A Sudanese minister has told Al Jazeera that the US launched two air raids in the country earlier this year.
Mabrouk Mubarak Salim, the state minister for highways, said on Thursday that Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians, and Eritreans were killed in the attacks in January and February.
The attacks targeted a number of cars in the desert near the eastern city of Port Sudan, Salim said.
Photos released by a Sudanese intelligence source to Al Jazeera show what is said to be the aftermath of the attacks.
More than 50 people received treatment at a hospital in the town of Kassala after the raids, which were launched from the US fleet in the Red Sea, he said.
However, Deng Alor, the Sudanese foreign minister, said in Egypt on Wednesday that he had no knowledge of any such air raid.
“We have no information about such an attack,” he said.
The US-based CBS network reported similar attacks on Wednesday, but said its sources had told David Martin, its Pentagon reporter, that Israeli aircraft were involved.
CBS said that the jets were targeting weapons convoys heading through Sudan on their way to Egypt, where they would have been taken across the Sinai into the Gaza Strip.
“Sudan used to provide Hamas with weapons but that is not the case any more,” Alor said.
Salim said that the air raids hit human-traffickers travelling through the desert area and the only weapons in the convoys were small arms being carried by guards.Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, spoke about such attacks on Thursday at a conference near Tel Aviv.
“Anywhere we can harm the infrastructure of terrorism, in near-by locations as well as far-away locations, we will act,” he said.
Ronen Bergman, an Israeli investigative journalist, told Al Jazeera that his Israeli and US sources backed up the CBS take on events.
Bergman said that weapons are smuggled to Gaza either from Syria by sea to the Sinai peninsula or from Iran via Sudan.
“The last operation executed by the Israeli military forces in the Gaza Strip has caused Hamas to lose quite a lot of its arsenal and, therefore, to request for more and more supplies from Iran,” Bergman said.
“Some of those supplies were intercepted in that alleged raid by the Israeli air force.”
Neither the US, which has troops based in the African state of Djibouti, nor Israel has commented on the alleged incident.
Israel fought a 22-day war in Gaza which ended when it declared a unilateral halt to military operations on January 18.
|© 2004 – 2008 Dalit Voice|
By Ramtanu Maitra
25 March, 2009
This is the first part of a two-part series. Next week:“Baluchistan and FATA in Pakistan.”
The growing violence throughout Pakistan since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the Winter of 2001, the November 2008 attack on Mumbai, India, and many other smaller terrorist-directed killings in India, and the gruesome killing of at least 70 top Bangladeshi Army officers in a plot to assassinate Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed last month, were evidence that the terrorists have declared war against the sovereign nation-states in South Asia. The only bright spot in this context is Sri Lanka, where a powerful terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), better known as the Tamil Tigers, are about to lose their home base. That, however, may not end the LTTE terrorism, particularly since it is headquartered in London, where many South Asian terrorists are maintained in separate cages for future use by British intelligence, with the blessings of Her Majesty’s Service.
Since none of the South Asian countries, where the terrorists are gaining ground, have, so far, shown the ability to evaluate, and thus, eliminate, the growth of this terrorism, it is necessary to know its genesis, and how it has affected the leaders of the South Asian nations to the detriment of their respective security. What is evident is that the South Asian terrorism has little to do with territorial disputes among nations, but everything to do with the past British colonial rule which poisoned the minds of the locals, so they have become disloyal to their own countries.
In this article, we will deal with the terrorism that continues to prosper in India’s northeast; and the terrorism in Sri Lanka, brought about by the British-induced ethnic animosity among its citizens. This history is the narration of a tragedy, since those who fought for independence in these South Asian nations, made enormous sacrifices to bring about their independence; many of those heroic figures turned out to be mental slaves of the British Empire, and pursued relentlessly the policies that the British had implemented to run their degenerate Empire.
Six decades after India wrested independence from its colonial rulers, its northeast region is a cauldron of trouble. Located in a highly strategic area, with land contiguous to five countries—Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and China—it is full of militant separatists, who take refuge in the neighboring countries under pressure from Indian security forces. Since most of these neighboring countries do not have the reach to control the border areas, the separatist groups have set up armed training camps, which, over the years, have attracted international drug and gun traffickers. As a result of such unrelenting terrorist actions, and violent demonstrations over the last five decades, this part of India remains today a dangerous place.
These secessionist groups were not created by New Delhi, although New Delhi failed to understand that the promotion of ethnic, sub-ethnic, and tribal identities were policies of the British, who had come to India to expand their empire. The British Empire survived, and then thrived, through identification, within the subcontinent, of various ethnic and sub-ethnic groups and their conflict points; and then, exploited those conflict points to keep the groups divided and hostile to each other.
India and the other South Asian nations failed to comprehend that it was suicidal to allow a degenerate colonial power to pursue such policies against their nations. As a result, they were carried out by New Delhi for two ostensible reasons: One, to appease the militants, and the other, to “allow them to keep” what they wanted— their sub-national ethnic identity. The policy deprived the majority of the people of the Northeast of the justification for identifying themselves as Indians.
The die was cast in the subversion of the sovereignty of an independent India by the British Raj in 1862, when it laid down the law of apartheid, to isolate “the tribal groups.” The British came into the area in the 1820s, following the Burmese conquest of Manipur and parts of Assam. The area had become unstable in the latter part of the 18th Century, following the over-extension of the Burmese-based Ahom kingdom, which reached into Assam. The instability caused by the weakening of the Ahom kingdom prompted the Burmese to move to secure their western flank. But the Burmese action also helped to bring in the British. The British East India Company was lying in wait for the Ahom kingdom to disintegrate.
The Anglo-Burmese War of 1824-26 ended with a British victory. By the terms of the peace treaty signed at Yandaboo on Feb. 24, 1826, the British annexed the whole of lower Assam and parts of upper Assam (now Arunachal Pradesh). The Treaty of Yandaboo provided the British with the foothold they needed to annex Northeast India, launch further campaigns to capture Burma’s vital coastal areas, and gain complete control of the territory from the Andaman Sea to the mouth of the Irrawaddy River. What were London’s motives in this venture? The British claimed that their occupation of the northeast region was required to protect the plains of Assam from “tribal outrages and depredations and to maintain law and order in the sub-mountainous region.”
The ‘Apartheid Law’
Following annexation of Northeast India, the first strategy of the British East India Company toward the area was to set it up as a separate entity. At the outset, British strategy toward Northeast India was:
• to make sure that the tribal people remained separated from the plains people, and the economic interests of the British in the plains were not disturbed;
• to ensure that all tribal aspirations were ruthlessly curbed, by keeping the bogeyman of the plains people dangling in their faces; and,
• to ensure the tribal feudal order remained intact, with the paraphernalia of tribal chiefs and voodoo doctors kept in place. Part of this plan was carried out through the bribing of tribal chiefs with paltry gifts.
Lord Palmerston’s Zoo
The British plan to cordon off the northeast tribal areas was part of its policy of setting up a multicultural human zoo, during the 1850s, under the premiership of Henry Temple, the third Viscount Palmerston. Lord Palmerston, as Henry Temple was called, had three “friends”—the British Foreign Office, the Home Office, and Whitehall.
The apartheid program eliminated the Northeast Frontier Agency from the political map of India, and segregated the tribal population from Assam, as the British had done in southern Africa and would later do in Sudan. By 1875, British intentions became clear, even to those Englishmen who believed that the purpose of Mother England’s intervention in India, and the Northeast in particular, was to improve the conditions of the heathens. In an 1875 intelligence document, one operative wrote: “At this juncture, we find our local officers frankly declaring that our relations with the Nagas could not possibly be on a worse footing than they were then, and that the non-interference policy, which sounds excellent in theory, had utterly failed in practice.”
Apartheid also helped the British to function freely in this closed environment. Soon enough, the British Crown introduced another feature: It allowed Christian missionaries to proselytize among the tribal population and units of the Frontier Constabulary. The Land of the Nagas was identified as “virgin soil” for planting Christianity.
“Among a people so thoroughly primitive, and so independent of religious profession, we might reasonably expect missionary zeal would be most successful,” stated the 1875 document, as quoted in the “Descriptive Account of Assam,” by William Robinson and Angus Hamilton.
Missionaries were also encouraged to open government-aided schools in the Naga Hills. Between 1891 and 1901, the number of native Christians increased 128%. The chief proselytizers were the Welsh Presbyterians, headquartered in Khasi and the Jaintia Hills.
British Baptists were given the franchise of the Mizo (Lushai) and Naga Hills, and the Baptist mission was set up in 1836.
British Mindset Controlled New Delhi
Since India’s Independence in 1947, the Northeast has been split up into smaller and smaller states and autonomous regions. The divisions were made to accommodate the wishes of tribes and ethnic groups which want to assert their sub-national identity, and obtain an area where the diktat of their little coterie is recognized.
New Delhi has yet to comprehend that its policy of accepting and institutionalizing the superficial identities of these ethnic, linguistic, and tribal groups has ensured more irrational demands for even smaller states. Assam has been cut up into many states since Britain’s exit. The autonomous regions of Karbi Anglong, Bodo Autonomous Region, and Meghalaya were all part of pre-independence Assam. Citing the influx of Bengali Muslims since the 1947 formation of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh in 1971, the locals demand the ouster of these “foreigners” from their soil.
Two terrorist groups in Assam, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the National Democratic front of Bodoland (NDFB) (set up originally as the Bodo Security Force), are now practically demanding “ethnic cleansing” in their respective areas. To fund their movements, both the ULFA and the NDFB have been trafficking heroin and other narcotics, and indulging in killing sprees against other ethnic groups and against Delhi’s law-and-order machinery. Both these groups have also developed close links with other major guerrilla-terrorist groups operating in the area, including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Muivah) and the People’s Liberation Army in Manipur. In 1972, Meghalaya was carved out of Assam through a peaceful process. Unfortunately, peace did not last long in this “abode of the clouds.” In 1979, the first violent demonstration against “foreigners” resulted in a number of deaths and arson. The “foreigners” in this case were Bengalis, Marwaris, Biharis, and Nepalis, many of whom had settled in Meghalaya decades ago. By 1990, firebrand groups such as the Federation of Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo People (FKJGP), and the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) came to the fore, ostensibly to uphold the rights of the “hill people” from Khasi, Jaintia, and the Garo hills. Violence erupted in 1979, 1987, 1989, and 1990. The last violent terrorist acts were in 1992.
Similar “anti-foreigner” movements have sprouted up across the Northeast, from Arunachal Pradesh in the East and North, to Sikkim in the West, and Mizoram and Tripura in the South. Along the Myanmar border, the states of Nagaland, Manipur, and Mizoram remain unstable and extremely porous.
While New Delhi was busy maintaining the status quo in this area by telling the tribal and ethnic groups that India is not going to take away what the British Raj had given to them, Britain picked the Nagas as the most efficient warriors (also, a large number of them had been converted to Christianity by the Welsh missionaries), and began arming and funding them. The British connection to the NSCN existed from the early days of the Naga National Council. Angami Zapu Phizo, the mentor of both factions of the NSCN, had led the charge against the Indian government, spearheading well-organized guerrilla warfare. Phizo left Nagaland hiding in a coffin. He then turned up in 1963 in Britain, holding a Peruvian passport. It is strongly suspected that the British Baptist Church, which is very powerful in Nagaland, is the contact between British intelligence and the NSCN terrorists operating on the ground at the time.
‘Dirty Bertie’ and the Nagas
Once Phizo arrived in Britain, Lord Bertrand (“Dirty Bertie”) Russell, the atheist, courted Phizo, and became his new friend. Russell was deeply impressed with Phizo’s “earnestness” for a peaceful settlement. What, perhaps, impressed Russell the most is that Phizo had control over the militant Nagas, who had launched a movement in the mid-1950s under the Naga National Council (NNC) to secede from the Indian Republic. In a letter dated Feb. 12, 1963, Sir Bertrand told Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, “I find it hard to understand the difficulty of coming to an agreement which would put an end to the very painful occurrences incidental to the present policy of India.”
It is believed in some circles that New Delhi’s 1964 ceasefire with the Nagas might have been influenced by the letter from Russell that was handed to Nehru by Rev. Michael Scott. Scott later went to Nagaland as part of a peace mission, along with two senior Indian political leaders.
