How Israel kills 2-year-old "terrorists" in Gaza

Israel is renowned for its "precision-guided missiles", fired remotely from pilotless drones with such accuracy they cause "minimal collateral damage". So the two Palestinian 2-year-olds killed within two days must have been "terrorists".

By Alison Weir
Antiwar.com
24 August 2011

Malek Sha’at, aged two, killed by an Israeli drone attack, August 2011

He looks at the camera with bright eyes and the beginning of a smile, wearing a miniature dark blue zipper sweatshirt, the cuffs folded up a bit to make it fit.

I can imagine his mother dressing him that morning, making sure he would be warm enough. I wonder if she’s the one who took the picture. Someone has written on the photo “kisses.”

It’s not a formal picture. He’s outside on a sunny day. It looks like he was probably moving when the picture was snapped; his arms seem to be swinging a little. As with most almost two-year-olds, I suspect it was hard to get him to stay still long enough for a photo.

It’s a happy picture, the kind that makes you smile; perhaps it reminds you of funny, energetic little children you know or remember.

Until you see the next picture. It was taken on his second birthday. His name was Islam Quraiqe.

Death from a drone strike is not pretty. The small body is charred, ripped apart; internal organs are pouring out.

He had been riding with his father and uncle on a motorcycle in Gaza when the missile hit them. His 29-year-old father, a member of the Palestinian resistance, and 32-year-old uncle physician were also killed. Five bystanders, including a woman, were injured.

The missile was fired remotely by an Israeli sitting in front of a video screen and operating one of the many drones that periodically fly over Gaza and shoot Palestinians like fish in a fishbowl. The operators are usually female, the preferred group for this kind of desk job.

The drones, which look like small, pilotless jets, are equipped with precision-guided missiles.

Those operating them receive real-time video feeds from sensors located on the drone: a color nose camera, a TV lens, an infrared camera for low light and night, and a synthetic radar for looking through smoke, clouds, or haze. The cameras produce full-motion video as well as still-frame radar images.

Numerous articles extol the virtues of Israeli drones. An Aug. 17 article by David Rodman reports: “The Israel Air Force (IAF) has a rich history of employing unmanned aerial vehicles in battle with excellent results.” Rodman crows that, with the possible exception of the United States, “Israel is the country most closely identified with [drone] operations in the post-World War II period.”

Islam was the second 2-year-old to be killed by Israeli forces in two days.

The first was killed by an Israeli “precision” rocket the day before. The boy’s name was Malek Sha’at. His father was also killed. The only picture available online is of a small shrouded body.

An article at WorldNetDaily.com by reporter Aaron Klein proclaims that Israeli weapons are “capable of taking out stationary and moving targets with minimal collateral damage.”

Perhaps Klein is right. Two years of life is decidedly minimal. Intolerably so.
Those who operate against us will be decapitated

During this period (Aug. 18-20, 2011) Israeli forces killed approximately 15 Palestinians, including at least one other child, a 13-year-old, and injured about 60, nine of them children. Gazan resistance forces killed one Israeli and injured about 20. Gazan hospitals, hard hit by the years-long Israeli siege, report that they have run out of 150 medicines and 160 types of medical equipment.

The Israeli assaults were allegedly triggered by attacks, by unknown gunmen on the Egyptian border with Israel, that killed eight Israelis on Thursday, Aug. 18. Israeli forces killed the attackers in Eilat, also shooting dead, according to the BBC, five Egyptian policemen. The Israeli defense minister told Egypt afterward that “Israel regrets the deaths.”

There is no evidence connecting Gazan resistance groups to the attack, and they have denied responsibility for it. Hamas and all the armed factions in Gaza had maintained a unilateral de facto ceasefire since 2009. A handful of small groups, however, have refused to abide by the ceasefire.

Groups in Egypt have periodically taken actions opposing Israel. Egyptian authorities say they have identified three of the attackers, who appear to have been based in the Sinai, there are reports that Israeli intelligence warned of the attack ahead of time, and there is mounting information suggesting that the attackers may have been Egyptian, not Gazan.

While many reports describe the Israeli actions as retaliatory, Israeli attacks on Gaza occur regularly and were already ongoing before the Eilat attack.

Two days earlier, on Tuesday, an Israeli airstrike killed a 29-year-old Palestinian man in the morning, and Israeli ground soldiers killed a disabled teenager later in the day. The youth was shot more than 10 times, mostly in the head. On Wednesday night there were more Israeli air attacks throughout Gaza. (The Los Angeles Times called this a period of “relative calm.”)

Some analysts suggest that the recent Israeli escalation against Gaza may have been prompted, at least in part, by Netanyahu’s desire to deflect energy from the massive social protests that have been enveloping Israel recently.

The death toll among Gazans and Israelis has been notably disproportionate. In Israel’s December-January 2008-2009 “Cast Lead” assault, Israeli forces killed approximately 1,387 Gazans, while resistance forces killed nine Israelis. In the preceding year, Israeli forces killed 713 Gazans, while Gazan resistance fighters killed eight Israelis. Between Cast Lead and the end of July 2011, Israeli forces killed approximately 200 Gazans, while Palestinian resistance groups killed approximately five Israelis.

