy and efficiency incentives through 2014, compared with an estimated $17.9 billion for the oil, gas, and coal industries, according to a December report by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Direct spending, tax breaks and research funding pushed federal renewable-energy subsidies to $14.7 billion in 2010, according to Alan Beamon, director of the Energy Information Administration Office of Electric, Coal, Nuclear and Renewables Analysis. Project developers are lining up for subsidies approved in the 2009 stimulus bill as incentives expire and the deficit-reduction deal dims prospects for future backing of solar panels and wind farms.

…an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

There is some irony here in that one of the reasons Beijing has refused to change its monetary arrangements is that it doesn’t want to repeat the experience of Japan.

What “experience of Japan?” From 2008, until the Tsunami crippled its production, Japan’s GDP rose from $4.3 trillion to $5.5 trillion. During the same interval, U.S. GDP rose from $14 trillion to $14.3 trillion with a slight dip in 2010. Has the WSJ been told this reason by Chinese officials, or is it originating this thought, and using a reference to Beijing to confirm it? The economic development of China is much different than that of already developed Japan; why should policies be similar?

In economics what can’t continue won’t.

Profound statement, similar to those of Michelle Bachmann.

Tokyo pursued a policy of reserve accumulation for too long, making a difficult transition inevitable.

Japan is a resource deficient nation, which needs to export to obtain funds to import raw materials and energy supplies. Foreign competition forced its corporations, similar to those in the United States, to move production offshore. External production limits domestic money supply and domestic consumption. Japan incorporated is doing what it has to do and not what the WSJ wants it to do, and doing it successfully. Nothing wrong with having the third largest economy in the world.

Stagflation is a warning to Beijing that it is running out of time to avoid that fate.

Stagflation is when the economy experiences slow GDP growth (stagnation) with high inflation. Japan, to whom the WSJ is telling China it might soon resemble, has exhibited moderate GDP growth with deflation.

Meanwhile the U.S. retains slow economic growth with slow inflation and exhibits characteristics that tend to no growth and hyperinflation.

Does one editorial from the Wall Street Journal mean much? The WSJ influences a significant portion of the shakers and makers in America. Every editorial characterizes its approach to the economic dilemma. Prevarications, deceptive remarks, illogical reasoning, and distorting facts to advance an agenda skew the dialogue. Although the Bush administration’s policies headed the nation towards an obvious economic downfall, the WSJ never presented any alarm. Now it’s warning the People’s Republic it’s going to soon be in trouble. The editorial implication is that all is right in America, and if it isn’t, it’s China’s fault.

The reality: Measures needed to reduce unemployment to acceptable levels and provide sufficient economic growth refute the slogans that guide the population’s concepts of a beneficial economic system. Unfortunately, these measures invite more government intervention in the economy, which means they will neither be advanced by hypocritical politicians nor accepted by a disillusioned electorate. Popular economic media, together with the Tea and Libertarian Parties, drive the population to politicians whose policies create consistent high unemployment and perpetual stagflation to the U.S. economy. The confused population will continue to rail against the predicament and blame the government and China.

A reading of Hassan Nasrallah’s speech on July 2 does not reveal any statement that approached this quotation, which appears often in the press. The closest statement made by the Hezbollah leader is: “This investigation, tribunal, resolutions and what is issued by it are to us clearly American and Israeli. Accordingly, we refuse it and we refuse all what it issues whether groundless accusations or groundless sentences.”

Characterized as a “terrorist crime,” it marks the first time that a UN-based “quasi” court tries a crime committed against a specific person. No trials of who killed Mohandas Ghandi, India (1947 ), Salvador Allende, Chile (1972 ), Archbishop Romero, El Salvador (1980), Indira Ghandi, India (1984), Olof Palme, Sweden (1986), Banazir Bhutto, Pakistan (2007), and 18 other Lebanese politicians.

More significant: The UN never investigated the 1948 murder of United Nations mediator Count Folke Bernadotte during the British Mandate, nor assassinations of their officials in Sudan, Ethiopia, Bosnia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Southern Lebanon, and elsewhere.

Firstly, there is no mentioned evidence that the killing was a “terrorist” crime of political origins. Hariri had many business enemies and the assassination could have had many origins.

Secondly, the four indicted men might have been sympathetic to Hezbollah, as are most Shi’a in Lebanon, but are they formal members? Does Hezbollah have applications, review committees and a formal and available membership list?

Thirdly, member action does not automatically relate to organization action.

The misplaced, contradictory, fabricated, and incredible media reports demonstrate that the media is the problem. Note the contradictions, fabrications, and dubious language.

Media Sampling

Hague Justice Portal
Multiple media reports stated that those indicted were high-ranking Hezbollah members, including Mustafa Badreddine, the head of external operations and cousin of the deceased prominent Hezbollah official Imad Mughnieh. [emphasis added]

Associated Press
One of the people named is Mustafa Badreddine, believed to have been Hezbollah’s deputy military commander. He is the brother-in-law of the late Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniyeh. [emphasis added]¹

A Separate State of Mind
Mustafa Badreddine is the brother-in-law of Hezbollah’s assassinated commander Imad Mughniyeh and he eventually replaced Mughniyeh as Hezbollah’s chief operations officer. He is also said to be the mastermind and supervisor behind the Hariri assassination. [emphasis added]

Los Angeles Times
The identities of the four suspects were not released, and the indictment remained sealed. But local news reports suggested all four were Lebanese nationals linked to Hezbollah, a major militia and political party backed by Iran and Syria. [emphasis added]²

Arutz Sheva
Rafik Hariri’s assassination was directly motivated by the political aspirations of the Hizbullah terror-organization, London-based Asharq al-Awasat reported Friday. Four Hizbullah members were indicted for the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon on Thursday.

Quoting “reliable sources,” al-Aswat said the 183-page indictment lists the reasons and political motivations behind the assassination as well as the planning, execution and cover-up stages. [emphasis added]

Note the contradictory misspellings of Asharq Al-Awsat. No match of this ‘report’ can be found on Arutz Sheva‘s website.

Facts:

Imad Muyginieh had no known position in the Hezbollah organization. He lived in an apartment in Damascus, Syria with limited protection, and had strange and limited quarters for a person who was considered to be Hezbollah’s commander, military leader, head of operations, and what else?

Google any of the indicted individuals and the results reveal NOTHING, no information on any of them. According to the media, they all held positions in Hezbollah and two of them had important positions. Nevertheless, there is no on-line information on any of them. Where did these “media sources” obtain their contradictory information? Most journals repeated verbatim from the Associated press without checking the veracity of the AP report.

1. Bassem Mroue and Elizabeth A. Kennedy, June 30, 2011.
2. Alexandra Sandels and Patrick J. McDonnell, July 01, 2011.
3. July 1, 2011.
4. Paul Salem Q&A, “Lebanon After the Indictments-The Arab World’s Next Crisis?” July 2, 2011.

The Sicarii played a principal role in provoking the Roman onslaught against the Jewish population in Jerusalem and in the eventual destruction of the city. Their identifying characteristics: victim hood, no compromises, use of daggers to resolve issues, generating hate, and creating victims. Two questions still require responses: Why did the Sicarii pursue a suicide effort and why did the first century Jews tolerate their presence?

History tells us that populations never learn from history and proceed to commit the same mistakes. The Jews have followed this principal; Sicarii have been prevalent throughout Jewish history and have often brought tragedy to Jewish populations.

Roman crushing of the Jewish rebellion in Jerusalem in 67 AD did not stop Jewish rebellions in Roman territories. Thirty eight years later, Jewish tribes in Crete, Cyrenaica (modern day eastern Libya), Cyprus, Mesopotamia and the Aegean took advantage of Roman struggles with attacks from other nations to start the Kitos war. According to Roman history, the war “spiralled out of control resulting in a widespread slaughter of Roman citizens and others by the Jewish rebels. The rebellions were finally crushed by Roman legionary forces, chiefly by the Roman general Luseis Quietus, whose name gave the conflict its title.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia describes the Cyrene massacres:

By this outbreak Libya was depopulated to such an extent that a few years later new colonies had to be established there.

In Cyprus a Jewish band under a leader named Artemion had taken control of the island, killing thousands of civilians. Under the leadership of one Artemion, the Cypriot Jews participated in the great uprising against the Romans under Trajan, and they are reported to have massacred 240,000 Greeks (Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32). A small Roman army was dispatched to the island, soon reconquering the capital. After the revolt had been fully defeated, laws were created forbidding any Jews to live on the island.

Wars undertaken with no possibility of permanent victory; just the opposite, certain destruction of the Jewish populations. And all this done when history considers the Jews relatively accepted and free to practice their religion in the Roman Empire.

In the first century AD, Jews lived across the Roman Empire in relative harmony.

Protected by Rome and allowed to continue their religion, everything was fine until rebellion in Judaea led to a major change in the practice of their faith.

By the beginning of the first century AD, Jews had spread from their homeland in Judaea across the Mediterranean and there were major Jewish communities in Syria, Egypt, and Greece. Practicing a very different religion from that of their neighbors, they were often unpopular. As a result, Jewish communities were often close-knit, to protect themselves and their faith.

Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance.

There had been upsets: Jews had been banished from Rome in 139 BC, again in 19 AD and during the reign of Claudius. However, they were soon allowed to return and continue their independent existence under Roman law.

If fighting and losing two wars against impossible odds was not sufficiently punishing, Simon Bar Kokhba, a proclaimed Messiah, commandered another revolt against the Roman Empire during the years 132–136 AD. The revolt temporarily succeeded in establishing an independent state of over parts of Judea for two years before the Roman army overcame the rebellion. Result: The Romans barred Jews from Jerusalem, except for Tisah B’av, a fast day that commemorates the destruction of the Jerusalem Temples

Sicarrii among the Jews continued for centuries with false Messiahs and troubling figures who defied authority in losing causes.

For several reasons, the initial Zionist thrust resembled the Sicarii actions.

Althought their philosophy had little appeal to the Jewish people of the late 19th century, Zionists behaved as if they spoke for the Jews, and their actions threatened them.

The first Zionist Congress (1887) was to have taken place in Munich, Germany. However, due to considerable opposition by the local community leadership, both Orthodox and Reform, it was decided to transfer the proceedings to Basle, Switzerland. Theodore Herzl acted as chairperson of the Congress which was attended by some 200 participants. (Only 69 were delegates)

The Reform Judaism’s (representing most of American Jews at that time) 1885 Pittsburgh Platform called for Jews to adopt a modern approach to the practice of their faith.

Instead of a nation, the Pittsburgh Platform envisions Jews as a religious community within a nation. For this reason, there was an explicit rejection of Zionism, which was viewed as unnecessary because American Jews were at home in America.

The 19th century emancipation movements liberated west and middle European Jews and permitted them to integrate into European society. The Russian Jews, who had major problems, didn’t consider Zionism as a relief for their difficulties.

Between 1881 and 1914, 2.5 million Jews migrated from Russia–2 million to America and only 30,000 to Palestine. Another 500,000 went to the large capitals of Western Europe.

Bernard Avishai, The Tragedy of Zionism

Rather than benefiting world Jewry, the Zionist message endangered it. Nations were uncertain about their Jewish citizens, who were portrayed by Zionists as having different consciences and mind-sets. Zionism presented Jews as having allegiance to an external ideal, willing to leave their native country if the opportunity became available.

By 1914 the original Zionism had become a stagnant adventure. The Balfour Declaration and the allied victory in World War I revived the Zionist mission. Despite the revival and the establishment of the state of Israel, it’s unproven that the original Zionism succeeded or even has a presence. The Jews who immigrated to Israel immediately after 1948 arrived for mainly economic and political reasons and not to fulfill a Zionist mission. Israel even claims the massive number of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East (Mizrahi) did not arrive voluntarily, but were forced out of their homes. Zionism has not persuaded a great number of Jews to leave their western nations, not deterred them from greatly participating in their nations’ economic and social gains and not prevented them from integrating themselves into their nations’ cultures. The Economist (Jan.11, 2007) mentions that only 17% of American Jews regard themselves as pro-Zionist and only 57% say that “caring about Israel is a very important.” Even if Israel were not primarily a Jewish nation, but politically similar to other western nations and willing to give the immigrants special largesse, the odds favored the willingness of the North African and Middle East Jews to leave their homes and move to any democratic nation in the Middle East, Jewish or non-Jewish..