While Russell was pushing Nehru to make the Nagas an independent country through peaceful negotiations, British involvement in direct conflict continued. On Jan. 30, 1992, soldiers of the Assam Rifles arrested two British nationals along the Nagaland-Burma border. David Ward and Stephen Hill posed as members of BBC-TV, and were travelling in jeeps with Naga rebels carrying arms. Subsequent interrogation revealed that both were operatives of Naga Vigil, a U.K.-based group. Both Ward and Hill claimed that they started the organization while in jail, influenced by Phizo’s niece, Rano Soriza. Both have served six-year prison terms for various crimes in Britain. Naga Vigil petitioned for their release in the Guwahti High Court. Phizo’s niece took up the issue with then-Nagaland Chief Minister Vamuzo.
Sri Lanka’s Violent Ethnic Strife
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tiger terrorist group is in its last throes. Ousted by the Sri Lankan Army from almost all of its “claimed” territories, the militants are now holding on to about 19 square kilometers of land, with about 70,000 Sri Lankan citizens, mostly of Tamil ethnic origin, as their hostages. It is evident that they will be totally routed by the end of this month.
While the U.S. Pacific Command personnel in contact with New Delhi are formulating an evacuation plan for the hostages, London and the European Union are trying to protect the last vestiges of Tiger territory by urging Colombo to work out a cease fire with the terrorists.
The emergence of violent conflict between the Tamil Sri Lankans and the Sinhala Sri Lankans, which gave birth to the London-backed Tamil Tigers, was yet another product of the British colonial legacy. This ethnic conflict, which has engulfed this little island, and unleashed unlimited violence in the region for almost three decades, is, as in the case of Northeast India, due to the British mindset of the Sri Lankan and Indian leaders involved in “resolving “the crisis.
To begin with, Sri Lanka (then, Ceylon) had the misfortune to be colonized by three brutal European colonial powers—the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the British. Nonetheless, it is to the credit of the locals that they withstood these brutes and prevented the break-up of the country.
After the Dutch ceded Sri Lanka in the 1801 Peace of Amiens, it became Britain’s first crown colony. Immediately, the British colonials started setting up the chess pieces. The ruling Kandyan King, of Tamil ancestry, was ousted with the help of local chieftains of Tamil and Sinhala origin. The coup set up the British crown as the new King.
As part of the “divide and rule” policy, the British colonials promoted the Buddhist religion, resulting in the 1817 Uva rebellion. The Buddhist religion was given protection by the Crown, and the people were told that Christianity would not be imposed on the unwilling masses as had happened during Portuguese and Dutch rule. Following the quelling of the rebellion, the British did what they do best: They carried out one of the worst massacres of the 19th Century, wiping out all able-bodied Sinhalese men from the Hill Country, and 80% of the native population of able-bodied, according to one report. The Kandyan Kingdom was the kingdom of both the Tamils and Sinhalas—both these groups came from India to settle on that island.
One specific impact of the British colonial presence was the emergence of English as the local language, undermining both the Sinhala and Tamil languages. According to one historian, the two most important effects observed during British rule were: one, by the start of 20th Century, the English language became the passport to getting employment; and those who had an English education became dominant in Britain’s handcrafted Sri Lankan society. Due to input of the Christian missionaries, more minority Tamils could read and write English, as opposed to the southern Sinhalese and Kandyan Sinhalese.
The other observed impact on Sri Lankan society of British colonial rule, was the reconstituting of the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly of 1921 had 12 Sinhalese and 10 non-Sinhalese, at a time when the Sinhalese constituted more than 70% of the population. Things changed in 1931, when, out of 61 seats, the Sinhalese won 38. This troubled the Tamils, because they had had special privileges under British, and never wanted to accept the dominance of the Sinhalese majority.
In addition, the British also brought to the island a million workers of Tamil ethnic background from Tamil Nadu, and made them indentured laborers in the Hill Country. This was in addition to the million Tamils already living in the provinces, and another million Mappilla Muslims, whose mother tongue is Tamil. Thus, the British sowed seeds of ethnic discord. During the colonial rule, the minority Tamils had a disproportionate representation in the bureaucracy.
The Role of British Assets in Independent Sri Lanka
However, when in 1948, the British finally left the island, they left behind their assets, in powerful places, many of whom were educated at Oxford-Cambridge, and some of whom had adopted Christianity, on both sides of the ethnic divide London had so carefully created.
Instead of seizing the opportunity to build the nation and set about undoing the misdeeds they were forced to carry out under British rule, beginning in the 1950s, Sinhalese-dominated governments implemented public policies that would institutionalize the majority community’s dominance. Sinhala was declared to be the country’s sole official language; Buddhism was favored as the state religion; and the unitary nature of the state ensured Sinhalese political domination. Major Sinhalese-Tamil riots in 1956, 1981, and 1983 further heightened Tamil insecurities.
Meanwhile, the Tamils began to press for autonomy. Political parties, such as the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), utilized conventional means, which included participating in coalition governments. Militant Tamils, the LTTE, sought the creation of an independent Tamil state, referred to as Tamil Eelam, which would comprise the North and East of the country.
Throughout the 1980s, various Tamil rebel groups engaged in attacks against the Colombo government and its security apparatus. However, the situation worsened on that island because of the British mindset of New Delhi, which made a number of attempts to intervene in the violent Sri Lankan situation. Besides helping the Tamils to get armed training and intelligence, New Delhi, under late-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, deployed around 50,000 Indian peacekeepers (IPKF) in Tamil areas in Sri Lanka to help ensure peace. In return, the Sri Lankan government agreed to devolve power to the North and East through the creation of autonomous provincial councils.
Neither Colombo nor the Tamil militants were sincere about the deal; both were looking at the Indian troops as the barriers against their independent state. The failure of the Indian intervention led to more deaths and the assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa, and India’s Rajiv Gandhi, among many other high-level Sri Lankan officials, by the terrorist Tamil Tigers.
London: Break Up India into 100 Hong Kongs
But, the British were in the middle of all this. Besides the fact that the LTTE was headquartered in London, and raising most of its illegitimate funds from Britain and its former colonies in Australia, South Africa, and Canada, within ten days of Gandhi’s death, Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa, who would be assassinated by the LTTE in May 1993, forced the hasty departure from Sri Lanka of British High Commissioner David Gladstone. The charge was that Gladstone, a descendant of the Victorian-age Prime Minister William Gladstone, was interfering in local election politics. But he had also been criticized earlier for allegedly meeting with known drug traffickers in Sri Lanka. Gladstone, who had previously spent years in the Middle East, was a known British intelligence link to the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, which was involved in training both the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE.
Britain’s continuing intent to break up India was also expressed openly in this political context. On May 26, 1991, only five days after the British-controlled LTTE-led assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, the Times of London, the premier voice for the British Foreign Office, put forward this view in an editorial entitled “Home Truths”: “There are so many lessons to be learnt from sorrowing India, and most are being muttered too politely. The over-huge federation of almost 900 million people spreads across too many languages, cultures, religions, and castes. It has three times as many often incompatible and thus resentful people as the Soviet Union, which now faces the same bloody strains and ignored solutions as India. . . .
“The way forward for India, as for the Soviet Union, will be to say a great prize can go to any States and sub-States that maintain order without murders and riots. They should be allowed to disregard Delhi’s corrupt licensing restrictions, run their own economic policies, and bring in as much foreign investment and as many free-market principles as they like. Maybe India’s richest course from the beginning would have been to split into 100 Hong Kongs
In a strange twist to this report on the first incident of American/Israeli/International forces enforcing the Hamas weapons embargo, it is claimed that the bombs left “18- holes [craters?] diameters ranging between 160 and 430 meters.” The weapons used in the barren Sudanese desert, beyond the reach of the media, must have been huge!
The Trinity bomb left a crater 330 meters wide. Even if the translator confused meters for feet, what kind of conventional bombs leave craters of 160 feet or more?
Below is a picture of a 70 foot crater left by 38,000 pounds of explosives. Does this incident have anything to do with the arrest warrant for Sudanese President Al-Bashir, since his government recently denounced the US/Israeli raid? There is a lot more to this story.
آخر تحديث: الثلاثاء 24 مارس 2009 8:12 ص بتوقيت القاهرة Last updated: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:12 GMT Cairo
دمرت الطائرات الأمريكية قافلة شاحنات قيل إنها كانت محملة بالأسلحة ومتجهة إلى الحدود المصرية، للشك فى أنها مهربة إلى سيناء، تمهيدا لادخالها عبر الأنفاق إلى قطاع غزة في أواخر يناير الماضي. American planes destroyed a convoy of trucks was told it was loaded with weapons and headed to the Egyptian border, on suspicion that they smuggled to Sinai, as a prelude to bring through tunnels into the Gaza Strip in late January.
وقالت مصادر مطلعة لـ«الشروق»: إن القافلة ضمت 17 سيارة، وأن عدد ركابها كانوا 39 شخصا. The informed sources told Al «sunrise»: The convoy included 17 vehicles, and the number of passengers who were 39 people. وكان القصف قويا لدرجة أن السيارات جميعها قد تفحمت بركابها، الذين لم ينج منهم أحد. The bombing was so powerful that the car had been burnt, all passengers, who did not survive one of them. ولشدة القصف فإن الصواريخ التى أطلقت خلفت 18 حفرة تراوحت أقطارها ما بين 160 و430 مترا. The intensity of the shelling, the rockets fired left 18-hole diameters ranging between 160 and 430 meters.
تحدثت المصادر عن أن هذه أول عملية كبيرة تم فيها احباط محاولة تهريب السلاح إلى غزة، إعمالا لقرار مجلس الأمن القاضى بوقف إطلاق النار فى غزة، وحظر تجارة وتصدير السلاح إلى غزة، وتنفيذا للاتفاق الأمنى الذى تم توقيعه بين الحكومتين الأمريكية والإسرائيلية. The sources said this is the first major operation was a foiled attempt to smuggle arms into Gaza, pursuant to Security Council resolution on the cease-fire in Gaza, and the prohibition of trade and export of arms into Gaza, and the implementation of the security agreement was signed between the governments of America and Israel. وهو الاتفاق الذى يلزم الولايات المتحدة بالتعاون مع حلف الناتو والقوى الفاعلة الأخرى بالعمل على وقف تهريب السلاح إلى غزة، عبر شرق أفريقيا والبحر الأحمر وخليج عدن والبحر الأبيض المتوسط، بالإضافة إلى تعاون استخباراتى لتحديد مصادر الأسلحة، وبصفة خاصة القادمة من السودان وإيران. An agreement which required the United States in cooperation with NATO and other actors to stop arms smuggling into Gaza, through East Africa and the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and the Mediterranean Sea, in addition to the cooperation of intelligence to identify the sources of weapons, particularly from Sudan and Iran.
وعلم مندوب «الشروق» أن الحادث وقع فى آخر شهر يناير الماضى، فى منطقة صحراوية تقع شمال غرب مدينة بورتسودان، قرب جبل الشعنون. And informed the representative of «sunrise» that the incident took place at the end of the month of January, in a desert area in north-west of the city of Port Sudan, near the Mount Alcanon. وقد تكتمته حكومة الخرطوم، التى لم تستطع أن تحدد المكان الذى خرجت منه الطائرات الأمريكية، فضلا عن أن عملية القصف تمت داخل حدودها، الأمر الذى سبب لها حرجا كبيرا. The Tktemth the Khartoum government, which has not been able to identify where they came from the United States aircraft, as well as the bombing that took place within its borders, which caused major embarrassment.
وصرح مصدر مسئول بأن المقاتلات الأمريكية التى قامت بالعملية موجودة لدى عدة دول فى المنطقة. The official source said that U.S. fighter jets carried out the process in place in several countries in the region. ورجحت تلك المصادر أن تكون تلك المقاتلات قد خرجت من أريتريا أو جيبوتى. Likely that those sources may be those fighters out of Eritrea or Djibouti.
وذكرت المصادر أنه جرت اتصالات رفيعة المستوى بين القاهرة والخرطوم كانت لها صلة بهذا الموضوع، الذى مازالت الحكومة السودانية تجمع تفاصيله وتدرس كيفية التعامل معه. The sources said that there had been high-level contacts between Cairo and Khartoum have been associated with this topic, which combines the Sudanese government is still studying the details of how to deal with him. إذ رغم أنها تسعى لضبط وملاحقة شبكات تهريب السلاح، إلا أنها تعتبر عملية القصف عدوانا أمريكيا على أراضيها. As though they seek to control the networks and the pursuit of weapons smuggling, but it is a U.S. bombing attack on its territory.
