Informed Comment

Baradei says Inspectors found 'Nothing;' But Israeli Attack Plans not Tabled

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:49:00 +0000

Outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad Elbaradei, said that UN inspectors this week discovered "nothing to be worried about" at a new nuclear enrichment facility that is being built in a mountain near Qom. He added, "The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things. It's a hole in a mountain."

Nevertheless, Rupert Murdoch's Sky News is reporting that Israel is actively making plans to attack Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. Here is the Sky News video:

France 24 reports on Iran's nuclear enrichment efforts:

End/ (Not Continued)

Mahmoud Abbas Threatens to Step Down in Light of Ongoing Israeli Colonization of West Bank

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:33:00 +0000

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas says he wants to stand down and he declines to run in the upcoming Palestine Authority elections. The decision came in the wake of the US failure to convince the Israelis to halt colonization of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. It also followed a series of embarrassing flip-flops by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who praised hard line right wing PM Netanyahu for his efforts in favor of the peace process. Even for a diplomatic statement, this tack is is a little embarrassing in its obsequiousness toward Netanyahu, who has undermined the peace process at every turn and rejects out of hand the US demand that he freeze settlements. Reactions of Arab allies of the US were sharp.

The USG Open Source Center paraphrase an article in al-Ray (Jordan) reacting to the Obama administration letting Netanyahu off the hook with regard to settling Jews in East Jerusalem (which often means expelling Palestinians from their homes):

'Amman Al-Ra'y in Arabic, a Jordanian daily of widest circulation; partially owned by the government, publishes an article by columnist and former Jordanian information minister Salih al-Qallab on page 48, in which Al-Qallab first quotes the statements made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Morocco about the partial freeze of settlement activity [i.e. not frozen in Jerusalem.] Al-Qallab says that the Americans should understand that "no Palestinian official, either now or in the future, can enter into any negotiations while Jerusalem is excluded from these negotiations, especially since it is no longer possible to repeat the previous formulas of negotiation. The aim this time is the final-status issues, which have been delayed for more than 15 years and cannot be delayed now for a single emoment." Al-Qallab adds: "What the Americans do not know while dealing with this extremely sensitive issue is that Palestine, for the Arabs and Muslims, is Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem is the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This is what makes Mahmud Abbas adopt this hard-line stand." '

Aljazeera English reports on Israeli confiscation of Palestinians' homes. The evictions are carried out with the full cooperation and encouragement of the Israeli government.

Aljazeera English reports on Mahmoud Abbas's refusal to run for the presidency of the Palestine Authority

in 2010.

Aljazeera English points out that the stance of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, that the Palestinians had to negotiate with the Israelis while the Israelis were stealing their land, lead Abbas to step down.

The USG Open Source Center translated remarks of chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat, Abbas's colleague:

' Erekat Critical of Clinton's Remarks on Settlements, Rejects US Guarantees
"Erekat Says: President Abbas Does Not Cling to Power, has Options -- Ma'an headline
Ma'an News Agency
Friday, November 6, 2009
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

Bethlehem, 5 November (Ma'an)-- Dr Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, has warnedthat the entire peace process is at a critical juncture and that the Palestineside is not short of options. He emphasized that there will be no negotiationswithout a cessation of settlement construction.

On statements that President Mahmud Abbas will not run for presidential elections, Erekat said: "The issueis not Abu-Mazin (Mahmud Abbas). The President is an ordinary citizen. The President makes every effort to achieve the hopes of his people. However, underthe present circumstances, if Israel continues its settlement activity and theUnited States does not compel Israel to stop settlement construction and resume the negotiations where they left off, the President does not cling to power. The president has options. Perhaps a moment will come when he speaks frankly to the people and questions the usefulness of elections and other things."

At a press conference at the premises of the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department in Al-Birah today, Erekat stressed that there are no compromise solutions when it comes to settlements. He considered US Secretary of State Hillary's backpedaling on her statement praising Israel for making "unprecedented" concessions on settlement construction as "not enough."

Erekat said: "If the US administration cannot compel Israel to stop settlements for natural growth in Jerusalem, the commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state within 24 months remains mere talk." He stressed that the US administration must declare Israel the obstructionist side if it does not commit to the road map obligations. He pointed out that the negotiations did not start this year,but reached a very advanced stage in December 2008 between Abbas and Olmert. He added: "We demand that the negotiations resume where they left off." He continued: "The US administration calls for the restart of the negotiations because it knows it cannot obtain a commitment from Netanyahu that the negotiations will resume where they left off."

Erekat expressed surprise by Netanyahu's statement that a cessation of settlement construction is a new Palestinian condition, saying this shows Netanyahu's disregard for the roadmap.

Erekat explained that Netanyahu's plan to build 3,000 new settlement housing units, the exclusion of Jerusalem (from a settlement freeze), and the continuation of public buildings and infrastructure projects, means for those who say that Netanyahu's stance is"unprecedented" that in 2010 and 2011 the size of settlements will be more than in 2008 and 2009 because the size of settlements in Jerusalem is 37 percent of the size of settlements in the rest of the West Bank.

Erekat said: "Exclusion of Jerusalem (from a settlement freeze) means the continuing political pillaging of Jerusalem and the continuing settlement construction in it to achieve Netanyahu's goal of increasing the number of settlers in East Jerusalem to 28,000 by 2011." He pointed out there is an Israeli plan to reduce the number of Arabs in Jerusalem, who now constitute 32 percent of the number of the population in Jerusalem, to 12 percent by 2020. He also pointed out that a temporary freeze on settlement construction, a la Netanyahu, willincrease the number of settlements by 2.8 percent and will increase the number of settlement housing units in the West Bank and Jerusalem by 28 percent.

Erekat held the Israeli government responsible for the non-resumption of negotiations, even if tries to twist facts, as usual.

Erekat called on the Arabs who want US guarantees (before Israel and the PA resume negotiations) "not to search for a fig leaf because we do not need a fig leaf. The US administration offered us guarantees in which it says that settlements are illegal and that itrejects the annexation of Jerusalem. In spite of the moral importance of these guarantees, from the practical point of view they are not cashable. We want the US administration to compel the Israeli government to implement its obligations because the Palestinian side has implemented its obligations." . . .

On elections, Erekat emphasized that the Palestinians have other options. He pointed out that Israel is obstructing the peace process and HAMAS is opposing elections. Hecalled on HAMAS and all those who stand behind it to side with the interests of the Palestinian people and to sign the reconciliation paper without conditions.He said: "We are not short of options. If the two-state option is excluded, there is the option of a one-state, as happened in South Africa. The situation in the West Bank is worse than it was in South Africa."

(Description of Source: Bethlehem Ma'an News Agency in Arabic -- Website of independent, leading Palestinian news agency; funded by the Dutch and Danish Foreign Ministries; URL: http://www.maannews.net/)

End/ (Not Continued)

Right Wing & Settler Press in Israel Denounce Peace Process, Goldstone

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:06:00 +0000

The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases statements from the right wing and settler Israeli press

Highlights: Review of Israeli Right-Wing, Settlement Commentaries 16 Oct-3 Nov 09
The following are highlights of reports in right-wing and settlement news websites carried by the Israeli media between 16 October and 3 November.
Israel -- OSC Summary
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Posters advertising an event in memory of ultra-nationalist rabbi Meir Kahane have appeared throughout Jeursalem recently. (Jerusalem Post photo, caption) Peace Process Is 'Final Solution' Perpetrated by Knesset 'Judenrat' Cartoon by Ronny Gordon, posted on Arutz Sheva on 31 Oct, shows Clinton searching for the peace process, while the peace dove lies liefelessly nearby.

In an 800-word commentary entitled "A Judenrat, Right-Wing or Left-Wing, Is Still the Judenrat!" published 17 October on the Kahana Hay website, Y Rosen writes: "War is being waged in the information arena. They are trying to impose a suicidal path on the Jews, to talk them into an organized march into the gas chambers of the 'peace process.' It is noteworthy that the Israeli Government (regardless of whether right-wing or left-wing) has adopted all the functions of the Judenrat on this issue and is openly pursuing a defeatist course. The construction of yet another, 23d Arab state on the territory of 0.1% of the territory of the Middle East has only one purpose: the Final Solution. Therefore, everyone who is talking about more concessions, who sits at the negotiation table with terrorists, or who panders to Muslim expansion is the enemy! The only thing that should be discussed is an exchange of refugees, specifically: the removal of Arabs and their descendents from the territory of Israel, where they suffer and blow themselves up, to the 22 Arab states! The conflict will be forever resolved!" "If you want to remain among the living, form your own forces of self-rule! Do not lend support to the Judenrat and understand: They are your enemies! The most dangerous wolves are wolves in sheep's clothing. The most dangerous SS officers are the ones who escaped to Israel with the documents of their victims and are sitting in the Knesset! By participating in elections, you are legitimizing the system of lawlessness in the country!" "No mandate for the Judenrat! Boycott the villains!" (Kahana Hay in Russian -- Website of Rabbi Me'ir Kahane's followers; URL: http://kahane-hi.info)
Cont'd (click below or on "comments")

World 'Hatred' of Israel Promoted by Leaders' Willingness To Make Sacrifices for Peace Gary Cooperberg's 21 October commentary, entitled "Why do the Nations Hate Israel?" argues: "The Jewish people is physical proof of the existence of G-d. It is this very fact which causes so many to hate us." "When the leaders of Israel seek to make Israel like all of the other nations and insist that we are not a product of Divine intervention, they only encourage those who wish Israel would just disappear. No other country in the world ever compromised on its very existence. No other country in the world would as much as suggest building a new county upon its own soil, especially for enemies who seek its destruction. Our leaders have fallen into a trap of their own making by engaging in a so-called 'peace process' which, in fact, is a process of self destruction."

"Yet, despite our hapless leaders, and despite the overwhelming number of enemies who actively seek our destruction, the Jewish State continues not merely to exist, but to grow and thrive! This too is clear proof of Divine intervention. There is simply no other explanation. Yet most choose not to see. They prefer to continue their denial of our Creator. As such their hatred for the Jewish State grows and is encouraged by the willingness of our leaders to 'make sacrifices for peace.'

