EuroNews Video: Hamas and Fatah Rising Violence

May 18, 2007

Fighting between rival Fatah and Hamas groups has continued in Gaza, with two more killed despite the declaration of a ceasefire. This brings the death toll to seven since the outbreak of new factional strife last Friday. At least 40 people have been wounded overall.Hamas gunmen exchanged fire with Fatah security officers, with two Fatah men killed and 10 other people wounded. It’s the deadliest oubtreak of factional violence for several months. Sources in President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement warn that tensions with Hamas, its power-sharing partner, are so great that their unity government could collapse within days.

Officials announced that interior minister Hani el Kaouasmi was leaving the government. They said the minister had handed in his resignation last month because of ongoing disorders but had agreed to remain in his post. His resignation was accepted on Monday.

Under an Egyptian-brokered truce announced on Sunday, the two sides were supposed to pull their gunmen off the streets. The territory has sunk into political disarray since Israel unilaterally withdrew troops and settlers in 2005.

Watch the video:


Poll: 71% of Israelis want U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail

May 18, 2007

Fully 71 percent of Israelis believe that the United States should launch a military attack on Iran if diplomatic efforts fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, according to a new poll.

The survey, commissioned by Bar-Ilan University’s BESA Center and the Anti-Defamation League, found that 59 percent of Israelis still believe the war in Iraq was justified, while 36 percent take the opposite view.

Some 65 percent believe that the United States is a loyal ally of Israel, with only 11 percent saying the opposite. A slightly higher proportion, 73 percent, described U.S. President George W. Bush as friendly. Forty-eight percent attributed U.S. support for Israel to strategic considerations, while 30 percent credited American Jewry and 17 percent cited shared values and a shared democratic tradition.

Regarding America’s importance to Israel, there was near consensus: 91 percent said that close relations with the U.S. are vital to Israel’s security. Some 51 percent of respondents predicted that the U.S. will ultimately impose an agreement on Israel and the Palestinians, while 43 percent disagreed.

In addition, 52 percent of respondents described American Jewish support of Israel as “sufficient,” while 33 percent did not. About half of all Israelis believe that American Jewry is in danger of disappearing due to assimilation, the poll found.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html


Israel Helping Fatah Allowing Troops Cross into Gaza

May 18, 2007

ISRAEL has allowed Fatah to bring about 500 troops into the Gaza Strip under a US-co-ordinated scheme to counter Hamas, the Islamic movement that won Palestinian parliamentary elections last year.

The forces belong to units loyal to the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Fatah leader whom the Bush Administration and Israel have sought to strengthen militarily and politically.

A spokeswoman for the European Union Border Assistance Mission at Rafah, where the fighters crossed into Gaza from Egypt, said their entry on Tuesday was approved by Israel.

The revelation of the troop deployment illustrates the increasing partisanship of Israel and the Bush Administration in the volatile Palestinian political situation. Fatah has recognised Israel, in contrast with Hamas, whose charter calls for the creation of a future Islamic state.

Fighting between the two sides has resulted in about 45 Palestinian deaths since Sunday.

Four Hamas fighters were killed in an Israeli air strike yesterday on the eastern border of the Gaza Strip. Fighters had been stationed there to counter any Israeli ground assault after troops and tanks crossed the frontier.

Israel also carried out a series of air strikes against Hamas targets in Gaza on Thursday, killing at least six gunmen, including Imad Shabanah, a Hamas military leader whose car was hit. “All options for our response are open,” Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman said. Some Hamas leaders said specifically that “martyrdom operations”, or suicide bombings, could be used in retaliation for the Israeli air strikes.

Israeli military officers said Palestinian gunmen fired at least 17 rockets from Gaza on Thursday, bringing the three-day total to more than 80. At least seven fell in the border town of Sderot, wounding several Israelis and damaging a synagogue, a high school and a building inside an industrial park, officials said.

A small number of Israeli tanks also pushed inside northern Gaza, the first ground operation there this year, and an artillery battery took up a position on the border. The Israeli military described both operations as defensive measures.