أضافت تلك المصادر أن القاعدة الأمريكية فى جيبوتى (كامب ليمونير) تقوم بدور أساسى فى مكافحة ما يسمى بالارهاب، وفى عمليات الدعم والاسناد. The sources added that the U.S. base in Djibouti (Camp Imonner) play a key role in the fight against the so-called terrorism, and in the support and backing. وتضم تلك القاعدة 1800 جندى أمريكى، ومئات من عناصر القوات الخاصة، التى كلفت بالتركيز على سبع دول اعتبرتها القيادة العسكرية الأمريكية محطات للعناصر الارهابية، وهذه الدول هى: اليمن، الصومال، كينيا، السودان، أثيوبيا، أريتريا، جيبوتى. The 1800 rule that U.S. troops, and hundreds of special forces elements, which was focusing on the seven countries as the U.S. military command stations to terrorist elements, and these countries are: Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti. وفى إطار هذه القوة ثمة وحدة مشتركة هى الوحدة CTF-150، التى تشترك فيها كل من فرنسا وإسبانيا وألمانيا وبريطانيا مع الولايات المتحدة بسفن حربية تقوم بدوريات مشتركة تغطى بالإضافة إلى البحر الأحمر، منطقة القرن الأفريقى وخليج عدن، ومنطقة المحيط الهندى. As part of this force, there is a common unit is the CTF-150, which is shared by both France and Spain, Germany and Britain with the United States military vessels are covered by joint patrols in addition to the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.
وعلم مندوب «الشروق» أن السلطات السودانية أعدت ملفا شاملا حول الموضوع، تضمن تصويرا لمسرح العمليات وتفصيلات بقايا الغارة، التى تمثلت فى كميات من الذخائر التى احترق بعضها ولم يحترق البعض الآخر، وبنادق جيم 4، وبنادق كلاشنكوف، إضافة إلى عدد من الهواتف المحمولة من طراز «ثريا»، التى يبدو أنها كانت واسطة الاتصال بين عناصر القبائل العربية فى شمال السودان التى كانت تقوم بالتهريب، ونظائرها فى سيناء التى كانت تتولى التسلم وتوصيل السلاح إلى داخل القطاع. And informed the representative of «sunrise» that the Sudanese authorities have prepared a comprehensive file on the subject, which included graphic details of the theater and the remains of the raid, with the quantities of munitions, which burned some others did not burn, and C 4 rifles, Kalashnikov rifles, in addition to a number of mobile phones a «rich», which appeared to be the mode of communication between the elements of the Arab tribes in northern Sudan, which was smuggling, and their counterparts in the Sinai, which was the receipt and delivery of arms into the Gaza Strip.
وكانت «الشروق» قد أشارت قبل أيام إلى اجتماع سرى فى مقر الخارجية البريطانية حضره ممثلو أمريكا و8 دول أوروبية أعضاء فى حلف الأطلسى، واتفق المشاركون فى الاجتماع على مكافحة تهريب الأسلحة إلى غزة. The «sunrise» had indicated a few days ago to a secret meeting at the Foreign Office was attended by representatives of American and 8 European countries and NATO members, and participants agreed at the meeting to combat the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. بجانب الاتفاق الأمنى الذى رفضته مصر جملة وتفصيلا، بين إسرائيل والولايات المتحدة ووقعته وزيرة الخارجية الأمريكية السابقة كوندوليزا رايس مع نظيرتها الإسرائيلية. The side of the security agreement, which was rejected out of hand, Egypt, between Israel and the United States and signed by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the former with its Israeli counterpart. وتعهد الجانب الأمريكى فى هذا الاتفاق بمكافحة تهريب الأسلحة. He pledged that the U.S. side in the fight against arms smuggling.
وكان المسئولون فى الخارجية البريطانية لم يفصحوا عن الآلية التى ستطبق بها الدول التى اتفقت على مكافحة تهريب الأسلحة، وقالت مصادر فى حينه إن هذه الدول شددت على عدم اللجوء للقوة فى تعقب شحنات الأسلحة أو السعى إلى مصادرتها، وأن الاتفاق والاجراءات ليست موجهة إلى الدول العربية وهو ما لا يتفق مع العملية الأخيرة التى تمت فى شمال غرب مدينة بورتسودان. The British Foreign Office officials did not disclose the mechanism by which they will be applied by the States that have agreed to combat the smuggling of weapons, sources said at the time that these countries emphasized the non-use of force in tracking shipments of weapons or the pursuit of the forfeiture, and the Agreement and the actions are not directed to the Arab countries which is not consistent with the latter process, which was in the northwest of the city of Port Sudan.
وكان من المفترض ــ حسب الاجتماع السرى الالتزام بالقانون الدولى وبما تسمح به السلطات الوطنية فى الدول لدعم جهود اعتراض التهريب، وذلك بإجراءات تشمل التحقيق والصعود إلى ظهر السفن والتفتيش والايقاف ومصادرة الأسلحة. One of the supposed secret meeting, according to abide by international law and as permitted by the national authorities in the States to support efforts to intercept smuggling, and that the procedures include investigation, boarding, inspection, arrest and confiscation of weapons.
واعترف أحد المصادر لـ«الشروق» فى حينه أن الدول التى اتفقت على برنامج وقف الأسلحة لا تملك تفويضا دوليا لهذا التجمع، ولكن المصدر أوضح أنه جزء من المبادرات الثنائية بين الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا للتوصل إلى تسوية سلمية للأزمة فى قطاع غزة. He admitted one of the sources of «sunrise» at the time that the countries that have agreed to halt the weapons program does not have an international mandate for the rally, but the source pointed out that part of the bilateral initiatives between the United States and Britain to reach a peaceful settlement to the crisis in the Gaza Strip.
يذكر أن الدول التى وقعت على هذا الاتفاق فى اجتماعها بوزارة الخارجية البريطانية فى مطلع مارس الحالى هى الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا وكندا وفرنسا والدنمارك وألمانيا وإيطاليا وهولندا والنرويج. The countries which have signed this agreement in the meeting the British Foreign Office in early March the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway.
March 25, 2009
Throughout its history, Israel has willfully and repeatedly committed crimes of war and against humanity, always with impunity. Yet under customary legal standards and norms (including Geneva, Hague, the UN Charter, S.C. and G.A. resolutions), it’s lawless, a serial abuser, a threat to the region and humanity, mostly as an oppressive occupier. Attacking Gaza is the latest episode in its six-decade reign of terror satisfying the definition of genocide against defenseless Palestinian civilians. This article covers more evidence from some disturbing but unsurprising newly published information.
On March 19, in the first of a series of articles, Haaretz headlined: “IDF killed civilians in Gaza under loose rules of engagement.” Military correspondent Amos Harel revealed Israeli soldier and pilot (“dirty secret”) testimonies of being ordered to kill unarmed civilians and destroy their property – accounts at variance with official claims that only military targets were attacked and that “Israeli troops observed a high level of moral behavior during the operation.” Defense Minister Ehud Barak calls the IDF “the most moral army in the world.”
“Moral” examples included an infantry squad leader recounting the shooting of a mother and her two children: “There was a house with a family inside….We put them in a room. Later we left the house and another platoon entered it, and a few days after that there was an order to release the family….The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn’t understand and went to the left,” after which a rooftop sniper “shot them straight away….I don’t think he felt too bad about it, because after all, as far as he was concerned, he (followed orders, and, besides, Palestinian lives are) less important” than our own soldiers.
Other incidents included:
– a squad leader telling of a company commander ordering an elderly Palestinian woman to be shot and killed;
– soldiers saying “we should kill everyone (in the center of Gaza); everyone there is a terrorist;”
– soldiers writing “death to the Arabs on walls” and spitting on family pictures;
– a squad leader saying: “At the beginning, the directive was to enter a house with an armored vehicle, break the door down, (and) start shooting inside – I call it murder – to shoot at everyone we identify;” commanders called it OK “because everyone left in the city is culpable because they didn’t run away;”
– soldiers ordered to indiscriminately destroy property and farmland;
– orders given to enter a house, “switch on loudspeakers and tell (occupants) you have five minutes to run away and whoever doesn’t will be killed;”
These and other accounts typify regular incidents in occupied Gaza and the West Bank. When revealed, official denials follow or in response to clear evidence, officers, like military advocate general Avichai Mendelblit, say the incidents will be investigated, after which everything is whitewashed, quietly forgotten, none of the guilty are prosecuted, and security forces keep using disproportionate force against defenseless Palestinian civilians.
In a March 19 analysis, Harel concluded that this “happen(s) in the field most of the time (and) as usual, reality is completely different from the gentler version provided by the military commanders to the public and media during (an) operation and after. The soldiers are not lying, for the simple reason that they have no reason to” and every reason to stay silent. The rule is: “You don’t ask, we won’t tell,” but these soldiers, squad leaders, pilots and commanders did.
Further, there’s a “continuity of testimony from different sectors that reflects a disturbing and depressing picture” of a rogue military willfully committing war crimes because they know they can get away with them. Harel concluded: “The IDF’s ethical problems did not start in 2009.” They go back decades, but according to some, military “deterioration” has been continuous from the 1967 war to Operation Cast Lead. Worse still is that Israeli history reveals six decades of relentless and continuous terror. Attacking Gaza for 22 days is just the latest episode.
On March 21, the London Independent’s Donald Macintyre wrote: “Israelis (were) told to fight a ‘holy war’ in Gaza….a religious war” against Arabs, according to a soldier citing “the martial role of military rabbis during the operation.” In rabbinate literature distributed to the troops, the message was: “We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land, and now we need to fight to expel the Gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land.”
According to the Israeli human rights group, Yesh Din, IDF head chaplain, Rabbi Avichai Rontzki, a brigadier general, distributed booklet material saying that it was “terribly immoral” to show mercy to a “cruel enemy” and that soldiers were fighting “murderers.” Imagine rabbis claiming to be men of God, yet violating core Jewish dogma by preaching hate, premeditated murder, and lying about innocent civilians they’re vilifying. Another example of the viciousness of a so-called civilized state, acting like barbarians (in the name of God) and calling it just.
There’s more. On March 22 in Haaretz, Amira Hass headlined: “IDF soldiers ordered to shoot at Gaza rescuers” in citing a Hebrew handwritten document, “Rules of Engagement – Open fire also upon rescue.” It confirms numerous reports and testimonies like the above that soldiers shot Palestinian civilians in cold blood, murdered them (and their rescuers), or in cases where they were still alive prevented their evacuation and let them bleed to death.
Hass stated: “The (above-mentioned) document provides written proof that IDF commanders ordered their troops to shoot at rescuers” besides ordering the killing of unarmed civilians and destruction of their property.
On March 22, London Observer writer Peter Beaumont headlined: “Gaza war crime claims gather pace as (still) more troops speak out.” He cited a yet to be published “Breaking the Silence” report containing statements from 15 former soldiers. From their contacts with Operation Cast Lead participants, they corroborate the above claims of random killings and vandalism. According to the group’s Mikhael Manekin:
“We have spoken to a lot of different people who served in different places in Gaza, including officers. We are not talking about some units being more aggressive than others, but underlying policy. So much so that we are talking to soldiers who said that they were having to restrain the orders given.” According to one, Amir Marmor, orders from a Lt. Col. who briefed the troops were: “Shoot and don’t worry about the consequences.”
On March 20, Haaretz reporter Uri Blau disclosed that IDF soldiers ordered T-shirts marking the end of Operation Cast Lead featuring grotesque images of dead babies, mothers weeping at their children’s graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosque, and a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull’s eye depicted on her stomach with the English slogan, “1 shot, 2 kills.”
These aren’t just anecdotes from what Ehud Barak calls “the most moral army in the world.” On March 22, Haaretz correspondent Gideon Levy wrote: “IDF ceased long ago being ‘most moral army in the world.’ ” Moreover, imagining the military will investigate the charges is “propagandistic, ridiculous (and) meant not only to deceive the public, but also to offer shameless lies” as part of a cover-up the way these revelations are always handled.