"No power on Earth can destroy Israel. Those who seek her destruction will themselves be destroyed. The only genuine peace process is the one leading to Biblical Redemption which the rebirth of the Jewish nation upon her ancient soil clearly portends. Those who stand against logic by standing with the tiny Jewish State for Biblical, not political, reasons will survive. Those who don't won't. The Exile is coming to an end. It cannot co-exist with Redemption. Jews have an opportunity to express their faith in G-d by coming home now. No one knows how long that opportunity will last before the choice is taken away and either they will escape from an unwelcome Exile, or perish within it." (Hebron A Voice From Hebron in English -- Website operated by Qiryat Arba Yeshiva spokesman Gary Cooperberg, representing right-wing settler views; URL: http://www.projectshofar.org)

Judaism-Based Policies To Be Israel's 'Lifeline' Moshe Feiglin's commentary, entitled "The Land of Israel in Exchange for Goldstone," posted on the Jewish Leadership' s website on 22 October, says: There is something positive that is coming out of the Goldstone debacle. The State of Israel has its back to the wall and is being forced to re-think its basic assumptions. The 'normalcy' idea is officially bankrupt. The commentators and pundits are still attempting to blame the IDF or Israel's diplomatic efforts. 'We should have cooperated with Goldstone,' they say. But here and there, we already see individual journalists, like Ari Shavit in Ha'aretz, who at least understand that the problem is not tactical, but rather the essential negation of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
"Understandably, the solutions that they suggest are the very same 'political processes' that have brought us to this crisis. Their horizons are as broad as an ant's. But as the crisis continues, wider and wider circles in Israeli society will begin to listen to the voices outside the media bubble. Policies that base their justice on Judaism will become Israel's lifeline." (Ginot Shomron Jewish Leadership in Hebrew -- Website of Jewish Leadership movement, led by Likud member Moshe Feiglin; URL: http://he.manhigut.org) Israel 'on Brink of Annihilation,' Can Win by Losing Hope in 'Earthly Friends'

Cartoon by Roni Gordon, posted on Arutz Sheva on 24 October, shows the HAMAS bull goring PA leader Abbas.

Samson Blinded

features a commentary entitled "Iran or Armageddon?" on 24 October, asserting: "In the past decades, history has continually repeated the same story with Jews, as if to teach us a lesson. First, we had a carbon copy of Exodus: the Promised Land lay open and European Jews refused to leave for it. Just as 4/5 refused to leave Egypt and perished, a similar proportion died in Europe. Only the Hebrews hardened by decades of roaming the Sinai desert entered the land; the Israeli pioneers were likewise different from the Exile type of Jews. Like in Egypt, our murderers and oppressors were ultimately ravaged. Both times, we were a step from total annihilation: The first time it was the Pharaoh's order to kill male babies, and later the standoff between the Egyptian army and the Jewish crowd at the Reed Sea shore; the next time it was the Holocaust.

"Two years after the slaughter, Jews still refused to build a Jewish state, relying rather on socialist idolatry; and they were slapped with the 1947--1948 war of survival. In 1967, the entire nation again appeared in danger of annihilation: it had been conveniently gathered from all corners of the earth so that Syrians and Egyptians could easily eliminate it. In both wars, Jews won only after they lost hope in any earthly friends: the US arms embargo in 1947 and arm-twisting in 1967 assured their annihilation.

"Now here comes Ahmadinejad, eerily similar to his German counterpart: a clown, a charismatic leader, a gifted speaker, completely irrational, and openly professing his genocidal aims. The world wonders what he has in mind, refusing to listen to his clear words. Iran strives for regional dominance, perhaps world dominance, as it builds Shiite beachheads even in the Far East and Africa. Iran symbolically picked up where the Germans left off: at creating a nuclear bomb.

"Again, Jews are on the brink of annihilation with the whole world against us: no one supports our strike on Iran. We can win this round by losing all hope in our earthly friends." (Samson Blinded in English -- Website operated by "Obadiah Shoher," pen name for a USSR-born "veteran politician" calling for action against Arabs and the Israeli left and citing Rabbi Kahana as a model; URL: http://samsonblinded.org) Obama 'Unaffected by Demonic Evil,' Believes He Can Make Ahmadinezhad 'Mirror Image of His Own Amorphous Self' Prof Paul Eidelberg 26 October commentary, entitled "Mirror-Imaging: What Does Obama See in Ahmadinezhad?" expounds on Iran President Ahmadinezhad's actions and sums up: "This is the Ahmadinejad that was allowed entry in the United States to address the United Nations--a venue for diseased and decadent minds. Ahmadinejad is one of the most admired leaders of Islamdom. He is the patron of Hezbollah and Hamas. An obtuse judge in South Africa -- I have other names for him -- did not know that Israel's war in Gaza, and previously in Lebanon, was actually a war that Israel alone has waged against of Iran.
"To conclude this discussion of Ahmadinejad, I must link him to Barack Obama. Year after year, Obama heard his preacher say 'God damn America.' This did not offend him. Nor was he offended by Ahmadinejad's imprecation "Death to America." Alas, Americans have elected a president who does not love America or its Founding Fathers, who is fond of disparaging America abroad, who tries to befriend America's enemies, above all Ahmadinejad. Obama's hatred of America has been confirmed by newly released writings of his from Columbia University. But this is not all.

"As I pointed out at the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has been tainted by the university-bred doctrine of moral relativism. Hence he is intellectually and emotionally unaffected by demonic evil. Moreover, by denying objective moral standards, relativists readily succumb to egoism or arrogance -- the arrogance of ignorance. This is why Obama believes he can make Ahmadinejad, a necrophiliac, a mirror image of his own amorphous self!" (Jerusalem Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in English -- Website of right-wing group led by Professor Paul Eidelberg, promoting a constitution based on Jewish principles, electoral and judicial reforms, and a free-market economy; URL: http://www.foundation1.org)

Temple Mount, Not Goldstone Will Restore Israel's Legitimacy Moshe Feiglin's 29 October commentary, entitled "From the Temple Mount to Goldstone and Back," asks: "From where do we draw our moral justification? What is the point that, in its absence, our right to exist as a sovereign nation in our Land comes into question? 'He who rules the Mount rules the Land,' wrote the poet of rebuke and faith, Uri Tzvi Greenberg. When the State of Israel descended from the Temple Mount and gave it to the Moslem wakf immediately after its liberation, it charted the course to Goldstone."

"The encouraging part of this story is that those who understand the source of the problem also know how to deal with the Goldstone Report. A commission of inquiry will not restore Israel's moral justification. But a house of worship for Jews on the Temple Mount will." 'Entire Army' Filling 'Whims' of 'Leftist Politicians,' Do 'Work of the Enemy' A 29 October commentary by Rabbi Sholom Dov Volpo of SOS, entitled "Cut Off the Army Away From Politics? Now You Remembered?" charges: "After the two dear soldiers were sentenced to 20 days of detention (for protesting the Gaza disengagement at a military ceremony), the Chief of Staff announced that this matter would not be tolerated, that 'the army must disconnect from politics.' But the ears of the glorious commander apparently do not hear what he himself was talking about. An entire army is mobilized to fill the whims of a few leftist politicians. Instead of protecting the people of Israel and country, they do the work of the enemy, and expel Jews from the inheritance of their fathers." (Zefat Our Land of Israel in Hebrew -- Website of right-wing Habad group acting against territorial concessions, led by prominent rabbis and affiliated with National Union party; URL: http://www.sos-israel.com)

Palestinian State Without Final Status Accord To Augment Region's Instability Dr Aaron Lerner's "weekly commentary," entitled "Palestinian State Without Final Status Agreement Recipe For Disaster," disseminated on 29 October, maintains: "Who would gain from the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state before an agreement is reached on final status issues? President Shimon Peres claims that this will somehow promote peace and stability, but he doesn't offer much substance to his argument beyond a 'best case assumption' that things will be so good for the Palestinians when they have a sovereign state that they will bend over backwards to behave themselves.

"This is a pretty insulting take on the will and determination of the Palestinians to achieve their aspirations. It doesn't require much imagination to come up with a Palestinian plan of action to exploit Palestinian sovereignty to facilitate increasing security and other pressures against the Jewish State. And this with most of the world 'understanding' if not downright accepting and even applauding the argument that the Palestinians had every right to continue with their 'struggle against the occupation' given that final borders and other key issues had yet to be agreed upon.

"Israel's enemies would come to the aid of sovereign Palestine on a scale magnitudes greater than current clandestine operations. Israel's friends would counsel the Jewish State to show more 'flexibility' and accept various Palestinian demands, in order to bring peace, arguing that 'after going so far and making so much progress' (aka concessions) it would be irresponsible for Israel to jeopardize this by taking a 'hard line.'

"All this while Israeli security operations would be subject to even greater international review, criticism and even sanctions as they are carried out within sovereign Palestine. And let's not forget that a sovereign state is a sovereign state even if it should violate the conditions under which it was formed.

"When Mr. Peres makes this proposal he shows himself to be more an anarchist than a diplomat. And the last thing we need in this region is to add to its instability." (Kfar Saba Independent Media Review & Analysis -- Website of Dr Aaron Lerner, right-leaning analyst of Arab-Israeli relations; URL: http://www.imra.org.il) MK: Foreign Workers Should Be Deported To Preserve State's Jewish Character A 30 October commentary by MK Ya'aqov Katz, the National Union Party leader, published in Arutz Sheva Online under the title "Deporting Illegals," says: "The status of the children of the foreign workers who have swamped Israel's shores legally and illegally is only one aspect of a complex, growing problem exacerbated by the infiltration of fleeing refugees and illegal transients who find their way to our already beleaguered country. This problem is reaching crisis proportions and therefore was the subject of a heated meeting last week at the Knesset Committee that was created to deal with the issue."

"Behind the battle to keep foreign workers and their children here are left wing groups who wish to turn Israel into a 'land of all its citizens,' that is, not specifically a Jewish homeland. The high fertility rate of National Religious and Haredi families has galvanized them into action. We who see Israel as the land of the Jewish People must act as well. This does not in any way negate the natural, humanitarian values of our people, but is simply a way to ensure that this country, earned with blood and tears, continues to be what it was created to be." UNESCO Acting as 'Arab League' An unattributed 31 October commentary on the website of One Jerusalem, entitled "United Nations Agency Boosts Arab Claims to Jerusalem," charges: "If one needed any more proof that UNESCO is an Arab League you can just read the statement that Jerusalem was chosen to highlight the Palestinian cause.

"UNESCO, which is charged with preserving historic sites should be protesting the Muslim campaign to rid the Temple Mount of archaeological evidence that Solomon's Temple existed. Their destruction of precious materials on the Temple Mount is greater than the Taliban destroying the Buddhas in Afghanistan. But while the world condemned the Taliban destruction the world is silent when the Muslims destroy Jewish and Christian History." (One Jerusalem in English -- Website of right-wing Israeli-US group seeking to keep Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, funded by donations; URL: http://www.onejerusalem.org http://www.onejerusalem.org )

Erekat Sees One-State Solution if Settlements are not Halted

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:57:00 +0000

Saeb Erekat, chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization Steering Committee, said Wednesday that Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas should be frank with the Palestinian people and admit to them that there is no possibility of a two-state solution given continued Israeli colonization of the West Bank.

It is morally and ethically unconscionable to leave millions of Palestinians in a condition of statelessness, in which they have no rights (Warren Burger defined citizenship as the 'right to have rights' as my colleague Margaret "Peggy" Sommers pointed out in her new book). Therefore, if there isn't going to be a 2-state solution, there will have to be a one-state solution, in which Israel gives citizenship to the Palestinians. (As it is, 20% of Israelis are Palestinian Arabs and that proportion will grow to 33% by 2030 if they are not expelled by sometime Moldavian night club bouncer and now foreign minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman.)

