Pelosi’s Most Dangerous Ployby Jed BabbinThe MoveOn-dot Democrats’Armenian Genocide Resolution May do What Bin Laden can’t: split us from a key ally in the war.

The Cold War Heats Up Againby Caspar Weinberger Jr.Anyone who thinks the Cold War has not started up again had better listen closely to Russian President Vladimir Putin

The Evidence
Posted by Justin Raimondo on October 15, 2007 Every day we read about some new Israeli accusation directed at its enemies emanating from the Amen Corner: Iran has "weapons of mass destruction," Syria is plotting (with North Korea, … [Read More]

<h2 class="r">How Osama Bin Laden Beat George W. Bush</h2>How Osama Bin Laden Beat George W. Bush. War of Error. by Peter Bergen 1 | 2 | 3 Post date 10.15.07 | Issue date 10.22.07 ...
www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20071022&s=bergen102207 - 63k -

Response to an Angry Marine

Who Wants to "Rule All the World"?
By GARY LEUPP

My attack on the "Islamofascism" concept and the right-wing extremists' call for an "Islamofascism Awareness Week" has provoked varying responses, from a lovely invitation to attend an Eid feast to such reactions as the following:

Dear Professor Leupp,

While the issue of exactly what to call those who base their faith in Islam, and at the same time, call for a "world Caliphate" and with the outspoken intent of bringing "all the world" under this Caliphate, ruling via "Sharia Law", there can be no rational debate over the issue of intent, one merely has to record the words of the Islamic leaders around the world.

As to the idea that Iran has not attacked anyone in centuries, you seem to have lost sight of the act of war Iran committed when it invaded our Embassy in 1979. In case you've lost sight of it, embassies are considered "sovereign territory" of the Nation whose embassy it is, and any such attack is considered "an act of war" in accordance with Geneva Convention.

You also give Iran a free ride in ignoring the fact that Iranian Revolutionary Guards put in place Iranian saboteurs who used half a dozen satchel charges to disable airliners sitting on the runway and taxi-way of Beirut International Airport, the same year, and assassinated various Lebanese Government officials fomenting an Islamic war against the Constitutional government of Lebanon.

It is a fact that Hezbollah is an Iranian terrorist organization, and that it has been used to keep Lebanon from having a civil government by agitation and the usurpation of authority among the Islamic sector of Lebanon, and bringing about the "Lebanese civil war" which still rages today.

I spent the winter of 82-83 as part of the "Multi-National Peace-keeping Force" which halted the Islamic aggression, removed arafat and his minions, established arafat as a "bargaining partner", and prevented the Israeli Defense Force from pursuing the minions of arafat some 2500 terrorists, and destroying them. We kept the IDF and the Syrian Army from battling out the control of Beirut, and provided security for all the non-Islamic people of Lebanon, who have been deliberately targeted by Hezbollah and the many Islamic militias fomented by Iran.

You apparently don't know much about what has gone on in the middle east in the past three decades, or you would have a column that could be based on facts, explicated, rather than on feelings and opinions without the backing of facts.

If you really want to know what it is like in the middle east, you have to go there and experience it. I have, and it doesn't "experience" anything like it is played out by the media. Even the so called "moderate Muslims" openly proclaim that Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion, but is here to rule over all. That is the official position of the "Council on American Islamic Relations", which is merely a new name for the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" which had to change its name to remain in the United States.

[Concluding disparaging remarks deleted]

Sincerely,
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret.
Vanceboro, NC

* * * I usually smile at this sort of material, particularly if I find it personally insulting, and delete it. I don't have time to even answer all the polite emails I receive. But in this case on a whim I replied, asking permission to replicate the letter with my comments so we might both reach a wide audience. The sergeant's response follows.

* * *

Sir,

You are welcome to post it, I make no excuses for what I write, it is what I have found through experience. My only hope for this world, is for those who are indeed "moderate" to find ways to actually communicate, and find a way and means to compromise and find peace. I am reminded of the story of the first weeks of our post revolutionary war post articles of confederation time, when our forefathers sat down with the intent to "fix the articles so they would work more aptly to further the life of the colonies". They spent weeks with no real hope, every representative seeing his own desires for his own State as being opposed by the desires of the others with the same goal.

Benjamin Franklin stood up, at 82, and spoke out to the convention. He asking why "we can gather here together" with the intent of forming a new kind of bond between Sovereign States, after fighting a war where "we sought the answer to our questions from before the first shot was fired, from the God of Creation, and held our judgment until we found our answer, yet we have opened this most difficult task, and have entirely left our supplications for wisdom behind". He then asked that the chaplain be brought forward and they had prayer and sought guidance.

From that day on, the Constitution Convention had prayer of supplication for wisdom to meet all the needs of the delegates, and out of it came the single most important contract between a people, and their prospective government that has ever been written. It is the document that spells out our "contract" between all of us, it defines the role of the federal government, and it does all of this with an even hand for all who pursue liberty while restraining their own wills with personal self-responsibility.

I apologize for the last couple of personal remarks, I know I disparaged you to some degree, and it was out of anger. I ask that you forgive me the personal remarks, and other than that, take it, reproduce it, and reply as you will. I would appreciate a copy of your comments as well if you will. I am far happier for having a debate than simply taking everything at first glance.

Sincerely,
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC

* * * In the spirit of rational debate, here's my reply.

Dear Gunnery Sergeant John McCain:

First of all, I dispute the charge that my column was based on "feelings" as opposed to "facts." You did not cite any instance of factual error. The main point of the column was that "Islamofascism Awareness Week" constitutes a general, unprincipled attack on a world religion in the context of moves towards war with more Muslim countries. It's intended to distort and vilify.

You make it clear that your reaction to my piece is shaped by your military experience in Lebanon in 1982-3, countering what you call "Islamic aggression." You are of course speaking of a majority Muslim country that had a government headed by a Christian (in accordance with a French-dictated constitution, a legacy of a Christian colonialism). He had requested the assistance of secular Muslim Syria in the 1970s to halt a civil war. Lebanon had been invaded by Israel in 1982. As I understand it the Shiite population of southern Lebanon initially welcomed the Israeli invasion due to their hostility to the Palestinian presence that Israel drove out. But the mood quickly changed, and Hizbollah was born.

You were involved in the multinational force sent in part to evacuate Palestinians, targeted savagely by the Israelis led by Ariel Sharon and by the Lebanese Christian Phalangists. Where do you find "Islamic aggression" in this scenario? U.S. troops were targeted by Shiites acting in their own country. Who's the aggressor here? You erroneously call Hizbollah an "Iranian terrorist organization." No doubt it (or the "Islamic Jihad" group that took responsibility for the 1983 Beirut barracks attack) had Iranian backing, but it consists of Lebanese. But do you really think that in the context of Israeli, French, U.S. and Syrian involvement (this latter, I repeat, invited by Christian Lebanese), Islamic Iran was the "aggressor" here?

Just as an intellectual exercise I might ask you to wrack your brain and list down instances of U.S. aggression in the last 30 years. And next to that column list anything you can possible represent as "Iranian acts of aggression." Note down the casualty figures and compare. Perhaps you will reject the very notion that the U.S., the USMC in particular, would ever be involved in any aggression against, say, Grenada, or Panama, or Yugoslavia, or Iraq. Perhaps you think those were all noble causes. But ask yourself why people globally, regardless of religion, understand the current U.S. invasion of Iraq, condemned as illegal by Pope John Paul II and then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as aggression, big-time. And ask why a Muslim might see it as specifically "Christian aggression" against a Muslim state.

