War Pages: Past, Present and Future Wars From New Perspectives.

All articles will now go on my New Site first

2008-02-17T04:34:00.005Z

Friends, Readers, Countrymen (and women), I have just started a new site, literally just finished putting my firs post up. You can view it at http://www.thebaileymail.co.uk/middle-east-conflict/Israel-Strangling-the-Life-Out-of-Gaza.php, anyone who currently republishes my articles should now link to My New Site, instead.

People who have liked my work enough to put a permanent link in their sidebar I would really love for you to put my new site up as well as War Pages (here) because I won't be archiving my old articles on the new site, so this one will be the archive of some of my best articles. I hope you enjoy reading the new site as much as you have enjoyed reading this blog.

France's Pro-US Moves Make U.S/Iran War More Likely

2008-02-04T22:39:00.000Z

My regular readers will know I haven't written an article on current affairs or international politics for quite some time. What they won't know is that I haven't even been watching or reading the news -- at all. Last night I thought to myself: the U.S. could declare war on Iran and the first I would know would be when somebody told me on the street, or worse overhear someone else talking about it. As I strongly believe that a U.S. war with Iran would either start or become nuclear, and I fear that China and/or Russia would join the war on Iran's side, I would like to know a lot sooner if the U.S. does take the plunge.

I started reading the news again last night, and found that the same geopolitical posturing is still going on, but with one additional influencing factor, France's pro-U.S. foreign policy under Nicolas Sarkozy. I was still watching the news when Sarkozy was elected and I knew then that he would be pro-U.S., but given how disastrous such a move was for Tony Blair I could never have predicted how pro-U.S.

Pro-U.S. enough to be not only adding to the powder-keg that is the U.S./Iran nuclear stand-off, but making it far more likely to turn to war. On a recent visit to the Middle East, Sarkozy reached a deal with that will see a small French base built in the United Arab Emirates. To an Iran already threatened by the U.S.' biggest regional ally and mighty nuclear power: Israel, this base is yet another forward base of attack on their doorstep should the U.S launch a strike.

Therefore, not only has this made a peaceful resolution to the nuclear stand-off less likely, on the grounds that Iran going nuclear was to give them a deterrent against attack, which they now need all the more, but it has also created the potential for further retaliatory moves by Iran that could make the worst-case scenario of China and Russia entering any war more likely.

Moves like Iran finally giving in and granting a Chinese base either in Iran or on one of its islands. China recently overtook Germany as Iran's biggest trade partner, and is reliant on Iran for oil and gas to fuel its continued economic growth, and so determined to prevent a U.S. attack on Iran. This determination has already led to China selling major arms to Iran such as Ballistic missiles and air-defence radars to fend of a U.S. attack.

China and Russia also granted Iran observer status to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2006. So far Iran's desire to obtain full membership hasn't become a reality, but the recent U.S./India nuclear cooperation deal, which, perceived by China as a move to contain their advances, makes it a step closer.

The level of military cooperation, and the likelihood of all S.C.O. states joining a war on behalf of one member state is a matter of opinion. Some say it is only a trade organization, the fact that all members made a verbal pact to defend each others sovereignty at the 2006 meeting isn't enough for them. It is for me and I personally believe that the possibility is there that China would step in on behalf of Iran to protect its interests.

I doubt that even China knows for sure what it will do in the event that the U.S. does go to war, but I don't doubt that their moves are to create the impression that they would support Iran in war, or sew enough doubt that they wouldn't to prevent the U.S. from attacking. A Chinese base in Iran would be an excellent leg of this aim. The downside of a Chinese base in Iran is that, should any Chinese soldiers be injured in any U.S. attack it would make a Chinese entry into the war more likely.

Will Middle East Conference Bring Peace?

2007-11-03T23:07:00.000Z

Originally I was going to write an article about how Israel had no intention of returning the Palestinian land, and how Israel's chief negotiator Tzipi Livni had publicly admitted as much. I refer to an article in Thursday 01 October's International Herald Tribune, quoting Livni's response to Palestinian chief negotiator Ahmed Qureia's demand for a deadline on Israel to return the land, and for the creation of a Palestinian state encompassed by a lasting peace agreement, Livni's response was:

"Creating timetables, which are often not carried out, as it happened every time in the past, creates expectations that are then not carried out, and create violence and terror," In a joint news conference in Tel Aviv with visiting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

That was the point of asking for a deadline -- for Israel to agree to a deadline would be to confirm their definite intent to actually grant the Palestinians a state of their own. Livni not even entertaining the possibility of Israel meeting a deadline says that they have no intention of meeting their side of any necessary bargain.

That is why Israel will never agree a deadline; it is too definite. Israel wants to keep their options open, and not give back the land unless they really have to -- I have always thought the threat of the removal of U.S. support was most likely to make them do so.

An article today however, made me think about the current climate in a way I hadn't previously, and for the first time gave me hope that, just maybe, this year's big November peace conference might succeed where all those before it have failed. I read that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is determined to find peace with the Palestinians before Bush leaves office.

An official quoted Olmert as telling German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, "There are big advantages to reaching an agreement before the end of Bush's term. This is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do for both sides." The official said Olmert was keen to seize the opportunity because it was impossible to know how committed the next U.S. administration would be to solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In reality he means it is impossible to tell how committed the next administration will be to Israel -- in other words if it will be pro-Israel.

Bush and his administration has undoubtedly been one of, if not the most pro-Israel administrations for decades, and has agreed that Olmert and Israel would get to keep control of the large settlement blocs in the West Bank. This is a sizeable incentive for Israel. Israel has kept building new settlement blocs despite it being forbidden under the terms of the last U.S. led peace process: the road-map for peace. And while, in their Presidential campaigns it seems that all candidates and administrations Democrat and Republican, are pro-Israel, Olmert knows this could just be to ensure the Jewish vote, and what they do once they get in cannot be foretold.

There is a widely held train of thought, in academic circles and even in the U.N. that the settlement blocs are illegal and should all be torn down. And the Palestinians, even the moderate Abbas outright oppose any form of land-swap agreement that would let Israel keep the settlement blocs. Olmert will be weighing up the likelihood that a big priority for the next U.S. President will be to repair America's image in and relations with the rest of the world, including the U.N. Therefore: Olmert can't guarantee the offer to keep the settlement blocs will remain on the table after Bush leaves office, nor just how strongly the next U.S. President will attempt to push Israel into peace with or without the settlement blocs.

I still think Israel will try and hold out, like Olmert saying he hopes to reach agreement on borders, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem, but stopping short of saying an agreement was possible. In other words he wants to get Bush's offer of the settlement blocs becoming Israel's territory when the borders are drawn up, but doesn't want to get forced into actually giving back any of the land, and having to institute a Palestinian state -- therein losing the precious East Jerusalem for the new state's capital.

Israel has recently threatened to abandon the peace process, if Abbas attempts to bring Hamas back into the fold -- after Abbas met with Hamas members in the West Bank at his Ramallah office. Hamas are Israel's get out of jail free card, because it is likely that Hamas will launch a wave of terror to try and wreck any accord they are not part of -- as they have done in the past. This may allow Israel to get Bush's offer down on paper, while Hamas' terror will be used as justification for their not implementing it.

So, on the whole, I am not hopeful that an agreement will be reached at the conference. Israel doesn't even seem to be going into it with that in mind -- and Israel gets what it wants with Bush at the helm. Meanwhile the bloodshed continues.

Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel: To End the Qassam Rocket Attacks?

2007-10-29T19:55:00.000Z

The Israeli Defense Force knows its latest policy will fail, so what is the real reason for going ahead with it?

By Liam Bailey

Sunday 28 November began Israel's latest measure to end the relentless barrage of Qassam rockets fired into Israel, by reducing the amount of fuel delivered into the Hamas run Gaza where the rockets are fired from, a measure that openly defies the 4th Geneva Convention since it collectively punishes the Palestinian people as a whole for the actions of the Qassam squads.

Everyone who knows anything about this conflict knows that this, as part of a larger drive which will eventually see Israel cut power to the Gaza strip every time a rocket lands in Israel, does not have a chance in hell of ending the Qassam attacks. In fact by increasing Palestinian resolve for resistance against the occupier bent on making their day to day lives miserable in every way it can, it might actually bring about an increase in the number of rocket attacks and even foster a new generation of suicide bombers among Palestinian children. frighteningly, statements in the Israeli press reveal that even the Israel Defense Force (IDF) knows this measure won't halt the Qassams..

So why enact a measure with a better chance of making things worse than it has of achieving its intended aim?

I can't answer this question definitively, but I will put forward several possibilities, one of which or all of which could well be the reason behind Israel's current behaviour.

The most recent and relevant possibility is Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai's explanation (from an interview on Israel radio) that the policies have nothing to do with halting the rocket fire but are simply another step in Israel's disengagement from Gaza following the withdrawal of troops and settlers in 2005.

Vilnai's exact words were:"This is the continuation of our disengagement, since the troops pulled out. This is not connected to Qassams (rockets), it is a deeper, broader disengagement."

Some analysts, such as Haaretz correspondents Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff believe the move is partly further disengagement, but mainly an outward display that the IDF and Israeli government are doing everything in their power to end the Qassam's in preparation for and to justify a planned and massive ground operation deep into the Gaza strip to end the rocket attacks.

Of course, we must throw into the mix the long-running accusation that a majority in Israel's government do not want to return Palestinian land and do not want a peace deal that would inevitably lead to them having to return the land; therefore, a majority of the government wants to perpetuate the conflict. The best way for them to do so is to continually stir up Palestinian anger with these kinds of measures. Maintaining the fervent Palestinian resistance allows them to ensure that the conflict will be perpetuated from the Palestinian side, allowing Israel to claim self-defense in their measures, which again further stirs up Palestinian anger. Put simply, it allows Israel to perpetuate the conflict and to remain the good guys in the eyes of the outside world.

Finally, another possible explanation was revealed during the recent Israeli air-strike on what was claimed to be a fledgling Syrian nuclear program a few weeks ago: that Israel is poking and prodding at the boundaries of the international community's patience, seeing just how far it can go before the international community responds so strongly that the U.S. is forced to do something about it -- all in the aim of working out how much of a response a strike on Iran might provoke.

I believe one, two, or perhaps all of the above reasons, -- and possibly more factors --explain Israel's current policies of forcing yet more pressure on a population already racked by poverty from the original Israeli-imposed and internationally followed financial embargo, which has already brought the small coastal strip to the brink of a humanitarian disaster.

U.S. Policy Consequences: Blowback or Controlled Explosion?

2007-10-29T19:53:00.000Z

I have long believed that the U.S. will always need an arch-nemesis to justify its defense spending always being millions of dollars higher than any other world power -- a country, or "axis" of (evil) countries portrayed as an enemy and a real threat to all that is American. My first example: communism and the cold war.

As I will explain below U.S. policies during the cold war gave birth to the most recent nemesis (Iraq) and the current one (Islamic radicalism).

I had always thought that these were unintended consequences, but as all the news now indicates that the world powers are squaring up to fight for the world's remaining resources, the Iraq and Islamic threat being used as justification to take control of massive oil-reserves there, and the latter potentially giving the U.S. an open book for other operations and invasions where most of these remaining resources lie, I ask myself: were they accidents, or has it all been a plan from the start?

During the cold war, Afghanistan's government became allied and controlled by the U.S.S.R. The big oil corps had noted potential in Afghanistan for a major money-spinning pipeline between the major oil reserves in the Caucasus and financially-rich, resource-poor Asia. Mujahideen groups began fighting the Soviet allied government. And Reagan began covertly funding the extremist of extreme Mujahideen groups, pressuring Saudi Arabia to match the level of funding, and arming the anti-Soviet Afghans with the best weaponry -- all via Pakistani intelligence.

The U.S. wanted to draw the Soviet army into invading Afghanistan, seeing the opportunity for "giving to the USSR its Vietnam war", meaning to bog the U.S.S.R down causing a major drain on their resources and weakening the Soviet empire.

It worked, but in the course of it, the pressure applied to Saudi Arabia's King Fahd led to his intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal hiring Osama Bin Laden to recruit fighters and secure funds from rich Arabs for the Afghan Jihad, and having the U.K.'s Special Air Service give the Mujahideen explosives training -- including how to improvise Soviet explosives captured in ambushes and recovered mines. Bin Laden kept a database of fighters recruited for the struggle -- Al Qaeda is base in Arabic. How much did the C.I.A know about, or have to do with that appointment?

Pakistan also used U.S. dollars to build dozens of religious schools, or seminaries in the border regions. It was the U.S. and Pakistan's shared aim, that the seminaries would maintain extremist teachings and provide a steady flow of Muslims to go and fight in the Afghan Jihad. Many of those religious schools remain breeding grounds for Salafist anti-western extremism and terrorists to this day. And we all know what all these policies led to: 9/11 and the current threat to western interests from -- Reagan's freedom fighters -- Islamic terrorists.

Just before Reagan came to power another problem had emerged: the Islamic revolution in Iran. The revolution overthrew the British imposed Shah, who was a fervent western ally. Saddam Hussein's Iraq sought to capitalize on the confusion and launched a massive invasion of Iran, which looked like a success for a while. When Saddam's forces began to be drove back further and further into Iraq, the threat emerged: Iran's Islamic soldiers could take southern Iraq, from where they would threaten Kuwait and the vital oil supplies in the Middle East proper.

The U.S. -- along with other major western powers -- began arming (the maniac) Saddam, with weapons and "dual-use" technology, that could be -- and were -- used in the production of chemical and biological weapons.

Saddam successfully defended Iraq and after years more fighting and thousands of gruesome chemical warfare deaths for little gains, the two countries eventually agreed to the terms of UN Resolution 598 and returned to pre-war boundaries.

Bush came to power soon after and continued cosying up to Saddam -- of course, now a well armed dictator. Over-estimating this power and the level of his favour with the U.S., Saddam went on to do what his U.S. weaponry was supposed to prevent: invaded Kuwait.

After brief attempts at diplomacy, U.N. and U.S. forces were deployed to expel Saddam's forces from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia. The stationing of U.S troops in Saudi Arabia, and its permanence when Saddam was expelled were the main reasons behind Bin Laden's Fatwas, religious rulings calling for the murder, first of American troops in Saudi Arabia (1996), then American's and their allies anywhere in the world (1998). The latter was, in effect, a declaration of war against the "international community."

So, U.S. policies led to the rise of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the rise of Saddam and (indirectly) his invasion of Kuwait. This made him an enemy of the U.S, which would allow Bush to invade in 2003, using the other threat the U.S. created and stirred up in dealing with Saddam's invasion, Islamic terrorists as further justification.

So, was the 2003 invasion really to deal with the threat, or was it the first move in the international resources chess game? And if it was: had it all been the plan when they were giving Saddam all that money and fomenting Islamic extremism?

Iraq stands on some of the biggest oil reserves in the world, and it has become clear since the Iraq invasion that Bush knew there was no WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam posed no threat to anyone but his own countrymen. In fact in the last couple of days, Alan Greenspan the leading republican economist for a generation, now retired said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

U.K. officials also knew Saddam had no WMD's, and created dodgy dossiers to instil fear of an imaginary threat. I put that down to Blair seeing the struggle to maintain oil-supplies for as long as possible turning to a violent struggle, and wanting to be on-side with Bush as he made his bid for control.

Iraq changed the international dynamic, since then, around the world the U.S and its allies have been squaring up against Russia/China and their allies over resource rich areas, and those not in the fray are picking sides.

Bush and his administration are constantly threatening another invasion of an oil-rich country, Iran.

Russia and China -- the latter relying on Iran for resources -- have vetoed UN sanctions against the Pariah state and given every indication (inviting Iran to cooperation organization meetings with verbal promises to defend each other's sovereignty) whose side they would take if it went to war. Then there's the dispute between Russia and the U.S. over the missile defense shield. Of course Russia isn't going to let the U.S. obtain any military advantage with the great war for dwindling resources looming overhead. Hence Russia resuming long (nuclear armed) bomber patrols. Now, France's conservative leadership is cosying up to the U.S. over Iran:

France's foreign minister said: Bernard Kouchner said: "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." The top UN nuclear official Mohamed ElBaradei said he saw no clear and present danger and that talk of war was counter-productive. Like Blair French officials see what's going down and are picking their side.

So, if France and Russian officials with their intelligence agencies and White House contacts see that Iraq began a war between the world's major powers for the world's remaining oil, who am I to argue.

Iraq being about oil gives birth to the possibility that the U.S. doesn't care about security in Iraq, only control of the oil. That in turn makes an Iran invasion even more likely, because it removes the possibility that the U.S. won't attack Iran because their retaliation would destroy any chance of security in Iraq. It also removes the problem of an over-stretched U.S. military stopping the invasion, because half the troops in Iraq could control the oil. That then gives birth to the question: why the surge, is it a surge to up the troop levels in advance for war with Iran?

If all this does go ahead; we all go to war for what's left of precious oil, most of which is in the Middle East, is it so much of a leap to say that the U.S. knew it was creating an Islamic monster and did so knowing that this day would come? I'll let you make up your own mind.

Recent Articles

2007-10-29T19:48:00.000Z

Will Middle East Conference Bring Peace?
There's a glimmer of hope that November's meet will resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel: To End the Rocket Attacks?
The Israeli Defense Force knows its latest policy will fail, so what is the real reason for going ahead with it?

U.S. Policy Consequences: Blowback or Controlled Explosion
Can we really believe that U.S. adminstrations with all its intelligence services and advisors doesn't know the possible consequences of its often questionable actions? And if not, have U.S. policies been aiming at conquering the world's oil for decades?

British Basra Withdrawal: You Never Know Unless You Go
One headline in the Guardian: British leave with the job not done. And I think that about sums it up. The British Labour government's priority is to bring the troops home as quickly as possible, with an election coming up and the lack of popularity in Britain for the war and our troops continued presence in it. Not that I'm knocking it.

Abbas Opposes Land-Swap
Does he want peace?

Palestinian Suffering: We Caused It, We Should Fix It
U.N. states share a portion of blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict -- they need to stop it.

The World After Bush
Part I: Iraq
Part II: Somalia

What the Gulf Arms Sale Really Means
There's more to it than countering the threat from Iran.

War Pages Articles

2007-10-29T08:57:00.000Z

Will Middle East Conference Bring Peace?
There's a glimmer of hope that November's meet will resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel: To End the Rocket Attacks?
The Israeli Defense Force knows its latest policy will fail, so what is the real reason for going ahead with it?

U.S. Policy Consequences: Blowback or Controlled Explosion
Can we really believe that U.S. adminstrations with all its intelligence services and advisors doesn't know the possible consequences of its often questionable actions? And if not, have U.S. policies been aiming at conquering the world's oil for decades?

British Basra Withdrawal: You Never Know Unless You Go
One headline in the Guardian: British leave with the job not done. And I think that about sums it up. The British Labour government's priority is to bring the troops home as quickly as possible, with an election coming up and the lack of popularity in Britain for the war and our troops continued presence in it. Not that I'm knocking it.

Abbas Opposes Land-Swap
Does he want peace?

Palestinian Suffering: We Caused It, We Should Fix It
U.N. states share a portion of blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict -- they need to stop it.

The World After Bush
Part I: Iraq
Part II: Somalia

What the Gulf Arms Sale Really Means
There's more to it than countering the threat from Iran.

Slim Chance of Mideast Peace
If Blair applies the same principles as he did to Northern Ireland... All Parties must negotiate a lasting peace.

Palestine Divided: Israel's Dream
Israel encourages violence in Palestine, thus keeping Palestinians divided.

Peace Is The Only Option for Israel
Israeli air strikes in Gaza are brutal and pointless - threatening prospects for peace and ultimate Israeli security.

Israeli Occupation: Boycott or Not?

Bush Vs Putin -- Cold-War or Hot-Air?

Brown on Terror

Who Abducted Alan Johnston?

Croatian Bees to Take Sting out of Land-mines

Begin the Third Intifada: An Intifada of Peace

Extremist Does Not Mean Terrorist: Islam Too Large to be Split in Two

Violence Unlikely to End in Somalia

An Offer for Peace: Disarming Hamas and Fatah

International Community: Divide and Function Part III
Part III: Starving the Palestinians or doing the right thing?

International Community: Divide and Function Part II
Part II: Chemical weapons and broken promises: Iran and Iraq past and present.

International Community: divide and Function
Part 1: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and The War on Terror

Nuclear Iran: If You Can't Beath Them -- Infiltrate

Mideast Peace -- Now or Maybe Never?

War on Terror -- Oil Conspiracy?

Saudi Initiative: Turn Suggestions into Reality

Saudi Initiative: Definite Possibilities

Pacifying Somalia: United in Extremism

Hamas Shooting: Senseless Violence

Talking Sense In Somalia: Let the Somali people have Their Say

War & Grief

Preparing to Attack Iran: The Neocon Roadmap to War

Attitudes Stop Israeli/Palestinian Peace

Lebanese Army Standing Up to Israel:

Somalia's Government, Somalia's Affair

Governing Somalia

Israel Not Facing Existential Threat

"A Brighter Palestinian Future"

Excluding Hamas Won't Bring Peace!

Is Attacking Iran a Viable Option?

Are We Losing the War on Terror?

All earlier posts can be read using the previous post button at the bottom of my old blog

Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel: To End the Qassam Rocket Attacks?

2007-10-29T08:42:00.000Z

British Basra Withdrawal: You Never Know Unless You Go

2007-09-04T10:43:00.001+01:00

By Liam Bailey*

September third saw the hand over of Basra Palace from British to Iraqi control. The 550 British troops previously stationed there have gone to join the last remaining 5000 British troops in the airport base on the city's outskirts. The handover brought mixed responses from Iraqis and from the press.

Gordon Brown insisted that the move was planned as part of the British withdrawal strategy and was not a defeat, stating that in an over-watch role the troops could re-intervene on the request of the Iraqis and promised we would still: "discharge our duties to the Iraqi people and the international community". Most press reports however draw attention to the lack of security, gang-warfare and high militia presence in the city, calling the withdrawal a defeat.

One headline in the Guardian: British leave with the job not done. And I think that about sums it up. The British Labour government's priority is to bring the troops home as quickly as possible, with an election coming up and the lack of popularity in Britain for the war and our troops continued presence in it. Not that I'm knocking it.

As I have always believed, teamed with (Islam's enemy no.1) the U.S., Britain was never going to bring security to the south -- just as the same is true for the U.S. in the north. In fact I have always thought (and 69% of Iraqis think) they are causing as much violence as they are quelling. That is not surprising given the backdrop to the war: the build up of years of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, Bush Snr's lying to the Shiites and Kurds causing thousands of their deaths in 1991, the hollow precursor for the war and heavyweight belief that it was all for the oil.

Coalition atrocities that have since heightened resentment and hatred for the occupiers, combined with constant threats to Iran that have backed-up the cynicism of a war on Muslims, and the fact that almost every aspect of Iraqi life has gotten worse under the occupation have continually worsened and intensified the insurgency. All the above cut the British troop's work out for them, and that's before we even get onto the sectarian violence caused by Saddam favoring the Sunnis and oppressing the Shiites and Kurds -- but also kept a lid on by his fierce rule.

Sectarian violence has been worsened by outside influences and actors. It is widely thought that the Arab states, like Saudi Arabia are supporting Sunni groups, and according to official U.S. sources Iran is supporting and arming Shia militias.

The Shia militias are predominant in the British controlled south, where Iran has direct border access, meaning if they are arming and funding militias it is easier than it is for the Arab states to support the Sunni groups. To make matters worse Iran has the added motive of the ever-present danger of a U.S. attack, making Iran determined to make the U.S.' life difficult in Iraq. Unfortunately Britain suffers first and worst from any of Iran's pre-emptive defense measures.

So, having said all that, the fact that British troops have been able to hand-over power to the Iraqi forces in all but one of the southern provinces they controlled without any severe consequences says a lot about the abilities and strengths of the British army.

It also says that the MoD has realized the point I have made in this article: British troops can only maintain a certain level of security; the attacks levelled at them prevent them from bringing total security and peace. Therefore, when they have trained the Iraqi police and army in that province sufficiently it is right for them to hand-over control. After all, we will never know if they can do it unless we let them try.

I'll finish by saying that I don't know enough about the situation in the south -- figures, polls, etc -- to really say whether it is a defeat or not. But pulling out to a safe distance, removing a target that creates its share of violence, avoiding the loss of anymore British troops while continuing to train Iraqi forces, monitor the situation and be on-call if needed, sounds like the best solution all round. As the saying goes: you'll never know unless you go.

Abbas Opposes Land-Swap – Do You Want Peace?

2007-08-28T19:52:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said that he opposes Israel's proposal to give up areas of Israeli land heavily populated by Israeli Arabs, such as the region around Umm al-Fahm, for the new Palestinian state, in order to keep Israel's settlement blocs in the West Bank while still returning 100% of the land taken in the 1967 war. I just can't believe it, it harks back to the Palestinian pig-headed stick-to-your-gunnery that is usual displayed so well by Hamas and would be so better coming from people who actually had anything to lose.

The Palestinian people want peace, and as it has widely been agreed for decades the best chance of that comes from a two-state solution where Israel returns the land it took in 1967. For Abbas now to say he opposes an Israeli offer to do just that makes me ask, and from what I know of the situation, the Palestinian people will also be wondering: does Abbas want peace?

The proposal Abbas was talking about was formulated by Shimon Peres while he was still Israel's vice-premier. The proposal was brought to light in a Haaretz article. Although I am bemused that Abbas has come out opposing the proposal, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has denied the existence of such a document anyway.

Returning the land taken in 1967 including East Jerusalem to form a Palestinian state, is one of the set-in-stone Palestinian demands for any peace deal, right of return for all refugees is another. But the main thing Palestinians want is an end to the occupation, removal of checkpoints, life-restricting Israeli security measures, and control over their own lives.

A land swap has long been thought necessary to allow Israel to return the land it took in 1967, because of the settlements it has built on the occupied land. If this document does exist, then this being the first time Israel has actually stated what land it wishes to swap for me is a big step. Another big step is Israel putting on paper a proposal to return 100% of the land taken in 1967. For Abbas to oppose such a huge step towards a massive concession from Israel, makes me wonder for the first time if those people are right, who say the Palestinians are as much an obstacle to peace as Israel. But let's remember this is not the Palestinian people, it is a Palestinian leader long-known for not putting his people first.

Many people in the analytical community, the major players in the international and Israeli political scenes are currently -- on paper at least -- touting that peace is closer than it has been for years. Shimon Peres stated Aug. 26 his belief that peace could be agreed before the international summit later this year.

UN special advisor for the Middle East Michael Williams, who is set to become Britain's Middle East representative next month, said that Israel hasn't done enough to strengthen moderate Abbas, which suggests he will follow the same old policy. That is the very policy that I believe still leaves peace a long way off; strengthening Abbas, while isolating and excluding Hamas from negotiations. This leaves the peace process open to being de-railed by the militant group staging a campaign of terror attacks. There is already talk of Hamas leaders in Damascus calling on Hamas militants in the West Bank to launch a massive suicide attack in Israel to torpedo chances of a deal between Israel and Fatah.

There is also the possibility that any agreements will be rejected by the Palestinian people as a whole who doubt Abbas' credibility and voted for a Hamas government for that reason. That of course all assumes Abbas can reach agreement with Israel. If Abbas is going to oppose every attempt Israel's makes to compromise then he is not as moderate as everyone seems to think, and nor is he likely to be the best person to achieve a Palestinian state through negotiations.

Michael Williams also said the situation is better than it has been for seven years, so as he and many other prominent people are hopeful that peace is closer than it has been for years, I will keep an open mind and see how things pan out. But until the top tier of world powers realize that all Palestinian groups and people must be behind a deal in order to offer Israel any real chance of security; a must for any deal, I just don't hold out much hope.