Aljazeera English has a video interview with Saree Makdisi on Erekat's statement:

The Israeli colonies in the West Bank are actively encouraged by the Israeli government. Haaretz reported last winter on a hitherto secret database on the settlements kept by the Israeli government:

' An analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements - about 75 percent - construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police
stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents. . .

the settlements in which massive construction has taken place on private Palestinian lands. Entire neighborhoods built without permits or on private lands are inseparable parts of the settlements. The sense of dissonance only intensifies when you find that municipal offices, police and fire stations were also built upon and currently operate on lands that belong to Palestinians. '

The USG Open Source Center translated some of what Erekat said in an interview with Al-Hayat published on Sunday:

' Erekat: Difficult Meeting

In his turn, Erekat has stressed to Al-Hayah that the meeting with Clinton was "frank and difficult." Erekat added that Abbas insisted that if the US Administration wanted to resume the peace process, then it would have to compel Israel to halt the settlements, including the natural growth, and to start the negotiations from where they stopped in 2008. Erekat added: "It is very clear that the US side has only achieved from Israel stances that reject its commitment to halt the settlements, and hence the US Administration, as chairman of the International Quartet, has to reveal the side that refuses and hinders the launch of the peace process, namely Israel."

Erekat continued: "If the US Administration cannot compel Israel to halt the construction of settlements, who will believe that it will be able to compel Israel to withdraw to the borders of 4 June 1967, to withdraw from Eastern Jerusalem, and to resolve the issue of the refugees according to the UN resolutions, with Resolution No. 194 at their forefront?"

Erekat stressed that Abbas, in his meeting with Clinton, reiterated his rejection of "the Palestinian state with interim borders," and also rejected Netanyahu's proposals of constructing 3,000 housing units in the settlements, and excluding Jerusalem from any agreement on the settlements; he said "this is rejected chapter and verse."

Erekat attributed the difficulty in yesterday's meeting between Abbas and Clinton to the Israeli stances rejecting the implementation of its commitments stipulated by the "Road Map." Erekat stressed that the US Administration would have to reveal the side that hinders the resumption of the negotiations.

In reply to a question by Al-Hayah about whether Clinton exerted yesterday any pressure on Abbas, Erekat said: The issue has nothing to do with pressure, but with interests. He pointed out that President Obama, in his meeting with Abbas in May 2009, described the establishment of an independent Palestinian State within 24 months as "US higher interest."

Erekat added: "The United States has 230,000 soldiers in the region. If it thinks that it can solve the problems through the use of Marines and through wars, then it is completely mistaken." Erekat stressed: This region needs to drain the quagmire of the Israeli occupation as an introduction to security and stability. He continued: "Here, we are talking about a system of interests. We have shown all possible preparations to fulfill all our commitments, but the Israeli side has not yet recognized its commitments." '

I think the whole thing is over with. I can't see a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank as it is now configured, and I can't imagine the Netanyahu government halting settlements.

End/ (Not Continued)

Protests on Anniversary of Embassy Hostage-Taking; Khamenei Complains about Obama's Negotiating Style

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:38:00 +0000

The Khamenei regime in Iran commemorated the taking of US embassy personnel hostage on Wednesday, with thousands of its supporters taking to the streets. But according tot he BBC, dissidents who dispute the legitimacy of last June's presidential election staged counter-rallies. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards stepped in to disperse these protests, using tear gas. Some reports say that the authorities even fired on the protesters and eyewitnesses report seeing people covered with blood..

I received this message on Facebook re: Nov. 3: "9:20Am Tehran time --huge crowds of people in TEHRAN- SHIRAZ-ISFAHAN ......coming out on the streets ---BREAKING NEWS---ANTI ISLAMIC REP. DEMONSTRATION-------martial LAW-rev. guards on streets now"

The reports are that the protests are not limited to Tehran, then, but broke out in other cities-- Shiraz, Isfahan, Rasht, etc.

AP is saying that 2,000 students confronted security forces outside Tehran University.

The protesters are being very clever, in tying their rallies to the anti-US hostage-taking of 1980-81. That break with the international world system, led by the US, is the foundation of the Khomeinist republic, which rejects American hegemony. The dissidents are rallying in honor of the same moment, but are resisting neo-authoritarianism, implicitly likening the government of Khamenei to that of the shah. While Khamenei may have bragging rights on his anti-imperial record, his regime is not less internally repressive than that of the shah. The dissidents are cleverly refocusing the debate on the domestic sphere rather than the international, where the regime has more popularity.

The Guardian has an hour-by-hour account of the events, with video and twitter maps.

This is a video of students protesting in the northern city of Rasht

Meanwhile, here are some excerpts from the USG Open Source Center translation of Khamenei's remarks on the anniversary of the hostage-taking (a move he supported at the time).

Iranian Supreme Leader Speaks on Eve of Anniversary of US Embassy Siege
Address by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i at a meeting with students and pupils ahead of Iran's Pupil's Day, marking the anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 -- recorded
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

(Khamene'i) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

I would like to welcome all you young ones, students, pupils and families of martyrs. The day of 13 Aban (4 November) has been officially named as the day to fight Global Arrogance. . .

The first issue to be addressed by your sense of discernment is what is this issue of Global Arrogance that one needs to combat? Global Arrogance means that there is a certain power in the world, or there are powers in this world, which look at themselves and find that they have financial and armed capabilities and propaganda means. In this way, they permit themselves to interfere in a proprietorial way in the domestic affairs of other countries and nations. This is what Arrogance means; the spirit of hegemony.

This, in our country and before the Revolution, manifested itself in quite an obvious way. In other words, in this vast country America had sunk its claws into the body of this nation which has such a rich history and a great past and had done so in a most (Globally) Arrogant fashion. It interfered in the fundamental affairs of the country at that time.
The reason for this was that the rulers of the country were corrupt. They had no popular base and they wanted a base of support, so they looked to America to provide them with that support.

America, of course, does not give anything for free to anyone. Providing support to the rulers carried with it the cost that the Americans would interfere in our affairs.

In the concluding years of the Pahlavi Dynasty things were even uglier than that. It was no longer a question of going to America (to receive instructions); the ambassadors of Great Britain or America used to go to the Shah's palace. Act in this way (they used to say) on the issue of oil, act in that way in international relations, act in such and such a way with your nation, act in this way with the combatants. This is the way they used to issue commands to the Shah.

And the Shah accepted this. Of course, when the head of a nation is so weak and hopeless and so subservient to the will of others, then you can rest assured what that situation really means. This was the situation of our country and this is what Arrogance means.

America is a Globally Arrogant power in the real sense of the word. this is not something that just concerns us, rather it is something that pertains to the whole world.

It is a matter that relates to the world of Islam. The Americans have an Arrogant approach towards everyone in the world. . .

The Japanese have not been able to dismantle US bases on their soil despite their technological advances. They have military bases there and they tyrannize the people. The newspapers have reported, as have news agencies, that rape and other violations occur there. In South Korea there are still (American) military bases. In Iraq the American objective is to build bases there and to settle there for 50 or 100 years.

In Afghanistan, a country from where if they manage to install their bases, they can have control over countries of South West Asia as well as Russia and China and India and Iran -- there they are making concerted efforts to build bases. Such is the meaning of Arrogance.

Through uprooting the puppet regime of Pahlavi, the nation of Iran expelled America from this country. Of course, the Americans could, after the Revolution, have come to their senses and accepted that this nation is such a powerful one. . .

Their embassy became a center of conspiracy. It became a nest of spies. It became a center for suspicious contacts aimed at compromising this person or that in order to bring down the Islamic Republic.

A US [Secretary of Defence] once said what has always been in the heart of the Americans; he said we must eradicate the Iranian nation. Do you see now; eradicating the Iranian nation.

They said they want to eradicate the nation of Iran, not the government of Iran and not the Islamic Republic. It understood quite well that the Islamic Republic means the nation the whole nation of Iran; this was their method. Whatever they could do to advance this policy they did so. . .

Well, the very new US president has said nice thing. He has given us many verbal and written messages, and said: "Let's turn the page and create a new situation. Let's cooperate with each other in resolving world problems." Well, we said that we do not want to prejudge. We said that we will wait and see how they act. They have said that they want to create a change. Let us wait and see this change. On 1 Farvardin (21 March 09) in Mashhad I said that if they extend to us an iron fist covered with a velvet glove, we will not shake it. I gave this warning there.

Eight months have passed since then. During this time, what we have witnessed is completely the opposite of what they have been saying and claiming. On the face of things they say let us negotiate. But alongside this they threaten us and say that if these negotiations do not reach a desirable result, they will do this and that. Do you call this negotiation? This is like the relationship between a wolf and a lamb which as the late Imam (Khomeyni) said we do not want such relations. (They say) Let us discuss around the negotiating table on such and such issue, for example the nuclear issue; however the precondition is that the negotiation should lead to such and such results. For example, the country should stop its nuclear activities. If it does not reach that result then they threaten that they will do such and such.

. . . When they speak Arrogantly to a nation and use threats to force issues -- saying, if you do not do such and such a thing, this or will would happen -- then this results in our nation responding, and saying we shall resist.

What the Islamic Republic wants is not beyond its logical rights. The Islamic Republic seeks its independence, freedom, national interests and advancement in science and technology. These are the rights of this nation. If anyone assaults these rights, the Iranian nation will confront them wholeheartedly and will bring them to their knees.
(Chants of: "God is great", "Khamene'i is the leader" and other indistinct slogans)

The day that America abandons its arrogant policies, the day that it stops its irrational interference in the affairs of other nations and behaves like any other government, then it will be a government similar to others. However, as long as the Americans have a covetous approach, intending to get back to Iran, renewing the past, changing history and turning the time back in order to dominate our country, they will not be able to force our nation to retreat. Let them know this.

They should not pin their hopes on agitation and what happened after the (12-June presidential) election. The Islamic Republic is more powerful and much more deep-rooted than those (incidents).

The Islamic Republic has seen much more difficult incidents and has managed to overcome them all. . .

(Description of Source: Tehran Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1 in Persian -- state-run radio)

End/ (Not Continued)

Mueller on the Zazi Case: "This is It?"

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:05:00 +0000

John Mueller, Author of Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda, writes a guest op-ed for IC:

"Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," notes the New York Times with considerable understatement, "senior government officials have announced dozens of terrorism cases that on close examination seemed to diminish as legitimate threats."

Terrorism analysts and officials triumphantly claimed that the case of Najibullah Zazi, arrested last September, is different. They call it the "most serious" terrorism plot uncovered in the United States since 2001 and one that elevates the domestic terrorism threat to a "new magnitude." Bruce Riedel, an Obama terrorism adviser, proclaimed on the Lehrer NewsHour on October 16 that the plot was evidence that "al-Qaeda was trying to carry out another mass-casualty attack in the United States" like 9/11 and that the group continues to pose a threat to the country that is "existential."

