The convoy’s aid cargo was expected to arrive in Gaza later in the day, after travelling separately from Syria to Egypt by boat. … Egyptian authorities had prevented several activists from entering Gaza at the Rafah border crossing. … The boat is carrying $US1 million worth of medicine, foodstuffs and toys as well as four buses and 10 power generators for hospitals, Palestinian officials said.
Egyptian authorities have prevented an Asian convoy’s ship carrying humanitarian aid and activists from reaching the Gaza Strip.
The ship has not allowed to dock at the Egyptian port of El Arish.
The vessel, which is part of a sizeable pro-Palestinian relief mission, is said to be carrying eight activists as well as $1 million worth of relief supplies for the Israel-blockaded Gaza Strip.
“Egypt still didn’t allow the aid ship to dock. It is 50 hours,” dpa quoted the activists as saying on Monday, noting that they are in a “bad situation.”
UPDATE
@Asia2Gaza 8 activists suffered 65 hours on #Asia2Gaza aid ship until #Egypt allowed ship to dock by receiving 10000$ bribe! #
In Kensington, England, protestors draw attention to Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people of Gaza.
The water quality control authority in the Gaza Strip said that more than 90% of the Strip’s potable water was contaminated, warning of a serious threat to lives of the Strip’s inhabitants.
The report published on Monday said that the Palestinian citizens were increasingly using home desalination and purification systems especially with the high concentration of chlorine in the water wells.
It noted that the sewage water, agricultural chemicals, and “dangerous waste” spewed by the former Israeli settlements in the Strip were contaminating the underground water reservoir.
The report said that the people in Gaza consume 170 million cubic meters of the underground water per annum with no equal natural feeding of the water wells due to the scarcity of rain.
Israel’s Civil Administration patrols on Sunday delivered 17 demolition orders to an extended family near the West Bank city of Jericho, residents said.
Members of the Az-Zayed family received orders to demolish a mosque, electricity infrastructure and tents north of An-Nuwei’ma village.
The electricity structures slated for demolition were recently installed by the Palestinian Authority at a cost of 79,000 shekels ($22,225)
North of Sheikh Jarrah, in Lafta village, the zionist oppressor demolished part of a Palestinian home, leaving a family of 9 to “live in one bedroom, one lounge and a corridor”.
Seyam told Ma’an a legal dispute began in 2004, when he received a demolition order which was frozen three times. The Jerusalem municipality said his license was conditional on submitting a plan for the surrounding area, which he could not afford.
…
On Wednesday, Israeli forces demolished 11 structures in the At-Tur neighborhood of East Jerusalem, which authorities said were constructed without permits.
…
Palestinians say it is virtually impossible to secure Israeli permission to build in East Jerusalem.
In late December, two Palestinian families destroyed their own homes in compliance with Israeli demolition orders.
Director of UNRWA Operations West Bank Barbara Shenstone said the families opted to demolish their own homes rather than wait for Jerusalem municipality to do so because a municipal demolition would cost them up to 120,000 shekels ($33,389).
“These condemnable acts have a devastating impact,” Shenstone said in a statement at the time.
“While children around the world are enjoying the holiday season in their homes, these children have suffered the trauma and indignity of watching their homes destroyed in the presence of their parents. It is extremely cruel and distressing.”
On 23 December, Maxwell Gaylard, the UN humanitarian coordinator for the occupied Palestinian territory, offered his own condemnation after visiting the site of a home that had been demolished 24 hours earlier.
“The destruction of this home and the displacement of these people raises serious concerns with regard to Israel’s obligations under international law,” he said.
“These actions have a severe social and economic impact on the lives and welfare of Palestinians and increase their dependence on humanitarian assistance,” he added.
“The government of Israel must take immediate steps to cease demolitions and evictions in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem.”
And from Bil’in, whose non-violent protesting inhabitants suffered a despicable attack by the Israeli Occupation Forces a couple of days ago, Mohammad Khatib writes:
“…my next letter will likely be written from inside a prison cell”
At the threshold of the New Year, I write to wish you a new year of freedom and liberation. This has been an unbelievable year for me in both highs and lows. A year during which I have witnessed how, despite repression, ordinary people all across Palestine take to the streets for freedom.
In my village, Bil’in, thousands of people marched on the Wall today to take it down. During the demonstration, one protestor, a 36 year old resident of the village, Jawaher Abu-Rahmah, was critically injured by severe tear-gas inhalation. She is currently hospitalized in Ramallah, unresponsive to medical treatment as the doctors are fighting for her life. [The morning after this was written, Jawaher lost her life. Cause of death: Poisoning from over exposure to CS gas.]
Bil’in has been struggling for almost six years against the Wall that was built on our lands. The illegality and absurdity of this wall has been recognized worldwide, and even by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled it must be dismantled over three years ago. Yet the Wall still stands. We, the people of Bil’in, the people of Palestine, have waited enough. Today was therefore declared by the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements as the last day of the Wall. Together with our supporters, we managed to bring a substantial part of the wall down but we still have a long way to go.
On a personal note, the beginning of 2011 also strikes notes of fear. In just a few days, on January 3rd, 2011, my trial in front of an Israeli military court will draw into conclusion. Captain Sharon Rivlin, the soldier-judge presiding in my case, will hand down my verdict. If found guilty of “incitement”, my next letter will likely be written from inside a prison cell; If found guilty, despite having proved that evidence against me was falsified, I will proudly join my friend and comrade,Abdallah Abu Rahmah, who is now spending his second new year’s eve behind bars. PSCC’s media coordinator, my friend and brother in struggle, Israeli activist Jonathan Pollak, will also be going to prison, again, for three months on January 11th, for protesting Israel’s siege on Gaza.
We are all facing tremendous challenges, as individuals and as a movement. It is our pride and strength that keeps us going. It is your support and involvement, which is becoming more crucial than ever. Join us – take our struggle forward, so that the year of 2011 will become an historical year of Palestinian liberation and a just peace.
Here’s one of my historical bookmarks – the manipulation into war, again, of Iraq by the US and cronies for Gulf War 1 aka Desert Storm. In honour of the validation of my long-held stance, I’ll copy the cable in full.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
90BAGHDAD4237 1990-07-25 12:12 2011-01-01 21:09 SECRET Embassy Baghdad
O 251246Z JUL 90
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4627
INFO AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY KUWAIT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY RIYADH IMMEDIATE
ARABLEAGUE COLLECTIVE
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 BAGHDAD 04237
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: MOPS PREL US KU IZ
SUBJECT: SADDAM’S MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP TO PRESIDENT BUSH
¶1. SECRET – ENTIRE TEXT.
¶2. SUMMARY: SADDAM TOLD THE AMBASSADOR JULY 25
THAT MUBARAK HAS ARRANGED FOR KUWAITI AND IRAQI
DELEGATIONS TO MEET IN RIYADH, AND THEN ON
JULY 28, 29 OR 30, THE KUWAITI CROWN PRINCE WILL
COME TO BAGHDAD FOR SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS. “NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN” BEFORE THEN, SADDAM HAD PROMISED
MUBARAK.
–SADDAM WISHED TO CONVEY AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ WANTS FRIENDSHIP, BUT DOES
THE USG? IRAQ SUFFERED 100,000′S OF CASUALTIES
AND IS NOW SO POOR THAT WAR ORPHAN PENSIONS WILL
SOON BE CUT; YET RICH KUWAIT WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT
OPEC DISCIPLINE. IRAQ IS SICK OF WAR, BUT KUWAIT
HAS IGNORED DIPLOMACY. USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE
WILL ENCOURAGE THE UAE AND KUWAIT TO IGNORE
CONVENTIONAL DIPLOMACY. IF IRAQ IS PUBLICLY
HUMILIATED BY THE USG, IT WILL HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO “RESPOND,” HOWEVER ILLOGICAL AND SELF
DESTRUCTIVE THAT WOULD PROVE.
–ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE EXPLICIT, SADDAM’S MESSAGE
TO US SEEMED TO BE THAT HE WILL MAKE A MAJOR PUSH
TO COOPERATE WITH MUBARAK’S DIPLOMACY, BUT WE MUST
TRY TO UNDERSTAND KUWAITI/UAE “SELFISHNESS” IS
UNBEARABLE. AMBASSADOR MADE CLEAR THAT WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY OTHER THAN
PEACEFUL MEANS. END SUMMARY.
¶3. AMBASSADOR WAS SUMMONED BY PRESIDENT
SADDAM HUSAYN AT NOON JULY 25. ALSO PRESENT
WERE FONMIN AZIZ, THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE
DIRECTOR, TWO NOTETAKERS, AND THE IRAQI
INTERPRETER.
¶4. SADDAM, WHOSE MANNER WAS CORDIAL,
REASONABLE AND EVEN WARM THROUGHOUT THE ENSUING
TWO HOURS, SAID HE WISHED THE AMBASSADOR TO
CONVEY A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT BUSH. SADDAM
THEN RECALLED IN DETAIL THE HISTORY OF IRAQ’S
DECISION TO REESTABLISH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
AND ITS POSTPONING IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT
DECISION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR, RATHER THAN BE
THOUGHT WEAK AND NEEDY. HE THEN SPOKE ABOUT THE
MANY “BLOWS” OUR RELATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
SINCE 1984, CHIEF AMONG THEM IRANGATE. IT WAS
AFTER THE FAW VICTORY, SADDAM SAID, THAT IRAQI
MISAPPREHENSIONS ABOUT USG PURPOSES BEGAN TO
SURFACE AGAIN, I.E., SUSPICIONS THAT THE U.S. WAS
NOT HAPPY TO SEE THE WAR END.