Palestinian Suffering: We Caused it, We Should Fix It

2007-08-21T18:49:00.000+01:00

U.N. states share a portion of blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict -- they need to stop it.

By Liam Bailey

During the Nazi holocaust of WWII -- following orders or not -- German soldiers were responsible for the expulsion of millions of Jews from their homes, businesses and countries -- and the murder of millions more. Because of that, when the war was won the allied victors felt compelled by guilt to grant the Zionist/Jewish wish of a national Jewish state. As Britain then controlled Palestine, which is where the Zionists felt their state should be, Britain, along with the U.N. came up with a partition plan to give the Jews a portion of Palestine for their homeland.

So, I am saying that, for the above reasons, Britain, Germany and the UN -- meaning all developed nations -- bare equal responsibility for the Palestinian's suffering, which I will detail below. Israel has had nearly 60 years to do the right thing, it is time for the world to step in and right the wrong it played a big part in creating.

Most Palestinians live with unemployment, depression, poverty and hunger; it has got so bad that child beggars are entering Israel from the supposedly better off West Bank. Children sent by parents who can't afford to feed them, to face the danger of knife point robbery and sexual abuse for a few dollars, tells us just how desperate the situation is in the West Bank -- and it's even worse in Gaza.

Worse still all Palestinians are likely to feel: fear, anger, misery, hopelessness and despair on an almost daily basis, whereas we in the west might experience one or two of those feelings on an average day.

Here's why: Israel is the occupying nation. With their check-points and border restrictions they keep Palestinians from visiting family and friends, which is likely to cause loneliness, hopelessness and depression, from getting to jobs and making exports difficult causing unemployment and poverty. Fear comes from air-strikes and arrest operations. And all the above causes and exemplifies Palestinian anger.

The more Israel gets away with, i.e. remaining in the world's favour despite atrocities and violations of international law, the worse it gets, and the less likely a Palestinian state becomes. Like Israel failing to abide by the 4th Geneva convention regarding the treatment of civilians by an occupying force. Israel does not regard the Geneva convention as applying de jure to the West Bank and Gaza strip -- yet says that the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not apply to the occupied territories because they are covered by the Geneva Convention. That is a clear example of Israel saying we are above international law – and getting away with it.

In the summer war with Lebanon last year Israel used depleted uranium bombs and cluster bombs in civilian areas. Lebanese civilians are still paying for the latter with their lives, and the damage the uranium may have done to the soil, crops and women's fertility remains to be seen.

The 10ft high security wall Israel is building has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice, not to mention the hordes of human rights groups, Israeli and global, speaking out about the huge atrocity it is. Israel keeps on building and the U.S. keeps treating her as a massive ally. Any attempts made by the U.N. Security Council to put a kerb on Israel's behaviour by issuing a resolution is vetoed by the U.S., who actually have the audacity to say the resolutions are biased against Israel. Israel acts like a rogue state and remains in the world's good books and cheque books.

The Palestinians want their own state and control over their own borders and destiny, but only Israel can give them it and that would cost Israel a lot of land and money, their sacred Jerusalem and chance for a greater Israel. Israel doesn't want to give up land, it wants to take more and Israel is the one in control. The wall is a good example of Israel wanting to take more Palestinian land, as the wall is kilometres inside the proposed Palestinian state, when it could provide the same security from inside Israel's proposed border. All this should mean Israel isn't impartial, yet Israel can still influence how the world deals with the Palestinians.

Israel is a prosperous state, receiving billions of dollars in aid from the U.S.. So who can blame the Palestinians for feeling despair and hopelessness when Israel on top of all the other bad things it causes in their lives was able to make the world stop giving aid to the Palestinians because they expressed their free will and elected Hamas. When the U.S. is following Israel's policy and constantly providing aid and acting on Israel's interests, of course the Palestinians are going to feel that the west is biased and miss-trust any efforts or initiatives they make towards peace, especially the U.S.. This feeling that they aren't being treated fairly again worsens Palestinian anger, as does Israel continually getting away with violations like the wall.

I saw a programme once about the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands, I couldn't imagine anything worse than soldiers your nation is at war with being in control of your day to day lives. At least the Channel Islanders had hope that the allies would be victorious and they would be liberated. Imagine living under an occupation that makes your life an impoverished misery, with the constant feeling that it is never going to end -- that this is all your life will ever be. That, to me, is Palestinian life.

It needs to stop! Jews suffered the modern world's worst atrocities for five years. But, although there has been no one atrocity on the scale of the holocaust, the mass expulsions, civilian massacres like the one in Lebanon last year and those before, the ever-lasting toll on civilians always running much higher that that of Israel, the home demolitions, and the general misery I talked about above, combined over 60 years to mean the Palestinians have suffered just as much. Death from a thousand cuts.

All the above should mean the world makes sure the Palestinians get their own state, as Britain and the U.N. decided Jews were entitled to their own state because of their suffering in the holocaust.

The UN, well the states that make it up should foot the bill for the Palestinian state. Offering the refugees, say, 2 million U.S. dollars for all they lost and the years of suffering. It should force Israel to give back all the land it took in 1967 including East Jerusalem, giving them a set time to decide what land it needs to swap; give Israeli land equivalent of any Palestinian land it needs to keep to maintain the security of all Israelis, including settlement blocs.

Paying the refugees should mean Israel has no reason to refuse, but if that combined with Israel's reliance on international assistance isn't enough to force their hand, no option should be taken off the table. Israel will complain about their security but with the full UN on the case, guarantees to ensure Israel's security could certainly be made. It's time to forcibly remove all obstacles and give peace a chance.

The World After Bush Part II: Somalia

2007-08-16T10:49:00.001+01:00

By Liam Bailey

I said in a recent article that the U.S. arms sale to the gulf is a possible sign that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might be closer than Bush wants to admit. With all my conviction I say: there will be no U.S. victory in Iraq and eventually they will have to pullout, if not before Bush leaves office then sometime soon after.

When reading an article about the continued violence in Somalia with my last article still fresh in my mind, I asked myself the question, where will the world be after the Bush administration? Further, will things calm down, or have the Neocons caused so much friction and meddled so much that the explosion of violence in so many places around the world will continue to worsen?

I will attempt to answer my questions in a series of articles, and through the course will also inadvertently show why electing the son of a U.S. President, as President is perhaps a mistake, that should not be repeated.

In most of the worlds current conflict zones the U.S. has had some involvement, but never has their involvement been as catastrophic as under (the infantile megalomaniac) President Bush Jnr.

Part II: Somalia

Somalia is another country that the U.S.' mistakes in the past have caused problems leading to current, recent and probably future mistakes. After Somalia's dictator Siad Barre was ousted in 1991 a similar situation as that of present day Iraq arose: with the brutality of a dictatorship gone, a ticking time-bomb exploded -- though unlike Iraq the bomb was clan warfare not sectarian warfare.

Somalia's civil war began -- it still hasn't ended. In 1993 the U.S./U.N. sent in peacekeepers because of the heavy civilian death toll. Their mission: to enforce the latest peace agreement, disarm clan militias and engage one faction that refused to cooperate with the peace initiative -- namely, warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid's faction. Aidid's militia inflicted heavy casualties on the U.S./U.N force, culminating in the Black Hawk down incident Oct 3 - 4 1993, with the vicious killing of 18 American soldiers, 1 Malaysian, and the wounding of 83 U.S, 7 Malaysian and 2 Pakistani troops.

On October 6 President Clinton ordered an end to all U.S. operations in Somalia except self-defense, announcing that all U.S. forces would withdraw no later than Mar. 31 1994 -- not least because the dead soldier's bodies were dragged through the streets by elated civilians. There were similar scenes during the recent peacekeeping mission.

When the peacekeepers left, Somalia went back to much the same as it had been before: protection racketeering, hijacking and open battles between rival warlords and their respective clans/factions. Mogadishu residents -- as always -- suffered worst.

The warlords formed the Transitional National Government when they met in Djibouti 2000, but it improved nothing in Somalia. The battles between the warlords and rival clans/factions lessened, but that just freed up more gunmen to roam the streets robbing, raping and pillaging. The situation remained the same after the Transitional Federal Government was formed at a second meeting in Kenya 2004.

The Union of Islamic Courts began to sweep to power mid-2006, they swept the chaos and violence away, replacing it with their brand of socially restrictive but peaceful and secure calm in the areas they controlled. Children could go back to school and nurses could treat the sick instead of droves of war wounded.

Because of this the U.I.C. enjoyed popular support, not least from the businessmen who founded and funded the growingly popular group. The U.I.C. had the T.F.G. and its warlords holed up in one town, Baidoa within months. Ethiopian troops began appearing in and around Baidoa to strengthen the T.F.G. foothold. The U.I.C. began to attract the world's attention, not least with their threats to attack the Ethiopian invaders, as well as reports of the U.I.C. closing cinemas and stoning women for not wearing Hijab's.

Their hard-line brand of Salafist Islam and Islamic (Sharia) Law put the U.I.C. on the U.S.' radar; in the crosshairs of the War on Terror. Not too long after that the inevitable Al Qaeda connection was made. I am not denying an Al Qaeda connection to a few members of the group, though I would say more U.I.C. hardliners sought Al Qaeda affiliation than actually had it. But nor will I deny that a large number of U.I.C. followers were (are) hard-line Islamists, because it was in fact that branch of the group that was responsible for their firepower and rapid sweep to power. But there was a moderate following just as large and powerful within the group.

Now anyone with any sense, seeing that the U.I.C was easily defeating the warlord T.F.G. and seeing that they were restoring order in Somalia for the first time in 15 years, would have been attempting to talk with the U.I.C. -- even if only the moderates. Attempting to gain assurances on its treatment of women and civilians, attempting to get them to make a public address condemning Al Qaeda and all it stood for -- in return for international recognition and assistance.

But the U.S. and all its followers including the U.N. still refused to give the group validity. U.N. Resolution 1725 was passed authorizing a possible peacekeeping force, and reiterating that the T.F.G. was the only recognized Somali government, that the U.N. saw the T.F.G. as the only route to a peaceful Somalia, and stating that any group targeting the T.F.G. would be dealt with.

But it was when the U.I.C. made their final advance to crush the T.F.G. once and for all that Bush really excelled himself in the proving stupidity stakes.

Bush would have been told (he certainly wouldn't have known) about the long-running (since 1964) history of hatred and violence between Somalia and Ethiopia. So, Bush, supporting, or possibly even initiating Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia to re-instate the T.F.G. government and crush the U.I.C. was like supporting an Israeli invasion of Lebanon to crush a movement regarded as a terror group. Oh, that's right, Bush did that too, but that's another article.

With the summer Lebanon war and the Iraq quagmire as models Bush should have known that a nation invading a country where it is hated is going to meet fierce resistance, from dedicated but invisible fighters coming from and/or bedded into the civilian population. An insurgency of almost never ending numbers, well, more recycling numbers; every innocent killed by the invaders creates more insurgents. But from a man who said while speaking in Vietnam about Iraq that the U.S. only lost the Vietnam war because it pulled out, and he won't make the same mistake in Iraq, Bush probably thought with his courage to stay the course he could bring peace to Somalia.

So Somalia's citizens are still suffering from Bush's error. The calm and relative normality under the U.I.C. has been replaced by their insurgency and the same tribal issues as before the U.I.C. took power: sporadic gunfire, mortars, Ethiopian and Ugandan peace keeper deaths, civilian deaths, general insecurity and anarchy. The situation is worse in Mogadishu than much of the country.

This is all made worse by the fact that there was no reason to invade Somalia, as I said the UIC were restoring order. The moderate elements should have been strengthened by conditional international recognition and support. Like doctors who bury their mistakes, this is just another U.S. mistake that the world has to live with.

So, I have looked at Iraq and Somalia, both very different in terms of how the Bush administration meddled, but both very similar in their chances of enjoying peace and security in the near future. In Somalia the U.S. involvement has always been indirect (on the surface), but because of Bush and with the help of U.S. contractors, money and weapons, Ethiopia is now occupying Somalia. Given their history that will never be a peaceful occupation. The Ugandan peace-keepers have been attacked also. But even if everybody withdrew tomorrow, or after Bush leaves office, Somalia went 15 years of anarchy before the U.I.C. restored some semblance of order, left to their own devices it could well be another 15 years before it happens again. It certainly won't be anytime soon.

The World After Bush Part I: Iraq

2007-08-06T16:52:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

I said in my last article that the U.S. arms sale to the gulf is a possible sign that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might be closer than Bush wants to admit. With all my conviction I say: there will be no U.S. victory in Iraq and eventually they will have to pullout, if not before Bush leaves office then sometime soon after.

When reading an article about the continued violence in Somalia with my last article still fresh in my mind, I asked myself the question, where will the world be after the Bush administration? Further, will things calm down, or have the Neocons caused so much friction and meddled so much that the explosion of violence in so many places around the world will continue to worsen?

I will attempt to answer my questions in a series of articles, and through the course will also inadvertently show why electing the son of a U.S. President, as President is perhaps a mistake, that should not be repeated.

In most of the worlds current conflict zones the U.S. has had some involvement, but never has their involvement been as catastrophic as under (the infantile megalomaniac) President Bush Jnr.

Part I: Iraq

In Iraq for decades the U.S. has made mistake after mistake, funding, arming and otherwise cosying up to the maniac Saddam Hussein throughout the 80's and early 90's -- under the same policy that the U.S. follows time after time, always to the world's detriment: my enemy's enemy is my friend. Bush Jnr's predecessors learned from their mistakes when Saddam invaded Kuwait late 1990, therein doing the very thing his U.S. funding was supposed to stop Iran (their common enemy), doing: threatening the vital oil supplies of the Middle East.

Bush Snr was in charge when the U.S. teamed up with the U.N. to go and drive Saddam's forces back out of Kuwait. In doing so he decided to start uprisings in Iraq's oppressed Shiite and Kurdish communities, in television addresses promising their uprisings would receive U.S. support to topple Saddam. Help never came, Saddam's forces fled Kuwait and crushed the revolts -- thousands were killed in reprisals.

The reason Bush Snr didn't send forces on into Iraq is likely the same reason that the current occupation is a disaster: Saddam's oppression keeping the lid on a sectarian powder keg.

Though I personally believe if Bush Snr had ordered U.S. troops to chase Saddam's fleeing forces into Iraq and finish the job -- even a U.S. force alone -- chasing Saddam's men into the Shiite uprising and a war on two fronts, with the Kurdish uprising causing a third front, would have made for an easy victory.

An easy victory unlike that of the 2003 war, because the Shiite's and Kurds wouldn't have hated and mistrusted the U.S. for the thousands killed when they revolted on Bush Snr's word. That also being the reason why 2003's battle for hearts and minds was lost before it begun.

Bush Jnr went ahead and invaded Iraq either because he wanted to prove he had more bottle than his daddy and thought like many sons do, that anything their dad can do they can do better. Or he knew Iraq would turn out like it has but decided to go in for their oil anyway. I'll let you decide.

Either way, the tyrant successfully toppled in the U.S. invasion has been replaced with hundreds of tyrants -- each as maniacal and vindictive but with nobody at all to answer to. At least with Saddam we could impose sanctions and threaten to invade. Now we've invaded, what is left to do about the sectarian death squads.

Few deny that the forces in Iraq are doing very little to stop the violence, in fact some say they are making it worse, but what is the alternative...

A U.S. withdrawal will only see the sectarian violence worsen. Iraq will descend into a civil war field, fuelled by the continuing proxy war already being fought between the Arab states and Iran using their sectarian soldiers in Iraq. The latter is another war that will worsen after a U.S. withdrawal, and one that won't be helped by the billions of dollars worth of arms being sold to the Arabs -- by guess who, the Bush administration.

So, whether the Iraq withdrawal happens before Bush leaves office or after, there is absolutely no chance that the situation in Iraq will calm down after the Bush administration leaves office and the U.S. pulls out of Iraq.

Part II will look at what is likely to happen in Somalia after the Bush administration leaves office, will the funding of the Ethiopian occupation force continue? Will U.S contractors still be at large there?

What the Gulf Arms Sale Really Means

2007-07-31T09:14:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

Although official figures have yet to be given, reports indicate that the proposed U.S. arms sale to several Gulf Arab nations will be between $5 billion and $20 billion. The countries to receive U.S. arms are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

U.S. military aid to Israel is to increase from $2.4 billion to $3 billion dollars a year, in a newly announced $30 billion ten year package. Neighbouring Arab states that have signed peace treaties and have normalized relations with Israel, namely Egypt and Jordan are to receive $13 billion over the same period.

Though there have been angry opinion articles in the Israeli press, the Israeli government says it understands the sales are to counteract Iran's growing military might and regional influence. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons, but not the only one.

For much the same reason as above shortly after the Islamic regime swept to power in Iran in 1979, the U.S. and the west supported Saddam Hussein after his offensive war on Iran became defensive: because they feared that an extremist Shiite Iranian government would take Iraq and threaten the vital oil reserves of the Middle East. But why is it necessary to arm the Arab states now, when the U.S. army is in Iraq, preventing Iran taking the country let alone advancing into the Middle East proper?

The U.S. announcing such a massive arms sale to the Arab states, which has been long opposed by the U.S.' main ally in the region -- Israel -- suggests that a U.S. pullout from Iraq could be closer than Bush wants to admit.

Iraq is a predominantly Shiite state and Iran is not without influence in southern Iraq's Shiite communities, powerful militias and even the U.S. imposed Shiite government. There has long been talk of Iran's involvement on the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian violence, as there has been talk of Saudi and other Arab state's involvement in it on the Sunni side. For the U.S. to add $20 billion worth of fuel to that proxy fire also suggests their troops will be out of the way when the proverbial **** hits the fan.

Now, the other story in the region at the moment -- relating to the arms sale -- is the new momentum behind resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, with widespread reports that Bush is determined to force both sides into agreement before he leaves office early 2009. According to most analysts the Arab Peace initiative still offers the best chance of such a resolution, not least because it supersedes the Hamas-Fatah power-struggle -- both support the initiative.

The Arab Peace initiative offers Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which should be a guarantee of Israeli security, in return for their withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (returning Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Palestinian control), and finding a just solution to the refugee issue.

Returning the land, especially even part of Jerusalem, which is an equally holy city for both Arab and Jew (hence their history of brutal wars over it), is a hard pill for the Israeli government to swallow, and harder to sell to their population, especially since Israel's military strength and reputation for brutal retaliation and collective punishment has all but guaranteed Israeli security already.

Israel has won four wars with its surrounding Arab neighbours, two of those without U.S. help. Since the U.S. started its support of Israel they have become the strongest military power in the region by far. The proposed arms sale changes that, as part of Bush's strategy to resolve the conflict as his legacy.

For a start the sale will make the Israeli population feel threatened for the first time in over two decades. It will make the Arab states a possible threat to Israel again, and at an ideal time. With Olmert struggling to stay in power he may feel pressured to accept the Arab initiative, return the Palestinian land and adequately compensate the refugees to guarantee the security of a suddenly threatened population.

For once Bush may have got something right. The arms sale, Olmert's dwindling popularity and a U.S. administration determined to resolve the conflict pronto, combine to make this conflict look a lot closer to finally being resolved. All eyes will be on the proposed peace conference later this year -- mine included.

Slim Chance of Mideast Peace

2007-07-28T19:19:00.001+01:00

If Blair applies the same principles as he did to Northern Ireland... All parties must negotiate a lasting peace.

By Liam Bailey

Some say that making the second most hated man in the Muslim world, Tony Blair, the envoy to the region with the highest Muslim population in the world, is like making an ex klu-klux clan leader a liaison to the black community. If Blair sticks to his pro-American roots he will be as much use as Middle East envoy as an indoor wind-farm. Current American policy is, as usual, exactly the same as Israel's policies for dealing with the Palestinians and Arab states, favouring Abbas' Fatah and trying to isolate and squash the more-popular-because-they-are-more-militant-Hamas.

Blair brokered the Northern Ireland peace process by realizing that peace would only last if all parties were involved in negotiations.

So if Blair realizes that his pro-Americanism was responsible for his fall from grace, which I think he must, his personality and character dictating that he seek to do well in his new job, should mean he will start going against America and applying the same principles to the Middle East as he did to Northern Ireland.

I hope he does so soon. This week, U.S. foreign secretary Condoleeza Rice has said "there will be a Palestinian state" and there is talk of U.S. President Bush pushing both sides to find an agreement before he leaves office early 2009. Israel's Prime Minister Olmert said he thought it was necessary to pull out of the West Bank and made Abbas an offer to discuss the principles of a Palestinian state, such as its institutions and government – leaving final status issues such as borders and refugees to the end of negotiations.

This just days after Israel released 250 Fatah prisoners from its jails, was undoubtedly another attempt to bolster support for Abbas' new emergency cabinet currently controlling the West Bank, but also a possible sign that Israel is realizing the occupation can't go on forever.

There is much hype about the planned peace conference later this year, scheduled to see all the major players, Abbas, Olmert and leaders of the neighbouring Arab states, everyone except Hamas. Some would ask why Hamas would be needed; if an agreement were reached surely the Palestinians would force Hamas to go along with it?

Fatah have lost all credibility in the eyes of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian people don't trust Abbas, any agreement would be met with scepticism. Palestinians would think he had betrayed them behind the scenes, in order to reach a favourable deal and line his pockets.

Also, for any deal Israel will need to give up control of the land taken in the 1967 war, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian state therein. Although a land-swap agreement where Israel gives back some of its land in order to keep Palestinian land where it is thought to be necessary for security or to encompass settlement blocs. Israel agreeing to this will hinge on the Palestinians guaranteeing Israel security. Without Hamas on board they would likely wage a terror campaign throughout the negotiations, as we saw during the Oslo process. This would prevent the Palestinians making any such guarantee.

What's more, Israel knows that the Palestinians can't guarantee their security unless all the parties are behind any cease-fire or peace-process. So, their current attempts to prevent Hamas from taking part in any thing democratic or peaceful back-up those that say Israel is trying to prevent peace.

On the bright side, if Blair manages to wangle Hamas and Islamic Jihad a seat at the peace conference table, a Palestinian guarantee of Israeli security can be believed. Obviously Israel won't trust them but hopefully the international community and Blair will make them give the benefit of the doubt. What's more if a deal is reached, it will have the trust and support of all Palestinians -- who know Hamas won't sacrifice their rights -- making cessation of attacks even more likely.

With Northern Ireland, once thought to be the most intractable conflict, now enjoying peace and prosperity, hopefully Blair can shake off his American-poodles tail and end the world's truly most-intractable conflict.

Palestine Divided: Israel's Dream

2007-07-14T13:08:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

We all know what “divide and conquer” is all about. It is a strategy Israel has deployed over the last couple of decades, if not to exactly conquer, but to effectively pacify the people they conquered in 1967–allowing them to continue pursuing their strategic, expansionist and cultural interests.

But the responsibility must also be divided, because if the Palestinians' so-called government forgot about power and control of their non-state and had realized that their cause is so fragile that only a united front has any chance of success, then Israel's tactics of exacerbating rivalries would never have gotten off the ground.

Not only did it did get off the ground; it has proved to be an exceptionally successful tactic for ensuring Israel's continued control, not only of the Palestinian territory and its sham Authority, but over the day-to-day life of every Palestinian.

Israel began to grow scared and pondered a new strategy when the Palestine Liberation Organization and its movement seemed to be gaining too much support among Palestinians and as a movement was getting too powerful. A new strategy was needed. A new group was emerging, a religious extremist group called Hamas. From slow beginnings Hamas is now extremely well armed and perhaps the most powerful Palestinian militant group, certainly the most powerful in Gaza.

Hamas' power grew with Israeli support, weapons and funds-the same kind of support they are now giving to Fatah. When the Islamic movement began to emerge in the late 1970's Israeli leaders sought to strengthen the movement. Believing that if the Palestinians were immersed in their religion they would pose less of a problem, and at any rate, their support for one group would automatically exacerbate the rift ceding from the Palestine Liberation organization fear of holding onto their control. Israeli leaders believed two groups, rivalling each other and working from a different mandate, would be a whole easier monster to control.

Also, many people believe former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did not want peace. Sharon saw bolstering Hamas as a good way of ensuring the violence would continue and talks would be doomed to failure.

It is not clear when this support for Hamas ended, The arrest in 1989 of the main benefactor of their supporting policy, Sheikh Deir Yassin, suggests around that time, but there has been too much political turmoil and cross manipulation to really be sure. When Hamas won democratic elections early last year, things really changed for Israel. Hamas' turn towards democracy suggested they were becoming more moderate, and with the widespread support of the Palestinian people, Israel feared they may be forced to find an agreement with a moderate but still credible Hamas.

Now, Hamas was too big for its boots and Israel began a policy of weakening the monster they had created and strengthening the PLO's now controlling faction, Fatah, against the now powerful Hamas. They began by attempting to strip Hamas of their support base by starving the already impoverished Palestinian people with the internationally supported financial blockade.

To strengthen Fatah, Israel has done many things, from making concessions, such as releasing a fraction of the Palestinian tax revenues held by Israel under the blockade and promising to make other concessions, like removing check-points to make life easier for Palestinians. But the worst leg of the policy has been the massive campaign by Israel and their U.S. backers of arming Fatah gunmen. Even after Fatah and Hamas agreed the Palestinian National Unity government, still the arms continued to flow. Still Hamas' anger continued to grow at Israel's attempts to provide Fatah with the means to defeat them. Abbas' lack of control over his armed factions, as seen in recent news of Fatah gunmen ruining a new exam system Abbas tried to implement-thus prevented the Hamas-Abbas security plan being implemented, particularly in Gaza; and fighting between the two factions, concentrated in the coastal strip, began anew.

This led to the crowning achievement of Israel's divisionary tactics. Hamas eventually routed Fatah's forces and sent them fleeing to the West Bank, where they still have a sizeable power-base, thus bringing about a completely divided Palestinian cause: Fatah ruling the West bank, if only on paper, and Hamas controlling Gaza. There were fears that Hamas would begin trying to take control of the West Bank, but they haven't materialized yet.

The divisionary tactics continue, with the Israeli cabinet approving the release of 250 Fatah prisoners Jun. 9, suggesting that Israel would like the fighting to continue in the West Bank and is increasing Fatah forces to make it more likely, and probably more drawn-out.

In the latest rhetoric, Abbas has said that Hamas is allowing Al Qaeda members into Gaza – a claim which Hamas have denied, saying Abbas is attempting to stoke resentment against them. And Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has said he doesn't think there can be any kind of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah leader Abbas. Olmert said Abbas had told him he would never make peace with Hamas and would always combat them.

Olmert's government is predominantly right-wing, the Israeli right wing is the flip-side of Hamas' charter, where Hamas' charter calls for taking back all of Palestine, wiping Israel out as it goes, Israel's right wing's greater Israel beliefs want all the land to be Israel. Whereas lately Hamas has moderated its agenda, now falling in line with the most widely sought after two-state solution, Israel's right-wing's biggest fear is having to negotiate and eventually give back land for the two-state solution. It is clear from Israel's constant interference and antagonizing one group by supporting the other, that they fear a united Palestinian resistance.

A united Fatah-Hamas, with a moderate Hamas, might just force Israel's hand. So Israel is keen to maintain Palestinian violence–too busy fighting each other to fight for what's theirs. I just hope the. It's time to unite in the face of a common enemy and with the sole aim of achieving the Palestinian dream. Which is Israel’s greatest nightmare.

Peace Is The Only Option for Israel

2007-06-19T14:33:00.001+01:00

Another dreadful week is underway in Palestine in a rapid sequence of events.