The attempt to recruit the world in an embargo against Nazi Germany in 1933 can be considered a Sicarii effort.

Jewish organizations initiated an international boycott campaign as a response to German discriminatory policies and abuses of German Jews. In March 1933 the American Jewish War Veterans and the American League for the Defense of Jewish Rights launched the first US Jewish boycott campaign.

Although, undoubtedly originated with proper intentions, the boycott was doomed and counterproductive. Nations struggling with economic depressions did not want to disturb world trade, had enough of their own problems and weren’t prepared to encounter Germany. The Nazis, who would never have been moved by any embargo, took advantage of the intended boycott to try to prove their argument that Jews engaged in international conspiracies. The boycott campaign further enraged the Nazis against the Jews and tightened the discrimination against them.

The underground war fought by Jewish militias against the British Mandate exposed more Sicarii.

The Altalena, carrying members of the right-wing Irgun militia, was sunk in 1948 after arriving in Tel Aviv against the Israeli government’s orders. The encounter left 16 Irgun members and three IDF soldiers dead.

The King David Hotel bombing in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 killed 91 people, including17 Jews.

The Jewish underground organization Lehi assassinated British Minister Resident in the Middle East Lord Moyne, and United Nations mediator Folke Bernadotte. Although banned by the Israeli government and called “a criminal group of terrorists” by the UN, Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949.

Eventual Israeli Prime Ministers committed each of these atrocious actions. David ben Gurion ordered the sinking of the Atalena; Menachem Begin carried out the King David hotel bombing and Isaac Shamir was known as a leading member of the Lehi.

The modern Sicarii, those who claim to speak for the Jewish people but are bringing them to eventual decline, have replaced metal daggers with character assassination, defamation, attacking words, wounding innuendos and bludgeoning malice towards their fellow Jews. They have a unique focus of utmost loyalty to the state of Israel. Jews who don’t share their views and refuse to profess similar loyalty receive their daggers of condemnation.

Neither historical, scientific, or archaeological findings and knowledge, supports a great Hebrew civilization. Jewish legal claims to the Levant, and singular heritage to Jerusalem, contradict the Iscarii focus. Nevertheless, the Iscarii consider fellow Jews who are educated with this knowledge as stupid and deceived traitors and unleash their wrath to intimidate and silence them. Preposterous expressions, such as ‘self-hating’ Jews, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and all those who are antagonistic to Israel are anti-Semites, exhibit a lexicon of hate that guides their actions. The over-used epithets expose the Sicarii’s lack of facts, reality and logic to support their arguments. The rights of others – no consideration at all.

These insulting and ugly epithets solicit examples of “Jewish baseness,” Jewish lack of regard for others, and Jewish feelings of superiority and fuel anti-Jewish feeling. The Iscarii promote the objects they rally against, and which they actually need to validate their existence.

Iscarii websites unashamedly list fellow ‘self-hating’ Jews.

http://www.heebz.com/categories/Self-Hating-Jews
http://masada2000.org/list-K.html

These lists pit Jew against Jew, upset innocent persons and defame Jews. Some persons noting the social quality of individuals in the list have asked to be placed on it. However, the lists are not jokes, but an insult to the Jewish people.

Words beget violence and the more radical Iscarii are driven to violence. The most well known appearance of their violence is the attacks on Tikkun’s Rabbi Lerner.

Only one day after Rabbi Lerner presented the Tikkun Award to South African Justice Richard Goldstone, at a celebration of Tikkun‘s twenty-fifth anniversary attended by over 600 people at the University of California, Berkeley, Lerner’s home was again assaulted by extremist Zionists who once again plastered posters over his home. This is the third assault on Lerner’s home since he announced he would be presenting the award to Justice Goldstone, whose report on Israel’s human rights violations during the Israeli assault on Gaza in Dec. 2008 and Jan.2009 was denounced by the State of Israel and by the AIPAC-dominated House of Representatives last year.¹

An array of well known and consistent dagger throwers in universities, radio, television and print media target those who criticize Israel by trying to curtail professorial tenure, halt publication of books, prevent production of plays, and sidetrack printing of articles. These attackers don’t dialogue or debate issues. They are not interested in truth or reality. Sparked by, “We are always right,” they engage in character assassination, slander and defamation to subdue their rivals. Most disconcerting is their use of the World War II Holocaust to advance their agenda. In addition to appointing themselves as the voice of live Jews, the Iscarii assume themselves to be the voice of dead Jews.

A true story of a typical Iscarious

Seated at breakfast in a Jerusalem hostel, a forty year old English woman explains why she is a new arrival in the West Bank settlement Ma’ale Adumim. She never felt at home in an England filled with anti-Semites. Here, in Israel she feels she has come home. Turn to an American who is asked if he feels the same. He explains he never faced anti-Semitism in his life and never felt anything else but being an American. His words enrage the British expatriate who leaps up and utters: No, first you are a Jew. Then, you are an American.

It is natural that many Jews, regard their birth nation as their primary faith and remain separated from Israel. Many regard Israeli laws to be intolerant, not protective of minorities and somewhat comparable to the Nazi Nuremburg laws. Some relations:

• Since Jews can only be married in Israel by orthodox rites, Jews cannot receive an intermarriage ceremony within the state.
• Although the term right of return refers to a principle of international law and gives any person the right to return or re-enter his country of origin, the Israeli Right of Return only permits foreign Jews to immediately gain citizenship and does not permit immigration of non-Jews, such as Palestinian refugees.
• An Israeli, according to the so-called Nakba law, must wholeheartedly and unreservedly celebrate the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. Any groups or institutions that mourn the event, which was accompanied by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab residents from their homes – the Nakba, or Catastrophe – or that deny the state’s “Jewish and democratic nature” can now be denied state funds.
• The Citizenship Law allows the state to revoke citizenship and imprison anyone convicted of acting against “the sovereignty of the state”.
• Fifty rabbis signed a declaration calling for Jews not to let Arabs rent apartments in their communities. The state owns almost all the land and, except for special situations, refuses land sales to non-Jews.

In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt noted similarity between the racist foundation of the state of Israel and the 1935 Nuremburg laws. Both laws were based on an idea of Judaism as a race, not as a religious practice, regardless of whether individuals identified themselves as a Jew or belonged to the Jewish religious community.

Many Jews refuse to accept the rationalization that the oppression of the Palestinian people is a temporary measure brought about by Israel’s security considerations. They see no reason to be drawn into the conflict in which they have no part. Not so with the new Iscarii.

Three huge granite stones rest comfortably on the top of Midbar Sinai Street, in Givat Havatzim, Jerusalem’s northernmost district. Cut to specification, the imposing stones represent one of several preparations by the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement’s to erect a Third Temple on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Since the Islamic Wafq owns and controls all the property on the Haram al-Sharif, by what means can these stones be transferred to the Temple Mount and how can a Temple be constructed there? Not by any legal means. The stones are a provocation, which the Israel government refuses to halt. Since the Iscarii now have the occupation forces on their side, it becomes obvious they will be more threatening. In ancient times, their efforts contributed to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now it could be the entire Middle East.

1. Zionist Extremist Hate Crime Against Rabbi Lerner: Third Attack on His Home and the Limits of “Freedom of the Press,” 3/17/2011, Berkeley, California

Steven A. Barnes, Assistant Professor in the Department of History and Art History at Virginia’s George Mason University is the researcher and the book is The Gulag’s Foundation in Kazakhstan.

Wisely, Barnes has moved his book into public think tanks, such as the Woodrow Wilson Center, so its contents won’t become dusty on University book shelves. His revelations challenge accepted dogma, his research combats propaganda, and his history illuminates a black time. A closed record opens to more inspection.

Note: The following is this reporter’s record of Steven Barnes’ talk at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington DC., May 19, 2011, Death and Redemption: The Shaping of the Gulag System and Soviet Society.

The camps were not conceived as producers of death. All types of prisoners, politically incorrect, socially unfit and criminally attached mixed in the same camps. The criminal elements developed their own sub-culture.

Barnes research shows 18 million prisoners passed through the GULag, with 5.2 million incarcerated at its peak. However, the camps weren’t designed to kill or destroy; they were the last opportunity for the ‘enemies of the state’ to become rehabilitated. About 20 percent of the prisoners returned home each year, with releases reaching 0.5 million in some years. Although high, the total of those who died is far below estimates; Barnes statistics show about 1.6 million died in the principal thirty years of camp existences. Rather than being just ‘work to death’ penal institutions, the camps had cultural activities, correction programs and their own economic organization. Prisoners shaped their own society.

The Soviets believed their society was moving the world to the end of history. Similar to the German dictum “Arbeit Macht Frei’ (Work Makes Free), Soviet vision equated strong labor with ultimate freedom. The camps were one of many historical responses to the nation’s conditions, to the need to industrialize a rural population, to destroy opposition which prevented the forward march, and to remove those who blocked the vision of struggle and suffering.

Meticulous files were actually kept on each prisoner and these files were periodically reviewed to ascertain who had repented and could be released. In effect, the prisoner guided his/her own destiny. Work would either reshape the individual or prove the individual’s incapability to assume a proper place in society. Life is a battle against nature, and only those who cooperate and fight valiantly in the battle will survive.

Barnes’ own words tell the more complete story.

The most salient feature of the Gulag was an apparent paradox: forced labor, high death rates and an oppressive atmosphere of violence, cold and constant hunger coexisted with camp newspapers and cultural activities, a constant propaganda barrage of correction and reeducation and the steady release of a significant portion of the prisoner population.

The Bolsheviks could not escape their fundamental belief in the malleability of the human soul and they believed that labor was the key to reforging criminals. The very harshness of the Gulag was seen as necessary to break down a prisoner’s resistance in order to rebuild him or her into a proper Soviet citizen. If a prisoner refused correction, the brutality of the Gulag would lead to inevitable death, for the Bolsheviks were no humanitarians. If mistakes were to be made, they believed it was better to kill too many than too few.

Steven Barnes has made a major contribution to the historical record. By careful research and analysis, he has supplied us with new knowledge and the recognition that events are not simplistic recordings to be explained by unqualified statements. He has shown that the Soviet labor camps had a deep meaning, one requiring in-depth thought and analysis. Hopefully other intrepid and skillful researchers will reveal details in other historical events that have been hidden by media control, demagoguery, propaganda and unwillingness to combat accepted knowledge.

Apr 6
Dear Friends,
Hope this email finds you well.
To update you on recent events in Bahrain:

Report by the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights: Thousands are subjected to dismissal of work as part of severe clampdown on all who joined or openly supported the protest movement. King’s son says: No escape for opponents of his father:

ILO Director-General sounds alarm on situation of workers in Bahrain:

“Policemen Murder Suspects Go On Trial before the Lower State Safety Court”

“Bahrain University Fires College Dean, 7 Teachers, 25Administrators and 62 Students”

“It has also sacked 25 administrators, 62 students and suspended 8 others for a whole academic year. Five other students enrolled at foreign universities for their PhD degrees had their state scholarships stopped.” It is important to note that the incident of the University of Bahrain was mentioned in the BCHR report on “Unfounded stories of sectarian clashes and violence by protesters”:

“Ministry of Social Affairs has decided to dissolve the Bahrain Teacher’s Society and suspend the Bahrain Medical Society today.” President of the Bahrain Teacher’s Society, was arrested today.

“The US officials expressed thanks and respect to HRH the Crown Prince praising the kingdom’s ongoing development march for the past tenors as well as Bahrain’s pioneering regional and international role.”