“Hamas has essentially gone back to what we always knew they were – a terrorist organisation acting as a government,” said Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. “What they are trying to do is drag Israel back into Gaza after we left every inch of it. We do not want to rule Gaza.”

Israeli officials said the decision to allow Fatah troops into Gaza was taken in order to help Mr Abbas take control of northern Gaza, which is the prime launching area for Hamas’s Qassam rockets.

“If you look at what’s going on there now, you could have a force loyal to Abbas in northern Gaza that could be highly useful to Israel,” one Israeli official said.

The Fatah troops were trained by Egyptian authorities under a program co-ordinated by Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton, a special US envoy working to improve security in Gaza and the West Bank.

Source: smh.com.au


Blair to be World Bank President as Wolfowitz Resign?

May 18, 2007

Tony Blair may be asked to head the World Bank after its president quit in a sleaze row.

One of America’s top economists today revealed that the retiring prime minister is being considered as a replacement for disgraced Paul Wolfowitz.

Nobel prize-winner Joe Stiglitz, a former senior vice president at the World Bank, said: “He is one of the people that is clearly being discussed.”

Mr Blair is expected to cash in on his international contacts after quitting Downing Street on 27 June and his agent said he would quit as an MP if “a big international job” came up.

Mr Stiglitz said the World Bank would probably prefer an economist with experience in development – which some pundits argue effectively rules out the prime minister, who has often admitted to being shaky at maths.

Nevertheless, Prof Stiglitz said: “He is one of the people that is clearly being discussed.

“I think it would be good for the institution at this juncture if they had somebody who was an economist who really understood what development was entailed and could work closely with the staff that has been very alienated by Paul Wolfowitz over the last two years and bring together the institution.

“It wouldn’t rule (Blair) out but I would say that if I were going through a first priority list of priorities it would probably begin with somebody with real experience in development.

“But Blair has clearly been a political leader that has the kinds of connections that one needs, that would be useful as head of the institution.”

Embattled World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz agreed to quit last night over a favouritism row involving his girlfriend.

The move ended weeks of intense pressure on the former U.S. deputy defence secretary, a close ally of President Bush and an architect of the Iraq war.

He had faced furious criticism after details emerged of his role in securing a promotion and pay rise for his partner, Oxford-educated Shaha Riza, when he joined the bank in 2005.

To read the full article, visit dailymail.co.uk


Second Coming of Saladin

May 18, 2007

By Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE18Ak01.html

The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
- W B Yeats, The Second Coming

DAMASCUS – The discreet green-and-white tomb of the greatest warrior of Islam, Saladin – by the splendid Ummayad Mosque in

the former seat of the caliphate – may be the ideal place to meditate on if, where and when Islam may be shaken again by the advent of a new Saladin, nine centuries after the illustrious deeds of the great Muslim general.

Saddam Hussein, not least because he was also from Tikrit (although Saladin was a Kurd), fashioned himself as the genuine article – fighting (twice) the infidel Christian armies of the US. He is now no more than a martyr for a minority. Osama bin Laden carefully fashioned his iconography as a cross between Saladin, Che Guevara and the Prophet Mohammed. But as in the immortal line in Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, “his methods are unsound”; despite the marketing success in the expansion of the al-Qaeda brand, bin Laden will never be able to capture the collective conscious of the ummah.

The new Saladin might be the son of a Palestinian refugee victim of the Nakhba (“catastrophe”) 59 years ago. He might be a computer wizard too sophisticated to be tempted by al-Qaeda’s Salafi-jihadism. He might be an angry young man straight out of the “sanctions generation” in Iraq – deprived of everything while he was growing up, courtesy of the “international community”.

He won’t be a tourism developer in Dubai, self-styled “city of captivating contrasts” (between the Western/Arab business elites and the South Asian slaves, maybe?). He won’t be the pampered son of the Sunni business aristocracy in Damascus showing off his Porsche Cayenne. He won’t be a billionaire international playboy posing as politician a la Saad Hariri in Beirut. He won’t be a gas-dealing executive in gas nirvana Qatar.