This, then, was the big one.

However, assuming all the information put out by the government about the Zazi plot is accurate, our existence is unlikely to be expunged anytime soon.

Recalls his step-uncle affectionately, Zazi is "a dumb kid, believe me." A high school dropout, Zazi mostly worked as doughnut peddler in Lower Manhattan, barely making a living. Somewhere along the line, it is alleged, he took it into his head to set off a bomb and traveled to Pakistan where he received explosives training from al-Qaeda and copied nine pages of chemical bombmaking instructions onto his laptop. FBI Director Robert Mueller asserted in testimony on September 30 that this training gave Zazi the "capability" to set off a bomb.

That, however, seems to be a substantial overstatement--not unlike the Director's 2003 testimony assuring us that, although his agency had yet to identify an al-Qaeda cell in the U.S., such unidentified entities nonetheless presented "the greatest threat," had "developed a support infrastructure" in the country, and were able and intended to inflict "significant casualties in the US with little warning."

An overstatement because, upon returning to the United States, Zazi allegedly spent the better part of a year trying to concoct the bomb he had supposedly learned how to make. In the process, he, or some confederates, purchased bomb materials using stolen credit cards, a bone-headed maneuver guaranteeing that red flags would go up about the sale and that surveillance videos in the stores would be maintained rather than routinely erased.

However, even with the material at hand, Zazi still apparently couldn't figure it out, and he frantically contacted an unidentified person for help several times. Each of these communications was "more urgent in tone than the last," according to court documents.

Clearly, if Zazi was able eventually to bring his alleged aspirations to fruition, he could have done some damage, though, given his capacities, the person most in existential danger was surely the lapsed doughnut peddler himself.

But if this is as "serious" as terrorism is likely to get in the United States, one might be led to wondering if our anxieties about terrorism--the key, or even sole, reason for extending the war in Afghanistan according to President Obama and his special envoy to the area, Richard Holbrooke--are not a bit overwrought.

In testimony in 2007, Director Mueller, who, despite his earlier bravado, has yet to uncover a true al-Qaeda sleeper cell, suggested that "We believe al-Qaeda is still seeking to infiltrate operatives into the U.S. from overseas." But even that may not be true. Since 9/11, well over a billion foreigners have been admitted to the United States legally even as many others have entered illegally. Even if border security was so good that 90 percent of al-Qaeda's operatives were turned away or deterred from trying to enter, some should have made it in--and some of those, it seems reasonable to suggest, would have been picked up by law enforcement by now.

It follows that any terrorism problem within the United States principally derives from homegrown people like Zazi, often isolated from each other, who fantasize about performing dire deeds. Penn State�s Michael Kenney has interviewed dozens of officials and intelligence agents and analyzed court documents, and finds homegrown Islamic militants to be operationally unsophisticated, short on know-how, prone to make mistakes, poor at planning, and severely hampered by a limited capacity to learn. Another study documents the difficulties of network coordination that continually threaten operational unity, trust, cohesion, and the ability to act collectively. And the popular notion these characters have the capacity to steal or put together an atomic bomb seems, to put it mildly, as fanciful as some of the terrorists' schemes.

By contrast, the image projected by the Department of Homeland Security continues to be of an enemy that is "relentless, patient, opportunistic, and flexible," shows "an understanding of the potential consequence of carefully planned attacks on economic transportation, and symbolic targets," seriously threatens "national security," and could inflict "mass casualties, weaken the economy, and damage public morale and confidence." That description may fit some terrorists--the 9/11 hijackers among them. But not the vast majority, including the hapless Zazi.

Author Bio

John Mueller, author of Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda, which has just been published by Oxford University Press, is professor of political science at Ohio State University. His previous books include Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We Believe Them, The Remnants of War, Retreat from Doomsday, Astaire Dancing, and War, Presidents and Public Opinion.

End/ (Not Continued)

Karzai Declared President; Questions about Afghan Police Recruits; Bad Translations Land Innocents in Jail

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:29:00 +0000

Hamid Karzai has been declared the winner of the Afghanistan presidential contest by the misnamed Independent Electoral Commission, the local Afghan commission appointed by . . . Hamid Karzai. The commission ruled that since the only other candidate had withdrawn, there was no point in holding a run-off election, and that Karzai had won by default. His rival, Abdullah Abdullah appears to still be seeking cabinet posts for members of his party, though he himself is not willing to join the government. Karzai says he wishes to reach out to the civil political opposition in forming his government.

President Obama responded to the announcement by asking Karzai to do more to stop corruption in the country.

Aljazeera English has video of the pressure Karzai's reelection puts on President Obama:

Russia Today interviews Abdullah Abdullah for his reaction to the announcement of Karzai's win:

Meanwhile, it turns out that Canadian and probably US military interpreters of Pashto sometimes mistranslate statements of detainees, causing them to be branded Taliban and sent to prison! The CBC says that Thomas Hammes, a retired US Marine colonel who also was in Afghanistan told it: "We're willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure ice cream and steak is there . . . And I would trade all of that for my entire tour if I could have one decent translator . . . Many times I'd trade body armour for a translator."

Washington's plans for Afghanistan are premised on an ability to train up 200,000 police, and another 200,000 regular army troops, to provide security for the country. This plan does not reckon with social realities, such as the ethnic composition of the army and police, and such as the fact that 90% of the present army troops are illiterate. A US police chief who helped train Afghan policemen reports, according to Mark Brunswick of the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

' Ball spent 15 months in Afghanistan, overseeing a $340 million annual contract to recruit and train the country's nearly nonexistent national police force for DynCorp International with the U.S. State Department. Many of the recruits he was provided -- some under threat of imprisonment if they did not show up -- did not know right from left. Some had never seen their reflection in a mirror. Opium drug lords, more than the Taliban, run provinces like plantation owners in the Old South. Government officials at the highest levels not only tolerate corruption but expect it.'

Noah Coburn and Ana Larsen explain why [pdf] the presidential election, which coincided with provincial elections, was and was not a disaster. They maintain that legitimacy in Afghanistan lies on a spectrum rather than being a black and white matter, and point to Karzai's Hazara constituency beyond his Pashtun one.

In Afghanistan, US troops fight and die, and a Chinese firm is awarded a $3 bn. copper mining contract.

IC Postings by Email

End/ (Not Continued)

Over 30 Dead in Rawalpindi Blast

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:21:00 +0000

A car bomb in the parking lot of the Shalimar Hotel in Rawalpindi was detonated on Monday morning. Aljazeera is reporting over 30 dead. 'Pindi, as locals abbreviate it, is a twin city of the capital, Islamabad, and is security-sensitive because army headquarters is located there.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani military's campaign against Pakistani Taliban militants in South Waziristan continued. A cell of expatriate Uzbek fighters is now being encountered.

Even though development aid holds out the best hope for resolving the problems of the Pashtun tribes with the central government, in times of war relief work becomes dangerous. The United Nations is now pulling its development workers out of the Pashtun areas of Pakistan, given that the current military operations are putting their lives in danger from the militants.

End/ (Not Continued)

Speculation on Whether Abdullah will Join National Unity Government; MPs call for US withdrawal

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:50:00 +0000

Matthew Green of the FT, reporting from Kabul, suggests that Abdullah Abdullah may still be open to a post in Hamid Karzai's cabinet. That outcome is not impossible given Afghanistan's mercurial politics. But it seems to me unlikely, since Abdullah is accusing his rival in the country's presidential contest, Hamid Karzai, of having attempted to steal the Aug. 20 election, and of running interference for corrupt members of the electoral commission. The reason Abdullah gave for pulling out of the race, that the elections were not going to be conducted transparently, is more of a thunderous condemnation than a coy offering of himself as a cabinet member. Still, Euronews also notes that Abdullah has not ruled out playing a role in a national unity government.

Aljazeera English reports on Abdullah's withdrawal from the presidential race.

Abdullah's withdrawal is not good news for the Obama administration, as I said yesterday, if they are planning a long-term, nation-building, counter-insurgency campaign. But for a targeted, small counter-terrorism campaign, the shape of the indigenous government is less important.

The fact is that Karzai was likely to win all along. That his government's legitimacy has been wounded is bad for Washington. But Karzai never built the kind of power base that Nuri al-Maliki assembled in Iraq. Karzai only controls 30% of the country, while the Taliban and other anti-government guerrillas have altogether about 10-15%. Most of the country is under regional tribal leaders and warlords, who have not actively taken up arms against either Kabul or the foreign troops, but who do not want to be dominated by either.

Aljazeera English reports that the Afghan government wants to go forward with the election on Nov. 7, while the international community feels it would be dangerous and irresponsible to hold the elections when their outcome is a foregone conclusion.

The discussions about US troop force levels in Afghanistan takes place in the White House, the Pentagon, and the US Congress. But shouldn't the elected Afghanistan parliament have a say? It was after all the Iraqi parliament that asserted itself in insisting that the Status of Forces Agreement contain a timetable for US withdrawal.

And what would the Afghan parliament say if it was given a say? It would be hard to know from reading the American press. But Azadi Radio in Dari Persian has an article on some of the debate among Afghan parliamentarians. Senator [Mahmood] Rashid [the article mistakenly gives his name as Ahmad] says that more US troops will actually make things in the country worse. He points out that many of the Taliban say that what motivates them to fight is the task of pushing foreign troops out of their country. Sending in a lot more US troops would therefore just stiffen the resistance.

Pir Sayyid Ibrahim Gailani said much the same thing. But he added that the next president of Afghanistan must take parliament's views into account, and should call a conference of parliamentarians with Taliban and the Hizb-i Islami (of Gulbadin Hikmatyar) to settle the outstanding issues by negotiation instead of by sending in foreign troops.

The biographies of Rashid and Gailani can be found here. Both Rashid and Gailani had been associated with the Mujahidin or anti-Soviet guerrilla fighters, in fact Gailani had been a commander in Paktia in the 1980s. Both senators, in other words, know a great deal about the dynamics of Afghan tribes with foreign troops. Their voices should be heard in this debate. Indeed, Gailani's insistence that parliament be brought into the task of finding a negotiated settlement with some of the guerrilla forces may be crucial.

See also Tom Engelhardt on Afghanistan as a bail-out state.

End/ (Not Continued)

Abdullah withdraws from Afghanistan Presidential Race

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:15:00 +0000

Abdullah Abdullah announced Sunday morning that he has withdrawn from the second round of Afghanistan's presidential election on the grounds that the same local officials, appointed by his rival, incumbent Hamid Karzai, will supervise the runoff as winked at massive fraud in the first round. He said that the election cannot be transparent or honest.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implausibly maintained that Abdullah's withdrawal will not affect the legitimacy of the Afghanistan presidential election.

