Archives: Articles

It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld andhis pro-Israeli Neo-Conservative Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so.  Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda. But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, their Undersecretary of War Douglas Feith, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-Cons inhabiting the Bush Jr. administration.

These pro-Israeli Neo-Cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Hobbist/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in its Department of Political Science for many years. The best exposé of Strauss’s pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor of Political Philosophy Shadia B. Drury: The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999).I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago’s Political Science Department by Strauss’s foremost protégé, co-author, and later literary executor Joseph Cropsey.

Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago’s Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury’s devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process that has been inflicted by Chicago’s Straussian Neo-Con cabal.  Strauss was a protégé of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt, who justified every hideous atrocity that Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on anyone, including the Jews.  Chicago’s Neo-Cons are Neo-Nazis.

The University of Chicago routinely trained me and innumerable other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-Con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. Years later, the University of Chicago became the “brains” behind the Bush Jr.

Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the Neo-Con University of Chicago Law School in 1967. Many of his lawyers at the Bush Jr. Department of Injustice were members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, elitist, war-mongering, and totalitarian Federalist Society (A.K.A.:”Feddies”), which originated in part at the Neo-Con University of Chicago Law School. There Barack Obama would teach constitutional law.  Feddies wrote the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) I and the draft for USAPA II, which constitute the blueprints for establishing an American Police State.  Meanwhile, the Department of Injustice’s own F.B.I. is still covering up the U.S. governmental origins of the post 11 September 2001 anthrax attacks on Washington D.C. that enabled Ashcroft and his Feddies to stampede the U.S. Congress into passing USAPA I into law.

Integrally related to and overlapping with the Feddies are members of the University of Chicago Law School Movement of “Law-and-Kick-Them-in-the-Groin-Economics,” which in turn was founded upon the Market Fundamentalism of Milton Friedman, now retired but long-time Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Friedman and his “Chicago Boys” have raped, robbed, looted, plundered, and pillaged economies and their respective peoples all over the developing world, especially People of Color, and now here in the United States.  This Chicago gang of academic con-artists and charlatans are proponents of the Nazi Doctrine of “useless eaters” that was condemned by the Nuremberg Judgment (1946). Pursuant to Friedman’s philosophy of Market Fundamentalism, the “privatization” of Iraq and its Oil Industry are already underway for the primary benefit of the U.S. energy companies (e.g., Halliburton, formerly under Bush Jr.’s Vice President Dick Cheney) that had already interpenetrated the Bush Jr. administration as well as the Bush Family itself. Enron.

Although miseducated at Yale and Harvard Business School, the “Ivies” proved to be too liberal for Bush Jr. and his fundamentalist Christian supporters, whose pointman and spearcarrier in the Bush Jr. administration was Ashcroft, a Fundie himself. The Neo-Cons and the Fundies contracted an “unholy alliance” in support of Bush Jr.  For their own different reasons, both gangs also worked hand-in-hand to support Israel’s genocidal Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an internationally acknowledged war criminal.

According to his own public estimate and boast in a 26 February 2003 speech before the American Enterprise Institute (another front-organization for Straussian Neo-Cons), President Bush Jr. hired about 20 Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration, intentionally taking offices where they could push American foreign policy in favor of Israel and against its chosen enemies such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians.  Most of the Straussian Neo-Cons in the Bush Jr. administration and elsewhere were and still are Israel-firsters: What is “good” for Israel is by definition “good” for the United States. Dual loyalties indeed. These same principles hold true for the not-so-closet Neo-Cons in the Obama administration: e.g., Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, Elena Kagan, Dennis Ross, Cass Sunstein, etc.

In addition, it was the Chicago Straussian cabal of pro-Israeli Neo-Cons who set up a special “intelligence” unit within the Pentagon that was responsible for manufacturing many of the bald-faced lies, deceptions, half-truths, and sheer propaganda that the Bush Jr. administration then disseminated to the lap-dog U.S. news media in order to generate public support for a war of aggression against Iraq for the benefit of Israel and in order to steal Iraq’s oil.  To paraphrase advice Machiavelli once rendered to his Prince in Chapter XVIII of that book: Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.  As I can attest from my personal experience as an alumnus of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science, the Bible of Chicago’s Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli’s The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago.

As for the University of Chicago overall, its New Testament is Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (1987).  Of course Bloom was another protégé of Strauss (and thus the intellectual grandson of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt), as well as a mentor to Wolfowitz. In his Bloom-biographical novel Ravelstein (2000) Saul Bellow, longtime member of the University of Chicago Faculty, outed his self-styled friend Bloom as a hedonist, pederast, and most promiscuous homosexual who died of AIDS. All this was common knowledge at the University of Chicago, where Bloom was and is still worshiped on a pedestal and his elitist screed against democratic education in America still revered as gospel truth.

In Ravelstein Wolfowitz appeared as Bloom’s protégé Philip Gorman, leaking national security secrets to his mentor during the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Strauss hovered around the novel as Bloom’s mentor and guru Professor Davarr. Strauss/Davarr is really the eminence grise of Ravelstein. With friends like Bellow, Bloom did not need enemies. On the basis of Ravelstein alone, Wolfowitz warranted criminal investigation by the F.B.I.

Immediately after the Bush Jr. administration’s wanton aggression against Iraq, the University of Chicago chose the occasion to officially celebrate its Straussian Neo-Con cabal responsible therefore, highlighting Wolfowitz Ph.D. ’72, Ahmad Chalabi, Ph.D. ’69 (the CIA’s Iraqi puppet), Abram Shulsky, A.M. ’68, Ph.D. ’72 (head of the Pentagon’s special “intelligence” unit), Zalmay Khalilzad, Ph.D. ’79 (Bush Jr.’s roving pro-consul for Afghanistan and then Iraq), as well as faculty members Bellow, X ’39, and Bloom, A.B. ’49, A.M. ’53, Ph.D. ’55, together with Strauss. According to the  June 2003 University of Chicago Magazine, Bloom’s rant “helped popularize Straussian ideals of democracy.”  It is correct to assert that Bloom’s book helped to popularize Straussian “ideas,” but they were blatantly anti-democratic, Machiavellian, Hobbist, Nietzschean, and elitist to begin with. Only the University of Chicago would have the unmitigated Orwellian gall to publicly assert that Strauss and Bloom cared one whit about democracy, let alone comprehended the “ideals of democracy.”