Divide and rejoice
Conditions are more than ripe for the advent of a new Saladin – after the Nakhba, the 1967 lightning Israeli victory against the Arabs, the failures of pan-Arabism, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli attack on Lebanon, the limited appeal of Salafi-jihadism, the non-stop stifling of nationalist movements by Western-backed brutal dictatorships/client monarchies.

When the future Saladin looks at the troubled and dejected Middle East, the first thing he sees is US Vice President Dick Cheney shopping for yet another war – skipping the “axis of evil” (Iran, unofficial member Syria) and ordering support from the “axis of fear” (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, the Emirates) in his relentless demonizing of Iran. After inflating sectarianism in Iraq, this time the imperial “divide and rule” weapon of choice is Arabs vs Persians.

The administration of US President George W Bush may have taken a leaf from former colonial power France – which invented Greater Lebanon as a confessional state, thus prone to perennial turbulence – to apply it in Iraq. But plunging Iraq into civil war to control better it is not enough (and there’s still the matter of securing the oilfields).

Forcing a practically de facto partition of Iraq into three warring crypto-states – a Kurdistan, a southern “Shi’iteistan” and a small central, oil-deprived Sunnistan – mired in a sea of blood in the heart of the Middle East is not enough. For Cheney, the industrial-military complex and assorted Ziocon (Zionist/neo-conservative) warriors, the big prize is the subjugation of Iran. Because Iran, apart from its natural wealth, is the only power capable – at least potentially – of challenging regional US hegemony.

Yet the trademark Cheney threats – with the standard high-tech aircraft-carrier background – are not cutting much ice. Al-Jazeera has been rhetorically bombarded by everybody and his neighbor – from retired Egyptian generals to Emirati political analysts – stressing that the Middle East will not support another US war. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, in a swift move, has just been to the United Arab Emirates – the first visit by any Iranian leader since the Emirates became independent in 1971, and all the more crucial because of a still-running dispute over a bunch of Persian Gulf islands.

The House of Saud – for which the only thing that matters is its own survival – desperately wants a solution as soon as possible for the Palestinian tragedy, before they may be buried six feet under by the terrible sandstorms blowing from Mesopotamia (think of hordes of battle-hardened Salafi-jihadis coming home after fighting the US in Iraq).

King Abdullah is not bent on antagonizing Iran. On the contrary: the most important guest at the recent Riyadh conference was Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki. Saudis and Iranians want to prevent US-provoked sectarianism in Iraq from spreading regionally. And King Abdullah wants a better deal for Sunni Arab Iraqis (hence his identification of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as an Iranian puppet).

While Cheney wants to pit Saudi Arabia against Iran, a discreet, behind-the-scenes Saudi-Iranian pact of no aggression may be all but inevitable, diplomats tell Asia Times Online. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said as much on the record: “Stop any attempt aimed at spreading sectarian strife in the region.”

Iran of course can be very persuasive, holding some tasty cards up its sleeve – such as hard-earned intelligence directly implicating the Saudis in training the Sunni Arab muqawama (resistance) in Iraq on explosive form penetrators (EFPs), which the Pentagon foolishly insists come from Iran. Everyone in Iraq knows it is operatives from “axis of fear” allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt – and also Pakistan – who have provided the Sunni Arab guerrillas in Iraq with technology and training on improvised explosive devices and EFPs.

Thus we have another Bush administration foreign-policy special: Cheney coddling guerrilla-arming Sunni Arabs – who are facilitating the killing of American soldiers in Iraq – to support an attack on Shi’ite Persians (allied with the Iraqi Shi’ites supported by the Americans …).

Anyway, Iraqi Shi’ites are more than winning the US surge game. The surging US soldiers are fighting various strands of the Sunni Arab resistance and al-Qaeda in Iraq. Meanwhile, the officially ensconced Badr Organization and its shady death-squad spinoffs are free to apply a lot of deadly pressure on the Sunni Arab civilian population. The Mehdi Army, on Muqtada al-Sadr’s orders, is just lying low – not taking the bait of fighting the Americans. Nothing will change the reality of this surge picture in the next few months.