Since President Obama had put off making a decision on his Afghanistan policy until he saw the results of the planned November 7 runoff, Abdullah's decision puts Washington in an awkward position. Abdullah is said to be seeking to postpone the runoff until spring, 2010, which would much extend the period of instability. In contrast, Clinton seems to be crowning Karzai the winner by virtue of Abdullah's withdrawal. But the Karzai presidency has been badly if not unalterably wounded by the ballot fraud practiced in August, and of which the retention of the same electoral commission would guarantee a repetition.

And here is what I take away from all this. The debate in Washington has been over a counter-insurgency campaign versus a limited counter-terrorism campaign. Counter-insurgency implies a certain amount of state-building. Counter-terrorism implies that state-building is impossible or very, very difficult. Clinton backs counter-insurgency, while Vice President Joe Biden supports counter-terrorism.

The reason Clinton is so eager to insist that Karzai's election is legitimate despite its obvious illegitimacy is that Abdullah's withdrawal puts paid to the idea that there is a plausible Afghan government partner for US counter-insurgency. There is not.

Biden may or may not win the argument in Washington. But there is now no doubt that he should win that argument. Sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to shore up a Karzai government that tried to steal the election and demonstrated so little accountability that the officials who winked at the fraud are still on the electoral commission-- that is an absurd proposition.

Aljazeera English has video:

Eric Garris points out that Afghan woman Member of Parliament Malalai Joya was interrupted on the US CNN when she referred to the US presence in Afghanistan as an occupation, but when she went on CNN International she was treated respectfully and allowed to speak. Actually, that the US and NATO are militarily occupying Afghanistan is recognized by the UN security council and is a simple fact of international law.

End/ (Not Continued)

Abdullah May Withdraw from Second Round

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:46:00 +0000

Abdullah Abdullah is threatening to withdraw from the presidential runoff contest in Afghanistan if the head of the Electoral Commission is not replaced. That commission oversaw the fraud-ridden first round. President Obama has put off his decision on Afghanistan policy until the presidential election is concluded, but what if it never really takes place and the US is willy-nilly stuck with Hamid Karzai and his wounded legitimacy?

Over 1,000 US troops have been wounded in Afghanistan in the past 3 months.

Congress is pressing the Pentagon to find more effective ways of combating roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices.

End/ (Not Continued)

Baltzer and Barghouti on Jon Stewart

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:27:00 +0000

Jon Stewart this week showed his usual stone cold courage in having on to his show Palestinian activist Moustafa Barghouti and Jewish-American peace worker Ann Baltzer for a frank discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. A hard line Likudnik audience member heckled them and ultimately had to be escorted from the studio. Here is an eye witness account at MondoWeiss.

Part 1 of the interview:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Here is part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 2

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

As usual, the Likudnik Dirty Tricks squad has been pressuring Stewart and Comedy Central over this outbreak of frank talk about Israel.

Rawstory has more on the controversy.

Please support Stewart: at http://www.comedycentral.com/
help/questionsCC.jhtml, selecting The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in the menu. If you prefer to call, the number is 212 468 1700. If you liked what you saw, give it support. Numbers matter in these things and actually the Likudniks aren't all that numerous, it is just that so few in the mainstream bother to speak out.

End/ (Not Continued)

Pakistan Press: Clinton 'White Goddess'; US should Leave Afghanistan

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:01:00 +0000

The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases Urdu editorials on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's controversial visit to Pakistan

Pakistan: Urdu Press Roundup Discusses Hillary Clinton's Visit to Country
The following is a roundup of excerpts from editorials and articles on the visit of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to Pakistan, with particular reference to Washington's policy towards Islamabad, war on terror, and the Taliban, published in the 30 October editions of seven Urdu dailies.
Pakistan -- OSC Summary
Friday, October 30, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary

Ausaf Editorial Sees Shift in USPolicy Regarding Taliban

Maintaining that the United States wants to hold talks with the moderate Taliban for resolving the Afghan imbroglio, the 30 October editorial says: " US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that those who were forced to become Taliban members would have to be separated from the militants.

She said that every gun-wielding individual was not a terrorist,but there were those, who were supporting the extremists out of compulsion.

The policy that the United States is deliberating these days concerning the Talibanis that the Taliban should be divided into two groups, good and bad, then the good members of Taliban should be isolated from the bad ones, and talks should beheld with them."

Jinnah Editorial Holds US Responsible for Talibanization

Recalling that it was the United States that had organized and provided resources to these people (Taliban) in its war against the Soviet Union; the 30 October editorial states: "The United States itself is the motivator for the apprehensions that the US secretary of state hasbeen expressing during her visit to Pakistan.

The United States used to provide weapons and other paraphernalia to the Taliban to fight against the Soviet Union and declared them as jihadists.

It used the shoulder of the Taliban jihadists to shatter the Soviet Union. Later, when the shattered Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, the United States left the Taliban unmonitored."

Mashriq Editorial Claims US Mulling Change in Policies

Referring to the joint press conference of Hillary Clinton with Foreign Minister Qureshi, the 30 October editorial states: "Anyhow, it can be guessed from the news conference of the US secretary of state that her country wants to bring change in its policies.

She has acknowledged to the extent that the United States had not benefited with direct contact with the rulers, rather they have suffered losses. Therefore, it now intends to establish direct contact with people."

Express Article by Tanvir Qaisar Shahid Discusses Impact of Visit

Talking about the statement of the Indian prime minister about holding talks with Pakistan on the eve of Hillary Clinton's Pakistan visit; the 30 October article comments: "The visit of the US secretary of state proved hard for Pakistan.

As soon as she reached Pakistan, a bomb blast occurred in Peshawar. Over 100 hundred people were killed, and 200 otherswere critically injured.

One benefit of her visit was that on the very first day of her visit, the Indian prime minister announced that his country was willing to hold unconditional talks with Pakistan."

Islam Editorial Urges US To Review Policies

Advising the United States to bring about changes in its policy for peace and security in the region, the 30 October editorial says: "Ignoring the international norms and diplomatic demands, the US secretary of state talked about, with full comfort, the appointment of the chief of the most sensitive agency of the Pakistan Army.

If the United States wants to improve its image, it should pull out of the Afghan war.
At the same time, it should also abandon its conspiracy to bog down the Pakistan Army into this war."

Islam Article by Khawar Chaudhry Links Operation With Visit

Emphasizing that stepping up of operation was imperative to pave the way for the visit of the US secretary of state; the 30October article states: "Preparations had been ongoing since the start of October for getting a glimpse of the white goddess (Hillary Clinton).
The series of offering sacrifices was also underway to appease her.

It is obvious that the visit of the goddess was necessary for a glimpse and a particular environment was also required for her arrival."

Khabrain Editorial Criticizes US Approach Toward Pakistan

Highlighting the recent US measures that prove contrary to Pakistan's sovereignty and independence; the 30 October editorial says: "The way in which people have suffered hardships because of Hillary Clinton's visit it says that if the US secretary was facing grave threats, whywas this visit to Pakistan organized?

Talking to the media, the US secretary of state said that her country would always support Pakistan.

However, when asked about the illegal measures of the United States, she evaded to answer. Pakistanis are questioning Pakistan's sovereignty and independence after the US drone attacks and armed patrolling by the US soldiers in Islamabad."

Nawa-e Waqt Editorial Exhorts Leaders To Reject US Aid, Presence of Soldiers

Goading the rulers to show national honor and dignity and rise to the occasion; the 30 October editorial comments: "Keeping in view the national sovereignty the US secretary of state should be asked to withdraw the US aid and troops.

At the same time, she should be told that we cannot sell away our independence and sovereignty for the sake of the US aid, and that weare capable of defending our independence and integrity in our capacity as anuclear power."

Nawa-e Waqt Article by Dr Hussein Ahmed Piracha Questions Double Standards of US

Deploring that the United States has been conniving at the Indian intrusion into Pakistan and its backing of the terrorists, the 30 October article says: "It should have been asked from Hillary Clinton that on one hand you have been praising the Pakistan Government and Army for launching effective operation against the terrorists in Swat and Malakand, and on the other, India has been providing weapons and dollars to the same terrorists by setting up consulates in border areas under the US patronage. India continues to cater to these elements."

End/ (Not Continued)

Should US Troops in Iraq be held Hostage to the next Election?

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:43:00 +0000

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Iraqi parliament again on Thursday failed to pass an electoral law to govern the holding of the planned January 16 parliamentary elections. The Kurdish delegates refused to come into the parliament building, thereby denying the session a quorum. The Turkmen and Arab delegates had demanded that Kirkuk be treated differently in the legislation than other provinces (Kurds are now a majority in Kirkuk, and the Kurds wish to annex the province to their Kurdistan Regional Government, a semi-independent confederacy in northern Iraq; Turkmen and Arabs consider the majority artificial, the result of Kurdistan-backed Kurdish in-migration, and consider having an ordinary election there a reward to the Kurds for land-grabbing. Kurds maintain that the province has long been theirs and that they are just correcting the 'Arabization' or ethnic cleansing and settlement policies of Saddam Hussein, who brought Arab families north to make the oil-rich province indisputably Arab).

Many pundits are maintaining that the failure to hold parliamentary elections on time will, perhaps, force US troops to stay longer and in greater numbers than envisaged in the Status of Forces agreement.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government arrested dozens of security officials, saying that they were implicated in Sunday's attacks.

Back to elections. Elections in Iraq cannot be held to international standards. There typically are no big public rallies, for fear that they would be blown up by Sunni Arab guerrillas. Candidates can seldom campaign publicly for fear of assassination. For the election itself, the US military declares a curfew and prohibits vehicular traffic for 3 days. Everyone is reduced to walking to the store to buy bread and other necessities. You can't drive. This measure prevents car bombings of the polling stations.

So why does the US still have 120,000 troops in Iraq? They aren't for the most part doing patrols anymore. They are just being kept in place so that they can swing into action as soon as the election date is fixed, and protect the electoral process from sabotage by bombing.

Is this rationale really a good enough reason to keep so many troops in Iraq? Shouldn't the Iraqi army by now be able to supervise a vehicular curfew on its own? And, why should the Obama administration care if the election is held or not? Saudi Arabia hasn't held any elections lately and it is our ally. The Iraqis were made by the US to have several elections, and they know how to do it if they want to. Why allow their interminable parlays on basic things like an electoral law to hold US troops hostage in the country with nothing much to do for a year?

The parliamentary and provincial elections and the referendum on the constitution were always imagined by the Bush administration as propaganda exercises on behalf of the Republican Party and Neoconservatism. Although the elections have not been meaningless, and a lot of Iraqis obviously express their political spirit through them, they have been highly flawed and artificial. The first, in January 2005, completely excluded the Sunni Arabs because it was not based on voting districts, and it appears to have been stolen by Iran, much to the delight at the time of the Red States (?). In some ways that election provoked the Great Sunni-Shiite Civil War. The constitution was rejected by a majority in each of the major Sunni Arab-majority provinces and so is not a national constitution, and it has a strong theocratic overtone (read it and weep, Christopher Hitchens). Islam is the state religion and parliament may pass no legislation contradicting sharia or Islamic canon law. Kurdish separatism is virtually enshrined in it. The Muslim fundamentalists won the December 2005 parliamentary elections as well. Critics accused Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of using intimidation by tribal forces and the advantages of incumbency to skew the results of the provincial elections of January, 2009 toward his Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party. (Some charge al-Maliki of increasingly adopting the techniques and rhetoric of the region's 'soft' dictators).