Apr 8
Dear Friends,
URGENT NEWS; A prominent human rights defender and former Mena director at Frontline defenders, Abdulhadi Alhkawaja has just been arrested along with two of his son-in-laws- Wafi Almajid and Hussein Ahmed. They broke the front door to the house and then beat them severely along with Mohammad Almasqati, the president of the Bahrain youth society of human rights. But they through Mohammad into a room and told him not to come out and then closed the door. Abdulhadi Alkhawaja was beaten so severely that the blood stain is still visible on the stair case. And when his oldest daughter, Zainab, tried to intervene she was beaten as well.

On their search for Abdulhadi Alkhawaja they went to his apartment first and didn’t find him there. They then went to his cousin’s house and he wasn’t there either but his cousin, Habib Alhalwachi, was and they arrested him. They finally went to the home of his daughter, Zainab Alkhawaja, and found him, arrested him and two others as mentioned above. Urgent pleas for intervention as all three are under arrest, high risk of torture, and their lives may be in danger.

Apr 9
Dear Friends,
Today the Ministry of Interior released news that two detainees died while in custody. The first, Ali Isa Saqer, who was charged with allegedly running over a policeman and killing him, was said to have “created chaos at the detention center and that led to the interference of security forces to bring situation to normal, but he resisted them and sustained various injuries in the process. He was referred to the hospital and died later.”

The second man, Zakariya Rashid Hassan, was allegedly “found dead on Saturday morning at the Detention Center.” The MOI alleges that he died due to sickle cell anemia. This is the second case of death allegedly due to sickle cell anemia in detention centers by Bahraini Authorities.All detainees (currently numbered at around 600, amongst them 25 women two of whom are pregnant) are at very high risk of torture, and their lives are at threat. I will be sending the updated list as soon as it is translated in English.

In an update on the Al-Khawaja case, Minister of foreign affairs wrote on twitter: “He (Alkhawaja) was arrested for charges to be brought against him legally . He violently resisted the arrest and had to be subdued” and then went on to say: “He (Alkhawaja) is not a reformer. He called for the overthrow of the legitimate regime”

You can read the details of Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja’s arrest as told by his daughter who was present at the time to Human Rights Watch:

There are still ongoing protests and candlelit vigils which get attacked every night in different villages in Bahrain causing more injuries. Tens of people are staying at home despite serious injuries, some with shrapnel in their eyes, out of fear of going to the hospitals which are still under the control of the security forces.

Again, we call for urgent intervention as many lives are under threat.

Apr 10
Dear Friends,
I am writing to you in urgency as we have pictures which now show that Isa Saqer, who’s death the Ministry of Interior announced yesterday, show torture marks on his body. The pictures are graphic. It is important to note that Zakaria alAsheri, who’s death was also announced yesterday, is a blogger who was arrested. Al Asheri’s family has informed us that Zakaria never had sickle cell anemia, which the authorities said was the cause of death. Again, all detainees are under high risk of torture and their lives are at threat.

There is still no news about Abdulhadi Alkhawaja or his sons-in-law. Their whereabouts are still unknown and lawyers have not been able to reach them. There is grave concern for his well-being and and his life. There is concern for Abdulhadi’s eldest daughter, Zainab, who has been talking to the media about her father’s arrest and has been working on documenting cases. She has already received death threats and threats of arrest from members of the royal family due to her speaking out. Zahra Alsingace, Abduljalil AlSingace’s 23 year old daughter, was arrested and interrogated today for a few hours then released. They made her open her facebook page and went through it. Her older brother Hussain remains in detainment as does her father, and her brother Hassan is in hiding as the authorities are looking for him.

Apr 10
Dear Friends,
After broadcasting the pictures I sent you of Isa Saqer and a video of him, the Ministry of Interior put news on their formal website that Nabeel Rajab was to be referred to the Military Public Prosecutor for allegedly having “published in his twitter account a fabricated image of “Ali Isa Saqer” who died on 9 April 2011″ We have reason to believe that he is at high risk of arrest. If Nabeel does get arrested, and after the arrest of Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, Mohammed AlMasqati and Sayed Yousif AlMuhafdah (who is in hiding) will be the only human rights activists left inside Bahrain.

Apr 17
Dear Friends,
Hope this email finds you well.
Defense lawyer Mohammed AlTajer was arrested by Bahraini authorities on the 15th of April. You can read the Human Rights Watch report about it here.

Zainab Alkhawaja’s health has deteriorated immensely and she was moved to a hospital where her family was told that if they give her IV they would have to inform the Ministry of Interior. She went home without receiving the IV. Thereabouts of her father Abdulhadi Alkhawaja and her family members are still unknown. Groups are launching a mass hunger strike starting tomorrow in Bahrain. There are also people around the world who have said that they will join the hunger strike as well.

# 30 women are being detained, 3 of them are reportedly pregnant;
# 571 men have been detained;
# An estimated 20-25% of those detained are under the age of 18 years old, with the youngest being 12 years old, Ahmed Ali Abbas Yahya Thamer;
# 40 people are listed as “missing” and not included in the numbers above;
# 17 doctors have been detained;
# Some of those detained were taken from their hospital beds worthy were being treated for injuries received;# Others were taken in the pre-dawn hours from their homes by masked and armed security forces who produced no ID’s, warrants or official charges;
# Most of those detained have been without contact with their familiar with legal counsel of any sort;
# At least 4 people have died during detention, and the govt claims they died from kidney failure or sickle cell disease, but families deny health conditions and clear indications of torture are present on their bodies; and
# The whereabouts of most of the detainees are not known.

Mr Fadhel Abbasof the National Democratic Assembly was not allowed to travel on the 15thof April when he tried to leave to Tunisia for a conference. No reason was given for his travel ban. I have attached copy of the letter sent to the Oxford Aviation Academy asking them to immediately send back certain Bahraini students.

Apr 20
Dear Friends,
Abdulhadi Alkhawaja called his wife today to let her know that he will be appearing before a military court tomorrow (21st April) at 8am (Bahrain time). He also asked for some clothes. No official charges have been declared against him yet. His sons in law also requested clothes to be brought to what is known as the “Qala’a”, the ministry of interior. His daughter Zainab ended her hunger strike today. Yesterday: “Seven people accused of murdering policemen Kashef Ahmed Mandhour and Mohammed Farooq Abdulsamad have today appeared before the Lower National Safety Court.”

University of Bahrain dismisses 200 students, academicians, admins, employees and security guards:

Amnesty International puts out an urgent appeal on detained defense lawyer Mohammed AlTajer who’s brother has now also been detained, Mohsin AlTajer. Several more arrests have taken place, amongst them a few women. The number of detainees until yesterday was 802, amongst them 52 women, not counting the arrests that took place today. There is still an ongoing campaign of demolishing Shiaa mosques and vandalizing “Matams” which belong to the Shia’a sect.

Apr 23
Dear Friends,
Hope this email finds you well.
Amnesty International: Ebrahim Sharif feared tortured

OMCT: Ongoing incommunicado and arbitrary detention of Mr. Abdulhadi Al Khawaja.

Alkhawaja’s family fears he is being subjected to torture as his voice was very weak when he called and he kept repeating “the oppression is great“. There is fear that Alkhawaja may be undergoing military trial without allowing him lawyers or contact with his family.

Important report by Physicians for Human Rights

A group of female students and teachers were rounded up at a governmental high school, interrogated and beaten, please read more at the bottom of this email. After Nasser bin Hamad promised on national television that “a wall will fall on the heads of all those who called for the fall of the regime”, and that they knew who was with them and who was against them; a loyalty campaign was started under his patronage telling people to sign a pledge of allegiance for the King.

Presence of security forces inside villages to terrorize residents.

27 Shia’a mosques have been demolished by security forces in Bahrain. Some of these mosques have important historical and religious context.

This is a video someone put together documenting the demolitions and some of the vandalizing acts against other religious Shia’a institutions .

More than 100 “Mudhayefat” (stands that are built usually for distribution of food and drink during Shia’a religious events) have also been taken down.

Video documenting some of the human rights violations in Bahrain:

I am alarmed that many governments around the world continue to stay silent about the massive human rights violations taking place in Bahrain. It is especially alarming to see those considered allies to Bahrain to continue to say nothing to their ally which is terrorizing it’s own people on a daily basis, and with 800+ detainees under high risk of torture. I urge all of you to do what you can to pressure your governments to take a stronger stand on the violations taking place in Bahrain. Silence about the violations in Bahrain will also give a green light to other oppressive regimes in far they can go in suppressing protests in their countries before international community will take a strong stand.

Apr 27
Dear Friends,
In alarming news, the military general prosecutor has called for the death sentence for 7 men charged with killing police officers.

More arrests are taking place on an almost daily basis. Authorities have announced today that they will be releasing 312 detainees, updated list of detainees will be sent out as soon as it is ready.

Apr 28
Dear Friends,
Death Sentence:
Ali Hassan AlSingace: 19 years old
Qasim Hasan Matar: 20 years old
Saeed Abduljalil Saeed: 19 years old
AbdulAziz AbdulRidha: 24 years old

Life Sentences:
Isa Abdulla Kadhem: 19 years old
Sayed Sadiq Ali: 19 years old
Hussain Jaffar: 19 years old
As taken from the Bahrain News Agency:
On the website (video 2) the “confessions” have been broadcasted, which seem to be the only “evidence” provided by the prosecution.

Manama, April 28 (BNA) — The National Safety Lower Court on Thursday condemned Ali Abdullah Hassan Al Singees, Qasim Hasan Matar Ahmad, Saeed Abduljalil Saeed and Abdulaziz Abdulridha Ibrahim Husain to death for their role in the killing of Policemen Kashef Ahmed Madhoor and Mohammed Farooq Abdulsamad.

The court also condemned Isa Abdullah Kadhem Ali, Sayyed Sadiq Ali Mahdi and Husain Jaafar Abdulkareem to life in prison for their role in the twin murders.The case of the murders by the seven men was referred to the court following an intensive investigation by the competent authorities.Lawyers have the right to appeal the verdict before the National Safety Court of Appeals.Present at the session during which the verdict was pronounced were journalists from the local media, representative from human rights organisations, relatives of the defendants, lawyers and the defendants.Kashef Ahmed Mandhoor and Mohammed Farooq Abdulsamad were murdered last month when they were deliberately hit by vans and run over in one of the most gruesome murders in Bahrain. The killing was captured on camera and displayed on TV networks and on social networks Facebook and You Tube.The defendants had all their legal rights in line with human rights standards and had lawyers representing them during the trial. They were also allowed to contact their families. The trial sessions were attended by representative from human rights organisations and relatives of the defendants.

To the United States, terrorism has one principal appearance, the faces of those who committed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on U.S. soil. From this cataclysmic event, U.S. authorities shaped their definition of terrorists and devised a strategy to combat them. Due to a lack of recognition of the contradictions between an asymmetrical war and a war to achieve global objectives, the War on Terrorism has been converted into conflicts to preserve American corporate interests. The U.S. government has sidetracked its assignment and betrayed its duty to the American public.

Almost immediately, the battle to prevent terrorism evolved into conflagrations in Iraq and Afghanistan; the former having no relation to terrorism and the latter still of undefined meaning. As of March 2011, total U.S. military deaths in the post 9/11 engagements in Iraq (4441), Afghanistan (1401,) together with deceased due to violence in the Gulf States (100), approximately 6000, more than double the 2752 civilian deaths incurred in the 9/11 attack. Add to the casualty list, thousands of wounded, psychologically destroyed, and distraught families from the two wars. Combine economic casualties from the effects of a shift of priorities during an economic decline with the battle casualties, and the War on Terrorism seems to have served the “terrorists.” Consider that Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have suffered several 9/11’s due to the wars, and we have the War on Terrorism equating to another, “We had to kill them in order to save them.”

Despite the severe negative balance in its War on Terrorism, and the counter-productive effects on its own citizens, the U.S. administration refuses to modify its strategy, hoping that a failing and contradictory strategy will miraculously change and accomplish desired results. One glaring failure in the strategy – an inability to recognize who might serve as principal allies in the battle and who already serve as principal contributors to terrorism. Start from a well known beginning.