About that clash
A possible Saudi-Iranian entente would be a classic case of local powers taking the destiny of the region in their own hands. In a parallel register, in southern Beirut – prime Hezbollah territory – there are plenty of banners in front of buildings destroyed by Israel last summer. They read: “The Zionist enemy destroys, the Islamic Republic of Iran builds.”

Unity in the Muslim world is not a chimera: crypto-scientific Western babble of the “Arabs are extinct” variety is plain silly, as are nonagenarian Bernard Lewis’ pontifications on the “clash of civilizations” – the “perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage”. The new Saladin would tell Lewis to get a grip on reality and admit that the unabated political repression, tremendous social inequality and prevailing economic disaster all over the Middle East are direct
imperialism plus some extra decades of non-stop meddling coupled with rapacious, arrogant and ignorant local elites.

The new Saladin knows how the US and Britain initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood – and then the Brotherhood supported the birth of Hamas. He knows how the US and Britain initially supported Iranian clerics – especially the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – against the shah. He knows how the US and Britain initially supported the Taliban. The aim was always to stifle any form of progressive, secular movement by socialists, communists or Arab nationalists.

A possible Saudi-Iran entente is still a dream. There is the parallel emergence of a coalition of top members of the “axis of fear” – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan – with Turkey and, of all players, Israel. Common objective: the containment of Iran. And not only Iran, but also Hezbollah and Hamas. King Abdullah was persuaded of this strategy by notorious Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka “Bandar Bush”, former Saudi ambassador in the US for 22 years, a close friend of both Bush and Cheney, and now the head of the Saudi National Security Council.

The strategy was in fact masterminded by a pedestrian version of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Cheney; Bandar; US deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams; and former US ambassador in Iraq and Afghan jack-of-all-trades Zalmay Khalilzad. What the popular masses in the Middle East think about this is of course irrelevant. In majority-Sunni Egypt, for instance, the most popular politicians are by far Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Khalid Meshal from Hamas, and Ahmadinejad. Two Shi’ites and a Sunni amply supported by Shi’ites.

About that ‘war on terror’
The Bush administration is cunningly trying to spin the theme of “Sunni solidarity” to push the dagger of fitna (dissent) even further into the heart of Islam, always focusing on the same target: total, unchallenged domination of the Middle East.

Cheney could not but have also enlisted Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf (who facilitates US intelligence on countless covert ops inside southeastern Iran organized from Balochistan in Pakistan). Some players are getting itchy, though. Turkey had to announce on the record that it would not join any “anti-Shi’ite alliance”. Turkey cannot afford to antagonize Iran – not with the coming November referendum on the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan.

The new Saladin also sees that the “war on terror” is far from over – metastasized into more subtle forms of Islamophobia, and still directly related to the attempted oil grab in the “big prizes” of Iraq and Iran. The privileged strategy to conquer fabulous natural wealth in the lands of Islam has been predictable from the start; building a case against the “barbarian”, “uncivilized” and “pre-modern” Muslim world; vilifying Islam as a religion and Muslim culture and mores; promoting de facto discrimination and in may cases outright racism against Muslims in the wealthy north; equating Islam with terrorism.

The new Saladin knows it as much as virtually the whole 1.5-billion-strong ummah knows it.

And then there’s the Shi’ite world. As long as US so-called elites fail to understand the phenomenal power of Shi’ism, any brilliant armchair strategy they cook up is destined to fail miserably.

Shi’ites in Iraq will never be co-opted by any US agenda – no matter the Himalayas of wishful thinking involved. They will never sacrifice their collective consciousness – forged by oppression and exclusion – nor their profound sense of historic victimization to the benefit of a made-in-America “liberal” utopia. Shi’ites will continue to stress their tremendous hostility to Zionism; to their society being corrupted by Western – especially US – popular and trash culture; and most of all to imperial designs on Muslim lands and natural wealth. It’s in the DNA of Shi’ites to see themselves as the guardians of true Islam.