You assume I have never been in the Middle East. I have, actually, but that is of little importance. You and I can be living in the same neighborhood of Boston but very different assessments of what is going on. Your very specific sort of experience in Lebanon hardly entitles you assert superior knowledge of the Islamic world, and your references to Palestinians (and apparent disinclination to even capitalize the name of their late leader) suggest you have acquired a very skewed understanding of their plight and response to it.

You make several assertions, implicitly demanding I accept or refute them:

(1) Islamic leaders around the world call for a "world Caliphate."

(2) Iran (contrary to my claim to the contrary) has in fact attacked other countries in recent times.

(3) Even "moderate" Muslims want to "rule over all" in America.

Before responding to these, I'd like suggest that religion is as much as anything else a matter of cultural identity. It's not genetically determined, but is generally inherited from one's parents. Those who come to abandon the faith in which they were raised are surely in the minority. In other words, the billion-plus Muslims about whom you so confidently generalize are comparable to a huge ethnic category (like Europeans) or linguistic group (like English speakers). Among them there is enormous variety. But when you attack the whole group, you tend to encourage them to pull together in self-defense.

World religious statistics might suggest that one-third of human beings are Christians, but how many of those Christians sincerely believe, study scripture, or really care about religion? How many will go to church on occasion, enjoy the atmosphere, church music etc. but would be utterly unable to explain to someone else the articles of the Apostles' or Nicene Creed? How many would just say, "Well, I don't know about that stuff. Anyway I was raised Methodist (or whatever)?" How many indifferent, secular people only discover the importance of the religion they've inherited when it and they come under attack?

In the old Yugoslavia, the Muslim population was generally secular. I have friends from Bosnia who are religiously indifferent and prefer to be called "Bosniaks" rather than "Bosnian Muslims" because Islam isn't really central to their lives. But when savage ethnic violence broke out in Yugoslavia, everyone in what had been a very secular society was suddenly a Catholic Croat, Orthodox Serbian, Muslim Bosnian, etc. In that context an attack on a specific religion was basically an attack on a whole ethnic group. The results were horrific.

I personally reject religious belief in general, and in writing about Islam I've never promoted the belief system. In the right time and place, I critique religion broadly or analyze as best I can any particular one. You appear to be a Christian. Surely you understand that if one wanted to stress the most shocking content of the Bible (and there is so much of it) and the savagery of Christian history from the burnings of heretics to the forced conversions in the New World to the general carnage occurring within 20th century Christian-European civilization, it would be an easy project. But then there's the other side: the beauty of the Sermon on the Mount, the glory of Bach's music, the heroism of the African-American church in the Civil Rights Movement. I think it's the same with Islam. It's a complex mix.

But to your specific claims:

(1) Islamic leaders around the world call for a "world Caliphate."

Which leaders are you talking about? All Islamic leaders? Your statement that "there can be no rational debate over the issue of intent" is obviously an effort to cut off discussion. But the rather authoritative Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press, 1997) will inform you in its "Khalifa" entry that "in practice, there is little sign of any desire to return to the Caliphate" among Muslims (p. 543).

Islam is a missionary religion, like Christianity. There are Christian evangelicals who want to convert the entire world and are indeed the support-base of this (aggressive) Bush administration. Then there are Christians who celebrate the diversity of belief systems. If you ask a Muslim leader if he/she would desire that the whole world be Muslim, the answer would perhaps be yes. People who experience satisfaction in their faith may wish to spread it, out of love for humanity among other reasons, however misguided I may consider their efforts. The religious proselytizing mentality is hardly unique to Islam. As for the revival of the caliphate, I think there are many opinions within Islam about that issue and it is the last thing on the mind of the ordinary Muslim. The fact that President Bush, who knows very little about history, should hold up this boogeyman of a revived caliphate should tell you something. I'd suggest reading this article from the Oct. 12 Newsweek for some perspective.

(2) Iran has in fact attacked other countries in recent times.

You begin with "Iran" attacking "our" embassy in 1979. In fact, in the course of the Iranian Revolution---the most genuinely mass-based revolution in a Muslim country in modern times, supported by nearly all segments of a complex society---Muslim students seized the embassy. This as you know followed the U.S. refusal to observe the extradition treaty between the two countries that would have returned the Shah to Iran from the U.S. and allowed the Iranians to try him for multiple crimes. (You know, the way the similarly hated and formerly U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein in U.S.-occupied Iraq was tried?) It was not the action of a consolidated state. In any case the fact that it was so widely supported in Iran should alert you to the fact that the main victim here wasn't the group of U.S. diplomats and CIA agents ultimately freed in a deal as Reagan took office, but a large nation that had been subjected to the rule of a man aggressively installed in power by the government of your majority-Christian nation in 1953 after it had toppled the democratically elected regime.

You note that "embassies are considered 'sovereign territory' of the Nation whose embassy it is, and any such attack is considered 'an act of war' in accordance with Geneva Convention." I wonder what your feelings are about U.S. forces storming the Iranian consulate in Irbil, Iraq last January, and seizing diplomatic personnel, computers and documents. That action was denounced even by the Iraqi regime placed in power by the invasion. Should Iran consider that an act of war?

Even if you can find instances of Iranian-sponsored terrorism here and there (and no doubt you can), how does affect my argument? Are you saying that because such things happen, it's ok to broadly trash Muslims? That these instances stem from something intrinsic to Islam? The burden of proof is on you.

(3) Even "moderate" Muslims want to "rule over all" in America.

Is that allegation the product of research, John? Have you had conversations with moderate Muslims who state that? And if they do, are they saying that they're working overtime to make this happen through planning jihadi violence in our cities? Or merely that they believe as a matter of faith that ultimately God's will will be realized as the whole world embraces the truth of the Qur'an?

While some folks are promoting paranoid Islamophobia, Muslim clerics in the U.S. have stated their commitment to ecumenism and tolerance. (These include the CAIR folks you conflate mistakenly with the PLO.) Do you think them insincere? And if the two million Muslims in the U.S. indeed harbor the secret desire to "rule over all," what do you think "we" non-Muslims should do? Follow the example of Christian sixteenth century Spain and expel the Muslims or force them to convert? Or the example of twentieth century Germany in dealing with the Jews---with concentration camps and genocide? (Recall by the way how the Nazis accused the Jews of trying to control the world and Germany. Do you see no resemblance between such charges and your statements about Muslims trying to "rule all the world" and "rule over all" America?)

As you know current U.S. "defense" doctrine specifies that the U.S. will not permit any rival power to emerge on this planet, will maintain "full spectrum dominance" and engage in preemptive strikes in violation of the UN Charter. The U.S. military budget exceeds that of the entire world combined, and there are U.S. forces stationed in over half the world's countries. There are 190 US bases in Europe alone. Dick Cheney and his neocons want to "defeat evil" in Muslim Iran and Syria, producing an empire from the Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean. Sounds to me like an effort to "rule all the world"---a sort of American caliphate emerging to the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers."

By the way, what do you suppose "Muslim rule" meant historically? Surely you are aware that during centuries when Christian monarchs were driving out Jews, they were made welcome in Muslim societies as a "People of the Book." And that while Muslims were being driven out of Spain or forced to convert by the sword, the Muslim world generally extended tolerance to Christians. The religious intolerance of a minority of contemporary Muslim states has not been the historical norm since Islam emerged, 1200 years before the birth of the American republic.