¶5. PICKING HIS WORDS WITH CARE, SADDAM SAID
THAT THERE ARE “SOME CIRCLES” IN THE USG,
INCLUDING IN CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT,
BUT EMPHATICALLY EXCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY BAKER, WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY TOWARD
IRAQ-U.S. RELATIONS. HE THEN LISTED WHAT HE
SEEMED TO REGARD AS FACTS TO SUPPORT THIS
CONCLUSION: “SOME CIRCLES ARE GATHERING
INFORMATION ON WHO MIGHT BE SADDAM HUSAYN’S
SUCCESSOR;” THEY KEPT UP CONTACTS IN THE GULF
WARNING AGAINST IRAQ; THEY WORKED TO ENSURE
NO HELP WOULD GO TO IRAQ (READ EXIM AND CCC).
¶6. IRAQ, THE PRESIDENT STRESSED, IS IN SERIOUS
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, WITH 40 BILLION USD DEBTS.
IRAQ, WHOSE VICTORY IN THE WAR AGAINST IRAN
MADE AN HISTORIC DIFFERENCE TO THE ARAB WORLD
AND THE WEST, NEEDS A MARSHALL PLAN. BUT “YOU
WANT THE OIL PRICE DOWN,” SADDAM CHARGED.
¶7. RESUMING HIS LIST OF GRIEVANCES WHICH HE
BELIEVED WERE ALL INSPIRED BY
“SOME CIRCLES” IN THE USG, HE RECALLED THE
“USIA CAMPAIGN” AGAINST HIMSELF, AND THE
GENERAL MEDIA ASSAULT ON IRAQ AND ITS PRESIDENT.
¶8. DESPITE ALL THESE BLOWS, SADDAM SAID, AND
ALTHOUGH “WE WERE SOMEWHAT ANNOYED,” WE STILL
HOPED THAT WE COULD DEVELOP A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
BUT THOSE WHO FORCE OIL PRICES DOWN ARE ENGAGING
IN ECONOMIC WARFARE AND IRAQ CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH
A TRESPASS ON ITS DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY.
¶9. THE SPEARHEADS (FOR THE USG) HAVE BEEN KUWAIT
AND THE UAE, SADDAM SAID. SADDAM SAID CAREFULLY
THAT JUST AS IRAQ WILL NOT THREATEN OTHERS, IT
WILL ACCEPT NO THREAT AGAINST ITSELF. “WE HOPE
THE USG WILL NOT MISUNDERSTAND:” IRAQ ACCEPTS,
AS THE STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN SAID, THAT ANY
COUNTRY MAY CHOOSE ITS FRIENDS. BUT THE USG KNOWS
THAT IT WAS IRAQ, NOT THE USG, WHICH DECISIVELY
PROTECTED THOSE USG FRIENDS DURING THE WAR–AND THAT
IS UNDERSTANDABLE SINCE PUBLIC OPINION IN THE USG,
TO SAY NOTHING OF GEOGRAPHY, WOULD HAVE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AMERICANS TO ACCEPT 10,000 DEAD
IN A SINGLE BATTLE, AS IRAQ DID.
¶10. SADDAM ASKED WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE USG
TO ANNOUNCE IT IS COMMITTED TO THE DEFENSE OF
ITS FRIENDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY.
ANSWERING HIS OWN QUESTION, HE SAID THAT TO IRAQ
IT MEANS FLAGRANT BIAS AGAINST THE GOI.
¶11. COMING TO ONE OF HIS MAIN POINTS, SADDAM
ARGUED THAT USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE AND KUWAIT (SIC)
ENCOURAGED THEM IN THEIR UNGENEROUS POLICIES. THE
IRAQI RIGHTS, SADDAM EMPHASIZED, WILL BE RESTORED
ONE BY ONE, THOUGH IT MAY TAKE A MONTH OR MUCH
MORE THAN A YEAR. IRAQ HOPES THE USG WILL BE
IN HARMONY WITH ALL THE PARTIES TO THIS DISPUTE.
¶12. SADDAM SAID HE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE USG IS
DETERMINED TO KEEP THE OIL FLOWING AND TO
MAINTAIN ITS FRIENDSHIPS IN THE GULF. WHAT HE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS WHY WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO
ARE DAMAGING IRAQ, WHICH IS WHAT OUR GULF MANEUVERS
WILL DO.
¶13. SADDAM SAID HE FULLY BELIEVES THE USG WANTS
PEACE, AND THAT IS GOOD. BUT DO NOT, HE ASKED,
USE METHODS WHICH YOU SAY YOU DO NOT LIKE,
METHODS LIKE ARM-TWISTING-
¶14. AT THIS POINT SADDAM SPOKE AT LENGTH ABOUT
PRIDE OF IRAQIS, WHO BELIEVE IN “LIBERTY OR DEATH.”
IRAQ WILL HAVE TO RESPOND IF THE U.S. USES THESE
METHODS. IRAQ KNOWS THE USG CAN SEND PLANES AND
ROCKETS AND HURT IRAQ DEEPLY. SADDAM ASKS THAT
THE USG NOT FORCE IRAQ TO THE POINT OF HUMILIATION
AT WHICH LOGIC MUST BE DISREGARDED. IRAQ DOES NOT
CONSIDER THE U.S. AN ENEMY AND HAS TRIED TO BE
FRIENDS.
¶15. AS FOR THE INTRA-ARAB DISPUTES, SADDAM SAID
HE IS NOT ASKING THE USG TO TAKE UP ANY PARTICULAR
ROLE SINCE THE SOLUTIONS MUST COME THROUGH ARAB
AND BILATERAL DIPLOMACY.
¶16. RETURNING TO HIS THEME THAT IRAQ WANTS
DIGNITY AND FREEDOM AS WELL AS FRIENDSHIP WITH THE
U.S., HE CHARGED THAT IN THE LAST YEAR THERE WERE
MANY OFFICIAL STATEMENTS WHICH MADE IT SEEM THAT
THE U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO RECIPROCATE. HOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, SADDAM ASKED,CAN WE INTERPRET THE
INVITATION FOR ARENS TO VISIT AT A TIME OF CRISIS
IN THE GULF? WHY DID THE U.S- DEFENSE MINISTER
MAKE “INFLAMMATORY” STATEMENTS?
¶17. SADDAM SAID THAT THE IRAQIS KNOW WHAT
WAR IS, WANT NO MORE OF IT–”DO NOT PUSH US TO IT;
DO NOT MAKE IT THE ONLY OPTION LEFT WITH WHICH WE
CAN PROTECT OUR DIGNITY.”
¶18. PRESIDENT BUSH, SADDAM SAID, HAS MADE NO MISTAKE
IN HIS PRESIDENCY VIS-A-VIS THE ARABS. THE DECISION
ON THE PLO DIALOGUE WAS “MISTAKEN,” BUT IT WAS
TAKEN UNDER “ZIONIST PRESSURE” AND, SADDAM SAID, IS
PERHAPS A CLEVER TACTIC TO ABSORB THAT PRESSURE.
¶19. AFTER A SHORT DIVERSION ON THE NEED FOR THE
U.S. TO CONSIDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF 200,000
ARABS WITH THE SAME VIGOR AND INTEREST AS THE HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE ISRAELIS, SADDAM CONCLUDED BY
RESTATING THAT IRAQ WANTS AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP
“ALTHOUGH WE WILL NOT PANT FOR IT, WE WILL DO OUR
PART AS FRIENDS.”
¶20. SADDAM THEN OFFERED AN ANECDOTE TO ILLUSTRATE
HIS POINT. HE HAD TOLD THE IRAQI KURDISH LEADER
IN 1974 THAT HE WAS PREPARED TO GIVE UP HALF OF
THE SHATT AL-ARAB TO IRAN TO OBTAIN ALL OF A
PROSPEROUS IRAQ. THE KURD HAD BET THAT SADDAM WOULD
NOT GIVE HALF THE SHATT–THE KURD WAS WRONG. EVEN
NOW, THE ONLY REAL ISSUE WITH IRAN IS THE SHATT, AND
IF GIVING AWAY HALF OF THE WATERWAY IS THE ONLY
THING STANDING BETWEEN THE CURRENT SITUATION AND
IRAQI PROSPERITY, SADDAM SAID HE WOULD BE GUIDED
BY WHAT HE DID IN 1974.
¶21. THE AMBASSADOR THANKED SADDAM FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS DIRECTLY WITH HIM SOME OF
HIS AND OUR CONCERNS. PRESIDENT BUSH, TOO, WANTS
FRIENDSHIP, AS HE HAD WRITTEN AT THE ‘ID AND ON
THE OCCASION OF IRAQ’S NATIONAL DAY. SADDAM
INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE HAD BEEN TOUCHED BY THOSE
¶22. AMBASSADOR RESUMED HER THEME, RECALLING THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD INSTRUCTED HER TO BROADEN AND
DEEPEN OUR RELATIONS WITH IRAQ. SADDAM HAD REFERRED
TO “SOME CIRCLES” ANTIPATHETIC TO THAT AIM. SUCH
CIRCLES CERTAINLY EXISTED, BUT THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION
IS INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT. ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMERICAN PRESS;
IF HE DID, CRITICISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT
EXIST. SADDAM AGAIN INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE HAD SEEN THE DIANE
SAWYER SHOW AND THOUGHT THAT IT WAS CHEP AND UNFAIR.
BUT THE AMERICAN PRESS TREATS ALL POLITICIANS
WITHOUT KID GLOVES–THAT IS OUR WAY.
¶23. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
VERY RECENTLY REAFFIRMED HIS DESIRE FOR A BETTER
RELATIONSHIP AND HAS PROVEN THAT BY, FOR EXAMPLE,
OPPOSING SANCTIONS BILLS. HERE SADDAM INTERRUPTED
AGAIN. LAUGHING, HE SAID THERE IS NOTHING LEFT
FOR IRAQ TO BUY IN THE U.S. EVERYTHING IS
PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR WHEAT, AND NO DOUBT THAT WILL
SOON BE DECLARED A DUAL-USE ITEM- SADDAM SAID, HOWEVER,
HE HAD DECIDED NOT TO RAISE THIS ISSUE, BUT RATHER
CONCENTRATE ON THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES AT HAND.