Does anyone seriously believe that a pro-Israeli Chicago/Strauss/Bloom product such as Wolfowitz could care less about democracy in the United States let alone in Iraq?  Or for that matter anyone in the Bush Jr. administration? After they stole the 2000 presidential election from the American People in Florida and before the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom were/are Feddies? Justice Clarence Thomas is a Straussian to boot.  For eight years the Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists of the Bush Jr. administration did everything humanly possible to build an American Police State.  So far University of Chicago Constitutional Law Teacher President Barack Obama has failed and refused to deconstruct and dismantle their totalitarian handiwork. To the contrary, the Obama administration has defended and justified in court almost every hideous atrocity that the Bush Jr. administration perpetrated on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

At the behest of its Straussian Neo-Con Political Science Department, in 1979 the entire University of Chicago went out of its way to grant the “first Albert Pick Jr. Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Understanding” to Robert McNamara, who was personally responsible for exterminating 3 million Vietnamese and 58,000 men of my generation.  In other words, the University of Chicago itself maliciously strove to rehabilitate one of the greatest international war criminals in the post-World War II era.  History shall always record that the University of Chicago gratuitously honored Bob “Half-an-Eichmann” McNamara.

Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz and totalitarians like Ashcroft! The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool.  As J.D. Rockefeller, the Original Robber Baron and Funder of the University of Chicago once commented about his progeny:  “It’s the best investment I ever made.”  Still is.

Francis A. Boyle

Law Building

504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.

Champaign, IL 61820 USA

217-333-7954 (Voice)

217-244-1478 (Fax)

(personal comments only)

Yesterday the United States officially introduced their new Nuclear Doctrine. Tomorrow, on April 8, 2010, the long-awaited START III Treaty between Russia and the US is about to be signed in Prague, Czech Republic. On April 12-13 Pres. Obama will host the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. In other words, we can see a massive American anti-nuclear advance.

If we scrutinize the US policy for the last 100 years, we can hardly find a single evidence of sacrificial contribution of the American elites in favor of other nations or mankind as a whole. Can we presume that the political mindset of the US ruling class has changed since Pres. Obama took office last year? In case somebody still believes in it, we are just asking why for example the US is wasting enormous funds for the military preparation. Their expenses are far exceeding those of all other countries of the world summed up. Why does Washington militarize the Outer Space, enhance the deployment of non-nuclear strategic weapons, develop ABM shield and refit the most powerful strategic nuclear submarines of the ‘Ohio’ class to carry cruise missiles instead of ballistic? There are so many ‘whys’ and their sequence serves little to proof American peaceful intentions.

Leonid Ivashov is a Four-star General (rtd), former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. He is currently a vice-President of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Studies and holds Ph.D. in History.

The article was published in Russian at Strategic Culture Foundation web-site on April 7, 2010.

Translation: Oriental Review.

Leonid IVASHOV (Russia)

Wed, Apr 7, 2010

Nuclear Weapons, Third World War, USA, WMD

In early February of 2006, I submitted a book proposal about the wartime relationship between Generals George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower to a group of New York publishers. I had worked on the proposal for nine months and believed it would garner significant interest. Two weeks after the submission, I received my first response – from a senior editor at a major New York publishing firm. He was uncomfortable with the proposal: “Wasn’t Marshall an anti-Semite?” he asked. I’d heard this claim before, but I was still shocked by the question. For me, George Marshall was an icon: the one officer who, more than any other, was responsible for the American victory in World War Two. He was the most important soldier of his generation – and a man of great moral and physical courage.

That Marshall was an anti-Semite has been retailed regularly since 1948 – when it became known that he not only opposed the U.S. stance in favor of the partition of Palestine, but vehemently recommended that the U.S. not recognize the State of Israel that emerged. Harry Truman disagreed and Marshall and Truman clashed in a meeting in the Oval Office, on May 12, 1948. Truman relied on presidential adviser Clark Clifford to make the argument. Clifford faced Marshall: the U.S. had made a moral commitment to the world’s Jews that dated from Britain’s 1919 Balfour Declaration, he argued, and the U.S would be supported by Israel in the Middle East. The Holocaust had made Israel’s creation an imperative and, moreover, Israel would be a democracy. He then added: Jewish-Americans were an important voting bloc and would favor the decision.

Marshall exploded. “Mr. President,” he said, “I thought this meeting was called to consider an important, complicated problem in foreign policy. I don’t even know why Clifford is here.” Truman attempted to calm Marshall, whom he admired – but Marshall was not satisfied. “I do not think that politics should play any role in our decision,” he said. The meeting ended acrimoniously, though Truman attempted to placate Marshall by noting that he was “inclined” to side with him. That wasn’t true – the U.S. voted to recognize Israel and worked to support its emerging statehood. Marshall remained enraged.

When Marshall returned to the State Department from his meeting with Truman, he memorialized the meeting: “I remarked to the president that, speaking objectively, I could not help but think that suggestions made by Mr. Clifford were wrong. I thought that to adopt these suggestions would have precisely the opposite effect from that intended by him. The transparent dodge to win a few votes would not, in fact, achieve this purpose. The great dignity of the office of the president would be seriously damaged. The counsel offered by Mr. Clifford’s advice was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem confronting us was international. I stated bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice, and if I were to vote in the next election, I would vote against the president.” Put more simply, Marshall believed that Truman was sacrificing American security for American votes.

The Truman-Marshall argument over Israel has entered American lore – and been a subject of widespread historical controversy. Was Marshall’s opposition to recognition of Israel a reflection of his, and the American establishment’s, latent anti-Semitism? Or was it a credible reflection of U.S. military worries that the creation of Israel would engage America in a defense of the small country that would drain American resources and lives? In the years since, a gaggle of historians and politicians have weighed in with their own opinions, the most recent being Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Writing in The Washington Post on May 7, 2008, Holbrooke noted that “beneath the surface” of the Truman-Marshall controversy “lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple – oil, numbers and history.”

But that’s only a part of the story. In the period between the end of World War Two and Marshall’s meeting with Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued no less than sixteen (by my count) papers on the Palestine issue. The most important of these was issued on March 31, 1948 and entitled “Force Requirements for Palestine.”In that paper, the JCS predicted that “the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” The JCS speculated that these objectives included: initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine, acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration, the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine and the expansion of “Eretz Israel” into Transjordan and into portions of Lebanon and Syria. This was not the only time the JCS expressed this worry. In late 1947, the JCS had written that “A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East” to the point that “United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.” That is to say, the concern of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not with the security of Israel- but with the security of American lives.

In the wake of my March 13 article in these pages (‘The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story’) a storm of outrage greeted my claim that Israeli intransigence on the peace process could be costing American lives. One week after that article appeared, I called General Joe Hoar, a former CENTCOM commander and a friend. We talked about the article. “I don’t get it,” he said. “What’s the news here? Hasn’t this been said before?” If history is any guide, the answer is simple: it was said sixty years ago by one of America’s greatest soldiers. George Marshall wasn’t an anti-Semite. But he was prescient.