Notice how the Christians who had enjoyed equal rights in Saddam's Iraq are now fleeing in droves from that country to Syria with its Baathist secularist policies as they strive to regain the religious freedom they've lost. Note too that Syria is in the U.S. administration's crosshairs, vilified constantly and conflated with Iran---a very different country politically, ethnically, culturally, and religiously but also Muslim.

Finally, you mention Benjamin Franklin, the Constitution, and the role of collective prayer in producing agreement at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. I'm not sure exactly how this connects with your earlier email, and not sure if your facts are accurate. But this is what I get out of it. Religion can bind people together. Maybe a common belief in a Supreme Being helped focus the delegates' discussion in Philadelphia. But the delegates at that convention differed widely in their religious beliefs. You may know that Franklin, a man of the Enlightenment, was skeptical about the divinity of Christ although the Christians today want to include him (and the equally skeptical Thomas Jefferson) as co-believers. I think this is clearly erroneous from a historical point of view but it again relates to the question if identity. Maybe they would have defined themselves in some contexts as Christians but they would never have embraced many doctrines in the Bible espoused by other delegates. Similarly, many Muslims today will only selectively embrace aspects of historical Islam. The U.S. press with some justice distinguishes "secular" Muslims in the Iraqi government from "fundamentalists." Muslim identity like Christian identity is complicated.

Religions and their practices evolve over time. Contemporary Christianity is not that of St. Paul's or Luther's time, and Islam today is not that of the Prophet's day or of the time of the Caliphate. A hostile critic wanting to provoke can always throw an ancient text into a contemporary believer's face and demand, "Justify that!" or "Explain that!" or "Apologize for that!" I could confront a self-defined Christian with lots of biblical passages in an attempt to embarrass or put on the spot. But what would be the point? I don't assume the average Christian takes the Bible literally, feels obliged to defend every passage, or wants society to be governed by the Laws of Moses or the instructions found in the epistles of St. Paul. Nor does the average Muslim want to live by the Sharia law you apparently find so threatening.

These days those who stereotype Muslims and essentialize Islam not only don't know what they're talking about but are vilifying and dehumanizing others in order to justify more war. I'm not saying that's your intention, Sergeant, but it's encouraged by your rhetoric about "the Caliphate."

A final comment on Franklin. He once expressed fears about the German immigrant population in the American colonies, doubts about the possibility of assimilating German-speakers. He was concerned that there would eventually be so many Germans in what would become the United States that "all the advantages we [English colonists] have will, in my opinion, be not able to persevere our language, and even our government will become precarious."

Of part-German ancestry myself, I have to shake my head at such unfounded fear. This country---if it's the country of that Constitution you so revere---should be able to assimilate people from anywhere, regardless of ethnicity or religion, including Muslims.

With best wishes this Eid.

Gary Leupp

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

Destructive Congressional Criticism of the Iraqi War by Members of Congress Who Never Have Served
By Paul M. Weyrich | October 12, 2007 The problem is that there is no longer any respect. The continual droning in Congress about the Iraq War and the need for the United States to declare defeat and impeach the judgment of President George W. Bush and our top military commanders, such as General David Petraeus, highlights a deficiency in Congress which rarely is addressed. Only 29% of current United States Senators and 23% of Representatives have served in a branch of the United States Armed Forces. These numbers are down from 1991, the height of the Persian Gulf War, when 68% of Senators and 48% of Representatives had served. After the 2008 election the proportion is likely to decrease again in view of retirements.

http://www.aim.org/guest_column_print/5816_0_6_0/

America's 'Useful Idiots' Prevent Our Soldiers from Being Rescued
By Joel Himelfarb | October 15, 2007 While McConnell is trying to end these outrageous lawsuits, the Democrat leadership wants to go in precisely the opposite direction. With American soldiers fighting deadly terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, do we want to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to introduce new judicial and bureaucratic obstacles to rescuing our troops if they are captured on the battlefield? And, with the American homeland in the crosshairs of international Jihadists, why are House Democrats and the ACLU so determined to make life miserable for telephone companies who have acted patriotically by helping our intelligence agencies monitor people who may be targeting this country?

http://www.aim.org/guest_column_print/5819_0_6_0/

The Dangerous Denial of Jihad's Threat

By Jeffrey Imm
On October 12, Taliban leader Mullah Omar declared that it had reached a "success point" in its "jehad" (sic) against the Karzai government, and called upon other Jihadist organizations to finish the job in the Taliban's attacks on US and NATO forces, and to overtake the Afghan government. UK predictably responded today by standing behind Karzai's efforts to negotiate with the Taliban who seek to overtake the Karzai government, with the belief that it can "split" the Taliban, disregarding the Taliban's Islamist constitution and shared Islamist beliefs of the Taliban ideology, as the UK/UN/NATO/US State Department goal's remain focused on "stabilization" of Afghanistan.

In the United States, also on October 12, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney issued an advertisement stating that his concerns regarding "Jihadism - violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism... [and] Their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us."

These comments on Jihad were met with mockery, laughter, and scorn by elements in the mainstream media, blogs, and a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. Newsweek mocked Romney's concerns about Jihad, the Atlantic called such concerns "ridiculous", bloggers issued text and video mocking comments about the concerns, and Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera stated that Romney's comments on Jihad showed "no understanding of the threat facing our country".

On October 13, Steven Emerson appeared on FOX cable news and was roundly condemned by Alan Colmes for his "offensive" use of the terms "Islamic Jihad", "Islamic militant", and "Islamic extremist." Two weeks prior, Alan Colmes similarly mocked the Investigative Project's (IPT) concerns about ex-Virginia immigration commission member Esam Omeish speeches calling for "the Jihad way" as nothing more than "conservative political correctness". The Washington Post reported Esam Omeish's justification for "the Jihad Way" as merely calling for "struggle", and reported condemnations of the IPT revelations about Omeish as coming from "a small group of right-wing anti-Muslim bigots."

This continuing dangerous denial of the threats of Jihad, its ideology, and refusal to debate the issues of political Islamism represents yet another fault line in America's national security. When concerns about Jihad and Islamism are a source for mockery by American media and political organizations, then clearly the Jihadists and the Islamists are winning the War of Ideas.

Jihad is not a joke. Its ideology embracing death and causing violence is demonstrated every day throughout the world. Those mocking discussion of the threat and ideology of Jihad continue to undermine the War of Ideas in the United States, and undermine the efforts of moderate Muslims to fight Islamism and Jihadists. The growing denial is a bi-partisan problem that cuts across socio-economic backgrounds and levels of education.

Read More »

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=7889536

An Internet jihad aims at U.S. viewers By Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet
Sunday, October 14, 2007

Nuclear Deal With India May Be Near Collapse
Premier Cites Internal Opposition To Agreement Pushed by Bush
By Robin Wright and Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; A01


A controversial nuclear deal between the United States and India appears close to collapse after the Indian prime minister told President Bush yesterday that "certain difficulties" will prevent India from moving forward on the pact for the foreseeable future.

The main obstacle does not involve the specific terms of the agreement but rather India's internal politics, including fears from leftist parties that India is moving too close to the United States, according to officials and experts familiar with the deal. Besieged over the past two months by growing opposition to nuclear energy cooperation with the United States, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh indicated over the weekend that he would rather save his coalition government than the nuclear pact.