Amid ongoing air-strikes by Israel, Hamas has emerged from vicious factional fighting to take control of Gaza. Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas responded by dissolving the recently formed Palestinian unity government and naming a secular prime minister for the new "emergency government". It will control the West Bank, where Fatah is still the more powerful group.

Meantime, Israel has hinted at releasing millions in tax revenues to the new government, which have been withheld since Hamas were elected and even after they joined with Fatah. There is also talk of ending the international siege on the Fatah-controlled West Bank. Both events are occurring under the continued campaign of strengthening Abbas and Fatah and turning Palestinians against Hamas.

An Israeli minister has called for even more action against Hamas. Benjamin Ben-Eliezer advocates targeting the entire Hamas organization, including members of the government. He said: "We have to put them all in the cross-hairs".

Israel has been pounding Hamas positions in Gaza with air strikes for over a week, and rockets are continuing to fall. With Hamas now in charge, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is coming under pressure to re-occupy the strip.

Whether they like it or not, Israelis should realize that, every air strike and assassination in Gaza and the West Bank, hardens Palestinian resolve.

Even though Palestinians are under occupation, impoverished, restricted, suffering humiliation and under fear of Israeli bombs and snipers, there will always be Palestinian resistance movements, and they will always have popular support. Israel has been launching air strikes and carrying out assassinations for decades, and Israelis in towns near Gaza are in more danger than they ever have been from the increasing rocket attacks.

The only way Israel can kill Palestinian resistance is to actively seek out a way to end the occupation, return the land gained in 1967 or its equivalent, and find a solution to the refugee issue that can be accepted by both sides.

It is said Israel can't relinquish the land because it would put them back to the strategic weakness that led to them fighting two defensive wars in 1948 and 1967. Israel should be proud that it was able to repel such attacks with what was then a relatively small, poorly equipped army. An army that has increased in size and bought more arms, advanced weaponry and Weapons of Mass Destruction in the last 40 years than anyone who would threaten it.

During that long time span, the Israeli army has become feared and revered -- and not to mention U.S. support becoming an engrained policy. I believe that if Israel ends the occupation, there is a good chance of securing a peaceful Middle East, certainly more likely than continuing on the current path: the continuing financial blockade increasing poverty in a previously impoverished place, and with the 10 metre high wall Israel is building around settlements, isolating Palestinian areas and adding to the hopelessness and desperation of all Palestinians. Not to mention the anger at regular assassinations in the West Bank and periodic air strikes and ground incursions in Gaza, and the civilian death tolls.

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and since Hamas won the Palestinian election in early 2006, Israel has been blinded to peace by its desire to destroy Hamas. Attempting to destroy their popular support with the internationally supported financial blockade, and, since factional fighting broke out with renewed brutality, by arming Fatah and launching targeted strikes against Hamas militants and rocket squads.

The strikes have been intensified since Hamas withdrew from the ceasefire with Israel. Hamas taking control of Gaza is proof that this policy has been a massively bad idea, because any group that doesn't actively fight to end the occupation will not have credibility in Palestinian eyes. Fatah being armed by the Israeli government for the factional war solidified Fatah and their leader Abbas' image as Israel and the U.S.' lap-dog .And as Fatah continues to be favoured and armed by Israel at the expense and to the detriment of the people's favourite, Hamas, any shred of credibility for Palestinian Authority President Abbas and his secular Fatah party slips away. Israel's collateral damage therefore increases support for Hamas even further.

It is fair to say that any deal reached by Fatah will be seen to concede too much to Israel, because whatever it concedes, Palestinians will be dubious about what has been given away behind the scenes. No deal that isn't accepted by all Palestinians would last more than five minutes, and Palestinians will accept no deal that isn’t at least overseen and accepted by Hamas. If Israel realized that peace was the only way to secure their population, then they must also realize their current air strikes are targeting their best chance of reaching a lasting agreement with the Palestinians.

There may be the opportunity for a ceasefire agreement to end the current Gaza fighting, now solely between Hamas and Israel. If this is done properly it could lead to direct Israel-Hamas talks that could secure a peace deal, which would likely be accepted by the majority of Palestinians. Israel's Fatah-dog would no doubt succumb to Israel's wishes. I don't hold out much hope.

My take is that Israel hopes that the more bombs it drops and civilians it kills, the more it will turn Palestinians against the "terrorists", but after two decades of these policies, Palestinians turned to Hamas anyway -- showing that it is time for a change. Until Israel realizes this, there will be no peace and no security for Israelis.

Israeli Occupation: Boycott or Not?

2007-06-15T06:13:00.000+01:00

The British University and College Union (U.C.U.) recently voted in favour of discussing a boycott of Israel's academia in protest at Israel's continued occupation and abuses of Palestinian academic freedom. It has caused no end of furore from Jews and Israel supporters around the world, as well as the obvious anger by Israelis and Israeli academics -- not to mention the furious calls for counter measures.

Measures by people like Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who claimed to have set-up a team of 100 of the world's best lawyers to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone targeting Israeli universities. Dershowitz also said he would get tens of thousands of the world's most prominent academics to boycott British academia, a call immediately supported by 2000 American scholars, including nine Nobel Laureates, who vowed to boycott any event that excludes Israelis.

The British and global media has been filled with articles by academics, some arguing the case for a boycott and others arguing just as adequately against. I hate to say that I am -- for once -- forced to sit on the fence, wait, and see what happens.

A while back I would have supported a boycott, after interviewing Ilan Pape, an Israeli academic and avid campaigner for the boycott initiated by Palestinian civil society, which has been struggling to take any kind of hold. Ilan Pape, like many supporters of the Palestinian boycott and those for the British U.C.U. to start one, draw parallels between the South African Apartheid and Israel. They believe because the boycott of the S.A. apartheid regime was instrumental in bringing equality in South Africa, that a similarly run boycott could force Israel to moderate its behaviour and eventually grant equal rights to Arabs in Israel and a viable state of self-determination to the Palestinians.

I now believe that any boycott of Israel might do nothing more than worsen the siege mentality inside Israel, which comes from relentless and frequent attacks -- firstly from the surrounding countries and now from the surrounding Palestinian terror groups.

This siege mentality causes Israelis to believe that relinquishing any land will put them at the same strategic weakness that led to them defending against massive attacks in 1948 and 1967. As Reuven Kossover, an Israeli Jew commented on one of my other articles: "Any solution that strips us of strategic depth is suicide. A country whose borders is 16 kilometers wide can be cut in half by a determined tank attack."

In fact Israelis are always at threat, and the threat is usually portrayed by their government as a threat to their very existence. Jews, who endured the holocaust -- the worst atrocity of the 20th century --, know all about fearing for their existence. Then they were granted a supposed Jewish haven by the U.N. General Assembly and the British, who were given control of Palestine after WWII. Immediately they had to fight to create their state, against an Arab enemy wanting to drive them into the sea.

The surrounding Arab enemies never accepted the creation of Israel, so the Jews feared that the next war could be just around the corner. If anything another attack was more likely due to Arab anger about the forced expulsion of Arabs by Jewish forces.

In 1948 Israeli and Jewish solidarity was at an all time high; after the holocaust and their succesfully repelling the first Arab attack. According to the Israeli government the Arabs had left their homes willingly -- or on the word of the Arab invaders, who told them to leave and return when the war was won. Of course Israelis were going to believe their government over the ruthless Arabs.

So, Israelis were living in their new State of Israel, -- in fear of the next war, which came in 1967, then in fear of the next war, which came in 1973. Their fear has been added to by regular skirmishes with Palestinian and other terror groups since the first Intifada began in 1987, culminating in the Lebanon war and a major Gaza incursion last summer. Now Israel is embroiled in further Gaza fighting and Israelis live in fear of the next rocket or terror attack. As if that wasn't bad enough, their government's propaganda is telling them that a nuclear Iran will bring a second holocaust. Propaganda picked up by U.S. conservatives, Presidential candidates and (the Neocons) anyone desiring U.S. control over Iran's oil reserves.

This constant existential fear has built the siege mentality to incredible proportions, and continued Jewish solidarity, preventing any real resentment of Israel's oppression from within. Largely because Israelis value whatever security they have, and accept that whatever lengths their government goes to, is -- as it is portrayed -- part of the continuing fight for their security.

Such attitudes will be worsened by people living securely in a far off land, initiating a boycott against a state that's government -- in Israeli's eyes -- has done nothing more than attempt to secure its population. Any increase in this siege mentality, increasing solidarity between all Israelis in supporting their government's policies will continue to push the possibility of any lasting peace further into the distance.

However, the reasons I am not completely against the boycott is that, I still agree with Ilan Pape on the possibility that such a boycott by academics might make Israelis begin to look at their government's actions more closely. This might begin a wave of discontent at their government's handling of the occupation, which, while it would probably start small might grow given time.

And the amount of anger that this has caused inside Israel shows that it is very hurtful to them; their desire to end it may eventually cause them to begin forcing change from within.

Also, the media hype is drawing attention to the fact that intelligent people are so against Israel's actions that they are willing to put their union and its credibility on the line to take a stand. This is important because Israel has continually gotten away with its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, -- which Israel says does not apply to the occupied territories -- U.N. Resolutions and U.N. and other international laws. Not least because of unwavering, unquestioning and unconditional U.S. support, which has run at an all time high under Bush, and the candidates to succeed him as President show no signs of ending it.

So, support of Israel seems to be important in the quest for American votes, meaning opinion polls and pundits must tell the candidates it is important to most Americans. Also a factor is the large amounts of campaign funding from the Jewish community seeking to ensure continued U.S. support for Israel.

However, if the threats of counter-boycotts and such like don't stifle the debate or lead to the boycott being trashed, the U.C.U.'s controversial stand could finally begin to change the level of support for Israel in the U.S. and around the world. If this happens in America then politicians and Presidents may be forced to change their stance toward Israel. This in turn may force Israel to fall into line with international law, and maybe even to end the occupation in pursuit of peace.

Like I said I am going to sit on the fence over this and see where it leads.

Bush Vs Putin – Cold-war or Hot-Air?

2007-06-08T22:48:00.000+01:00

The real battle is for control of natural resources, I doubt we will see another cold-war.

By Liam Bailey

This week has seen tensions between Russia and the U.S. continue to escalate, over the proposed U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. As Bush, Putin and the other leaders of the world's (G8) eight largest economies meet in Germany to focus on climate change, I wonder if they can cool the rising temperature of trans-Atlantic rhetoric.

The current bout of rhetoric between the two former cold-war foes and world super-powers has descended into a clash of the immature sociopathic titans, but is there any real danger?

For instance, Jun. 3 when Putin threatened to retarget his missiles at Europe should the defense shield go ahead, he said:

"We disclaim responsibility for our retaliatory steps, because (he started it) it is not we who are the initiators of the new arms race, which is undoubtedly brewing in Europe."

Bush responded, firstly by disregarding Putin's threat, saying: "Russia's not going to attack Europe." he also said that Putin had "derailed" democratic reforms in Russia, -- no doubt further inflaming Putin's anger -- before attempting to make Russia look like the (bad-guys) ones who are out to escalate the situation, by saying that the U.S. would not respond militarily to Putin's threat:

"Russia is not an enemy. There needs to be no military response because we're not at war with Russia. ... Russia is not a threat. Nor is the missile defense we're proposing a threat to Russia."

To be fair Putin is right, Russia did not start the current chain of events, but they have played their part in its coming to this point.

To most, the War on Terror has now become clear as a war for the world's dwindling but increasingly valuable resources. The U.S. was first to seize the moment and begin attempting to take control of the world's largest oil reserves. Let's not forget that Russia has its own oil and gas reserves, whereas the U.S. has comparatively little.

In seeking to rectify this the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, partly to force Al Qaeda from their Taliban ruled haven, but also partly to ensure that the U.S. would harness Afghanistan's potential for a massively profitable pipeline between the vast resources of the Caucasus and financially wealthy but resource hungry Asia. No doubt Russia's intention when the U.S. was instrumental in their Afghan invasion failing in the 80's.

So, the U.S. succeeded where Russia failed: they took control of Afghanistan's massive resource revenue potential, and they did so without Russia noticing -- under the cover of destroying the perpetrators of 9/11. Russia awoke when the Afghan invasion was quickly followed by the U.S. taking control of some of the world's largest oil reserves in Iraq.

So, when it seemed like America was going to use Iran's fledgling nuclear program as justification to take control of their massive reserves next, and with it monopolize the world's remaining resources, Russia decided to take their stand by supporting Iran.

They did this firstly by vetoing U.N. resolutions against Iran, supported on this path by China. When the U.S. was hiking up the rhetoric about Iran needing to stop Uranium enrichment or an attack was on the table, Russia began building them a nuclear reactor. And when talk of U.S. or Israeli air-strikes against Iran being imminent was circling the globe, Russia sold Tor-M1 missile defense systems to Iran. Systems specifically designed to target and destroy American missiles -- bought and used by Israel -- before they reach their target.

When the U.S. slapped its own sanctions on Russia over the arm sales to Iran, economically fragile Russia was forced to become a little more cooperative, and we saw the first U.N. sanctions against Iran.

But by that time the deliveries had been made. Russia had equipped Iran with advanced technology and crippled the effectiveness of any potential U.S. air campaign against Iran.

In the western world, readers of the mainstream media still thought that the U.S and Russia were allies, with differences over Iran. Away from the mainstream media in strategic planning rooms in the White House and the Pentagon, in supporting Iran, Putin had shown that Russia knew the inevitable war for resources had begun and was ready and willing to fight for its share.

Next came the proposal for a U.S. missile defense shield right on Russia's doorstep. With satellites in space and radar systems in the Czech Republic to detect and target incoming missiles, and interceptor missiles in Poland to destroy them.

The project is being presented as a protection against a missile attack from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. But Iran is far from having missiles capable of reaching Israel, let alone America, and North Korea would almost certainly attack over the shorter Pacific route. So there is no need for a shield for the given reasons.

The U.S. asked Russia to take part in the project, and maintain that it is not designed to threaten Russia. But in the behind-the-scenes climate of the resource war, with U.S. knowledge that Russia is unhappy to relinquish its hold on the former Soviet satellite states, and Russia's understandable doubts about the given reasons for the shield, there is no way Russia will let the project go ahead without a fight.

The real question is: with rhetoric returning to cold-war levels, should we stock up on supplies and start building our fall-out shelters? My answer is no.

The cold-war was an uncomfortable and deeply frightening time for all involved. Every country with nuclear capabilities on both sides knew that if an attack was launched, not much would be left of any of their countries by the time the radioactive dust settled. Everyone was on constantly heightened alert, nerves shattered and trigger fingers shaking on every dispute -- false alarms and a general fear that Armageddon could be just around the corner. Neither side wanting a war but fearing the other could attack at any minute.

The same grounding remains, both sides know the consequences of an all out nuclear war between them, and it is still safe to say that neither side wants such a war. So it is also safe to say that neither country wants to return to cold-war status, constant pointless and nervous, but necessary preparations, putting everyone on edge about a war that no one wants.

But neither will Putin nor any Russian premier allow such a U.S. defense shield in two former Soviet states. So, under -- a megalomaniac with the mind of a child -- Bush, who seems unwilling to give up on his imperialistic dreams of the New American Century, the U.S. will continue on this path towards calling Russia's bluff -- installing missiles on their doorstep and allowing the U.S. to return to the real job of gaining control of the world's resources.

The reason why I am not building my shelter just yet, is that it is unlikely that Bush will be in the White House for long enough for this conflagration to reach critical levels. And it is likely whoever replaces Bush will be forced to take a more liberal approach in order to restore the U.S' image in the eyes of the world, which is important to most Americans and most U.S. Presidents.

If, god forbid, whoever becomes the next U.S. President continues on the same path as Bush, we might all need to begin preparing for the next cold-war.

Gordon Brown Launches His War on U.K. Terror

2007-06-06T18:49:00.000+01:00

Brown appears more committed to civil liberties than Blair. Appearances can be deceptive.

By Liam Bailey

Tony Blair's successor as British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown announced Jun. 3 his intention to strengthen counter-terrorism measures in the U.K. The third time the Labour party has done so since 9/11 and 7/7. Brown also pledged to increase parliamentary accountability to ensure civil liberties are upheld under the new laws. It remains to be seen whether Brown's rhetoric of maintaining civil liberties is anymore than a cover for more authoritarianism. As Blair's closest aide throughout most of his premiership it is likely Brown supported Blair's terror laws, which were often thought to be slowly but surely eroding civil liberties, so we could be in for more of the same.

However, whereas I thought Blair was turning the U.K. into a police state targeting Muslims and driving so called moderate Muslims into extremism, because Brown seems as eager to uphold civil liberties of the British way as he is to tighten measures to stop terrorism, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

I am in support of most of Brown's ideas: the use of phone-tap evidence in court, allowing police to continue questioning terror suspects after they have been charged, and allowing judges to consider involvement in terrorist activities as an aggravating factor when adjudicating other crimes. Blair rejected the use of phone-tap evidence in court on advice from security services, who feared it would jeopardize their secretive methods for gathering intelligence. Brown plans to look into ways it can be used without revealing sources to the public.

Where I am against Browns policy is his regurgitating Blair's most controversial proposal that resulted in his first parliamentary defeat, extending the period of without charge detention from 28 to 90 days.

28 days detention without charge is as long as anywhere else in the free world. According to human rights groups any longer is tantamount to internment. It is claimed that the 90 day detention is needed in light of how technology can hide evidence of terrorist activities, i.e. to gain access to encrypted hard-drives and data storage devices etc. But British law states innocent until proven guilty, so, until any evidence is retrieved proving they are guilty of something, these prisoners are innocent and should be tagged and released after 28 days and their hard-ware kept.

A tag is linked to a satellite system and alerts authorities if you aren't in or around your home for a certain time every day. That way if or when the data is recovered the people could be re-arrested. 90 days detention without charge is too likely to be abused.

When Blair was defeated on the 90 day proposal, it was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and some Labour back-benchers. Constitutional Affairs Minister and deputy Labour leadership candidate Harriet Harman thinks that this time it will be different, that the house will support Brown's measures -- including 90 days detention -- if Brown can make a good case that the measures are necessary. She said on BBC One's Sunday AM:

"I don't think there will be a huge problem if there is a proper debate about it -- if evidence is brought forward about why current powers are inadequate and what the safeguards will be." Her sentiments of support for the new proposals were echoed by the other deputy leadership candidates, Hilary Benn, Hazel Blears and Peter Hain.

Conservative sources say there is no new evidence to support the need for longer detention. Liberal Democrat Justice Spokesman Simon Hughes warned Mr Brown that he will have a fight on his hands if he attempts to increase detention without charge period for terror suspects. In an attempt to sweeten the proposal Mr Brown has insisted he will ensure a judicial review of extended detentions is undertaken every 7 days. It is difficult to predict whether that will counteract the level of opposition to the plan.

Apparently Brown is to put the phone-tap proposal to the cross-party Privy Council for discussion, which is honouring his pledge to make the government more open and accountable on its new course. Lord Carlisle, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation welcomed Brown's proposals, saying:

"I do think it is time for the political parties to get together and to try to reach a consensus with the government, so we can move forward on terrorism legislation on the basis of fitness for purpose, rather than having a hot political debate about these desperately difficult and important matters."

What detracts from this is the fact that Brown first released word of his proposals to the Sunday papers instead of the House of Commons. And just five days before Home Secretary John Reid was due to present his terrorism measures to the house, throwing any idea of even party consensus on dealing with the terror threat out the window -- let alone cross-party consensus. This also suggested Brown does intend to be authoritarian in his leadership and his terrorism measures -- it's my way or no way.

The new proposals are in response to three terror suspects who had been issued control orders under the old legislation absconding. However I feel suggesting 90 days detention is necessary because of that is like sending a bear to catch a mouse. I see no reason why the tags I spoke of above can't be used to strengthen existing control orders. Brown's leap to Blair's 90 day detention plan backs-up claims that he was staunchly behind Blair's legislation and the absconders simply gave him the leverage to revive the defeated proposal.

So, overall Brown's latest release was much like his vision for his premiership when Blair steps down, the new measures for terrorism are different than Blair's in slight ways, but on the whole I'd say we can expect more of the same.

Who Abducted Alan Johnston?

2007-06-02T22:23:00.000+01:00

BBC reporter Alan Johnston, has been seen alive for the first time on a video posted to Islamic site al-Ekhlaas, Jun. 1. Some 81 days after being abducted on his way home from work, as a Gaza correspondent for the BBC -- the only western reporter permanently based in the coastal strip. The video was apparently released by the Army of Islam, finally revealed as the abductors of Alan Johnston. For Johnston's release the video demanded, not the liberation of Palestinians or an end to the Israeli occupation, but that Britain releases its Muslim prisoners. Naming Palestinian born radical cleric Abu Qatada, held by UK authorities as a threat to national security.

The demands raise questions like, who is the army of Islam? And, Islamic terrorist groups around the world all state the liberation of Palestine as part of their rallying cry, yet a Palestinian group in Gaza does not? The Army of Islam is fighting against the Palestinian cause everyday Alan Johnston is held captive. Not only in its scaring off potential revenue from outside journalists -- badly needed in impoverished Gaza --, but in taking away Gaza's internationally respected voice. I doubt there'll be another Gaza correspondent anytime soon.

In fact, because this abduction has done the Palestinian cause so much harm, and the video presented far more questions than it answered, I dare to admit my suspicion of Israeli intelligence involvement in the abduction. I say involvement, because Israeli intelligence wouldn't need to carry out the abduction themselves, there are so many ways they could black-mail Arab-Israelis to carry out the abduction, not to mention hiring poor and ruthless Arabs from anywhere in the world and smuggling them into Gaza. Pretty wild -- let me explain...

Firstly I'll answer what my critics would hit me with -- apparently dispelling my suspicion: Palestinian government spokesman and Hamas member Ghazi Hamad saying Jun. 1, that he knew the group holding the reporter and: "I know that he is well and healthy. No-one has tried to harm him or hurt him." Hamad claimed to have received word from the group through his sources a couple of days ago. Isn't it strange that he waited till after the video to tell an anxious Britain and the world his news?

Hamad also said: "I think there are continuous efforts to release him. We hope we can do it very, very soon." And: "According to my analysis, I think it's possible to release him. I hope to make it very, very fast."

Since the abduction 81 days ago Hamas spokespersons have released many statements like the above, but still the release could be a long way off. I suggest Hamas, as the Palestinian government, a: don't want to admit the possibility of a militant group acting out-with their control and against their agenda, and b: seek to gain British and international trust by purporting to be close to the group that we all hope will free Alan Johnston alive and well -- in the hope that, if he ever is released Hamas will get the credit.

I would normally have had suspicions of Hamas' involvement in the abduction, but because of the video's demands, I'm sure that Hamas are indeed trying to secure Alan Johnston's release. What do Hamas, fighting for the liberation of Palestine, care whether or not Britain releases its Muslim prisoners? They have quite enough people's freedom to fight for already. For that matter, why would any Palestinian, with enough problems of their own to deal with, go to such lengths for anyone else's freedom but their own people as a whole?

In fact the video made no demands shared by Hamas or the Palestinian cause -- only mentioning an end to the international financial blockade and the Israeli occupation via Alan Johnston's laboured statement. This could simply suggest outside elements, possibly foreign fighters allied, or seeking allegiance to Al Qaeda. But Gaza has been almost completely sealed to outsiders since Israel withdrew its troops and settlers in 2005 and closed the borders. Even Al Qaeda claims to be fighting for the liberation of Palestine and all Muslim land.

Sherlock Holmes once said something like, when you have removed all the possibilities, whatever you are left with, however strange is the truth.

So, either the Army of Islam is a Palestinian militant group that has the capabilities to capture and hide someone as prominent as Alan Johnston somewhere as small as the Gaza strip, acting independently of all other Palestinian groups and all Palestinians, and that doesn't want the liberation of its people above all esle. Or Israeli intelligence is somehow behind the abduction, to harm the Palestinian cause, and help permanently shatter recent hopes that the Palestinian unity government combined with the Arab Peace (Saudi) Initiative might force Israel to return the land it took almost exactly 40 years ago in the six-day war. I'll let you make up your own mind.

Croatian Bees To Take Sting out of Land-Mines

2007-05-31T06:52:00.000+01:00

Bees being trained to sniff out TNT, can do so without fear of triggering the devices.

By Liam Bailey

Croatia, like Bosnia-Hercegovina and the other countries of the former Yugoslavia, has a big landmine problem, inherited from the wars of the 1990s. About 250,000 mines are still buried, covering more than 1,000 sq km (380 sq miles) of Croatian countryside and killing more than 100 people since 1998.

Bee-keeping has been commonplace in the Croatian countryside for centuries -- you can buy honey and other produce directly from bee-keepers at roadside stalls across the country.

At Zagreb university Professor Nikola Kezic is busy training bee's to use their keen sense of smell to help find unexploded mines.

As professor Kezic said "We started this because our citizens are exposed to serious risks with mines," explains Professor Nikola Kezic, "Luckily we also have a long tradition of keeping bees and making honey. Our solution makes use of what we have."

The bees are trained in a large white tent pitched on a lawn in the university's faculty of agriculture. The hive is at one end and feeding points are positioned around the tent. Only some of the feeding points contain food and the soil immediately around those points contains TNT. The idea is that the bees keen sense of smell will eventually learn to associate the smell of TNT with food. So far it is working really well.

Professor Kezic says the bees only takes two to three days in the tent, then a few bees are taken from the trained colony to check they react correctly to traces of TNT. Professor Kezic said: "This year our work is to increase the bees' sensitivity to the smell of TNT," He warns that it will take time before they are sure the system is reliable enough to use properly.

De-mining operations have been going on in Croatia for years, but they are slow and expensive operations, and tend to leave mines behind. Once the bees have proved their reliability the plan is to release a colony on an area that has already been de-mined. They will be tracked with special thermal cameras and expected to settle on areas where they smell explosives. If that is an area where the de-miners have not previously removed a charge then they will re-investigate the area to check they haven't missed one.
If the bees are successful then similar projects could become a cheap and easily available aide to de-mining teams across the war-torn Balkans.

Of course, this is not the first time animals have been used to detect mines. Giant gouched rats regularly perform the task in Mozambique. Like the Croatian bees they are trained to associate the smell of explosives with food. Sniffer dogs are also used to detect land-mines and are constantly in use to detect explosives in airports and other scenarios. But unlike rats and bees the weight of sniffer dogs means they are at risk of setting of the devices they are attempting to detect.

So, if Professor Kezic's optimism for how easily the bees can be trained is well founded, and they are effective in their role once trained. Bees could become an invaluable tool for de-mining operations around the world. I will keep you updated on how the bees progress.

Begin the Third Intifada: An Intifada of Peace

2007-05-22T20:56:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

Ever since the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections, Gaza has been getting slowly destroyed. Only one major move can save it from complete destruction: a third Intifada.

Gaza's destruction has resulted from the Israeli imposed financial blockade, which was of course followed up by the U.S. and the international community. The siege is causing severe poverty. Not to mention the multiple Israeli air and artillery strikes in the past year, hitting infrastructural targets like a power station and bridges, giving already restricted Palestinians less freedom of movement. Then there are the errant shells hitting houses and killing civilians and children. And finally a major ground operation in the summer of 2006. All of this has resulted in the killing of hundreds of civilians in the past year.

But Gaza is also being steadily destroyed from the inside, because poverty is accompanied by depression and hopelessness — and with hopelessness comes rising criminality. Gaza has no official police or security forces but does have guns and rockets aplenty, and targets never too far away. Rising crime is an increasing nightmare, causing the Gaza strip to slowly implode, most notably with increased inter-factional violence between Hamas and Fatah. The fighting has been intensified because the U.S. and Israel support Fatah with money, arms and a campaign of making them look most likely to end the occupation — in the hope they will paralyse the popular but "extremist" Hamas movement.