¶24. AMBASSADOR SAID THERE WERE MANY ISSUES HE
HAD RAISED SHE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON, BUT
SHE WISHED TO USE HER LIMITED TIME WITH THE
PRESIDENT TO STRESS FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH’S DESIRE
FOR FRIENDSHIP AND, SECOND, HIS STRONG DESIRE, SHARED
WE ASSUME BY IRAQ, FOR PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE MID
EAST. IS IT NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED
WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER BOTH
SAY PUBLICLY THAT KUWAITI ACTIONS ARE THE
EQUIVALENT OF MILITARY AGGRESSION, AND THEN WE
LEARN THAT MANY UNITS OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD
HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE BORDER? IS IT NOT REASONABLE
FOR US TO ASK, IN THE SPIRIT OF FRIENDSHIP, NOT
CONFRONTATION, THE SIMPLE QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOUR
INTENTIONS?
¶25. SADDAM SAID THAT WAS INDEED A REASONABLE
QUESTION. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED FOR REGIONAL PEACE, IN FACT IT IS OUR
DUTY AS A SUPERPOWER. “BUT HOW CAN WE MAKE THEM
(KUWAIT AND UAE) UNDERSTAND HOW DEEPLY WE ARE
SUFFERING.” THE FINANCIAL SITUATION IS SUCH THAT
THE PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS WILL HAVE
TO BE CUT. AT THIS POINT, THE INTERPRETER AND
ONE OF THE NOTETAKERS BROKE DOWN AND WEPT.
¶26. AFTER A PAUSE FOR RECUPERATION, SADDAM SAID,
IN EFFECT, BELIEVE ME I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING: WE
SENT ENVOYS, WROTE MESSAGES, ASKED FAHD TO
ARRANGE QUADRAPARTITE SUMMIT (IRAQ, SAG, UE,
KUWAIT). FAHD SUGGESTFD OIL MINISTERS INSTEAD AND
WE AGREED TO THE JEDDAH AGREEMENT ALTHOUGH IT WAS
WELL BELOW OUR HOPES. THEN, SADDAM CONTINUED,
TWO DAYS LATER THE KUWAITI OIL MINISTER ANNOUNCED
HE WOULD WANT TO ANNUL THAT AGREEMENT WITHIN TWO
MONTHS. AS FOR THE UAE, SADDAM SAID, I BEGGED
SHAYKH ZAYID TO UNDERSTAND OUR PROBLEMS (WHEN
SADDAM ENTERTAINED HIM IN MOSUL AFTER THE BAGHDAD
SUMMIT), AND ZAYID SAID JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET
BACK TO ABU DHABI. BUT THEN HIS MINISTER OF OIL
MADE “BAD STATEMENTS.”
¶27. AT THIS POINT, SADDAM LEFT THE ROOM TO TAKE
AN URGENT CALL FROM MUBARAK. AFTER HIS RETURN,
THE AMBASSADOR ASKED IF HE COULD TELL HER IF
THERE HAS ANY PROGRESS IN FINDING A PEACEFUL WAY
TO DEFUSE THE DISPUTE. THIS WAS SOMETHING PRESIDENT
BUSH WOULD BE KEENLY INTERESTED TO KNOW. SADDAM
SAID THAT HE HAD JUST LEARNED FROM MUBARAK THE
KUWAITIS HAVE AGREED TO NEGOTIATE. THE KUWAITI
CROWN PRINCE/PRIME MINISTER WOULD MEET IN RIYADH
WITH SADDAM’S NUMBER TWO, IZZAT IBRAHIM, AND THEN
THE KUWAITI WOULD COME TO BAGHDAD ON SATURDAY,
SUNDAY OR, AT THE LATEST, MONDAY, JULY 30.
¶28. “I TOLD MUBARAK,” SADDAM SAID, THAT “NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN UNTIL THE MEETING,” AND NOTHING WILL
HAPPEN DURING OR AFTER THE MEETING IF THE KUWAITIS
WILL AT LAST “GIVE US SOME HOPE.”
¶29. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE WAS DELIGHTED TO HEAR
THIS GOOD NEWS. SADDAM THEN ASKED HER TO CONVEY
HIS WARM GREETINGS TO PRESIDENT BUSH AND TO
CONVEY HIS MESSAGE TO HIM.
¶30. NOTE: ON THE BORDER QUESTION, SADDAM REFERRED
TO THE 1961 AGREEMENT AND A “LINE OF PATROL” IT
HAD ESTABLISHED. THE KUWAITIS, HE SAID, HAD TOLD
MUBARAK IRAQ WAS 20 KILOMETERS “IN FRONT” OF THIS
LINE. THE AMBASSADOR SAID THAT SHE HAD SERVED IN
KUWAIT 20 YEARS BEFORE; THEN, AS NOW, WE TOOK NO
POSITION ON THESE ARAB AFFAIRS.
¶31. COMMENT: IN THE MEMORY QF THE CURRENT
DIPLOMATIC CORPS, SADDAM HAS NEVER SUMMONED AN
AMBASSADOR. HE IS WORRIED.
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN POLITICAL THEORIZING
(U.S. THE SOLE MAJOR POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST),
HE NEEDS AT A MINIMUM A CORRECT RELATIONSHIP
WITH US FOR OBVIOUS GEOPOLITICAL REASONS,
ESPECIALLY AS LONG AS HE PERCEIVES MORTAL
THREATS FROM ISRAEL AND IRAN. AMBASSADOR
BELIEVES SADDAM SUSPECTS OUR DECISION SUDDENLY
TO UNDERTAKE MANEUVERS WITH ABU DHABI IS A
HARBINGER OF A USG DECISION TO TAKE SIDES.
FURTHER, SADDAM, HIMSELF BEGINNING TO HAVE AN
INKLING OF HOW MUCH HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT
THE U.S., IS APPREHENSIVE THAT WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND CERTAIN POLITICAL FACTORS WHICH
INHIBIT HIM, SUCH AS:
–HE CANNOT ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE PERCEIVED AS
CAVING IN TO SUPERPOWER BULLYING (AS U/S HAMDUN
FRANKLY WARNED US IN LATE 1988);
–IRAQ, WHICH LOST 100,000′S OF CASUALTIES, IS
SUFFERING AND KUWAIT IS “MISERLY” AND “SELFISH.”
¶32. IT WAS PROGRESS TO HAVE SADDAM ADMIT
THAT THE USG HAS A “RESPONSIBILITY” IN THE
REGION, AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EXPECT AN
ANSWER WHEN WE ASK IRAQ’S INTENTIONS. HIS
RESPONSE IN EFFECT THAT HE TRIED VARIOUS
DIPLOMATIC/CHANNELS BEFORE RESORTING TO
UNADULTERATED INTIMIDATION HAS AT LEAST THE
VIRTUE OF FRANKNESS. HIS EMPHASIS THAT HE
WANTS PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT IS SURELY SINCERE
(IRAQIS ARE SICK OF WAR), BUT THE TERMS SOUND
DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. SADDAM SEEMS TO WANT
PLEDGES NOW ON OIL PRICES AND PRODUCTION TO
COVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS.
GLASPIE
What happened in Iraq before Glaspie’s fateful meeting with Saddam? Robert Parry writes:
According to a sworn affidavit by former Reagan national security staffer Howard Teicher, the
administration enlisted the Egyptians in a secret “Bear Spares” program that gave the United States access
to Soviet-designed military equipment. Teicher asserted that the Reagan administration funnelled some of
those weapons to Iraq and also arranged other shipments of devastating cluster bombs that Saddam’s air
force dropped on Iranians troops.
In 1984, facing congressional rejection of continued CIA funding of the Nicaraguan contra rebels, President
Reagan exploited the “special status” again. He tapped into the Saudi slush funds for money to support the
Nicaraguan contra rebels in their war in Central America. The President also authorized secret weapons
shipments to Iran in another arms-for-hostages scheme, with the profits going to “off-the-shelf” intelligence
operations. That gambit, like the others, was protected by walls of “deniability” and outright lies.
Some of those lies collapsed in the Iran-Contra scandal, but the administration quickly constructed new
stonewalls that were never breached. Republicans fiercely defended the secrets and Democrats lacked the
nerve to fight for the truth. The Washington media also lost interest because the scandals were complex
and official sources steered the press in other directions.
‘Read Machiavelli’
When I interviewed Haig several years ago, I asked him if he was troubled by the pattern of deceit that had
become the norm among international players in the 1980s. “Oh, no, no, no, no,” he boomed, shaking his
head. “On that kind of thing? No. Come on. Jesus! God! You know, you’d better get out and read Machiavelli
or somebody else because I think you’re living in a dream world! People do what their national interest tells
them to do and if it means lying to a friendly nation, they’re going to lie through their teeth.”
But sometimes the game-playing did have unintended consequences. In 1990, a decade after Iraq’s messy
invasion of Iran, an embittered Saddam Hussein was looking for pay-back from the sheikhdoms that he felt
had egged him into war. Saddam was especially furious with Kuwait for slant drilling into Iraq’s oil fields
and refusing to extend more credit. Again, Saddam was looking for a signal from the U.S. president, this
time George Bush.
When Saddam explained his confrontation with Kuwait to U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, he received an
ambiguous reply, a reaction he apparently perceived as another “green light.” Eight days later, Saddam
unleashed his army into Kuwait, an invasion that required 500,000 U.S. troops and thousands more dead to
reverse.