The hour of the wolf
So where will the new Saladin come from?

He could be Nasrallah – who forced the formerly mighty Israeli army to back off, and who will inevitably prevail in a majority government in Lebanon through democratic elections.

He could be a young Sadrist who has never entered the Green Zone, and who before that was a member of the “sanctions generation”, growing up in absolute marginalization. Now he goes to al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, he will get his diploma, and he will be better equipped to fight for the true liberation of Iraq. He could be Muqtada al-Sadr himself – the legitimate popular leader of a national-liberation movement.

He could be the son of a Palestinian refugee who grew up in Damascus or Beirut, got an education, emigrated to Canada to perfect his skills, learn from the best the West has to offer, and then one day come back and enter politics with a vengeance.

He could be a Muslim Brotherhood intellectual in Syria. He would fully back the Sunni Arab resistance in Iraq. He would fully back deposing the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. He would fully back Hamas. As a Muslim Brotherhood Saladin, he would fight for a Sunni Arab Greater Syria capable of talking some sense into Israel.

He could be a Saudi-trained Sunni Arab sniper in Baghdad who posts his killing videos as manifestos on the Internet. Or he could even not be an Arab, but a Persian – a resistance hero in case of a tactical nuclear US strike.

The soul of Saladin may be impatient for an heir. So are hundreds of millions in the ummah. What rough warrior, its hour come out at last, slouches toward Jerusalem, Damascus or Baghdad to be born?

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

The above article was sent to me via email from:

www.islamservices.org


Map of “The Promised Land” Which Israel Seeks as its Final Border

May 18, 2007

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches:
“From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947:
“The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East Translated and edited by Israel Shahak. from Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”


Zionist-Owned USA and Russia Agree to Tone Down Rhetoric

May 18, 2007

Russia agreed Tuesday to tone down the harsh language its senior officials have used against the United States in recent months, but the two countries remained at an impasse on several issues that have strained relations.The agreement to soften their public discourse was announced by the Kremlin after a meeting outside the capital between President Vladimir V. Putin and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and seemed to signal a restoration of state cordiality in the face of lingering disagreements.

Ms. Rice’s two-day visit followed remarks by Mr. Putin on Red Square on May 9 that appeared to compare the United States to the Third Reich, the most severe of several such criticisms from him in his second term.

After the meeting, Ms. Rice told reporters that while she had not discussed the Third Reich comment directly with Mr. Putin, she had raised the issue of tone and pointed out that President Bush had refrained from strong public criticism of Russia.

“I have said while I am here that the rhetoric is not helpful,” she said. “It is disturbing to Americans who are trying to do our best to maintain an even relationship.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry previously backed away from the Third Reich comparison, saying Mr. Putin had not meant it as a reference to the United States. But as Ms. Rice met reporters on Tuesday, Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said the Kremlin had agreed more moderate language was needed.

“The president supported the American side’s understanding that it is necessary to tone down the rhetoric in public statements and concentrate on concrete business,” he said, Russian wire services reported.

Some degree of ease was evident when Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov appeared together later in the day; each appeared relaxed and calm as they took questions about the state of the relationship. On matters of pressing business, however, there was little sign of progress.

Relations between the countries have suffered in part from disputes over an American plan to install a missile defense system in Europe and over Russia’s resistance to an American-backed plan to give effective independence to Kosovo.

On those issues the sides remained apart. “Russia confirmed its position on the antimissile shield,” Mr. Lavrov said, signaling that the Kremlin still distrusted the proposal, which would put missile interceptors in Poland and a supporting radar network in the Czech Republic.

The Bush administration insists that the system is a necessary part of a network it is developing to keep pace with evolving missile threats from Iran and North Korea. Ms. Rice reiterated American plans to install the system over Russian objections.