"What we have done with the U.S., it is an honorable deal, it is good for India, and it is good for the world," Singh said Saturday. "But we are in the realm of politics, and within our coalition, there are differing perceptions."

Neither government appeared eager to announce the setback to what had been billed as one of the Bush administration's biggest foreign policy achievements. India's only official pronouncement was tucked at the bottom of a seven-paragraph news release on the Indian Embassy Web site outlining a telephone conversation Monday between Singh and Bush.

"The Prime Minister also explained to President Bush that certain difficulties have arisen with respect to the operationalisation of the India-U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreement," said the release, which focused largely on talks between the two leaders on trade issues and Burma. The White House, for its part, did not announce that the conversation took place until asked about the Indian Embassy statement -- and then confirmed it in language almost identical to the Indian press release.

The reluctance to admit that the deal is faltering contrasts with the fanfare when it was announced just three months ago. At the time, R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, heralded the pact, called the 123 agreement because of Section 123 in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, as "perhaps the single most important initiative that India and the United States have agreed to in the 60 years of our relationship."

U.S. officials acknowledged deep disappointment with the abrupt decision, which they described as unexpected. Burns and other senior administration officials scrambled over the weekend to try to revive the deal. Officials said many Indian officials still want the pact to move forward.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters yesterday that the administration still believes the deal is "a good one for the United States, for India and for the broader efforts at nonproliferation."

The agreement lays out a framework for peaceful nuclear cooperation that would eventually allow trade in nuclear reactors, technology and fuel between the two nations. It permits India to reprocess nuclear fuel and opens the way for the United States to become a "reliable" supplier for India's energy program.

"The administration sees India as part of its legacy and is loathe to see [the deal] go down the drain," said Robert Einhorn, a former Clinton administration nonproliferation official who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "I would guess they want to low-key this in the hope that it's only a temporary setback. Probably the White House fears that giving it publicity will make it more difficult to get back on track later."

Opponents of the pact in India include an alliance of communist parties that forms a minority bloc in Singh's coalition government and says the agreement brings India too close to the United States. The deal has also drawn fire from the country's largest opposition party, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which initially supported it.

"It's not a strong coalition," said Michael Green, a former Bush National Security Council staff member who worked on the issue and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The nuclear pact has also encountered resistance in the United States, where many in Congress considered it a sweetheart deal for India and threatened to try to scuttle it. Critics said the agreement sets a bad example because India would win access to U.S. technology without complying with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits cooperation on nuclear energy only when countries pledge not to develop nuclear weapons.

U.S. experts differ on the prognosis. "I would not say the deal is dead. It's in the hospital in intensive care," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "The reason it's in intensive care is that there is a tight timeline that the U.S. and India have to keep to follow through on all the steps."

U.S. officials said India must take the steps required by early 2008, so the administration can begin moving the deal through Congress. Any setback would almost certainly trigger further delays on actions required by both governments to keep the agreement alive, Kimball said.

Others say the pact could be resurrected if Singh challenges opponents inside his coalition and in parliament. "If Singh went to the polls on this issue, he would win," Green said. "But he would have to run against members of his own coalition to do it. And there's a nervousness about having an election."

The communist alliance, which argues that the deal would erode India's sovereignty, has urged Singh not move forward on negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency. To assuage these forces, Singh set up a joint forum in September to discuss the pact and provide a platform for airing concerns.

Last week, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee asked the communist parties to let the government talk with the IAEA, while assuring that the deal will not be final until there is political consensus in India.

But the communists rejected the formula and said they would vote out the government if it even approaches the IAEA.

"If the deal does not come through, it will be disappointing," Singh said Saturday at a summit organized by the Hindustan Times. "But in life, one has to live with certain disappointments. . . . Ours is not a one-issue government."

When asked whether Singh would call Bush to inform him of the decision, a senior Indian government official said: "I don't know if he will call. But if he does, it will be a sad conversation."

Lakshmi reported from New Delhi.

Close: Israeli Intelligence behind Syria Strike not Persuasive
The NYT has been pushing the story that the Israeli air strike on Syria on September 6 came in response to intelligence that Syria was building a nuclear reactor at the site with clandestine North Korean help. There are reasons to question the accuracy of the Israeli story, which at some points has included allegations that there was evidence of enriched nuclear material at the site; such material could only be produced at the end of a long research and construction project, not at the beginning. The Israelis are trigger-happy and their intelligence on the Arab world is most often sloppy (the then head of Mossad is still insisting that Iraq had WMD), so one cannot assume there was anything to their apprehensions. In the absence of any inspection of the bombed site, one cannot assume there wasn't, either. Some analysts think the site was just run of the mill anti-aircraft batteries newly bought from the Russians. The strike probably killed the November peace process summit that Condi Rice had been working toward; Syria says it won't attend.

Retired CIA analyst of Arab affairs Ray Close tells us what he thinks about it all:

"This is my Monday morning (speculative) analysis of the mysterious Israeli air attack on Syria on September 6, 2007 . . :

1. The Israelis offered us intelligence that Syria is beginning to develop a nuclear capability based on North Korean technology. They urged the US to cooperate with them in mounting a military attack to destroy the Syrian site. The advantages of this action, as presented to the Bush administration with great urgency by the Israelis, would be:

a. To preempt a new and dangerous violation of Israeli and American proliferation red lines before the Syrian program gets too far along (citing the Iranian experience for justification);

b. To intimidate and embarrass Syria; throw a scare into Iran; and restore Israel's deterrence credibility. (The historic examples of dramatically successful and awe-inspiring Israeli operations at Entebbe and Osirak, among others, still have great psychological and emotional impact.)

2. The more cautious and thoughtful members of the Bush administration opposed offering Israel the full participatory collaboration of the United States on the grounds that:

a. The Israeli intelligence in this case was not entirely persuasive, recalling instances of flawed intelligence of similar origin that misinformed some key US actions before and during the Iraq war;

b. If covert US-Israeli collaboration in this operation (technically an act of war) were actually proffered, this would eventually become known. The accuracy and authenticity of the Israeli intelligence on which the operational decision was justified would (in the absence of more credible supporting evidence from independent US sources), become the subject of heated public debate all over the world, and opponents of the Bush administration would argue with potentially devastating effect that this was final proof that Bush neocons have continually (in fact, going back many years) been duped by deliberate Israeli disinformation operations aimed at scaring America into adopting a policy of more overt and aggressive military cooperation with Israel;

c. Even if the Israeli intelligence were finally revealed to contain some credible evidence of Syria's long-range ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons and of North Korea's culpability in abetting those plans, the revelation of US-Israeli covert military collaboration against Syria at this critical time would, over the short term, endanger George W. Bush's desperate hopes of achieving some dramatic diplomatic successes before the end of his administration ---- most importantly with respect to North Korea and next month's planned Middle East Peace talks here in the US.

3. Ongoing heated arguments within the administration over whether or not to coordinate US and Israeli actions and reactions in this instance have been won, at least temporarily, by the side that gives higher priority to preserving and sustaining the diplomatic efforts, on the grounds that short-term progress in both the North Korean and Israeli-Palestinian situations should trump, at least for the time being, the acknowledged high value also attached to the more aggressive alternative measures urgently and vigorously advocated by the Olmert government in Israel and by Israel's supporters here in the United States.