Francis Boyle describes in his 1992 paper the heinous Bush Senior & Co. war crimes during Gulf War 1. He describes the “Green Light” thus:
12. The Defendants showed absolutely no opposition to Iraq’s
increasing threats against Iraq. Indeed, when Saddam
Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain
State Department testimony in Congress about Iraq’s threats
against Kuwait, she assured him that the United States
considered the dispute to be a regional concern, and that it
would not intervene militarily. In other words, the United States
government gave Saddam Hussein what amounted to a
“green light” to invade Kuwait.
13. This reprehensible behavior was similar to that of the
Carter administration during September of 1980, when
United States government officials gave Saddam Hussein the
“green light” to invade Iran and thus commence the tragic
Iraq-Iran War. A decade later, Saddam Hussein simply
surmised that he had been given yet another “green light” by
the United States government to commit overt aggression
against surrounding states. Only this time, the Defendants
knowingly intended to lead Iraq into a provocation that could
be used to justify intervention and warfare by United States
military forces for the real purpose of destroying Iraq as a
military power and seizing Arab oil fields in the Persian Gulf.
9. Sometime after the termination of the Iraq-Iran War in the
Summer of 1988, the Pentagon proceeded to revise its
outstanding war plans for U.S. military intervention into the
Persian Gulf region in order to destroy Iraq. Defendant
Schwarzkopf was put in charge of this revision. For example,
in early 1990, Defendant Schwarzkopf informed the Senate
Armed Services Committee of this new military strategy in the
Gulf allegedly designed to protect U.S. access to and control
over Gulf oil in the event of regional conflicts. In October 1990,
Defendant Powell referred to the new military plan developed
in 1989. After the war, Defendant Schwarzkopf referred to
eighteen months of planning for the campaign.
10. Sometime in late 1989 or early 1990, the Pentagon’s war
plan for destroying Iraq and stealing Persian Gulf oil fields
was put into motion. At that time, Defendant Schwarzkopf was
named the Commander of the so-called U.S. Central
Command – which was the renamed version of the Rapid
Deployment Force – for the purpose of carrying out the war
plan that he had personally developed and supervised. During
January of 1990, massive quantities of United States
weapons, equipment, and supplies were sent to Saudi Arabia
in order to prepare for the war against Iraq.
11. Pursuant to this war plan, Defendant Webster and the CIA
assisted and directed Kuwait in its actions of violating OPEC
oil production agreements to undercut the price of oil for the
purpose of debilitating Iraq’s economy; in extracting
excessive and illegal amounts of oil from pools it shared with
Iraq; in demanding immediate repayment of loans Kuwait had
made to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War; and in breaking off
negotiations with Iraq over these disputes. The Defendants
intended to provoke Iraq into aggressive military actions
against Kuwait that they knew could be used to justify U.S.
military intervention into the Persian Gulf for the purpose of
destroying Iraq and taking over Arab oil fields.
The U.S. “Green Light” to Invade Kuwait
12. The Defendants showed absolutely no opposition to Iraq’s
increasing threats against Iraq. Indeed, when Saddam
Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain
State Department testimony in Congress about Iraq’s threats
against Kuwait, she assured him that the United States
considered the dispute to be a regional concern, and that it
would not intervene militarily. In other words, the United States
government gave Saddam Hussein what amounted to a
“green light” to invade Kuwait.
13. This reprehensible behavior was similar to that of the
Carter administration during September of 1980, when
United States government officials gave Saddam Hussein the
“green light” to invade Iran and thus commence the tragic
Iraq-Iran War. A decade later, Saddam Hussein simply
surmised that he had been given yet another “green light” by
the United States government to commit overt aggression
against surrounding states. Only this time, the Defendants
knowingly intended to lead Iraq into a provocation that could
be used to justify intervention and warfare by United States
military forces for the real purpose of destroying Iraq as a
military power and seizing Arab oil fields in the Persian Gulf.
Bush Is the Bigger War Criminal
14. On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait
without significant resistance. The Kuwaiti government itself
estimated that approximately 300 people were killed as a
result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and a few hundred more as
a result of the military occupation. By comparison, Defendant
Bush’s invasion of Panama in December of 1989 took
between 2,000 and 4,000 Panamanian lives, and the United
States government is still covering up the actual death toll.
Defendant Bush killed more innocent people in Panama than
Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait.
15. Defendant Bush’s invasion of Panama was even more
illegal, reprehensible, and criminal than Saddam Hussein’s
invasion of Kuwait. The world must never forget that the first
step in the construction of Bush’s “New World Order” was his
illegal invasion of Panama and the murder of thousands of
completely innocent Panamanian civilians. America’s
self-anointed policeman in the Persian Gulf had the blood of
the Panamanian People on his hands.
Bush’s Perversion of the Constitution
16. Pursuant to the Pentagon’s war plan for destroying Iraq
and stealing Persian Gulf oil fields – and without consultation
or communication with Congress – Defendant Bush initially
ordered 40,000 U.S. military personnel into the Persian Gulf
region during the first week of August 1990. He lied to the
American People and Congress when he stated that his acts
were purely defensive. Right from the very outset of this crisis
– and even beforehand – Defendant Bush fully intended to go
to war against Iraq and to seize the Arab oil fields in the
Persian Gulf. Defendant Bush deliberately misled, deceived,
concealed and made false representations to the Congress
to prevent its free deliberation and informed exercise of
legislative power.
17. Defendant Bush intentionally usurped Congressional
power, ignored its authority, and failed and refused to consult
with the Congress. He individually ordered a naval blockade
against Iraq – itself an act of war – without approval by
Congress or the U.N. Security Council. Defendant Bush
waited until after the November 1990 elections to publicly
announce his earlier order sending more than 200,000
additional military personnel to the Persian Gulf for offensive
purposes without seeking the approval of Congress. Pursuant
to the Pentagon’s war plan, Defendant Bush switched U.S.
forces from a defensive position and capability to an
offensive capacity for aggression against Iraq without
consultation with, and contrary to assurances given to,
Congress and the American People.
18. On the very eve of the war, Defendant Bush then
strong-armed legislation through Congress that approved
enforcement of U.N. resolutions vesting absolute discretion in
any nation, providing no guidelines, and requiring no reporting
to the United Nations. Defendant Bush knew full well that he
intended to destroy the armed forces and civilian
infrastructure of Iraq. Those acts were undertaken to enable
him to commit a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace and war
crimes. This conduct violated the Constitution and Laws of the
United States and especially the War Powers Clause found in
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the U.S. War Powers
Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 555, and the United Nations Charter,
which is the “Supreme Law of the Land” under Article 6 of the
Constitution. For this reason alone, Defendant Bush and his
co-conspirators committed “High Crimes and
Misdemeanors” that warrant their impeachment, conviction,
removal from office, and criminal prosecution.
On the 2nd August, 1990, Iraq began its onslaught.
O 020411Z AUG 90
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO SECSTATE WASHDC NIACT IMMEDIATE 4708
AMEMBASSY KUWAIT NIACT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY RIYADH IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY DOHA IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY MANAMA IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY AMMAN IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY MUSCAT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS IMMEDIATE
S E C R E T BAGHDAD 04397
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: PREL IZ KU AS
SUBJECT: IRAQI INCURSION ACROSS KUWAITI BORDER
REF: (A) STATE 253201 (B) WILSON/MACK
TELECON (C) WILSON/CHARLES TELECON
¶1. (S-ENTIRE TEXT)
¶2. WE HAVE TRIED REPEATEDLY SINCE 0630 LOCAL
TO REACH SENIOR MFA OFFICIALS, INCLUDING
FOREIGN MINISTER AZIZ. UNDERSECRETARY HAMDUN
IS APPARENTLY NOT AT HOME SINCE NOBODY ANSWERS
HIS HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER. THE FOREIGN
MINISTRY DUTY OFFICER IS AWARE OF OUR INTEREST
IN TALKING TO THE MINISTER, AND WE ARE REMIND-
ING THEM EVERY TEN MINUTES. AT 0710 LOCAL WE
WERE TOLD THAT BOTH HAMDUN AND THE FOREIGN
MINISTER WERE IN A MEETING.
¶3. EMBASSY HAS SET UP A CRISIS MANAGEMENT TEAM.
EMBASSY TELEPHONE NUMBERS ARE: 7196138/9,
7189265, 7189267, 7193791, 7189273. SECURITY
LINE IS EXTENSION 286.
¶4. IRAQI PRESS THIS MORNING MAKES NO MENTION
OF INCURSION. IRAQI PRESS COVERAGE OF THE
KUWAIT/IRAQ TALKS ARE CRITICAL OF KUWAIT’S
UNCOMPROMISING POSITION, BUT DO NOT IN ANY
WAY SUGGEST THAT THE GOI IS CONSIDERING THE
MILITARY OPTION.
When the United Nations relaxed its sanctions
regime in 1998 and permitted Iraq to buy spare
parts for its oil fields, it was Halliburton, under
Mr Cheney’s leadership, that cleaned up on the
contract to repair war damage and get
Saddam Hussein’s oil pipes flowing at full
capacity again. Two Halliburton subsidiaries
did business worth almost $24m (£15m) with
the man whom these days Mr Cheney calls a
“murderous dictator” and “the world’s worst
leader”.
Since taking over as George Bush’s
vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all
formal ties with his former employer, notably
when he cashed in $36m in stock options and
other benefits at the height of the market in
August 2000. But Halliburton – currently
struggling with a corporate accounting scandal
that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney – could profit all over again if the
much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.
Since taking over as George Bush’s
vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all
formal ties with his former employer, notably
when he cashed in $36m in stock options and
other benefits at the height of the market in
August 2000. But Halliburton – currently
struggling with a corporate accounting scandal
that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney – could profit all over again if the
much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.
We can certainly expect more air strikes against the oil fields, possibly combined
with a ground invasion. Then, when it is all over, someone is going to have to
mop up the damage once again. Halliburton, with its previous experience and
unparalleled political connections (not limited to Mr Cheney), would be in pole
position for the job.