Most of Gaza’s residents are refugee families who were forcibly pushed out by Israel in its 1947-49 founding war, in which non-Jews, who originally made up over 70 percent of the inhabitants, were expelled.

In violation of international law, they have been prohibited from returning to their homes and have lived under crippling Israeli occupation for decades. Palestinian land is continually confiscated by Israel for Jewish-only use. A popular uprising against Israeli occupation began in the fall of 2000.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Aug. 21: “Those who operate against us will be decapitated.” That night at least 100 Israeli military vehicles stormed into the West Bank city of Hebron, closing the city off for hours and rounding up more than 50 Palestinians, including several academics and members of charitable associations.

On Saturday, Aug. 20, Israeli Aerospace Industries proudly unveiled its latest drone, known as the GHOST, which the company announced “is at the forefront of technology thanks to years of experience and knowledge acquired in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Israel partisan and author David Rodman reports that Israeli drones “played a substantial part” in Israel’s 1982 Lebanon War (in which Israeli forces killed at least 17,825 Lebanese, compared to approximately 368 Israelis killed by the Lebanese resistance) and that their use in what he acknowledges in profound understatement were “asymmetric conflicts” — the 2006 Second Lebanon War (Israeli forces killed at least 1,125 Lebanese, almost all civilians, a third of them children; Lebanese resistance forces killed 164 Israelis, almost three-quarters of them soldiers) and the Cast Lead operation – “sparked renewed global interest in Israeli drone operations.”

Rodman states: “In terms of the technological sophistication of its UAV force, Israel is unquestionably well ahead of the pack. Only the United States is in the same league.”

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/palestine-and-israel/732-how-israel-kills-two-year-old-qterroristsq-in-gaza

A "Humanitarian War" on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." General Wesley Clark

An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since the mid-1990s.

As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored "humanitarian mandate".

Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through "regime change" is closely coordinated with military planning.

There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in "an advanced state of readiness" for several years. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 categorizes Syria as a "rogue state", as a country which supports terrorism.

A war on Syria is viewed by the Pentagon as part of the broader war directed against Iran. President George W. Bush confirmed in his Memoirs that he had "ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and [had] considered a covert attack on Syria" (George Bush's memoirs reveal how he considered attacks on Iran and Syria, The Guardian, November 8, 2010)

This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil reserves and pipeline routes. It is supported by the Anglo-American oil giants.

The July 2006 bombing of Lebanon was part of a carefully planned "military road map". The extension of "The July War" on Lebanon into Syria had been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. It was abandoned upon the defeat of Israeli ground forces by Hizbollah.

Israel's July 2006 war on Lebanon also sought to establish Israeli control over the North Eastern Mediterranean coastline including offshore oil and gas reserves in Lebanese and Palestinian territorial waters.

The plans to invade both Lebanon and Syria have remained on the Pentagon's drawing board despite Israel's setback in the 2006 July War: "In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III). The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon" (See Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya, Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?, Global Research, January 17, 2009)

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.

A "humanitarian war" under the logo of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) directed against Syria would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.

Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations.

A war on Syria would lead to military escalation.

There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.

An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The ongoing protest movement is intended to serve as a pretext and a justification to intervene militarily against Syria. The existence of an armed insurrection is denied. The Western media in chorus have described recent events in Syria as a "peaceful protest movement" directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence confirms the existence of an armed insurgency integrated by Islamic paramilitary groups.

From the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March, there has been an exchange of fire between the police and armed forces on the one hand and armed gunmen on the other. Acts of arson directed against government buildings have also been committed. In late July in Hama, public buildings including the Court House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire. Israeli news sources, while dismissing the existence of an armed conflict, nonetheless, acknowledge that "protesters [were] armed with heavy machine guns." (DEBKAfile August 1, 2001. Report on Hama, emphasis added)

"All Options on the Table"

In June, US Senator Lindsey Graham (who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee) hinted to the possibility of a "humanitarian" military intervention directed against Syria with a view to "saving the lives of civilians". Graham suggested that the "option" applied to Libya under UN Secuirty Council resolution 1973 should be envisaged in the case of Syria:

“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria, ...

We may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table,” (CBS "Face The Nation", June 12, 2011)

Following the adoption of the UN Security Council Statement pertaining to Syria (August 3, 2011), the White House called, in no uncertain terms, for "regime change" in Syria and the ouster of President Bashar Al Assad:

"We do not want to see him remain in Syria for stability's sake, and rather, we view him as the cause of instability in Syria," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday.

"And we think, frankly, that it's safe to say that Syria would be a better place without President Assad," (quoted in Syria: US Call Closer to Calling for Regime Change, IPS, August 4, 2011)

Extended economic sanctions often constitute a leadup towards outright military intervention. A bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman was introduced in the US Senate with a view to authorizing sweeping economic sanctions against Syria. Moreover, in a letter to President Obama in early August, a group of more than sixty U.S. senators called for "implementing additional sanctions... while also making it clear to the Syrian regime that it will pay an increasing cost for its outrageous repression."