The fighting had lulled after the unity deal was signed in February in Mecca - a deal for a government that went some way in meeting Israel's demands in return for lifting the siege amid hopes that an end was near.

But the siege and worsening poverty continued. Rising crime has led to the noose around Gaza tightening even further. One of the few sources of income in Gaza consisted of foreign journalists and other visitors. The kidnapping of BBC journalist Alan Johnston sent them running for the hills.

Fatah attempted to restore order and the faith of outsiders by flooding Gaza with their security forces, which I don't doubt was done at least in part with good intentions. But I can also understand why Hamas was decidedly nervous and angry with the flood of Fatah gunmen, given their history of rivalry along with the U.S.-Israeli desire for Fatah to regain control of the Palestinian Authority. So, the fighting began anew, lessening any chance of outsiders returning.

Gaza has never been so isolated and poor. And the people charged with bringing an end to the misery can find nothing better to do than kill each other, along with countless innocent civilians. At the same time, Israel's repeated operations in the West Bank led to Hamas deciding to end the ceasefire with Israel. The number of rockets being fired from Gaza increased dramatically.

So, when things were reaching their peak of outright desolation and hopelessness for the Palestinians, Israel decided to end their 6 months of restraint in the face of rocket fire and at the same time use it to up the ante on their campaign to put an end to the Hamas problem. Israel has begun a new campaign of air strikes on the rocket squads and Hamas militants, and also on Hamas members and their homes. And overnight the Israeli Security Cabinet approved intensifying the campaign.

Israeli air strikes, on top of the poverty, unemployment, restriction of movement and inter-factional violence is tearing Gaza apart. Leaving Gazans with very little to live for, driving them to ill-advised actions and in turn threatening to make the situation even worse.

One thing could save them: A Third Intifada of zero violence. An Intifada where all Palestinians unite in peaceful protest at the occupation. No guns, just hordes of angry people ready for change, ready to finally put all the violence behind them and gain their new state - by starting as they mean to go on, in peace and unity.

Imagine if you will, all the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and the refugee camps on and around the Israeli border leaving their houses together to go and take up positions in human chains along the Israeli border — in the areas where the whopping great security/separation wall doesn't make it impossible. I see them closing checkpoints, stopping traffic, halting exports, hindering trade and giving Israel a taste of the restrictions they have been forcing the Palestinians to endure for decades.

It wouldn't only get the Israelis' attention — in the You Tube, de-centralized-media-everywhere-world we live in, it would damn well get everyone's attention pretty quick. So, any ideas the Israeli Defence Forces had about opening fire on the chains would be almost impossible. Of course the I.D.F. may well have a go anyway, given their opening fire on a crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in front of cameras not so long ago. For me, the fact that the women were there as human shields to help Palestinian gunmen holed up in a mosque escape, does not justify the I.D.F. firing on them.

In the event of another such atrocity I would urge restraint by armed Palestinians, and hope the human chain of the Third Intifada remains strong until Palestinians are granted an equal and independent state, and that all refugees evacuated one way or another when Israelis gained their country, be adequately compensated and offered a new home in the new state.

Extremist Does Not Mean Terrorist: Islam Too Large to be Split in Two!

2007-05-13T04:29:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

Splitting a largely followed religion like Islam down the middle: either extremist or moderate; with us or against us, is the wrong path to take. In an article for Common Ground News, Asma Khalid, a Muslim woman pursuing her master's degree in Middle Eastern/Islamic studies at the University of Cambridge, England, wrote:

I am a Muslim who embraces peace. But, if we must attach stereotypical tags, I'd rather be considered "orthodox" than "moderate."

"Moderate," in this context, implies that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent and that, in our current cultural climate, progress and peace are restricted to "moderate" Muslims. To be a "moderate" Muslim is, thus, to be a "good," malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.

In the aftermath of 9/11, much has been said about the need for "moderate Muslims." But to be a "moderate" Muslim also implies that Osama Bin Laden and Co. must represent the pinnacle of orthodoxy; that a criterion of orthodox Islam somehow inherently entails violence.

I refuse to live as a "moderate" Muslim if its side effect is an unintentional admission that suicide bombing is a religious obligation for the orthodox faithful. True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion's tenets.

My theory was re-affirmed by an article in Arab News -- one of the best I have ever read. Dr Khaled Batarfi basically called Islamic terrorists: invisible soldiers with nothing to lose and a desire to die fighting for their cause. In short, an enemy that cannot be defeated by military might.

But that is exactly what the U.S. has attempted to do -- with invasions of two Muslim countries and complicity in the bombardment of Muslims in Somalia and the continuation of the occupation of Palestine. By living up to the extremist's claims of U.S. imperialism and conspiracies of a war against Islam, the U.S. is alienating the moderates and increasing the following of the radicals.

The gist of another of Dr Batfari's statements was: with 2.2 billion Muslims in the world, even if U.S. policies are successful in ensuring 99% are moderate towards the U.S. and their allies, that still leaves 22 million extremists. According to western interpretation of extremism and Dr Batfari's description of terrorists, that is 22 million, invisible, highly motivated and suicidal killing machines.

As I am sure there is nowhere near 99% of Muslim's that don't feel a certain degree of anti-Americanism and would thus not be classed as moderate. But nor does the number of terror attacks suggest more than 22 million Jihadists dedicated to attacking the west and willing to kill themselves to do it. This proves both that the west's (U.S.') meaning of extremist is inherently wrong and that the divide between moderate and extremist is not clear cut. There is another divide between extremists and terrorists.

Non-Muslim's have come to associate the Salafist strand of Islam with extremism and terrorism, but it is not so. Salafism is anti-modernist putting it at odds with the capitalist and technologically driven western world. But with so many followers of Salafism around the world, and most attacks happening in only a few places it shows that most Muslims and even those adhering to Salafism are quite happy to live and let live.

The extremists that do seek to attack the west, justify their actions by creating their own interpretations of Islam, and attempting to convince (brainwash) disillusioned Muslims that they are the ones interpreting their faith correctly. They attract the biggest following from countries and areas where the west, with the U.S. at the forefront has displayed its worst qualities -- often to the severe detriment of the Muslim populations.

Countries like Afghanistan: predominantly Salafist and used as a proxy battleground in the super power-struggle that was the cold-war. In that country and the surrounding area there is understandably deep resentment even hatred for the west's actions. The feelings are heightened in the current N.A.T.O./U.S. occupation, with every civilian death -- much more with incidents like troops opening fire on a crowd of civilians.

In Iraq, support of Saddam Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds and Shiites laid the same understandable resentment in those Muslim populations. Sunnis came to hate the west for turning on Saddam in 1991 and again in 2003. Like Afghanistan their hatred mounts with every incident of "collateral damage" and more so the atrocities committed by U.S. forces. Muslim patriotism and effigy with Islamic land puts them against lengthy occupations anyway -- especially by the country that has largely made Israel's oppression of Palestine's Muslims easier than it would have been without their support.

And now the U.S. has embroiled itself in another proxy war in another Muslim country, Somalia, and is complicit in the deaths of over 1,500 innocent Muslim's -- far more than the number of combatants killed.

Somalia has become yet another front in "the War on Terror". Simply because the predominant group within the Union of Islamic Courts -- over-thrown by the U.S.' Ethiopian proxy -- followed Salafism and were therefore extremists and terrorists in the U.S' eyes. But as countless thousands of innocent Muslim's die in the "War on Terror" it is increasing the likelihood that any moderates will become extremist in their views of the West and that any extremists will go the next step to terrorism.

If the U.S. wants to continue fighting every Muslim who does not fall into their category as a moderate Muslim. Either because they follow a particular strand of the religion or don't not agree with the U.S.' actions in and policies for Muslim countries, then they will be fighting forever. I just hope they realize that having an extreme belief in true Islam does not make you a terrorist, before a "clash of civilizations" becomes a dreadful reality.

Violence Unlikely to End in Somalia

2007-05-05T06:26:00.000+01:00

Days long calm in the capital brings slight relief, but unless something changes more violence looms

By Liam Bailey (Published OhmyNews 30/04/07)

1300 people have died in the fighting in Somalia's capital Mogadishu since February, mostly civilians. The violence has been ebbing and flowing since the Ethiopian military helped the Transitional Federal Government forces to oust the Union of Islamic Courts Dec. 2006.

The U.I.C had swept to power in Mogadishu and most of southern and central Somalia, mid-2006, replacing 15 years of widespread anarchy with their brand of socially restrictive calm. Now they have gone, the capital is facing an insurgency of their remnants, which is responsible for much of the violence.

However rival clans jostling for power; the cause of the anarchy before the U.I.C. took control, have returned to take up their part in the current violence. Adding Ethiopian troops to the mix, which are deeply hated by most Somalis, as well as one clan's predominance in the government and its ill-advised policies, we can only hope the current violence doesn't last another fifteen years.

Most of the 1300 dead have been civilians. In fact so many civilians have been killed that reports in the press are calling their "massacre" a "war crime", because of the government and Ethiopian's heavy shelling and air-strikes in populated areas. According to the same reports: the U.S.' logistical and direct support of the Ethiopian and T.F.G. actions makes them equally guilty of any war crimes. An example of just how, either indiscriminate or grossly careless their methods for dealing with the insurgency are came April 25, when Mogadishu's S.O.S. children's hospital was struck in an Ethiopian mortar attack.

Some believe the pounding of civilian areas is a deliberate and determined effort to intimidate the families of those involved in the fighting. Whatever the reason, according to U.N. estimates the government/Ethiopian shelling of civilian homes and hospitals has seen an estimated 340, 000 people fleeing the capital and camping on the outskirts of Mogadishu -- in areas recently racked by severe flooding after prolonged droughts. This has sparked fears of a cholera outbreak among the refugees with 40 confirmed cases as of mid-April, with that and other diseases killing 593 people.

The latest fighting ceased Apr. 27 after nine days of heavy fighting. There were yet more reports of dozens of bodies rotting in the streets with the fighting too intense to safely retrieve them. A situation that will only help outbreaks of disease spread like wildfire and with the situation on the ground too dangerous for any serious humanitarian efforts, the death toll could escalate rapidly.

The lull in fighting since Friday allowed the dead to be retrieved and a small contingent of aid workers into the capital with food, medical supplies and blankets for the refugees -- altough some of the refugees have taken advantage of the calm and returned to their homes. The guns falling silent also brought claims by T.F.G. leader Abdullahi Yusuf that they had defeated the insurgents, but "western" diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity said that although the insurgents had been weakened and were lacking ammunition they had not been defeated. Most analysts predict that the trend will continue: the insurgents will lie low, regroup and re-emerge with a fresh, even more intense wave of attacks.

This fear can be seen in Ethiopia's latest way of dealing with the fighting. Reports by UNICEF and international reporters tell of Ethiopian and T.F.G. forces doing house to house searches and arresting dozens of men of fighting age -- whether they are known combatants or not. Those reports went hand in hand with reports of a decentralized Gauntanamo in the horn of Africa, holding hundreds of young African males without charge or adequate legal representation -- pending interrogation and possibly torture.

Another trend that is continuing in Somalia is the low likelihood of a permanent end to the fighting. The African Union has taken charge of pacifying Somalia, but the proposed 7000 strong AU force is still only 1500 Ugandan troops. Although, how even 7000 African Union troops are supposed to quell an insurgency that 20,000 well funded, armed and trained Ethiopian troops are struggling to keep at bay is beyond me. Perhaps that is why the other countries have been reluctant to honour their pledges, although officially, a lack of A.U. funding and equipment is making the deployments difficult.

Richard Kavuma of the Uganda observer told me via e-mail: "The Ugandan Defense Ministry appears convinced that the other countries like Nigeria, Ghana and Burundi will eventually make good of their promise.

Each time there are reports of intensified fighting, the army comes out to stress that the Ugandan troops are not involved or affected. That, for me, shows that they are conscious of the fact that Ugandans are watching that space and would not like their soldiers to be killed needlessly.

I think therefore, it all depends on if the Ugandans can remain safe.

If the U[ganda]P[eoples]D[efense]F[orce] registers high numbers of causalities, then they will put pressure on other countries to speed up deployment."

Speaking to the press, Ugandan commander Katumba Wamala said of the lull in fighting: "It’s not yet a time to celebrate. Once they [the militiamen] come out [and] surrender, their lives will be protected. If that is not done, then we could have a situation where those small groups become a source of insecurity."

The latest path the government is taking, if anything makes an end to the violence less likely. The T.F.G. has appointed two of the warlords responsible for much of Somalia's anarchy between Siad Barre's ousting in 1991 and the U.I.C taking power in 2006. Abdi Hassan Awale, popularly known as Qaybdiid was appointed national police boss, and Mohamed Dheere, mayor of the gun-infested capital.

Dheere was the self-appointed local governor whose forces secured Jowhar, 90 km (55 miles) north of Mogadishu, as a temporary base for the interim government in 2005, after it was born out of tortuous peace talks in neighbouring Kenya. Qaybdiid was one of the last of a group of U.S.-backed warlords to surrender to the U.I.C. advances.

These people may head powerful militia's but rival clan militia's are playing their part in the insurgency because of the dominance of President Abudalahi Yusuf's Darod clan in the T.F.G., these appointments will only heighten the clan's role in the violence.

Richard Kavuma of the Uganda Observer told me his view of the appointments: "I think this is a catch22 situation. The ex-war lords are dangerous if outside government; but they are hard to satisfy when inside."

The other government attempt to end the violence that is also having the opposite effect is attempting to disarm the capital. Until Somalia's clans are given more of a say in the running of the country none of the clans are going to give up their arms and accept the domination of their rivals. Put simply: unless something drastic changes in Somalia, I am afraid that the violence could last longer than 15 years.

International Community: Divide and Function Part III

2007-05-01T04:11:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part III: Starving the Palestinians or doing the right thing?

It is particularly neccesary for the "international community" to separate its approach from that of the U.S, in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Evidence lies in the way the "international community" has followed Israel and the U.S' policies for dealing with Hamas as the newly elected Palestinian Authority government. The fair and democratic election was another demand, inferred to go before the ever-dangling carrot of a Palestinian state. But, when the Palestinian Authority did as was asked of them, in electing Hamas they did not do what Israel and the U.S. expected.

Hamas is classed as a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S -- a classification followed by most of the "international community". Some believe that Hamas' aims and means are legitimate in the face of Israel's unrelenting occupation and constant refusal to grant the Palestinians an independent state. Many, however can understand why Hamas' suicide bombings and failure to make the distinction between civilian and military puts them on the same "international" list as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Hamas however, only attacks elements of the occupation; not "international" targets.

Hamas' entry into democracy had come at the tail of months of slowly changing Hamas rhetoric, including offering Israel a "Hudna" (long running ceasefire) in return for a temporary end to the occupation and Palestinian borders, pending further negotiations. But instead of treating the changing Hamas as an opportunity to bring the popular front of the Palestinians into the "peace process" the "international community" followed the lead of Israel, and their U.S. loudspeaker and set about trying to destabilize the P.A. and bring down the newly elected government.

Israel began witholding millions in monthly tax revenues and, backed by the U.S. initiated a financial blockade of the P.A. The E.U. and the rest of the "international community" following suit shows just how much influence the U.S. has.

Not many people would relish living under the occupation and totalitarianism of a regime that your brethren in neigbouring countries had gone to war with several times. Made worse recently by the tightened border and checkpoint controls since the Second Intifada and Israel's disengagement from Gaza -- costing Palestinians their jobs in Israel. Things were bad enough for the Palestinian people. Blocking all international aid to the Hamas government made matters ten times worse.

Hamas being elected gave Israel an excuse to do what it has always been doing, putting more pressure on the Palestinian people to meet impossible demands; driving them into actions that will ensure they are continually perceived as terrorists and a threat. Of the demands that must be met to end the Palestinian blockade, the two most difficult are:

Renouncing all forms of violence:

Over the years Israel as defied the international community in failing to take down settlements, expaning settlements, and, even the U.S. demand to stop building new ones. Put simply they have continued to annex more Palestinian land despite it hindering often fervorous attempts at bringing peace. The Palestinians believe that Israel will not give up its hold on the land without a fight and that if there was no resistance Israel would simply continue its annexation. Therefore, Palestinians, including Hamas and Fatah will not renounce violence until Israel meets their demands:

Returning the land taken in the 1967 war or equivalent in land swaps, creating a Palestinian state therein with east Jerusalem as its capital, and allowing the return of all refugees.

Israel will never grant the latter, but I have always suspected that if the Palestinians were given their ownb state and sacred East Jerusalem, they would accept a compromise on the refugee issue: either full or part compensation and/or homes in the new Palestinian state.

And Recognize Israel's right to exist:

To Palestinians this means accepting that Israel had the right to expel their brothers and sisters in the 1948 war, thus relinquishing any chance of the right for their return. Israel doesn't recognize the Palestinians right to exist, what does the "international community" care if the Palestinians recognize Israel's? It doesn't, this demand like all the others are the demands of Israel, amplified by the U.S. and followed by the "international community".

The treatment of the new unity government has reinforced the view of the Palestinians and some prominent Israelis, that Israel doesn't want peace and my view that the U.S. should no longer lead the "international community" in this crisis.

The new unity government, agreed in Mecca was the power-sharing agreement that Palestinians and seekers of peace had been praying for and the two parties trying and failing to achieve. Handing government of the P.A. to Israel and the U.S' pin-up Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party, sharing power with the shunned Hamas -- the latter has slightly more power. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh remained Prime Minister. This sparked fear for the "peace process", but the deal stated Abbas would carry on any negotiations with Israel.

The impression was always given that Israel, the U.S. and the "international community" shared the hope for Palestinian unity and the latter would spring into action to ensure a just peace were it achieved. In reality something quite different has emerged.

The unity deal came shortly after a U.N. report [pdf] warned of a humanitarian disaster in the P.A, especially in Gaza should the "international community" siege not be lifted.

The new unity government has not met the demands, but it went some way to meeting the third demand: adhering to past agreements between the PLO and Israel; the unity government respects past agreements. Because, in this concession the unity government went some way to giving Israel what it externally demands in a partner for peace, while maintaining the popular support to carry through any agreement, the "international community" began talking about lifting the financial blockade.

Israel, backed by the U.S. has held firm: the Palestinian Authority must meet the three demands in full. So far the "international community" has refused to show the strength of doing the right thing at the expense of losing its pairing with the world's strongest U.S.

All the while nothing is being demanded of Israel. Every time the U.N Security Council attempts to make such demands the U.S. uses its veto power. Over 140 examples of the U.S. stopping the U.N.S.C from fulfilling its charter should be enough for the world to realize the U.N. has been rendered useless in the Israel/Palestine conflict. The same goes for the Quartet: the U.N, the E.U, Russia and the U.S. combined should be able to make both sides concede the necessary amount to end this long-running conflict, but any good they could do is tainted by the U.S' support for Israel.

The E.U, Russia and other prominent members and groups of the "international community" acting independently of the U.S is the Palestinians only hope.

An Offer for Peace: Disarming Hamas and Fatah

2007-04-30T16:36:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

Fresh hope for Middle East Peace lies in the revitalization of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, offering Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states.

In return: Israel is expected to withdraw from and create a Palestinian state on the territory taken in the 1967 war, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and offer "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem."

Through the years both populations have come to miss-trust the other side. Most Israelis will not accept their government sacrificing part of their sacred Jerusalem without firm guarantees that the violence from the Palestinians, most notably, the rocket fire will end. Not to mention the substantial settler movement within Israel who balk at the prospect of giving one inch of land, even for peace.

Outsiders will say that the above is a small price to pay for peace -- but why should Israelis pay, for something that their military's reputation for disproportionate retaliations and collective punishment has practically gained already?

The Arabs need to offer more for Israel to accept the initiative -- disarmament could well be the answer.

Currently, the biggest threat to Israel comes from within the Palestinian territories. I believe U.N. peacekeepers could verify the decommissioning of, for arguments sake, 10% of Hamas and Fatah's arms for every 10% of land returned, both processes completing on an agreed date. After Hamas and Fatah were disarmed and the withdrawal was complete, the U.N. force could maintain the peace from parties outside the agreement, such as Islamic Jihad, to allow the creation of the new Palestinian state.

Setting up P.A. police and security forces when Israel has gained trust in the unity government's commitment to the agreement would be the U.N forces' next task.

The new P.A. force's first job: disarming all Palestinians, starting with Islamic Jihad. In an independent Palestinian state, free from Israeli forces, settlements, controls and restrictions, I can't see why anyone would refuse to give their trust and their arms to the new state's security forces.

The issue the initiative fails to deal with, the peacekeepers could: ensuring the Israeli security wall is torn down after a suitable period of Israeli security.

Israel and the Arab League both seek to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons and dominating the region, suddenly peace may not be so distasteful to governments on both sides. The Arabs offering disarmament in conjunction with Israel meeting its commitments would allow Israel to sell peace to its understandably cautious population.

International Community: Divide and Function Part II

2007-04-25T22:08:00.000+01:00

By Liam Bailey

For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part II: Chemical weapons and broken promises: Iran and Iraq past and present.

My last article displayed how President Reagan having the "international community serving America's interests in Afghanistan was directly responsble for the formation of Al Qaeda, and indirectly for the rise of the Taliban. But Afghanistan wasn't the only place where an extremist's actions coinciding with America's interests turned him into a poorly chosen ally. Or where their allegiance caused problems we must deal with today.

When the Islamic revolution removed the U.S. imposed Shah and swept the Khomeini regime to power in Iran, the taking of hostages in the U.S. embassy turned them from U.S. ally to enemy number one. The feeling was mutual.

It is alleged that Reagan and those behind his Presidential campaign drew out the hostage crisis to take the Presidency. Meanwhile the extremist in question, Saddam Hussein launched a massive invasion of Iran, seeking to capitalize on the chaos of the revolution. When Iran had repelled Saddam's forces and advanced well inside Iraq, the U.S. intervened to stop Iran beaking through Iraqi defences and threatening Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the security of U.S. oil supplies.

The first major move was America's removal of Iraq from the international sponsors of terrorism list as America began its program of support. All the while attempting to secure gaurantees from the Export-Import Bank. When they succeeded aconcentrated campaign by the U.S and the "international community" began to fund, arm and provide Saddam with dual-use technologies that could be used to produce chemical weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, then part of Reagan's cabinet visited Saddam on numerous occasions.

With U.S. support, including detailed intelligence on Iranian troop movements from spy-planes, Iraq was succesful in repelling the Iranian advance.

Even after the Iran-Iraq war, when Reagan had been replaced by Bush Snr, still oil-came before reason, and despite Saddam's use of chemical weapons against minority Kurds in his own country, the U.S. still favoured maintaining a good relationship with Iraq.

In 1991 Saddam's delusions of military strength and unconditional U.S. support lead to his invasion of Kuwait thus threatening Saudi Arabia. Saddam did what the U.S. sponsored him to stop Iran doing, suffice to say good relations were terminated from that day forward.

After brief attempts at diplomacy, U.N. and U.S. forces were deployed to expel Saddam's forces from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia. The stationing of U.S troops in Saudi Arabia, and its permanence when Saddam was expelled were the main reasons behind Bin Laden's Fatwas; religous rulings calling for the murder, first of American troops in Saudi Arabia (1996), then American's and their allies anywhere in the world (1998). The latter was, in effect, a declaration of war against the "international community". It was also two elements of U.S. foreign policy colliding – a collision still sending shock-waves through Iraq and the world.

Shortly before the U.S/U.N. offensive was launched, Bush Snr called to the Shiite (southern Iraq) and Kurdish (northern Iraq) communities, both badly oppressed by Saddam’s Sunni Regime, to revolt and overthrow their oppressive dictator – arguably inferring direct U.S support in this aim.

Sparked by the demoralized Iraqi troops returning from their defeat in Kuwait, the Shiite’s began a spontaneous uprising in the South, and later a planned Kurdish uprising began in the North. Unfortunately, most of Saddam’s forces escaped the fighting in Kuwait, and when American support never materialized, thousands of Shiite's and Kurds were displaced and killed as Saddam’s Republican guards crushed the revolts, and in the ensuing campaign of reprisals. To Iraq's Shiite's and Kurds this must have seemed like Bush Snr selfishly tricked them into revolting to draw Saddam’s forces from Kuwait – making the job easier and lessening the casualties for U.S/U.N. forces. So, it is understandable that they would miss-trust the U.S. from then on, as well as feeling anger and hatred at the thousands killed.

So, one can imagine their response when Bush Jnr dropped thousands of leaflets making calls for a similar uprising, to "win the battle for hearts and minds" in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. That battle was already lost.

Shiite and Kurd miss-trust of the U.S would have been multiplied by the media hype surrounding Bush’s reasons for wanting to go to war in Iraq: Sexed-up dossiers and 45-minute lies, drawn attention to by a media presenting the true reason for the war as Bush’s desire to control Iraq’s rich oil reserves. This would have turned more Iraqi’s against their liberators.

I believe that even if U.S forces alone had advanced north in March 1991, on the tail of Saddam’s retreating Iraqi forces, the Shiite revolt in the south, and Kurdish in the North would ultimately have lead to Iraq fighting a war on two fronts, and therefore I believe being easily defeated. Furthermore, if this was done and Saddam overthrown then U.S forces would have had to deal with only the Sunni minority mistrust, and resentment. Being followers of Saddam, this would and has happened in any case.

Strong support from two of the three rival groups in Iraq, one Iraq’s predominant ethnic group, would almost certainly have forced the Sunni minority to take part in the new democratic proceedings, (a lot sooner than they did in the current occupation) for fear of being left out of future decisions in the rebuilding of their country.

The only reason I can think of for Bush Snr not finishing the job in 1991 was fear of Iran giving America a taste of its own medicine in response to Reagan's support of Saddam's killing thousands of Iranians (and Kurds) with western supplied chemical weapons.

To this day, a large portion of Iranian society must feel outraged by this, especially those who lost family members in chemical attacks and other battles, and especially Iranian intelligence.

So now, a figurehead of Iranian hatred is occupying the country next-door, Iraq, against the will of increasing numbers of Iraqis. Only a fool would believe Iran's claims that it isn't assisting Iraq's ever-violent insurgency.

As for their nuclear belligerency, Iran is already enriching Uranium and advancing at an alarming rate, why should they stop the program as a precondition for talks on stopping the program?

To maintain such a precondition one could suggest the U.S. doesn't want Iran to stop, it wants to go to war. The "international community" must begin forging its own path to avoid such an un-mitigating catastrophe as another major Middle East conflict.

International Community: Divide and Function

2007-04-18T21:55:00.000+01:00

The U.S. is setting the world's foreign policy agenda based on its own interests.

By Liam Bailey

For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part 1: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and...

The War on Terror:

The two biggest wars of our generation have been started by the U.S. under the umbrella of the War on Terror, but they are not actually lessening terror around the world — in fact if anything they are increasing it. Just last year, a report by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said that Iraq has become a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and is providing a training and exercise ground for Jihadis from around the globe. Afghanistan is serving the same purpose, though perhaps on a smaller scale.

It seems, on the back of the notoriety gained from 9/11 and their endeavours in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with the latter's legitimization of their terrorism as a battlefield war, Al Qaeda has spread terrorism and suicide bombing around the globe. I say this because of the recent spate of suicide bombings in Morocco and Somalia.

Many people believe the War on Terror is a cover for using military force to shore up control of natural resources for America's future. No one doubts that the Bush administration is one of the most conservative we have seen in the White House. The last such conservative President, who put the same weight on oil when making foreign policy decisions, was President Reagan.