Nobody could justifiably accuse the Bush administration of wanting to wage war
on Iraq solely as a favour to its friends in the oil business and the
military-industrial complex. But many of the companies that stand to gain most
from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the administration.
And some of the President’s closest confidants have shown extraordinary
elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President Saddam, America’s
on-again, off-again public enemy number one.
Mr Cheney, who has gone from warmonger to dealmaker and back to
warmonger, is just one example. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defence
Secretary, has repeatedly raised the spectre of Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction. But in 1983, when Mr Rumsfeld was President Reagan’s
special envoy to Iraq, he turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of nerve and mustard gas
in its war with Iran, concentrating instead on forging a personal relationship with
the Iraqi leader, then considered a valuable US ally.
Mr Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad on the day the United Nations first reported
Iraqi use of chemical weapons, but chose to remain silent, as did the rest of the
US establishment. Five years later, he cited his ability to make friends with
Saddam Hussein as one of his qualifications for a possible run at the presidency.
This Bush administration has been much more upfront about the role of oil in its
deliberations on Iraq than the last Bush administration. That is partly a matter of
circumstance: since the 11 September attacks, the stability of Middle Eastern oil
states has been a big policy consideration. But it also reflects the fact that much
of the Bush inner circle, including the President himself, is made up of former
oilmen. The oil and gas industry has pumped about $50m to political candidates
since the 2000 election.
There are also uncomfortably cosy ties between the government and the
defence industry. Mr Rumsfeld’s oldest friend, Frank Carlucci, a former defence
secretary himself, now heads the Carlyle Group, an investment consortium
which has a big interest in the contracting firm United Defense.
Carlyle’s board includes George Bush Sr and James Baker, the former secretary
of state. One programme alone – the Crusader artillery system – has earned
Carlyle more than $2bn in advance government contracts. Carlyle’s European
chairman is John Major, who may have played a role in the Ministry of Defence’s
controversial recent decision to declare Carlyle the “preferred bidder” for a stake
in its scientific research division.
None of these links is illegal, but that does not mean there is no conflict of
interest. Messrs Bush, Cheney and friends have either sold their stock holdings
or put them in a blind trust, meaning personal gain is off the agenda. But gain for
their friends and family may well be a by-product of the looming war against Iraq
It was only five years ago when Vice President Dick Cheney, as chief
executive of the oil-field supply corporation, Halliburton Co., was
engaged in secret business dealings with Saddam’s regime by selling
Iraq oil production equipment and spare parts to get the Iraqi oil
fields up and running, according to confidential United Nations
records.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney adamantly denied such
dealings.
While he acknowledged that his company did business with Libya and
Iran through foreign subsidiaries, Cheney said, “Iraq’s different.”
He claimed that he imposed a “firm policy” prohibiting any unit of
Halliburton against trading with Iraq.
“I had a firm policy that we wouldn’t do anything in Iraq, even
arrangements that were supposedly legal,” Cheney said on the ABC-TV
news program “This Week” on July 30, 2000.
“We’ve not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed
on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”
But it turns out that Cheney was lying.
It’s only through the sale of Iraqi oil that Saddam would be able to
afford to obtain such weapons.
If Saddam was in fact building nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction, which some news reports allege could be used against
American and British troops, Cheney is partially responsible.
The Washington Post first reported Halliburton’s trade with Iraq in
February 2000.
But U.N. records obtained by The Post two years ago showed that the
dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Vice
President Cheney has acknowledged.
As secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, Cheney
helped to lead a multinational coalition against Iraq in the Persian
Gulf War and to devise a comprehensive economic embargo to isolate
Saddam Hussein’s government.
After Cheney was named chief executive of Halliburton in 1995, he
promised to maintain a hard line against Baghdad.
But his stance changed when it appeared that Halliburton was headed
for financial disaster in the mid-1990s.
Cheney said sanctions against countries such as Iraq were hurting
corporations such as Halliburton.
“We seem to be sanction-happy as a government,” Cheney said at an
energy conference in April 1996, reported in the oil industry
publication Petroleum Finance Week.
“The problem is that the good Lord didn’t see fit to always put oil
and gas resources where there are democratic governments,” he observed
during his conference presentation.
Sanctions make U.S. businesses “the bystander who gets hit when a
train wreck occurs,” Cheney told Petroleum Finance Week.
“While virtually every other country sees the need for sanctions
against Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime there, Cheney sees general
agreement that the measures have not been very effective despite their
having most of the international community’s support. An individual
country’s embargo, such as that of the United States against Iran, has
virtually no effect since the target country simply signs a contract
with a non- U.S. business,” the publication reported
“That’s exactly what happened when the government told Conoco Inc.
that it could not develop an oil field there,” Cheney told Petroleum
Finance Week.
Total S.A. “simply took it over.”
In 1998, Cheney oversaw Halliburton’s acquisition of Dresser
Industries Inc., the unit that sold oil equipment to Iraq through two
subsidiaries of a joint venture with another large U.S. equipment
maker, Ingersoll-Rand Co.
The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump
Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil
facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates
from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show.
Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts — later blocked by the
United States — to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led
military forces destroyed in the Gulf War, the Post reported in a June
2001 story.
The Halliburton subsidiaries and several other American and foreign
oil supply companies helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4
billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000.
Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40
billion.
U.S. and European officials have argued that the increase in
production also expanded Saddam’s ability to use some of that money
for weapons, luxury goods and palaces.
Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq may be skimming off as
much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program,
according to the Post.
During his tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, Cheney pushed the
U.N. Security Council, after he became vice president; to end an
11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil related
equipment, to Iraq.
Cheney has said sanctions against countries like Iraq unfairly punish
U.S. companies.
Earlier this year, Halliburton was chosen as one of the companies to
rebuild Iraq’s dilapidated oil fields following a U.S. led attack on
the country.
U.N. documents show that Halliburton’s affiliates have had
controversial, dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney’s tenure
at the company.
The Clinton administration blocked one of the deals Halliburton was
trying to push through.
That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co.
and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell $760,000 in spare
parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore
oil terminal, Khor al Amaya.
France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want acess to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. According to a report in today’s Tehran Times, US Senator Richard Lugar, a leading member of the Bush administration and Republican Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Russia and France “must be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in any US-led military intervention” if they want a share of Iraqi oil.
The paper quoted Lugar as saying that Paris and Moscow oil companies will be deprived of Iraqi oil and have no share in the country’s resources if they refuse to join in the US war to oust Hussein. It noted that both the Russian Duma and the French parliament have both expressed opposition to a US military attack on Iraq
Why did so many children die under the hideous sanctions placed on Iraq at the behest of the US during the 90s? Here’s what I wrote about it:
According to Hans Graf Sponeck, the major cause of death of Iraqis, particularly children, is not starvation – it has been the intentional bombing of water installations during the war by the US and then the US-led UN sanctioning of chlorine and essential water equipment parts afterwards (on the dual purpose list until 1996).
There is incontrovertible evidence from the US government itself to show that the US knew exactly what the consequences of their destruction would be.
As far as food for oil goes, one of the most serious effects proceeding from these sanctions has been the unconscionable holds placed on essential items. Refer above to Sponeck’s article. Right now there are holds placed by the US/UK :
“The Security Council committee monitoring the sanctions against Iraq still had holds on
contracts for various supplies and equipment worth almost $4.1 billion. This figure includes
155 contracts valued at $290 million, which were in the “inactive holds” category. Contracts
are categorized as “inactive holds” after information requested by the committee is not
provided by suppliers in 60 days. Once this information is received, the relevant contract is
put back in the “active holds” category for action.”
There is also firm evidence that CIA and US Government incompetency contributed to the removal of the UNSCOM team of weapons inspectors as well as two failed coups against Saddam.
After all these stuff ups and spying (and although I don’t support this bloody dictator), I am not surprised he has remained uncooperative since 1998.
If you read the last sanctions committee meeting however, you will see that both Iraq and the League of Arab Nations are arguing for making the ME a nuclear free zone.
Finally, it is clear that sanctions do not punish Saddam or his cronies. They punish the ordinary people in Iraq, who have now suffered 11 years AFTER a war.
The price was worth it, Madeline? Really? Look what you and the cold, avaricious lackeys of empire like you have done. Millions of Iraqis dead, thousands of Americans. For what? the Iraq of today. No stable government, an environment polluted with cancerous chemicals, women’s rights set back decades, antiquities and architecture vandalised. And some still wonder why the US is despised by those who know what it has done to benefit its perverse ‘national interest’.
The US Military Industrial spiderweb, with the Pentagon trillion dollar budget at its disposal, makes the Israel lobby look like a corner shop. Nearly every US state hosts significant MIC plant and associated jobs -.no potential or incumbent political candidate can afford to ignore this. The Pentagon is enmeshed incestuously with the armaments and associated industries.
“In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles — nearly 90 percent. And in many cases there is nothing subtle about what the generals have to sell — Martin’s firm is called The Four Star Group, for example. The revolving-door culture of Capitol Hill — where former lawmakers and staffers commonly market their insider knowledge to lobbying firms – is now pervasive at the senior rungs of the military leadership.”
It is in the interests of US defence industries, though not the US people, to provoke conflict between nations and within civil societies including within the US itself. In the US, covert rule by the military industrial plutocracy seems accepted as a bearable consequence of imperial dominance – the military and its ventures are a primary focus for super-nationalistic reverence. Americans are conditioned to support their troops without questioning whose bidding they are actually doing and for what ends. Sometimes, those in denial of the involvement of wealthy WASPs, the ‘Establishment’ and the Pentagon in the MIC plutocracy blame the Israel lobby or “the jews”.