Iraq is a poor candidate for successful transition to democracy or for social peace. It has a low per capita income if you subtract the notional petroleum income, which is not exactly shared out with the people. Poor countries often fail in their attempt to democratize. It does not have a long-established, respectable business class. It has no effective trade unions to speak of, since the Baath Party had coopted them and then Paul "Jerry" Bremer dissolved them by viceregal fiat. The UN/ US sanctions of the 1990s and the US occupation has pushed literacy down to 58% from more like 78% in the heyday of the pre-Saddam Baath Party. The country has come to be strongly divided by ethno-religious divisions. Its economy is dominated by a pricey primary commodity, petroleum, and gasoline is easily stolen and fought over, producing militia competition and deaths. . All of these factors have been cited to explain failure at democratization and/or high rates of political violence, and all are present in Iraq in spades.

Me, I don't think the US troop withdrawal should be tied to the successful holding of a parliamentary election, in which US troops are assigned the role of watchmen. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) should be adhered to, and the Iraqis will just have to decide if they want to hold an election or not, and if they do, their troops should supervise it.

I'm as in favor of democracy as anyone else. But I'm a also skeptical that it can be imposed at the point of a gun on a deeply divided society that is at the moment dirt-poor.

The time for elections as US propaganda victory has passed.

End/ (Not Continued)

Blast At Peshawar Bazaar Kills 105

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:00:00 +0000

The story of the gigantic car bombing of the area between Meena and Kochi bazaars in Peshawar, which killed at least 105 persons, is especially heartbreaking. Muslim extremists in Darra Adam Khel appear to have planned and carried out the attack, done by remote-controlled car bomb. They had threatened the markets with retribution if they did not forbid women to shop there. Pakistani extremists often preach 'char divari' or the immuring of women-- keeping them within the four walls of their homes and forbidding them to go out at all. This idea, typical of Taliban sorts of thinking, is not Islamic and is contradicted by what we know of early Muslim history, in which women played an active and public role.

In any case, the extremists then bombed the area around these markets, since Kochi is a women's market. At least 70 of the victims were women and children.

Darra Adam Khel is an Afridi Pashtun village in the North-West Frontier Province between Peshawar and the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Kohat (which itself witnessed a big bombing last week). Darra Adam Khel is notorious as a center for arms and munition production, using artisanal techniques. Adam Khel tribesmen can reproduce virtually any rifle or other weapon with which they are presented.

Of course, a further context for the attack is the ongoing Pakistani military campaign against the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan in South Waziristan.

Aljazeera English has video of the Peshawar tragedy:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in Islamabad after the attack. ITN has video:

Clinton pledged the Pakistanis American aid in increasing and making more reliable their electricity production. Pakistan has been plagued by brown-outs, referred to in India and Pakistan as 'load-shedding.' These electricity outages are more than mere annoyances. You cannot run a factory if the electricity keeps going off. Details of the energy aid plan are here.

The USG Open Source Center translates from Jang for Weds. October 28:

"Pakistan is facing stern energy crises. The industrial, trading, and domestic consumers are affected so severely that approximately 24000000 workers will face unemployment only in the textile sector because of energy crisis. These crises will badly affect the textile sector and other sectors also. During the past week, the Standing Committee of Senate on Petroleum has been informed that the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) is facing problems in producing 300 MMCFD (millions of cubic feet per day) gas and 7000 liters of oil daily and there are cases filed in several courts, while 250 stay orders are there in this regard."

The aid of which Clinton spoke, assuming it is efficiently delivered and used, could therefore be key in preventing a big rise in unemployment, and thus could help forestall disturbances deriving from bitter and unemployed workers (who are more numerous and more potentially disruptive than mere rural Taliban). Pakistan will grow a little over 3% this year, though to tell you the truth, that is their population growth, as well. So their net collective increase in gross deomestic product will be . . . zero.

Clinton's press conference was overshadowed by the bombings, and most channels put her on a split screen with the bombing aftermath, rather undermining her message of reconstruction.

End/ (Not Continued)

Corey: What Afghanistan (Should) Mean to Us

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:11:00 +0000

Scott Corey writes a guest op-ed for IC:

The Afghanistan debate is mired in the very shortcomings that have kept us from doing well there up to now. We need a qualitative shift of policy, but we dither about metrics and troop levels. We ask ourselves if we should �get out� as if there is somewhere to go that is out of range. Meanwhile, our enemies control the political meaning of everything we do. We need to take that control away from them, and that requires us to know our world, our enemy, and this struggle.

Today, power is so diffuse that empire and isolation are equally dead. Control of information, money, natural resources, and ideological persuasiveness all move parts of the political world. Still, all of it hangs on a framework of formal authority residing in a collection of states that wield force, legitimacy, representation, and diplomacy.

Terrorism prospers in the complexity of this political world. Political identity is no longer simple and fixed, so friend and enemy are hard to know. If I hit you, we fight, because the enmity is clear. If I coerce you with weapons, you might be intimidated or you might defy me, but the choice is clear. However, if I kill someone else in a spectacular manner, you need to know why before you can react. My cause might be just. My enemy might be your enemy. Or I might be coming for you and yours if you take the wrong path.

So �terrorist� is not just a dirty word for your enemy. Terrorism exists and has character that can be understood and fought. Using violence to raise uncertainty in an audience is terrorism. It earns the terrorist the authority to relieve that uncertainty about who will be killed and why. Making �war� on terrorism is usually just an attempt to build authoritarian power on the back of someone else�s atrocities. If the terrorist is demonic, the pretended savior can claim to justify methods drawn from �the dark side.�

Terrorism is strong because it is indirect. It appears to attack one group in order to persuade a different group. On the other hand, terrorism is weak because it is so often hypocritical. In the French Revolution, the vast majority of guillotine victims were commoners executed as �aristocrats.� In the Algerian Revolution, the bombings mostly killed Arab Muslims in the name of evicting French colonialism. The audience really is the victim, but does not see that truth.

Thus, terrorism (from above or from below) is different from ordinary coercion because it depends less upon credible threats than viable lies. It gets away with these lies because the terrorist establishes control over what people think the violence means. This control can be so strong that it dominates the thinking of friend and foe alike. It took 200 years of research to reveal that the French Revolution was not a class war.

This is where we are in Afghanistan and the struggle with Muslim radicalism generally. Muslim terrorists are seeking a level of authority over Islam that no one has exercised since the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims die from Muslim radical violence in vastly greater numbers than do Americans. All the ramblings about destroying the West or creating a global caliphate are just background noise. The biggest debate al Qaeda ever had was whether to attack the US at all.

That attack on America transformed a band of fewer than 400 militants into global rebels because the US embraced the imperial role al Qaeda cut out for us. Yet there is no serious, ongoing attempt to overthrow the West. The true goal of the radicals is shown in the brutal rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Swat region of Pakistan. It showed itself in parts of Iraq controlled by the al Qaeda affiliate there.

No movement of US troops (or drones) into or out of Central Asia will help in this struggle as long as the radicals control what our coming and going means to the Islamic world. If we stay we are imperialist, if we leave we are defeated. To succeed, we must take control of the meaning of the struggle.

The only viable posture is a self-limited commitment. This is a struggle within Islam. We are useful victims, and we have a right to hit back. But we are neither the political audience, nor the group that will most suffer under the rule of Muslim radicalism if it wins. Our military power can only be effective if it is explicitly expeditionary, not imperial. We must say that, and prove it, at every opportunity.

Promise Afghanistan two years of major combat support. Proud local rebels who only want us out need only wait � no point in being killed over the inevitable. If the radicals want to come after us without a recruiting pool in the Afghan villages, they are welcome to take the unreplaced casualties. The Afghan government has two years to be viable, or it will be thrown to the wolves, and Afghanistan will revert to the status of international shooting gallery. In the meantime, the better it does, the better we do.

Such a posture is credible. We were deeply involved in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and we left then, and we are leaving Iraq now. It is sustainable, because it matches how the American public sees our legitimate use of force in the world. It makes our point about who we are and what the terrorists really want, no matter how well Kabul fares down the road. It puts our allies on notice � we can give many forms of ongoing help, but when it comes to military force our help comes tailored to a sink or swim world of independent states, and we are not afraid to invade a place twice if we need to do so.

There will be fighting, but this is not a war. It is a violent argument and it is a race. The argument is about whether the US is an imperial foe, or a tough friend, of the Islamic world. The race is to get Kabul to rebuild its power on its own people, not our might. If we lose the race, Afghans suffer. If we try to make this an open-ended war, we lose the argument. Should that happen, the next generation of Muslims may justly curse us for abetting the oppressive radical movement that prospered when we were strong, but not wise.

Scott Corey

---

Scott Corey has a PhD in Political Science from UC Berkeley, and did his dissertation on political violence. He now works at a small non-profit crisis center in the Sierra Nevada.

End/ (Not Continued)

UN Guest House Attacked in Kabul; 8 More US Troops Killed in Bombings; FSO Resigns in Protest; President's Brother CIA Agent, Drug Lord

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:56:00 +0000

Afghanistan continues to generate bad news at an alarming rate. Gunmen stormed a UN guest house in Kabul, deploying small arms fire and killing 3 UN staff members along with 4 other persons. A Taliban spokesman said his group was behind the attack and that it was aimed at disrupting the Nov. 7 presidential runoff election. At the same time, a rocket slammed into a five star hotel in Kabul.

Heavy gunfire reverberated through the streets shortly after dawn and a large plume of smoke rose over the city following the attack on the hostel in the Shar-e-Naw district. Kabul police chief Abdul Rahman Rahman said seven people were killed, including some attackers.

The killing of 8 US troops by roadside bombs on Tuesday has brought the number of US troops slain in October in Afghanistan to 55, making this the deadliest month so far in the 8-year US war in that country. The US currently has 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, in addition to NATO forces.

AP has video:

Matthew Hoh, a former Marine and a Foreign Service officer in Afghanistan has resigned in protest against the conduct of the US war in Afghanistan, the first such FSO known to have done so. He protests that we are simply propping up a corrupt and feckless urban-based government that is being opposed by a rural religious-nationalist movement, and that we are highly unlikely to succeed in settling this three decades-old conflict. Karen DeYoung of WaPo reports that Hoh believes many Pashtun guerrillas have taken up arms against the US and NATO simply because these foreign troops are in their country, so that we are generating the conflict we say we are ameliorating.

Underlying Hoh's point about corruption, the NYT reports that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, who has been accused of involvement in the drug trade, has for some years been on the CIA payroll. So it makes you wonder, has the US been winking at Ahmed Wali's alleged drug running because he is an asset who is doing something for Washington? If so, how far up does this operation extend? Afghanistan looks more like Vietnam every day.