U.S. actions motivated a successful formation of Al Qaeda

Although the Soviet Union had significant influence in Afghanistan’s affairs and the Asian nation was only peripheral to the Cold war struggle, the Soviet Union’s intervention in Afghanistan provoked U.S. President Jimmy Carter to exclaim “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War.” U.S. military assistance to the Mujahideen, funneled through Pakistan, assisted the Afghani insurgents to expel their Soviet occupiers. After the United States exited from the battle, the Pakistan government enabled the Taliban to stabilize a strife-ridden Afghanistan and Osama bin-Laden to find a new home.

Bin-Laden arrived in Pakistan during the mid-’80′s to disburse Saudi funds to the Mujahideen and provide training camps in Pakistan for foreign fighters. His organization, Al Qaeda (the Base), emerged from the Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK), the Afghan Services Bureau, which is believed to have been founded in 1984 with the purpose of raising funds and recruiting foreign fighters for the war against the Soviets. Bin-Laden eventually moved his operations to the Taliban controlled land. The rest is history.

The U.S. government followed its first gigantic error – assisting a Radical Islamic movement in the replacement of the Soviets – with a counterproductive program that promotes terrorism. The U.S. contests nations that contest terrorists and assists nations that spawn terrorists. Reference to nations in the map of the Middle East demonstrates the veracity of this charge.

The Middle East can be conveniently divided between the nations that the U.S. confronts and have been antagonistic to Radical Islam and the nations that the U.S. befriends and whose policies have contributed to terrorist actions against the United States.

The former nations, The Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, occupy the northern area of the Middle East. The latter nations, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Yemen occupy the Middle East’s southern frontier.

Iran, Saddam Hussein’s’ Iraq, Lebanon’s 21st century Hezbollah and Gaza’s Hamas have not contributed any fighters to the international terrorist organizations that are accused of attacking the United States or its interests. A few terrorists have been of Syrian origin. All of these nations have fought counterparts of Al-Qaeda on their soil and have been sworn enemies of bin Laden.

Examine these nations more closely.

Iran tried reconciliation and assistance after the 9/11 tragedy

At the Tokyo donors’ conference in January 2002, the Iranians showed willingness to create a new Afghanistan by pledging $560 million worth of assistance, which is a large amount for a not-fully-developed country and about the same amount as the United States pledged at the same conference.

After the Northern Alliance Afghan troops played a significant role in driving the Taliban out of Kabul in November 2001, the alliance demanded 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government and blocked agreement with other opposition groups. According to the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Dobbins, Iran played a “decisive role” in persuading the Northern Alliance delegation to compromise its demands and “insisted on including language in the Bonn agreement on the war on terrorism.”

Dobbins mentioned a March 2002 meeting with an Iranian delegation and a General who had been responsible for military assistance to the Northern Alliance during its engagements with the Taliban. “The general offered to provide training, uniforms, equipment, and barracks for as many as 20,000 new recruits for the nascent Afghan military. All this was to be done under U.S. leadership,” Dobbins recalls, “not as part of a separate program under exclusive Iranian control.”

After briefing Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense David Rumsfeld of his meeting, Richard Dobbins later claimed: “To my knowledge, there was never a response.”

Iran has arrested Al-Qaeda agents on its territory and has ample reason to combat bin-Laden’s organization. Al-Qaeda has linked the Shiite Muslims, represented by Iran and Hezbollah, with “the Crusaders, Zionists and Jews” as its most bitter enemies. Deceased al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, Al-Zarqawi, in a speech, said: “Days go by, and events follow one after the other. The battles are many, and the names used are varied. But the goal (of the Crusaders) is one: a Crusader-Rafidite war against the Sunnis.” Who are the Rafidites? Sunnis who refuse to accept Shi’a Islam as a valid form of Islam use the word “rafida” to identify the Shi’a.

The U.S. gave al-Qaeda affiliates, who were previously constrained to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, a base to maneuver in Iraq. Except for Ansar al-Islam, a northern radical Islamic group close to the Iran border, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq contained no Al-Qaeda affiliated elements. In 2003, Taliban fugitives, housed in Western Pakistan, became irritated with neighboring and uncontrollable Al-Qaeda members. Due to the friction, the Taliban permitted Pakistan military to operate against Al-Qaeda in South Waziristan and demolish its training camps. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi armed forces and policing functions, fleeing Al Qaeda members moved into Iraq, the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam terrorist group fortified itself throughout the East of the Kurdish province, and foreign fighters entered the hostile atmosphere and formed a new ally of Al-Qaeda. The latter eventually termed themselves ‘Al-Qaeda in Iraq.’

By invading and occupying Iraq, the U.S. extended the battle against terrorism rather than confining it. The extension of the battlefield weakened available resources required for the battle.

Secular Syria has been fighting Radical Islam in its northern provinces

According to U.S. officials, after Sept.11, 2001, Syrian information was instrumental in catching militant Islamists around the world.

Nicholas Blanford | Special to The Christian Science Monitor, May 14, 2002.

“In July 2005, the Syrian government returned alleged Islamist terrorists to Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. In June 2006, Syria’s state security forces and Islamists fought a gun battle in Damascus. The Syrian government cited the September 27, 2008 car bombing in Damascus, which killed seventeen people, as an indication that Islamist terrorists—in this case it named Fatah al-Islam—had targeted the country for its cooperation with U.S. efforts to strengthen security along its border with Iraq.”

The U.S. characterization of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations is dubious

Both organizations have issues with Israel, which is separate from international terrorism. Neither of these organizations has committed verified terrorist acts against the United States.

Fateh el-Islam, a terrorist group that battled the Lebanese army at the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in Tripoli for over three months in 2007, received no support from Hezbollah. In Gaza, Hamas has fought Jund Ansar Allah, a radical Islamic group that wants to proclaim an Islamic Emirate in Gaza. Weakening Hamas strengthens Jund Ansar Allah and other radical Muslim groups in Gaza.

The positive qualities of the northern Middle East nations, all of which could be beneficial to the U.S in its anti-terrorism activities, are politely neglected. None of these nations have identity with al Qaeda, none of them have supplied terrorists from their ranks who have confronted Americans, and none of them have perpetrated terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

The Middle East nations in the southern frontier, those of Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia present an opposite image

Is there any doubt that America’s unqualified support of Israel has provided terrorists with a reason to augment its ranks? Evidently Osama bin Laden believes this to be true and he should know:

(AFP) – Sep 13, 2009, WASHINGTON

“Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden told Americans in a new message that their support for Israel had prompted him to launch the September 11, 2001 attacks, a US-based terror monitoring group said.”

Regardless of what many Americans believe, the United Nations and most of the world’s peoples characterize Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands as defiance of UN resolutions, its settlements in the West Bank as illegal, and its treatment of the Palestinians as brutal.

Poll explores Arabs’ views on Obama, Israel and Iran by Safaa Abdoun Daily News Egypt, August 6, 2010

“When asked to name two countries that pose the biggest threat to Arabs, Israel came in first with 88 percent followed by US with 77 percent.”

Israel is not struggling against an insurrection in its own lands; it has caused an insurrection by usurping lands owned by Palestinians. It is not fighting to maintain its own territory. It is fighting to gain new territory and, at the same time, is bringing about the total destruction of the Palestinian community. Making it seem that the Palestinian rebellion is part of a larger international plot to destroy western civilization diverts attention from Israel’s own military actions.

Terrorists recruit by intimidation and provocation. Israel helps in the recruitment by reactions to its intimidations, indoctrinations, and teachings.

Shulamit Aloni, former Member of Knesset who served in Labour government Cabinets; Ha’aretz, March 7th, 2003.

“Many of our children are being indoctrinated, in religious schools, that the Arabs are Amalek, and the bible teaches us Amalek must be destroyed. There was already a rabbi (Israel Hess) who wrote in the newspaper of Bar Ilan University that we all must commit genocide, and that is because his research showed that the Palestinians are Amalek. Murder of a population under cover of righteousness.”

No matter how many terrorists the U.S. forces remove from the international terrorism scene, without an agreed solution to the Palestinian/Israeli crisis, the terrorists will continually replace their ranks and terrorist actions will continue.

Mubarrak’s previous Egypt, and President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s Yemen exhibit commonalities and are discussed together

Each of these nations has had cordial relations with the United States, each has contributed many terrorists in actions against the United States and each has rebellious populations demanding democracy. In totality, they have been ineffective in preventing the training of terrorists on their lands, have highlighted the hypocrisy of U.S. promotion of democracy and have aroused severe resentment in their populations due to oppressive policies, which fuel terrorism.

Relations with Saudi Arabia clearly demonstrate how the U.S. has blended its battle against terrorism with preservation of American global interests

The Saudi Arabia kingdom can be the poster child for a characterization of the Middle East as an area that contains despotic governments and deprives its peoples of freedom and basic human rights. Most of the 9/11 conspirators and other al-Qaeda members, including bin-Laden, were of Saudi origin. Saudis have been accused of financing terrorist activities, and the Saudi government’s support of worldwide Islamic charities and schools, which have questionable links to terrorism, has been criticized.

Although claiming to adhere to Koran principles, the desert kingdom allows the United States, a hostile and non-Muslim nation, to construct bases on its territory, accumulates vast wealth for a few extended families, refuses equitable income distribution, and uses oil revenue to support the lifestyle of a group of jet setters. These operations enrage Islamist extremists, who sense the Saudi family is hypocritical and violates religious tradition. Authoritarianism, political persecution and extensive human rights violations fuel a bubbling dissent that is prepared to explode. The vast and barren areas are not easily controlled and terrorists have both internal support and places to hide. It is certainly not deliberate, but Saudi Arabia is fertile ground for producing international terrorists.

During the 1980′s the Saudi Kingdom supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran and had friendly relations with the Taliban until the 9/11 terrorist attack. The monarchy, as part of its commitment to Islam, funds Islamic schools and charities, some of whom have been accused of fomenting anti-Western attitudes, contributing to terrorist organizations and developing terrorists. Most damaging is evidence that linked the wife of the Saudi ambassador in Washington to the family of a Saudi man in San Diego who befriended and assisted two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Princess Haifa al-Faisal, the wife of Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, provided tens of thousands of dollars in what she believed were charitable gifts for medical care to Osama Bassnan. After learning they had befriended and assisted two of the Saudi hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, the F.B.I. questioned Mr. Bassnan and a Saudi neighbor, Omar al-Bayoumi.

Although reports of the FBI meetings have been classified, the New York Times, August 2, 2003, claimed the two Saudis might have been Saudi intelligence agents.

James Risen and David Johnston, Washington, Aug. 1, 2002

“The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report.”

Most of the Al-Qaeda operatives in post-Hussein Iraq came from Saudi Arabia and neighboring Yemen. These terrorists, as well as those training and operating on Saudi soil are undoubtedly receiving funds from a close source. Considering the vast and unchecked funds flowing through Saudi banks and institutions, it’s reasonable to assume that some of the oil revenues are unknowingly being siphoned to illicit activities and arrive in terrorist hands. The Saudi Ministry of Interior detained 520 terror suspects, who they claimed had targeted an oil facility. One of them admitted to receiving an equivalent of $133,000 (from whom?) and Saudi security forces seized another equivalent of $40,000 cash, which was hidden in remote desert areas. Although Mauritania, Yemeni and Iraqi nationals, some of who had university degrees and came to the Kingdom on private drivers’ visas, composed the terrorist cell, Saudis composed the majority of those detained.

Associated Press, December 8, 2006
By SALAH NASRAWI in CAIRO, Egypt (AP)

“Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash. Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition. But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq; money they said was headed for insurgents.”

Separate the battle against international terrorism from general foreign policy initiatives and compare the activities of the Northern Arab nations, with whom the U.S. is extremely hostile, with the southern Arab nations and Israel, whom the U.S. supports. Comparison demonstrates the U.S. is confusing the objectives of its War on Terrorism with its global objectives and complicating its War on Terrorism.