Afghanistan:

It was Reagan's determination to stop the Soviet Union and end their control of strategically vital Afghanistan; rather his means of doing so that kick-started the phenomenon of Islamic extremist terror aimed at western interests. Reagan's policies included: funding the extremist of extreme Mujahideen groups, pressuring Saudi Arabia to match their level of funding, and arming the anti-Soviet Afghanistanis with the best weaponry via Pakistani intelligence.

Perhaps the two biggest mistakes were pressuring Saudi Arabia's King Fahd to the point where his intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal hired Bin Laden to recruit fighters and secure funds from rich Arabs for the Afghan Jihad, and having the U.K's Special Air Service give the Mujahideen explosives training, including how to improvise Soviet explosives captured in ambushes and recovered mines. Bin Laden kept a database of fighters recruited for the struggle. Al Qaeda is base in Arabic.

Pakistan also used U.S. dollars to build dozens of religious schools, or seminaries in the border regions. It was the U.S and Pakistan's shared aim, that the seminaries would maintain extremist teachings and provide a steady flow of Muslims to go and fight in the Afghan Jihad. Many of those religious schools remain breeding grounds for Salafist anti-western extremism to this day.

It is because of the policy of fomenting extremism to breed Jihad in Pakistani seminaries working so well that the combined forces of N.A.T.O, the U.S., and the Afghan Northern Alliance haven't fully defeated the Taliban nearly six years after they removed them from power. Piling the pressure on Pakistan's Musharraf to help deal with the problem has led to the balance being tipped, and now Pakistan's border regions are engulfed with Talibanization. The Taliban, meaning seminarian or seeker of knowledge, were raised in the seminaries in the border regions. So their support there has always been high. But now their supporters are angry at what they see as Musharraf picking the U.S. over his own people.

A few years after the Soviet withdrawal in 1994, the Taliban went forth across the border, supported by a Pakistan regime still flush with U.S. dollars and keen to install an Islamic ally in Kabul. When they achieved rapid success and took power in most of Afghanistan by 1996, they allowed the return of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. By this time Al Qaeda was a well-known terror network that had declared war on America and their allies — in effect the "international community".

Al Qaeda:

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden weren't taken seriously by the U.S. until their attacks on U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998, and U.S.S Cole in Yemen in 2000. But Al Qaeda membership was dwindling, despite the acclaim in the extremist world for those attacks, and the anti-Americanism building in the Islamic world for years. Muslims were and are angry at the years of America supporting Israel's theft of Muslim land and other actions against the Palestinians, as well as the U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after Saddam invaded Kuwait. That deployment and its permanence after the first Gulf war ended were the main causes behind Bin Laden's (Fatwas) declarations of holy war against the U.S. The U.S. was also indirectly to blame for Saddam's invasion, and therefore the Al Qaeda Fatwa's (religious rulings), but part II will cover the Middle East.

9/11 really put Al Qaeda on the world stage. It also gave America the license to fulfill its resource hungry interests. The Taliban was putting the brakes on a massively profitable UNOCAL pipeline, and the U.S. was planning to invade but would have had trouble selling a war of aggression to Congress, the U.S. public, and the "international community". 9/11 provided justification for the invasion, which, in truth was probably necessary as Reagan's policies had turned Afghanistan into a home-base for international terrorism.

Bush declaring a "War on Terror" and then heavily bombarding and invading a Muslim country gave Al Qaeda's now notorious struggle a legitimate battlefield. It also made easier their job of manipulating events to support claims of western aggression against Muslims. This, combined with the conspiracy theories of U.S. and or Israeli complicity in the attacks, which were widely believed in the Arab world, put an end to Al Qaeda's problem with dwindling membership.

Put simply, the United States' self-serving foreign policy is directly responsible for Al Qaeda and indirectly for the Taliban being such thorns in the world's side. So why should the international community follow their lead in dealing with the threat?

Nuclear Iran: If You Can't Beat Them – Infiltrate

2007-04-13T09:56:00.001+01:00

By Liam Bailey

The Iranian nuclear standoff is akin to a snowball rolling down a hillside, ballooning with every tumble in rhetoric. What seems clear is this: Iran will not halt nuclear enrichment as a perceived national right to nuclear power, no matter how much the U.S. ramps up the rhetoric and threats - or the UN its sanctions.

Not even negotiations will stop Iran on its pathway into the nuclear club. All the West can do is try minimizing the risk of nuclear weapons development.

But how? I’ll return to this point in a moment

Only a few weeks ago, after the first U.N. sanctions were leveled, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took great pleasure in announcing that Iran's enrichment had proceeded to "an industrial scale." The E.U., Australia, France and Russia, have cast doubt on the claim, But the likelihood of increased U.N. sanctions and the probable American response are merely increasing Iranian determination.

Faced with the likelihood of American military action, Iran has only hinted that it may suspend its enrichment program to allow negotiations to be conducted in good faith.

To this day, nobody knows whether Iran speaks the truth when saying the nuclear program is for civilian power purposes only. However, given hard-liner Ahmadinejad's world view - specifically his rhetoric of wiping Israel off the map, their regional tussle for hegemony, and Israel's sizeable nuclear arsenal - I’m forced to admit that if Iran's enrichment does reach an "industrial level", an Iranian nuclear bomb may be less than a year away.

This changes nothing. Iran's enrichment cannot be halted with the current Western approach, whether a weapons program exists or not. According to many analysts, even air strikes would only delay the process, and in doing so guarantee Iran's resurgent nuclear program focuses on developing weapons.

An invasion may succeed. At their recent meeting the UN put the military option on the table, but given conditions in Iraq, it’s unlikely that anybody would willingly send their forces there. Probably the U.S. would have to go it alone again. But the U.S. military is already overstretched, and given Hezbollah's skinning of Israel's nose in their summer war in Lebanon, the U.S. faces the humiliation of an Iranian defeat in addition to fierce domestic opposition.

So, what should be done? The first thing is removing the precondition for talks. As Iran's Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, told the ISNA news agency: "We have a superior position. We have passed the stage of setting conditions for talks. We believe that other parties should move forward based on new realities.

The reality: Iran is already enriching uranium, creeping towards industrial level, and Russia is assisting by building them a nuclear reactor, although their assistance currently appears to hang in the balance. Why would Iran stop enriching uranium to enter talks on their stopping enrichment?

President Bush can butt heads with Ahmadinejad till he's blue in the face, and coax the UN to do the same, but only until he admits that Iran is holding all the cards. His only option is threatening or using military force. The latter is an option that nobody (bar American Neocons and Israel) wants to see.

Even if the precondition is removed and leads to negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, it is still highly unlikely that enrichment will halt. Although the release of the 15 British sailors and marines shows that Iran can be successfully negotiated, a civilian nuclear power program is their national right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

And - the pomp and ceremony of Iran's latest announcement indicates that Ahmadinejad is instilling a sense of national pride into advances into the nuclear club. No amount of nuclear power generated by a Russian nuclear reactor, or uranium enriched outside Iran, will replace that pride.

Put simply. Neither threats, negotiations nor air strikes have any real chance of stopping enrichment, and an invasion would be disastrous for the Middle East - a region with more than enough conflict already.

I believe that negotiations should focus on ensuring a high level of Western assistance to Iran, reaching industrial level enrichment, and from there building a civilian nuclear power program. This could involve a large number of the UK and International Atomic Energy Agency's top nuclear scientists, and an equal number of "understudies". If the U.S. was excluded from the negotiations, as it was with the successful hostage diplomacy, then Iran's trust could be secured. With that, Iran is more likely to exhibit its program to observers.

With Iran already enriching uranium and advancing somewhat alarmingly, and with the low likelihood of stopping its program short of an invasion, cooperation leading to infiltration by Western interests may be the answer.

Mideast Peace -- Now or Maybe Never

2007-04-10T18:25:00.000+01:00

Liam Bailey

There are those who believe that all Israel seeks is to live in peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbours. Others believe Israel is completely driven by Zionism and its overtures of finding a peaceful solution is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Regardless, few can deny the Palestinians have suffered, perhaps worse, from the occupation – from the thousands of Palestinians killed during Israel's occupations, incursions, air-strikes, and operations in unoccupied or previously disengaged areas, to the thousands of Palestinians forced to live in abject poverty by the Israeli enforced financial blockade since 2006, not to mention the thousands forced from their homes by all the above.

Nor can anyone deny that the neighbouring Arab states are perhaps as much to blame for the Palestinians suffering. After all, if, instead of going to war they had accepted the U.N. General Assembly (G.A.) partition plan in 1947, the Arabs of Palestine would have had far more land than they would happily settle for now and there would scarcely be any Palestinian refugees. Of course Israel may have attempted to gain land by going on the offensive, but would have surely received no support for an offensive war, without which they would almost certainly have failed miserably. Either way things would probably have been far better for present day Palestinians. But what's done is done and what is needed is a solution.

The latest hope for peace is the revitalization of the 2002 Saudi initiative. The Arab League rarely speaks with one voice, but it is currently, to re-offer the most comprehensive peace package ever to Israel and therefore the best chances of future security. As it is this time being offered as a platform for negotiation rather than an easily rejected ultimatum, and given the current growth of Shiite Iranian influence in the region, as well as the world's focused attention on ending one of its longest running and most brutal occupations, if the Saudi initiative doesn't bring peace I find it hard to see what will.

For a start the rare Arab unity presents the opportunity to offer Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which was never considered possible before 2002 and has been called a "political revolution". The initiative also offers a possible compromise on the refugee issue.

Israel cannot grant full right of return because it would drastically change Israel's demography and it would no longer be a safe-haven for the world's Jews. Although the initiative mentions the implementation of U.N.G.A. Resolution 194, demanding all Palestinian refugees be (granted full right of return) allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel, and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation, it also suggests finding "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem." As the initiative was originally offered as an ultimatum, Israel, with no room for negotiations on a just solution, was scared away by the mention of Resolution 194. Now that the initiative is being offered as a basis for negotiations hopefully a "just solution" can be found quickly.

If Israel craves normalized relations with all surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians within, this is the offer for them. And it couldn't have come at a better time, when Israel needs friends like it never has before to stand against Iran. The Arab's too, being of Sunni faith are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran, and my enemy's enemy being my friend, a peaceful alliance with Israel suddenly may not seem too distasteful. Therefore negotiations, for perhaps the first time, should stand on firm ground with all parties wanting the talks to find a resolution to the conflict. Nonetheless negotiations will be difficult.

The Arab initiative demands a Palestinian state on the land taken by Israel in the 1967 war, another demand to which Israel cannot capitulate. Israel has built settlements on the land and other fixtures near its borders. Therefore, for the future security of all Israelis it is widely agreed that a land swap will be necessary, giving back land equivalent to that taken in 1967. The Arab's also demand that the new Palestinian state's capital be east Jerusalem, which has previously stuck in Israel's throat, but hopefully, in the new light of mutual determination to find an agreement, these previously in-traversable obstacles to peace can be ironed out through negotiations. A new issue for negotiations to deal with will be the security wall Israel has been building since 2002.

That said, if an agreement were to be reached on the Saudi initiative: the Palestinians were granted a state with east Jerusalem as its capital, on land equal to that taken in 1967, and the Palestinian refugees were offered a home in the new state or suitable compensation, Israel and its surrounding Arab states should enjoy a future of security and peaceful coexistence. Negotiations could secure an agreement on the wall being torn down after an agreed period of Israeli security.

With circumstances bringing all Arab states together in seeking an agreement with Israel and for the first time Israel just as eagerly seeking unity with the Arabs, it's now or never.

War on Terror: Oil Conspiracy?

2007-04-05T14:44:00.000+01:00

Except N. Korea, the axis of evil stands on an axis of oil. Has conspiracy theory become fact?

By Liam Bailey

Two things that affect this story were already in place before Bush Jr took office. The first: an already high level of anti-American feelings in the Islamic world, for the years of oil-biased foreign policy. Oil bias is easily perceived as anti-Islam because most of the world's oil is under Muslim countries. The second: plans were already in place for a massively profitable oil pipeline proposed to run through Afghanistan. An uncooperative Taliban had put the brakes on the plan. These two things and how they tie into Bush's War on Terror have become a conspiracy theorists wet-dream.

Anti-Americanism had been bubbling away since the 60's, mostly at American support for Israel's annexation of Muslim land. American foreign policy from the early 80's onwards accelerated the growth of anti-Americanism by an enormous factor. Arming and heavily funding the extremist of extreme Mujahideen groups as they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, before cutting all contact and funds when the Soviets withdrew, allowing the country to fall deeper into civil war.

During this era Osama Bin Laden first came to light as a Mujahideen fighter in Afghanistan. His status as a member of a rich Saudi family made him an ideal candidate to secure funds from wealthy Arabs for the Jihad. It is alleged the U.S. pressured Saudi intelligence to hire bin Laden in such a role.

At the same time as giving these "freedom fighters", as Reagan called them, the best weaponry and getting the S.A.S to give them training in building improvised explosives, the U.S, along with many European states was also heavily funding and arming another extremist: Saddam Hussein, in his war with Iran. This led to Saddam becoming, or at least feeling he had become a considerable military power and gave him the wherewithal to invade Kuwait. This led to the U.S. stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, which stirred the hornet's nest of anti-Americanism in the Islamic world.

By this time the war with the Soviet's was over and Osama Bin Laden, now leader of Al Qaeda had left Afghanistan and was moving from country to country. Spreading the word and filling the pockets of Jihad. In 1996 Osama Bin Laden issued his first and least menacing religious ruling (fatwa). Calling for attacks on American forces occupying the land of the two holy places, referring to Saudi Arabia and the two Muslim shrines at Mecca and Medina.

Osama returned to Afghanistan in 1998, given refuge by the sympathetic Taliban, who had grown up alongside his Mujahideen brothers in Pakistan's seminaries. His second Fatwa was released the same year, along with Ayman Al Zawahiri (recruited by Bin Laden for the Afghan struggle in the 80’s) leader of the Jihad group in Egypt, and the leaders of three other Islamic extremist groups: The Islamic Group, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan, and the Jihad movement in Bangladesh. The ruling, in short called on all Muslims to murder Americans (troops and civilians) whenever and wherever in the world they could.

Also in 1998 came Osama bin Laden's first major attacks against America. The U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were hit with simultaneous car bombs. Those attacks brought Osama bin Laden to America's attention and onto the FBI's ten most wanted list.

President Clinton responded in a controlled manner; even after the attack in 2000 on U.S.S. Cole stationed in Yemen. Clinton mounted precision strikes based on only sound intelligence, alongside economic sanctions imposed on the Taliban and Afghanistan, intended to pressure them into handing Bin Laden (a hero of theirs) over. Unfortunately, difficulties in obtaining good intelligence impeded the possibility of precision strikes, sanctions had even less effect throughout Clinton’s presidency and terrorism continued to rise. Clinton’s lack of decisive action to combat the growing problem, combined with the Monica Lewinski scandal was his downfall. The current President George W Bush (Jr) replaced him in January 2001.

Four collisions happened on September 11 that year. Two planes collided with the twin towers, one with the Pentagon, and the building anti-Americanism, collided for the first time with America. The extreme anger caused by the massive attacks on American soil made Bush's job of convincing the American public of the need to invade Afghanistan a walk in the park.

This is where the conspiracies start flying. It is fairly common knowledge that a plan to install a massively profitable Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan was practically impossible (authoritative source) with the Taliban in power. The U.S. needed a reason to invade, and 9/11 provided that reason. After the invasion removed the Taliban, Hamid Karzai, previously on Unocal's payroll, was installed as prime minister. Neocon Zalmay Khalizad, also on Unocal's payroll, was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. All further proof that the U.S profited because of 9/11.

Conspiracy theories range from the Neocons in the administration actually planning and funding 9/11, to them having prior knowledge and ordering the air force to stand down. Both aided by the fact that no fighters were scrambled despite the time span between the attacks.

There is also a large group who believe Zionist operatives were involved in the attacks, or that Israel had prior knowledge. This is the theory that I recently had reason to believe in, when I read that, just before 9/11 Saudi Arabia had convinced the U.S. to force Israel into creating an independent Palestinian state and finding a just solution to the other conflict issues. Then 9/11 was carried out by Saudi terrorists and it was all cancelled.

The theory that the buildings were brought down in controlled explosions has been adequately discredited as far as I am concerned.

Whether there was a conspiracy on 9/11 or not, it is pretty clear that the U.S' main motive for invading Afghanistan was oil profits. That said, in allowing Bush to unleash the military to embark on another possible conspiracy: the open-ended War on Terror, 9/11 was perhaps the best thing that ever happened in their eyes.

After the Afghanistan invasion went so well, Bush began talking about an axis of evil involving, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Note that two of those countries, Iraq and Iran have the world's next largest oil reserves after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. Bush then invaded Iraq, that time false justification was created. Among the lies were Saddam's connection to Osama bin Laden and his hand in 9/11. The Neocons' Unocal operative Khalizad was moved from Afghanistan to Iraq in his U.S. ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits. Iraq was seen to be the militarily weaker of the two and gave the Neocons, troops, armor and fighter jets on both sides of the militarily stronger axis member, Iran.

In this strategic positioning, knowingly or not, Bush drew Iran into announcing that they had successfully enriched uranium. This led to the intense stand-off between Iran and the west, which is currently reverberating in the Iraq theatre and in the U.N. Security Council. In other words Bush drew Iran into the actions that will probably become the justification for an invasion.

In conclusion: either 9/11 was a conspiracy that allowed the U.S to embark on the War on Terror, which, in actual fact could well be a conspiracy to take control the world's oil-reserves. Or the U.S. administration has capitalized on the tragic events of 9/11 to embark on the same war, possibly for nothing more than the future of U.S oil security, to fuel their world hegemony. The irony is that they may have started a spiralling end to their hegemony in doing so.

Saudi Initiative: Turn Suggestions into Reality

2007-04-01T07:35:00.000+01:00

It is time to take the suggestions to the next stage

By Liam Bailey

CNN showed footage from inside a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon as part of a report of such camps becoming hotbeds for extremism and havens for exiled terrorists, because they are outside of Lebanese law enforcement jurisdiction. The interviewee said the people were living in sub-human conditions within the camps, and from the footage it was clear that if anything it was an understatement. The Arab League unanimously endorsed the revival of Saudi King Abdullah's 2002 Arab peace initiative, at their meeting in Riyadh Mar. 28-29. The Arab League also issued a joint statement calling on Israel to accept the terms of the initiative, which contains a reference to U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 stipulating all Palestinian refugees be granted a return to their homes and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation.

Israel will not accept this. Therefore, in its original form the initiative will always present an impasse. The initiative also talks of finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Among the solutions fielded is allowing the refugees to return to the territories which would become a Palestinian state if the initiative were agreed, and again giving compensation for the life they were not allowed to live. This seems to present a solution but it is never extended upon, i.e. no figures are mentioned and no guarantees are given. This needs to be done if Palestinian negotiators are to take the initiatives chances of bringing an agreement seriously, and not only on the refugee issue, but every issue covered by the initiative

In return for a full withdrawal from territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, the creation of an independent Palestinian state therein with east Jerusalem as its capital and full right of return or suitable compensation for all refugees, the initiative offers Israel a sweet deal. The normalization of relations, which by necessity means full recognition of the Jewish state by all states in the Arab League, practically all Arab states. This is something which hadn't been on the table before it was offered at the Beirut Arab League summit in 2002. For states which have never had anywhere near normalized relations with Israel, most notably Syria and Lebanon this is understandably a hard pill to swallow and something they will not give easily. It is also a pill Israel cannot afford to screw up their face at with Iran's currently growing influence in the region, and Syria's potential to influence those attacking Israel from within by cutting their funding.

But screw up their face Israel will, unless the insistence on full right of return can be suitably compromised upon. The refugee issue is a sore point for both sides. Palestinians, even in the current generation are understandably angry at Israel forcing their brethren off their family or ancestral land and into squalor. Thus, no Palestinian negotiator will accept any agreement that does not make up for the denial of a potentially good life and years of sub-human living Palestinian refugees have been forced to endure. This issue has the potential to destroy the chances of the Saudi initiative to bring peace and every future negotiation, as it has although not alone, those that have gone before.

That is why the compromises and solutions being offered need to be brought to the forefront, replacing the long running cycle of gesture and counter gesture, never anything more than empty words. For instance when the initiative advocates an Israeli pullout from the territories occupied after 1967, prominent figures on the issue argue that this is now impractical because of Israel's settlement building and the necessity to ensure future security for their population. They suggest that a land swap will be necessary giving land back to the Palestinians equivalent to that taken in 1967. Good in theory, but if the initiative is to be presented as a serious option for peace it is time to take the suggestions to the next stage. Those who need to know such a swap will be necessary --Israel's government-- already do know and have known for a long time. It is not necessary to reiterate it; instead suggestions should be made by both sides about which land could be swapped.

The same goes for the refugee issue. It is no use regurgitating the possibility of open-ended compensation, which in reality could and should have been given as soon as it was clear that Israel could ever allow the refugees to return home, soon after the Arabs were expelled in the 1948 war for Israel's independence, or any time from any of the governments thereafter. If Israel is serious when it claims its only desire is to live in peace beside the Palestinians, then, to allay some of the anger Palestinians feel and go towards making up for the refugees loss, what better gesture than to promise them the very least of what they deserve, and state a clear figure to compensate all refugees as a precursor to negotiations on the new initiative?

If compensation was promised then negotiations could perhaps proceed in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, as oppose to resentment and doubt. Negotiations left to concentrate on hammering out the final borders for a Palestinian state and Israel to live side by side, and with normalized relations all round the new prospect of living out their lives in peace and security. By necessity this would also mean a promise by Israel to knock down the security wall where it impedes on the Palestinian state. The two state solution is the only viable suggestion, it's time to make it a reality.

Saudi Initiative: Definite Possibilities

2007-03-27T22:18:00.000+01:00

The initiative has a lot of potential if obstacles can be overcome.

There is a positive buzz in the media at the moment about a revival of the 2002 Saudi initiative for Middle East peace. At first Israel seemed dismissive of the revival based on an initiative it has previously rejected, suggesting the initiative be amended slightly. This brought calls from prominent Arabs for Israel not to miss "a historic opportunity." As the revival of the initiative becomes more official and the U.S. gets on board, of course bringing Israel with, it seems that the Arabs may be the obstacle to their own prospects of bringing peace to this long conflict torn region.

Israel's main problem with the initiative is its incorporation of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, stipulating that all Palestinian refugees that want to return to their homes be allowed to do so and those who don't are compensated accordingly. Not only is this impossible for Israel because it would end their status as a Jewish state once and for all, but it is also impractical because most, maybe all of the homes and/or plots owned or inhabited by the expelled Palestinians no longer exist. This makes the Palestinians clinging to it an obstacle to their endeavours for peace. Not to mention the fact that many of the refugees have left the camps and made lives for themselves making it an obstacle worth toppling.

This problem with the initiative is the reason Israel has outright ignored its validity for five years. This is a shame because the initiative offers Israel a lot in return for the right of return as mentioned above, a full withdrawal from Palestinian territories occupied after the 1967 war and the creation of a Palestinian state. It offers the recognition of the state of Israel, full peace and normalized relations between all the Arab League member states and Israel. Normalization of relations with Israel was a taboo in the Arab world, for all states in the Arab League to ratify the initiative in 2002 was "a political revolution" as it was called in the Jerusalem Post earlier this year. The initiative was ratified again last year and all states have confirmed their continued committment to the initiative recently. Therefore the offer still stands. A political revolution in the Arab world at a time when Iran is gaining power in the region is an offer Israel really can't afford to sniff at.

That is why there has been a shift in Israeli attitudes recently, as the political momentum builds behind the revitalization of the initiative, which has reawakened support for it in the Arab world and picked up the support of the U.S.. Israeli politicians have recently been making statements to the effect that the initiative would warrant serious consideration were it slightly modified. Olmert said: "If moderate Arab countries try to advance the process along the lines of the Saudi initiative I will look at it as a very positive development" The Israelis expected the initiative to be changed so that the right of return allows refugees only to return to the new Palestinian state, not Israel. Apparently there has been a lot of manoeuvrings behind the scenes between Israel, the Saudi monarchy and the Arab league, as Saudi's monarchy attempts to have such modifications made.

Unfortunately they failed, the Arab league is to revive the initiative in its original form. Jordan's foreign minister Abdelelah al-Khatib told Reuters after a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in the Saudi capital: "The Arabs have agreed to reactivate the Arab initiative without changes. We reiterated that all Arab nations will adhere to the initiative as it is." This is understandable as it was not easy to have all the Arab states agree in the first place. To have them agree to less in return for the major concessions they are offering would have been understandably even more difficult, especially from those states who have nowhere near normalized relations with Israel, such as Syria and Lebanon. In this lies the obstacle, Israel cannot and will not accept the initiative in its original wording, therein requesting full right of return, in which case it is lucky that the initiative is being released in its original wording, but not in its original presentation.

The Saudi initiative was presented first in 2002 as an ultimatum, take it or leave it. Now, they are following suggestions and it is being presented as a platform for negotiations. Hence the positive buzz in the media. There is talk of representatives fom all the parties with a vested interest in the conflict being in the same room for the first time. That is Israel, all the Arab League member states (or one representative speaking on their behalf), and the Quartet: Russia, U.S. U.N. and E.U.. Olmert said of the proposed meeting: "If such an invitation would come my way, I would look at it in a very positive way," Olmert told a joint press conference with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. "Assuming I would get a visa, I would not hesitate to participate." Condoleeza Rice, currently on a Middle East tour promoting and trying to achieve a restart to the peace process said: "it was "premature" to talk about a major conference involving the Quartet, moderate Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians." Other U.S. officials confirmed the idea was under consideration.

Representatives from all those countries meeting, in the current climate, whereby the desire to unite in the face of a common enemy --Iran-- should give them more reason than ever before to find an agreement. Any agreement reached in that room at that historic time would be the most likely agreement to be adhered to by all parties in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Pacifying Somalia: United in Extremism

2007-03-25T09:32:00.000+01:00

The War on Terror is preventing security in Somalia

By Liam Bailey

When they took on the Transitional Federal Government and won control of most of southern and central Somalia last year, the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) did something that many before them had tried and failed. They brought peace and security from complete chaos and almost constant violence in areas under their control in southern and central Somalia after July 2006. For the first time in fifteen years children could go to school safely and hospital's could treat the sick instead of wounded. And with no gunmen on the streets to charge truck drivers fees for safe passage food prices dropped.

The previous 15 years of violence had filled a power vacuum left by the ousting of Dictator Siad Barre, as Somalia's many warlords, clans and sub-clans vied for a bigger piece of the pie. The Islamic Courts within the union that were predominant in their sweep to power followed Salafism, a hard-line strain of Islam widely associated with extremism and terrorism.

Thus the UIC became another target in the War on Terror, and they were ousted by Ethiopia at the bequest of the U.S. Of course the TFG played their part, too. When they beat a hasty retreat, peace and security for Somalis went with them. In view of Somalia's history of inter-clan violence an extreme faith in the country's religion is perhaps needed to supersede the tribal traditions of warlord rule.

The current violence is a good example of this. On the surface it is a UIC insurgency waging the holy war they promised against the Transitional Federal Government (TFG)and their Ethiopian backers. In reality it is more complex. The latest fighting has been sparked by a government and Ethiopian push to disarm Somalia ahead of unification talks. Given Somalia's history of tribal violence and being ruled by the gun it is surely foolish for the government to expect the tribes to give up their arms before any unification agreements have been reached. This has made the insurgency more popular than it neccesarily would have been. The UIC is no doubt taking a big part in the violence against the government but perhaps an equal part is other clans fighting to hold on to their guns.