These practices have gone on for decades. Orders come right from the top – to kill Arabs and commit atrocities and vandalism, and according to one Operation Cast lead soldier: “That’s what is so nice, as it were, about Gaza – You see a person on a road….and you can just shoot him.” This message is ingrained in young recruits, to see Jews as superior, Arabs as sub-humans, so it’s “morally” OK to slaughter them.
Yet on March 22, Haaretz published GOC Home Front Command General Yair Golan’s reply saying: “The reports were exaggerated and any deviations from the IDF’s moral standards will be dealt with.”
Then on March 23, it added IDF Chief Gabi Ashkenazi’s claim that he did not believe Israeli soldiers harmed Palestinian civilians in “cold blood.” He and Golan lied the way top commanders and government officials always do.
Yet Ashkenazi echoed Ehud Barak saying that “the IDF is the most moral army in the world” despite volumes of clear evidence to the contrary. He added that any “incidents” were “isolated,” but Haaretz stated:
“The soldiers’ testimonies run counter to the IDF’s claims throughout the operation that troops observed a high level of moral behavior. A number of officers told Haaretz….that the testimonies did not surprise them, as ‘anyone with eyes in his head knows that these things happened during the fighting in Gaza,’ and they weren’t ‘isolated’ incidents.”
Gaza Civilian Testimonies
Documented by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), they recount Operation Cast Lead’s horror – highlighted by an Israeli soldier’s message on Abu Hajaj’s bedroom wall: “Death will find you….Soon.”
PCHR noted the importance of finding “sanctuary in the comfort of one’s home” at times of trauma, but Gazans lost it for 22 days and still suffer the effects. Briefly some examples:
– the IDF occupied Mos’ab Dardona’s Jabal Al Rayes northeast Gaza home, leaving behind wall drawings of soldiers urinating on toppled mosques and “devouring Palestinians villages;”
– next door in Ibrahim Dardona’s home, instead of using the bathroom, they left behind dozens of bags of feces and crude sexual diagrams on walls;
– the defacing and other actions show a disturbing picture of racial hatred throughout Israeli society, according to PCHR’s democratic development director, Hamdi Shaqqura; PCHR says thousands of Gazans are homeless, displaced, and forced to find shelter with relatives or move back to partially destroyed homes and cope as best they can;
– in the agricultural area of Johr-ad-Dik, the IDF took over homes, displaced half the 2500 population and maliciously destroyed hundreds of olive and citrus trees;
– the IDF ordered local residents near Saleh Abu Hajaj’s home to leave; Saleh’s daughter tied a white scarf to a stick, led out a group of civilians, then along with her mother was shot dead by the military;
– in the Zeytoun district, IDF desecrated walls with messages like: “Die you all..Make war not peace..Arabs need to die,” and on a gravestone “Arabs 1948 – 2009;”
– inside Rashad Helmi Al Samouni’s home, soldiers wrote: “There will be a day when we kill all the Arabs….Bad for the Arabs is good for me….A good Arab is an Arab in the grave (and) Peace now, but between Jews and Jews, not Jews and Arabs.”
PCHR’s conclusion was that whatever war crimes investigations reveal and what, if anything, follows from them, “it will do little to comfort the thousands of civilians whose sense of safety (in their own homes was) so categorically violated,” something they no longer feel and for many never did.
PCHR published the names of 1417 Gazans killed by Israeli forces. It said 926 were civilians, 236 fighters, and 255 others civilian security forces, mostly police. Israel disputes the list claiming most targets “legitimate” despite clear evidence to the contrary, including from its own soldiers. In response, it’s preparing its own list identifying most of the slain as “combatants or legitimate targets” without a shred of evidence for proof and plenty to disprove it.
PCHR also reported that in the week ending March 18:
– IDF forces shot and injured 19 Palestinian civilians, including nine children and a US human rights activist;
– the Israeli air force bombed selected Gaza sites, forcing civilians to abandon their homes and property in the areas;
– Israeli forces conducted 39 incursions into West Bank communities, a practice occurring nearly daily; 39 Palestinian civilians were arrested, including six children for the crime of being Arab under Israeli occupation;
– additional IDF arrests occurred at West Bank checkpoints, and measures to remove East Jerusalem Palestinians continue to make room for new Jewish settlements;
– five West Bank homes were demolished leaving 49 Palestinians homeless; three other families were ordered from their homes in preparation for demolition;
– West Bank settlement construction goes on unabated as part of an ethnic cleansing process;
– settlers regularly attack Palestinians with impunity, and the Mossawa Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens reported (on March 21) a 1000% rise in 2008 crime rates over 2007 on Israeli Arab citizens; its leader, Jafar Farah, called it a “moral collapse;”
– Gaza remains under siege with no progress made to end it; and
– on March 23, PCHR reported that the IDF violated medical ethics during Operation Cast Lead by preventing Palestinian and ICRC medical teams from reaching the wounded; it also said Israel attacked 34 medical facilities, including eight hospitals, killing 16 medics and wounding 25 others.
Meanwhile on March 19, Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, said: “If the (IDF) cannot (distinguish between civilians and military targets), its attack becomes unlawful and constitutes a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law.” He added that the UN (and human rights groups like Amnesty International) has clear evidence to support this conclusion and called for a formal investigation of IDF shelling of schools, mosques, ambulances, educational facilities, and homes as well as use of illegal weapons like white phosphorus.
Whatever follows, Gaza remains under siege. Allowed in humanitarian aid falls way short of supplying 1.5 million people with the barest subsistence they need. Through March 2, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that Israeli violence continues and “authorities (still) limit the amount and range of goods allowed into Gaza….A range of essential goods, including supplies and equipment needed for rebuilding, are not being allowed into the territory.” They’re still kept out.
Basic items like medical equipment, veterinary supplies, macaroni, chickpeas, and lentils were suspended or delayed, and border crossings remain closed, except for brief periods. Like before, everything is in short supply or not available, including essential medical care, food and fuel. Earlier Amnesty International said “Gaza (was) reduced to bare survival.” Today, it’s no better under a continuing Israeli siege, illegal and brutal in the extreme, yet not denounced by world leaders to give Israel cover to maintain it.
The Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel’s Position Paper on Israeli Civilian Killings in Gaza
Adalah (meaning justice in Arabic) is a 1996-established independent, non-profit, human rights organization serving Arab Israeli citizens’ rights on issues of land, civil, political, cultural, social, religious, and economic matters among others. In February 2009, it examined the legality of Israel’s 22 day Gaza attack, specifically the killing of civilian police and bombing of government buildings and Hamas institutions.
In citing the laws of war, it identified four central principles:
– military necessity – that only those targets intended to “weaken or overcome the enemy or bring the battle to an end may be attacked;”
– distinction – that must be drawn between combatants and military targets on the one hand, and civilians and non-military objects on the other; international law prohibits attacking the latter; doing so is a war crime; non-combatant civilians are protected by law under all circumstances; also, targets must clearly be military ones and nearby civilians must be warned in advance so they may leave;
– proportionality – that prohibits disproportionate force likely to cause damage to or loss of human lives or objects; in other words, disproportionate to an intended military objective or that in any way is indiscriminate; and
– the prevention of unnecessary suffering, especially for non-combatant civilians.
Beginning December 27 and continuing for 22 days, the IDF attacked uniformed police cadets and officers killing them and other civilians. During the period of fighting, non-combatant civilian Hamas members were also struck, including from its government.
International law prohibits attacking non-combatant civilian security forces, especially police whose role is to maintain law enforcement and public order.
Further, and despite using “rocket attacks” as a pretext, Israel attacked preemptively and aggressively, not in response to Hamas-initiated hostilities, and most initial targets were civilian ones. The IDF erroneously claimed that attacking uniformed police was legitimate because their role for 22 days changed from enforcers to combatants. By this logic, all civilians are legitimate targets because under attack they may defend themselves. That, in fact, is what Israel claims.
Under international law, civilians may only be harmed accidently or inadvertently as a result of attacks on legitimate military targets but never for reasons of military necessity, even when large numbers of combatants are present.
“Members of a civilian police should benefit from the protection which is conferred upon them as civilians under customary international law. Given that the conditions for the exception to this rule – i.e., taking a direct part in hostilities at the time of the attack – were not met, the attack ran counter to customary international humanitarian law” and was illegal.
The same holds for attacking government buildings and institutions – a total of 68 buildings plus 31 offices belonging to NGOs, completely destroyed or damaged during the conflict. According to Major Avital Leibovitz, Head of International Communications Section in the IDF’s Spokesperson’s Office: “Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target,” meaning all 1.5 million Gazans, the vast majority being non-combatant civilians, including women, children, and infants.
International law refutes Israeli policy, including under the principles of military necessity and distinction. These principles demand that military targets be differentiated from civilians and civilian objects (including government ones) to prevent deliberate attacks on them.
The only allowed exceptions relate to narrowly defined “vital and immediate military need” to defeat the enemy and end the battle, matters to which Israel didn’t comply. Also, Israel ignored the requirement “to take all feasible precautions in attack, in particular the obligation to verify that objects (and individuals) to be attacked are military objectives,” legitimate targets under international law.
Again Adalah: “Thus it is apparent that the attack on government buildings and institutions (as well as non-combatant civilians) on the basis of the claim that they formed part of the Hamas regime is illegal” under international law.
“Attacks that fail to distinguish between combatants and military targets and civilians and civilian objects constitute grave breaches of customary international law and are considered as war crimes. Attacks perpetrated against a civilian population may also be considered crimes against humanity if they are committed ‘as part of a wide or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.’ “
Planned months in advance, Israel’s attack was premeditated, and under Article 8(2)(a)(1) and Article 8(2)(b)(1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) constitutes a war crime. It’s also a crime against humanity under the statute’s Article 7(1) relating to the deliberate killing of civilians or deliberately attacking non-combatant ones.
Further, attacking government buildings and institutions is also a war crime under Article 8(2)(a)(1), Article 8(2)(b)(8), and Article 8(2)(b)(13) of the Rome Statute that prohibits the destruction of property and civilian objects for non-military necessity reasons.
Even though Israel is not party to the Statute, its Articles 7 and 8, relating to crimes of war and against humanity, reflect customary international law under which Israel, its officials, and military commanders at all levels may and should be held accountable.
Under international law, responsibility relates to perpetration, planning, inciting, and/or ordering a crime to be committed as well as “vicarious” (indirect) responsibility of civilian leaders and commanders for crimes committed by their subordinates. These conditions apply in the case of the 22 day Gaza attack – planned well in advance by high-level government and military officials and launched with overwhelming force against multiple targets on December 27.
Again, the evidence is clear, unequivocal, overwhelming, and conclusive that high-level Israeli government and military officials planned and willfully committed systematic crimes of war and against humanity of such gravity that justice demands they be held to account in an international court of law – either the ICC in the Hague or a special International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI).
Doing so will warn future Israeli governments and all others that no one is exempt from the law and they, too, will be prosecuted if evidence provides justification. The rule of law is sacrosanct, especially for wanton killing that when ongoing for sustained periods satisfies the definition of genocide. Israel long ago passed that threshold. No longer can its lawlessness go unpunished.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
The Palestinian Struggle Between Reconstructing Puppets and Reconstructing Resistance
Part II: Reconstructing Resistance
By Dina Jadallah-Taschler
“Force overcome by force” (Vi Victa Vis) Cicero, Roman Orator, politician, and philosopher (106 BC-43 BC)
The first part of this essay covered some of the diplomatic and economic controls that the international “consensus” has recently used to contain and subvert the Palestinian struggle. Israel’s wantonly destructive behavior in Gaza did succeed, but only in accomplishing the dialectically opposite political objectives. Namely, it dealt a potentially irreversible blow to the international image of Zionism and to Israel’s portrayal (of itself) as a “light unto the nations” who has “the most moral army in the world.” Not only did images from the massacre escape their tight censorship and contradict their extensive PR / propaganda campaign. But the post-massacre inquiries by international and local human rights organizations as well as the disgusting and very revealing testimony by members of the occupation army confirm the truth to all those who may have harbored suspicions. (1)
This second part of the essay will discuss some of the new ruptures within the dominant balance of power confronting Palestinian resistance. The financial and economic turmoil that has swept around the globe may create potential opportunities for Palestinian resistance. And here, I mean resistance in its most comprehensive sense: in all its facets and manifestations, both locally in Palestine, and regionally and internationally. Belief in resistance is fed also by the increasingly widespread public realization of the grand failure of the “process” of “peace,” despite its modest goal of a state on only 22% of historic Palestine. That was and is unachievable, even after all the concessions that had been both extracted from the eviscerated PLO (that somehow still retains its now oxymoronic titular claim to “liberation”) as well as, generously and obsequiously given by the Fateh-led Palestinian Authority post Oslo.