The United States government has made the battle against terrorism its highest priority. It owes its citizens constructive policies that do not disable those who impede terrorism and do not enable others to create terrorism. It’s a fine line in foreign policy, but the margin between victory and defeat can be a fine line, or as Somerset Maugham wrote, “as sharp as a razor’s edge.”

Hello,

I was at a peaceful protest and people were chanting legitimate demands asking for parliament, constitution, basic human rights, and etc… Out of nowhere, riot police then came charging down attacking the protesters with rubber bullets, tear gas and sound bombs. Despite foreign journalist present at the scene, more and more violence is being used at the moment. Officials need to be aware of the situation. International media must be told of this unfair, unjust situation of peaceful protesters being attacked by frequent violence.

The emails continued for several days, more frequently and with increasing despair. Finally on the February 17 night, police killed several protestors and wounded hundreds of those who were sleeping in tents in Pearl Square.

What is the reality of this once again suppression of a persecuted majority in an Arab nation? Due to the attacks being upon Shi’i, the aggression gains added importance. The Shi’is are unique. In Bahrain, they “have limited opportunities in the public sector, and are even more excluded in the military, where no Shi’is hold important positions, even if Shi’is serve as normal soldiers.” Persecuted in Saudi Arabia, second-rate citizens in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and present day Bahrain, where they are a majority, and downtrodden when the Maronites controlled Lebanon politics, the Shi’i have never been a favored group in societies, and international communities have ignored their plights.  Why?

The reason is not religious. The masses of Islam are no different from the masses of Protestants.  They don’t care to whom and how their neighbor prays. Creating a conflict between opposing groups creates havoc and a reason to maintain control. By prompting, promoting and provoking a Sunni/Shi’i divide, western nations have contributed to preventing Arab nations from evolving into democratic, egalitarian and stable states. The Sunni/Shi’i divide, portrayed as a religious conflict, is actually an economic conflict.

Similar to Northern Ireland, where Irish Catholics protested against their second-class citizenship and economic persecution by English Protestants, the deprived Shi’i minorities (majority in Bahrain) have legitimately protested their economic subservience – for decades. During these decades, the United States played a significant role in the continued repression of the followers of Ali. While supporting Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War, encouraging the Maronite and Sunnis in Lebanon, and having close relationships with Saudi Arabian and Bahrain monarchies, the U.S. government ignored the legitimate grievances of the Shi’i and implicitly allowed these grievances to erupt into challenges.

Adding to the total collapse of U.S. policy, the U.S. has been antagonistic to Hezbollah, the organization that led the Shi’i to achieve equality in Lebanon, and despite contrary western propaganda, enabled Lebanon to evolve to a more democratic, egalitarian and stable state. American polices have forced Shi’i to turn to benefactors who will assist them in their plight. After soul mates from Iran naturally respond, the U.S. then accuses Iran of meddling and controlling, and exporting terrorism. Anti-Shi’i is one of the most punishing of the anti-isms and is aggravated by a western world that excuses nefarious anti-shi’i policies. Recognition of the rights of the Shi’i will diminish the Sunni/Shi’i divide.

Iran and Saudi Arabia most represent the divide, with each nation fearing that the other nation wants to overthrow its government. U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and U.S. administrations close relations with the Kingdom supports Iran’s arguments. Arab hostility to Iran occurs from the Islamic Republic’s disregard of its Sunni minority and its contentious attitude with the Gulf State, its claims on Island territories and its supposed assistance to a rebellious Shi’i.

Middle East stability dictates reconciliation between the Arab world and Iran, between Sunnis and Shiites, and specifically between Saudi Arabia and Iran. By cooperating, Iran and Saudi Arabia can stabilize the Middle East. This does not mean that the two authoritarian nations should be excused for suppression of internal democratic movements and be able to avoid responsibility towards their own peoples. Nor does it mean that their accord should be allowed to prompt an arrangement that subverts other nations or constructs an anti-American coalition. It only means that, by peculiarities of international politics, these nations happen to have significant power to resolve a crushing situation. The world should be aware of this unique power and use it to advantage. Trace the situation. It emerges from U.S. failures, which predict a U.S. loss of influence, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims will create a political vacuum, which will be filled by oil rich Iran and very oil rich Saudi Arabia, which merits a repair of the Sunni and Shi’i divide, and then leads to Middle East peace and stability.

Support of autocratic monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf State nations has strengthened these regimes and delayed them from extending sufficient freedoms to their populations, including Shi’i. The latter ethnicity is important because U.S. proclamations of freedom of religion and minority rights, except for Iraq, are rarely applied to the Shi’i – just the opposite – the victimized and mostly powerless Shi’i, who have been attacked by Sunnis from India to Saudi Arabia, are constantly and falsely portrayed as aggressive, terrorist prone and always ready to seize control. This depiction disguises government corruption, reinforces Sunni domination and exaggerates a Sunni/Shi’i divide that seeks amelioration.

Bahrain is now a crucial focus for rights of Arab peoples. The outcome of the events in Pearl Square will  portend the future of the Middle East and influence the political situation in Iraq.

A sectarian government in Iraq increases the probability of a continuous and crushing civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. The strife could undermine and consume the opposing Islamic states; Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. A stable and non-sectarian Iraq at their borders relieves these states of responsibility to assist opposing factions and limits charges of neglecting brethren from attack. A non-sectarian government serves as a buffer between Shiite Iran and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.

Is cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia far fetched? Major problems exist between Iran and the Arab states – territorial disputes, threats of closing the Straits of Hormuz, Arab states’ alliances with the United States, claims that Iran supports a Shi’i uprising in Bahrain, and the Sunni/Shi’i divide. Nevertheless, previous events indicated that Iran and Saudi Arabia intended to diminish antagonisms and more eagerly cooperate in stabilizing their Middle East.

On March 4, 2007, the Iranian president and Saudi leaders had official talks in which they “pledged to fight the spread of sectarian strife in the Middle East, which was the biggest danger facing the region.” Following this meeting, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, on October 4, 2007, highlighted what he has said is the emergence of a “power vacuum in the region,” and indicated Iran’s readiness to fill that vacuum, while encouraging cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia to achieve that goal. On August 18, 2008, seven Arab countries, including Kuwait, announced their intentions to reopen their embassies in Baghdad. The Arab Interim Parliament (AIP), which has been active in addressing Arab Nations’ social and economic affairs, stated on August 25, 2000, “it was examining a proposal to have its chairman hold a dialogue between the Arab and Iranian nations.”

A series of economic agreements between Iran and Gulf State demonstrated a recognized dependence. London-based economic weekly MEED reported on August 3, 2008 that UAE-based Quest Energy and an Iranian company are developing a project to build a 1,000 megawatt power plant in Iran. On August 17, 2008, the Saudi Press Agency reported that “Iran signed a deal to export gas to Oman that could open new export routes well beyond the neighboring Arab state.”

A Bahrain that evolves into a non-sectarian and independent democracy initiates a hopeful path to stabilization of the entire Middle East. This task will fail if the western world does not recognize its role in aggravating the problems of the Arab world. Instead of inciting division and hatred, and juggling Middle East lives to favor their own interests, isn’t it preferable that western agencies and governments encourage a Shi’i/Sunni rapport? Start with Bahrain.

Accumulation of wealth for expressive purposes detracts entirely from its economic purpose, to grow the economy. Letting investment lay fallow, which these captains of industry have partly done, or detouring gigabucks for disbursement through depleting charities, rather than organizing assets towards further growth through investment in growing industries, will soon turn the entire nation into one big charity. Can the free enterprise system survive without growth? Can it maintain growth when an already falling economy is deprived of almost a trillion dollars of needed investment funds?

Forbes relates that the assets of four hundred U.S. billionaires total 1.2 trillion dollars. If all of them were willing to sell one-half of their assets to investors, the sales will transfer 600 billion dollars of green currency to their bank accounts. By surrendering the 600 billion dollars, without obtaining tax deductions, to the world’s largest charity, which is the United States government, the billions of dollars can be used for one or more of the following:

Pay for most of next year’s public deficit.

Supply massive funds to private industries, especially in new energy technologies, and enable them to grow again.

Reimburse one year of salaries for new employees ($40,000/person average). This will temporarily reduce unemployment by 15 million, erase most of the unemployment compensation, and assist the states to achieve balanced budgets,

Support new export industries and assist in overcoming the trade deficit,

Maintain low taxes

Provide low cost loans for small businesses.

We need to help the deprived and less fortunate around the wide world, but are those of their own United States citizens, many suffering from the shocks of a failing economy, any less in need? Perhaps it seems that those who purchase the assets could have performed the same philanthropy. Not so. Unlike the wealthiest, who remain with hundreds of million or billions after halving their assets, the investors purchasing the assets, say, those who have millions of dollars, will remain with only millions of dollars after purchasing the assets, a worthwhile amount but insufficient for being too zealous in assisting others. Summarizing — the sellers don’t need the assets; the buyers, who are of much lesser wealth, are still accumulating.

The brief analysis also indicates that an excessive accumulation of assets by one person can stifle an economy, and reworking of these assets, so their value circulates, can advance an economy. Thousands of persons, each with hundreds of thousand dollars of assets (such as owning a house), cannot ordinarily sell the assets and, if they could, have no means to group together with others to support the economy. One person with more than one billion dollars of assets can sell assets and direct the funds to advantageous economic use without teaming with anyone.

Apparently not considered by the top 400 is that selling massive amounts of assets and transferring the funds to charities have detrimental effects to the economy.

Many charities exist overseas, which means dollars will leave the nation.

If the contributors obtain massive tax deductions, then the decreased tax revenue will widen the government deficits.

Charities are localized and non-growth industries. They cannot efficiently handle huge investments, and their objective is to disappear. Huge investments to promote growth benefit the entire economy and eventually, either resolve the problems of, or provide the assistance to, the charitable organizations.

Selling assets to obtain funds for reconstituting America and paying full taxes for the transactions will enable the nation to grow again and produce massive benefits for all — government deficit reduced, population escaped from poverty, charities relieved of their own burdens. Eventually the same persons who performed the noble act will find their assets growing once again. What more can the country ask of them, or they of their nurturing country?

The reason for the potential social security dilemma is well known; revenue will be insufficient to accommodate the needs of an increased senior population. From the day of its first payment, check number 00-000-001, issued to Ida May Fuller in the amount of $22.54 and dated January 31,1940, Social Security obligated itself to pay benefits that exceeded the contributions from the earliest retirees. The increase in life expectancy and constant cost-of-living adjustments additionally strained the Social Security fund. The government greatly increased payroll taxes (FICA) to assure Social Security operated in the black. After substantial increases in the payroll tax during the Reagan administration, the payroll tax remained insufficient to satisfy future demands. The near future retirements of the “baby boomers” will greatly decrease the worker to retiree ratio, and the Social Security “trust fund” will be empty in the third or fourth decade of the 21st century, or possibly earlier.

Retirees deserve more than the present Social Security system has afforded them. The government created Social Security to meet immediate demands, consistently altered the system to meet growing demands and now is in a dilemma of how to meet future demands. Social, cultural and economic factors change, and a retirement plan must be able to adjust to the changes. It is obvious that a new system is required that can respond to the exigencies of a dynamic economy. The present economic crisis (not predicted by conventional economists) intensifies the problem and verifies the need for a more secure and stable retirement system.

A chilling scenario awaits a nation with an aging population and reduced birth rate.

This chilling scenario has partly arrived; wages have been relatively stagnant, while an increasingly aging population solicits more social security funds. Fortunately, inflation remains low – dampened by a prolonged recession, controversial statistics and decreased global demand for many products. Unforeseen elevated unemployment, predicted to remain for a lengthy time, complicates the budgeting for the OASDI.