4. There are undoubtedly some Democratic notables, in key Congressional positions of leadership and on the electoral hustings, who have been officially briefed (or who have been independently informed by interested third parties) of the whole set of considerations outlined above, and who have, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to support the more cautious objective of keeping this potentially explosive issue under wraps for as long as possible. (I don't discount at all the possibility that some support, probably in the form of technical intelligence, was nevertheless indeed provided to the Israeli planners by the US before or during the bombing operation. That just qualifies as a small skeleton in the closet compared to the backlash we would suffer for active operational collaboration in such an undertaking.)

Personally, I believe that the most persuasive reason for studied silence on this subject, on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, is the reluctance (call it fear) of individual politicians that they might be put in a position of appearing to criticize Israel for poor judgment (or even deliberate deception), and thereby appearing to oppose intimate collaboration with Israel (yes, even in acts of illegitimate preemptive military action) against "supporters of terrorism".

I would add the following personal comments to my analysis of the situation:

Having dealt with Arabs for more than fifty years now, often in situations very similar to this one,I have no trouble understanding why the Syrian reaction to the Israeli bombing attack last month has been carefully muted. Asad cannot afford a military confrontation with Israel at this time. His air force and army could be effectively wiped out by the IDF in a few hours. And he has no desire to broadcast the fact that his air defense forces (some of which, I am told, consist of very expensive new ground-to-air rocketry purchased from Russia but not yet operational) were impotent to respond in the face of such a deep and brazen Israeli penetration of the Syrian motherland. It would be plainly foolhardy for the Syrians to attempt confrontation with the IDF when their military establishment is in such a parlous state as it is today. I therefore find it perfectly understandable that Asad has chosen not to fly off the handle over this incident, and why his Arab neighbors and supposed brothers in arms have likewise decided that the better part of valor is to pretend they haven't noticed.

I recall in the period right after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when I was in liaison with the Saudis, that the Israeli Air Force used to make frequent very low level runs over the Saudi airbase at Tobuk, in the northern part of the country. As they skimmed the "deck", they would drop empty fuel tanks on the runways, near where the Saudi fighter planes were lined up, just to remind those on the ground that the empty tanks could very easily have been 500-pound bombs. It was nothing more than an arrogant demonstration of contempt for Saudi impotence. It worked. The RSAF never fired a shot, and never scrambled a single interceptor. They would complain to me, and I would duly forward their protests to CIA HQS. We never got even a polite acknowledgement back from the Israelis, who, in their arrogance, were no doubt cynically amused. So I can easily imagine Bashar al-Asad's decision to play this current incident in a very low key! It is not a mark of cowardice, but of realism and prudence.

Similarly, I recall when Prince Fahd bin Abdal Aziz called me to a meeting very late one evening in the early days of the 1973 war and asked me to send an urgent personal message from him to Richard Nixon informing the president that he had felt obliged to contribute a brigade of Saudi troops to the Golan front to support the Syrian offensive there, but that he had personally instructed the commander of the unit not to fire a single shot. That, Fahd told me with considerable emotion and obvious sincerity, was his solemn promise to his American friend. Again, prudence, wisdom, and desire to maintain a traditional and mutually valuable relationship --- motives that were not, I regret to say, received in Washington with the respect and appreciation that they deserved. "

-Ray Close

Labels: Syria

posted by Juan Cole
http://www.juancole.com/

A Million and a Half is Genocide, a Million is Collateral Damage

Is the Speaker of the House really serious about genocide, or is she simply involved in a standard Washington power play?

Suppose we assume that a million and a half Armenians died between 1915 and 1923 in a systematic and deliberate campaign; personally I know of no reason to doubt that, but I’m not a historian of the Ottoman Empire.

Now suppose the House of Representatives, 92 years later, decides to label that systematic and deliberate campaign “genocide”.

What, exactly, is the difference between a systematic and deliberate campaign by Ottomans that killed a million and a half Armenians, and a systematic and deliberate campaign by Americans that killed a million-plus Iraqis?

Is it that last half-million deaths? Or the religion of the killers? Can the wingnuts come up with some defense based on intent, or will they, as usual, escape the dilemma by denying the facts?

And what’s the difference between wingnuts denying facts, and House Speakers choosing to spend time on century-old genocides to distract attention from an equal number of deaths the Speaker’s party funded? I mean, they’re different, but do they differ in levels of culpability?

[ Update: I don’t really understand what evidence TeddySanFran considers in thinking that Pelosi is trying to stop the war in Iraq with a semantic resolution about Armenians. The argument seems a bit far-fetched. I wish it were true, but I see no reason to think so. ]

[ Update 2: It has been pointed to me that a semantic non-wingnut argument holds up against my original statement. If we define genocide as the attacker trying to exterminate a group of people, then intent, and ratio of killed to spared, are critical. By those measures, American involvement in Iraq has not been genocidal.

My original point, poorly stated, was this: what is the moral difference between killing a million and a half people in an attempt to eliminate Armenians, and killing a million-plus people in an attempt to run off with the resources they live on top of? Is it less moral if one intends to kill a million people than if one does so unintentionally? In other words, what is the moral difference between the Ottoman actions the House condemns and the war in Iraq it funds? ]

http://badattitudes.com/MT/

VIDEO: Hillary Confronted on Bilderberg in Oakland
( Published on Monday, October 15, 2007 )
Members of WeAreChange Oakland confronted Hillary Clinton during a campaign event on her involvement in the secretive Bilderberg group

Analysis: New homeland security strategy
Washington (UPI) Oct 15, 2007 - President Bush's homeland security adviser Fran Townsend says there will be no major changes to the administration's controversial border and identity programs as a result of the White House's new National Strategy for Homeland Security. The new strategy, which replaces one written in 2002, for the first time defines the goal of homeland security as "sustain(ing) our way of life as a fr ... more



+ Analysis: The Baghdad follies
Washington (UPI) Oct 15, 2007 - Statements that the situation in Iraq seems to be improving, despite daily car bombs, attacks against coalition forces and continued slaughter of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, are reminiscent of the "Five o'clock follies," the daily briefings given by the U.S. military command in Saigon during the Vietnam War. Countering claims by the Bush administration that progress is b ... more



+ BMD Focus: Barak's BMD strategy -- Part 2
Washington (UPI) Oct 12, 2007 - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is sincere in his hard-driving determination to boost Israel's ballistic missile defenses as quickly as possible. But he also sees that achievement as a stepping stone to two other huge goals -- becoming prime minister and reviving the long-moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Barak sees the creation of a massively expanded, super-effective mi ... more

President Of China Calls For Peace Agreement With Taiwan
Beijing (AFP) Oct 16, 2007 - Chinese President Hu Jintao on Monday called for a peace agreement with long-time rival Taiwan, but insisted independence for the island would never be tolerated. "We would like to make a solemn appeal," Hu said at the opening of the ruling Communist Party's five-yearly Congress. "On the basis of the one-China principle, let us discuss a formal end to the state of hostility between the t ... more

America's Armageddonites
by Jon Basil Utley Utopian fantasies have long transfixed the human race. Yet today a much rarer fantasy has become popular in the United States. Millions of Americans, the richest people in history, have a death wish. They are the new "Armageddonites," fundamentalist evangelicals who have moved from forecasting Armageddon to actually trying to bring it about.