Meanwhile, Washington is abuzz with plans and counter-plans on Afghanistan. They include paying the Taliban not to fight the US, focusing mainly on Pakistan, and withdrawing US troops to the major cities.

The Soviets more or less withdrew to the cities in the mid-1980s, and it didn't stop them from being forced ultimately to withdraw from the country. And they even had loyal Communist Party cadres and large numbers of urban women on their side. I doubt there is any similar genuine support group for US and NATO presence in the country, though the Tajiks don't so far seem to mind it the way elements among the Pashtuns do.

What I still don't hear is what the objective of the war is, and how it will be accomplished in some reasonable time frame. If the objective is that Pashtun tribesmen shouldn't feud with each other and with their government, and should become secularized, then this really is a 40-year war.

End/ (Not Continued)

Bittle & Johnson: Will America's Short-Term Memory Loss Kill the Climate Bill?

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:05:00 +0000

Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson, Authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, write in a guest op-ed for IC:

Imagine if the Senate hearings about a climate change bill had been held a year ago.

Think of the context: $4 per gallon gas and oil over $130 per barrel. Waiting lists to buy popular fuel efficient cars. Polls in summer 2008 found 7 in 10 Americans saying there was solid evidence of global warming, and presidential candidates of both parties reiterating that it was real and had to be addressed.

It wouldn't have been an easy debate. Most Republicans were busy chanting "drill baby drill" while most Democrats were swooning at the very mention of green jobs and solar panels. But at least the public would have been engaged.

Now? Not so much. Certainly there's strong and urgent rhetoric from world leaders about the need to come up with a plan to cut greenhouse gases at the international climate conference in Copenhagen. But gas has settled back to $2 per gallon, the number of Americans who say there's evidence of global warming has dropped 14 points, and surveys show climate change and energy policy as dead last among priorities for Congress. The twin problems we face on energy -- controlling global warming and ensuring we've got enough fuel to go around -- are just not registering with the public.

"How quickly we forget" is one possible reaction, but Ronald Reagan's "There you go again," is better.

The United States has been around the block multiple times on energy policy, much like Bill Murray living the same sequence of events over and over again in Groundhog Day. Oil and gas prices shoot up. Voters get upset. Politicians say we absolutely, positively need to change the way we get and use energy. We make a few adjustments here and there -- both in the country's overall policies and in our own personal habits. Then a couple of years later, we seem to forget the whole thing. At least Bill changed his line of attack after hearing Sonny and Cher sing "I Got You Babe" on his radio alarm for the umpteenth time.

Our boom-or-bust mind-set on energy poses a genuine hazard to our economy -- one that could last decades. The notorious energy crises of the past (for those too young to remember) were painful, but relatively brief. They were generally set off by events that caused problems somewhere in the supply system -- war in the Middle East, American diplomats held hostage in Iran, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita pushing up prices because some refineries were knocked out by the weather. However troubling and unpleasant these situations were, they were temporary.

The conditions that generated the country's more recent energy problems are not going to go away quickly, even though they have been tempered by the worldwide economic slowdown. We're competing with many more people worldwide for the energy that's available. There are truly astonishing levels of growth in China, India, and elsewhere. These countries need massive amounts of energy for their factories and transportation. As they become more prosperous, people living there will start buying cars and refrigerators and microwaves and computers. All these things use energy.There's also a pretty solid expert consensus that humans are beginning to use up most of the oil that's easy to get to. It's not going to be Mad Max exactly, because the world is not actually going to run out of oil in our lifetimes, but chances are that it's going to get tougher and more expensive to find it.

Plus, if we're going to do anything about controlling greenhouse gases, we need a steady, consistent effort to change our energy mix. You can't do this by fits and starts. We need both steady investment in new technology and long-term commitment to changing the economic rules of the game so that clean energy is a reliable, affordable alternative to fossil fuels.

Is there any hope that Americans will support (or at least not oppose) major changes in energy policy? In fact, there is some. According to research by our organization, Public Agenda, 73 percent of Americans disagree with the statement that "If we get gas prices to drop and stay low, we don't need to be worried about finding alternative sources of energy," and fully 53 percent "strongly disagree." Moreover, despite partisan debate, Americans find common ground on at least 10 major energy proposals that would provide incentives for more energy efficiency, reducing gasoline usage and supporting alternative energy have widespread support -- at least in concept.

It's quite possible that prices for oil and gas will stay relatively low in the next few years due to the global economic shake-up, and there have been some new oil discoveries and production breakthroughs that are exciting the industry. They won't produce enough oil and gas to solve the world's long-term problem, but it may be enough to hold prices down for a while.

This puts an even greater burden on leaders to help Americans understand that, for the sake of the planet and our economic stability, we need to get a sound energy plan together and stick with it even when the pressure is off. Besides, there are so many avenues for addressing our energy challenge. People will and can disagree over which ones are best, and no doubt the country will make some mistakes along the way. But the most damaging mistake of all would be to assume that just because energy prices are lower now, our energy problems are behind us. That would be a truly gigantic error.

�2009 Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson, authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis

Author Bios

Scott Bittle, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.

Jean Johnson, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org, and has written articles and op-eds for USA Today, Education Week, School Board News, Educational Leadership, and the Huffington Post Website.

For additional energy resources and supplemental material, please visit www.whoturnedoutthelights.org

End/ (Not Continued)

Cole in Salon: "Obama's Foreign Policy Report Card"

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:11:00 +0000

My Salon column , "Obama's foreign policy report card," is available online.

Excerpt:

' When Obama came into office in January, 142,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq, conducting regular patrols of the major cities. His Republican rivals were dead set against U.S. withdrawal on a strict timetable. He faced something close to an insurrection from some of his commanders in the field, such as Gen. Ray Odierno, who opposed a quick departure from Iraq. Moreover, Obama assumed the presidency at a time when Iran and the U.S. were virtually on a war footing and there had been no direct talks between the two countries on most of the major issues dividing them. In February, the government of Pakistan virtually ceded the Swat Valley and the Malakand Division to the Pakistani Taliban of Maulvi Fazlullah, allowing the imposition of the latter's fundamentalist version of Islamic law on residents, and Islamabad had no stomach for taking on the increasingly bold extremists.

Eight months later, it is a different world. '

Read the whole thing.

Also, if you haven't checked in on Tomdispatch.com in the past week, you'll find three closely argued new articles there on the drawbacks of the new American militariesm.

End/ (Not Continued)

Rivals Blame al-Maliki for Poor Security Arrangements

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:53:00 +0000

The death toll of Sunday's twin bombings in Baghdad has risen to 155, and tragically it turns out that two dozen children were among the victims.

I still disagree with those who have been alleging that the bombing puts the upcoming parliamentary election in question, or raises questions about whether the Iraqi troops can keep order. These big bombings have been going on for years, and they went on when the US was in charge of security, as well. In fact, civilian deaths from political violence have fallen in recent months.

Although initial reports about the massive bombings in Baghdad on Sunday said that they were car bombs, McClatchy is now reporting that they were large trucks. One was packed with C4 explosives and the other with TNT. The Sunni Arab guerrillas in Iraq are still mining old Baath weapons depots, but my suspicion is that the C4 probably was imported from outside the country. Al-Hayat transmits from AFP in Arabic that one of the trucks was a Renault from the Water Department in Falluja, a city to the west of Baghdad that has been a center of Sunni Arab fundamentalist resistance to the US and the Shiite government. In November-December of 2004, the US military invaded and destroyed Falluja, so there may be people there for whom Sunday's bombings were a form of revenge on the capital.

Many in Baghdad are scratching their heads and wondering how in the world these big trucks filled with explosives were allowed to get anywhere near government ministries. Dark suspicions of security personnel bribed or traitorous are circulating.

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reports in Arabic that public confidence in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has been shaken by the bombings, and quotes opposition politicians from rival groups such as the Sadrists as slamming the PM for not doing enough to provide security in the capital.

In the light of the security lapses for which he is now being taken to task, al-Maliki's decision to stay out of the National Iraqi Alliance coalition joined by most other Shiite parties may have been the wrong move. He is now running against parties which can depict themselves as out of power and so not responsible for the steady drumbeat of bombings. Al-Maliki has no larger coalition partners in whom he could take cover. If his Da'wa Party loses big time in the parliamentary elections, that loss could help destabilize Iraq. A new prime minister will have to struggle to get hold of the security and intelligence forces, and the US military will have to work with a new cast of characters.

Government workers who reported for work on Monday, according to CBS, said that they felt as though they were at a funeral. Some were afraid there might be more attacks on government offices:

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that there is a great deal of popular anger over the slowness of the rescue operations in Baghdad.

Aljazeera English reports on popular anger at the government and security forces over the lapses that allowed the drivers of the trucks to position themselves downtown in the morning.

Russia Today's Baghdad offices were devastated by the blasts, and that channel reports from Baghdad:

End/ (Not Continued)

MPs Wounded in Blast; al-Maliki Decries Baathists, al-Qaeda; Kurds Threaten Election Boycott

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:31:00 +0000

Al-Hayat reporting in Arabic surveyed the reactions of Iraqi politicians to the massive bombings on Sunday. As with Prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, they blamed remnants of the former, Baath, regime and "al-Qaeda" (Sunni fundamentalist militants). I was struck by how they for the most part responded technocratically, by pledging a review and an improvement of security procedures.

As I predicted yesterday, some figures are already using the blasts for politics. Hadi al-Ameri, a member of parliament and a leader of the paramilitary hard line Shiite Badr Corps, implicitly came after al-Maliki. "We've heard a lot of brouhaha about successes on the security front," he said. "Where are these successes?" The Badr Corps is aligned with its parent organization, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is running against al-Maliki's State of Laws coalition in January.

Al-Zaman reports on some of the casualties. A woman member of parliament, Maha al-Duri, was wounded and two of her bodyguards were killed. The lieutenant governor of Baghdad Province was wounded. Several members of the Sadr Bloc were wounded as they were commemorating the anniversary of the death of Muhammad Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr in the Justice Ministry building.

Meanwhile, one of the more contentious issues in the upcoming parliamentary elections is how to deal with the contested province of Kirkuk. The USG Open Source Center translates an article from the Kurdish press in which major Kurdish parties threaten to boycott the elections if a special election law for Kirkuk is passed. (Kirkuk is by now probably majority Kurdish, so the Kurds will dominate its provincial council unless the Kurdish bloc is diluted by special provisions in the electoral law).

Iraqi Kurdish lists to boycott elections if consensus not reached
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary

Iraqi Kurdish lists to boycott elections if consensus not reached

The Kurdistan Alliance and the Islamic Union of Kurdistan (IUK) lists have said they would boycott the Iraqi upcoming parliamentary elections if a special election law for Kirkuk is passed, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) media website reported on 24 October.