“The United States needs to be able to move forward to use technology to defend itself, and we’re going to do that,” she said, adding that the United States would not give a foreign country a “veto” on its national security interests. How much risk the plan poses to long-term relations is not clear, because the missile defense system will take years to install, meaning its fate will rest with a future American administration.

The two sides also reported little progress on the status of Kosovo, the Serbian province under United Nations administration. Russia opposes a plan to grant Kosovo a form of independence under European Union supervision, and has suggested that it might veto it at the United Nations.

Ms. Rice said she had raised United States concerns about Russia’s domestic politics, in particular crackdowns on political opponents and independent news media, as she has in earlier visits. Russia has bristled over the criticism in the past.

But Ms. Rice emphasized areas where the two countries had been cooperating effectively, which she said included not only longstanding efforts on nonproliferation but also intelligence sharing. She told reporters that the United States was open to criticism about elements of its foreign policy, including the war in Iraq.

Recent use of American military power has been a potent theme in Russia, and Mr. Putin gave a searing speech in Munich in February in which he excoriated the United States for its handling of the Iraq war, for backing NATO expansion to Russia’s border and for what he called risking a new arms race with its missile defense plans.

Ms. Rice was conciliatory, saying the United States was willing to consult with Russia on foreign policy matters to minimize misunderstandings. “If there are concerns about how the United States has and is continuing to exercise power, we can have that conversation,” she said. “And we’re not offended by it.”

But she remained inflexible on efforts to expand relations with countries that had gained independence from the former Soviet Union, saying that the United States was a global power and it was normal for it to seek relations in any region.

Although Mr. Bush has said he prefers not to criticize Russia in public, Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney have strongly criticized Russia for its near absence of political pluralism and for what the West perceives as the use of its energy resources to punish countries that fall from the Kremlin’s favor.

Mr. Putin and Ms. Rice met as Russia prepared for an important meeting on Friday with the European Union that both sides have tried to salvage amid rising tensions.

Russia and the European Union disagree on missile defense, Russia’s ban on meat imports from Poland and its anger at Estonia’s relocation of a Soviet-era war memorial.

Source: NYTimes.com


Zionist-Owned USA and Russia Agree to Tone Down Rhetoric

May 18, 2007

Russia agreed Tuesday to tone down the harsh language its senior officials have used against the United States in recent months, but the two countries remained at an impasse on several issues that have strained relations.The agreement to soften their public discourse was announced by the Kremlin after a meeting outside the capital between President Vladimir V. Putin and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and seemed to signal a restoration of state cordiality in the face of lingering disagreements.

Ms. Rice’s two-day visit followed remarks by Mr. Putin on Red Square on May 9 that appeared to compare the United States to the Third Reich, the most severe of several such criticisms from him in his second term.

After the meeting, Ms. Rice told reporters that while she had not discussed the Third Reich comment directly with Mr. Putin, she had raised the issue of tone and pointed out that President Bush had refrained from strong public criticism of Russia.

“I have said while I am here that the rhetoric is not helpful,” she said. “It is disturbing to Americans who are trying to do our best to maintain an even relationship.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry previously backed away from the Third Reich comparison, saying Mr. Putin had not meant it as a reference to the United States. But as Ms. Rice met reporters on Tuesday, Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said the Kremlin had agreed more moderate language was needed.

“The president supported the American side’s understanding that it is necessary to tone down the rhetoric in public statements and concentrate on concrete business,” he said, Russian wire services reported.

Some degree of ease was evident when Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov appeared together later in the day; each appeared relaxed and calm as they took questions about the state of the relationship. On matters of pressing business, however, there was little sign of progress.

Relations between the countries have suffered in part from disputes over an American plan to install a missile defense system in Europe and over Russia’s resistance to an American-backed plan to give effective independence to Kosovo.

On those issues the sides remained apart. “Russia confirmed its position on the antimissile shield,” Mr. Lavrov said, signaling that the Kremlin still distrusted the proposal, which would put missile interceptors in Poland and a supporting radar network in the Czech Republic.