These sanctions would require blocking bank and financial transactions as well as "ending purchases of Syrian oil, and cutting off investments in Syria's oil and gas sectors." (See Pressure on Obama to get tougher on Syria coming from all sides - Foreign Policy, August 3, 2011).

Meanwhile, the US State Department has also met with members of the Syrian opposition in exile. Covert support has also been channelled to the armed rebel groups.

Dangerous Crossroads: War on Syria. Beachhead for an Attack on Iran

Following the August 3 Statement by the Chairman of the UN Security Council directed against Syria, Moscow's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned of the dangers of military escalation:

"NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran,...

"[This statement] means that the planning [of the military campaign] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa," Rogozin said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper... The Russian diplomat pointed out at the fact that the alliance is aiming to interfere only with the regimes "whose views do not coincide with those of the West."

Rogozin agreed with the opinion expressed by some experts that Syria and later Yemen could be NATO's last steps on the way to launch an attack on Iran.

"The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region," Rogozin said.

Having learned the Libyan lesson, Russia "will continue to oppose a forcible resolution of the situation in Syria," he said, adding that the consequences of a large-scale conflict in North Africa would be devastating for the whole world. "Beachhead for an Attack on Iran": NATO is planning a Military Campaign against Syria, Novosti, August 5, 2011)

Dmitry Rogozin, August 2011


While Libya, Syria and Iran are part of the military roadmap, this strategic deployment if it were to carried out would also threaten China and Russia. Both countries have investment, trade as well as military cooperation agreements with Syria and Iran. Iran has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Escalation is part of the military agenda. Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America's NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.


The Role of Israel and Turkey

Both Ankara and Tel Aviv are involved in supporting an armed insurgency. These endeavors are coordinated between the two governments and their intelligence agencies.

Israel's Mossad, according to reports, has provided covert support to radical Salafi terrorist groups, which became active in Southern Syria at the outset of protest movement in Daraa in mid-March. Reports suggest that financing for the Salafi insurgency is coming from Saudi Arabia. (See Syrian army closes in on Damascus suburbs, The Irish Times, May 10, 2011)
The Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan is supporting Syrian opposition groups in exile while also backing the armed rebels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Northern Syria.

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) are behind the insurrection. Both organizations are supported by Britain's MI6. The avowed objective of both MB and Hizb-ut Tahir is ultimately to destabilize Syria's secular State. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention", Global Research, May 3, 2011).

In June, Turkish troops crossed the border into northern Syria, officially to come to the rescue of Syrian refugees. The government of Bashar Al Assad accused Turkey of directly supporting the incursion of rebel forces into northern Syria:

"A rebel force of up to 500 fighters attacked a Syrian Army position on June 4 in northern Syria. They said the target, a garrison of Military Intelligence, was captured in a 36-hour assault in which 72 soldiers were killed in Jisr Al Shoughour, near the border with Turkey.

“We found that the criminals [rebel fighters] were using weapons from Turkey, and this is very worrisome,” an official said.

This marked the first time that the Assad regime has accused Turkey of helping the revolt. ... Officials said the rebels drove the Syrian Army from Jisr Al Shoughour and then took over the town. They said government buildings were looted and torched before another Assad force arrived. ...

A Syrian officer who conducted the tour said the rebels in Jisr Al Shoughour consisted of Al Qaida-aligned fighters. He said the rebels employed a range of Turkish weapons and ammunition but did not accuse the Ankara government of supplying the equipment." (Syria’s Assad accuses Turkey of arming rebels, TR Defence, Jun 25 2011)

The Israel-Turkey Military Cooperation Agreement

Israel and Turkey have a military cooperation agreement which pertains in a very direct way to Syria as well to the strategic Lebanese-Syrian Eastern Mediterranean coastline (including the gas reserves off the coast of Lebanon and pipeline routes).

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This "triple alliance", which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ....

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes "many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." (See Michel Chossudovsky,"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

Meanwhile, the recent reshuffle within Turkey's top brass has reinforced the pro-Islamist faction within the armed forces. In late July, The Commander in Chief of the Army and head of Turkey's Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Isik Kosaner, resigned together with the commanders of the Navy and Air Force.

General Kosaner represented a broadly secular stance within the Armed Forces. General Necdet Ozel has been appointed as his replacement as commander of the Army the new army chief.

These developments are of crucial importance. They tend to support US interests. They also point to a potential shift within the military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood including the armed insurrection in Northern Syria.

"New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey... [T]he military power is able to carry out more ambitious projects in the region. It is predicted that in case of using the Libyan scenario in Syria it is possible that Turkey will apply for military intervention." ( New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey : Public Radio of Armenia, August 06, 2011, emphasis added)

MB Rebels at Jisr al Choughour

Muslim Brotherhood Rebels at Jisr al Shughour Photos AFP June 16, 2011

[Note: this photo is in many regards misleading. Most of the rebel gunmen are highly trained with modern weapons.]

The Extended NATO Military Alliance

Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) are partners of NATO, whose forces could be deployed in a campaign directed against Syria.

Israel is a de facto member of NATO following an agreement signed in 2005.

The process of military planning within NATO's extended alliance involves coordination between the Pentagon, NATO, Israel's Defense Force (IDF), as well as the active military involvement of the frontline Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt: all in all ten Arab countries plus Israel are members of The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.