Mark Perry’s most recent book is Talking To Terrorists. He is also the author of Partners In Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace and Four Stars: The Inside Story of the Battle between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America’s Civilian Leaders.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Ever since the Balfour Declaration in 1917 gave the formal approval of the British government to the establishment of ‘a Jewish homeland’ profound issues of legitimacy were present in the conflict recently known as the Israel/Palestine Conflict. This original colonialist endorsement of the Zionist project has produced a steady erosion of the position of the Palestinian people on historic Palestine, which dramatically worsened over the course of the past 43 years of occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. It has worsened due to an oppressive military occupation by Israel that involves fundamental denials of rights and pervasive violations of international humanitarian law, and because Israel has been allowed to establish ‘facts on the ground,’ which are more properly viewed as violations of Palestinian rights, especially the establishment of extensive settlements and a separation wall constructed on occupied Palestinian territories in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These developments have been flagrantly unlawful, and made the whole treatment of the Palestinian people illegitimate, as well as the occasion of continuous intense and pervasive suffering. For decades, the Palestinian political forces have exercised their right of resistance in various ways, including the extraordinary nonviolent Intifada of 1987, but also engaging in armed resistance in defense of their territory. The Palestinians definitely enjoy a right of resistance, although subject to the limits of international humanitarian law, which rules out deliberate targeting of civilians and non-military targets. Such tactics of resistance challenge Israel at its point of maximum comparative advantage due both to its total military dominance, achieved in part by large subsidies from the United States, and to its ruthless disregard for civilian innocence.

In recent years, especially beginning with the brutal experience of the Lebanon War of 2006 and even more dramatically in the aftermath of the Israeli Invasion of Gaza in 2008-09 (Dec. 27, 2008-Jan. 18, 2009), there has been a notable change of emphasis in Palestinian strategy. The new strategy has been to initiate what might be described as a second war, ‘a legitimacy war,’ that is essentially based on the reliance on a variety of nonviolent tactics of resistance. Armed resistance has not been renounced by the Palestinians, but it has been displaced by this emphasis on nonviolent tactics. The essence of this legitimacy war is to cast doubt on several dimensions of Israeli legitimacy: its status as a moral and law abiding actor, as an occupying power in relation to the Palestinian people, and with respect to its willingness to respect the United Nations and abide by international law. Those that wage such a legitimacy war seek to seize the high moral ground in relation to the underlying conflict, and on this basis, gain support for a variety of coercive, but nonviolent, initiatives designed to put pressure on Israel, on governments throughout the world, and on the United Nations, to deny normal participatory rights to Israel as a member of international society. These tactics also aim to mobilize global civil society to exhibit solidarity with the Palestinian struggle to achieve legitimate rights, taking the principal form of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign (BDS) that operates throughout the entire world, which serves as a symbolic battlefield. But there are other forms of action, as well, including the Free Gaza Movement and Viva Palestina that aim specifically at symbolically breaking the blockade of food, medicine, and fuel imposed in mid-2007, a form of collective punishment that has caused great suffering for the entire 1.5 million population of the Gaza Strip, damaging the physical and mental health of all those living under occupation.

Although the UN has been a failure so far as offering protection (beyond its essential role in providing humanitarian relief in Gaza) to the Palestinians under occupations or even in relation to the implementation of Palestinian rights under international law, it is a vital site of struggle in the legitimacy war. The whole storm unleashed by the Goldstone Report involves challenging the UN to impose accountability on the Israeli political and military leadership for their alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the Gaza attacks at the end of 2008. Even if the United States shields Israelis from accountability pursuant to the procedures of the UN, including the International Criminal Court, the confirmation of allegations of criminality by the Goldstone Report is a major victory for the Palestinians in the legitimacy war, and lends credibility to calls for nonviolent initiatives throughout the world. The Goldstone Report also endorses ‘Universal Jurisdiction’ as a means to gain accountability, encouraging national criminal courts of any country to make use of their legal authority to hold Israeli political and military leaders criminally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Tzipi Livni, the current Kadima opposition leader in Israel, who had been Foreign Minister during the Gaza attacks, canceled a visit to Britain after she received word that a warrant for her arrest upon arrival had been issued. Even if Israeli impunity is not overcome, the authoritativeness of the Goldstone Report lends weight to calls around the world to disrupt normal relations with Israel by boycotting cultural and academic activities, by disrupting trade relations through divestment moves or through refusals to load and unload ships and planes carrying cargo to or from Israel, and by pressuring governments to impose economic sanctions.

The historic inspiration for this legitimacy war is the anti-apartheid campaign waged with such success against the racist regime that ruled South Africa during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Undoubtedly the Palestinian political motivation to focus their energies on waging a legitimacy war came from a variety of sources: disillusionment with efforts by the UN and the United States to find a just solution for the conflict; realization that armed resistance could not produce a Palestinian victory and played into the hands of Israeli diversionary tactics by making ‘terrorism’ the issue; recognizing that the events in Lebanon and Gaza generated throughout the world widespread anger against Israel and sympathy for the Palestinians, which is gradually weakening earlier European and North American deference to Israel due to Jewish victimization in the Holocaust; and a growing sense that the worldwide Palestinian diaspora communities and their allies could be enlisted to join in the struggle if its essential nature was that of a legitimacy war.

Israeli official and unofficial support groups have recently recognized the threat posed to their expansionist settler colonial grand strategy by this recourse by Palestinians to a legitimacy war. Israeli think tanks have described ‘the global justice movement’ associated with these tactics as a greater threat to Israel than Palestinian violence, and have even castigated reliance on international law as a dangerous form of ‘lawfare.’ The Israeli Government and Zionist organizations around the world have joined in the battle through a massive investment in public relations activities that include propaganda efforts to discredit what is sometimes called ‘the Durban approach.’ As with other Israeli tactics, in their defensive approach to the legitimacy war, there is an absence of self-criticism involving an assessment of Palestinian substantive claims under international law. For Israel a legitimacy war is a public relations issue pure and simple, a matter of discrediting the adversary and proclaiming national innocence and virtue. Despite its huge advantage in resources devoted to this campaign, Israel is definitely losing the legitimacy war.

Even if the Palestinians win the legitimacy war there is no guaranty that this victory will produce the desired political results. It requires Palestinian patience, resolve, leadership, and vision, as well as sufficient pressure to force a change of heart in Israel, and probably in Washington as well. In this instance, it would seem to require an Israeli willingness to abandon the core Zionist project to establish a Jewish state, and that does not appear likely from the vantage point of the present. But always the goals of a legitimacy war appear to be beyond reach until mysteriously attained by the abrupt and totally unexpected surrender by the losing side. Until it collapses the losing side pretends to be unmovable and invincible, a claim that is usually reinforced by police and military dominance. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and South Africa, earlier to French colonial rule in Indochina and Algeria, and to the United States in Vietnam. It is up to all of us dedicated to peace and justice to do all we can to help the Palestinians prevail in the legitimacy war and bring their long ordeal to an end.