That’s not all: not prominently considered is that as the population ages and births decline, family life changes. Modified lifestyles and cultural patterns evolve and the new patterns will force industries to reconfigure production. Changing demographics will modify consumer preferences in clothing, housing, entertainment, food, and partially reorder the consumer economy. The changes might be slow and adaptation might enable absorbing the shocks. Nevertheless, the economy will be perturbed.

Another overlooked condition. The present social security beneficiaries must either directly use their investments for expenditures and slowly use up their assets, which they gamble to remain at adequate price levels, or transfer equity investments to fixed income investments and live from fixed income interest. Low interest rates, unsteady stock market and the push for private retirement plans mystify the choices.

It’s all patchwork and contradictions

The exit of the ‘baby boomers’ from the work force leads to increased investment demand for fixed income securities. This drives up the price of fixed income securities and drives down their yields, resulting in less retirement income. The patchwork proposition that investment of social security funds in equities can assist in maintaining the social security fund and yield greater benefits for retirees is not proven, and might prove counter-productive. For this concept to be effective, the employed workers, through their Keogh plans, will purchase the securities that the retirees sell to turn their assets into cash or fixed income investment. In effect, the employed workers through their own Keogh plans, must maintain high security prices and will still finance retirees in a similar manner to the “pay as you go” plan. In addition, two severe stock market declines in ten years have softened the call for turning social security into an investment scheme. Still unknown, and not discussed too loudly, is how will SS be able to meet its present obligations if FICA funds are diverted from the ‘trust fund’ to investments.

The Social Security problem arises from the failure to recognize that the present system had built-in-problems from the start and patch-work cannot repair them. With corporations deserting their original pension commitments and the U.S. government’s Pension Guaranty Corporation rescuing the insured, with the stock market falling periodically and investment at these occurrences going strongly into U.S. government bonds, it is obvious that America’s citizens are depending upon their government for an assured retirement income.

By using a major portion of the taxed FICA contribution to provide present benefits, Social Security is unable to create sufficient reserves for future retiree benefits. On paper, FICA, and not rather the general revenue fund, finances SS. However, to workers, the FICA payment is only another form of taxation, and the result is the same as if they paid FICA to the general revenue fund. Many workers never recover their total payments after retirement. To them, the FICA payments are the same as any tax.

Moving money from one accounting line (Social Security Fund) to another (general revenue), while maintaining the same result, resonates as a sleight of hand operation. It is a ‘smoothie,’ but the benefit of the change is that Social Security will become a true retirement plan, actuarially and financially. However, going from a ‘pay-as-you-go’ plan to a true retirement plan, does not automatically solve the SS financial problems. Only a properly calculated ingestion of money can place a retirement plan on a sound basis. The proposed change focuses on this calculation. This focus more carefully scrutinizes means to improve the retirement plan and resolve the financial issue.

Proposals for keeping the retirement system solvent continually circulate without decision. Nevertheless, we have a lack of discussion on what may be the most critical failure of the Social Security retirement plan – It operates as a ‘pay-as-you-go’ plan rather than as a true retirement plan. Changing its stature from ‘pay-as-you-go’ to a true retirement plan might establish a social security system that is competitive with an annuity of a private industry plan and yield advantages that private industry plans cannot provide.

Can Social Security Function as a Pension Plan?

Payroll taxes of workers, rather than general revenue taxes, support retiree income. Social Security determines the formula that shifts a portion of wage earners to retiree income. No matter how it is sliced, diced or construed, the present OASDI system is almost a National Pension Plan; the government raises funds by taxes and distributes these funds to give retirees a fixed income. The system only needs improvements; a more just retirement income for everyone and a certainty that the funds will always be there.

Social Security, modified to be a national pension plan, has the capability to provide a secure, stable and advantageous pension for retirees. Security results from the strength of the government system. Stability results from the guaranteed income. The added advantages: Government control allows quick adjustment of retirement benefits according to family status, cost of living and total income.

If the nation accepts the original objective of the Social Security system as “to pay benefits that provide a minimum degree of social security,” and realizes the obligations to the retirement community with SS functioning as an income distribution plan, then SS becomes a national pension plan financed from the budget. A modified framework for the Social Security system uses the forecasted expenditure for Social Security as a budget item in a unified budget. One modification would be to have tax revenue support the budget item termed Social Security Benefits. The individual’s W-2 tax form would become an accounting entry for determining future benefits.

Placing SS benefits in a unified budget, and making certain that general tax revenue finances the budget item, has several advantages:

(1) The present payroll taxes are regressive and unfairly affect lower incomes. Income taxes are progressive.

(2) The Social Security budget is mandatory. If it increases, other budget items can decrease in order to maintain taxes at the same level. Taxpayers will not complain if the Social Security budget increases, as long as their total tax bill remains constant.

(3) Since Social Security is a major portion of the Federal budget, other budget items will be forced to compete with it and will have increased scrutiny. Wasteful and unnecessary budget items will be “under fire.”

The SS system cannot escape the fact that its outlays are beginning to exceed its revenues.

How will its own budget be balanced?

As of now, the distributions of payments to retirees are well accepted. Continuing those distributions and refining them as economic changes occur are a matter of priority, and Social Security deserves high priority. After all, Social Security payments are only a transfer of payments from children and grandchildren to their elders – a family affair. Instead of family wage earners directly supporting their parents, the wage earners will be indirectly supporting them. In other words, no matter the costs involved, as long as they are reliable and sensible, the public will be prepared to pay them.

The costs of the retirement program have a greater return than other government programs. As mentioned previously, its payments instantly recirculate in the economy and do not prevent the economy from moving forward. Defense programs often result in production of weapons of dubious benefit to the economic structure. Many government programs are wasteful, resulting in no advantageous to the American community. Foreign aid either subsidizes purchase of American goods or moves money and resources out of the country.

Securing the National Pension Plan

The American constitution states that everyone is created equal, and America does everything to make its citizens unequal. Why is a Wall Street broker, who already earned huge sums during a lifetime and has sufficient funds for retirement, worth any more to the public than other workers who worked hard and received insufficient earnings to secure a satisfactory retirement? A National Pension Plan equalizes public benefits and enables private pension plans or other retirement income means to complement the public plan.

Regardless of previous income, aren’t retired workers who worked equal years and hours and exceeded some minimum wage in each year entitled to near equal public pensions? This concept conjures a socialist vision of equalizing the wealth. No relation. Government operations – medical, defense, and schooling all provide equally for citizens. Earnings don’t determine Medicare benefits. Retirement income deserves equal treatment, with qualified workers receiving a basic income that allows for acquiring the staples in life – food, housing and clothing. The Department of labor can determine what constitutes a basic income.

Preparing huge sums for a financial future clouds the future and skews the present. There is only one guarantee; the U.S. populace will fulfill an obligation to their retired parents and grandparents. The National Pension Plan makes Social Security more relevant, more simple, and more equitable. By making it a budget item, its solvency is resolved. Rather than treating Social Security as an adjunct to America’s economy, it is preferable to integrate the needs of the retirement community into the needs of the entire society. A responsible society distributes resources and shares sacrifices.

The antis to the project view the world more by slogans than by objectivity. They eagerly co-opt the 9/11 tragedy as a driving force in their lives and establish themselves as the victims, which simplifies their controversial decisions; after all victims cannot be perpetrators, and therefore cannot be wrong.

The terrorist attack on the Trade Center produced victimization, revenge, and efforts to re-establish a damaged national pride, all of which have been counterproductive. Victimization survives by having a protracted enemy of extensive size, preventing rational thought and producing hate. Revenge caused the U.S. to stumble into futile wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and disorient the Middle East. Re-establishing national pride has produced more terrorism and terrorist attacks, the latter only stopped by improved intelligence. Empty of Al-Qaeda allies before the U.S. invasion, Iraq is now a massive gathering field for Islamic extremists. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Somalia fight an expanded extremism, which succeeded the awkward U.S. response to the 9/11 attack.

American citizens matched their government’s careless reactions to the 9/11 tragedy.

They never reacted in a required manner to the gross intelligence failures; basic errors that resulted in an easily prevented terror attack – errors that originated in the intelligence departments, from minor officials to national security agencies, to the Executive Department, and to the President of the USA. Many of America’s leaders, who carelessly disregarded the trust and protection role given to them, played a part in allowing the killing of 3000 U.S. civilians, and should have been forced to answer to the public.

The seeking of financial compensation for the aggrieved descended into a greedy and mortifying contest. Is this what the response to the attack was all about – a means to gain cash? Certainly those who needed assistance should have been granted assistance, as occurs in all disasters. This disaster awarded funds in accord with class distinctions, lawyer ability and, in many cases, deceit – an insult to the deceased.

By getting the public to focus on victimization, national pride, heroics and monetary relief for relatives of survivors, the public ignored the damage due to intelligence failures and the carelessly prepared response, which hastened an already prepared Neocon agenda; an agenda of war against and hate for Islam.

Victimization is the principal reason for not allowing the Islamic Center, now named Park 51. Before examining the victimization role in the decision process, examine the more obviously spurious reasons given to reject Park 51.

This Islamic Center must prove it is neither funded nor will be inhabited by nefarious forces.

Does being close to ‘ground zero’ or hundreds of miles away make a difference? Conspiracies can originate anywhere – they don’t depend upon location. This demand reduces to: Islamic Centers cannot be constructed anywhere unless they pass special scrutiny. Actually, the principal membership of the Park Place Center will probably be FBI agents – what to worry?

The Center is too close to ‘Ground Zero.

This highly charged appeal seems to have emotional legs, but is contradictory.

The Maha Blog, who makes the world safe for liberalism, expressed it well.

Over the past several days here on this blog, I have documented that within a three block radius of the area called Ground Zero there are at least two strip clubs plus a number of bars. This morning through googling I found a lingerie and porn video shop about two blocks south of Ground Zero that a reviewer calls “grimy” and “sleazy.” Those establishments have existed in close proximity to Ground Zero lo these many years, and no one seemed to care.

Yet talk about putting up a cultural center within this same area, one that won’t even be visible from the Ground Zero site, and suddenly people start squawking about hallowed ground and sacrilege. Give me a break.

Victimization, use of the deaths of others to advance agendas and permit ‘victims’ to disregard the effects of the agendas on themselves and others, is the misplaced excuse for denying construction of Park 51. Its manifestation should not be lightly dismissed. Adoption of a victimized attitude demands a perpetrator. After ten years of victimization, Islam remains the perpetrator and victimization guides Americans to acceptance of destructive policies.

A CNN poll indicates that 68% of the American people are against the Islamic Center, which is about the same percentage of Americans who favored the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. Can these be the same citizens who agreed to the military incursions that have brought more casualties to their fellow Americans than the 9/11 attacks? Where are the fervent protests against sending their husbands and children to unnecessary deaths or incapacitations? Haven’t they also ignored the casualties to innocent Afghans, the increased violence in Pakistan and the almost total destruction of Iraq; hundreds of thousands of casualties, two million displaced and a threatening civil war? Are they only concerned with ‘hallowed ground?’

Myriads of ‘ground zero’ sites exist all over the world, countless numbers from the World Wars and more localized conflagrations. The U.S. has produced many of these remembrance sites; at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the horrors of the U.S. attacks, the victims’ nations didn’t flag themselves with victimization nor maintain the American people responsible for the enormous tragedies.

Although ‘ground zero’ should and will always be a remembered site, victims die only once; victimization causes death forever. Post 9/11 corroborates this assumption.

It’s acceptable that Americans show sensitivity to what has become hallowed ground – the area of destruction from the greatest terrorist attack on United States soil – given the name of “ground zero.”  It’s natural that many Americans will question the construction of an Islamic Center that will stand close to the hallowed ground – natural but not correct.

Those who view the attack on the World Trade center as being a symbol in a struggle of ‘right vs. wrong’ should recognize that there is no absolute right or wrong; “ground zero” is a symbol of how the world too often goes wrong.