Yet there is no contradiction between the interests of the US and Israeli ruling classes. US and Israeli society are both diseased with militarism. While Israel is voraciously expansionist with designs for regional preeminence, the US is preoccupied with maintaining ‘global security’, code for strategic placement of military force at 900 plus bases and several conflict zones to support current or potential resource exploitation and contain the rise of any competing power. The US has not relinquished the doctrine of full spectrum dominance.
Despite Netanyahu’s protestations that he, and Israel, are for peace, Israel’s ruling Likud party retains its opposition to a Palestinian state within its platform.
Self-Rule
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.
Jerusalem
Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz. The government firmly rejects attempts of various sources in the world, some anti-Semitic in origin, to question Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital, and the 3,000-year-old special connection between the Jewish people and its capital. To ensure this, the government will continue the firm policies it has adopted until now:
No diplomatic activity will be permitted at Orient House. The government stopped the stream of visits by heads of state and ministers at Orient House, begun under the left-wing government.
The presence of the Israeli police in eastern Jerusalem will be increased. This in addition to the new police posts and reinforcements in the neighborhoods.
The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents. Despite protests from the left, the Likud government consistently approved the continuation of Jewish living within the Old City and in ‘City of David’.
The Jordan River as a Permanent Border
The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.
Security Areas
The government succeeded in significantly reducing the extent of territory that the Palestinians expected to receive in the interim arrangement. The government will insist that security areas essential to Israel’s defense, including the western security area and the Jewish settlements, shall remain under Israeli rule.
Israeli expansionism in the form of land theft in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Negev is facilitated further by associating the peace process facade with Palestinians toward a fictitious two state solution with an equally fictitious ‘existential threat’ from Iran. The rightwing and extremist settler dominated Knesset continues to pass oppressive, racist laws which undermine the prospect for human rights and peace. The PA and Hamas are both tasked by Israel with official and unofficial de facto collaboration respectively for security in the West Bank and Gaza. Thus both major Palestinian factions support the Israeli Occupation and ensure the Israeli milsec incubator is perpetuated.
Military industrialism is a common, complementary denominator between Israel and the US. Israel’s manufactured conflict with the people of Gaza and occupation in the West Bank incubates imported US and local milsec which is then used in barrios and on reservations in the US. Israel also serves as a milsec incubator for other countries, including “China, which imports Israel’s methods of propaganda and repression”.
… senior EU figures have consistently shown “cowardice” in refusing to pursue the Israeli military for the cost of European-funded infrastructure projects which have been damaged or destroyed in repeated Israeli invasions. “Privately, EU officials acknowledge that the aid policies they are implementing have become hugely problematic. ‘Are we subsidizing activities that should fall on Israel as a consequence of its responsibilities as an occupying power?’ a well-placed Brussels source said to me. ‘The answer is unquestionably yes,’” writes Cronin.
While the EU’s continued aid to the PA is said to be part of a “tacit division of labor” with the US, whereby Washington holds the political reins and Europe the financial ones, Cronin provides examples of US refusal to allow joint donor statements which criticized Israel for damage to donor-funded projects illustrating the EU’s junior role in that relationship. In the meantime, the EU’s “aid” is also revealed by Cronin’s writings — both in the book and for The Electronic Intifada — to include the far-from-benign training given by European police organizations to PA security forces.
With its snout well and truly in the military industrial trough, the global ruling class is an auto-immune disease of human society.
UPDATE
Considering Israel’s nuclear posture, pursuant to a release from the British archives revealing that the British feared Israel would nuke the Arabs, Paul Barratt, past Secretary of Defence, Primary Industries and Energy Departments in Australia shared some insights:
@phbarratt : Israelis mobilised nuclear force in ’73. Americans petrified, airfreighted previously unreleased weapons out of Wiesbaden. #
@phbarratt : That is something US has had to weigh up ever since whenever Israelis demand access to latest weaponry. #
@Jinjirrie : so in essence, the qualitative military edge law is just icing on the cake #
@phbarratt : Alternative to unconditional US guarantee of Israeli security is more ready reliance by Israel on its nuclear force. #
@phbarratt : You will not that US does not get anything by way of gratitude, acknowledgement or cooperation for this guarantee. #
@Jinjirrie : how realistic though really is the samson option? any use of nukes by israel will blowback on them hard #
@Jinjirrie : physically as well as metaphorically #
@phbarratt : Nuclear weapons a very blunt instrument. Israel and Iran have gone for studied ambiguity – implied deterrence all round. #
@Jinjirrie : Threats make better threats when implied i see israeli nuke posture as defiant symbolism against europe as well #
@Jinjirrie : yes, implied deterrence plays into militarisation by other means in the region, suits US/EU defence industries fine #
The mayor of a Jewish suburb of Nazareth sparked outrage on Wednesday after refusing to allow Christmas trees to be placed in town squares, calling them provocative.
Predominantly Jewish Nazareth Illit, or Upper Nazareth, is adjacent to Nazareth, where Jesus is said to have spent much of his life. It has a sizable Arab Christian minority, as does mostly Muslim Nazareth itself.
‘The request of the Arabs to put Christmas trees in the squares in the Arab quarter of Nazareth Illit is provocative,’ Mayor Shimon Gapso told AFP.
‘Nazareth Illit is a Jewish city and it will not happen – not this year and not next year, so long as I am a mayor,’ he said of the northern Israeli town.
Here, a new, nasty form of Israeli dendrophobia (phobia of trees) is displayed. Usually, zionists are renowned for burning or chopping rampages of Palestinian olive trees, actions designed to make life less bearable for Palestinians in their own land, to encourage them to vacate so more zionist land thieves can usurp their place.
Elsewhere in the Occupied Territories, brazen atrocities and theft committed by racist dysfunctional Israel have continued unabated. The phobias revealed by Israel’s lunatic fascist acts below include pediaphobia (phobia of children), ovinaphobia (phobia of sheep), oikophobia (phobia of houses), lactaphobia (phobia of milk), alektorophobia (phobia of chickens) and an over-arching xenophobia (fear of outsiders). I am not aware of formal names for the fear of equality nor the fear of human rights, but these phobias can also be added to the list of Israel’s pathologies.
“The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange denied what was recently circulated about a secret deal that he might have made with israel in return for not publishing anything about it in the series of the leaked American diplomatic documents that his website publishes.
Assange said Wednesday evening in “Without Limits” on Al-Jazeera that he didn’t make any deal with israel and revealed that his site would publish hundreds of documents relating to israel in the coming months. He stated that he has 3700 documents and 2700 of these documents originated from israel alone.
He added, “we did not have direct or indirect contact with the israelis, but the israeli intelligence (mossad) and other intelligence agencies are following us and attempt to predict what we will do. And I’m sure that the israeli intelligence is interested in us, but it did not contact us. It might have contacted individuals that used to work for our organization, but at the moment, there are no communications between them [israeli intelligence] and us.
He added that what was published about israel represents 1% or 2% of the documents concerning israel. But he stated that international newspapers that he made a deal with to publish the documents chose what they wanted to publish based on their interest in them. He said that that reflects the “bias” of some of these newspaper and that his site would publish all the documents it has and are related to israel.
Assange revealed that there are sensitive and classified documents that deal with israel’s war on Lebanon in 2006. Others deal with the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai and the diplomatic telegrams regarding the passports used by the mossad in the operation.
He said that there is an important telegram about Hizb Allah’s telecommunications’ network that mentions fiber lines and that one of these lines passed by the French embassy in Beirut. He added that this matter “worries Washington because control of telecommunications is important.”
He stated that the secret classified documents include mention of the mossad, and high ranking communications regarding the assassination of a Syrian official by a sniper. He said that the publication of the documents relating to israel and some Arab states will continue for six months.”
“There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel. In the next six months we intend to publish more files depending on our sources,” said Assange in the nearly one-hour interview telecast live from the UK.
Q: An Arabic newspaper called Al Haqeeqa ["the Truth"] conducted an interview with one of your former colleagues who said you have a deal with Israel not to publish these secret files.
A: This is not true. We have been accused as agents of Iran and CIA by this former colleague who was working for Germany in the past and was dismissed from his job after we published American military documents related to Germany.
We were the biggest institution receiving official funding from the US but after we released a video tape about killing people in cold blood in Iraq in 2007, the funding stopped and we had to depend on individuals for finance.
Q: When will you publish the files related to Israel on your website?
A: We will publish 3700 files and the source is the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Netanyahu was traveling to Paris to talk to the US ambassador there. You will see more information about that in six months.
Q: Do these Israeli files speak about the July 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon?
A: Yes there is some information about that and these files were classified as top secret.
Q: Is there any relation with these files and the assassination of Hamas military leader Al Mabhoh in Dubai?
A: Yes there are some indication to this and may be some special reports published by newspapers. Mossad agents used Australian, British and European passports to travel to Dubai and there are diplomatic files about that.
Q: Are there any security service companies providing information to international airports and monitoring passengers even in the Arab countries?
A: There are some files about American and Israeli security companies that tried to intervene in certain areas. For example, in Brazil, the American embassy put some Israeli security companies during the Olympic Games.
Q: Are there any files about agencies providing intelligence information about famous personalities in the Arab world?
A: I am not sure about that but there are files about Hezbollah in Lebanon. In one of these files Lebanon government complained against cables passing near the French embassy. American are always very much worried about the telecommunications network.
Q: Are there any files about Israeli agents in the Arab world including some Arab royal palaces.
A: Most of the files related to Mossad are classified as top secret but there may be some files related to the role of Mossad in killing Lebanese military leader in Damascus by sniper bullets.
There 2,500 files related to Mossad and I have read only 1000. So I don’t know about everythiong, I need more journalists including Arabs to read and analyse and put everything in the context for the benefit of the readers.
We have 17,000 files where the word Qatar has been mentioned, the source of 3,000 of these files is the American embassy in Doha.