Richard Falk

23 March 2010

Mr. Putin vowed vengeance. “A crime that is terrible in its consequences and heinous in its manner has been committed,” he said. “The terrorists will be destroyed.” (March 29, Monday)

G-8 Foreign Ministers Meeting: Foreign ministers of the leading industrial powers and Russia discussed nuclear non-proliferation and Iran, at a meeting near the Canadian capital, Ottawa. The ministers, preparing for the annual G8 summit in Canada in late June, are urging “strong steps” to curb Iran’s nuclear program. (March 30th, Tuesday)

U.S. President Barack Obama says he wants to see a tough new round of sanctions against Iran taken up by the UN Security Council “within weeks.” (March 31st, Wednesday)

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has warned that imposing new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program would be a very dangerous step. He suggested that new Iran sanctions might even lead to war. “We don’t want to repeat in Iran what happened in Iraq” (March 10, 2010)

 The Russians have been convulsed by a spate of three terror attacks targeting Moscow as well as the regions of Chechnya, Ingushetia & Dagestan. The immediate fallout has been a heightened phase of Islamophobia across the global airwaves.

It has also taken the focus away from the growing schisms within the US-Israeli tensions over the so-called ‘peace process’ with Palestine & Israel is busy as usual bombing Gaza, with Netanyahu venting his frustrations in a Freudian fit of rage.

During the same period, the G-8 Foreign Ministers Summit was being held in Canada, where the focus was on the threat of ‘International Terror’ & the ‘Iran Nuclear Programme’.

And remarkably now there is a growing consensus within the G-8 as well as China with regards to sanctions against Iran.

“China has agreed to sit down and begin serious negotiations here in New York… as a first step toward getting the entire UN Security Council on board with a tough sanctions regime against Iran,” Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the UN, told CNN (Wednesday, March 31).

The terror attacks seemed to have achieved their political & strategic objectives.

But firstly let us analyse the terror attack itself. The Moscow Subway terror occurred on the 29th of March, a very significant day, which is the eve of the “Palestine Land Day” & the “International Week for the Boycott of Apartheid Israel”. Last year on the 30th of March, there was a high profile terror attack on the Manavan Police station near Lahore in Pakistan, which captivated the International media & their audiences, thus successfully relegating the global “Boycott Israel” mobilization to the background.

Thus, firstly this attack has well has been timed to counter the growing worldwide ‘Israel Boycott Movement’. The strategic period & the timing of the terror attacks are a pointer to the powers behind the perpetrators.

And there are no coincidences in Politics!!

Soon after the terror attack, fingers of suspicion pointed towards terrorists from the ‘North Caucasus’ & Chechen terror groups were suspected. The attacks are believed to be the handiwork of two women suicide bombers of North Caucasian origin, called as the ‘Black Widows’. Someone as ridiculous as the ‘Russian Bin Laden’ also cropped up. More than a 100 false terror alerts were received, a suicide belt was ‘found’ near the FSB office (Federal Security Bureau, former KGB) & this continued to unsettle the Muscovites.

Soon the internet was raging with stories & animated chat room discussions of the possible hand of the CIA-Saudi Intel & the Mossad.

Thereafter, on the 31st of March Doku Umarov, who is supposedly the ‘Emir of the North Caucasus’, claimed responsibility for the attack.

There was also a denial by Shemsettin Batukaev, a spokesman for the ‘Caucasus Emirate’ organization who said that “We did not carry out the attack in Moscow, and we don’t know who did it. (Reuters)

On searching for the obvious & deep links that Chechen terrorists have with the CIA, one will find that Doku Umarov’s links to the CIA have been removed from the Internet!!

Shades of David Headley & Ken Haywood in India, I must add.

But fortunately Umarov’s links to the Saudis are even deeper!!

Doku Umarov was named amongst the most influential Muslims of the world in the 2009 list of 500 compiled by the Prince Al-Valid ben Talyalya American Centre of Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at the Georgetown University (USA).

Umarov is presented in the list as “the head of Ichkeria Caucasian Emirate”. The BBC adds that the title of the most influential Muslim of the world was awarded by the ACMCU, which is funded by the Prince Al-Valid ben Talyalya, to the King of Saudi Arabia. (Nov 28 2009).

The whereabouts of Mr. Umarov are not known & nobody seems to be asking the question. Is he in the Caucasus or in Riyadh or in Miami . . . ??

Doku Umarov is also very closely connected to Brigadier General Ruslan Saidov (head of the Istanbul Bureau of the External Agencies of the Republic of Ichkeria & the FAR WEST LTD, a front company based in Dubai). Ruslan Saidov was himself closely connected to the late Turki bin Faisal, who was the head of Saudi Intelligence & ambassador to the US. Saidov was also actively associated with al-Walid who was the Saudi intelligence operative in the Caucasus (Anton Baumgarten, editor of Left.ru).

Last September, Russian-backed Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov said that he had good reason to believe the US and Britain were covertly aiding the Chechen rebels: “We are fighting U.S. and British special services in the mountains.” (Reuters)

Further is the case of Rizvan Chitigov, the number three man in the Chechen insurgency. He was known as “the American”, because he had lived in the US for years & “Marine” because he is said to have been trained & graduated from an elite subversive and reconnaissance school and had signed on to the marine squad. According to the Moscow News, “Chitigov had a green card — a permanent residence permit in the U.S.”

The Russian government openly accused him of being a CIA agent. Aleksandr Zdanovich, head of Russia’s Federal Security Service Directorate for Cooperation Programmes, told “Russia Today”, “Rezvan Chitigov, who I have named and whose photo I have shown you from the computer, lived in the USA for a long time. There are very serious grounds for suspecting him to be a CIA agent.”

American & Saudi presence in the North Caucasus region, as well as the deep Israeli presence in Georgia & Turkmenistan, have a measure of great strategic depth, more than sufficient enough to cause a major upheaval or a crisis for Moscow, whenever the need arises for Washington DC, Tel Aviv, London or Riyadh.

Also do note the relationship between the now-exiled Russian Zionist Oligarchs, who in the Yeltsin Vodka days, pillaged & monopolised the Russian economy. It was Putin who challenged their vice like grip & rescued Russia. The Zionist Oligarchs have very deep ties with Israel, America & Western Europe & within, ties with the Russian Mafia. There is also a strong connection between the Chechen rebels & the Zionist Oligarchs. Boris Berezovsky, Oleg Deripaska, Leonid Nevzlin, Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Arkady Gaydamask, Vladimir Gusinsky, Seymour Kislin & Michael Chernoy amongst others comprise this Russian Jewish Zionist global cabal & each of them have an axe to grind with Vladimir Putin & they are united in his destruction.