So inquiring minds (and there are so many of those among the people who are consistently kept on the receiving end of the international relations and neo-liberal economics stick) want to know of what use is this farce? Looking back at the history of various Palestinian groups, it quickly becomes apparent that the right to “lead” is ultimately a function of faithful representation of the will of the majority of Palestinians regarding their rights to resist, whether actively or by simply persisting (sumoud) until their rights are restored and they are liberated. So long as Fateh claimed to stand for resistance on behalf of the Palestinian cause, it was allowed to lead. Once it joined the “consensus” and gave up that right, other groups inevitably emerged to take its place. Thus, those who voted for Hamas may not have done so because of any love for that (regressive and misogynistic) party, but because they were for resistance (and were not corrupt like the PA).
Unfortunately, Hamas is in the same rightist political camp as the Fateh-led Palestinian Authority. Even though it speaks of Resistance, it is not revolutionary. Hamas is the flip side of Fateh’s secular face, so socially and politically, it is just as reactionary and regressive. While one is concerned with the Unknowns of the Afterlife and prescriptions from “God,” the other is concerned with the Here and Now, but only insofar as they are compliant with all the “agreements” that were signed with Israel and the “consensus.” In other words, so long as hegemony and the current lopsided distribution of power are served.
And now that Hamas has called for the halting of rockets against Israel, it may well be that new groups emerge to carry the popular will to fruition.
Economic Cracks in Consensus Wonderland?
In part I, I discussed how economic and financial aid levers were deployed to undermine the Palestinians. But, the “aid” sword of Damocles held over them to ensure submission is problematical. Just as in that Greek legend, the sense of constant fear in which the Palestinians live will inevitably induce a reaction where ultimately it could be Israel that will have the most to fear. After all, the latter may now have might, but the former has right. Israel’s own behavior is its own worst enemy – ironically parallel with past (false) Zionist accusations / rationalizations for why Palestinians are in their current predicament.
Although the forces arrayed against Palestinians might seem formidable, there exist rays of hope. As discussed in part I, there is the military impasse. This is not confined only to Israel against non-state actors, grass-roots resistance movements and even ordinary people who refuse to give up. It also includes to some extent the American imbroglio in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now also in the undeclared “war on terror” in Pakistan. Demonstrably, the military hegemon is not omnipotent, and needs the active assistance of local puppets, and even of supposed “enemies.” (2) Recognizing the limits of military might to achieve political goals, the US is now supposedly “open” to talks with Iran, Syria, and even the Taliban, via the usual suspect, Saudi Arabia. (3) The same logic is reflected in the EU’s decision to “talk” with Hamas. (4) Granted, it is as yet unknown if these talks will amount to anything. Given that the ultimate aim is always to force the cessation of resistance to hegemonic designs, “success” is dependent on the degree of cooperation by the weaker party.
Another new factor that will affect the regional picture is the financial crisis that has swept through the world. It originated in the lair of the supreme hegemon and has destroyed a big portion of “wealth” (at least the mountains of paper and electronic wealth) that had been created in the mania days of neo-liberal globalization. For the Middle East, this has several implications.
First, is the declining level of “financial aid” given by the Americans to a few local regimes. (5) Israel’s aid is untouchable, naturally. But perhaps reflecting displeasure with the quality of thug performance against Hamas, aid to Jordan earmarked for “defense” will be cut by almost one third. Potentially, these reductions may affect some of the nefarious uses to which this “aid” is put. Since each “moderate” “peace-loving” ruler / puppet has his (always male(!)) own specialty, future training of “security” forces or diplomatic bullying or bribing may be impacted.
Second, the financial crisis has destroyed a significant portion of the assets of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SFW). The actual figures of the losses are unknown due to the secretive structure of SFWs for reasons “sovereignty and national security.” (6) Of course, the “sovereignty” of said funds is a question of how much one believes in the “sovereignty” of the puppet. In addition, the price of oil has plummeted (at least for now) from a year ago and oil revenues to many of the oil producers in the region have been significantly reduced. Also, stock market losses in the region have reached $1.8 trillion, not counting what the SWF’s lost on their investments in the West. (7) And finally, these states are under pressure to stimulate their own economies out of the financially devastating (and deleveraging) mess by using some of that wealth internally. It is estimated that only 5% of the SFW money is invested in local markets. (8)
These combined financial pressures may affect at least the size of Gulf states’ normally sizeable contributions to regressive plans and forces in the region that fight grass-roots and secular resistance groups.
Moreover, while it may be too much to hope for at this stage, there is increasing worldwide apprehension about the viability of continuing to “invest” in US financial instruments. The race to debase currencies is on as the capitalist system stumbles and as each country tries to gain a “trade” advantage over its rivals. First England, and then several other countries, announced that they will start quantitative easing, i.e. monetizing their debt. This means that, for lack of foreign buyers, their central bank will start buying their own bonds, effectively printing money to do so, and thus depreciating the currency against its rivals. (9)
In an interview with 60 Minutes, Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke admitted that the US will also be printing money. (10) This has important implications. It does not make for happy customers (buyers) of US debt, whose past purchases have been the financial underpinning of US wars on the rest of humanity, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and by extension, the US base in the Middle East, aka Israel. Not only do the buyers have to fear the rising US deficit as a proportion of its national output, GDP. They also must fear the declining purchasing power and relative price of the world’s reserve currency, the dollar, which they hold in prodigious amounts as “reserves.” Recently, China has voiced concerns about the stability of the dollar. (11) And on March 15, 2009, Russian president Medvedev called for the creation of a “supra-national currency,” for forcing banks and countries to diversify their reserves, and for an updating of the role and mandate of the IMF so as to enable it to deal with financial crises. (12) This is further evidence, admittedly limited, but a start, of cracks in the foundation of US empire, not only in terms of challenges by rivals, but also in terms of its ability to finance its expansion and military and economic hegemony.
As for the GCC states that hold the bulk of foreign currency reserves and wealth in the Arab world, it is yet to be determined if their governments will finally listen to repeated suggestions by their experts to diversify away from the dollar. (13) If history is any guide, the puppets know who the puppet master is and the GCC rulers will stick with the dollar. But all the other economic disasters that are washing over them will inevitably have an impact on their excess, “recyclable” wealth.
Reconstructing a new Resistance
In light of the developments discussed above, one wonders if the combined results of the world financial crisis, the discrediting of neo-liberal economic policies, the wealth destruction and its concomitant creation of larger classes of poverty-stricken people (like the refugees in Gaza who are the electoral backbone of Hamas), the confidence-building realization for oppressed people that military might does not always translate into concrete political achievements (despite the violence and destruction), the growth in the world solidarity movement and in the power of communication beyond mainstream (controlled) channels would all result in a spreading of a new Intifada, this time beyond state borders in the Arab world?
Affirmation of the right to resist until liberation is a necessary pre-condition in order to overcome unjust and deceptive hegemonic “consensus” demands. Palestinian resistance ought to have wider latitude to develop given the ruptures discussed above and in the first part of this essay. Moreover, the cracks in the financial foundation of empire may allow for the convergence of political and economic grievances among its consistent and persistent victims around the world, which would have local repercussions for the Palestinians. The reconstruction of Palestinian resistance will need all the help it can get, but may rely on and draw support from three main sources.
First and of foremost importance is the crucial and effective growth of non-state actor resistance in Lebanon, the Occupied Territories, and elsewhere. These serve as a check on the military might of empire as an instrument of exploitative and transformative political change. Moreover, it is a counterweight to the Arab colonial-relic rulers’ acquiescence and submission.
Second is the worldwide growth of leftist activism. This includes the International Divestment and Solidarity Movement, as well as the work of many Palestinian and international groups with internationalist consciousness. Among them are traditional leftist / Marxist / anarchist groups such as student and solidarity groups in Greece, in Turkey, and others across Europe who are planning demonstrations this coming April 4th to protest the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. (14) The case of Turkey is especially interesting because in the post-Gaza environment, the Turkish government (in no way “leftist” and a member of NATO, no less) is now reportedly cooperating with Palestinians in their attempts to locate Ottoman era documents proving their ownership of property and land that Zionist groups in Israel are trying to confiscate and expropriate using forged documents. (15) This is unprecedented, and follows the harsh words (only words, alas) that Turkish president Erdogan had for the Israeli President Peres at Davos following the massacre in Gaza.
Third is the increasing number and quality of legal challenges to Israel’s (and other “consensus” members’) behavior. Most of these are based on human rights abuses or illegal uses of military purchases / aid by Israel. Most recently, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk reported a whole litany of war crimes and human rights abuses committed during the attack on Gaza. (16) But they also include suits brought to rectify illegal land expropriations, house demolitions, and so forth. Among the factors that impede the legal route to resisting Israel are the grave and legitimate doubts among the Palestinians about the ability of international law to protect them and their (historically proven and repeated) recognition that enforcement and execution are impeded by power disparities and dominant interests. (17) Another obstacle is traditional Palestinian “leaders’” lack of desire or will to pursue these avenues. Since many are currently in the “consensus” camp, covertly or overtly, they prefer interminable “negotiations” under the rubric of the “peace process.”
Importantly, there is grassroots resistance to that state of “civilized” submission to dominant powers from below. Even within Fateh itself, there are now disgruntled voices from some rank and file that question its direction and question the legitimacy of its claim to speak for and negotiate (and concede) national rights on behalf of all Palestinians. (18) There are grassroots human rights and right of return legally focused organizations like Al-Badil and al-Awda. (19) Other groups focus on bringing suits internationally against those who help Israel commit its crimes. For example, Al-Haq is bringing suit against UK arms trading with Israel in breach of international law. (20) Finally, a novel, and long overdue, legal route is being pursued by youth-based Palestinian group, Watanuna, who is seeking redress from Great Britain for its crucial role in the creation of the state of Israel on Mandate-era Palestine, i.e. British co-responsibility for the Nakba. (21) Adopting a tack exactly like Israel in its interminable “negotiations” with the Palestinians, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office contends that “[L]ooking back achieves little.” This is typical when a dominant power has no interest in restoring usurped rights, a necessary pre-condition for justice and peace. It is also indicative of an insistence on maintaining unequal relationships perpetually that they demand be consecrated via “negotiated agreements.”
Eventually, some legal challenges to Israel will break through ossified legal formulations left over from the imperialist and post-colonial past that favor (hegemonic formulae of) legalisms over Justice. And more importantly, the cumulative effects of various forms of resistance will change the international standards of what is Just and what is Unjust so that there will be implementation and execution of decisions against dominant powers. And, just like it is more common to hear of former slaves demanding compensation and of outright rejection of apartheid, it is a move in the right direction in terms of international consciousness about and questions of redress for the horrific history of colonialism and its repercussions on the world today.
In the case of Israel, its desperate and increasingly vicious behaviors are an indication of its growing alarm at both Palestinian and international events and developments over which it has decreasing control. As Cicero said so long ago: “No power is strong enough to be lasting if it labors under the weight of fear.”
(1) See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072481.html and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072511.html and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=159923 and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3689388,00.html.
(2) When their national interests coincide, Iran plays the role of puppet master for the US military machine in both Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-GcvANL3A9EwCfLweI42edtUmRg.
(3) See http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/12/expediting_us_talks_with_iran/ and (Arabic) http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7442CC04-F95B-4DFA-A8F3-B829A8A7D027.htm and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?fta=y and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7929819.stm.
(9) When a central bank buys bonds, or any other asset, it basically writes a check against itself to the firm or bank selling the asset. The bank or firm then turns around and deposits this check with the central bank. And viola! It is good money because it is drawn against the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England, etc… In short, it is monetary alchemy. Japan and Canada announced that they will do the same. And even Switzerland, that historic stalwart of currency stability, has decided to do the same because the Swiss Franc is now deemed too high. See http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/03/fiscal-dimensions-of-central-banking-the-fiscal-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-the-eurosystem-and-the-fiscal-abuse-by-and-of-the-fed/#more-925.