Q: What is the most interesting file about Qatar that was not published?
A: There is a lot to be read. The name of Waddah Khanfar has been mentioned in 504 files. Some of these files have been published by The Guardian.
Q: How do the Americans view Al Jazeera in these files?
A: There were some meetings between people from Al Jazeera and the US embassy where the latter suggested coverage of certain things in a certain way.
There are files about a TV channel in Dubai which the Americans said can be used against Al Jazeera and when this channel tried to move in the American direction, people stopped watching it.
The Americans despite having a base here were angry about the presence of an Iranian bank in Qatar but Qatar said it would not close it but would not open new banks. Despite that this bank established many more branches in Doha. Qatar is trying to create a balance between the Arab world and the America.
The Americans appreciate having their largest base in Doha but Qatar does not agree with all American requirements and Al Jazeera is a good example for that.
I have been notified about the general rumour a few weeks ago, and shortly after about the appearance of me as involved in those allegations. I have never spoken to anyone at syriatruth or that reporter that is making these claims, nor do I know anything about any deals JA has allegedly made with Israelis.
Given what is appearing in the Scandinavian area with the involvement of Shamir and Wahlstrom I wouldn’t actually expect that to happen either. In any case, this latter statement is just my personal judgement.
I once received a test mail from a nizar.nayouf@syriatruth.net, and then a followup regarding OpenLeaks questions. A contact request to him after hearing of the allegations was not replied to.
In the last week or so I have been contacted by Israeli TV about this, as well as French Le Point today. Those are the only media outfits so far that seem to have taken interest. Other than that it seems to be mainly spreading via weird Russian and religious forums, at least from as much as I am aware of.
As I read somewhere that this alleged reporter I allegedly talked to works for Hareetz, I have asked the folks from Israeli TV if they could help find out who that is, and how to contact her. They replied that there doesn’t seem to be anyone by that name. So obviously, which was my gut feeling also, that person does not exist. Why that rumour is circulated, I dont know. I have my feelings about that and think we should give it some more time to uncover itself.
More disturbingly, the cables reveal that behind closed doors our political leaders deal incautiously with representatives of the United States and Israel. They seem to forget that they are dealing with the representatives of a foreign country, in a game that is definitely reserved for grown-ups, the world of navigating our country through the shoals of major international events. They make such forthright and absolute declarations of support that they leave hostages to fortune, giving themselves little room to negotiate on issues arising in the future on the basis of a hard-nosed assessment of where Australia’s national interest lies. Indeed, at times they give the impression they would struggle to see the difference between Australia’s national interests and those of the United States or Israel.
Despite vehement protestations by Netanyahu to the contrary, Wikileaks cables (and Netanyahu’s public admonitions), have shown Israel consistently conflates peace with Palestinians with its existential fear of Iran as number one threat, emphasising an interminable, nebulous and largely self-created security problem which inflates a deliberately marketed victimhood which the US is expected to ease and pander to at all times. In turn, this mechanism provides US military industrial plutocrats, Middle Eastern dictators and other ruling class mavens with plausible deniability for exploitation of the world’s richest sources of energy, at the expense of ordinary people of the region, negating an equitable outcome for rightsless Palestinians that would truly be in the interests of everyone’s security except those who profit from their oppression.
WikiLeaks now plans to begin sharing the cables with a wider group of regional news organisations. Julian Assange says all future cables released by WikiLeaks will either be redacted by other partner news organisations, or by WikiLeaks itself. The Guardian and its partners in the project, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde, will continue to share redactions with WikiLeaks for any cables they publish in future.
Assange defended one of WikiLeaks’ collaborators, Israel Shamir, following claims Shamir passed sensitive cables to Belarus’s dictator, Alexander Lukashenko. Lukashenko has arrested 600 opposition supporters and journalists since Sunday’s presidential election. The whereabouts and fate of several of the president’s high-profile opponents are unknown.
Of Shamir, Assange said: “WikiLeaks works with hundreds of journalists from different regions of the world. All are required to sign non-disclosure agreements and are generally only given limited review access to material relating to their region. We have no reason to believe these rumours in relation to Belarus are true.”
Over the past month the Guardian has published more than 200 articles based on the trove of US diplomatic dispatches obtained by WikiLeaks, and 739 of the cables themselves. All cables published by the Guardian and the four other international news organisations who had exclusive early access to the material have been carefully redacted to protect sources who could be placed in danger, and the redacted versions have been passed to WikiLeaks.
It’s annoying that the Guardian didn’t ask Assange how the Norwegian paper Aftenposten received the entire trove of documents, because I would like to know whether my suspicions are correct.
Swedish Radio, Medierna, discovered last week that Shamir’s son, Johannes Wahlström ‘is the gatekeeper of the cables in Scandinavia, and “has the power to decide” which newspapers are provided access and what leaks they are allowed to see’.
For the minimisation of war and oppression, for a real chance of human survival and sustainability of the planet’s resources, all states should submit to international law, and most especially the rogue hegemon. Despite some easing in US stance since Obama took office, the empire still rejects the expansion of the role of the International Criminal Court in order to protect its war criminals. Further, US embassy advices denote the Council of Europe courts as “an organization with an inferiority complex and, simultaneously, an overambitious agenda”. Of particular annoyance to the US is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), described as “an irritant”:
The ECHR will block the extradition of prisoners to non-COE countries if it believes they would be subject to the death penalty or torture. It has also requested more information on pending British extradition cases to the U.S. where it believes the prisoners might be sentenced in the U.S. to life imprisonment with no possible appeal or automatic judicial review of the life sentence.
In another Wikileaks cable, the US sought to pressure the incoming COE Secretary General on its vile renditions.
Jagland can be expected to criticize the U.S. for the death penalty; he may, however, be less enthusiastic than the previous SecGen, Terry Davis (UK), in publicly criticizing renditions, particularly if we review such issues with him soon.
If the flagging US empire wishes to be respected, then it should set an example which is beyond reproach. Yet in its latest outrage documented in the video below, the US hypocritically abandons a peaceful Palestinian activist protesting Israeli land theft, apartheid and violence.
Protection by the US and cronies of fascist, apartheid land thief, Israel, is unconscionable and unsustainable. Boycott, divest and sanction from the illegal occupier, Israel, now!
Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.
The writing is on the wall for the Labor Party – regardless of the pusillanimous prospect of US and Israel’s disapproval, the party’s true left must be empowered or those remaining within it who value truth, justice and Australian sovereignty above sycophancy and treachery will continue to bleed to the Greens, the only party which has any right to hold its head high.
Send hope to 800 children and unaccompanied minors in immigration detention in Australia this Christmas – let them know you care about them and are hoping they are released from detention soon.
As Australians shudder briefly at the death toll from the refugee shipwreck at Christmas Island before returning to important issues of last minute card-sending, present-buying and turkey roasting, few commentators discuss the prime reasons for many refugees heading to Australia – that they flee from the results of wars in which Australia is participating, has participated or supports, and ironically, despite the monstrous Howard wedges and the gruesome legacy of the racist White Australia policy, Australia’s overseas image remains one of a land of the easygoing dinkum Crocodile Dundee, Steve Irwin fair go instead of a despicably racist polity represented and inflamed by opportunistic politicians. I remember some years ago when a bemused Iraqi refugee who had braved the perils of several seas to reach temporary sanctuary was interviewed on Nauru. He said “if we’d known Australia didn’t want us, we wouldn’t have come here”.
It is significant too that the number of people who overstay their holiday visas with an intention to remain permanently is far higher than the numbers of asylum seekers and these folks are not treated as criminals and thrown into mandatory detention.
‘It is estimated that over 50,000 people are overstaying their Australian visa and living in the country illegally, with the majority coming from China, Malaysia, the US, and Britain.’
Michael C. Moynihan at the rightwing libertarian Reason magazine suggests Wikileaks has been infiltrated by Israel Shamir aka Jöran Jermas, Adam Ermash, Adam Shlessing, Izrail Schmerler, Vassili Krasevsky, Jorge Gold and Robert David, inveterate anti-semite, and son Johannes Wahlström, ‘himself accused of anti-Semitism and falsifying quotes’. Moynihan already pinpointed Shamir for spreading disinformation about the CIA orchestrating sex crime allegations against Julian Assange.
Strip away the caginess and the obfuscation—remember, no one is allowed secrets but WikiLeaks – and Hrafnsson, who took over spokesman duties when Assange was jailed last week, confirms that WikiLeaks chose Shamir to work with their Russian media partners. After its investigation, the Swedish Radio program Medierna concluded flatly that “Israel Shamir represents WikiLeaks in Russia.”
Moynihan, senior editor at Reason, gained notoriety himself from involvement in ‘the protest movement “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” which began in May 2010. The movement grew in response to censorship by Comedy Central of an episode of South Park which depicted the Prophet Muhammad’.
For verification of the Wikileaks/Shamir story, I’ve trawled through Moynihan’s source material.
According to Magnus Ljunggren, Professor Emeritus of Russian Literature at the University of Gothenburg [TR]
In an extensive commentary, jointly signed by the editor and Shamir and bearing the title “How the world will explode in the air of a great Wikileaks’, explained that the latter has exclusive access to Assanges documentation – in the same way, therefore, that the son in Sweden.
Ljunggren continues, saying that a photo of Shamir with Assange prompted
Yulia Latynina, based in Anna Politkovskaya of Novaya Gazeta to go out on the radio station Echo Moskvy with the question: What does it mean that Assange let themselves be represented by an extremist? She said that Shamir also offered their materials to the newspaper Kommersant, but met with a cold shoulder, for it would not take him with pliers.
Her conclusion was that it is a shame that Wikileaks documents in other countries were analyzed by experienced journalists, but in Russia by a total incompetent and deceitful Jew hater.