To further understand the situation in greater detail, I decided to speak to Mr. Israel Shamir, a Russian Israeli & a prolific anti-Zionist writer, who fortunately for me happened to be in Moscow. I requested him to offer his assessment of the terror attack & the political fallout, to which he kindly agreed.

Mr. Israel Shamir stated that “the first strategic objective of the terror attack was to weaken Vladimir Putin, as he has been the pillar of the Russian nationalist revival & has successfully countered the Americans as well as neutralized the Israeli Zionist Lobby in Russia & across the region.”

He also stated that “the economic travails within Russia are leading to an anti-Putin mood amongst the people & the terror attacks will also strive to drive a wedge between President Putin & PM Medvedev, though the two continued to enjoy a strong friendship, but they were forces at work, that sought to break this bond & thus weaken Russia.”

The second objective, he further said “is to create an atmosphere of Islamophobia, thus pressurizing Russia to join the sanctions regime against Iran.”

But Mr. Israel Shamir stated that the Russian people are basically committed to the struggle against the hegemony of America, Israel & Western Europe, but yet he was concerned.

Interestingly, he said that the general discussion amongst the Russian people was the plausibility of the involvement of the CIA-MOSSAD-SAUDI INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES in the Moscow subway terror attack.

EXPOSING THE POLITICS OF TERROR

 Soon after the attack, Gordon Duff who is a very prolific writer & a Marine Vietnam Veteran, advocating the rights of 23 million veterans, made the following three points.1) The Article was titled: Terrorism, Always Suspect A False Flag First. 2) “Who benefits from today’s attack on Moscow?” 3) “Intelligence agencies are, in actuality, the biggest terrorist organizations in the world.”

 Certain excerpts are reproduced below:

“An educated guess is that 75% of terrorist attacks we hear of were staged, never happened or were done by “radical groups” that were first infiltrated, then controlled and eventually financed and supplied by intelligence agencies. Intelligence agencies are, in actuality, the biggest terrorist organizations in the world. The CIA has blown up more buses, airplanes and markets than any almost anyone else. The Mossad may be number one, followed by, well, everyone, the RAW, ISI, MI-6, IRA and dozens of others.”

“We now use terms like “Low Intensity Conflict” and “Surrogacy Warfare” to describe terrorism operated by governments against either foreign governments or, more often, their own people. Most “false flag” attacks are used to influence elections or to push through “Patriot Act” and “FISA” type legislation or to justify acts like the invasion of Iraq. Control of both the press and any potential investigation makes such operations a mainstream effort of national policy, so commonplace that those who work in intelligence or at the highest levels of law enforcement automatically write off major terrorism incidents as staged.”

“The primary groundwork for terrorism is control of the press and the molding of public opinion. With foreign governments with highly suspect intelligence agencies infiltrating the press, as they have in the United States, there is little doubt that providing cover for “false flag” terrorism is in the cards.”

And I might add that the above statements hold true for India, as they would for practically the overwhelming number of nations across the world.

 TARGET IRAN

 Undoubtedly the greatest strategic target is the neutralization or the destruction of Iran, with the attendant ‘Regime Change’ & this is the shared objective of the USA, Israel, Western Europe & Saudi Arabia.

The reasons are primarily two-fold.

 1) Israel’s expansionist & hegemonic designs, which include the total ethnic cleansing of all of the Palestinian population from all of historic Palestine &

2) Iran’s Natural Gas Resources, which are a threat to the existing international energy architecture.

 As for the first point, the total transfer of the Palestinian population to Jordan has been a stated objective of all the dominant political, military & religious leadership across the spectrum within Israel, as well as within the rabid Zionist diaspora. It is clear that they cannot achieve this objective as the Israeli military could not defeat the Hezbollah (2006) or even the Hamas (2008-09). The Israeli’s have realised & rightly so, that the only major stumbling block, or rather nation that stands between them & their diabolical objectives is Iran & thus the Iranophobia that is being sought to be created.

For Israel to achieve this objective, they will have to drag in America into the war, which they successfully achieved in the case of Iraq.

Israel has not only neutralized the other major Arab powers in the region, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Jordan are clearly part of the Israel-US alliance.

Israel’s deeds over the last few years have made their objectives very clear. The ever increasing Settlements in East Jerusalem & the West Bank, the continued inhuman blockade & bombing of Gaza & the very threat to the Masjid-i-Aqsa & the Dome of the Rock have clearly indicated the Israeli gameplan. Netanyahu’s oft repeated claims about Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Eretz Israel leave no doubts in the minds of billions of people across the world.

In this objective, Israels’ allies are the Neoconservatives & Christian Zionists within both the Democratic & the Republican parties, as well as within the Military-Intelligence apparatus. The Israeli Zionist Lobby & their myriad organizations cajole & pressurize the Senate & the Congress to support Israel, even over the interests of the USA.

Though that may be slightly cracking. This is mainly due to the resolute resistance of the nations occupied by the USraeli-Nato forces & the both the military losses faced by the American military & the resultant financial drain are weakening the US politically & strategically. US is clearly a superpower on the decline.

The rise of Iran is also the revival of Nationalism in the region & the spread of democracy, which is a clear threat to the existing monarchies & dictatorships. In other words, it is the entire culture of Resistance & National Self-Respect, due to which the Muslim & Arab masses, as well as the rest of the Third World look upon Iran with admiration & hope.

 The second core issue is the politics of Energy & the Pipelines.

Here again Iran is emerging as the centre of the future energy market, both in terms of the incredible reserves that it holds, as well as for it’s very geographic location. Natural Gas is progressively replacing Crude Oil as the energy of the present & near future, both for Industrial & Public needs. Natural Gas is more cleaner, cheaper & has a higher calorific value.

 According to Finian Cunningham, within the Middle East, Iran is the undisputed top holder of Gas Reserves. It’s South Pars Gas field is the world’s largest & would dwarf the reserves of the Saudi Ghawar Oil-field. Soon he says “Iran will replace Saudi Arabia as the world’s beating heart for energy.”

Iran will become the major supplier to Europe via the Nabucco pipeline, which will include Turkey, as well at to China via the CIS countries & to India, either via Pakistan or by a direct pipeline across the sea. Both Qatar & the UAE will export their Natural Gas via these pipelines.

Thus Iran becomes the centre, both as the dominant global supplier & the central node for the pipelines.