A century of western interference in Middle East nations, dominating their resources, delineating  their borders, deciding their rulers, destabilizing their political frameworks, waging dubious wars which have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, occupying their lands and generally creating havoc and misery don’t seem to have bothered western leaders. A conditioned mind reacts automatically, senseless, irrational and often to its own detriment.

Two city blocks north of ‘ground zero,” and two blocks south of the Warren street mosque, the Cordoba House, which contains a mosque, is mainly a mixture of learning, art and culture with a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, and bookstores. The well publicized antagonism to the Cordoba House follows the Pavlov reaction, salivating at the sound before the food is delivered, but contains other inglorious activity.

Odd that a mosque already exists two blocks from the proposed Cordoba House and has not aroused comment. Since mosques allow Muslim worshipers to find a place to genuflect rather having them lay a prayer rug on a NYC street and disturb the City’s financial district’s wall to curb pedestrian traffic, which is reported to sometimes occur outside an overflowed Warren Street mosque, another mosque would be welcome. However, this building is more than a mosque. It’s a testimonial that Muslims swim, read, think and eat fast foods, just like all Americans.  Since another mosque already exists close to ‘ground zero,’ evidently it is Cordoba House’s added features that have aroused resentment. Perhaps it seems exaggerated, but there is a lingering feeling that the antagonism to the Cordoba House includes the ultimate of anti-Semitism; “We don’t want you Semites to be part of us. You are Semites and you will remain Semites.”

A bewildering aspect of the Mosque discussion is the involvement of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the pro-Israel J Street lobby, both of whom published highlighted opinions of the Cordoba House. These organizations represent a minority of a minority of Americans, and behave as if their words have super importance. Who cares what they have to say?

The ADL reacted negatively to the Muslim building, arguing that it is too close to ‘ground zero.’

Statement On Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero

New York, NY, July 28, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan:

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam.  The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong.  But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.  In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

“Cause some victims more pain?” Evidently,although poorly expressed, the ADL must mean surviving relatives rather than the already dead. How revealing! The ADL believes by supposition, or is it transference, without describing any polls, that the opinion of a few (or how many?) Americans (Muslims also died in the 9/11 tragedy) have precedence over seven million Muslim Americans in determining where Cordoba House should be constructed. Digest that and then answer the question: Isn’t that the most extreme prejudice; the opinion of several non-Muslim Americans is worth more than the want of millions of Muslim Americans.

This is the same ADL, which has been sued on several occasions for violating privacy rights and assisting in false charges of anti-Semitism.

Counter Punch, February 25, 2002 The ADL Spying Case Is Over, But The Struggle Continues

By Jeffrey Blankfort, Anne Poirier and Steve Zeltzer Plaintiffs in the of ADL Spying Case

In 1993, the District of Attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that claims to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens who were opposed to Israel’s policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.

Jewish Daily Forward, 2001
Judge Slams ADL for Hurting Couple Tarred As ‘Anti-Semites’ 

by Marc Perelman, Forward Correspondent

Upholding most of a $10 million defamation suit against the Anti-Defamation League, a federal judge in Denver has lambasted the organization for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic event. The judge’s opinion confirmed a verdict reached last April by a federal jury, which essentially accused the Denver chapter of the ADL and its regional representative, Saul Rosenthal, of falsely portraying William and Dorothy Quigley as anti-Semites. Mr. Quigley, an executive of the United Artists theater chain, said his career in the “predominantly Jewish and close-knit” film business had stalled after the incident.

Detractors have accused the ADL of being a spokesperson for the foreign nation of Israel, using its influence to promote Israel’s agenda and attacking those who criticize the agenda.

Haaretz Service 28.03.10
ADL: Carter has reverted to anti-Israel stance, despite recent apology

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter’s apology to the Jewish community over his anti-Israel views should not be taken seriously, an Anti-Defamation League statement said Sunday, claiming that Carter had continued attacking Israel even after sending an apologetic letter to the leaders of the U.S. Jewish community.

J Street took a positive stance to the Islamic center.
July 30th, 2010,

J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami released the following statement:

The principle at stake in the Cordoba House controversy goes to the heart of American democracy and the value we place on freedom of religion. Should one religious group in this country be treated differently than another? We believe the answer is no.

Why are the statements by ADL and J Street significant? Should Muslim organizations also express their attitudes on synagogues and churches constructed in the U.S.?  Let’s face it; if that happened, almost all Americans would either smirk or be confounded. Such is the power of conditioning.

Nevertheless, there is a significance to these patronizing expressions of egotism and self importance. The explanation might sound somewhat conspiratorial, but where Israel is involved conspiracies are unlimited.

ADL and J Street exhibit the ‘bad guy’ and ‘good guy” approach that characterizes Israeli politics – the Party in office is the ‘bad guy’ with oppressive policies; the Party out of office is the ’good guy’ who will undo the oppressive policies once it gains office. After gaining office, the ’good guy’ continues the same policies and the merry-go-round starts once again.

ADL’s grim stance reflects a brighter light on J Street, the ‘good guy’ during this moment.

Realize also that it is in Israel’s interests to present the local Israeli/Palestinian conflict (actually an oppression that creates innumerable crises) as a conflict between western democracy and a violent Islam. In this contest, Israel is the sacrificing vanguard holding off the Muslim hordes. By expressing themselves, the Israel oriented organizations create the appearance that the Cordoba House is related to this argument,and since Israel poses itself as a Jewish state, the Jews of the world are central to the decision on the Islamic Center’s fate  Each of the organizations popularizes the Clash of Civilizations, letting it churn in populace minds. To enhance a debate, they approach the argument from opposite sides, one being recalcitrant and the other willing to compromise. Conditioning prevents the reality that both organizations are patronizing and condescending.

There is a violent struggle between Fundamentalist Muslims and what they perceive as corrupt oligarchs and those who they claim assist in the corruption.  Basic facts and simple logic reveal there is no conflict between Islam and the western world..

Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation. Extremely devout, it is well integrated into the west. Few of the Muslim nations show excessive antagonism to the western world, and those who do, such as Libya can cite grievances.
 
Terrorism occurs all over the world, and Muslims play major roles; in India, China and Russia. Nevertheless, none of these nations consider the threats as part of an overall conspiracy. It’s not Asia vs. Islam or Russia vs. Islam. Only the conditioned U.S. represents  the attacks as a Clash of Civilizations.

The irony of it all is that the U.S. is the principal instigator of any Islamic threat. As U.S. manufacture of essential products declines, manufacture of terrorists increases. America’s main friends in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, the ultimate terrorist breeding ground, Pakistan, whose government previously supported the Taliban and has elements still suspected of providing sustenance to  Al Qaeda fighters, and Israel, whose oppressive  policies against the Palestinians and actions in Jerusalem have disturbed the Muslim world and generated terrorists as fast as Katyusha rockets can be produced. Add the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and their areas of vast destruction by U.S. forces, including civilian deaths, and what can the U.S. expect other than violent reactions? 

Those interested in demeaning the Islamic world, such as the Religious Right, can take advantage of the situation. Condition Americans to identify Islam with the reactive violence and they won’t realize the proactive instigation. U.S. relations  with the Arab world are based on economic interests. U.S. relations with the Islamic world are a result of conditioning. Since it is difficult to recondition an already conditioned view, not much can be done to change Americans’ opinions of Islam.  However, since ill conditioning leads to blind actions and serious consequences, it behooves the U.S. to make certain the new generation is not conditioned to automatically reject or accept any persuasion. Start with Cordoba House.

Terrorism

Omitted from discussions of the ‘pirate type’ action is that Israel has once again swelled the terrorist ranks. The world’s principal manufacturer of terrorists has assured itself relatively immunity from terrorist actions by walls, fences, blockades, assassinations and ‘shoot to kill’ approaches. This is not true for the rest of the world. The western world acts as a safety valve for Israel, absorbing the terrorist shocks derived from the nefarious actions of the small Mediterranean nation.

President Obama, aren’t you pledged to defend the American people? Then, why permit the roots of terrorism to be planted by Israel? Why not defend the American people by stopping terrorism at its feeding source?

Debate

Critics of Israel’s actions have permitted themselves to be led into spurious debates that misplace the rhetoric and give a sense of legitimacy to invalid arguments.

There is no meaningful debate to whether the Israeli commandos or the Mavi Marmara ship’s passengers attacked first?  Israel does not define legality. A ship in international waters has a right to defend itself against attack. That should be taken as a given and there is no debate with a given.

Ship passengers don’t relish being towed to the port of a militarist and antagonist nation who will interrogate them and possibly hold some of them in detention…for, who knows how long. They won’t have any recourse. Only Israel’s government will determine their individual outcomes.

Whether or not the blockade of Gaza is legal and Israel has the right to stop ships entering Gazaare not debatable. Israel’s claim of defense in time of war is only a made-up story. There is no war, only an oppression of Palestinian people who are purposely provoked to revengeful attacks, while Israel wages a ferocious and unilateral war. It’s similar to insinuating that slavery in America and Great Britain’s subjugation of 19th century India were wars. Why legitimatize the oppression by discussing it in invalid terms?

Can Israel force ships, with cleared manifest, to steer to a selected port? This is not debatable. Israel’s actions permit any nation, of which there are many, who want to punish another nation for competitive or other reasons, to seize cargo at sea.  Even the Somali pirates can rationalize their actions by stating, “We feared the ship was bringing material to our antagonists and that could be harmful to us.”

Tying the piracy at sea to resolutions of the peace process (Is there one?), and the illegal Gaza blockade has its merits. Nevertheless, the significance of a criminal piracy at sea should not be diluted by other crises. It should receive a unique spotlight and be approached with complete legal and moral force. Israel’s almost daily criminal actions have always been related to other contexts and then allowed to be defended by these contexts – security, defense, retaliation, righteousness, spurious references, misplaced arguments, victimization, public relations, propaganda and obfuscation. Take your pick.  

International investigation! The investigation proceeds from an indictment. An unarmed Turkish vessel was seized at sea. Turkey has the right to demand the pirates be brought to justice and every nation that believes in international laws must agree to that indictment. A confused investigation by an international group (who are they?) will only end in another Goldstone report – bound paper and unbound criminals. All those involved in this obvious international piracy scheme, similar to the Somali pirates, should be indicted. The prosecutors can investigate and bring the case to court. 

Misdirected Reporting

Dubious reporting skewed the facts. Practically all widely read and conventional media used the term pro-Palestinian activists for the intrepid deliverers of humanitarian aid. Can there be a conspiracy? How about pro-peace or pro-humanity activists? Isn’t either of those more aptly descriptive terms

The first reports of the commando attacks came from the flotilla web broadcasts, pleading to be heard and protected. Conventional media did not respond to these reports. Only after Israeli press published their government’s version of the deadly attack, did the U.S. media recognize the onslaught in the Mediterranean.

Israel claimed its soldiers boarded (boarded or invaded?) the Mavi Marmara and “were attacked with axes, knives, bars and at least two guns,” but didn’t mention pencils with erasers.  Wasn’t it obvious that references to passengers being prepared for a “lynching,” and having batons, clubs, knives, and pistols (later conveniently dropped from the list of weapons) were only creative propaganda? Why repeat the obvious mendacities and not counter them with logic?   

Read and gulp at media reports. Who supports this ‘journalism’?

Israeli Officials Claim Aid Flotilla Had Ties to Al Qaeda, PM Gives Military ‘Full Support’, FOXNews, May 31, 2010:

The Israeli military attacked a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, leaving at least nine dead, after receiving reports that the fleet had links to al Qaeda, the Israeli ambassador to Denmark said Monday.

Gaza Flotilla: Why the Blockade Makes Sense for Israel by David Makovsky, Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2010:

The activists aboard the Gaza flotilla that was raided by Israeli security forces Monday may have believed that breaking the Gaza blockade was at its core forcing Israel to address an issue the activists see as moral blindness. Yet the situation is far more complex than they would like people to believe.