Expressen Kultur’s article today has P1′s media put out Saturday’s program in advance. There Wikileaks spokesperson confirms that Israel Shamir is working for them and that they know of his anti-Semitic background. De har också en intervju där Israel Shamir förnekar sitt faderskap till Wahlström. Hör inslaget här. They also have an interview with Israel Shamir denies his paternity of Wahlstrom.
It is Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson confirming the media Israel Shamir involvement with Wikileaks – but would not accept that there would be no problem for the organization.
Moynihan, who has lived in Sweden, annotates the radio interview:
Wahlström and Shamir, father and son, are the WikiLeaks representatives for two rather large geographic areas. According to Swedish Radio’s investigation, Wahlström is the gatekeeper of the cables in Scandinavia, and “has the power to decide” which newspapers are provided access and what leaks they are allowed to see. (At the time of filing, Wahlström had yet to respond to an email request for comment.)
In Russia, the magazine Russian Reporter says that it has “privileged access” to the material through Shamir, who told a Moscow newspaper that he was “accredited” to work on behalf of WikiLeaks in Russia. But Shamir has a rather large credibility problem, so Swedish Radio put the question directly to WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson.
Swedish Radio: Israel Shamir…Are you aware of him? Do you know him?
Kristinn Hrafnsson, Wikileaks spokesman: Yes. Yes, he is associated with us.
SR: So what is his role?
Hrafnsson: Well, I mean, we have a lot of journalists that are working with us all around the world. And they have different roles in working on this project. I won’t go into specifics into what each and everybody’s role is.
SR: Are you aware of how controversial Israel Shamir is in an international context?
Hrafnsson: There are a lot of controversial people around the world that are associated with us. I don’t really see the point of the question.
SR: Are you aware of the allegations that he is an anti-Semite?
Hrafnsson: I have heard those allegations…yes, yes. [Pause] What is the question really there?
SR: The question is, do you that that would [sic] be a problem?
Shpak refuted criticism that Russian Reporter, which belongs to the Kremlin-friendly Expert publishing group, was withholding material damning to the authorities.
“You can read allegations arguing the exact opposite — that we just publish damning material — in the patriotic press,” he said by phone.
The magazine has cooperated with Israel Shamir, a Russian-born Israeli journalist, on WikiLeaks.
But Shpak denied that Shamir alone was responsible for the magazine’s access to WikiLeaks.
Shamir said by phone that he was a freelancer who was “accredited” to WikiLeaks. “This means I have working relations with them but does not mean going to the banya together,” he said.
He also denied allegations that one of the cables quoted by Russian Reporter was forged.
Writing in The Moscow Times earlier this week, liberal journalist Yulia Latynina said the magazine had made up quotes from a report about EU diplomats’ instructions before a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“The cable is real, it has just not been published yet,” Shamir said.
RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is funded by the U.S. Congress) says:
According to the magazine “Russky Reporter,” for example, the famous walkout by Western diplomats during Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the United Nations in September 2009 was not spontaneous and had in fact been planned by Washington.
The magazine, citing WikiLeaks documents, claimed in a December 2 article that U.S. officials gave detailed instructions to EU representatives on when to leave the room during Ahmadinejad’s speech. The claim, if substantiated, could be deeply embarrassing to the United States.
But unlike other media reporting on the WikiLeaks revelations, “Russky Reporter” provided no documents to back up its allegations. An extensive search of the WikiLeaks database fails to yield relevant U.S. cables, causing some analysts to suggest the magazine might be exploiting WikiLeaks to propagate false information.
“The problem is that what should be backed by the cables does not actually appear in the published cables,” says Yulia Latynina, one of several Russian journalists to have voiced doubts over the credibility of “Russky Reporter,” which claims to have a privileged relationship with WikiLeaks. “This allegation is left hanging in the air, to put it mildly.”
WikiLeaks did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the existence of the cables and its relationship with “Russky Reporter.”
…
“Russky Reporter” claims to be one of the few media outlets that were given early access to WikiLeaks’ quarter-million U.S. cables.
Only four media organizations, however, are known to be collaborating directly with WikiLeaks: “The Guardian” in Britain, “Le Monde” in France, “El Pais” in Spain, and “Der Spiegel” in Germany.
“The Guardian” has shared the material with “The New York Times” and the five newspapers have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release, what redactions to make, and when to publish.
Unlike “Russky Reporter,” these newspapers have carried stories relating exclusively to cables that have been simultaneously released by WikiLeaks and coordinated with the publication in question.
In an interview with RFE/RL’s Russian Service, Leibin says that his magazine’s collaboration with WikiLeaks is slightly different.
“To be accurate, we’re not cooperating in the same way as ‘The Guardian’ or ‘The New York Times.’ Their staff journalists worked together with WikiLeaks activists going through this vast database to find things they were interested in publishing,” Leibin says. “In our case, a freelance journalist worked for us: Israel Shamir, who has been an activist with WikiLeaks. It simply turned out that we knew an activist from WikiLeaks.”
Shamir could not be reached for comment.
In an apparent attempt to dispel any doubt about its ties with the secret-leaking website, the magazine has posted a photo of Shamir standing next to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on its website.
The Russian Reporter article containing the photo of Shamir and Assange is penned by Israel Shamir and Vitaly Leibin.
That the materials were able to reach interested readers, the publication will be implemented in concert with the leading magazines of the world, the main partner in Russia – “Russian Reporter”.
…
Head and founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange fled from persecution in northern Europe. Next to him is now a journalist Israel Shamir , thanks to his work “Russian reporter” gets preliminary materials before they become public.
Is this photo bona fide? there’s no exif information. The shadow on Shamir ends before it crosses the red on his right side. The edge of the shadow cast by Assange on Shamir’s clothing is very sharp compared with the shadow on Assange’s clothing. There’s some odd pixelation on the right side of Assange’s face.
Is Wikileaks and in particular Julian Assange aware of Shamir and son’s dubious affiliations? what is Shamir hoping to gain through his involvement in Wikileaks? is RFE/RL running a counter campaign?
UPDATE MARCH 2011
WikiLeaks statement that was given to, but not used by, the UK satirical current-affairs magazine, Private Eye:
Israel Shamir has never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so. He is not an ‘agent’ of WikiLeaks. He has never been an employee of WikiLeaks and has never received monies from WikiLeaks or given monies to WikiLeaks or any related organization or individual. However, he has worked for the BBC, Haaretz, and many other reputable organizations.
It is false that Shamir is ‘an Assange intimate’. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Asssange) twice. It is false that ‘he was trusted with selecting the 250,000 US State Department cables for the Russian media’ or that he has had access to such at any time.
Shamir was able to search through a limited portion of the cables with a view to writing articles for a range of Russian media. The media that subsequently employed him did so of their own accord and with no intervention or instruction by WikiLeaks.
We do not have editorial control over the of hundreds of journalists and publications based on our materials and it would be wrong for us to seek to do so. We do not approve or endorse the the writings of the world’s media. We disagree with many of the approaches taken in analyzing our material.
Index did contact WikiLeaks as have many people and organisations do for a variety of reasons. The quote used here is not complete. WikiLeaks also asked Index for further information on this subject. Most of these rumors had not, and have not, been properly corroborated. WikiLeaks therefore asked Index to let us know if they had received any further information on the subject. This would have helped WikiLeaks conduct further inquiries. We did not at the time, and never have, received any response.
On The Drum, Jonathan Holmes has broached the Fairfax vessel and uncovered its seedy motives for ignoring the ‘scientific journalism’ process made possible by Wikileaks and extolled by Assange.
Third, Julian Assange has made another claim for WikiLeaks, which he says sets it apart from other media organisations. According to this op-ed in The Australian last week:
WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?
Well, WikiLeaks clearly doesn’t insist on ‘scientific journalism’ being practised by all the media outlets with which it’s working. The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are still publishing story after story by Philip Dorling – stories that have deeply embarrassed or compromised Kevin Rudd, Mark Arbib, Joel Fitzgibbon, and Stephen Gumley, to name just a few, not to mention the US Embassy in Canberra. But we can’t judge for ourselves if Dorling has reported accurately or fairly, because Fairfax hasn’t posted a single cable online.
On Monday I sent an email to SMH editor-in-chief Peter Fray, asking him why not. His response (read it in full here) makes it clear that the primary reason is to protect not the public, but Fairfax’s commercial, interest:
…the volume of material in The Australian referenced cables means we are still mining the source documents. There are, for instance, several potential stories in each cable; to put the material online would be to give access to our competitors in the local market.
That’s not a line of reasoning that has prevented The Guardian, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde or any other of WikiLeaks’s collaborators from posting cables online to support their stories; and it would seem to be in direct contravention of the principles espoused by Julian Assange. Perhaps he’s been too preoccupied by other matters recently to have noticed.
Philip Dorling has undoubtedly scored a major scoop for Fairfax. Most of the stories he’s writing – and there are goodness knows how many to come – are fascinating, especially to politics and foreign policy junkies. But we’re having to take them on trust, and we shouldn’t have to. And very few are telling us stuff we didn’t already know (Kevin Rudd’s a control freak; Defence Procurement is a mess; China doesn’t like the Defence White Paper): what they are telling us is that the US Embassy knew it too, often before we did. Surprise, surprise.
The Australian puts in its bib bleating “We would have loved the leaks given to Fairfax papers but we note the problems they have had sieving wheat from chaff”, patting itself and the rest of the mainstream media on the back for raising Wikileak’s circulation, and filtering the information on behalf of an inept public. This is the sort of contemptuous attitude which further encourages one to distrust Australian dead wood media generally. The UK Guardian has managed to keep its pact with its readers, while Australians are deemed inadequate.
@newsbrooke Heather Brooke
In an amazing nod to the fact we live in digital age, judge has said we can tweet #assange. So I will be along w @AlexiMostrous #
i see israeli nuke posture as defiant symbolism against europe as well 