We are at a dangerous crossroads. The geopolitical implications are far-reaching.

Syria has borders with Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. It spreads across the valley of the Euphrates, it is at the crossroads of major waterways and pipeline routes.

Syria is an ally of Iran. Russia has a naval base in North Western Syria (see map).

Establishment of a base in Tartus and rapid advancement of military technology cooperation with Damascus makes Syria Russia's instrumental bridgehead and bulwark in the Middle East.

Damascus is an important ally of Iran and irreconcilable enemy of Israel. It goes without saying that appearance of the Russian military base in the region will certainly introduce corrections into the existing correlation of forces.

Russia is taking the Syrian regime under its protection. It will almost certainly sour Moscow's relations with Israel. It may even encourage the Iranian regime nearby and make it even less tractable in the nuclear program talks.( Ivan Safronov, Russia to defend its principal Middle East ally: Moscow takes Syria under its protection, Global Research July 28, 2006)

World War III Scenario

For the last five years, the Middle East-Central Asian region has been on an active war footing.

Syria has significant air defense capabilities as well as ground forces.

Syria has been building up its air defense system with the delivery of Russian Pantsir S1 air-defense missiles. In 2010, Russia delivered a Yakhont missile system to Syria. The Yakhont operating out of Russia's Tartus naval base "are designed for engagement of enemy's ships at the range up to 300 km". (Bastion missile systems to protect Russian naval base in Syria, Ria Novosti, September 21, 2010).

The structure of military alliances respectively on the US-NATO and Syria-Iran-SCO sides, not to mention the military involvement of Israel, the complex relationship between Syria and Lebanon, the pressures exerted by Turkey on Syria's northern border, point indelibly to a dangerous process of escalation.

Any form of US-NATO sponsored military intervention directed against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China.

In the short run, with the war in Libya, the US-NATO military alliance is overextended in terms of its capabilities. Whiel we do not forsee the implementation of a US-NATO military operation in the short-term, the process of political destabilization through the covert support of a rebel insurgency will in all likelihood continue.

Source

US sponsors war-based economy

The United States is constantly seeking new conflicts around the world in order to sell weapons and keep its economy afloat, political activist Ralph Schoenman says.


“The US economy has entirely been dependent on arms production ... since the mid-1930s, since the Great Depression,” Schoenman told Press TV on Thursday.

“Arms economy requires permanent wars,” he added.

Schoenman accused “US imperialist capitalists” for waging wars around the globe and using poor African-Americans, immigrants and working class youngsters as “their cannon fodder.”

Schoenman also noted that the Pentagon receives huge financial support from the US government in terms of subsidies.

“They (the Pentagon) have received...ten trillion dollars in the space of four decades. Well that is more than the entire production of everything put together in the US taken together,” he said.

“The terrible genocidal weapons...that are inflected on the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan and of the region, affect the US soldiers as well," the political analyst said.

“Go to the website for the Iraq Veterans Against the War and the Afghanistan Veterans Against the War and look at the statistics of how many soldiers have been maimed, permanently harmed neurologically and systemically by these foolish weapons,” he added.

On Wednesday, the US Congress introduced a resolution that would give the US president wide latitude of powers to wage war on other countries as part of the "war on terror."

The fiscal 2012 Defense Authorization bill, sponsored by chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Howard P. “Buck” McKeon will expand the legal basis for the war on terror, and is moving through Congress amid harsh criticism from civil liberties groups.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the proposed bill is problematic as it does not specify an end date to the so-called war on terror, adding that the legislation is widely viewed as a frantic attempt to find and end to the escalating conflicts and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.

MN/HGH/MMN

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/179688.html

Inside Story - Who is winning the Libyan conflict?

In recent days, rebel groups have been hit hard by pro-Gaddafi forces. The situation on the ground remains uncertain, but latest reports suggest those loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libya leader, have recaptured Azzawiya - 30 km to the west of Tripoli. The frontline is now moving towards the east. Just who is winning this conflict? And are hopes that the Libyan leader would be ousted proving premature?

Israel is confusing victimhood with foreign policy Israel's belief that 'the world is against it' has in recent years turned into a real obsession, a sense that we are constantly under attack, a fear of delegitimization, an insanity of persecution.

In an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post, Richard Goldstone wrote that if he knew then what he knows today, the report would have looked different and that it would have been best had Israel cooperated with him.

In fact, it was immediately after Goldstone's report was publicized that many here concluded that it would have been best for Israel to lend its cooperation to the UN-appointed committee, according to a study conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute. Indeed, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel made a recommendation along these lines to the government before the Goldstone commission was even formed.

But this is not the conclusion that Israel's leadership has drawn. Both Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the decision not to cooperate with Goldstone "was the correct one."

While Israel had reasons to believe that an inquiry commissioned by the UN's Human Rights Council would be hostile, in this extraordinary case, it was possible to think otherwise. Goldstone is known to be a particularly serious individual, a Jew and a supporter of Israel. Indeed, he was opposed to the original mandate which required that he focus his probe solely on Israel. Goldstone agreed to lead the investigation after he was given clearance to examine Hamas' actions as well. Israel had nothing to lose by cooperating with Goldstone.