The Bush administration insists that the system is a necessary part of a network it is developing to keep pace with evolving missile threats from Iran and North Korea. Ms. Rice reiterated American plans to install the system over Russian objections.

“The United States needs to be able to move forward to use technology to defend itself, and we’re going to do that,” she said, adding that the United States would not give a foreign country a “veto” on its national security interests. How much risk the plan poses to long-term relations is not clear, because the missile defense system will take years to install, meaning its fate will rest with a future American administration.

The two sides also reported little progress on the status of Kosovo, the Serbian province under United Nations administration. Russia opposes a plan to grant Kosovo a form of independence under European Union supervision, and has suggested that it might veto it at the United Nations.

Ms. Rice said she had raised United States concerns about Russia’s domestic politics, in particular crackdowns on political opponents and independent news media, as she has in earlier visits. Russia has bristled over the criticism in the past.

But Ms. Rice emphasized areas where the two countries had been cooperating effectively, which she said included not only longstanding efforts on nonproliferation but also intelligence sharing. She told reporters that the United States was open to criticism about elements of its foreign policy, including the war in Iraq.

Recent use of American military power has been a potent theme in Russia, and Mr. Putin gave a searing speech in Munich in February in which he excoriated the United States for its handling of the Iraq war, for backing NATO expansion to Russia’s border and for what he called risking a new arms race with its missile defense plans.

Ms. Rice was conciliatory, saying the United States was willing to consult with Russia on foreign policy matters to minimize misunderstandings. “If there are concerns about how the United States has and is continuing to exercise power, we can have that conversation,” she said. “And we’re not offended by it.”

But she remained inflexible on efforts to expand relations with countries that had gained independence from the former Soviet Union, saying that the United States was a global power and it was normal for it to seek relations in any region.

Although Mr. Bush has said he prefers not to criticize Russia in public, Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney have strongly criticized Russia for its near absence of political pluralism and for what the West perceives as the use of its energy resources to punish countries that fall from the Kremlin’s favor.

Mr. Putin and Ms. Rice met as Russia prepared for an important meeting on Friday with the European Union that both sides have tried to salvage amid rising tensions.

Russia and the European Union disagree on missile defense, Russia’s ban on meat imports from Poland and its anger at Estonia’s relocation of a Soviet-era war memorial.

Source: NYTimes.com


Massacre in Mogadishu- “a war crime” made in the USA

May 18, 2007

This is the most lawless war of our generation. All wars of aggression lack legitimacy, but no conflict in recent memory has witnessed such mounting layers of illegality as the current one in Somalia. Violations of the UN charter and of international humanitarian law are regrettably commonplace in our age, and they abound in the carnage that the world is allowing to unfold in Mogadishu, but this war has in addition explicitly violated two UN security council resolutions. To complete the picture, one of these resolutions contravenes the charter itself.

The complete impunity with which Ethiopia and the transitional Somali government have been allowed to violate these resolutions explains the ruthlessness of the military assaults that have been under way for six weeks now. The details of the atrocities being committed were formally acknowledged by a western government for the first time when Germany, which holds the current EU presidency, had its ambassador to Somalia, Walter Lindner, write a tough letter – made public on Wednesday – to Somalia’s president, Abdullahi Yusuf.

The letter condemned the indiscriminate use of air strikes and heavy artillery in Mogadishu’s densely populated areas, the raping of women, the deliberate blocking of urgently needed food and humanitarian supplies, and the bombing of hospitals. This is a relentless drive to terrify and intimidate civilians belonging to clans from whose ranks fighters are challenging the occupation.

There was a time when security council resolutions were hallowed in most of the world, as for example resolution 242 demanding the return of occupied Palestine territory in exchange for peace. But in our new world order, the powerful decide which UN resolutions are passed, and whether they need to be honoured. So the United States, which was violating the UN arms embargo on Somalia, rushed through another resolution in December that it thought would better serve US goals – and then proceeded to violate that one as well.