(15) See (Arabic) http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/054AA25A-DFF1-4422-A908-7489D29EFE0E.htm.
(17) For instance: (Arabic) http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/05625C47-62C3-4544-B925-40226CB10E1B.htm.
(20) See http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=36023. Another example of a lawsuit in the same vein: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2631233.ece.
(21) See http://www.wa6anuna.org/palestine/. See also http://newsblaze.com/story/20081105081500zzzz.nb/topstory.html. There might be precedent very recently set, but not yet (or currently likely to be enforced) for this approach. The island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean was “detached” from the Seychelles / Mauritius, and then “given” / leased by the UK to the United States so that the latter would set up a military base there. The UK then forcibly depopulated the original Chagossian population. It was a British colony that then became colonized by the American military. This is very similar to the situation in Palestine, which also was a British Mandate territory (a form of colony) that later became colonized by Zionist Jews who also had entered into an agreement with the colonizer. Consider that Diego Garcia functions as an important base for projecting American (and NATO) hegemony over Western Asia and the Middle East. Israel performs a similar “service” in the Middle East. When one considers the enormous financial and military “aid” and cooperative coordination between Israel and the US, it can be argued that Israel is itself a glorified American base / extension of (US) empire. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia. Recently, the Chagossians won the right to be allowed to return (Right of Return) to their islands. They were also granted the right of British citizenship and compensation. However, when international decolonization laws, despite their imperialist and colonialist origins, don’t work, hegemons resort to power as the arbiter of how things will be. And that is what the British government did. In 2004, it basically overruled / ignored the court, and enacted two Orders in council restricting immigration, which basically banned the Chagossians from returning. Following appeals, two court decisions upheld their right of return, But then again, the House of Lords in October of 2008 ruled that they cannot return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians#Right_to_return. The wording of the Lords’ ruling is indicative: in ruling against the islanders, the government’s (Foreign Office’s) position was favored because they said the government acted “in the interests of the defense of the realm, diplomatic relations with the US and the use of public funds in supporting any settlement on the islands.” See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/23/chagos-islands-human-rights. The Chagossians plan to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Although so far unsuccessful in their return, this is a good start in challenging unjust outcomes from colonization and decolonization.
:: Article nr. 52904 sent on 26-mar-2009 01:08 ECT
March 25, 2009
Israeli prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has struck a secret deal with one of his coalition partners, pledging to expand settlements in a highly-contentious area of the West Bank, army radio said.
The agreement is not included in the official coalition deal between Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud and the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party of firebrand Avigdor Lieberman but the two men struck the understanding during their coalition talks, the radio said.
According to the plan, some 3,000 housing units are to be constructed in the so-called E1 Sector in the occupied West Bank which runs between annexed east Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement.
There was no immediate comment on the report from either party.
Israel had pledged to freeze the E1 project as part of its commitments under the international roadmap for peace which was launched in 2005 but has made little progress since then.
Palestinians bitterly oppose the project as it effectively cuts the occupied West Bank in two, making the creation of a viable Palestinian state highly problematic.
Hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to war we go!
As President Barack Obama begins winding down the Bush war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. We’re told that it will be a new, expanded, extra-special American adventure in Afghanistan, involving a vigorous surge strategy to “stabilize” this perpetually unstable land.
The initial surge will add 17,000 troops to the 36,000 already there. Then, later this year, there is to be a second troop surge of another 17,000 or so. This mass of soldiers is expected to be deployed to a series of new garrisons to be built in far-flung regions of this impoverished, rural, mostly illiterate warlord state that is ruled by hundreds of fractious, heavily armed tribal leaders. We’re not told how much this escalation will cost, but it will at least double the $2 billion a month that American taxpayers are already shelling out for the Afghan war.
The extra-special part of this effort is to come from a simultaneous “civilian surge” of hundreds of U.S. economic development experts. “What we can’t do,” said Obama in an interview last Sunday, “is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems.” To win the hearts (and cooperation) of the Afghan people, this development leg of the operation will try to build infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.), create new crop alternatives to lure hardscrabble farmers out of poppy production and generally lift the country’s bare-subsistence living standard.
What Obama has not mentioned is that, in addition to soldiers and civilians, there is a third surge in his plan: private military contractors. Yes, another privatized army, such as the one in Iraq. There, the Halliburtons, Blackwaters and other war profiteers ran rampant, shortchanging our troops, ripping off taxpayers, killing civilians and doing deep damage to America’s good name.
Already, there are 71,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan, and many more are preparing to deploy as Pentagon spending ramps up for Obama’s war. The military is now offering new contracts to security firms to provide armed employees (aka, mercenaries) to guard U.S. bases and convoys. Despite the widespread contractor abuses in Iraq, Pentagon chief Robert Gates defends the ongoing privatization push: “The use of contractor security personnel is vital to supporting the forward-operating bases in certain parts of the country,” he declared in a February letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
What the gentle war secretary is really saying is this: “We don’t have a draft, and I don’t see a lot of senators’ kinfolks volunteering to put their butts on the line in Afghanistan, so I’ve gotta pay through the nose to find enough privateers to guard America’s Army in this forbidding place.”
Meanwhile, here’s an interesting twist to Obama’s contractor surge: the for-hire guards protecting our bases and convoys will not likely be Americans. The Associated Press has reported that of the 3,847 security contractors in Afghanistan, only nine are U.S. firms.
Actually, being an American contractor is not a plus in the eyes of the Afghan people, for they’ve had bitter experiences with them. They point to DynCorp, a Virginia-based contractor that got nearly a billion dollars in 2006 to train Afghan police. The bumbling “Inspector Clouseau” of comic fame could’ve done a better job. At least he might have amused the people.
What they got from DynCorp was a bunch of highly paid American “advisors” who were unqualified and knew nothing about the country. Some 70,000 police were to be trained, but less than half that number actually went through the ridiculous eight-week program, which included no field training.
A 2006 U.S. report on the DynCorp trainees deemed them to be “incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work.” Meanwhile, no one knows how many of the trainees ever reported for duty, or what happened to thousands of missing trucks and other pieces of police equipment that had been issued for the training.
The punch line of this joke is that DynCorp got another contract ($317 million) last August to “continue training civilian police forces in Afghanistan.”
Excuse me for saying it, but Obama is about to sink us – and his presidency – into a mess.
Let George Galloway into Canada.
Stop Jason Kenney’s attacks on civil liberties.
George Galloway speaking at Columbia University on March 23, 2009.
(PHOTO: Vanissa W. Chan)
On March 19, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney banned British MP George Galloway from entering Canada. Galloway is scheduled to speak in four cities during a pan-Canadian speaking tour from March 30 to April 2.
Kenney’s decision to ban Galloway is an unprecedented attack on free speech and on the right to criticize our government’s foreign policy. Kenney’s office has publicly stated that Galloway will be banned because of his views on the war in Afghanistan and because he represents a “threat to national security”.
The ban on Galloway follows Kenney’s recent attacks on Canadian Arab and Muslim organizations and on Palestine solidarity campaigners for their criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza and its treatment of Palestinians. On March 18, Kenney unilaterally cut funding to the Canadian Arab Federation for its immigrant settlement program. Kenney also recently attacked students organizing Israeli Apartheid Week on campuses across Canada.
Kenney has attempted to silence their voices by accusing them of anti-Semitism, despite the wide range of support and participation of Jewish organizations and individuals in these initiatives.
The organizers of Galloway’s speaking tour – the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, the Ottawa Peace Assembly, and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights – condemn in the strongest terms Kenney’s attack on free speech and our right to criticize our government’s foreign policy.
We call on all supporters of civil liberties to join us in challenging these attacks and in reversing Kenney’s ban. We call on you to join our campaign to ensure Galloway’s entry into Canada. We must organize now to ensure that all events where Galloway is scheduled to speak will proceed as planned.
Together, we will defend free speech and civil liberties.
And one way or another, George Galloway will speak in Canada.
By Kamran Haider
QUETTA, Pakistan (Reuters) – An expansion of America’s secret war in Pakistan to Baluchistan province would justify jihad and see many more young
men rally to fight foreign forces in Afghanistan, a radical cleric said.
The New York Times reported last week that the United States is considering expanding its covert war to Baluchistan, a sprawling province of deserts and jagged mountains on the border of violence-plagued southern Afghanistan.
So far, missile strikes by pilotless Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones, which Pakistan objects to, have been limited to ethnic Pashtun tribal areas to the north of Baluchistan, mostly in the North and South Waziristan regions.
“America is trying to scare us but it won’t work. Rather it will be a justification,” Noor Muhammad, a well-known radical cleric who runs a madrasa, or religious school, in Quetta, capital of Baluchistan province, said of possible U.S. strikes.
“America is foolish because it will only force more people here to stand up against it,” he said.
Sitting in a room his madrasa complex, the 60-year-old grey-bearded Muhammad denied any policy of sending young men from his school to fight Western forces in Afghanistan.
But he said it was the duty of every Muslim to do that.
“If infidels occupy a Muslim land then it’s obligatory for all Muslims to do jihad … Preaching jihad is my duty,” he said.
President Barack Obama has said the United States is not winning in Afghanistan, more than seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban, and he is due to announce the result of a review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan in coming days.
U.S. officials say success in Afghanistan is impossible without tackling the problem of militant safe havens in Pakistan.
In the Pashtunabad area on the outskirts of Quetta, support for militancy appears strong. Walls on a street leading to Muhammad’s madrasa are daubed with slogans such as “Long Live Mullah Omar.”
Afghan and foreign officials in Kabul have long said they believe Taliban leaders, including supreme leader Mullah Omar, are hiding in Baluchistan. Pakistan denies that.
LOVE FOR JIHAD
Officials in Kabul also say young men are pouring out of radical religious schools in Pakistan into Afghanistan to join the Taliban and become suicide bombers.
If the lessons that students get at Muhammad’s seminary are anything to go by, it’s not hard to understand why.
“We spread the message that the Taliban and Osama (bin Laden) have adopted the right path and that’s the solution of all problems,” Muhammad said.
“The protection of Koranic teachings is only possible through arms …. those who make weapons, make them available and use them will go to heaven,” said Muhammad as four of his teenaged students with black turbans and wispy beards sat at his feet.
Pakistan has for years been saying it wants to reform madrasas but little has been done. Muhammad said there was nothing the government could do to quell zeal for jihad.
“The love and affection for jihad have developed among the youth to the extent that neither their relatives nor the government can control them,” he said.
Unlike northwest Pakistan, Baluchistan has been relatively free of Islamist violence but militants have recently stepped up attacks, including an attack on a moderate cleric.
Major General Salim Nawaz, chief of the paramilitary Frontier Corps in Baluchistan, also said drone strikes in Baluchistan would merely stir up militancy.
“That would be music to the Taliban, music to their ears,” said Nawaz at his headquarters in the city center.
He said there were no Taliban safe havens in the province and none of its more than 1,000 madrasas supported the Taliban.
“There’s been talk that Mullah Omar is the ‘mayor of Quetta’, there’s been talk of the Taliban shura (leadership council), but actually there’s nothing on the ground,” he said.
Nawaz said the United States should try to engage moderate Taliban, a possibility that Obama has raised.
“They need to demotivate these so-called terrorists. Some space needs to be given to the Taliban. Some confidence-building needs to be done,” he said.
|Thursday, March 26, 2009
Female members of an entity that calls itself the Balochistan Republican Army (BRA) have claimed ‘credit’ for a bomb planted at a café in Quetta that injured four people. This new twist to the act of terrorism is dangerous in several ways. For one it indicates that Baloch nationalists, who had till now not directed their wrath towards civilian targets, are re-thinking tactics and adopting methods used by extremists. The audacious kidnapping of a UN aid worker was one indication of this. The fact also is that for reasons rooted in our social traditions, women are likely to present a security threat that is especially difficult to deal with.
It is also true that despite the initial promises made by the PPP government, there has been a failure to address the problems of Balochistan. Frustration and anger lurk everywhere in the country’s largest province. The latest act of apparently random bombing is just one manifestation of it. There is also a threat that the situation in the area could grow still more complex, with talk of a takeover of Quetta by the Taliban or of drone-bombings conducted by the US. The issues of Balochistan must be tackled head-on. Otherwise we will see only more acts of violence and more unrest in the territory, where there has been far too much violence already for decades adding to the sense of instability we face as a federation.