The TFG's leader and Somalia's president Abdullahi Yusuf is a member of the Darod clan. The other clans believe he is favouring the Darod economically and politically. The TFG is made up of many warlords from other tribes. As no unification agreements have been reached and the clansmen's loyalty is still with their clan before the TFG, there is division within the government. The saying goes: divide and conquer. The TFG's division would therefore explain why the relatively unified UIC took control of Somalia so easily.

It is a farce to expect rival warlords and clansmen cobbled together in Kenya as the TFG to govern Somalia without any unification, after years of inter-clan violence. The UIC is of course made up of rival clans but they have their extremist belief in the Islamic faith in common, giving them a unity which they have proven capable of governance.

Somalia's Prime Minister is a member of Mogadishu's most prominent, Hawiye clan. The same clan that most of the UIC come from. Hopes were raised of an end to the recent violence when it was reported that elders of the Hawiye clan had met with TFG and Ethiopian leaders and agreed a truce, whereby forces from both sides would withdraw from the front lines. Even if both sides kept to their agreement it would not have stopped the violence from any of the other clans, sub-clans or Hawiye members fighting with the UIC and therefore not under the ceasefire.

The violence stopped for a short period before resuming for a third day of heavy clashes. Hawiye sub-clans and/or militias, not consulted by the elders before agreeing the ceasefire and with competing interests are reported to have been responsible for the restart of fighting. The latest violence has killed around 24 people and hundreds have been wounded.

1500 Ugandan People's Defence Force troops are in Somalia as the first deployment of a planned 8000 African Union force. It is unclear when troops pledged by Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi and Burundi will be deployed. At any rate Somalis have a history of anger against foreign forces on their soil, as they showed with protests at the outset of the Ethiopian invasion.

Their feelings toward the foreign intervention were displayed again in Mogadishu Mar 21., as an angry mob of militiamen and civilians, including women burned the bodies of uniformed soldiers and dragged their corpses through the streets in barbaric jubilation. The scenes echoed the bodies of U.S. soldiers dragged through the Mogadishu streets in 1993 after their Black Hawk helicopter was shot down in a failed attempt to capture a warlord. Although reports said the bodies were of two Ethiopian and two TFG soldiers, neither the Ethiopian military nor the TFG have confirmed their troops were involved. However the African Union has said its troops were not active in the area.

The violence is not limited to the capital, according to a Relief Web report:

One car was destroyed and at least six people were injured March 18, when four cars transporting UN staff from Baidoa to Mogadishu overran a land mine near Afgoye checkpoint. It is not clear whether the explosion was targeted and no one was killed in the attack. The Mogadishu-Beletweyne road remains highly insecure due to sporadic ambushes. Several other roads remain unsafe, with a high number of roadblocks on the road from Lower and Middle Juba to Mogadishu.

In short, Somalia has returned to the lawlessness and violence it was suffering before the UIC uprising mid-2006.

The U.N. and U.S. have praised the TFG's scheduling of reconciliation talks for April 19. However, many of the UIC players considered vital for a solution remain in exile in Yemen and Europe. The powerful Ayr sub-clan, thought responsible for much of the UIC's military strength are also claiming they have been excluded from participating in the government, which is dominated by rival clans. With so many clans and sub-clans, so many conflicting interests, a history of failed negotiations, broken agreements and such deep rooted hatred for the government, it is unlikely reconciliation talks called for by the government will succeed, and if they do it is doubtful the agreements will be kept.

The UIC have proven they can stabilize and govern Somalia. The insurgency's growing popularity among Somalis proves the Somali people didn't resent the UIC's strict rule as much as they do the current government. Instead of reconciliation talks there should be a vote of the Somali people. Call it a referendum or an election, call it what you like but give them their say. It is the Somali people who have to live under the rule of their government and it is the Somali people who should decide what that government is. Certainly not people enjoying the absolute freedom of a long successful democracy.

Given that the only security Somalis have enjoyed was under the UIC it is likely they would vote their way. In that vote they would also be achieving what outside attempts to create a central government had in the Transitional National Government and its successor the TFG, a movement encompassing more than one Somali clan. Where they succeed over the failed attempts is the clans they encompass have the power to pacify Somalia.

The Somali people have suffered long enough. Their suffering should not be prolonged because their security infringes on a war that has nothing to do with them.

Hamas Shooting: Senseless Violence

2007-03-21T22:44:00.000Z

By Liam Bailey

This article was originally about a glimmer of light shining on my hope that the new Palestinian unity government could bring a brighter Palestinian future. Unfortunately before I began writing an Israeli utility worker was shot and seriously wounded near a Gaza/Israel crossing. Hamas claimed responsibility for the shooting and two mortar attacks causing no casualties. Whether this has extinguished the light completely or not remains to be seen, but it has certainly slowed the momentum which seemed to finally be swinging in the Palestinians favour.

Firstly, there is hope in the fact that the new unity government is giving birth to the first real signs of disagreement between Israel and the Bush administration. Israel is advocating the new Palestinian Authority unity government receive the same treatment as its Hamas predecessor, i.e. financial strangulation and literal starvation in the form of an aid embargo and Israel withholding tax revenues. In short, financial sanctions that usually only the U.N. Security Council can impose but as usual, Israel and the U.S. can do what they want. The embargo will continue until the Palestinians succumb to the three demands and therein surrender the little dignity they have left. The three demands are to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and adhere to interim peace agreements, none of which are reciprocated by Israel.

The U.S. advocates a continuance of the policy enacted before the Mecca unity deal was reached, i.e. excluding Hamas completely from any negotiations, meetings or peace process, and dealing only with members of the more moderate Fatah party within the unity government. This is still the wrong track but the Bush administration disagreeing with Israel for the first time over dealing with the Palestinian government suggests that peace may be becoming more of an administration priority than keeping Israel sweet.

Israel's pressure for the world to maintain the financial force-field around the Palestinian Authority has continued since the new unity government was announced and amplified since the government was formed. The force-field is struggling to hold. The world knows how long the Palestinians have tried and failed to reach unity and refuses to ignore, or worse, as Israel wants, continue to punish them for what can only be viewed as a step in the right direction.

If the blockade were a wall, the foundations would have shook when Norway's deputy foreign minister Raymond Johansen ended Europe's diplomatic blockade by visiting the P.A. During the visit he announced that his country was also lifting the financial blockade and resuming normal relations with the P.A. under the unity government. The icing on the cake: Norway's decision came after meeting, not with a moderate Fatah member of the cabinet, but "an unreformed terrorist" as Israel calls Hamas leader and P.A. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

When I read about Norway's decision it got my hopes up that such a move could make it easier for others to follow suit, and may create a domino effect capable of bringing down a sizeable chunk of the financial blockade wall. However what is really necessary is normalization of Israel/Palestine relations, most notably because of the 100's of millions in tax revenues Israel has withheld from the Hamas government and will continue to withhold from the unity government. It is possible that such a domino effect could have prompted a change in U.S. responses and in turn bring Israel/Palestine relations closer to normalization.

We will never know, because the Norwegian minister hadn't even left the PA when all the hope his announcement caused was dashed by Hamas militants acting against their own interests, their own government and their own people. All Hamas' first attacks against Israel in months did was strengthen the financial wall and weaken the potential for Norway's bold move to become a significant turn in European opinion in the Palestinians favour.

It is more than possible that other states would have followed the Norwegian precedent, especially given the recent U.N. report on the devastating poverty Palestinians are enduring because of the blockade. It would have been in the PA unity government's best interests to maintain the ceasefire thus making such transitions far easier for the states involved. In other words non-violence could potentially have harmed Israel far more than violence. Therefore Mar. 19's shooting and mortar attacks were definitely senseless violence.

Talking Sense In Somalia: Let the Somali people have their say.

2007-03-19T16:11:00.000Z

Liam Bailey

Thankfully someone is finally talking some sense in the Somalia crisis, some being the operative word. The Uganda Peoples' Defence Force spokesperson in Somalia is advocating the UIC be brought in and involved in talks to resolve the conflict. At last someone who realizes there won't be peace without all the warring parties agreement. However, the AU's best approach may be to give the Somali force the primary objective of enforcing and supervising the Islamic equivalent of democratic elections. A Muslim once told me that sharia law has to be agreed upon by everyone. The AU force should work to achieve a lasting mechanism whereby the people of Somalia can actually start having a say in how their country is run.

The world was shown the power of Islamic militancy in Somalia when the Union of Islamic Courts swept into a controlling position in a matter of months mid-2006. The group was immediately picked up by Bush's radar as part of the War on terror, because of its imposition of sharia law. Almost immediately the group was marred by allegations Al Qaeda members were being given safe haven there, mainly because the courts responsible for their sweep to power followed Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys' teachings of hard-line and western revered Salafist Islam. There was an internal battle between Awey's hard-line followers and the courts that followed Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed's more moderate teachings of Qutbism.

Most courts were quite hard-line and therefore, in the main the UIC's rule was extremely strict and harsh, but overall life was better for average Somalis than it had been for years. The UIC achieved a fifteen year first in bringing order and safety from the carnage and chaos left behind by the ousting of dictator Siad Barre. They did this however at the expense of varying degrees of social and religious freedoms, which certainly didn't suit everyone. Indeed the Somali people may eventually have decided to rise up against the UIC's possible misinterpretations of Sharia Law. At which times the moderates would have the power to awaken the suppressed rift within the group and destroy it from the inside giving Somalia a more moderate form of the governance most Somalis prefer, properly managed Sharia law. If they so chose.

They never got the chance. The UIC's power lasted only until December 2006 when they were forcibly driven out by advancing Ethiopian, Transitional Federal Government and U.S. special forces. Their rapid retreat laid fears in many analysts that they were living to fight another way. With the Iraq model sending fiery smoke signals to Islamic militancy all around the world, the UIC's obvious choice against the superior Ethiopian military and U.S. air strikes was to launch an insurgency from the shadows and hills.

That is all water under the bridge, we must now deal with the current situation. First of all, I admire Bush's --someone check my temperature-- restraint in sticking to air-strikes and a very small special forces contingent to assist their Ethiopian proxy in driving out the UIC, and utilizing the African Union to attempt to restore order. AU forces are far less likely to face a massive turn in public opinion against them, as the U.S. has in Iraq and would undoubtedly have in Somalia. The last U.S. led peacekeeping mission to Somalia in the 90's led to U.S. casualties and a hasty withdrawal. Whether or not Bush has left it to the AU because he needs all the forces he can get for an Iran attack remains to be seen.

Washington has now hired a military contractor, DynCorp International, to equip and otherwise support the AU Somalia mission. The AU has its work cut out from the Iraq model, and is already facing fierce fighting and casualties. Even with the private contract the AU mission has nowhere near the level of man power or firepower as the U.S is flailing wildly with inside Iraq, and if anything they face an often better armed and more organized force in the UIC. Under the watchful eye of Bush, and the empty expanse behind those eyes Somalia is quickly becoming Iraq II.

Therefore, there is no better way to bring Somalia back from the brink of catastrophic conflict than to give all Somalia's clans tribes and ordinary civilians a say in how their country is run and by whom. Whatever else the UIC can and has been accused of they are first and foremost Somali Muslims, with Somali families. The Union of Islamic Courts will fight to see Somalia governed by Islam. From the contact I have with Somali editors via e-mail, the UIC's sharia governance may well be accepted by the Somali population provided they have a say in the behavioural and religious codes being modernized to suit today's lifestyles and to all Somalis agreement.

The UIC is a strong and fairly unified movement, which has shown it is capable of restoring order to Somalia, whereas the TFG suffers from internal corruption and a lack of control over its forces. This was shown in their reign of power before the UIC uprising, gunmen hijacking food trucks and general lawlessness, bringing all sorts of misery for Somalis. If the AU were to enforce and supervise democratic elections and invite the UIC to join the elections it would almost certainly stop the fighting from their side, and therefore see an end to most of the violence.

Not only that, it would force the UIC to finally present a unified policy on how they will enforce sharia law and what behaviour they will and won't tolerate as well as likely punishments for infringements. Elections would also allow any other independents and their supporters to put forward their solutions to Somalia's many problems. Then it is up to the Somali people to decide. Maybe the best result for the Somalia population at large is a coalition government with all major voices represented, i.e. independents making slight but important changes to some of the UIC's more strict rules, or telling the TFG to get the gunmen off the streets between their daughters home and school. The AU contingent could hang around and make sure all voices continue to be heard and acted upon.

For the AU with limited resources enforcing such elections may be within their capabilities, supporting the warlord Transitional Federal Government at the bequest of Bush and the UN, as well as attempting to bring peace and security against a relentless insurgency at the same time is far outside the AU's capabilities, or anyone else's for that matter.

War & Grief

2007-03-12T12:41:00.000Z

Think of the people left behind by every death in the world's war zones.

By Liam Bailey

For the first time in my life, I have been forced to deal with the sudden death of someone in my immediate family. Such a death is a like a tsunami of grief engulfing everyone it touches. Not only immediate relatives but their friends and distant relatives as well, if not affected by the death, then affected by their sympathy for those who are.

I am only talking about one death. Last night when I was watching the news it occurred to me that if one death affects, say 100 people, when 36 people die in an attack in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan or anywhere else in the world, then that potentially affects at least 3,600 people.

I have found in the last few days that my sister's death has affected me less than that of an uncle I hardly knew dying when I was a child. The only reason I can think of for this is my being engulfed in news reports from the world's war zones in the past year. Devastating attacks are causing unrelenting tsunamis of grief across the world's war zones each and every day, but have we heard about them so many times on the news that we have disassociated from the pain of an unexpected death?

I believe we have. In the example above I mentioned an attack with a death toll in the mid-30s. That should be shocking on its own, but it isn't. Attacks with such high death tolls are commonplace in Iraq; frequently two or more such attacks happen each day. So, because of this maybe they can't be shocking, but I feel that they should still be upsetting.

If we imagine that an attack, say on a marketplace, might kill 15 people, if these are fifteen people, wandering the market alone, then using my formula above that is 1,500 people in separate families forced into the grieving process. More likely it would be a family walking through the market together. Maybe four of those killed were from the same family -- mother, father, daughter, and son. For their extended family that is a tsunami of grief, like the one hitting my family, multiplied by a factor of four. There could have been another member of the family on the day out to the market, but he/she had gone to get an ice cream, or straggled behind admiring something that caught their eye. Now he/she has the grief to deal with, plus the guilt of not keeping his family together with him. The extended family now has the grief of all the deaths, plus the heart-breaking sympathy for the one left behind.

If every time an attack like this happened, everyone looked at and thought about it in this way, would there be less violence in the world?

For instance, a suicide bomber boards a bus in Israel and leaves four people dead in his wake. The four people's deaths are on the news, four people far away and distant from our hearts. But if the news reports told us that the dead were a mother and her small baby and two grandparents on their way to the hospital to see their first grandchild for the first time, it would upset and appall everyone with a heart, Palestinian militants included. The militants may think twice the next time they are asked to martyr themselves.

It probably isn't practical or even possible that news reports could contain such information about the deceased in every violent incident around the world every day. What is possible, in fact even probable, is that almost every life extinguished in a violent manner affects someone apart from the deceased. Some may be vagrants, and only their vagrant friends will be affected in a small way. But some will certainly be mothers that will never see their children again, and/or like my sister, the children may be so young it is unclear whether they will even remember their mother. That is one aspect of my sister's death that has affected me badly.

Is anything more upsetting than a child asking where their dead mother is? Yes, having to explain the answer to them.

So, the next time you are listening to the news about three simultaneous car bombings or an attack of any kind that has left a total of 75 people dead, try not to compare it to the death toll of 9/11, 7/7 or the many other major disasters that have killed many more. Try to imagine the grief each individual death has potentially caused and spare a thought for those left behind.

My sister's death was the biggest shock I have ever experienced, but it could not have been avoided. Can the same be said of those dying in the world's wars?

Surely there are enough people dying unexpectedly and unavoidably in the world, in accidents, natural disasters and civilian murders, for the tsunami of grief to do a perpetual lap of the world's oceans. So let's stop unnecessary wars and violence from causing anymore thousands of avoidable deaths, or, let's at least try.

Preparing to Attack Iran: The Neocon Roadmap to War

2007-03-06T21:32:00.000Z

Liam Bailey

I was talking about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran in the very near future with my dad the other day. Now my dad doesn't follow politics or current affairs as avidly as me, i.e. he watches the T.V. news if it happens to be on, but his exact words were, "yeah, it's bubbling away nicely innit." For those not from Yorkshire in England innit means isn't it. "Bubbling away nicely" said it all for me; it put into words my own feelings on the matter. Small steps, none too significant but all in succession are threatening to lead us into another war, and I don't think anything can stop it.

Like everybody else I believed the Afghanistan invasion was purely a response to 9/11. Then the blame for the attack was shifted to Iraq, followed by rapidly intensified pressure over Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction and immediate threat to the Western world, leading very quickly to another invasion. This made me suspicious. So when Iran became the focus shortly after, I immediately started thinking Iran is the next target. Of course by that time I was a fully paid up subscriber to the theory that the two invasions were part of a massive imperialistic drive by the Neoconservatives. I waned on that when Iraq became such a massive failure and its cost spiralled.

I waned further still when I read an article, the gist of which was that the massive amount of U.S. money being spent on funding wars is threatening the very future of America, if Iran is attacked the threat will be multiplied. The U.S. war budget is running higher than America's Gross Domestic Product meaning America is spiralling deeper into debt. It went on to explain that much of America's debt is owned by banks in countries on the opposite side of the Iran debate, in the main China.

The author feared that China could wait till America was at a critically weak point, i.e. another few years of such massive defence spending and pull the rug out from under Washington. I disbelieved America would put its overstretched economy at risk by again putting its overstretched military into another --suicidally-- difficult mission.

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are currently at an all time high. China and Russia are strong allies. U.S. money is important to the Chinese economy, in capitalist investments, exports and interest payments, but I have no doubt that China would favour Russia over the U.S if the chips were down. So, the rug probably won't be removed until the Chinese economy can, not only survive, but continue to grow without U.S. money, which will probably never happen, or the chips are down, which should make me even surer that the U.S won't attack Iran.

However, in the last two weeks or so, major changes have happened. Firstly when U.S. plans for an Iran attack were released it was stated what would be needed to warrant such an attack and for the first time two things were mentioned, not only proof of a working nuclear weapon, but proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths in Iraq. I saw this as laying the groundwork in preparation for U.S. plans being good to go, and then all of sudden we'll see a "smoking gun" and all hell will break loose.

This was followed just days later by a positive buzz in the mainstream media, from U.S. officials claiming to have "compelling evidence" that components for a new type of roadside bomb, explosively formed projectiles (EFP), which are capable of piercing armoured vehicles at 100 yards, were manufactured in Iran.

There has been a lot of hype also about the EFP's being an advanced weapon, to strengthen the case for Iranian involvement in their manufacture. From what I can gather they aren't all that advanced. A six-nine inch steel pipe, sealed at one end with a projectile of shaped steel or copper either inside the pipe or fitted to the other end, therefore anyone with explosives, metal and a lump of pipe can make an EFP. As most of the attacks on U.S. forces come from Sunni's who are equally as busy killing Iran's Shia brethren, obviously there are many bomb makers in Iraq quite capable of making an EFP and nothing to do with Iran.

U.S. generals in Iraq, who likely see the Bush administration attempting similar propaganda as led to the carnage their troops are struggling to survive in Iraq, have since came out denying the proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths.

The question is: why has the future of such a dominant country been placed in the hands of China, at best a reluctant ally? And why does war with Iran and an increased risk to America's future hegemony seem so likely?

The answer: the Neocon's thirst for oil, allegiance to Israel and control of Bush administration foreign policy.

In the case of Afghanistan, a massively profitable UNOCAL pipeline was being hindered by the uncooperative Taliban regime. When 9/11 provided justification for an invasion and it was rapidly successful in removing the Taliban from power, Hamid Karzai, previously on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as Prime Minister. Neocon Zalmay Khalizad, also on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. That part of the plan was complete, and the blame for 9/11 was then put on Saddam Hussein to, along with other fabrications, justify another invasion of an oil rich country. The Neocons' UNOCAL operative Zalmay Khalizad was moved to Iraq in his U.S. ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits.

Now the case is being made for a third invasion of an oil rich country. Iran is in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan meaning an invasion can easily force Iran to fight a war on two fronts, suggesting that indeed, this may well have been their plan from the start. Many people will believe the line that any attack will be from the air only, but the U.S attack plans released recently suggest otherwise. When the gun starts smoking the plan is to attack not only Iran's fledgling nuclear sites, but to take out their entire military-industrial complex in a series of devastating air-strikes. Shock and Awe all over again.

Of course, it has been written many times that Iran's military will be a lot harder to take out than Iraq's was. So the bombing will probably be intensified, prolonged, will definitely involve bunker busting bombs and possibly even tactical nuclear weapons. Once Iran's military-industrial complex has been decimated Iran's rich oil reserves will be easy pickings for the U.S. forces occupying countries either side. The neocons taking up such prominent positions in the Bush administration will make sure they go in and finish the job.

Attitudes Stop Israeli/Palestinian Peace

2007-02-27T14:09:00.000Z

Changes needed to allow both sides to sufficiently compromise.

By Liam Bailey

To achieve a lasting peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict some major compromises are needed from all parties. Unfortunately, because of the duration of the conflict, attitudes, policies, strategies and aims have become so engrained that such compromises have become extremely difficult. The number of people killed in the conflict has also become a factor in each side's reluctance to compromise. The additional cause now and for many years has been to ensure that those killed did not die in vain.

The Palestinian Perspective:

More Palestinians have been killed in the struggle than Israelis. Therefore the Palestinians have a greater weight on their shoulders to avenge their deaths by gaining the state and conditions they died in the fight for. However this also gives the Palestinians the greater desire for peace because as the conflict goes on they will continue to be the biggest losers in terms of civilian casualties.

The Palestinians have also come to believe that Israel does not want peace, because of the provocative tactics employed by the IDF during ceasefires and negotiations. Like the West Bank arrest raids during the recent ceasefire, and the current operation in Nablus, which has dampened hopes of restarting the stalled peace process. Israel's failure to adhere to previous peace deals, like the settlement expansions contrary to the U.S. brokered roadmap agreement, reinforces the Palestinian view.

As does the West Bank "security" wall Israel's government is building. Mainly because the Palestinians negotiations rely on the formation of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, in places the wall is well inside these borders. Palestinian Negotiations Minister Saib Uraiqat told Al Jazeera Mar. 2005:

"This is a policy of dictation and not negotiation, this prejudges and prejudices the outcome of permanent status negotiations."

This prevents the Palestinians from making any further concessions or compromise, because the concessions they have made in the past, --like the Palestine Liberation Organization's recognition of Israel-- have brought nothing in return. In their resistance lies their dignity, and their dignity is almost all they have left.

The Israeli Perspective:

The Israeli government has received heavy financial and military support from the U.S. throughout decades of conflict, they may well doubt whether this would continue if they were no longer under threat from Palestinian terror. Although the U.S. supports Israel because it is keen to keep an ally in a position of supremacy in the vital Middle East region, Israel being under threat certainly makes it easier to justify such heavy support to the U.S. public.

The Israeli government also has strong remnants of the Zionist movement that was the driving force behind the creation of the Jewish state on the very land so symbolically important to the Jewish faith. As Israeli academic and author, Ilan Pape told me in a recent interview, "Israel is an unfinished project of statehood." The Zionists crave certain lands that they believe religious heritage has dictated for the final Jewish state, hence Israel's reluctance to define borders. To this end the conflict is necessary because it diverts attention from Zionist transgressions and because the Palestinian threat begets strong security measures, like occupying Palestinian land whenever necessary and the --desired land annexing-- security wall. These measures are also extremely provocative and fuel the vicious cycle of --necessary-- violence.

The wall has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice. And the United Nations Security Council has tried many times to issue resolutions against the high civilian death toll of IDF operations, occupations and Israel's transgression of human rights laws, as well as taking measures to bring about Israel's adherence with past resolutions. The U.S. has used its veto almost every time to prevent the UNSC from condemning Israel's activities. Over the years the U.S.' unquestioning support for Israel has become engrained in the Washington psyche.

The duration of the conflict has also allowed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to become one of the strongest lobbying groups in the U.S., its primary objective is ensuring continued U.S. support for Israel. Until Israel is held accountable for its actions, the Zionist element will remain strong and will continue to strive for its dream at the expense of peace and the Palestinian population.

The threat that makes this possible is constantly manipulated to present fear for Israel's existence and to allow constant reminders of the holocaust and the guilt we should all feel, --especially the U.S.-- for failing to stop it. This aim was helped by the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel, despite the fact that Hamas has never been close to having the means to achieve this aim. It is this manipulation that makes the Israeli population support its government's reluctance to compromise for peace. Because the fear of Palestinian terrorism is amplified so the Israeli population believes that giving them their own state would not stop the terror, and in fact the terror groups would continue to force the Israeli government to concede more and more land.

This view was strengthened after the Gaza disengagement. Because the Israeli government evicted Jewish residents to allow for the withdrawal, in Israel it was seen as a significant concession by the government, but the terror continued.

The terror continued because the Palestinians were still under the Israeli microscope, still had no control of their border and were still enduring flyovers and high decibel sonic booms from Israeli fighter jets, thought to cause pregnant women to miscarry. Thus Palestinians saw the disengagement as creating an open air prison and a propaganda tactic to strengthen support for Israel's government at their expense. It worked, like all similar tactics in the past, the disengagement strengthened the Israeli view, that their government wants only peace. The provocative actions over the years suggest the opposite.

Needed for Peace:

The Palestinians too, are guilty of allowing other issues to cloud their judgment and supersede their desire for peace. It is the Israeli government though that needs to take the first step.

Until Israel puts Zionism back in its box --having served its purpose--, and makes some sort of compromise to counter the Palestinian views caused by the years of the cruel occupation and Zionist land grabs, there will be no compromise from the Palestinians. Until there is compromise from the Palestinians, especially over the right of return, which Israel cannot grant because it would end their Jewish status, there will be no final status agreements and no lasting peace.

Israel won't take the first step until the international community starts holding it accountable for its actions, and this won't happen until the U.S. stops shielding it from the UNSC. This, if it ever happens will likely come in line with U.S. pressure on Israel to commit to achieving a lasting peace with the Palestinians, and perhaps a threat to withdraw support if they don't. This would put significant pressure on the Israeli government to commit to peace, but will only happen if U.S. interests in the region change drastically.

If Israel committed unquestioningly to peace, after the initial doubts, it would undoubtedly trigger a similar commitment from the Palestinian population and government. Such a commitment from both sides is what is really needed to end this conflict.

Lebanese Army Standing Up to Israel:

2007-02-26T21:12:00.000Z

Stronger stance may be an attempt to regain support for the Lebanese government.

By Liam Bailey

Since the Second Lebanon war --as it is called in Israel-- between Israel and Shiite Hezbollah militia based in South Lebanon in 2006 there has been relative calm in border areas. In the last week a series of events has heightened tensions between forces on both sides of the border. This time the Lebanon army is facing off against Israeli forces, not Hezbollah.

Dec. 24 saw a tense stand-off between Israeli forces and the Lebanese army. The National News Agency reported that Lebanese infantry soldiers were on a routine border patrol, when they were surprised by an Israeli patrol on the other side of the barbed wire fence. Some of the Israeli soldiers were pointing their weapons at the Lebanese and the Lebanese army mobilized troops ready to deal with any ensuing military action. The Israeli soldiers withdrew to the Israeli settlement of Mutilla and Spanish troops from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon took over the patrol, with three bulldozers to prevent any ensuing clashes. Under the UN brokered Resolution 1701, which brought the ceasefire that ended the summer conflict, the Lebanese army and UNIFIL were designated to patrol the border.