The new resolution forbade neighbouring countries from being part of the regional peacekeeping force the security council authorised for Somalia; but Ethiopia went much further and unilaterally invaded, with the covert assistance of the US – which also joined the war by bombing Somalia.

This December resolution actually contravened the charter itself, because it made the security council the aggressor and turned a clearly peaceful situation into war. The resolution linked the Islamic Courts government to international terrorism and mandated peacekeeping force, on the basis of chapter VII of the UN charter, to address the “threat to international peace and security” that Somalia posed – when every independent account, including Chatham House’s on Wednesday, indicated that the country was experiencing its first peace and security since 1991.

The resolution paved the way for the Ethiopian invasion that has led to the bitter conflict that many independent analysts, including those at a meeting in Addis Ababa organised by Ethiopia’s Inter-Africa Group, had warned would be the inevitable result. A government imposed through force by arch enemy Ethiopia was never going to hold sway.

The long silence and the refusal even now to announce measures that might arrest this slaughter mark the lowest point in the big powers’ abdication of the “Responsibility to Protect” mandate – adopted, with British leadership, at a summit-level meeting of the security council two years ago. The world’s most impoverished people are now being ripped to shreds with no effort whatsoever to get the perpetrators to desist.

A huge campaign must be launched to press western governments to end this slaughter, which is almost entirely the work of those in control of the country. The European Union warned a month ago that war crimes might have been committed in an assault on the capital last month – in which the EU could be complicit because of its large-scale support for those accused of the crimes. Human Rights Watch has documented how Kenya and Ethiopia had turned this region into Africa’s own version of Guantánamo Bay, replete with kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, secret prisons and large numbers of “disappeared”: a project that carries the Made in America label. Allowing free rein to such comprehensive lawlessness is a stain on all those who might have, at a minimum, curtailed it.

Work must begin to derail the astounding proposal from the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, which is to be discussed by the security council in mid-June. He would like to mount a UN-sanctioned “coalition of the willing” to enforce peace and restore order in Somalia – in other words, the UN would help Ethiopia and the United States achieve what their own illegal military interventions have failed to accomplish: the entrenchment of a client regime that lacks any popular support. Such an operation is unlikely to succeed in any event, but it could further threaten the turbulent Horn of Africa, which is already teetering on the brink of chaos.

The Somali government is busy crying “al-Qaida” at every turn and offering lucrative deals to oil companies, in a bid to entice greater western support. But this war was lost long ago. In turning to the arch enemy Ethiopia, the transitional government’s fate was sealed: the nation will not abide an Ethiopian-US occupation.

Only a political solution will resolve this crisis. Africa must step up to the plate and show spine and leadership in a drive to protect its civilians, and work with Europe and the UN to convince the US to swiftly terminate its latest destabilising adventure.

· Salim Lone, Guardian Unlimited


USA: Death threat targets Imams’ case Attorney, plaintiffs

May 18, 2007

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said today that a “terror” threat has been received by the New York lawyer for six imams, or Islamic religious leaders, suing US Airways over allegations of religious profiling during an incident last fall in Minnesota.

The letter sent to attorney Omar T. Mohammedi first outlines the sender’s opposition to the lawsuit, and then states in part:

“We have located the residences and identified the families of all parties (the plaintiffs and you). . .We plan, at random, to start systematically killing the people on our list if this suit proceeds. You, personally, have been identified as the prize kill. It is our belief that terrorists like you should understand the true meaning of terror.”

The letter, addressed to “Mr Omar Mohammedi, Raghead” and signed “American Jihad,” states that CAIR and ACLU officials will also be targeted. FBI and NYPD officials have been notified of the threat.

“Any time a threat of violence is designed to achieve a political goal, it should be classified as an act of terror,” said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. “We ask local, state and national law enforcement authorities to treat this as a terror threat and act accordingly.”

CAIR has recently received a number of death threats targeting its representatives in Washington, D.C., Illinois, Michigan, and Florida. The FBI is looking into those threats.


http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=12707


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.