De Israelische Terreur 130

Ik kreeg net deze email van Amnesty:

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Media Advisory. 10 December 2006.

Open Letter from Amnesty International's Secretary General to European Union leaders on human rights crisis in Israel and the Occupied Territories Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan today called on European Union Heads of State and Government to urgently address the downward spiral of human rights abuses in Israel and the Occupied Territories. In an open letter published on International Human Rights Day and ahead of next week's meeting of the European Council (15 December), Irene Khan made a series of concrete recomendations including the deployment of international human rights monitors to the region. Irene Khan is currently leading an Amnesty International mission to Israel and the Occupied Territories during which she has discussed human rights concerns with government officials and members of civil society. The letter's recommendations are elaborated on in a briefing also published today, Israel and the Occupied Territories - Road to nowhere. Amnesty International's recommendations include:
Deployment of an effective international human rights monitoring mechanism;
The investigation and and prosecution through the excercise of universal jurisdiction of those responsible for crimes under international law;
Immediate halting of the sale or transfer of weapons to all parties in the conflict;
Concrete provisions to ensure the removal of Israeli settlements from the Occupied Territories, the dismantling of the fence/wall inside the West Bank, ending the closures and in the long term a fair solution to the refugee question.For a copy of the open letter please see: http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE150962006'

The Empire 85

'A Weaker Dollar and a Receding US Influence.

Central banks worldwide began discarding the dollar in favor of the euro in an attempt to minimize their losses following the decline in the value of the US currency.
An opinion poll conducted by the Management Trend research firm showed that more than two thirds of the world's central banks have reduced their exposure to the US dollar.
According to the poll conducted in 2005, 65% of central banks, managing more than two trillion US dollars, have begun to realize that the US currency cannot be relied on for these banks' reserves.
More recently, the euro rallied against the US dollar to the 1.32 mark, the US dollar has shed more than 14% of it value against the euro over the last year, and 50% of its value over the past five years. This decline is attributed to fears over the US' trade deficit with the rest of the world's countries.
This deficit exceeded $586 billion by the third quarter of this year, and is expected to exceed $716 billion by the end of the year. The greater part of this deficit is a result of the trade exchange with China.
The drop in the exchange rate of the US dollar was also linked to a poll conducted by German economic departments, which revealed an increase in the levels of confidence in the performance of the European economy to a 15-year-high.
The increased strength of the euro comes as US citizens and the US government enjoy the most favorable terms in the international trade exchange, as they borrow trillions of dollars worth of commodities, housing, and military funding from abroad at a cost of borrowing that does not exceed 5%, while at the same time, returns on US foreign investments exceed 20%, leading to a situation in which the US foreign debt reached $13.6 trillion, or $119,000 owed by each American household.
Geostrategic pressures, North Korea's nuclear test, the war in Iraq, the tension over Iran's nuclear file, threats to the continuity of the flow of supplies from the Middle East and natural gas from Russia, and, finally, Iran's announcement of selling natural derivatives in euros; all this constitutes pressures on US policies and US economy, which reduces confidence in the US' ability to face all these challenges.
Over the coming decades, such challenges could lead to a receding US military, political and economic influence, and may even push the US into isolation and regression toward within.
Can the US dollar maintain its status as a safe haven, and at the same time the leading currency for trade exchange?
From a historical perspective, 60-90% of trade exchange in the 19th century was conducted in the Pound Sterling, and Great Britain enjoyed a superpower status before the turning of the US dollar into the leading currency of the world's economy.
Data that has emerged over the few past weeks, however, points to the possibility of new European members, in addition to Britain, joining the unified monetary bloc by 2020, and making the euro the world's leading currency.
With its economic power, China is also expected to become the world's top exporter by 2010, and the world's economic superpower by 2020.
Accordingly, all the indications suggest that the US dollar might run out of luck over the next 20 years, and also concerns over the impact of a declining population growth level on European economic growth rates are not as serious as concerns over the US' growth rates, as the Europeans are also expected to correct this imbalance by opening the door to skills and workforce from Eastern Europe and the rest of the world.'

Lees verder: http://english.daralhayat.com/business/12-2006/Article-20061208-6242b309-c0a8-10ed-019f-76a5636a81d7/story.html

Massa Vernietigings Wapens?

Voor de vergeetachtigen onder mijn collega's van de Nederlandse parlementaire pers die premier Balkenende geloofden toen hij suggereerde dat Saddam massavernietigingswapens bezat, want dat had hij zelf van Tony Blair gehoord.

'A History Of Lies: WMD, Who Said What and When.

'Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick CheneySpeech to VFW National ConventionAugust 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George "aWol" BushSpeech to UN General AssemblySeptember 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari FleischerPress BriefingDecember 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari FleischerPress BriefingJanuary 9, 2003
"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."
George "aWol" BushState of the Union AddressJanuary 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin PowellRemarks to UN Security CouncilFebruary 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George "aWol" BushRadio AddressFebruary 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin PowellRemarks to UN Security CouncilMarch 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George "aWol" BushAddress to the NationMarch 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari FleisherPress BriefingMarch 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy FranksPress ConferenceMarch 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth AdelmanWashington Post, p. A27March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria ClarkPress BriefingMarch 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald RumsfeldABC InterviewMarch 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert KaganWashington Post op-edApril 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari FleischerPress BriefingApril 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George "aWol" BushNBC InterviewApril 24, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald RumsfeldPress BriefingApril 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George "aWol" BushRemarks to ReportersMay 3, 2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin PowellRemarks to ReportersMay 4, 2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald RumsfeldFox News InterviewMay 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George "aWol" BushRemarks to ReportersMay 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza RiceReuters InterviewMay 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st AirbornePress BriefingMay 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine CorpsInterview with ReportersMay 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of StaffNBC Today Show interviewMay 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald RumsfeldRemarks to Council on Foreign RelationsMay 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul WolfowitzVanity Fair interviewMay 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then Eit remains a surprise to me now Ethat we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary ForcePress Interview
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.--George W. BushInterview with TVP Poland5/30/2003You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on--George W. BushPress Briefing5/30/2003
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.--George W. BushInterview with TVP Poland5/30/2003You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on--George W. BushPress Briefing5/30/2003'

Zie en luister: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4882.htm

En dankzij deze brokkenmakers en hun lakeien in de politiek en pers staat het Midden Oosten in brand.

The Empire 84

'It's still about oil in Iraq.

A centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's report is its advocacy for securing foreign companies' long-term access to Iraqi oil fields.

By Antonia Juhasz, ANTONIA JUHASZ is a visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time."

WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.
The report makes visible to everyone the elephant
in the room: that we are fighting, killing and
dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language
that the U.S. government should use every tool at
its disposal to ensure that American oil interests
and those of its corporations are met.

It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which
calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to
reorganize the national oil industry as a
commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment
in Iraq's oil sector by the international community
and by international energy companies." This
recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil
industry into a commercial entity that could be
partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.

This is an echo of calls made before and
immediately after the invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working
Group, meeting between December 2002 and April
2003, also said that Iraq "should be opened to
international oil companies as quickly as possible
after the war." Its preferred method of
privatization was a form of oil contract called a
production-sharing agreement. These agreements are
preferred by the oil industry but rejected by all
the top oil producers in the Middle East because
they grant greater control and more profits to the
companies than the governments. The Heritage
Foundation also released a report in March 2003
calling for the full privatization of Iraq's oil
sector. One representative of the foundation, Edwin
Meese III, is a member of the Iraq Study Group.
Another, James J. Carafano, assisted in the study
group's work.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place,
and for it to apply to all the country's oil
fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass
a new national oil law. The constitution is
ambiguous as to whether control over future
revenues from as-yet- undeveloped oil fields should
be shared among its provinces or held and
distributed by the central government.'

Lees verder: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-juhasz8dec08,1,3013881.story

De Pro-Israel Lobby 18

'Baker vs. “The Lobby.”

By Mike Whitney.

“The great value of the Baker-Hamilton report is that it reasserts the necessity of pursuing American interests, as opposed to purely Israeli interests.” Justin Raimondo, “We Can’t Wait for 2008” antiwar.com

The tension between the Bush administration and the members of the Iraq Study Group, illustrates the widening chasm between old-guard U.S. imperialists and “Israel-first” neoconservatives. The divisions are setting the stage for a major battle between the two camps. The winner will probably decide US policy in the Middle East for the next decade. The failed occupation of Iraq has put the entire region on the fast-track to disaster. That’s why James Baker was summoned from retirement to see if he could change the present trajectory and mitigate the long-term damage to US interests. Baker was opposed to the invasion from the onset but his 4 day trip to Baghdad convinced him that something had to be done quickly. The ISG report reflects the unanimous view of its authors that Iraq is disintegrating into chaos and that action must be taken to reduce the level of bloodshed. Baker is not merely an objective observer in this process. He clearly “has a dog in this fight”. As Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan he put together the basic scaffolding for America’s imperial presence in the region and he continues to be connected to many of the corporations which benefit from US relations in the Middle East. But he has also always taken a “pragmatic” approach to regional policy and cannot be considered a war-monger. Some critics of Baker say that his business interests suggest that he indirectly supports the Bush policy. But this is an oversimplification. In fact, Baker sees war as a blunt instrument that is essentially incompatible with commercial interests. There are simply more efficient ways for clever men to achieve their objectives. In Antonia Juhasz’s recent article “Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group Recommends Privatization” shows how Baker was more than happy to overlook Saddam’s domestic repression as long as it didn’t damage business dealings. As Juhasz’s says: “Baker’s interest was focused on trade, which he described as “the central factor in the US-Iraq relationship”. From 1982, when Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism until August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger worked with others in the Reagan and Bush administrations to aggressively and successfully expand trade. The efficacy of such a move can best be described in a memo written in 1988 by the Bush transition team arguing that the US would have ‘to decide whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq’s present and potential power in the region and accord it relatively high priority. We strongly urge the latter view.’ Two reasons offered were Iraq’s ‘vast oil reserves’ which promised ‘a lucrative market for US goods’ and the fact that the US oil imports from Iraq were skyrocketing. Bush and Baker took the transition teams advice and ran with it”. This is the real James Baker. He’s not ideological and he’s certainly not on a religious crusade. His approach may seem cynical, but it shows that he prefers commerce (even with a brutal dictator) over war. This proves that his role with the ISG is not simply to provide cover for Bush. Baker’s task is to salvage the imperial system which he helped to create. Besides, it’s clear that Bush is unhappy with the report and has already rejected its two critical recommendations; negotiations with Syria and Iran, and a commitment to troop reduction. Furthermore, Bush is doing everything in his power to minimize the effects of the report. In fact, he even flew Tony Blair to Washington so that he wouldn’t look as isolated in his position. Baker has done a good job grabbing headlines and making his case directly to the American people, but his effect on Bush has been negligible. Bush appears to be brushing the report aside just like he brushed aside the results of the midterm elections. His summation of the ISG’s work was intentionally condescending; he dismissed it as “interesting” and “sincere”, blah, blah, blah. But Baker won't be patronized or put-off. In fact, his tone has been unusually threatening at times. As more than one critic has noted, Baker appears to be offering Bush an “ultimatum” not merely recommendations.'

Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15853.htm

Kellogg-Briand Pact

'NUREMBERG for the neocons - The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN charter of 1945.

December 8-10, 2006 -- REPORTING December 8 from Stuttgart, Germany.
Yesterday, the editor introduced a petition at a press conference at
the Nuremberg Stadium calling for the United States to honor the 1945
commitment made by Special Prosecutor Robert Jackson that the US
would be bound in the future by the same rules of international law
it applied to the Nazi party leaders. Accepting the petition was the
director of the Documentation Center for the Crimes of the German
Reich Party (Dokumentationszentrum Reichsparteitagsgelande) who
expressed a willingness to place the petition at Room 600 at the
Nuremberg Courthouse where the Nazi leaders were tried and sentenced.
As this room is visited by thousands of people from around the world,
the editor made a commitment to deliver the signed petition to the
leadership of the Judiciary Committees of the US Senate and House of
Representatives to stress the importance of the United States
becoming a full party to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
treaty and, if necessary, cooperate with the court in handing over
for trial those American political and military leaders who violated
the clause of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the Paris Peace Pact) formally
renounced war as an instrument of national policy and its violation
by the German Nazis was one of the four main charges in their
indictment at Nuremberg, to wit, "crimes against peace (planning,
preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or
participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the forgoing.").

The United States is a party to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the terms of
which remain in force to this day and which remains a U.S. law. The
United States is also a party to the United Nations Charter of 1945,
which also renounces war unless for reasons of self defense and is
also U.S. law as a ratified treaty of the United States.'

Lees verder: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

The Empire 83

Military.Com:

'Boomerang Effect.

Last week, one of my students, a Marine captain, asked whether I had heard a news report about an “IED-like device” supposedly found near Cincinnati, and if I thought we would soon start seeing IEDs here in the U.S. I replied that I had not heard the news story, but as to whether we would see IEDs here at home, the answer is yes.
One of the things U.S. troops are learning in Iraq is how people with little training and few resources can fight a state. Most American troops will see this within the framework of counterinsurgency. But a minority will apply their new-found knowledge in a very different way. After they return to the U.S. and leave the military, they will take what they learned in Iraq back to the inner cities, to the ethnic groups, gangs, and other alternate loyalties they left when they joined the service. There, they will put their new knowledge to work, in wars with each other and wars against the American state. It will not be long before we see police squad cars getting hit with IEDs and other techniques employed by Iraqi insurgents, right here in the streets of American cities.
I know this thought -- not to speak of the reality when it happens -- will be shocking to some readers. To anyone who really understands Fourth Generation war, it should not be. Fourth Generation war does not merely work on the will of a state’s political leaders, as some theorists have said. It does something far more powerful. It pulls an opposing state apart at the moral level.
We saw this phenomenon in the effect the defeat in Afghanistan had on the Soviet Union. Just as that defeat led to the disintegration of the USSR, so defeat in the current Afghan war will bring the disintegration of NATO. We are seeing 4GW pull Israel apart today, to the point where a leaden blanket of Kulturpessimismus now oppresses that country.
We will see the same thing here, powerfully I think, as a result of our defeat in Iraq. It will manifest itself in many ways, and one of those ways will be the progression of inner-city and gang crime into something close to warfare, including war against the state.
Police will not be surprised by this prediction. I have talked with cops about Fourth Generation war, and they “get it” much better than do American soldiers and Marines. Many have told me that they already recognize elements of war in what they are encountering, especially in inner cities. Cops have been killed while just sitting in their cruisers, because they represent the authority of the state. How big a step is it for those cruisers to get hit with IEDs instead of pistol shots?'

Lees verder: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,120114,00.html Of:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15855.htm