Just two days before the ground forces incident at the border. Lebanese anti-aircraft guns fired on Israeli warplanes as they flew low altitude reconnaissance missions over South Lebanon Dec. 22. Israeli jets have been flying such missions over Lebanon for years, but this is the first time the Lebanon army has opened fire. In the recent war, between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli warplanes flew thousands of combat missions, inflicting heavy civilian casualties. The Lebanese army remained neutral. UN Resolution 1701 reiterated the UN's support for Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty. The resolution has not stopped the flyovers, which have continued, without response from the Lebanese army, since the war ended.

Earlier this month Lebanese and Israeli troops exchanged fire. According to totallyjewish.com The Israeli Defence Forces [IDF] were combing for mines between the Israeli fences and the Lebanon border. Lebanese troops, who accuse the IDF of crossing the border, fired shots into the air. The IDF warned that they would respond if the shots continued, when their warning wasn't heeded the IDF fired two tank shells in the direction of the gunfire. No injuries were reported.

Throughout the summer war, the Lebanese military had remained neutral and the government seemed reluctant for them to fight Israeli forces. The Lebanese army acting now in this way, to me, signifies an attempt by the Lebanese government to counter Hezbollah's growing support and influence in South Lebanon.

Hezbollah started out as a militia in 1985 and its main objective was to force an end to the [first] Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. Since then Hezbollah has evolved into a hybrid political movement/militia with popular support from Lebanon's predominant Shia population. Hezbollah is heavily armed and massively funded by Iran and Syria and had 14 seats in the Lebanese parliament, before the Nov. resignations.

Hezbollah's support increased during the July war as it is called in Lebanon the population grew angry at what seemed like indiscriminate killing of Lebanese civilians by the Israeli forces, and at the government for not ordering the army to take action. Hezbollah held its own in many gun battles with Israeli forces building acclaim for the group. The people who believed Hezbollah were responsible for starting the war were angry with the group for prolonging the conflict.

When the war ended Hezbollah were credited with a victory because, although heavily outmanned and outgunned they maintained fierce resistance until international pressure forced Israel to withdraw. The so called victory increased Hezbollah's support even further at a time when government popularity was dwindling.

Hezbollah attempted to capitalize on the situation, demanding a unity government late Oct.-early Nov., which would have given the group veto power in government decisions. When a deal was not reached five Hezbollah and AMAL members resigned Nov. 12, bringing fears over whether the government could continue. Eight members would have to resign before the government could be considered dissolved, but it was feared that without sufficient representation of the majority Shia community the government would struggle.

Hezbollah planned a protest to ratchet up the pressure on the government but it was postponed when Christian and anti-Syria (Hezbollah's ally) industry minister Pierre Geymal was assassinated Nov 21. Some blamed Syria for the attack because their operatives had been deemed responsible by a UN investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al Hariri. This also means Hezbollah could have carried out the attack, because both shared the aim of further undermining the government. Conspiracy theorists blamed Israel for the attack to foment sectarian tensions, which it did excellently, whoever was responsible.

The planned Hezbollah protest went ahead Dec 1, their leader Hassan Nasrallah released a statement:

"We appeal to all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration on Friday to rid us of an incapable government that has failed in its mission."

800, 000 Hezbollah supporters and those supporting other opposition groups, did as he said, and took to the streets in a protest sit-in surrounding the government offices and other areas in central Beirut. The Army cordoned off the government offices and protesters planned to keep up the blockade until the government resigned. According to a senior opposition source a dialogue between Arab diplomats and opposition leaders was successful in easing the blockade and ending the protest.

An undercurrent of sectarian tension remained as well as a strong lack of faith in the government, and doubts over its survival. Then and currently the Lebanese government is under tremendous pressure, pressure that Hezbollah is keen to maintain. Therefore, the recent actions of the Lebanese army acting against the IDF and Israeli jets, when they failed to act against the Israeli onslaught in the summer, can easily be viewed as an attempt by the Lebanese government to regain the faith of their people.

Somalia's Government, Somalia's Affair

2007-02-26T14:04:00.000Z

As recent examples are showing, a country's government has to be chosen by its people.

By Liam Bailey

In the west there is a fear of Islamic terrorism, triggered in the most part, and rightly so by two New York skyscrapers being brought down by hijacked civilian airliners, Sep. 11 2001, and subsequent attacks in Europe. This has led to Muslims being dehumanized. Islamaphobia as it is termed, is currently at an all time high.

Take Britain for instance, the terrorists who attacked three London underground trains simultaneously on July 7 2005 wanted to bring down the British government and for Britain to become an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law. To the British people, who are used to having freedom of choice, the thought of Britain being ruled with the strict behavioural codes and punishments associated with Sharia law is a scary thought. I know, because it instilled fear in me, until I began talking about these matters with Muslims.

Abdallah, who commented on one of my articles on the Somali crisis at Desicritics.org (comment #7) told me:

Honestly as a Muslim and one who knows and understands the Sharia law very well there is nothing oppressive or unjust about it, however, what is oppressive and unjust is having a handful of tribal-based-military-styled-self-serving-ignorant-misdirected so called mullahs take oath to up hold the laws of Islam that they really don't practice in their own houses!

Introduction of Sharia Laws goes further than someone pushing it down people's throat, it needs preparations, and has to be on whole hearted consent. In a sense it most be voted on and everyone participate, not by some fools [Union of Islamic Courts] who thought they had the whole country under their thumb.

It suddenly occurred to me, Sharia law doesn't scare Muslims, because good Muslim's live by strict behavioural and religious codes anyway, such as no alcohol or sex before marriage, and only eating a certain type of meat etc.

Somalia's Union of Islamic Courts have been branded as extremists by the west, some hard-liners within the group deserve the title. However the courts have also been the victim of the one-size-fits-all War on Terror branding and are labelled as an Al Qaeda affiliate. Now, I don't know whether or not the group has or is harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists, as has been alleged by the U.S.. What I do know is that, now, while they are employing similar insurgent tactics as Al Qaeda (in Iraq) and other groups in Iraq, there is one key difference: they are not targeting civilians.

So, if they were and/or are sheltering Al Qaeda it is because they share a common enemy, the U.S., which over they years and even more currently has created the impression that it is an enemy of Islam. A view commonly held by extremists. Not because the UIC are an Al Qaeda affiliate, or because they are fighting the same war with the same tactics.

Although the UIC is not specifically targeting civilians, they are being killed in the crossfire. Like Dec. 23's audacious UIC attack on a Transitional Federal Government military base, when Ethiopian and TFG forces retaliated with heavy artillery and tanks. At least three people died and fifteen were injured as the 20 minute battle spilled into surrounding neighbourhoods. Such battles and civilian deaths have again become a daily occurrence in Somalia. Under the UIC they were a rarity.

If some within the UIC were administering a misinterpretation of Sharia law from a bad interpretation of Islam, at least Somali citizens weren't being killed and injured in their droves each day. In fact they were relatively safe if they lived to the letter of the UIC's Sharia law.

Now death is much harder to avoid. In clashes Dec. 23 a woman died and six children were injured when artillery shells landed on their tin shacks, one of the children's life hung in the balance, witnesses told CNN his head was severed. Another nine people were injured and one killed when a rocket struck a house.

It was strange, when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), who made short work of overthrowing the warlords that ruled Somalia with anarchy for years, were ousted with so little resistance by the Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces. The two week conflict was more of a chase than a war as the Ethiopian forces followed the trail of the UIC in an almost constant retreat. Now, as the UIC launch daily attacks, growing in severity and audacity it becomes clear that they were conserving, men and ammunition for a bloody guerrilla war.

They are employing much the same tactics as they did when they swept into control of most of Southern and central Somalia, lightning raids. The differences are that against the superior Ethiopian military they are striking then retreating. What the UIC lack in heavy armor they make up for in higher mobility and their ability and willingness to use it to their advantage.

So, Somalia is likely to face similar chaos as Iraq for the foreseeable future, and why, because an Islamic movement wanted to govern with Sharia (Islamic) law. Somalia is an Islamic country. Whether the UIC's interpretation of Sharia was wrong and it was being administered too strictly it was up to the Somali people to sort out. After all, they have a much better knowledge of it than the U.S. administration, or Christian Ethiopian government who were responsible for the end of UIC control and the beginning of anarchy. However strictly the UIC were ruling I bet Somalis would turn back time in a heart beat, especially those who have lost loved ones in the recent fighting.

When are the U.S., and their proxies like Ethiopia going to learn that a country's government and the way it chooses to rule is an internal affair, and should be dealt with internally. In any interpretation of the Islamic faith, Jihad is not to be shied away from. It is true, that under the Islamic faith, those dying fighting Jihad go straight to paradise. Where the extremists misinterpret, intentionally or otherwise is that suicide is forbidden under any circumstances, Jihad included. If the UIC continued on the path of governance they were on before they were ousted, and angered the Somali population. I fully believe the Somali population would eventually have risen up in Jihad to install a true and pure version of Sharia law.

Now, that may well have led to the same kind of chaos that Somalis are currently enduring, but at least it would have been their choice, and they would be dying for their freedom. Instead they are dying as part of a western war on an abstract noun.

Governing Somalia

2007-02-26T01:28:00.001Z

I wrote this article Feb 20 2007, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

Governing Somalia:

What is more important, freedom or security? Asks Liam Bailey

In the last throes of 2006 Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia, and with Somalia's Transitional Government (TG) forces drove the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) out of Mogadishu, and with the help of American air strikes, supposedly, out of Somalia. Somali residents had lived in a state of anarchy since the dictator Siad Barre was ousted in 1991. The Union of Islamic Courts restored order and allowed people to go about their normal lives in relative security.

In UIC controlled areas children could go to school safely and once more hospitals could treat the sick without flows of injured coming in from daily violence. However, the UIC ruled with a strict code of Sharia law, meaning the security came at the cost of some personal freedoms and civil liberties. With the UIC ousted, 2007 began a new chapter for Somalia, a new chapter of violence and insecurity.

The UIC began their sweep to power, taking the capital Mogadishu Jun 2006. By December they controlled most of Southern and Central Somalia. The Transitional Govermnent's one remaining stronghold was Baidoa and a small area surrounding it, where it is widely believed Ethiopian troops were stationed to protect the government.

The United Nations was responsible for the imposition of the TG. In early December they still recognized it as the only governing body in Somalia or "The only route to peace and stability" --as it was called in Resolution 1725--, despite it being made up of warlords. The warlords were responsible for much of the violence, insecurity and terrorization of the civilian population before the UIC took power.

The U.S gave strong support to the TG, against the UIC forces. Strong support to the very warlords that, by inflicting heavy casualties, forced the withdrawal of U.S. forces in a peacekeeping mission in the early nineties. U.S support failed to stop the UIC advance. Shortly before the Ethiopian invasion the U.S presented a draft Resolution to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The Resolution laid out the rules of engagement for a proposed Inter-Governmental Authority on Development and African Union force to enter Somalia. The fore was to protect the TG, to restart the peace negotiations between the TG and the UIC, but ultimately to reinstall the UN recognized government and engage any forces running contrary to that mission.

It was adopted as Resolution 1725 but the UIC's rapid sweep to power gave the impression that they were a strong determined and highly capable fighting force. This combined with the UIC's war declaration on Ethiopian forces in Somalia, their threats to attack peacekeepers and the Iraq quagmire, which started from a similar mission, to make IGAD countries reluctant to send their forces into what could easily become another Iraq.

Ethiopia showed no such reluctance, because Ethiopia had no such noble intentions. With U.S. support, Ethiopia responded to the UIC's final attack on the last remaining government stronghold of Baidoa. Ethiopia said throughout that it had no intention of occupying Somalia, its only mission was to oust the UIC and return the TG to the seat of power. Unexpectedly the UIC put up little resistance, displaying none of the fight to the death attitude they had spoken of. Ethiopian and TG forces made short work of removing the strict regime of the UIC. As they beat a hasty retreat the UIC made statements to the press promising to wage a guerrilla war, "like Iraq".

So, it seems that the U.S., Ethiopia and the UN believe freedom is more important than security.

Ethiopia is keeping to its word and their forces have already begun to withdraw. The UIC is also keeping its promise and since their defeat, Somalia, more specifically Mogadishu has been rocked by almost daily, mortar, rocket propelled grenade attacks, and occasional suicide bomb attacks. According to reports an 8000 strong African Union force is now expected to enter Somalia in mid-April 2007. Uganda was due to announce a date for a small Burundian advance force but the news conference was cancelled.

Given the failure of 7000 AU troops to stop the violence in Darfur, Sudan, it is unlikely they will adequately fill the vacuum left by the Ethiopian forces. It is also unlikely they will afford the TG the same protection as the Ethiopian force and a UIC uprising could begin anew. Given the consistent UIC statements to view peacekeepers as an invading force it is almost certain the peacekeepers will become targets for insurgent warfare, and even more certain they will fail to stop the insurgency.

Mogadishu residents are fleeing the city en masse to take residence in makeshift refugee camps on the outskirts. Without security people can't live their day to day lives but have the freedom to make personal choices. I believe Somalis would rather be secure in their day to day lives, be able to live in their homes, be able to go out without getting caught up in violence or fear of not returning home, or having no home to return to, and be able to send their kids to school without fear of them being killed on the journey. Even if it meant they couldn't enjoy western comforts, listen to western music, or go to the cinema.

So, by trying to give the Somali people freedom, Ethiopia and the U.S. have returned them to the anarchy they have already endured far too much of. Some people are forced to leave their homes, and so not free to live where they choose, others are forced to stay indoors. Therefore security is more important than freedom, because without security there isn't much freedom, and what little there is can't be enjoyed.

Israel Not Facing Existential Threat

2007-02-26T01:16:00.000Z

I wrote this article Feb 11 2007, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

Israel Not Facing Existential Threat

Israel, the U.S. and others are exaggerating the threat from a nuclear Iran.

By Liam Bailey

I received an e-mail from Israeli newspaper, Haaretz daily with the subject line: Stand up to --Ahmadinejad. Inside was an advertising banner with the subject line above a picture of an exuberant Ahmadinejad speaking into a microphone. The banner linked to a two minute video by Aish.com, [Aish HaTorah, a yeshiva in the Old City of Jerusalem].

The Video

It is actually a slideshow. It starts with a picture of Adolf Hitler. Followed by a gruesome picture of tens of undernourished adult males, one standing, the rest lying in what I can only describe as a wall of pigeon-hole bunks. I assume it was taken in a liberated concentration camp. The narrator says: "Imagine you could have stopped Hitler in 1938." another wall of pigeon holes, this time much smaller filled with human skulls. "Imagine you could have stopped him, but didn't."

Showing Ahmadinejad above the quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," the narrator announces: "Today a new Hitler is on the world stage calling for the destruction of the state of Israel." The narrator falls silent for the display of two more pictures of Ahmadinejad above the quotes: "The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm" and: "The Elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple."

Ahmadinejad's Intentions and Israeli Lies

The first quote about Israel being wiped off the map is a matter of international debate. Some analysts say Ahmadinejad has never made such a statement, that it is an intentional mistranslation by Israel or their supporters to overstate the danger from Iran. If they are right and only the latter two quotes can be accredited to Ahmadinejad, he is not alone in wanting Zionism to be eliminated, which doesn't necessarily mean exterminating Jews or obliterating Israel. In my recent interview with Israeli author and academic Ilan Pape, he said: "Israel has to be de-Zionised to a point before any genuine reconciliation can be attempted." He was talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The Hitler/Ahmadinejad Comparison

Whether Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be wiped off the map" or not, the comparison to Hitler and the holocaust is a blatant misrepresentation of one of the world's most horrific acts. In 1938 the world was a different place, not least in the perception of Jews. 1938 was in an era when stereotypes were treated as fact and taught to children. Discrimination was accepted, in some cases even expected of people. Jews were stereotypically evil, greedy and devious and persecuted because of it.

When Hitler's views began emerging, for those who didn't hate Jews, such entrenched stereotypes made them indifferent. In short the Jews had no friends in the world capable of or willing to stop Hitler. Today the situation is very different.

No Comparison

The holocaust was a horrific and tragic occurrence. The world not even attempting to stop it pre-emptively was a disgrace. However, the world's guilt over not stopping the holocaust, even if only indirectly, led to the partitioning of Palestine for a Jewish homeland.

In its infancy Israel faced threats from the Arab countries surrounding it, who really did want to carry out a second holocaust, who really did want, and try to wipe Israel off the map. As Egypt's President announced before the Sinai war: "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." The U.S began supporting Israel militarily in the sixties and rescued Israel from the brink of defeat by airlifting military supplies during the Yom Kippur war , the aggressors Egypt and other neighboring Arab states learned that the U.S wasn't going to let Israel be defeated.

Since then and currently Israel faces a very small threat from neighboring countries, some have signed peace accords. The others are reduced to funding internal resistance groups against Israel's occupation, none of which is anywhere near capable of wiping Israel off the map.

Let's assume Ahmadinejad does want Israel wiped off the map.

Far from having no friends, Israel is now in the "in" crowd, with the most powerful friends in the world: the U.S., U.K. and any other states wanting to stay in America's favor. With the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), perhaps the most powerful lobby in America, America's world influence and massive nuclear arsenal, Israel is one of the world’s best protected countries. If this support wasn't enough to deter anyone considering an attack, or "the destruction of Israel", Israel has a sizeable nuclear arsenal of its own, widely thought to be 200-400 active nuclear warheads. This is a significant deterrent against attack.

If Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, then Tel Aviv has the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, bigger than China or France. Iran is years from even having one workable nuclear warhead, and depending on the size and weight of the prototype building a missile to carry it could take just as long. Thus, Israel has sufficient capabilities to defend itself, along with protection from the U.S. as No. 1 nuclear proliferator.

What's more Ahmadinejad's patriotism is the driving force behind the dramatic showdown with the U.S. and the world over wanting the country's right to nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel has not ratified. His patriotism will prevent him from risking the total obliteration of his country by attacking Israel. So, Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, at least until they have the capabilities to disable the U.S and Israel. I'm sure you'll agree, that, without outside help this is many years away.

The Lies

Israeli officials know that there is no such "second holocaust" or existential threat from a nuclear Iran. As Gareth Porter reported in the Electronic Intifada:

An article in the online journal of a hard-line think-tank, the Ariel Centre for Policy Research, in August 2004 revealed that "one of the options that has been considered should Iran publicly declare itself to have nuclear weapons is for Israel to put an end to what is called its policy of 'nuclear ambiguity' or 'opacity'. The author, Shalom Freedman, said that in light of Israel's accumulation of "over 100 nuclear weapons" and its range of delivery systems for them, even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons within a few years, the "tremendous disproportion between the strength of Israel and an emergent nuclear Iran should serve as a deterrent."

Why the Lie

You may be wondering why Israelis would want to create mass hysteria on the basis of lies, the same reason it denies Palestinian right of return, and is building a great wall around the Jewish state... Zionism's greatest fear, Israel becoming predominantly Arab.
You may be confused, Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh explained in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, saying that under the threat from a nuclear Iran:

"most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with their families; and Israelis who can live abroad will. People are not enthusiastic about being scorched." Thus the danger, Sneh elaborated, is that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would "be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs."

The Real Threats

Therefore, the fear is not over the existence of Israel, but over how Israel exists. I suspect Washington's war planners know the existential threat is non-existent, but have their own reasons for failing to dispel the myth. America does not want allied Israel's Middle East hegemony to end, especially not in favor of an enemy as staunch as Iran.

Israel putting such weight on their lies taking hold in the world media, has guaranteed their fears will be a reality should Iran successfully enrich uranium to weapons grade. That is why you can rest assured, if diplomacy and sanctions fail to stop Iranian enrichment, Israel will attack with or without U.S help. There is a distinct possibility that the attack will involve the use of nuclear weapons, therefore Iran is more in danger of a nuclear holocaust from Israel.

"A Brighter Palestinian Future"

2007-02-26T01:07:00.000Z

I wrote this article Feb 10 2007, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

"A Brighter Palestinian Future"

The new unity government accepts the demands, waters down the wording and expands on the stipulation.

By Liam Bailey

The new Palestinian Authority (PA) unity government is being hailed as a great thing for Palestinians. I don't deny it is a step in the right direction but tough decisions, and hopefully negotiations lie ahead. If the right decisions aren't made by all parties involved it will not improve one thing in the occupied territories. Speaking to Israel's Haaretz daily, on condition of anonymity one Israeli official said: "The conditions have not been met. This is not something we can live with." The U.S. State Department reiterated its call that the new government must meet international demands. It is clear from recent U.S. and Israel policies and their reactions to the new accord, that a serious change in Hamas' overtures will be needed if the unity government is to be treated differently than its predecessor.

The reason for hostility towards Hamas is because their charter calls for the destruction of Israel and despite the international siege since early last year they have continually refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and adhere to previous agreements made between the palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. The unity accord makes no mention of recognizing Israel or the other demand to renounce violence, only stipulating that Hamas will "respect" previous agreements made between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. Abbas had held out for a commitment to adhere to previous agreements, but Hamas held firm and the wording was watered down.The watered down wording gave weight to the reactions from the U.S and Israel, and the European Union said it would study the new administration “in a positive but cautious manner.” The Quartet, (the EU, Russia and the UN) has been pressuring the U.S for an end to the PA blockade for months. The U.S and Israel have been as stubborn as Hamas.

A Russian Foreign Ministry statement Feb. 9 welcomed the new deal between rival Palestinian factions and made a fresh appeal for the lifting of a freeze on direct aid to the Palestinian government. It remains to be seen whether the slight concession from Hamas, the first from them since they took power will allow the other Quartet members to sufficiently tighten the thumbscrews on the U.S. to end the blockade.

It is almost certain the Arab states friendly to the Palestinians will make the most of a momentous achievement by the PA and use their leverage as a much needed Middle East ally for the U.S in stabilizing Iraq and ratcheting up the pressure on Iran's nuclear regime, to secure they can get some badly needed aid back into to PA. However, while an injection of aid from friendly Arab states will alleviate the Palestinian's plight, not least in allowing them to pay their employees a full salary for the first time since Hamas were elected. This will make things exponentially better for the workforce and the third of Palestinian families they take home the bacon to.

The normalization of relations with Israel and the U.S. is what's really needed to bring PA life back to the Palestinian reality before Hamas were elected, which still isn't western life but it is a good jumping off point for a new push for peace from both sides. This would include unfreezing bank's and accounts and releasing the $800 million dollars of withheld Palestinian tax revenues and an end to the measure. The new unity in the PA gives its parties the chance to attempt normalizing their relationships with each other and the international community. They badly need the international community on their side, or at least not against them if they expect Israel to come to the table with a serious offer for peace.

What is also needed is the serious change in Hamas rhetoric towards Israel I mentioned, preferably in them accepting the three demands of the quartet. I suspect that their "respecting" past agreements will be enough to satisfy the Quartet on that demand, at least until the negotiation stage. The other demands are the hardest for Hamas to accept, and in fact, what the U.S. fails to realize, or, like Israel, doesn't care about is that Hamas accepting the most crucial demand --Israel's right to exist-- will take away the unity governments credibility in the eyes of its members, and the population at large. Such an acceptance, to Palestinians would mean accepting that Israel had the right to expel Arabs in the 1948 war. Any negotiations would then risk being interrupted or at worst derailed by gunmen and/or armed wing members attacking each other or Israel.

I have a solution. The new unity government accepts the demands and maintains credibility by watering down the wording and expanding on the stipulation. For instance:

We, the PA unity government unconditionally recognize Israel's existence within the 67 borders, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The same can be done with the renounce violence demand:

We the PA unity government make a declaration to completely renounce all forms of violence for a period of 6 months to allow preparations to be made for the full reinstatement of aid, unfreezing of accounts and return of withheld revenues in Israel and elsewhere it applies, and fresh negotiations with the starting point that adherence to Security Council Resolution 242 and the formation of a completely independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem according to the borders before the 1967 war, are a guarantee, regardless of the talks outcome.

The ball is then well and truly shifted into Israel and the U.S' courts. UNSC Resolution 242 calls for the return of the above stated land, which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. There are arguments that Resolution 242 could be backed up with force as it is legally binding under article 25 of the UN charter on the grounds of its incorporation in UN Resolution 338, presented to the UNSC by the U.S and Russia to end the Yom Kippur war. Resolution 338 may well have been backed up with force. The PA government could approach the UN about a reaffirmation of the resolutions demands for the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

There has never been a better time for Palestinians to maintain a peace, because the U.S needs friends like it never did before. The friendly Arab states, the EU, Russia, and the UN Security Council are all necessary allies for cranking up diplomatic pressure on Iran, The U.S also needs its Arab allies in stabilizing Iraq and possibly for airspace and bases in the event of war with Iran. Israel has always said that its main objective is peace and it is willing to give land to achieve it, whereas the Arabs objective is land, Israel expects them to give peace to achieve it. With the Palestinians doing everything that was expected of them, the U.S and Israel's rhetoric and incessant peace overtures would back-fire on them. There would be no excuses left.

The Palestinians would need to ensure that they resist the Israeli tactics that would undoubtedly ensue, like the West Bank arrest Raids and new settlement in the recent ceasefire. And the most recent "renovations" at Al Aqsa mosque, which led to violence after the unity government deal was reached. The clashes add further difficulty for a new government that will undoubtedly struggle to regain control after the fierce factional fighting of the last few months. These tactics are aimed at drawing the Palestinians into actions that would end Israel's uncomfortable predicament.

If the PA could keep to its side of the bargain any reluctance by Israel, which there would undoubtedly be, would be overruled by Iran's nuclear program being firmly number one on the U.S' agenda. Iran being such a U.S. priority is almost as much Israel's fault as anyone else's, vis-a-vis the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's influence in the current U.S administration. This would make it a double backfire when the U.S. applied pressure on Israel to give the Palestinians the talks they and the world community –badly needed allies-- would be shouting for.

When talks commence the ball comes back into the Palestinians court on the basis of needing to compromise on other final status issues, such as the right of return. The Palestinians want refugees to return to the very land they were expelled from, after nearly 60 years this is impractical if not impossible for Israel to grant. I read about one Palestinian refugee who, if granted the right of return, would be building his house in the grounds of Jerusalem airport. Not to mention it would risk Israel becoming predominantly Arab, which would in turn further reduce the number of Jews immigrating to Israel under their Law of Return. Two things Israel will never risk.

A suitable compromise may be accepting a limited right of return, whereby refugees could only return on the grounds that they take up land in the now formally and completely independent Palestinian state. Three generations after the Naqba many of the people expelled in the 1948 war of [Israeli] independence are no longer refugees. They or their descendants have made lives for themselves and their families elsewhere in the world and wouldn't want to return. The Palestinians clinging uncompromisingly to achieving this right in full is an unnecessary obstacle to peace.

The other thing that would undoubtedly be a new sticking point in any such negotiations would be the separation wall Israel has almost completed. When complete it originally would have enclosed the West Bank, Palestinians complained because it is built inside the land that should become the independent Palestinian state. Since it started there have been extensions to the planned route taking even more land the Palestinians feel is rightly theirs. The wall has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice. The new pressure on Israel should also be taken advantage of by the Palestinians to achieve the tearing down of the wall, again, simply by maintaining the peace from their side. If they did this, despite Israel's delaying and provocative tactics, Israel would eventually have to face the inevitable:

No security wall is needed with the PA adhering to its commitments and peacefully waiting for Israel to meet theirs. However reluctantly the U.S supported the PA, with theirs and the rest of the international community's support for the new, moderate and peaceful unity government, Israel would be left with nowhere to go.