“These people (The Shimankhel and Bhittani tribes of Waziristan) must cut off all their links with military intelligence officials or be ready for the dire consequences”. said the TTP Chief [Baitullah Mehsud] in his Urdu written document titled ‘Intibah’ (Warning) faxed to the local media in Tank district on Tuesday.
At least 11 people have been killed in a suicide-bomb attack at a restaurant in northwest Pakistan, intelligence officials say.
About two dozen people opposed to Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban leader, were in the restaurant when the suicide bomber struck on Thursday, they said.
Several other people were wounded in the attack, which tookplace in the Jandola district of South Waziristan.
The intelligence officials said those killed were loyal to Turkistan Bittani, a pro-government Pakistani tribal leader.
Meanwhile, in the adjoining region of North Waziristan, four people were killed after a suspected US drone aircraft fired two missiles into a house, Pakistani intelligence officials said.
The incident occurred early on Thursday outside the town of Mir Ali, they said.
“Two missiles fired from a suspected US drone hit the compound of a local pro-militant tribal elder Malik Gulab Khan, killing four residents,” a local security official told the AFP news agency.
It was the second suspected drone attack in the area in two days.
A missile believed to have been launched by an unmanned US drone killed at least seven suspected pro-Taliban fighters in South Waziristan on Wednesday, intelligence officials and Taliban sources said.
The US military does not confirm unmanned drone attacks but its forces and the Central Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan are the only agencies that use such aircraft in the region.
The raids came as a US newspaper reported that Washington was planning further drone attacks in Pakistan.
The drone programme, which the US administration reportedly views as “a success”, is under evaluation as part of a review of the US military strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, The Wall Street Journal said.
Intelligence officials from the US and Pakistan are composing a “fresh list of terrorist targets for drone strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border”, the daily said citing officials involved.Adjustments could me made to “change the pace and size of the programme, and make some technical refinements in an effort to hit targets faster”, the report said.
Accounts from Pakistani officials, residents and fighters say around 30 attacks have killed more than 300 people since August 2008.
The Pakistani government has protested to Washington that drone strikes violate its territorial sovereignty, saying that the attacks are counterproductive as the civilian casualties they often inflict have boosted support for fighters in the area.
The US in turn accuses Pakistan of not doing enough to crack down on fighters who cross the border to attack US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.
In a related development, The New York Times, citing American, Pakistani and other security officials, reported on Thursday that operatives in Pakistan’s military intelligence agency are aiding the Taliban’s campaign in southern Afghanistan.
“The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders,” the newspaper said.
“There is even evidence that ISI [Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence] operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections.”
Hundreds of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters sought refuge in Pakistan’s northwest tribal region after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban government in late 2001.
|US backs stable and vibrant democracy in Pakistan, says embassy spokesman
Thursday, March 26, 2009
ISLAMABAD: Those having faith in, what they call, Obama Plan for this region foresee remarkable changes in Pakistan to bring political stability, good governance and economic development in the country.
The recent resolution of the judicial crisis was said to be part of the same Obama Plan, which now envisages the return of PML-N in the federal government, return of PPP-PML-N government in Punjab, introduction of constitutional and judicial reforms in line with the Charter of Democracy, strengthening of the Office of prime minister, empowerment of the Parliament, and the unfolding of a countrywide programme of construction and development.
US embassy spokesman Jeremiah Knight when approached though did not confirm or deny the existence of any Obama Plan for this region including Pakistan, said that Washington is happy over the peaceful resolution of the judicial crisis in Pakistan.
When asked if there exists any Obama Plan for the region and for Pakistan and that it envisages the formation of national governments at the Centre and in Punjab, the implementation of Charter of Democracy, the repeal of 17th Amendment etc, he said, “The US supports the creation of stable and vibrant democracy in Pakistan.” He said that Washington is happy over how the major political parties in Pakistan have advanced in the recent past.
An informed source while quoting an Islamabad-based diplomat, who is said to be aware of the details of what he called the Obama Plan, said that a long-term solution to the problems associated with the Gwadar Port vis-a-vis the divergent strategic interests of US and China would also be explored in regional context, and in this regard all the concerned parties will be taken into confidence for seriously considering the following options. Regarding Pak-India relations, the proxy war between the two are being checked and controlled completely.
As reported earlier by The News, the same source had indicated that the judicial crisis would be resolved by March 16. The resolution of the crisis, it is said, would pave way for the PML-N to rejoin the PPP-led federal government and to jointly pursue the constitutional/judicial reforms under the Charter of Democracy.
The source claims that after the resolution of the judicial crisis, broad-based coalition governments at the federal and provincial levels are to be established thereby involving all major political parties (who matter) so as to give an outlook of a national government. Target date for it is said to be March 31, 2009.
The Office of prime minister and Parliament in Pakistan will be strengthened through certain constitutional amendments. Target date for this is said to be April 30, 2009. The coalition government of PPP, PML-N, ANP, etc will be encouraged to ensure good governance in Pakistan and to generate employment opportunities through a country-wide programme of construction & development thereby initiating infrastructure development projects, social & economic activities, health and education projects etc.
Target date for this is said to be June 30, 2009. However, the USA and other countries in the group of “Friends of Pakistan” will only offer their respective financial and economic development assistance packages to Pakistan unless and until a stable coalition government presenting the outlook of a national government in Pakistan is ensured. Target date for such an understanding with the Friends of Pakistan is May 30, 2009.
Regarding long-term solution to the problems associated with the Gwadar Port and the divergent strategic interests of the US and China related thereto, it is said, would be explored in regional context, and in this regard all the concerned parties will be taken into confidence for seriously considering the following options: Let Pakistan declare the Gwadar Sea Port as an international open port; Let both the USA and China jointly invest into developing the Gwadar Port as a Deep Sea Port of international standards; Let the USA build a land route and oil/gas pipelines from the Gwadar Deep Sea Port to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) of Central Asia through Afghanistan; Let China construct a land route and railways (if feasible) from the Gwadar Deep Sea Port to its Khunjerab Pass and onward through Balochistan, NWFP and Northern Areas; Let India construct a motorway from New Delhi to Lahore and then Pakistan constructs a motorway and railways (if feasible) from Peshawar to Jalalabad, city of Afghanistan, and at the same time, Afghanistan constructs a motorway and railways (if feasible) from Jalalabad to the American-sponsored land route extending to the CIS thereby providing India and Pakistan a joint access to Afghanistan and to the Central Asian States; Let Iran construct a motorway and railways (if feasible) to the American-sponsored land route in Afghanistan extending to the central Asian CIS member states thereby providing Iran a land access to Afghanistan and the Central Asian States, and also to China through Pakistan or through the CIS; and Let India, Pakistan and Iran jointly build a gas pipeline from Paras Gas Field of Iran to India through Pakistan for meeting the growing energy needs of both India and Pakistan.
The above solution, the source said, will provide a way forward to all the concerned countries thereby transforming into an economic inter-dependent region of peace and mutual cooperation to their respective benefits and prosperity.
Unlike his predecessor, the source said, President Barack Obama is bringing a paradigm shift in the US policy towards handling the present situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The source claimed that he has been duly warned by many think tanks in the USA and Europe that Washington has got only six to 12 months to save Pakistan falling into chaos of international consequences. Therefore, the US-administration under President Obama in collaboration with European Union and Pakistani authorities has to come up with a pragmatic plan for resolving the ongoing conflict and armed struggle in Afghanistan by the Afghan-Taliban (including al-Qaeda) and the insurgency in Fata and Swat by the TTP (including al-Qaeda, drug mafia and criminals), under which the following actions might take place in the very near future: To hold free & fair elections (under UN or a fair mechanism) in Afghanistan thereby openly allowing the Afghan-Taliban to participate in the upcoming elections so that Taliban (predominantly Pashtoons) should have a justification of quitting their armed struggle and joining the government in Afghanistan. Target date: September 30, 2009.
The US-led Nato forces, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (and may be Iran too) will have jointly to stop heroin production in Afghanistan and its smuggling out of the country through Pakistan, Iran and the CIS.
The coalition forces and the Afghanistan government will not allow any poppy growing and production and processing the heroin in Afghanistan. India will stop supplying the chemicals for heroin processing into Afghanistan. The Pakistan government will stop heroin smuggling through its territory. It will result into stopping the money supply out of this drug trade to the Afghan-Taliban and the TTP as well as to criminals/insurgents on both sides of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and once this money supply is dried out they won’t be able to continue their insurgent activities with empty stomach. Target date: December 31, 2009. To stop the ongoing proxy war between Pakistan and India, as soon as possible. In this regard, the USA, China, the UK, the European Union and Saudi Arabia will play a major role in order to ensure a permanent truce between the two warring parties.
MIRANSHAH: A US missile strike killed five people in Mir Ali town in North Waziristan on Thursday.
According to reports, US drone struck a house of local Malik Gulab Khan in the Sokhel area on the reports of presences of Al Qaeda suspects. Four people were killed and four others injured in the attack.
The strike is the second in as many days by the drones, with a missile on Wednesday killing up to seven alleged Al-Qaeda militants in the nearby Makeen area of South Waziristan.
U.S. and Pakistani intelligence officials are drawing up a fresh list of terrorist targets for Predator drone strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, part of a U.S. review of the drone program, according to officials involved.
Pakistani officials are seeking to broaden the scope of the program to target extremists who have carried out attacks against Pakistanis, a move they say could win domestic support. The Obama administration is weighing the effectiveness of the program against the risk that its unpopularity weakens an important ally.
Underlining the fragility of the situation, the U.S. believes Pakistan’s top intelligence agency is directly supporting the Taliban and other militants in Afghanistan, even as the U.S. targets those groups, says a person close to the deliberations.
The administration considers the program a success, and the program isn’t expected to be significantly curtailed. But officials familiar with the review say it could change the pace and size of the program, and make some technical refinements in an effort to hit targets faster. The review seeks to determine under what circumstances drones should be used, the officials say.
The broader reassessment could be announced as soon as Friday, according to people familiar with the matter. The review is believed to address plans for increasing troops and combating drug trafficking in Afghanistan, as well as strategies for strengthening institutions of civil government and building the economies in both countries.
President Barack Obama has declared the war in Afghanistan is a key foreign-policy priority, and the U.S. is sending an additional 17,000 troops to amplify U.S. efforts there.
Spokesmen for the White House’s National Security Council, which is conducting the review, and the CIA said they couldn’t confirm or comment on the review.
Officials reviewing the drones policy are assessing how destabilizing the strikes could be for Pakistan’s government, which was elected last year.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani have quietly supported the attacks even though the strikes have stirred domestic unrest — largely because they have killed some civilians, and many Pakistanis see al Qaeda as a greater threat to the U.S. than to Pakistan.
But Mr. Zardari’s government has been shaky in recent weeks. Large-scale protests forced him last week to allow the reinstatement of Pakistan’s Supreme Court chief justice, a major concession to his opponents that left him politically weakened.
Mr. Zardari was pressed by senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to resolve the conflict peacefully — pressure that included a warning that his resistance could hurt the prospects of getting foreign aid for his country.
But stability in Mr. Zardari’s government is seen in Washington as important to maintain support for U.S. efforts to strike at terrorist targets. Washington also wants to get Islamabad to take stronger steps against militants on the border.
If the Zardari government were to fall, U.S. officials say they would be unsure of the next government’s support. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif have been publicly critical of the strikes, though what support they might offer the U.S. behind the scenes if they gain more power is uncertain, U.S. officials say.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials say they are continuing to find evidence Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency continues to support militant groups in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, and groups run by Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. “There is definite unhappiness that the U.S. is still finding direct links between the ISI and those three organizations, which are operating in Afghanistan,” said a person working on the issue. Mr. Haqqani’s network has been targeted in drone attacks, as has Taliban leader Mullah Omar, the person said.
Pakistani officials say they only maintain contacts with some elements of the Taliban and no longer directly support the militants.
U.S. officials say that telecommunications intercepts showed ISI officials were in contact with Mr. Haqqani’s operatives when they bombed the Indian embassy in Kabul last July.