Most journalists find it difficult to take seriously that tens of millions of Americans, filled with fantasies of revenge and empowerment, long to leave a world they despise. These Armageddonites believe that they alone will get a quick, free pass when they are "raptured" to paradise, no good deeds necessary, not even a day of judgment. Ironically, they share this utopian fantasy with a group that they often castigate, namely fundamentalist Muslims who believe that dying in battle also means direct access to Heaven. For the Armageddonites, however, there are no waiting virgins, but they do agree with Muslims that there will be "no booze, no bars," in the words of a popular Gaither Singers song.

These end-timers have great influence over the U.S. government's foreign policy. They are thick with the Republican leadership. At a recent conference in Washington, congressional leader Roy Blunt, for example, has said that their work is "part of God's plan." At the same meeting, where speakers promoted attacking Iran, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay glorified "end times". Indeed the Bush administration often consults with them on Mideast policies. The organizer of the conference, Rev. John Hagee, is often welcomed at the White House, although his ratings are among the lowest on integrity and transparency by Ministry Watch, which rates religious broadcasters. He raises millions of dollars from his campaign supporting Israeli settlements on the West Bank, including much for himself. Erstwhile presidential candidate Gary Bauer is on his Board of Directors. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson also both expressed strong end-times beliefs.

American fundamentalists strongly supported the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. They consistently support Israel's hard-line policies. And they are beating the drums for war against Iran. Thanks to these end-timers, American foreign policy has turned much of the world against us, including most Muslims, nearly a quarter of the human race.


[b]The Beginning of End Times[/b]
The evangelical movement originally was not so "end times" focused. Rather, it was concerned with the "moral" decline inside America. The Armageddon theory started with the writings of a Scottish preacher, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). His ideas then spread to America with publication in 1917 of the Scofield Reference Bible, foretelling that the return of the Jews to Palestine would bring about the end times. The best-selling book of the 1970s, The Late, Great Planet Earth, further spread this message. The movement did not make a conscious effort to affect foreign policy until Jerry Falwell went to Jerusalem and the Left Behind books became best sellers.

Conservative Christian writer Gary North estimates the number of Armageddonites at about 20 million. Many of them have an ecstatic belief in the cleansing power of apocalyptic violence. They are among the more than 30% of Americans who believe that the world is soon coming to an end. Armageddonites may be a minority of the evangelicals, but they have vocal leaders and control 2,000 mostly fundamentalist religious radio stations.

Although little focused on in America, Armageddonites attract the attention of Muslims abroad. In 2004, for instance, I attended Qatar's Fifth Conference on Democracy with Muslim leaders from all over the Arabian Gulf. There, the uncle of Jordan's king devoted his whole speech to warning of the Armageddonites' power over American foreign policy.


Armageddonite Foreign Policy
The beliefs of the Armageddon Lobby, also known as Dispensationalists, come from the Book of Revelation, which Martin Luther relegated to an appendix when he translated the Bible because its image of Christ was so contrary to the rest of the Bible. The Armageddonites worship a vengeful, killer-torturer Christ. They also frequently quote a biblical passage that God favors those who favor the Jews. But they only praise Jews who make war, not those who are peacemakers. For example, they vigorously opposed Israel's murdered premier Yitzhak Rabin, who promoted the Oslo Peace Accords.

Based on this Biblical interpretation, the Armageddonites vehemently argue that America must protect Israel and encourage its settlements on the West Bank in order to help God fulfill His plans. The return of Jews to Palestine is central to the prophetic vision of the Armageddonites, who see it as a critical step toward the final battle, Armageddon, and the victory of the righteous over Satan's minions. There are a couple internal inconsistencies with this prophecy, such as the presence of Christians already living in the Holy Land and the role of Jews in the final dispensation. In the first case, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other Religious Right leaders tried to pretend that Christians already in the Holy Land simply didn't exist. As for Jews, they needed to become "born again" Christians to avoid God's wrath (or, according to some Armageddonites, a separate Jewish covenant with God will gain them a separate Paradise).

Everyone else – Buddhists, Muslims (of course), Hindus, atheists, and so on – are then slated to die in the Tribulation that comes with Armageddon. As described in the bestselling Left Behind series, this time of human misery ends with Christ then ruling a paradise on earth for a thousand years.

Armageddonites know little about the outside world, which they think of as threatening and awash with Satanic temptations. They are big supporters of Bush's "go it alone" foreign policies. For example, they love John Bolton. They were prime supporters for attacking Iraq. And, with very few exceptions, they were noticeably quiet about, if not supportive, of torturing prisoners of war (only with a new leadership did the National Association of Evangelicals finally condemn torture in May, 2007). Their support of the Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani shows that they consider aggressively prosecuting Mideast war (to help speed up the apocalypse) more important than the domestic programs of these socially liberal politicians.

On other foreign policy issues, they are violently against the pending Law of the Seas Treaty, indeed any treaty which possibly circumscribes U.S. power to go it alone. They want illegal immigrants expelled and oppose more immigration. They fear China's growth. They despise Europeans for not being more warlike. The UN figures prominently in their fears, and the Left Behind books present its Secretary General as the Antichrist. Domestically, they strongly support the USA PATRIOT Act and all of President Bush's actions, legal or illegal.


[b]Armageddonites and Fascism[/b]
Author and former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges argues that worldview and reasoning of the Armageddonites tend toward fascism. In his book American Fascists, Hedges focuses on their obedience to leadership, their feelings of humiliation and victimhood, alienation, their support for authoritarian government, and their disinterestedness in constitutional limits on government power. Theirs was originally a defensive movement against the liberal democratic society, particularly abortion, school desegregation, and now globalization, which they saw as undermining their communities and families, their values, and livelihood. Their fundamentalism is very fulfilling and, Hedges writes, "they are terrified of losing this new, mystical world of signs, wonders and moral certitude, of returning to the old world of despair."

Hedges, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, also shows that fundamentalists are quite selective. They don't take the Bible literally when it comes to justifying slavery or that children who curse a parent are to be executed. The movement is also very masculine, giving poor men a path to re-establish their authority in what they perceive as an overly feminized culture. Images of Jesus often show Him with thick muscles, clutching a sword. Christian men are portrayed as powerful warriors.

The overwhelming power and warmongering of the Armageddonites has inspired some resistance from other fundamentalists, but they are a minority. Theologian Richard Fenn writes, "Silent complicity (by mainline churches) with apocalyptic rhetoric soon becomes collusion with plans for religiously inspired genocide." Their death-wishing "religion" is actually anti-Christian and should be challenged openly by traditional Christians.

The next election will likely loosen their grip on the White House. However, their growing ties to the military industrial complex will remain. Exposure of their war wanting as a major threat to America and the world may well become as destructive for them as was the famous Scopes trial in the 1920s. But that will only happen if Americans become as concerned as foreign observers about the influence of the Armageddonites.

Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update October 15, 2007


THE UNITED STATES IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE WAR OF IDEAS - FRANK SALVATO (NEW BY US, OCTOBER 12): The United States of America is not engaged in the war of ideas in any way, shape or form anywhere in the world including on our own soil. In contrast, the enemy is fully engaged and succeeding in their mission
http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=9910_0_1_0_M
VIA
http://www.kimandrewelliott.com/index.php?id=2502

FIRST LADY'S INFLUENCE GOES GLOBAL: SPEAKING OUT ON BURMA, BUSH TAKES HER HIGHEST-PROFILE INTERNATIONAL ROLE - PETER BAKER (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 15): Activists and analysts credit Laura Bush with helping to focus international attention on the conflict in Burma in a unifying way that her husband could not. With virtually every other major figure in the administration compromised on the world stage to one degree or another, she does not bring the baggage of Iraq to the table. The first lady has never been to Burma.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1401676_pf.html
SEE ALSO
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/washingt...agewanted=print

AN INTERNET JIHAD SELLS EXTREMISM TO VIEWERS IN THE U.S. - MICHAEL MOSS AND SOUAD MEKHENNET (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 15): Terrorism experts at West Point say there are as many as 100 English language sites offering militant Islamic views. Al Qaeda and its followers have used the Internet to communicate and rally support for years, but in the past several months the Western tilt of the message and the sophistication of the media have accelerated. So has the output.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15net...agewanted=print

WASHINGTON POST CORRESPONDENT DIES IN IRAQ - JOSHUA PARTLOW AND AMIT R. PALEY (WASHINGTON POST , OCTOBER 14): At least 118 journalists have been killed in Iraq while on duty, nearly 100 of them are Iraqis, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7101400612.html

IRAQIS WAIT FOR REFUGE IN UNITED STATES REUTERS (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 14): More than 2 million Iraqis have fled to neighboring countries, while another 2.2 million are displaced inside Iraq, according to U.N. data. Iraqis seeking U.S. refuge must reach a neighboring country in order to apply for U.S. asylum -- a journey that is both expensive and risky. State Department figures show 1,608 Iraq refugees were resettled in the United States in 2007, but they do not compile numbers of those once worked for U.S. employers.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-u...agewanted=print

AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ REPORTED CRIPPLED: MANY OFFICIALS, HOWEVER, WARN OF ITS RESILIENCE - THOMAS E. RICKS AND KAREN DEYOUNG (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 15): While a victory declaration over Al Quaeda in Iraq might have the "psychological aspect" of discouraging recruitment to a perceived lost cause, a White House official said, advantages overall would be minimal. "I recognize that there are pros to saying, 'Hey, listen, the bad guys are on the run.' " But if AQI were later able to demonstrate residual capabilities with a series of bombings, "even though it was temporary," he said, "the question becomes: How does this play out in terms of public opinion?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1401245_pf.html

PETRAEUS: AL QAEDA REMAINS 'WOLF CLOSEST TO THE SLED': ALTHOUGH THE TOP U.S. COMMANDER IN IRAQ SAYS THAT THE MILITARY HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST THE RADICAL ISLAMIC MILITANTS - LESLIE SABBAGH |(CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 12)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1012/p25s01-wome.html

IRAQI OIL SPOILS EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 15): The quickening pace of oil deals between Kurdish regional leaders and foreign companies is another sign that Iraq is spinning out of control and the Bush administration has no idea how to stop it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/...agewanted=print

IT'S THE OIL - JIM HOLT (LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS, OCTOBER 15): Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney's 2001 energy task force? One can't know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of 'executive privilege.'
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/print/holt01_.html
Coutesy Len Baldyga

SOLIDARITY WITH IRAN: DON'T BELIEVE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY IRAN'S DEMOCRACY ACTIVISTS DON'T WANT U.S. HELP - AKBAR ATRI (OPINION JOURNAL FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL PAGE, OCTOBER 15)
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/featur...ml?id=110010736

COALITION OF THE RELUCTANT - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 15): Predictions of war with Iran are overblown.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/...agewanted=print

INFLAMING THE TURKS EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 13): The historical evidence shows that the 1915-1917 massacres of Armenians in eastern Turkey constituted what the world now knows as genocide, and Turkey ought to acknowledge this reality. But a resolution before Congress has provoked an upsurge of nationalism that threatens US interests and would do nothing to lift Turkey's willful amnesia. It should not be pursued at this time.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...e_turks?mode=PF

"GENOCIDE" OR "MASSACRES"?: AFTER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL-COMMITTEE VOTE, TURKS ARE ANGRY ? EDWARD M. GOMEZ (WORLD VIEW, SFGATE.COM, OCTOBER 12)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=21104

TURKISH IRE MAY AFFECT IRAQ WAR: CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE THIS WEEK SAID TURKEY WAS GUILTY OF 'GENOCIDE' AGAINST ARMENIANS - SCOTT PETERSON (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 12)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1012/p01s04-woeu.html

UPHILL CLIMB FOR RICE ON MIDEAST PEACE: ON SUNDAY, SHE BEGINS HER SEVENTH TRIP TO THE REGION THIS YEAR TO PLAN NOVEMBER CONFERENCE - HOWARD LAFRANCHI (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 12)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1012/p02s01-usfp.html

'FAILURE RISKS DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES' - ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, LEE HAMILTON, CARLA HILLS, NANCY KASSEBAUM-BAKER, THOMAS R. PICKERING, BRENT SCOWCROFT ET AL. THE FOLLOWING LETTER ON THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, IN LATE NOVEMBER, WAS SENT BY ITS SIGNERS ON OCTOBER 10 TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, NOVEMBER 8)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20750

CHANGE IN NORTH KOREA? SO FAR, THERE'S LITTLE SIGN OF IT ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 13): The North Korean regime's strategy is not to transform itself but to take advantage of weak and waning U.S. and South Korean administrations to extract economic and political payoffs while keeping its nuclear bombs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7101202101.html

LATE U.S. OFFER FOLLOWS CHILLY TALKS - NIKOLAUS VON TWICKEL (MOSCOW TIMES, OCTOBER 15): A weekend visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates failed to resolve tensions between Washington and Moscow, lowering hopes that relations will be mended before Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush leave office.
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2007/10/15/001.html

U.S. TORTURE TACTICS SHAME US ALL - HELEN THOMAS (SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, OCTOBER 11)ttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/335178_thomas12.html

GOING TO SEE A GHOST: MAJID KHAN AND THE ABUSES OF THE 'WAR ON TERROR' - GITANJALI S. GUTIERREZ (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 15): From the violation of habeas corpus to the use of torture to sham trials that mock the most basic rules of law, the executive branch under President Bush has assaulted the very foundations of our system of justice. This must end.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1101599_pf.html

AMERICA: EXCEPTIONAL NO MORE ROUGH TREATMENT OF DETAINEES, A SHOCKING WEALTH GAP, POLITICAL DYNASTIES HERE EDITORIAL (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 15): As a nation, the US is in danger of becoming the "other"; in key respects, American "exceptionalism" is fast eroding, but it is worth striving to preserve. An important challenge for political leaders and thought leaders is to speak frankly and forcefully about what is at stake for all Americans before it is too late to change course.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1015/p09s02-coop.html

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: WORTH ANOTHER $190 BILLION? OPINION ASKS FOUR NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 15): Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has announced that the Bush administration will request $190 billion for fiscal year 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opinion approached four national security specialists and asked whether, in their view, this is a wise use of U.S. resources. If not, we asked, how would they propose spending $190 billion to reduce the strength and appeal of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...home-commentary

RICE AVOIDS CRITICIZING PUTIN AS U.S. SEEKS RUSSIA'S COOPERATION - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ AND PETER FINN (WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 14): In Moscow, some leading commentators said Rice is viewed somewhat sympathetically, as someone officials can deal with in an administration regarded as hostile. The view appears to be less favorable in Washington, where specialists across the political spectrum see Rice as having misunderstood Putin and mishandled relations with Russia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1301335_pf.html

MORE THAN TALK FOR BURMA: WHERE'S THE 'INTENSIFICATION' TO AID A COURAGEOUS PEOPLE? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 12): First lady Laura Bush has spoken out about Burma, but we haven't heard much from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1102108_pf.html