The alliance and the IUK's representatives expressed their concerns in a press conference which was held today in the Iraqi parliament's office in Arbil Governorate.

The deputy head of the alliance, Sa'di Barzinji, said in the press conference that there were elements in the Iraqi parliament who wanted to pass a special election law for Kirkuk, adding that such efforts were contrary to the country's constitution.

We, the Kurds, work in accordance with the Iraqi constitution, and the country's High Constitutional Court has rejected a special election law for Kirkuk, Barzinji said.

Barzinji said that no changes were made to the voter registration, referring to these elements' demand for a special election law.

He said that the increase in Kirkuk's voter registration was only 30 per cent, while in other parts of Iraq was 100 per cent. He added that the number of Kurds in the city was significantly reduced during the country's former regime and thousands of them were killed in the area.

Barzinji said that they would not allow the special election law to pass, even if it is passed, Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, can veto it twice and that the law also needed 66 per cent of the parliamentary votes to be passed.
Barzinji said that the Kurds would not participate in the elections if such law is passed; and the Kurds wanted an open election system.

Meanwhile, the IUK's MP in the Iraqi parliament, Zuhair Khoshnaw, said that his list would not allow a special election law to pass for Kirkuk, adding that the efforts to pass the law were contrary to the constitution.

Khoshnaw said that the Kurds wanted Kirkuk to be treated like other parts of the country. He added that if they did not reach an agreement with the other parties in the parliament, they would refer the issue to the Iraqi political council.

(Description of Source: (Internet) Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Sorani Kurdish -- Patriotic Union of Kurdistan media website)

End/ (Not Continued)

Baghdad Devastated by Massive Blasts, 136 Killed, 500 Wounded, Ministries Destroyed

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:46:00 +0000

Two massive blasts shook central Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 136 people and wounding 500, and destroying three government ministry buildings, according to the Times of London's Oliver August reporting from Baghdad. It was the most destructive attack of 2009. August notes that the likely perpetrators were either Baathists from the old regime or Sunni Muslim extremists, both of whom want to stop a new, Shiite- and Kurdish- dominated status quo from settling upon Iraq.

AFP Arabic service says that the first car exploded at 10 am Baghdad time at a crowded intersection near the ministry of justice and the ministry of municipalities. The second was detonated ten minutes later on Salihiya St. in front of the Baghdad Province administrative office. Many dead bodies are suspected of still being beneath the rubble of the ministries of justice and public works buildings, which collapsed on the employees.

The ministries were protected by blast walls and the truck bombs could not get that close, but the explosives used were so ungodly powerful that they swept the blast walls away. I have no pretensions to forensics expertise, but that sounds like a clue to me; where are the guerrillas getting such remarkable high explosives?

Aljazeera English has video:

The particular ministries that were struck may be significant, since Iraq operates on a spoils system and ministries tend to be dominated by political parties and ethnic groups. The Minister of Public Works is Riyadh Gharib, a prominent member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is close to the clerics in Tehran. Public Works as a ministry would thus have a lot of ISCI party members as employees and it is also a huge source of political patronage. Baathists or Sunni extremists would have every reason to hit it.

The Ministry of Justice had been less politicized, but from 2007 was in the control of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. The Minister of Justice from last February is Judge Dara Nur al-Din, an independent Kurd. He had been a member of the Interim Governing Council under Paul Bremer, for which some groups in Iraq may not have forgiven him. The ministry of justice also oversees court cases and executions, including of prominent Baathists, executions that Nur al-Din has defended, and which have angered the anti-government guerrillas.

As for the Baghdad Provincial government (it is both a province and a city), it has been dominated since the January, 2009, provincial elections by the State of Law coalition of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the leading element of which is the Shiite Islamic Mission Party (Da'wa).

So if the guerrillas who set these bombs were trying to kill party cadres attached to ministries, you'd have to conclude they were trying to kill those of the ruling Shiite religious parties, and also to take revenge on the new regime for the Ministry of Justice's executions of Baathists and Sunnis.

The attacks inevitably had implications for the January, 2010, parliamentary elections, insofar as they make Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his ascendant Islamic Mission Party look incompetent in providing security. Since al-Maliki has done a fair job of restoring security to cities such as Basra, this success is a campaign talking point for him, which the guerrillas are attempting to deflect.

There are two dangers here. One is that US hawks will make such attacks a pretext for delaying US troop withdrawal. These sorts of attacks happened all the time when the US troops were patrolling Baghdad, and they only ever were stopped by extreme measures that were impractical for the long run, such as walling off whole neighborhoods and producing 80 percent unemployment.

The second is that Nuri al-Maliki will attempt to deflect any blame for the blasts onto Syria, which he views as harboring Baathist elements who plan these attacks out. Shaky revolutionary regimes like that of Baghdad often go to war to shore themselves up, and Iraq-Syria border clashes are not impossible.

The US Republican Party's avaricious and illegal war on Iraq destabilized the eastern Mediterranean, perhaps for decades, creating long-term challenges to US and global security of which the Baghdad blasts are very possibly only minor omens.

End/ (Not Continued)

Pakistan Army Takes Militant Stronghold

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:28:00 +0000

The Pakistani military announced Saturday that its troops have taken Kotkai in South Waziristan, the erstwhile headquarters of the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan or the Taliban Movement of Pakistan. Both Hakimu'llah Mahsud and Qari Husain, leaders of the TTP, hail from the city. Dawn adds that Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said:

' 21 terrorists have been killed in South Waziristan on Friday and Saturday while three security personnel laid down their lives and another eight sustained injuries. About Kotkai, he said the place was a militant stronghold where most of the houses stood converted into bunkers. The town also has a training camp run by Qari Hussain for suicide bombers. Security forces are in the process of clearing the built-up area of IEDs, mines and booby traps.'

Aljazeera English has video:

Meanwhile, the head of the Pakistan Muslim League, Qa'id-i A`zam (PML-Q) said Saturday that only a US withdrawal can bring peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Muslim League split into several groups, with the most numerous one now being Nawaz Sharif's branch. But the PMLQ had been popular earlier in the decade, but shrank dramatically in the 2008 parliamentary elections and now really only has a vague coalition in Baluchistan province to support it.

End/ (Not Continued)

Taliban Attack Pakistan Air Force Base

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:20:00 +0000

A suicide bomber at the gates of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (an Air Force base) detonated his payload on Friday, killing 8 and wounding 17. Kamra is northwest of the capital, Islamabad, on the way to Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Province.

AP has video:

The Pakistani Taliban also set off a bomb in Peshawar, a major northern city.

Aljazeera English reports on the negative effect of militants' violence on Pakistan's retail sector, as most people prefer to stay home than to risk bombings.

The USG Open Source Center looks at Pakistani editorials on the attack in Islamabad on a Brigadier General:

Pakistan: Urdu Press Roundup Denounces Security Arrangements in Islamabad-- OSC Summary
Friday, October 23, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary

Maintaining that the terrorists targeted the military officer in reaction to the operation against the terrorists in South Waziristan; the editorial states: "It isquite clear that it will not be difficult for the militants, who can target theGeneral Headquarters and military van in Islamabad, to target the Army in their own stronghold Waziristan. A police officer believes that the attack on the military van on 22 October can be the reaction to the ongoing operation in Waziristan.It appears that the assailants had fully monitored the areas beforehand."

Jinnah Editorial Points Finger at Blackwater

Discussing the free movement of the US security agency in Islamabad, the editorial says:"US vehicles were checked many times and weapons were found in it. It is probable that Blackwater personnel are involved in gunfire on the sensitive agency's van because this organization is famous for target killing. No matter whether it functions under a cover name, its objective is to create turmoileverywhere."

Jang Article by Farooq Baloch Deplores Insufficient Security Arrangements

Terming the incident proof of security agencies' failure to hunt down terrorists in the federal capital; the article comments: "Long queues of vans on blockadesand shanty towns in the city can prove prelude to some great devastation.However, no attention has since been paid on these problems. This led to a great tragedy in G-11 sector of Islamabad on 22 October, where a brigadier and a soldier were shot dead by the terrorists."

End/ (Not Continued)

Phase 2 of Waziristan Campaign; Pakistan Closes Schools; Mahsud Civilians Barred from Roads

noreply@blogger.com (Juan Cole) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:05:00 +0000

Pakistan's military began "Phase 2" of its campaign in South Waziristan on Thursday, with a siege of Kotkai, the home town of Hakimullah Mahsud, the leader of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan. So far the army claims to have killed 100 militants, and 300 homes are said to have been damaged. Locals maintain that some of those killed are actually innocent civilians, and most of the houses were unconnected to the Taliban. Even if they were accurate, these numbers suggest that the Taliban have not stood and fought, but rather have melted away, since they only have light arms and would have been killed in large numbers by the Pakistani army, which has artillery and fighter jets.

AP has video of the fighting:

France24 has video of local reactions to the fighting in S. Waziristan (locals are critical of the federal government and sympathetic to the militants).

Indeed, Amnesty International worries that the Pakistani military is simply engaged in a vendetta with even the civilian members of the Pashtun Mahsud tribe. AI notes:

'
The Pakistani military has refused to allow members of the tribe, some of whom are involved in the senior leadership of the Pakistani Taleban, to use major roads to flee the conflict zone, witnesses told Amnesty International.

"Mehsud tribespeople, including women and children, are being punished on the roads as they flee simply because they belong to the wrong tribe," said Sam Zarifi, director of Amnesty International�s Asia-Pacific programme. "This could amount to collective punishment, which is absolutely prohibited under international law." '

Blake Hounshell considers the evidence from David Rohde and others that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence is backing the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, and, indeed, he notes that the Haqqani fighters appear to have let the Pakistani military use their territory as a staging ground for attacking the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan (TTP or Taliban Movement of Pakistan) in South Waziristan. As I noted a couple of days ago, the current campaign in Waziristan does nothing to weaken the groups most active in killing US and NATO troops across the border in Afghanistan.

Gunmen in Islamabad killed a brigadier general and a soldier of the Pakistani army on Thursday, underlining the way in which the army's Waziristan campaign has become a feud of sorts, with the militants targeting officers. Ironically, the Pakistani officer corps had once generally backed the militants, as a means of projecting influence into southern Afghanistan and into Kashmir.

A police dragnet in Islamabad and Rawalpindi has resulted in some 300 arrests, including of Afghans and a Saudi. Some of those arrested had suicide belt bombs or bullet belts on their persons at the time of arrest, according to the police, and appear to have been on the verge of carrying out a terrorist attack in the capital.

All schools and universities in most of Pakistan have been closed until at least Sunday, in response to the recent bombing at Islamic International University. An exception is Sindh Province, where there is no history of Taliban activity.

Dawn has video on the impact of the move on students. Footage includes outraged students insisting that they will not be made afraid by the militants, and protesting the schools closure.

Aljazeera English reports that 150,000 civilians have now left South Waziristan (pop. 600,000), and another 100,000 are trying to get out.

End/ (Not Continued)