The Predators are seen to have hurt al Qaeda’s leadership in the near term. U.S. and Pakistani officials say more than half of an initial list of 20 high-value targets have been either killed or captured over the past six months. But there remains a fear among U.S. allies that the strikes could fuel a political backlash in Pakistan that in the long run aids Islamist extremists.
“At some point, a line needs to be drawn” on the scope of the program, said a European official briefed on the review.
The review is examining ways to reduce the time it takes between identifying a target and when the Predators fire — now less than 45 minutes — said a former CIA official.
President Barack Obama concluded that the drones have been an effective weapon against al Qaeda since President George W. Bush accelerated the missile strikes last year. U.S. officials have seen evidence of disruption as militants devote more time to operational security, choose to sleep in orchards instead of buildings, and take more care about the people with whom they interact, said a person familiar with the evidence.
Already, the campaign has apparently stepped up attacks on the network of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is believed to be behind the 2007 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was Mr. Zardari’s wife. In the fourth of a series of recent attacks targeting Mr. Mehsud’s network, a drone attack Wednesday killed at least eight militants along the Pakistan-Afghan border, according to two Pakistani officials.
The intensified campaign could help win domestic support for the strikes because it shows that the drone attacks are targeting direct threats to Pakistan, said a Pakistani official.
There is a discussion about whether to expand the strikes to outside Pakistan’s tribal areas, such as the province of Baluchistan. U.S. intelligence officials say they believe many of the Taliban’s senior leaders, such as Mullah Omar, operate openly in the provincial capital of Quetta. The idea of going that far has prompted concern in Islamabad that such strikes will greatly increase the numbers of civilian casualties and further fuel unrest.
I still vividly remember what motivated me four years ago to get involved in the dissident movement. It was my disgust with US foreign policy; in fact if I have to put my finger on any particular event, it is reading a book of Noam Chomsky, called ‘Hegemony or survival’. Today I must laugh because I realise that Noam Chomsky is probably the prototype of a Jewish gatekeeper. Like all other Jews dominating every aspect of political discourse, his role is to prevent dissenters from discussing an ever growing number of taboos:
- Israel’s and the Bush administration’s active involvement in the events of 9/11,
- that 95% of the world’s illegal drugs are distributed by government agencies to finance their shadowy activities,
- that the Afghanistan war was not about catching Osama bin Laden, or even ousting the Taliban, but about restoring the country’s role as the world’s leading supplier of opium,
- that there are lots of facts that give reason to doubt the veracity of the official narrative of the so-called Jewish Holocaust,
The ‘elite’ mindset
We live in a world of hoaxes fabricated by our self-chosen rulers. When it comes to ‘we the people’ they are not the slightest concerned with truth. They just tell us whatever they think will make us act in the way they want us to act. Their attitude is no different from that of a hunter or farmer who uses every trick he can come up with to manipulate the hunted or domestic animal into behaving the way it suits him. They think it’s being clever, and it probably is. But you got to wonder what it is that makes them think they can treat us like that. There must be some sense of superiority that makes them believe that they can manipulate, exploit, mistreat and even kill us for their own benefit.
In earlier times, our rulers justified their rule with ‘God’s will’, often symbolized in the coronation ceremony, usually performed by a bishop or the pope. One of the main functions of religion is in fact justifying the rule of one group of people over another. That’s why a change of rulers tends to go hand in hand with a change of religion. Replacing a religion with another is about destroying old power structures. The Brits perfected this by grooming local collaborators in their missionary schools.
Today’s ruling elite’s supremacism has its sources in that medieval ‘God’s will’ justification, Protestant teachings that being rich and powerful are proof of God’s love, and 3000 year old Jewish supremacism. Western elites got infested with Judaic beliefs through intermarriage and the Trojan horse of Freemasonry, which is based on the Jewish Kabbalah. A good example for that process is Prince Charles’ marriage with Princess Diana, whose mother is a born Rothschild, making – technically speaking – the next English monarch a Jew.
The reasons for the strong sense of Jewish superiority vary from person to person in any possible combination:
- Chosenness, founded in Torah teachings that God favours Jews over non-Jews,
- Religious racism, founded in Talmudic teachings that non-Jews are animals in human shape, created by God to serve and enrich Jews,
- Ethnic racism, founded in beliefs that Jews have historically proven to be more intelligent, clever or otherwise genetically superior to non-Jews,
- Social-Darwinism, founded in the belief that Jews are an ethnic group superior to others, to which they are in competition for the survival of the fittest.
Jewincidencs all around
It is of course no mere coincidence – as the Jewish Defamation League wants us to believe - that Jews are heavily over-represented in virtual all important aspects of society. It is a Jewincidence, that is a coincidence that is ‘good for the Jews’, just like the fact that 95% of media companies and virtually all Fortune 500 companies are owned and/or controlled by Jews. It is also a Jewincidence that both Democrat and Republican U.S. administrations are stacked with Jews, as are the courts, and the universities. Of course this has nothing to do with genetic superiority or God’s will. It’s the money of our Jewified ruling elite that pushes Jews into all positions of power and influence. What makes Jews so useful for our ruling crime families is Jewish ethics, which measures whether something is good or evil purely on whether it is good for the Jews. As long as the Jews are taken care of, they don’t care about anything else.
Talking about these kinds of problems is of course tantamount to social and career suicide. Not only are most people so brainwashed that they automatically consider anyone a crackpot conspiracy theorist or – worse – an anti-Semite who fails to self-censor his thoughts according to the boundaries set by ‘political correctness’. They are scared, literally scared, to be suspected of harboring these kinds of subversive thoughts. So what they do, if anyone expresses such views, is avoid being seen talking to him, and if that cannot be avoided, keep the contact to a minimum and assure everyone around how revolting they find his views.
I don’t blame them. We all have been conditionned to believe that thinking badly of Jews, leave alone publicly criticising them, is anti-Semitism. The only difference between us is at what level those Skinner-box kind of reactions kick in. (In my case it is when Jews are criticised on racial grounds.) If we want to have any chance of freeing ourselves from the Jewish stranglehold, we need to overcome our worst enemy, our fear of the Jews. The price for calling the beast by its name is high, both socially and financially, but the price for remaining silent is enslavement and death.
Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of Jews Anonymous. He can be contacted on
var prefix = ‘ma’ + ‘il’ + ‘to’;
var path = ‘hr’ + ‘ef’ + ‘=’;
var addy77954 = ‘andrew’ + ‘@’;
addy77954 = addy77954 + ‘therebel’ + ‘.’ + ‘org’;
document.write( ‘<a ‘ + path + ‘\” + prefix + ‘:’ + addy77954 + ‘\’>’ );
document.write( addy77954 );
document.write( ‘<\/a>’ );
document.write( ‘<span style=\’display: none;\’>’ );
. You can find more of his articles in the Editorial Section of the ZioPedia.org site.
Mehsud is regarded as a key al-Qa’ida facilitator in the tribal areas of South Waziristan in Pakistan. Pakistani authorities believe that the January 2007 suicide attack against the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was staged by militants loyal to Mehsud. Press reports also have linked Mehsud to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the deaths of other innocent civilians.
In addition, Mehsud has stated his intention to attack the United States. He has conducted cross-border attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and poses a clear threat to American persons and interests in the region.
More information on Mehsud is available on the Rewards for Justice website (www.rewardsforjustice.net/mehsud).
The United States is determined to bring Baitullah Mehsud to justice. We encourage anyone with information on Mehsud’s location to contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate, any U.S. military commander, or the Rewards for Justice staff via the website (www.rewardsforjustice.net), e-mail (RFJ@state.gov) or mail (Rewards for Justice, Washington, DC 20520-0303, USA).
Government officials are not eligible for rewards based on information furnished in the course of their official duties.
All information will be kept strictly confidential.
Since its inception in 1984, the Rewards for Justice Program has paid more than $80 million to more than 50 persons who have provided credible information that has resulted in the capture or death of terrorists or prevented acts of international terrorism.
Peshawar—According to Interior Ministry, intelligence agencies on Tuesday warned that Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi could be under the range of terrorist attacks, sources said.
According to the report, 18 militants from Waziristan have entered Punjab and other cities through Mianwali.
These militants could target police and other high profile areas.
Interior Ministry has called high alert in Islamabad and all provinces.
Meanwhile, Chief of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and beleaguered Commander Baitullah Mehsud has warned to hit back the heart of Pakistan if the Intelligence agencies and other military authorities did not stop supporting the pro-government tribal elders forthwith.
“These people (The Shimankhel and Bhittani tribes of Waziristan) must cut off all their links with military intelligence officials or be ready for the dire consequences”. said the TTP Chief in his Urdu written document titled ‘Intibah’ (Warning) faxed to the local media in Tank district on Tuesday.
The document contained seven points which concluded with the word ‘Minjanib’ (From) Ameer Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan Mullah Baitullah Mehsud.
Following is the complete text of the document:
1. For information of the general public that Zainuddin Shimankhel and his companions and Turkistan Bhittani etc were being used by the Military Intelligence (MI) and other military authorities for a particular cause which included killing the people, disgracing them and loot.
2. These people have also been given due protection and every kind of cooperation like vehicles, issuance of cards, fiscal assistance and permission to roam with arms in the administrative areas by the military authorities.
3. We do not want to carry out activities inside Pakistan which is against our as well as Pakistan’s interests.
4. However, if the MI and military officials did not stop their assistance to Zainuddin Shimankhel and Turkistan Bhittani then we will be compelled to carry out subversive activities in the heart of Pakistan, Islamabad.
5. Had Zaindudin been successor of Abdullah Mehsud, he would not have sat in the lap of the MI as late Abdullah Mehsud was a brave commander
6. Zainuddin and his comrades dishonoured women of the Mehsud tribe last year and killed many of the tribesmen and the entire Mehsud tribe was in know of this fact.
7. Zainuddin and his companions are oppressors and robbers. They are rebels of Islam and their tribe and they are serving those people who martyred Abdullah Mehsud, the document concluded.
On the other hand, tension has escalated between Turkistan, the head of Jandola Peace Committee and local Taliban militants in the region. Local and Intelligence sources confirmed that Turkistan Bhittani, who in bloody clashes with the fighters of Baitullah Mehsud had lost his 36 kinsmen last year, is now reorganizing his force.It was also learnt reliably that a considerable number of Taliban militants who were associated with late Warlord, Abdullah Mehsud have assured their fullest support to Malik Turkistan because of their differences.
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States Wednesday offered up to 11 million dollars in rewards to find and capture three Al-Qaeda militants operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The rewards included a five-million-dollar bounty for the location or arrest of Baitullah Mehsud, who has been linked to the murder of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
Bhutto was killed in a suicide attack in December 2007, plunging Pakistan into a protracted political crisis.
“Mehsud is regarded as a key Al-Qaeda facilitator in the tribal areas of South Waziristan in Pakistan,” the US State Department said in a statement.
Mehsud was also described by the United States as a senior leader of Tehrik-e-Taliban, the Taliban Movement of Pakistan.
Militants apparently loyal to Mehsud were accused by Pakistan of orchestrating a January 2007 attack on the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad which killed two people.
A further five million dollars was offered for Sirajuddin Haqqani, a suspected leader of the Haqqani terror network founded by his father.
The group has been linked to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
In an interview with a US newspaper, Sirajuddin Haqqani admitted to bombing the Serena Hotel in Kabul in January 2008, killing six people, including American citizen Thor David Hesla.
“Haqqani also admitted to having planned the April 2008 assassination attempt on Afghan President Hamid Karzai,” the State Department said.
One million dollars has been offered for information about alledged Al-Qaeda member Abu Yahya al-Libi. A Libyan citizen, Libi escaped from Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan in 2005, after three years in detention.
He is believed to be in hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan, from where he has “appeared in a number of propaganda videos, using his religious training to influence people and legitimize the actions of Al-Qaeda,” according to the State Department.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 The U.S. State Department is offering a $5 million reward for information leading to the location or arrest of senior Taliban Movement of Pakistan leader Baitullah Mehsud.
Mehsud is a key Al Qaeda figure linked to the assassination former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the 2007 homicide attack against an Islamabad Marriott. He has also stated his desire to strike the U.S.
U.S. officials fear Mehsud poses a threat to American troops in Afghanistan and has facilitated cross-border attacks from Pakistan.
Mehsud is believed to be in the tribal areas of South Waziristan in Pakistan.