See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[b]U.N. watchdog asks Syria about "undeclared" atom plant - has asked Damascus about information that such a site was targeted by an Israeli air strike[/b]

[b]China Warns US Over Award for Dalai Lama - Bush to award the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize laureate the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal[/b]

[b]US Expresses Confidence: North Korea to Stop Enrichment This Year [/b]

[b]Russian President Putin Arrives in Iran for Historic Visit - Will also attend a Caspian sea summit[/b]

[b]Putin, in Iran, Warns on Pipeline Crossing Caspian Sea[/b]

[b]US Defense Secretary Gates says all options on table for Iran[/b]

[b]Hillary Clinton would use violence against Tehran[/b]

JASON LEE STEORTS: If there are moral blind alleys in this world, it is politicians who are most likely to get stuck in them. “The Congressman’s Burden” 10/16 7:00 AM

THOMAS SOWELL: The sudden interest of congressional Democrats in this issue goes beyond trying to pick up some votes. “Sabotage in Wartime” 10/16 12:00 AM

RICH LOWRY: A genocide could overtake Iraq if the sectarian war there burns out of control, but all Democrats have to say about that potential atrocity is that we should get out of its way. “Pointless Moral Exhibitionism on Turkey” 10/16 12:00 AM

JEB HENSARLING: The cost of passing this nonbinding resolution is far greater than its benefits. “Conveniently Bad Timing” 10/16 6:00 AM

DAVE KOPEL & PAUL GALLANT, & JOANNE D. EISEN: It was gun confiscation that made the atrocities possible. And it was the possession of firearms that saved many Armenians. “Genocide Resistance” 10/16 4:00 AM

MICHAEL RUBIN: If only the Armenian Genocide resolution was an isolated event. It’s amateur hour in Congress. “Grandstanding Has Consequences” 10/15 11:45 AM

October 16, 2007 The Israeli Right Has a Peace Plan
by Ran HaCohen While the world holds its breath in anticipation of the Mideast Summit in Annapolis – which, no doubt, will constitute a historic landmark, giving a most significant boost to the economy of that small town in Maryland – the Israeli right wing comes up with a new peace initiative, launched by MK Benny Elon, chairman of the National Union and the Moledet Party, as "The Israeli Initiative," "a new way of thinking about the conflict, in learning from our mistakes, and in rereading the regional map toward a revitalized and genuine quest to achieve The Right Road to Peace." Elon also praises his plan in the media as being "beyond Left and Right." And it has already been endorsed by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback.

Listen to the Right

It's important to monitor the Israeli far Right. The settlers' ideology is usually shared by the Israeli military, and the military is the central political agent in Israel, much more important than any short-lived government or prime minister. This is why plans, demands, and suggestions of the Israeli far Right, no matter how lunatic they sound when launched, are often the best prediction for future reality, which usually lags just a few years behind.

For example, I still have in my archives an old ad published by the Moledet Party back in June 1996, demanding "a full, permanent closure on the Arabs of Judea and Samaria" (that's how they call West Bank Palestinians). At that time, only a far-right party could dare suggest such a appalling idea. A few years later, this became a reality, unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Save the Refugees

So what is Benny Elon proposing? At the core of his program is a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. It's indeed touching to see a representative of the settlers – the civilian sector most responsible for the harassment and dispossession of Palestinians all over the occupied territories – so concerned with their true misery. Elon urges to rehabilitate millions of Palestinian refugees by dismantling UNRWA (an old anti-Palestinian dream); consequently, "all residents of refugee camps will be offered permanent places of residence, citizenship, and a generous rehabilitation grant. The refugee camps will also be dismantled following this process."

Sounds great, doesn't it? The only riddle is where these "permanent places of residence" will be. Elon is intentionally vague at this point: he speaks generally of "immigration countries." One thing is clear, though: Israel is not one of them; otherwise Elon couldn't promise that "dismantling of the refugee camps as part of a process of rehabilitation will reduce the Arab population in Judea and Samaria." Clearly, then, the Palestinian refugees now residing in the West Bank and Gaza will be "rehabilitated" somewhere else on the globe (how about Canada, Alaska, or Europe, to strike a familiar chord?). So here it is: the old "transfer" or deportation desires of the Israeli Right, now with a more fashionable haircut. Beyond Left and Right you always find the far Right.

Blackmail, the Moral Version

To gain support for this ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories, Elon quotes "Independent polls indicat[ing] that half of all Palestinians are considering moving to a different country." This might be true – thanks to Benny Elon and his fellow settlers. Years ago, when asked to explain what he meant by "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians, Rabbi Elon gave an example from Jewish law. According to the Halacha, a rabbinical court cannot impose a divorce on a refusing husband; but what it can do is use sanctions, including incarceration and even physical penalties, until the husband succumbs. This is what Elon meant by "voluntary transfer": making Palestinian life in the Territories unlivable, to the extent that they would rather live somewhere else. Now the time has come: after years of Israeli oppression just as Elon demanded, the cynical politician can now claim that the Palestinians are finally "voluntarily" willing to go.

Here's the Right Road to Peace, and to getting your neighbor's house for free: terrorize him until he breaks down, then take his house and claim you were just following his own wish to leave. What any sane person (or jury) would define as blackmail and hypocrisy is "a moral solution to the refugee problem" for MK Elon, chairman of the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus. I wonder what Jesus would have said.

Our Palestinian Guests

Elon further suggests dismantling the Palestinian Authority – what else is new? – and founding his "peace" on a pact with Jordan. Israel, surprise surprise, should annex the West Bank (or rather "extend its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria"), and the "Arab population that will continue to reside inside the new borders of the State of Israel [i.e., those not already deported as "refugees"] will enjoy full human rights awarded by the State of Israel, but they will possess Jordanian-Palestinian citizenship, and their political rights will be realized in Amman."

This sounds very humane indeed: not only will the remaining Palestinians generously "enjoy" full human rights in Israel, they will also have Jordanian nationality. What hospitality! Imagine President Bush offering all Native Americans in the U.S. not only full human rights, but also full citizenship in, say, Mexico. Elon's plan clearly aims at turning the Palestinians into guests in their own land: they will be tolerated in Israel like any other tourists, but their actual homeland will be the Kingdom of Jordan. Obviously, no sovereign state is expected to keep foreigners within its borders indefinitely, let alone allow them to multiply and grow in number. Once the Palestinians are turned into Jordanians residing in Israel, their deportation, whether individually or en masse, will become a simple internal, technical Israeli decision, which the Immigration Police could implement any time.

The Israeli and pro-Israel Right, then – people like Benny Elon and the settlers, his allies among evangelical Christians, and probably also far-right Israeli leaders in disguise (Ehud Barak?) – have not abandoned their intention to ethnically cleanse the Land of Israel of its "Gentile" inhabitants. They keep pushing these genocidal ideas in ever changing but quite transparent robes.

In practical, moral, and legal terms, there is little difference between Elon's "peace initiative" and Ahmadinejad's. Both aim at solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by "relocating" – often a codeword for elimination – one of the parties. I wonder whether in his next visit to his evangelical friends in the U.S. MK Elon will enjoy the same kind of reception as the Iranian president just did.

Norman Podhoretz's War Prayer
by Muhammad Sahimi The June issue of Commentary featured a long article by Norman Podhoretz, the godfather of the neoconservatives, titled "The Case for Bombing Iran." A shorter version of the article had a