This lesson could have been learned from a previous episode - the 2004 hearings held in the International Criminal Court in The Hague involving the West Bank separation fence. The ICC is an important, independent legal authority. There was no reason to suspect that it would be one-sided. But then, too, Israel refused to recognize its authority. It did not take part in the discussion nor did it present its position, all so that it could later claim that the ruling handed down was one-sided and caused Israel serious international damage.

It is often said that a wise man learns from the mistakes of others, while a fool learns from the mistakes of his own. Those who do not learn from their own mistakes confirm that insanity is repeating the same act while expecting a different result. In our case, this insanity is an insanity of persecution.

Our belief that "the world is against us" has in recent years turned into a real obsession, a sense that we are constantly under attack, a fear of delegitimization, an insanity of persecution. It is unclear whether Israel is truly capable of differentiating between a real enemy and those who wish it well, or if it is simply complaining about being persecuted because it believes this serves its interests. Now the prime minister is demanding that the Goldstone report be nullified, while the defense minister is calling for "Goldstone to be compelled (! ) to speak before the UN." If this gambit doesn't succeed, it will serve as yet further proof that we are being persecuted.

As the years pass, Israel has grown stronger militarily, economically, and demographically. This has not prevented our leaders from intensifying their warnings about the campaign to get us. They are wont to complain about the one-sidedness and the bias in favor of our enemies. They are also quick to warn against attempts to delegitimize, even destroy, Israel.

There are great parallels between our leaders' statements decrying the persecution of the State of Israel and their statements decrying the persecution aimed at them personally. This holds true for Lieberman, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu. As our leaders feel increasingly persecuted on an individual basis, they respond by ratcheting up the rhetoric that all of us are the victims of persecution.

Aside from the instinctive reflex of all Israelis to assume the role of victims, there is also cynical exploitation here of real hostility that does exist. As such, there is no room for an honest analysis of these statements, and reality becomes distorted.

As he laments the "persecution" to which he and his wife are subjected, much the same way that he railed against the "persecution" of Israel, Netanyahu is so deeply immersed in his suffering that he doesn't even notice that in both cases, the whining simply does more damage - both to him personally and to the image of the State of Israel. Complaining about persecution is not a policy, nor is it a strategy. Rather, it is a tactic that just inflicts more damage on us.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-is-confusing-victimhood-with-foreign-policy-1.354141

We’re Not Winning. It’s Not Worth It.

GOP chairman Michael Steele was blasted by fellow Republicans recently for describing Afghanistan as “a war of Obama’s choosing,” and suggesting that the United States would fail there as had many other outside powers. Some critics berated Steele for his pessimism, others for getting his facts wrong, given that President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan soon after 9/11. But Steele’s critics are the ones who are wrong: the RNC chair was more correct than not on the substance of his statement, if not the politics.

The war being waged by the United States in Afghanistan today is fundamentally different and more ambitious than anything carried out by the Bush administration. Afghanistan is very much Barack Obama’s war of choice, a point that the president underscored recently by picking Gen. David Petraeus to lead an intensified counterinsurgency effort there. After nearly nine years of war, however, continued or increased U.S. involvement in Afghanistan isn’t likely to yield lasting improvements that would be commensurate in any way with the investment of American blood and treasure. It is time to scale down our ambitions there and both reduce and redirect what we do.
Tim A Hetherington

View a gallery of the war in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley
At Outpost Restrepo

The first thing we need to recognize is that fighting this kind of war is in fact a choice, not a necessity. The United States went to war in October 2001 to oust the Taliban government, which had allowed Al Qaeda to operate freely out of Afghanistan and mount the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban were routed; members of Al Qaeda were captured or killed, or escaped to Pakistan. But that was a very different war, a necessary one carried out in self-defense. It was essential that Afghanistan not continue to be a sanctuary for terrorists who could again attack the American homeland or U.S. interests around the world.

The Bush administration was less clear on what to do next. Working in the State Department at the time, I was appointed by President Bush as the U.S. government’s coordinator for the future of Afghanistan. At a National Security Council meeting chaired by the president in October 2001, I was the one arguing that once the Taliban were removed from power there might be a short-lived opportunity to help establish a weak but functional Afghan state. There and at subsequent meetings I pressed for a U.S. military presence of some 25,000–30,000 troops (matched by an equal number from NATO countries) to be part of an international force that would help maintain order after the invasion and train Afghans until they could protect themselves.
Source - http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/18/we-re-not-winning-it-s-not-worth-it.html

5 US troops die in blasts in southern Afghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan – Five American troops died Saturday in bombings in southern Afghanistan where international forces are stepping up the fight against the Taliban, officials said.

Four of the victims died in a single blast, NATO said in a statement without specifying nationalities nor providing further details. A fifth service member was killed in a separate attack in the south, NATO said.

U.S. officials confirmed all five were Americans. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity under rules regarding casualty identification.

The latest deaths bring to 75 the number of international troops killed in Afghanistan this month, including 56 Americans.