This might prove difficult, the longer Israel delayed meeting its commitments, and, based on previous initiatives that could be years of provocative actions, the more time the Palestinians would have, for one person or small group to revert to the habits of a lifetime. I'd like to hope the Palestinians would give the new unity government the respect they expect from the international community and that it would well and truly deserve for having the courage to compromise for a brighter Palestinian future.

Excluding Hamas Won't Bring Peace!

2007-02-26T00:48:00.000Z

I wrote this article Feb 6 2007, and changed it to past tense after the unity deal was signed. All earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

Excluding Hamas Won't Bring Peace!

Recent policies to bring Middle East peace, were pushing Palestinians apart and peace further away.

By Liam Bailey

The latest push for Middle East peace focused on strengthening moderates against "the extremists". Fatah's Abbas was the policy's patron saint, well, a patron anyway. The policy exacerbated a rift that worsened when talks collapsed to create a unity Palestinian Authority government. A rift that quickly escalated in an environment under the pressure of extreme poverty caused by the western government boycott of the January elected Hamas government.

It was an unworkable policy, to the Palestinian people Fatah has sold itself time and time again, first and foremost by accepting Israel's right to exist. To Palestinians this means accepting that Israel had the right to expel their Arab brethren in 1948. Something they will never do. Hamas in government gave the PA a shred of credibility in the eyes of the Palestinian people. Now Fatah have united under this credibility I hope they can use their moderate status to push for Palestinian rights peacefully. If not any deals made and agreements reached will not bring peace. What's more Israel and the west know this; one reason for the Hamas boycott was their refusal to renounce violence.

I believe that Hamas joining democratic proceedings and adhering to two ceasefires, one for almost a year, proves they are willing to renounce violence if it is reciprocated and leading to an independent Palestinian state within the 67 borders. The right of return and other final status issues could be settled in further negotiations in --a new concept for both states--, peacetime. Hamas certainly won't renounce violence to adhere to an agreement reached on the basis of --Fatah--succumbing to Israeli demands and putting self-importance and greed before Palestinian rights. Hamas remaining outside the process that led to the Oslo accord and attempting to sabotage the process through terrorism showed this. However neither Israel nor the PLO adhered to their commitments under the accord anyway.

The Palestinian people showed their displeasure for Fatah by electing Hamas. Therefore an agreement between Israel and Fatah would not have been appreciated or adhered to by the Palestinian population at large either, including Islamic Jihad. Palestinians will not support any peace that will not change their lives for the better. In the conditions they live a fair and just deal would be a complete turnaround in their lives. Only Hamas looked capable of sustaining its commitment to Palestinian rights and achieving such a deal. Israel may deal with Hamas now they have formed a coalition with the --supposedly-- more moderate Fatah. So, the big push for peace, by worsening PA division to crisis point, and beyond, was actually pushing us away from peace.

The policy started late Dec. 2006, with Abbas meeting Olmert, who promised to free $100 million of withheld Palestinian tax revenues. He made good on his promise a few days later. His other concessions however agreeing to take away some West Bank checkpoints and ease the strangulation of there and Gaza, followed the history of such concessions in being much easier said than done. As Israeli analyst Gershon Bashkin put it in the Jerusalem Post Feb. 5: "the proof is in the pudding, and so far the pudding is rotten." The meeting was followed by a massive arms transfer from Egypt, allowed to reach Fatah security forces by Israel. The U.S recently pledged $84 billion to Abbas as part of the large and multilateral campaign to arm and fund Fatah against a militarily stronger, --certainly in Gaza-- Hamas.

The other arm of the policy was a new peace process involving the Quartet, but completely excluding Hamas. If Hamas were to be ignored politically, all they had left was violence. This and the program of funding and arming Fatah militias was always going to make Hamas feel threatened and angry, which of course was going to escalate the fighting.

The rift between the Palestinian factions started just weeks before the Abbas/Olmert meeting, shortly after unity government talks collapsed three sons of a Fatah allied security guard were gunned down. Hamas were blamed but denied the attack. A Hamas judge was killed in a reprisal attack, for which Fatah denied responsibility. Things escalated again when the Hamas leader and PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, returning because of the fighting, was held at the Gaza border by Israel. Hamas militants went to the border, which was being patrolled by Fatah security forces at the time. Fierce fighting broke out between the two factions. After a few hours Haniyeh was allowed to pass and in the chaos, bullets entered the car. Crossfire or not it was taken as an attempt on the Prime Ministers life. Haniyeh's bodyguard was killed in the attack and his son wounded. Again Fatah were blamed but denied the attack.

Both Abbas and Haniyeh agreed many truces to end the infighting and called for all gunmen to leave the streets. Unfortunately the Hamas military wing is controlled from Syria by Kaleed Meshal. The push for peace presented the appearance that they [the U.S. and Israel] intended to arm and fund Fatah until Hamas was defeated or forced into submission and accepted the --unacceptable-- demands laid on them by the west. With Hamas under such a threat and felt to be militarily stronger, Khaled Meshaal sought to ensure Hamas' survival by defeating Fatah once and for all. At the same time ensuring Hamas' survival in the political arena and therefore ensuring the Palestinian people will not be willingly led into an agreement of subdifuge.

Hamas and Fatah reached agreement for a power sharing government Feb. 8. Israel officials are casting doubt on whether the planned peace summit Feb. 19 with Abbas, U.S secretary of state Condoleeza Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will go ahead with an Abbas now sharing power with Hamas. They are also talking about a reduced likelihood of Olmert making any concessions to Abbas if the meeting does go ahead. Whether it goes ahead or not will likely depend on the rhetoric from the new government towards Israel, and whether the U.S. pressures for it to go ahead under the facade that they are committed to a peace deal. If their commitment to peace was a strong as their commitment to Israel peace wouldn't look such a far off prospect.

The unity agreement makes no mention of recognizing Israel or the other demand to renounce violence, only stipulating that Hamas will "respect" previous agreements made between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. Abbas had held out for a commitment to adhere to previous agreements, but Hamas held firm and the wording was watered down.

Both Meshal and Abbas have stated their commitment to the deal and their desire for no further internal fighting in the PA, and that they hope the international siege of the PA will be lifted because of the new government. While U.S allies in the region, and the other three members of the quartet (Russia, the E.U. and the U.N.), who have been pressuring the U.S. to end the siege may reinstate diplomatic relations with the PA as a first step to making pledges of aid, the U.S. state department has already reiterated that the new government is required to meet international demands.

Just days after the latest push was started by the Abbas/Olmert meeting, the Israeli government approved a new settlement in the West Bank, one which was nearly completed before government approval. The settlement has now been "frozen" because of U.S pressure. The settlements approval, has recently been followed by another Jerusalem home demolition as part of the campaign to keep Jerusalem's Arab population low and an extension to the planned route of the separation wall. The new route annexes even more land from the final Palestinian state.

This all happened while Palestinian infighting was diverting attention, as well as freeing Israeli security forces to carry out the operations. All are operations that help toward the Zionist dream of a pure, or at least remaining predominantly Jewish, Israel.

Therefore, even people adverse to conspiracies can see that Israel was the main beneficiary of the Palestinian infighting. Their policies after it began proved, at the very least, that they weighed capitalizing on it above creating a suitable environment for a lasting peace.

Meanwhile the U.S is still treating Israel as an ally in the war on terror and Hamas as an enemy in it. This conflict was going on before Osama Bin Laden could trouble anyone, Hamas were attacking Israel before Al Qaeda were attacking the West, Hamas could have jumped on the Al Qaeda band wagon but, despite Zawahiri's best attempts, they haven't.

If the solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict was strengthening moderates against extremists, it would have been over years ago. The only push that will bring peace is all parties pushing the desire for peace to number 1 on the agenda. After nearly a century of conflict isn't it about time they did?

Is Attacking Iran a Viable Option?

2007-02-25T17:12:00.000Z

I wrote this article Oct 26, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress. This article was published by the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Is Attacking Iran a Viable Option?

The definitive end of U.S military supremacy.

By Liam Bailey

I have written several articles on the Iran crisis pitting two expanding and important strategic alliances against each other and the similarities to the powder keg of Balkan and European alliances that erupted into World War I.

On one side is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Led by China and Russia, the SCO has four other permanent member states: Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Along with a senior official from India's oil and gas industry, the prime ministers of Pakistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan and Iran attended the last meeting in Shanghai on June 15. It was the first meeting since Iran announced that it had successfully enriched Uranium: Iran was as an observer.

The meeting was about strengthening trade and exports but also had a strong undertone of strengthening the alliance. A verbal oath was sworn for defending each other in the event of any attack. China and Russia have already signed military cooperation agreements and are the main suppliers of advanced weaponry to Iran and Syria. This gave them verbal military cooperation agreements with all the SCO members, including Iran.

A senior spokesperson for U.S. ally Japan said: "The SCO is becoming a rival block to the U.S. alliance; it does not share our values. We are watching it very closely." The U.S. too was watching it very closely, but from afar because their request for observer status at the meeting had been denied on the grounds that they shared neither land nor fluvial border with any of the SCO member states.

The meeting's undertone of warning the U.S. against attacking Iran was evident in Chinese President Hu Jintao's closing statement: "We hope the outside world will accept the social system and path to development independently chosen by our members and observers and respect the domestic and foreign policies adopted by the SCO participants in line with their national conditions."

Jintao's statement was immediately followed by the verbal agreement -- all members vowing to defend each other's sovereignty and the alliance as a whole.

The strengthening of this rival alliance and its challenge to U.S. supremacy was worrying amid speculation of advanced U.S. plans for war in Iran. The developments in the coming weeks and months increased the powder keg tensions of a well-backed Iranian nuclear standoff.

The start of July, with joint military exercises by U.S., Romanian and Bulgarian armed forces, which continued until September, coincided with the North Korean missile tests of July 5 and began an intense period of war games and weaponry testing from all the major players in both alliances.

Aug. 19 saw the beginning of Iranian military exercises and missile tests in all the border provinces likely to become the frontline in the event of a U.S. attack. The SCO and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) headed by China and Russia respectively, held joint exercises in coordination with the Iranian exercises, both launched Aug. 24 in Kazakhstan, which between them involved all 10 members of the SCO except Uzbekistan.

The Russian and Chinese exercises were thought to have come in response to mistrust of the U.S.'s intentions in the region, the threat of attack on Iran, the U.S. navy's involvement in the rebuilding of Kazakhstan's navy since 2003, and Iranian fears that the U.S. was attempting to build up their ally Azerbaijan to counter Iranian influence and dominance in the region. Hence, the Iranian exercises along the Azerbaijan border.

These provocative drills from all sides of the powder keg of alliances could easily have took us one step closer to war, because of the strong support from the Muslim world, Russia and China for Iran's stance that it has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As the exercises continued, they coincided with Iran's response to the six-nations incentive package on Aug. 22, which was a practically flat refusal to suspend enrichment as a precursor for U.S.-involved talks. This made Iran's failure to comply with U.N. Resolution 1696 and suspend enrichment by Aug. 31 inevitable.

This lead to a stalemate, the U.S. maintaining its hard line toward the rogue regime and immediately pressuring for sanctions, the EU taking the middle ground, and Russia and China effectively vetoing any form of U.N. punishment against Tehran. China is of course heavily dependant on Iran's oil reserves on its path to becoming a world superpower.

As October comes to an end, we are still no closer to a compromise on ending Iranian enrichment and possible proliferation. The U.N. is split and sanctions just do not look viable in the foreseeable future. Yet another draft resolution has been drawn up by the U.S. and its allies and diplomats say it could be presented to Russian and Chinese officials this week. The proposed resolution aims to impose restrictions on Iran's nuclear progression similar to those imposed on North Korea last week with the passing of UN Resolution 1718.

However, the fact that North Korea angered China and Russia with its openly defiant and dangerous (for China) nuclear test, has put the bond between China and Russia, and the dependence of China on Iran, foremost in their decision making processes, not to mention strengthening the SCO alliance. All of which makes the passing of this draft resolution unlikely.

As the U.S. has always maintained that it will not let Iran get the bomb, decisive military action continues to become increasingly likely. Who knows, Bush may give us one last expensive war on his way out of office. All the signs seem to indicate that this is highly possible. North Korea, named alongside Iran and Iraq as part of Bush's axis of evil, performed its first nuclear test on Oct. 9. Its defiance of the international community in its six-nations format could and in my view will harden Bush's already hard-line stance toward Tehran's enrichment program and make military action a real possibility should Iran seem close to obtaining the bomb.

The months between Iran ignoring U.N. Resolution 1696 and North Korea's nuclear test brought many statements from senior Iranians. Many speaking on condition of anonymity threatened tough retaliation against any imposed sanctions. The latest announcement, on Oct. 23, that Iran had launched a second batch of 164 centrifuges, bringing the total to 328 interconnected centrifuges, which can enrich uranium for energy or weaponry purposes, further exasperated the Bush administration.

But according to a diplomat close to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, no UF6 uranium gas is being fed into the cascade, as has generally been the case with the first batch: "The second cascade was brought on line earlier this month but they appear to be just running it empty. That is, vacuum-testing to assess durability."

These reported advances in Iran's quest for nuclear power, either for civilian or military use, are increasing the pressure on the U.S., the EU and the fractured UN to end the standoff before it reaches a critical point like North Korea's defiant test. As is Israel's leadership, who have also constantly fueled the tensions over the past months by periodically threatening the use of its military might to end Iranian enrichment, a cycle of responding to Iran's slow but propagandized advances tit-for-tat. Therefore, in such a heightened climate, if Bush puts another wrong foot forward in his handling of Kim Jong-il (that is, concentrates on Iraq and pressurizes Iran while allowing North Korea's nuclear ambitions to become nuclear weapons and reach a catastrophic climax), it could strengthen the Iranians' resolve, which is already strong because of China's large dependence on Iranian oil.

Chinese dependence, which is empowering an Iranian regime bent on becoming a nuclear power, is a dangerous mix in itself. Add to this, reports from Chinese and Russian defectors that a catastrophic conflict with the U.S. has been in the planning for years and that the timetable is to be stepped up in the event of an attack on Iran, and it becomes very dangerous indeed.

Despite the consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran ranging from bad to catastrophic, depending on the strategy and success of the attack, the stalemate within the dysfunctional U.N. is threatening to leave Bush with no option. Speculation over the use of military force against Iran has been rife since Tehran's April announcement of successful uranium enrichment.

The latest surge in tensions is over proposed U.S. naval exercises with Britain, France, Bahrain and Kuwait in the Persian Gulf next week. Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) quoted an unnamed Foreign Ministry official as calling the maneuvers dangerous and suspicious. The official also said the exercises, reported to be practice runs for intercepting and searching ships carrying WMDs, were not in line with the security and stability of the region but instead aimed at fomenting crisis. The source blamed the neoconservatives' warmongering, which is being used in an attempt to achieve success in the mid-term elections.

I believe the proposed exercises are another attempt by the U.S. to provoke Iran into a knee-jerk reaction, which would further alienate Russia and China and ultimately allow Bush to use military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.

According to a war game organized by The Atlantic with the help of retired air force colonel and specialist in the field Sam Gardiner, which simulated preparations for an assault on Iran by the next American administration be it Republican or Democrat, such an assault could involve any or all of three separate strategies: (1) a punitive raid on key Revolutionary Guard units to retaliate for Iranian actions in Iraq and elsewhere, (2) a pre-emptive strike on all possible nuclear facilities or (3) the forceful removal of the Mullah regime from Tehran in a regime change operation.

The war games panel decided that the first two could be carried out independently but that the third would require the success of the first two as preparation. In reality, the second option -- a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities -- is the one most often discussed. Also in reality, any one of these actions or the encouragement of similar actions from Israel's military forces could well unleash a catastrophic global conflict.

The earliest retaliation would likely come in the form of missile attacks on Israel and other U.S. allies within the range of Iranian missiles (1,280 kilometers), followed by the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil channel, as threatened in the event of sanctions. Also, Iran may decide that a bloody defeat for the U.S., even if it means chaos in Iraq, is something they might actually prefer and begin exerting their significant influence over the majority Shia militias in Iraq to more heavily join the war against U.S. forces. Iran has so far discouraged the Shia communities from becoming involved in the insurgency. This would mean that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq would be greatly reduced for the first time as forces would be needed for the Iran invasion, which would coincide with the most dramatic rise of violence against U.S. forces since the Iraq invasion began.

If the Iran invasion did not go according to plan, the subsequently shrinking number of U.S. troops in Iraq could shortly find themselves unable to control the rising violence and forced into a hasty withdrawal from the Green Zone. Such an outcome would be seen as a defeat and empower the Jihadists for decades to come.

If any or all of the SCO members (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) were dragged into the conflict with allegiance to Iran, in turn bringing involvement from U.S. allies (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania, Japan, Israel and the U.K., although the latter two would quite possibly be involved in some capacity from the beginning), a catastrophic global conflict would become World War III.

If none of these countries became involved but the badly overstretched U.S. military failed to achieve regime change in Tehran, whatever Iranian nuclear capabilities remained would undoubtedly be channeled toward the rapid advancement of any existing nuclear weapons program.

Military action in Iran, therefore, should be consigned to the realms of fiction. But Bush's predisposition to falling for his own rhetoric, and the slim chances of achieving any form of sanctions against Tehran, leave a catastrophic global conflict that could easily become World War III looming over our heads. Whatever the strategy, if Bush or the next American president decides to use military force against Iran, it could easily result in the definitive end of U.S. military supremacy in the 21st century.

Are We Losing the War on Terror?

2007-02-24T22:26:00.000Z

I wrote this article Oct. 4 2006, all articles I wrote before that can only be read at War Pages on Wordpress

Are We Losing the War on Terror

Has the level of threat changed since 9/11?

By Liam Bailey

In the aftermath of 9/11 the onslaught against Afghanistan was understandable given the atrocious attacks on the World Trade Center and the strong links with the terror networks and training camps there, which explains the relatively weak resistance to the war by the international community. Afghanistan has been a NATO concern, but because other NATO countries are reluctant to make an endless commitment of troops to a large counterinsurgency operation, it is mainly U.K. troops that have taken this responsibility. Iraq, however, is a different story.

Iraq has turned into a major concern for the U.S., Britain and the world. Not only has it replaced Afghanistan as the main haven for al-Qaeda's violent jihad, it is the ultimate example of the aggressive invasion and lengthy occupation of a Muslim country. That this should have been by the U.S., Islam's biggest enemy, completes the outrage. The U.K.'s involvement has made it Islamic enemy number two. Iraq quickly became a self-sufficient recruiting machine for terror networks, as well as the training and battleground for brainwashed jihadis worldwide.

During the Afghan war, indefinite, secret detention at Guantanamo, without charge or the right to a trial, started turning Muslims everywhere against U.S. and U.K. foreign policy, showing our governments' bigotry against Muslims purely on the basis of their appearance, religion and location. The thousands of innocent Iraqis killed as "collateral damage" in the shock and awe bombing campaign continued to turn Muslims against the U.S. and U.K., as did all the atrocities committed by U.S. forces, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Fallujah, as well as who knows how many other smaller incidents.

The War on Terror has had some successes -- the U.S. Patriot Act abolished the bureaucratic prohibition on the sharing of intelligence among the various U.S. agencies at the front in the fight for homeland security. The removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan rid al-Qaeda of its state-based operational center, but the government installed by the U.S. has had to struggle against the warlords, and Taliban forces have reemerged. In Iraq, the defeat of Saddam Hussein by coalition forces rid the country and region of a vicious and cruel regime as well as eliminating a potential state sponsor of terrorism and a source of WMD. Continued instability, however, has made the country a breeding ground for extremism and anti-U.S./U.K. terrorism, as the recent report by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies showed.

The War on Terror has also led directly and indirectly to the capture or death of an estimated two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership, although its membership is estimated to have more than doubled from 20,000 in 2001 to the current 50,000. Little wonder then that the various countries involved in fighting the War on Terror alongside the U.S. have foiled some 15 serious terrorist attacks since 9/11. The War on Terror has also been successful in limiting the capabilities of al-Qaeda's leadership to communicate with its various cells and members around the world, so they can no longer safely use e-mail, mobile or satellite phones for fear of detection by the intelligence services; but they are still thought to be using anonymous internet chat rooms.

Despite these successes in the War on Terror there have been around 12 major terrorist attacks on Western interests, excluding attacks inside Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the defeat of the Taliban and U.S. control of Afghanistan removed al-Qaeda's central base of operations. Almost immediately after 9/11 al-Qaeda became famous in most of the Muslim world and notorious throughout the non-Muslim world. The ensuing war in Afghanistan, the arguably illegal detention of Muslims at Guantanamo, the arguably illegal invasion of Iraq and subsequent pattern of atrocities committed by U.S. forces not only made it easier for the terror networks to radicalize and recruit but created a new threat of "self generating" terror cells. These have been radicalized by current events and inspired by al-Qaeda but are not part of the central chain of command, which makes it harder for our intelligence services to protect us from the expanding threat.

Perhaps the recent fertilizer plot was an example of this new threat, maybe Omar Khyam was in some way connected to al-Qaeda central command, but Jawad Akbar was the man coming up with all the plots and ideas. As we know from experience, if it was an al-Qaeda cell the targets would have been predisposed and the attack fully planned when the cell was alerted.

Although the number of terrorist attacks around the world fell from 426 in 2000 to 355 in 2001 and to 205 attacks in 2002, the jihadist propaganda inspired by the invasion of Afghanistan, then Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and support for Israel against Lebanon etc., has brought about a constant rise in terrorist attacks ever since. This is displayed in the U.S. annual patterns of terrorism reports, the 2003 patterns of global terrorism report contains, in the statistics section, a bar graph of the number of attacks each year from 1982-2003, which shows the number of attacks rising to 208 in 2003.

The biggest factor in the rise in terrorism, however, has been the Iraq war, according to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) statistics for 2004 the number of attacks rose dramatically to 651, attacks in Iraq also rose to 198 from 22 in 2003. NCTC figures for 2005 show an even more dramatic rise to 11,114 attacks, but the center had changed the way attacks were counted, so comparisons couldn't be made to previous years. The only way I could create such a comparison was to look at how terrorism was measured in 2004, the 2004 chronology by the NCTC counted only significant attacks, i.e., one or more fatalities or above $10,000 damage, fatalities or not, in figures for 2005 all attacks were counted, but in the statistics section a graph shows that the number of attacks involving one or more fatalities was 2,884, with attacks killing between two and four people at 1,614 in 2005. I therefore deem the comparable total for 2005 to be somewhere between the two figures.

Therefore, as our forces are still involved in heavy fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and between the two war zones, fierce gun battles, allied and non-combatant deaths and terrorist attacks happening daily, the Afghan and Iraq invasions must surely be deemed mistakes in the fight against extremism in its current form for homeland and global security. Unfortunately, things are also going wrong at home.

Consider U.S. failures in the months before 9/11, when its intelligence agencies noted a surge in intercepted "chatter" about an impending al-Qaeda attack in the spring and summer of 2001. In July 2001, a Phoenix, AZ, FBI agent issued a memo warning of al-Qaeda operatives enrolled or enrolling in U.S. flight training schools, and in August 2001, Zacarias Massaoui was arrested at a Minneapolis flight school. He had been asking how to get into the cockpit of a 747, and his sole interest in learning to steer the plane after takeoff caught the attention of the flight trainers.

Cold-War budget cuts meant U.S. intelligence didn't have the translators or the staff to cope with the surge in "chatter", meaning it was largely just that, and for the same reason an antiquated computer system left FBI analysts unable to send e-mails or link up field reports, like the Phoenix memo and the details of Massaoui's arrest. Also, U.S. government rules prohibiting the sharing of information between criminal enquiries and counter-intelligence investigations meant that the CIA didn't tell the FBI for months that two terrorists were in the country, who, in hindsight, were two of the 19 hijackers. It is clear to me that a lack of resources played a part in 9/11, which became the catalyst for conflict as Bush went to war on Islamic terrorism, starting with Afghanistan and finishing -- no one knows when or where.

The Afghan war cost the U.S. government $18.1 billion in its first fiscal year (2001-02), according to CRS (Congressional Research Service) figures. The war went well in its infancy, as evident in the reduced cost for FY2003, lower by $1.1 billion. The Iraq war began at a cost of $51 billion in its first fiscal year. U.S. war spending on Afghanistan continued to drop in line with coalition success in the country, at $15.1 billion in FY 2004, while Iraq, costing $77.3 billion, began a continuous rise. In FY 2005, U.S. Iraq spending rose to $87.3 billion and, for the first time since the conflict started, the Afghan war costs rose to $18.1 billion. Costs of both wars continue to rise; in the latest figures released by the CRS for FY2006 Iraq cost the U.S. $100.4 billion and Afghanistan cost $19.9 billion.

U.K. forces have fought alongside the U.S. in both wars since they began. Funding for U.K.'s involvement in the War on Terror comes from the "special reserve," according to Iraq analysis, corroborated by The Times and The Guardian, this reserve has been constantly increasing since the initial £1 billion pledged in the pre-budget report for 2002. In the 2003 budget another £2 billion was secured for the special reserve to cover "the full costs of the U.K.'s military obligations" in Iraq. Another £800 million in the pre-budget report for 2004 released later in 2003 brought the total to £3.8 billion, which rose to £4.32 billion with the £520 million pledged in the pre-budget report in late 2004. Another £380 million was pledged in the 2005 budget, followed by £580 million in the pre-budget report for 2006 later in the year and a further £800 million in this year's budget, bringing the total to £6.44 billion. The Guardian reported in its coverage of U.K. war spending that Gordon Brown had pledged an additional £135 million for MI5 in late 2005. An announcement coming after 7/7, pledging a fraction of the money Iraq has cost, to the only people who had any chance of stopping them, can easily be seen as too little too late.

The U.K. government, like the U.S. government, is spending the biggest proportion of its defense budget on two foreign wars, both for homeland security, and like the U.S. all the while, mistakes are being made inside the U.K. in the same fight for homeland security.

Take the year before the atrocious attacks of the July 7, 2005. According to the ISC (Intelligence and Security Committee) report (p18 of 52) into those terrible attacks, also from The Guardian, Siddeque Khan and Shazad Tanweer, two of the London bombers attended meetings with others under investigation by our security services in 2004. MI5 didn't seek to investigate or identify them or several other unidentified men at the meetings, although it is believed this would have been possible had the decision been taken to do so. This is because the man under investigation was not himself an "essential target," and U.K. intelligence at the time suggested the men's focus was training and insurgency operations in Pakistan. July 7 then lead to the mistaken shooting by the MET of Jean Charles De Menezes, and finally the joint failure of the MET and MI5, which led to one of the biggest media storm fiascos in the U.K.'s war against extremism, the Forest Gate raid.

So, who can say whether the money being spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could have prevented these mistakes had it instead been funneled into U.K. police and intelligence agencies, but as a lack of resources was already a problem before 9/11, such high war costs can only have made things worse. The failure of MI5 to investigate two of the London bombers a year in advance was also put down to a lack of resources, and the many U.S. agencies that some senior military officials, like Gary Cheek, believe really hold the key to defeating terrorism also suffer from the same problem, so we can't help but connect this lack of resources where it matters, at home on both sides of the Atlantic, with the massive budget given to maintaining a war on two fronts, a war that after the early weeks began exacerbating the threat from global terrorism, while bearing a new "home-grown" or "self-generating" threat.

If our governments continue to take actions that unintentionally increase the risk, while the money spent on these actions weakens our defenses at home, one must wonder when the balance will be tipped in the terrorists' favor, if it hasn't been already.