Currently the Chinese are developing the South Pars fields & will be the largest consumer of Iranian Gas.The Russians who have a monopoly over their Gas supplies to Europe are a bit worried as well. We all know that it is the Russians who are the major providers of nuclear & military hardware & technology to Iran. It is obvious that both the Russians & the Chinese have great economic & strategic stakes in standing with Iran & keeping the US & NATO at bay, but only time will tell. Thus the US fears & rightly so that it will continue to play a diminishing role in the years & decades to come. The Saudis are a mite terrified. Israel is extremely anxious & impatient, just waiting to push the button & usher in Armageddon to the glee of it’s maniacal Judeophobic Christian Zionist supporters, who are committed to the belief that requires the genocide of untold millions, if not billions, so that their Messiah will come & rescue a world destroyed by an “Apocalyptic Nuclear War”. Unbelievable, but true!

 THE ENCIRCLEMENT OF IRAN

 Iran stand encircled on all sides with 32 US bases stationed across the region in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan & Kyrgyzstan. The US military buildup is an ongoing process. Israel is conducting aerial sorties as practice runs that will target the Iranian Nuclear reactors. They are conducting these exercises in Arab airspace & I believe that both Saudi Arabia & Jordan will provide them the permission for the aerial route. Mubarak’s Egypt has allowed an Israeli Dolphin submarine to make it’s way up the Suez Canal.

The “Grand Chessboard” is ready, all the pieces are in place, Mr. Brzezinski.

The American-Israeli sanctions regime will be two-fold. One which will include the consensus at the UNSC & whereby China & Russia will ensure that the sanctions will be specific to the Nuclear issue. But this for the US is important to build international support & isolate Iran. A second sanctions regime that is currently underway will include the dominant Western powers & their cronies & attempt to cripple & thus weaken Iran, prior to the impending war on Iran.

As soon as Iran is attacked & the ‘USRael’ have identified more than 10,000 targets that include the nuclear, industrial & military-strategic locations to be hit within the span of a few hours.

Iran will promptly respond & firstly block the Strait of Hormuz through which flows 40% of the world’s crude supplies. This will send the prices rocketing, crippling the world economy. It too will attack all the US bases across the region with it’s short & long range missiles. It’s allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Hamas & the rest of the Palestinian Resistance, Syria & the increasing probabilities of Turkey, will join the war against the US-Israel-Nato forces.

Both the American & Israeli political leadership have publicly threatened Iran with the use of Nuclear weapons, which they will use.

In short WW III !!!

 The other Asian, African & South American nations too must stand as one. The people of Europe & America too must rise up against the fascists mass murderers that control their nations.

The region & the world are preparing for this eventuality. The response of Iran & her allies will prove catastrophic to the US-Israel Imperial forces & will sound the death knell of the Empire.

The next two years are critical to the very fate & existence of humanity & the world as we have ‘known’ it.

  By Feroze Mithiborwala

02 April, 2010

Countercurrents.org

(I)

For almost half a century – since the end of World War II – the world lived in the fear of a devastating nuclear war. After this threat had receded with the end of the Cold War, brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union, mankind got only a short reprieve of roughly a decade before our minds were again consumed by an all-pervasive fear – in that case of a large invisible enemy by the name of “terrorism.”

Since the fateful events of the year 2001 in the United States, a “global war on terror” has been proclaimed by that country’s administration, with the “international community” – in actual fact the group of states aligned, in one way or the other, with the U.S. – following suit, albeit reluctantly and with much hesitation. While it is obvious that the term “war” is used in this phrase in a metaphorical sense, this development has reintroduced into international affairs an essentially Manichaean worldview according to which mankind is divided into good and evil – with no intermediate ground. This dichotomy does not only apply to states, but to peoples, civilizations, and religions alike.

The decisive events of this “war,” so far, namely the armed interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, have made obvious the extreme fragility of the international rule of law in the face of what is presented as an almost metaphysical danger: “international terrorism.” These all-out military confrontations will also have made us aware, by now, that a mythical, vaguely defined global “war on terror” – as an effort at eradicating forces that are perceived or determined as evil – may never end; to the contrary, it will itself become part of a global cycle of violence. It is against this background that the new U.S. administration has begun to cautiously distance itself from the doctrine as well as the term, suggesting that it be replaced by the more neutral and less ambitious phrase “Global Contingency Operation.” However, no unified stand has been taken on the issue so far, and the term continues to be used by officials of the U.S. administration, especially the military establishment.

Because of the vagueness of its goals, the lack of precision of the very notion of “terrorism,” and the discretionary dilemma inherent in any preventive use of force, this war will eventually become a self-defeating undertaking – unless it is made part of a comprehensive and truly universal (i.e. global) political effort, comprising a large majority of United Nations member states and not only the allies of the hegemonic power of the moment. Such a strategy will have to be aimed at eradicating the root causes of terrorist violence such as poverty, exploitation, and other forms of economic and social injustice, foreign occupation, denial of self-determination, etc.

If considerations of justice are excluded, the “global war on terror” will become a campaign of global revenge, a development that will ultimately bring about a multiplication of the terrorist threat in virtually all corners of the globe.

Only if terrorism is also understood as a form of reactive violence, and if one is prepared to undertake the intellectual effort at analyzing its specific causes, will one understand that further reactive violence – in the form of a global war on terror – can merely deal with the symptoms of the underlying conflict(s) and, in many circumstances, may even aggravate the situation. The course of events in Afghanistan is a drastic example of this dilemma: Seven and a half years into the conflict, the foreign armies are still fighting a largely invisible enemy and are losing control over ever larger parts of the territory – with first a British commander, then the President of the United States admitting that this may be a war that cannot be won militarily and, thus, hinting at the urgent need for a political approach.

(II)

This dilemma between an exclusively military and a more comprehensive political approach directly brings in the human rights dimension not only of terrorist violence, but also of counter-terrorism (in the form of the “global war on terror”) – and in different respects and at different levels:

1. In the first place, terrorist violence is often (though not always) a kind of reactive violence, namely a reaction to perceived violations of basic human rights (such as foreign occupation, oppression of civil liberties, denial of self-determination, etc.). It is to be stated that acknowledging this causal relationship does in no way mean condoning specific acts of terrorism. Politically motivated acts of violence against civilians – which is a kind of operative definition of terrorism accepted by international consensus – cannot be justified under any circumstances. Nonetheless, refusing to acknowledge the specific motives behind terrorist acts will make us incapable to respond rationally and to develop a comprehensive, effective and sustainable counter-terrorist strategy. Such a “rejectionist” attitude would also make us victims of a desire for blind revenge and would make of the supposedly reactive use of force which many describe as “global war” a battle against windmills – since this war would only target symptoms, not the causes of terrorist violence (about which the strategy is ignorant in such a scenario).
2. By definition, acts of terrorism are always a negation of the most basic human rights. Using violence against non-military targets to instill fear upon people is not only intrinsically evil in general moral terms; it is tantamount to violating the very rights that are derived from the inalienable dignity of the human being. Those rights are enshrined in the respective international covenants and in domestic constitutions; they include, first and foremost, the right to life; the right to live free from fear and intimidation; the right to form one’s political opinion free from manipulation and in an open public discourse – and not as a result of “blackmail” in the form of politically motivated violence; etc. It is to be emphasized, in this context, that no double standards must be allowed in the use of the term “terrorism” insofar as the negation of fundamental human rights is concerned: Acts of terrorism are a negation of the dignity of the human person and a denial of human rights independently of their motives and irrespective of whether they are committed by individuals, loosely organized groups, large and well-disciplined organizations, or regular armed forces; furthermore, the human rights aspect also relates to all acts of state terrorism.
3. Since the global war on terror was effectively proclaimed towards the end of the year 2001, the international public has increasingly become aware of a third human rights aspect related to terrorism and to the spiral of violence in which the perpetrators of this war may get entangled: The measures against terrorism, whether undertaken as part of a “global war” or within a domestic political and legal framework, must not themselves violate human rights. International humanitarian law applies in all such situations. To counter acts that negate human rights – namely acts of terrorism – by means of further violations of human rights is not only a self-contradictory undertaking, but will completely undermine the credibility of the anti-terrorist effort and may stir up even more terrorist violence – because such lawless counter-terrorist measures will create a sense of desperation and humiliation among those brutally treated. Since the fourth quarter of the year 2001, the examples of systematic human rights violations, committed as part of a global anti-terrorist campaign abound. Torture as a standard element of interrogation techniques; detention without trial; so-called “secret renditions” of terror suspects; their detention in secret prisons all around the globe; the denial of an accused person’s right to a defense of his own choosing in a court of law, etc.: all these practices constitute serious violations of human rights – that have already been widely and controversially discussed in connection with the ongoing global discourse on the war on terror – and may eventually turn a proclaimed and all-encompassing anti-terrorist effort into a “terrorism-generating” campaign. What is portrayed as necessary and unavoidable measures to fight terrorism may itself become a self-defeating strategy, bearing the hallmarks of (state) terrorism.

The risks and pitfalls of such tactics, not to speak of their immoral and technically illegal nature, have become more than evident in the anti-Western hatred triggered by the appalling human rights violations in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Furthermore, a Swiss member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has documented many of the human rights violations committed not only by the United States, but also by European Union member states as the former’s accomplices, as part of the “global war on terror,” especially as regards the secret “renditions” of terror suspects.

It is to be hoped that the incumbent President of the United States will make good on his electoral promises and not only revise, but reverse, the doctrine and policies that have been behind those measures, and that he will, without any further delay, close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay on the island of Cuba and annul his predecessor’s order by which so-called “military commissions” have been established to try terror suspects. The procedures laid out in this order are in clear and open violation of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention of 1949).

It cannot be emphasized often enough: the moral high ground will inevitably be lost – and with devastating consequences for a country’s international reputation – if a war against terror is conducted through measures that include systematic human rights violations. Such a war will not be perceived as an exercise of legitimate self-defense, but will more resemble a campaign of outright revenge, fuelling a never-ending cycle of terrorist violence. The proclamations about a “terrorist threat” and the need to counter it by preventive measures may thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As aptly stated by a young American officer in an analysis of the United States’ anti-terrorist campaign: “mortgaging the principles established by the nation’s founders in the pursuit of short term gains will result in a series of successful battles, followed by a lost war.”

It is further to be hoped that, in the not too distant future, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be in a position to exercise jurisdiction over all cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity – whether those are committed as part of terrorist or counter-terrorist campaigns. At present, the hands of the Court are tied because many of the countries whose citizens were – or still are – involved in or are suspects of the commission of such crimes have not become parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC, first and foremost among them the United States. For the Court to wait for “political” referrals of situations by the Security Council – as in the case of Sudan – cannot be an option. Many of the human rights violations that are being committed in the course of the global war on terror constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute or in other international legal instruments such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Those governments that pursue the “global war on terror” – in whichever strategic or tactical framework – should not further try to prevent the International Criminal Court from executing its universal mandate. If they continue to do so they document, by such obstruction, that they do not take seriously international human rights standards and the rule of law – and they will finally defeat their own anti-terrorist campaign because they will de-legitimize it in the eyes of the international public. As the new global discourse on secret renditions, detention in secret prisons, systematic use of torture as part of routine interrogation techniques, etc., has amply demonstrated, the citizens of the world will simply not tolerate such illegal methods any longer.

(III)

Not only for tactical, but for essentially ethical reasons, it is of utmost importance that the war against terror be conducted in a manner that respects the inalienable human rights not only of the population – the citizens to be protected –, but also of terror suspects. The principles and values of a democratic polity do, under no circumstances, allow the erection of an effectively totalitarian system under the disguise of emergency measures supposedly necessitated by the fight against terror.

In order to minimize the need for measures due to which those rights might be violated, the human rights policy governing a state’s reaction to a terrorist threat must be complemented by a proactive human rights strategy – domestically and at the international level. If human rights are indeed taken seriously, a kind of reverse strategy has to be adopted in the definition of the scope of the “global war on terror.” The development of such a strategy will be an element of preventive self-defense in the genuine sense – unlike the forms of preemption that have been defined as the rationale of the ongoing war on terror in ever more theaters of operation.

A “battle” – if we may use the term in a metaphorical sense – will have to be waged for the safeguarding, or restoration, of human rights in a comprehensive and all-encompassing sense, including civil and political, social, economic and cultural rights, on all continents. However, such an effort will not succeed as a unilateral undertaking; it will have to be part of a long-term global development policy in a multilateral framework such as that of the United Nations or regional organizations like the European Union or ASEAN. Only this kind of strategy will produce sustainable results – through the eradication of the root causes of terrorism (which we have identified under category 1 above in the analysis of the human rights dimension of terrorist violence). The ongoing global economic crisis and its impact on the developing countries should serve as a stark reminder of what is at stake.

A global “war” – if we may again use the term in a metaphorical sense – against poverty and all forms of injustice will ultimately make a hot “global war on terror” obsolete. In any way, short-term military measures against violence can never replace a comprehensive long-term strategy.

If the “global war on terror” is only fought in the form of a reactive use of force that ignores the human rights implications in the three different dimensions we have outlined above, and if it exclusively remains in the military domain, such tactics may well lead to a perpetual confrontation that will condemn mankind to live in a state of constant fear – and that will ultimately undermine the very foundations of human rights on which a legitimate global order, the “international rule of law,” is to be built. David Miliband, Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, has aptly expressed the fundamental challenge: countries must respond to terrorism by “championing the rule of law, not subordinating it.”