The U.S.-led force is ramping up operations against the Taliban in their southern strongholds, hoping to enable the Afghan government to expand its control in the volatile region.

Rising casualty tolls, however, are eroding support for the war even as President Barack Obama has send thousands of reinforcements to try to turn back the Taliban.

On Tuesday, an international conference in Kabul endorsed President Hamid Karzai's plan for Afghan security forces to assume responsibility for protecting the country by the end of 2014. Obama has pledged to begin removing U.S. troops starting in July 2011, although he has linked the drawdown to security conditions on the ground.

Click image to see more photos of Afghanistan effort


AP

In the eastern province of Khost, a candidate in upcoming parliamentary elections died late Friday of wounds suffered when a bomb exploded earlier in the day in a mosque in the Mando Zayi district, according to local health director Dr. Amir Pacha.

The candidate, Maulvi Saydullah, was making a speech inside the mosque when the blast went off. His bodyguards and at least 15 other civilians were also hurt, officials said.

Afghanistan is due to hold national parliamentary elections Sept. 18 despite fears that they could provoke a surge in Taliban attacks.

Also Saturday, the Afghan Interior Ministry reported that five Afghan civilians were killed by a bomb in the Chora district of Uruzgan province. A total of seven militants died in clashes with Afghan and international forces since Friday night in the provinces of Khost, Uruzgan and Kunar, the ministry added without giving further details.

Four suspected insurgents were captured in two raids late Friday on Taliban hide-outs in Baghlan province of northern Afghanistan, NATO said.

Yahoo news - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100724/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Sucide bombings in Iraq kill 48, including security forces

The bombings were the deadliest in a series of attacks across Iraq Sunday that were aimed at the Sons of Iraq, a Sunni group also known as Sahwa that works with government forces to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The attacks highlighted the stiff challenges the country faces as the US scales back its forces in Iraq, leaving their Iraqi counterparts in charge of security.

The first attack Sunday morning — the deadliest against Iraq's security forces in months — killed at least 45 people and wounded more than 40. It occurred at a checkpoint near a military base where Sahwa members were lined up to receive paychecks in the mostly Sunni district of Radwaniya southwest of Baghdad.

"There were more than 150 people sitting on the ground when the explosion took place. I ran, thinking that I was a dead man," said Uday Khamis, 24, who was sitting outside the Mahmoudiyah hospital where many of the wounded were taken. His left hand was bandaged and his clothes were stained with blood.

"There were more dead people than wounded," he added.

There were conflicting reports as to how many of the dead were Iraqi soldiers and whether civilians — accountants responsible for handing out money — were among them, but the vast majority of those killed and injured appeared to be Sahwa members.

A military official at the base said the explosion was the work of one suicide bomber wearing an explosives vest.

All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

In Baghdad, Iraqi military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim Al-Moussawi said the bomber struck at 7 a.m. at a checkpoint near the military facility.

Some of those injured complained about what they perceived to be a lack of protection from the Iraqi military for the men lined up to receive their paychecks. Khamis said the men used to be searched but this time they were allowed to line up without any search being conducted.

Another man who was waiting at the hospital with his wounded nephew said this was the fifth day that the men had turned up at the base to collect their paychecks.

"Every time they went to receive their salary, they told them to come the next day and they did that for four days and now in the fifth day this explosion took place," said the man, Hassan Ali.

The area was immediately closed off, and Iraqi helicopters could be seen flying over the site.

In the second attack, a suspected militant stormed a local Sahwa headquarters in the Anbar province town of Qaim, near the Syrian border, and opened fire on those inside. Sahwa fighters returned fire, wounding the attacker, who then blew himself up as they gathered around him, killing three of the fighters and wounding six others, two police officials said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Qaim is a former insurgent stronghold.

While violence has dropped dramatically over the past two years in the country, Iraqi security forces remain a favorite target for insurgents bent on destabilizing the country and its Shiite-led government.

The Sahwa fighters have played a key role in the reduction of violence in Iraq since they first rose up against their former Al-Qaeda allies in late 2006, joining the US military and government forces in the fight against the terror group.

But their future role in the Shiite-majority country is contentious. The US used to pay the monthly salaries of about $300 to the nearly 100,000-strong Sahwa force. Last year, the Iraqi government took over paying their salaries and, after heavy pressure from the Americans, agreed to absorb up to 20 percent of the fighters into its security forces. Others were to be absorbed into government jobs.

But members of the Sons of Iraq have complained about late paychecks, and many say they have been given menial jobs.

One of the wounded Sunday, Khamis, said they were to receive two months' worth of salary on Sunday.

In another attack, roughly at the same time as that in Qaim, gunmen in a speeding car opened fire on a Sahwa checkpoint in Mahaweel, about 56 kilometers (35 miles) south of Baghdad, wounding one, according to Babil police spokesman Maj. Muthana Khalid.

Khalid said a roadside bomb went off about 30 minutes later, hitting a car driven by another Sahwa member in Haswa, about 50 kilometers (30 miles) south of Baghdad. The Sahwa member was wounded in the attack.

More than four months after an inconclusive parliamentary election in March, Iraq has no government as politicians continue to bicker over who will lead it. The impasse has raised fears that militants will exploit the political vacuum to re-ignite sectarian violence that brought Iraq to the brink of civil war in 2006 and 2007.