Once again, blaming the Jews first. Washington Examiner editorial, June 2, 2010:

Violence erupts when a “flotilla of humanitarian aid ships” is stopped by the Israeli military and once again the ‘Blame the Jews First” brigades are in full cry.

Institutional Innocence

Most disturbing were the naïve comments by peace institutions which deflected the unique seriousness of the attack, coupled it with other situations, and only responded with platitudes. These institutions missed the boat.

Noam Shelef, Director of Strategic Communications — American Peace Now

Both supporters and detractors of Israel are engaged in an ugly contest over who is to blame for the tragic outcome of Israel’s attempt Monday to intercept ships traveling to Gaza as part of an international aid flotilla. We’ve got to get past this culture of blame.

J Street

We mourn the latest loss of life in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as we mourn the countless deaths and lives destroyed by this tragic conflict over these past decades on both sides of the conflict.

Our deeply-held values demand that we speak out against the death and destruction that accompany this conflict, and the suffering inflicted on both the Palestinian and Israeli people over the decades.

We support an immediate end to the blockade of civilian and humanitarian items from entering Gaza subject to inspection and screening to prevent the import of arms and weapons. We also call for the immediate release of Corporal Gilad Shalit.

B’Tselem

The tragic events on board the Mavi Marmara Monday must shine a spotlight on the reason the flotilla was heading towards the shores of Gaza in the first place: the three-year old Israeli siege of the Strip.

Israel, as usual, ‘fought in self-defense’ against a vast and well-armed enemy who its soldiers provoked and gravely offended. Israel. as usual, suffered no deaths and few wounded. The others suffered many deaths and many wounded. Israel crossed the Rubicon many decades ago. Few took notice.  Now it’s sinking in the swamp besides the slogan made famous by the exploits of Julius Caesar. If world’s leaders refuse to give attention to this unjustified killing of dedicated humanitarians the world’s peoples will learn an irreconcilable lesson: We are led by psychopaths. Pity us!

Sounds incomprehensible?

United States State department officials and congressional leaders have been doing the incomprehensible for years. U.S. State Department officials, senators and house representatives have regularly attended the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) conventions. Although the U.S. Executive Department signaled a hardening of relations with Israel, its officials spoke to and listened to AIPAC during the week that inaugurated the new spring of 2010.

Why, and for what reason, do government officials cater to AIPAC? Don’t they know AIPAC’s inglorious history and its one-sided purpose? Actually, government officials have many reasons to distance themselves from AIPAC and no reasons to associate themselves with an organization whose thrust depends upon spurious reasoning and outrageous statements.

The Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy administrations and the 1964 Fulbright Investigation Committee tried to declare groups representing Israel’s interests to be foreign agents. Deceptive maneuvers, ambiguous and modified election laws dragged charges through the courts and temporarily resolved the issue in favor of AIPAC. Nevertheless, government officials should realize there is meaning and significance to the charges and any support for an accused agency undermines reputable administrations.

Then we have the perception of an organization using its resources to engineer defeats of popular congressional leaders based upon an issue that usually doesn’t concern the American electorate; foreign policy. Four of the Senate’s more popular leaders, Percy from Illinois, Abdnor from South Dakota, Stevenson from Illinois and Fulbright from Arkansas were defeated when PAC funds poured in to assist their adversarial candidates, simply because AIPAC categorized the incumbent Senators’ supports for Israel as insufficient. Add Representatives Paul McCloskey 1982, Paul Findley 1983, Earl Hilliard (2002), and Cynthia McKinney (2006) to those who ran afoul of AIPAC, and by coincidence, suffered defeat.

Is AIPAC a strong factor in determining elections? This is more likely true when the candidate is already in a weak position. Nevertheless, why do the national political Parties approve their candidates’ attachments to the Israel friendly PACs? Isn’t the electorate more concerned with domestic issues than with foreign nations, and doesn’t it abhor PACs? Nevertheless, the political Parties reinforce an organization which skews voter intentions and masks the principal issues. Something is wrong with the voters’ inability to recognize and react to candidates who benefit from accepting funds from a PAC whose only mission is to assist a foreign nation. And why does the State Department bother with AIPAC? Its officials are not elected and AIPAC is a hindrance to its mission. Strange!

Let’s not forget the espionage scandal. Defense department policy analyst, Larry Franklin, was sentenced in January 2006 to thirteen years of prison for passing information describing U.S. intended policy towards Iran to AIPAC employees, Steve J. Rosen, AIPAC’s then-policy director, and Keith Weismann, a senior Iran analyst. Franklin’s sentence was reduced to 10 months of house arrest and the two AIPAC employees were never prosecuted due to the government’s inability to show their activities had harmed the United States.

AIPAC as an organization was not accused. Nevertheless, AIPAC critics, including its former policy director, the accused Steve Rosen, have claimed that AIPAC has served as a conduit for ‘espionage-like’ efforts with near impunity. Rosen’s filing asserts that at AIPAC he “was one of the principal officials who, along with Executive Director Howard Kohr and a few other individuals, were expected to maintain relationships with [government] agencies, receive such information and share it with AIPAC Board of Directors and to Senior Staff for possible further distribution.”

AIPAC is too delicately tied to Israel and to suspicions that its members go far to assist Israel. Why would any government official demonstrate unusual approval for an organization that is circumspect and shades the line between being too friendly to a foreign nation and too inattentive to its own nation?

Should AIPAC be taken seriously? It’s composed, similar to the Neocons, of an assortment of persons with one-sided views who fabricate and relate fantastic stories to defend positions. Take the latest AIPAC convention.

We have Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu telling a roaring crowd:

The attempt by many to describe the Jews as foreign colonialists in their own homeland is one of the great lies of modern times.  In my office, I have on display a signet ring that was loaned to me by Israel’s Department of Antiquities. The ring was found next to the Western wall, but it dates back some 2,800 years ago, two hundred years after King David turned Jerusalem into our capital city. The ring is a seal of a Jewish official, and inscribed on it in Hebrew is his name: Netanyahu. His name was Netanyahu Ben-Yoash.

Found near the Western Wall after 2,800 years. Haven’t they cleaned the area in the last twenty eight centuries? Two hundred years after King David turned Jerusalem into our capital city? A little exaggerated. No history, archaeology or written record, other than the unverified Bible, reports any King David attached to a capital city called Jerusalem. Archaeological digs during the 10th century B.C. demonstrate the area was almost uninhabited – a few shards of pottery.

Note the claims of racial purity, irredentism and virulent nationalism, transgressing 3000 years (based on one ring). Didn’t the western nations fight WWII against a nation that professed similar claims?

Actually PM Netanyahu proved what he attempted to disprove. The early Zionists settled along the coast and that area was eventually awarded to the new Israeli state. However, no archaeology, history, written record, oral record or unverified Bible indicates any Hebrew administration of the coastal plain. Therefore, the early Zionists did not arrive to reinvigorate an ancient homeland that contained early Jewish people. The new Israelites inhabited foreign lands that did not contain many ancient Jews, and by doing so, behaved as foreign colonialists.

Ahmer Amir, in his article, gave Netanyahu’s comment the correct interpretation.

Before Bibi’s daddy immigrated to Palestine from Lithuania, the family name was Milikovsky. There you have it folks. If your name is Benjamin Netanyahu, what more justification do you need to expropriate land from the native Palestinians? What’s all this fuss about international law and the indigenous rights of the native inhabitants of Palestine? When will the Palestinians stop ranting about their bonds to the land of their ancestors?

Another Milikovsky exaggeration:

“The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied. The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today.”

Nobody denies that Jews inhabited parts of the ancient Levant, as did many other peoples. History indicates an overwhelming number of Jews, several million, scattered throughout the Roman Empire and only a minority of them in Jerusalem and its outlying regions. The argument is that where a minority of a people lived 3000 years ago is not important today, especially since few of them congregated or owned property after 200 A.D. to modern times in the self-claimed area.

Bibi has disclosed the truth: Israel lives by myth and therefore is a mythical nation without law. We know of Roman, Greek, Byzantine, Arab and Crusader constructions. Where are any major Hebrew constructions in Jerusalem? Who are the famous Hebrew architects? Another Netanyahu whopper:

“In the past year, my government has removed hundreds of roadblocks, barriers and checkpoints in the West Bank. As a result, we have helped spur a fantastic economic boom there.”

In a circumscribed and somewhat perverted sense, Netanyahu claims credit for the Palestinian initiatives. It’s not the Palestinian energy and wisdom that spurred the economic boom; it’s the beneficial removal of Netanyahu government’s whip and the movement of rocks that have caused the partial prosperity. Now we can certify the reason for the roadblocks, barriers, and checkpoints in the West Bank. Israel has intended to suffocate the Palestinians. After all, doing away with just hundreds of obstacles has unleashed the power of the Palestinian people to a fantastic economic boom.

Not to be undone, Colonel Richard Kemp, Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, topped Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu fantasies. From his rendition of the Gaza incursion, the former British commander spoke as if reading a screen play by Ehud Barak, of a film produced by Tel Aviv studios. He described a brave Israel army fighting through ranks of Hamas fighters, all of whom used civilians as human shields. The Hamas leadership was guilty of severe war crimes, while the intrepid Israelis sacrificed themselves to prevent harm to the civilian population.

The intrepid Israeli army protected civilians by killing 1400 Gazans, including entire families by missiles or point-blank shooting after their surrender, and destroying agriculture, animal husbandry, industry, and fruit trees, while suffering only five (5) deaths from insurgent weapons. Israeli tanks, warplanes, drones, phosphorous bombs and long distance shelling faced a terrible enemy, heavily armed with…with what?

Without facts, Kemp exclaimed that Hamas rounded up civilians and dispersed the populace to homes, mosques and schools. No record that this happened. Nevertheless, if an invading army enters a city where would the population go but to buildings unlikely to be in the conflict – homes, schools, mosques. That didn’t matter. Kemp holds Hamas responsible for a war crime because innocent women and children, who sought temporary shelter in a school, were killed by the Israeli army and relieves Israel of any responsibility for the crime. The victims are guilty of the war crime and the perpetrators of the crime are heroes.

The former British officer also claimed that the Goldstone report validated terrorist tactics because it did not strongly condemn Hamas by its statement that insurgents positioned themselves in proximity to civilians. Note the word proximity and not together. Isn’t it natural that when an invading army enters a city, the defenders will have to be in proximity to the civilian population to defend that population?

Question for a British commander? As a commander of an army, would you start a war with the stated missions of ending missile strikes, overthrowing a government and defeating forever a militia, but end the war after killing 1400 persons, wounding magnitudes more and destroying an area’s livelihood and infrastructure while not accomplishing any of your missions? Doesn’t that make your intentions suspect if not illegitimate?

Government officials have a multitude of valid reasons to distance themselves from AIPAC. Do they have any reasons to associate themselves with AIPAC?

Evidently, lawmakers assume loyalty to AIPAC guarantees campaign contributions and helpful media attention. The electorate gasps at PAC contributions and representatives who align themselves in Faustian bargains with drug companies, tobacco companies, defense industries and a host of lobbying groups. What can be worse than bargaining with an organization that skews U.S. foreign policy in order to benefit a foreign nation in its endeavors? If relations with any PAC is considered dubious, isn’t a relationship with AIPAC shameful? Why aren’t the super patriots, who guard America’s interests, complaining about this subordination of their nation to the exigencies of a foreign nation?

The Executive Department does not need to be lobbied. It does not gather its resources or information from lobby groups. So, why do Executive Party leaders cozy to AIPAC? Do they believe AIPAC influences Israel’s policies? Isn’t it the other way – Israel determines AIPAC’s policies?

Government departments don’t realize that cooperation with AIPAC reinforces the belief that Jewish groups influence U.S. policies for their own advantage. By promoting AIPC the government officials stimulate anti-Jewish feeling. Is that responsible behavior?

Considering the ample reasons for any government agency to distance itself from AIPAC, and the lack of sufficient reasons to be engaged with the lobby, what is the attachment that government officials have with AIPAC? Love is strange and this is one of the strangest love affairs.