The attacks against the security forces and the Sahwa are especially worrying because they come at a time when the number of US troops in Iraq is dropping and Iraq's nascent security forces are taking over security in the country. All US combat units are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of next month and the last American soldier by the end of next year.

Insurgents have used an array of attacks to intimidate and kill security forces, such as drive-by shootings, bombs attached to the undercarriage of vehicles and bombing houses where security forces live. But Sunday's attack in Radwaniya was more reminiscent of the type insurgents used in the past to discourage people from joining the security forces.

Source

Eight American troops died in attacks in southern Afghanistan

KANDAHAR: Eight American troops died in attacks in southern Afghanistan, including a car bombing and gunfight outside a police compound in Kandahar, officials said Wednesday as the Taleban push back against a coalition effort to secure the volatile region.

In the southern city of Kandahar, a suicide attacker slammed a car bomb into the gate of the headquarters of the elite Afghan National Civil Order Police late Tuesday night, a NATO statement said. Minutes later, insurgents opened fire with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

Three US troops, an Afghan policeman and five civilians died in the attack, but NATO said the insurgents failed to enter the compound.

The special police unit, known as ANCOP, had only recently been dispatched to Kandahar to set up checkpoints along with international forces to try to secure the south’s largest city, the spiritual birthplace of the Taleban.

The dead civilians included three Afghan translators and two security guards, Kandahar provincial police chief Sardar Mohammad Zazai said.

Taleban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi telephoned reporters Wednesday to claim responsibility for the attack. The insurgents, however, claimed 13 international troops and eight Afghan security forces died in the raid.

Four more American troops were killed Wednesday by a roadside bomb in the south, while one more US service member died the same day of wounds from a gunbattle.

So far in July, 45 international troops have died in Afghanistan, 33 of them Americans.

Also Wednesday, a senior army officer identified the Afghan soldier who turned against his British allies and killed three of them as Talib Hussein, age 22 or 23, from the eastern province of Ghazni.

Hussein is a Hazara, a Shiite Muslim minority, said Gen. Ghulam Farook Parwani, the deputy corps commander for southern forces including those in Helmand.

The identity of the soldier deepened the mystery of his motive, since the Hazara were persecuted by the Taleban — who are made up mostly of ethnic Pashtun Sunnis. Very few Hazaras are known to have joined the Taleban insurgency.

Parwani said Hussein was recruited into the army only about eight or nine months ago and had spent most of his time posted in Helmand. He added that initial investigations indicate Hussein was a habitual hashish smoker.

In other attacks around the country, nine Afghan civilians died in the south when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb in the volatile district of Marjah in Helmand province, the Ministry of Interior said. Another homemade bomb killed two security guards traveling on a road in eastern Paktika province.

Source

Somalia’s forgotten war

Al-Shabab’s celebration of the Kampala attacks is bad news for Africa
Sunday's twin suicide blasts in Kampala, which killed more than 70 people mostly football fans, are a grim reminder of the festering conflict in Somalia. The radical Al-Shabab movement has claimed responsibility and threatened to carry out more attacks against Uganda and Burundi unless the two countries withdraw their forces from Amisom, the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia.
Somalia has been embroiled in a bloody civil war, which has left this once promising country in tatters, for more than 20 years. The tragedy of Somalia is compounded by the fact that no one really cares about what’s happening there. Its conflict has become invisible. But this is proving to be a costly mistake, as the terrible attacks in Kampala have shown. Somalia’s disintegration as a country has produced a number of anomalies such as pirates, but the biggest threat is the rise of extremist movements in the midst of total anarchy and their quest for control.
Baghdad and Kabul are like Scandinavian cities compared to Mogadishu, Somalia’s decrepit capital. The daily reality there is made of street wars, bombings, beheadings and tribal fighting. It’s a forgotten war that now threatens to bring to power a regime that is more ruthless than the Taleban. But what is worse is that if it succeeds then Al-Qaeda and other fanatics will have a base from which they can destabilize other countries in Africa.
But getting involved is costly. Those who did were eventually chased out. The US, under President Bill Clinton, intervened briefly but left in a hurry after suffering 19 Marine casualties in Mogadishu. The UN too sent two peacekeeping missions between 1992 and 1995 only to see its coalition forces attacked by power hungry warlords. It finally abandoned the country and few months later the government collapsed.
As Somalia became engulfed by civil war, its neighbors, primarily Ethiopia, stepped in. Addis Ababa had previously supported the armed insurgency that ended the long rule of the country’s dictator Mohammad Siad Barre. But that only led to Somalia’s partition with Somaliland, the northwestern part of the country, declaring independence in 1991. By then the various Somali parties and coalitions had declared war on each other and a long and brutal fighting ensued. The result was disastrous for civilians and famine claimed the life of no less than 300,000 people in the mid-1990s.
By the onset of the 21st century Somalia had been divided largely along tribal lines with Somaliland and Puntland autonomous regions in the north and in the Horn of Africa while the south slowly fell under the control of Hizbul Islam and Al-Shabab movements. The federal government, recognized as the legitimate power in Somalia, could barely keep hold of parts of the capital and nearby regions.
When the Islamic Courts Movement briefly took over in the south, including the capital, in 2006 and imposed Shariah law, Ethiopia and the African Union quickly responded. Ethiopia invaded the south dislodging the Islamic Courts, but that only led to the birth of more radical off-shoots including Al-Shabab.
Al-Shabab was able to regroup and become a considerable force. They defeated the Ethiopians in a number of battles and finally drove them out the country. Now they have managed to neutralize the interim federal government and wage war against fellow Islamist rivals, including Hizbul Islam and others. The small African Union force is what stands in their way.
Al-Shabab movement will almost certainly take over Mogadishu and overthrow the government in the coming weeks and months. It will impose a strict Shariah law and turn what is left of the country under their control into a closed society run by arbitrary laws and ironclad rules. But that should be the least of the world’s concern.
The collapse of Somalia will have catastrophic results on all of its neighbors and most of Africa. The Kampala attacks prove that Al-Qaeda-like tactics, adopted by Al-Shabab, can easily move across borders with lethal results. The fact that the African Union peacekeeping mission there is hapless and could soon abandon the country is frightening.
Somalia is an ancient civilization and a land that has played a key part in East African history. Like many of its neighbors it has a checkered past and a complicated tribal and ethnic make-up. Now major chunks of this country have been impregnated by extremist militants. Piracy is only one face of Somalia today. This Arab League and African Union member state has been abandoned by the world community. But leaving it to its fate will not be easy or free of cost.
Somalia could prove to be more dangerous to world stability than Afghanistan and Iraq put together. It is true that it is an impoverished land, with little strategic assets, but allowing a radical Islamist movement to take over will have severe consequences on Africa and the region.

Source

Waging 'Spiritual Warfare' in Northern Iraq Evangelicals have established schools, radio stations and churches in northern Iraq -- all with the blessings of the Kurdistan government and assistance from U.S. taxpayers.

On a barren hillside outside Sulaymaniyah in southeast Iraqi Kurdistan sits a small compound of buildings clustered behind battered gray and ochre walls. Atop one wall is a large white sign glittering with gold and azure lettering that reads in English and Arabic: Classical School of the Medes. It is one of three new private schools in the region that teach a "Christian worldview," the handiwork of American evangelicals from Tennessee.

Since the US occupation took hold, American evangelicals have established not only schools, but printing presses, radio stations, women's centers, bookstores, medical and dental clinics, and churches in northern Iraq, all with the blessings and assistance of the Kurdistan government. Many of these efforts were funded in part by US taxpayer dollars, channeled through Department of Defense construction contracts and State Department grants.

In September 2003, just four months after US forces took down Saddam Hussein's regime, 350 evangelical pastors and church leaders assembled in Kirkuk, where they were warmly welcomed by Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government. At that gathering, George Grant, a leader of Servant Group International, the evangelical organization in Nashville that set up the chain of Christian schools, declared that "Jesus Christ is Lord over all things; He is Lord over every Mullah, every Ayatollah, every Imam, and every Mahdi pretender; He is Lord over the whole of the earth, even Iraq!"

CENTCOM documents show that between 2005 and 2007, DOD's Joint Contracting Command Iraq/Afghanistan paid the Kurdish company Daban Group at least $465,639 for the construction of Grant's School of the Medes. Two years earlier, tens of thousands of dollars from a State Department-funded program called Healthcare Partnerships in Northern Iraq also made their way into a variety of Servant Group evangelical and humanitarian projects.

In return for the Regional Government's support for this evangelical presence in Kurdistan, Doug Layton, another Tennessean and a Servant Group founder, served as a crucial liaison for the KRG in Washington during the Bush years. There, he ran Kurdish public relations efforts and recruited evangelical businessmen to invest in the region.

"Since the run up to the Iraq War, [Massoud] Barzani and the KRG played to the Bush administration and its right-wing evangelical Christian base," said Mike Amitay, a Middle East senior policy analyst at the Open Society Policy Center. "That's where they saw the power and the money. Barzani was going to let them set up schools and churches and get what he needed." But, Amitay adds, "given the rise of the Islamic parties in Kurdistan and Assyrian Christian resentment of American evangelical exceptionalism and proselytizing, they're playing with fire."

Tennessee Waltz

In the years since Saddam Hussein's 1988 assault on the Kurds that culminated in the chemical weapon attack on the village of Halabja, some 14,000 refugees from Kurdistan made their way to Nashville, now home to the largest Kurdish population in the United States. In 1992, a cadre of Nashville evangelicals from Servant Group International, including large numbers of Kurdish believers, trooped out of their base at Belmont Church, a megachurch occupying several blocks on Music Square, and made their way to the mountains of Kurdistan in northern Iraq, where they set up shop. They were packing Kurdish-language bibles, bags of cash, medical equipment and a long-range game plan to establish their "Father's Kingdom" between the Turkish border and Iran. Since arriving in northern Iraq some twenty years ago, Servant Group has widened its global presence, establishing offices, ministries and schools in Turkey, Central Asia, Indonesia, Germany, and Norway.


Source