As explained more than two centuries ago by Immanuel Kant, there can be no lasting peace without respect for human rights and the rule of law, and there will be no end to the terrorist threat, indeed to the cycle of violence triggered by the sequence of terrorist and counter-terrorist operations, unless the global war on terror is superseded by a genuine global and multidimensional effort for the enforcement of human rights.

This – and not the mere technicalities of the use of military force – is the historical challenge which the human race is faced with at a junction of history where it is not yet clear whether the absence of a balance of power will lead to a state of global anarchy – with the never-ending fear of terror as basic ingredient – or to the gradual emergence of a multipolar order that is founded on the principle of sovereign equality of states and peoples alike and, by implication, on the universal respect of human rights.

Those states and leaders who are seriously concerned about the threat of terrorism – and whose agenda goes beyond the realm of propaganda, short-term domestic political considerations, and a desperate defense of doomed imperial rule – will certainly take into consideration the second option; they shall engage in a proactive human rights policy that will make the first possibility (namely a state of global anarchy) a little less likely.

By Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans Köchler

21^st May 2009

I.P.O. Online Publications

Jakarta – It is undoubtedly exotic in its looks, but to the naive passerby the only thing that may seem truly extraordinary about this building in Palembang, the capital city of the Indonesian province South Sumatra, is its colourful architecture. The structure, which resembles a temple, is painted in deep red and pink and topped off with a jade green dome. Two towers in the shape of a five-tiered pagoda flank the sides, complete with Chinese-style touches on their roofs.

However, closer inspection reveals a crescent moon and star perched atop its dome. This is not a Chinese temple, but the Muhammad Cheng Ho Mosque. 

A synthesis of Chinese culture and Islam, the mosque would not have been possible under Suharto’s New Order era, in which funding and power of the Indonesian state were greatly expanded to maintain domestic order. Under Suharto, the expression of Chinese culture in any form was considered a threat to national identity, and thus repressed.

With the change of power in 1998, a number of discriminatory laws against ethnic Chinese were abolished, and since then Indonesia has seen a gradual and steady revival of Chinese culture. For many, it was a process of self-discovery and healing as the Chinese population was able to once again openly embrace its ethnicity.

Other attempts have also been made to revive Chinese identities. The building of the similarly named Muhammad Cheng Hoo Mosque in Surabaya in 2002 is one of the best examples of this revival. The mosque is near the city centre and its design is strongly influenced by the Chinese style in stark contrast to its Javanese surroundings. Palembang’s Cheng Ho Mosque, built in 2006, was inspired by the design of this mosque.

The mosque is named after Cheng Ho, commonly known as Zheng He, a 15th century Chinese admiral who is said to have helped spread Islam in Indonesia. According to a local historian, Cheng Ho visited Palembang four times between 1405 and 1433 to destroy a crew of pirates.

When I arrived in the city, I asked the driver about the Cheng Ho Mosque and he was surprised to learn that there was a mosque in the area with a Chinese name.

A local graduate student at Sriwijaya University who accompanied me during my visit also told me that she had never heard about the mosque. Though she frequents the area, she always thought that the twin minarets belonged to a Chinese temple. She is not alone: many people assume the same.

The Cheng Ho Mosque has a unique architectural design, combining elements of Palembang local culture with Chinese and Arabic nuances. Built on 5,000 square meters of land, the mosque is situated inside a middle-class housing complex. The minarets at both sides of the mosque mimic Chinese pagodas, painted in red and jade green.

The two-story mosque has been open since August 2008. There is no physical barrier separating the men and women at the mosque, so the men pray on the first floor and the women on the second. The mosque will eventually have a small house for the imam, an office, a library and a multipurpose room.

The Cheng Ho Mosque is more than a place of worship. It hosts both religious and social activities and has become a tourist destination of sorts, attracting visitors from Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and even Russia. In fact, when I arrived at the mosque, it was filled with dozens of junior high school students celebrating the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. They listened to the recitation of the Qur’an and were taught a religious lesson.

The Cheng Ho Mosque demonstrates that there is room in Indonesia for inhabitants to express their unique identity – a blend of Chinese culture and tradition and Islam within a local Indonesian context.

* Evi Nurvidya Arifin is Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from The Jakarta Globe.

by Evi Nurvidya Arifin,   13 May 2010

World renowned author and activist Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor, took out full page ads in major American newspapers to express his views on the city of Jerusalem. Here are his words as published in The International Herald Tribune, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal on April 16, 2010 and in The New York Times on April 18, 2010:

It was inevitable: Jerusalem once again is at the center of political debates and international storms. New and old tensions surface at a disturbing pace. Seventeen times destroyed and seventeen times rebuilt, it is still in the middle of diplomatic confrontations that could lead to armed conflict. Neither Athens nor Rome has aroused that many passions.

For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics. It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture — and not a single time in the Koran. Its presence in Jewish history is overwhelming. There is no more moving prayer in Jewish history than the one expressing our yearning to return to Jerusalem. To many theologians, it IS Jewish history, to many poets, a source of inspiration. It belongs to the Jewish people and is much more than a city; it is what binds one Jew to another in a way that remains hard to explain. When a Jew visits Jerusalem for the first time, it is not the first time; it is a homecoming. The first song I heard was my mother’s lullaby about and for Jerusalem. Its sadness and its joy are part of our collective memory.

Since King David took Jerusalem as his capital, Jews have dwelled inside its walls with only two interruptions; when Roman invaders forbade them access to the city and again, when under Jordanian occupation, Jews, regardless of nationality, were refused entry into the old Jewish quarter to meditate and pray at the Wall, the last vestige of Solomon’s temple. It is important to remember: had Jordan not joined Egypt and Syria in the war against Israel, the old city of Jerusalem would still be Arab. Clearly, while Jews were ready to die for Jerusalem they would not kill for Jerusalem.

Today, for the first time in history, Jews, Christians and Muslims all may freely worship at their shrines. And, contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city. The anguish over Jerusalem is not about real estate but about memory.

What is the solution? Pressure will not produce a solution. Is there a solution? There must be, there will be. Why tackle the most complex and sensitive problem prematurely? Why not first take steps which will allow the Israeli and Palestinian communities to find ways to live together in an atmosphere of security. Why not leave the most difficult, the most sensitive issue, for such a time?

Jerusalem must remain the world’s Jewish spiritual capital, not a symbol of anguish and bitterness, but a symbol of trust and hope. As the Hasidic master Rebbe Nahman of Bratslav said, “Everything in this world has a heart; the heart itself has its own heart.”

Jerusalem is the heart of our heart, the soul of our soul.

-Elie Wiesel-

(IsraelNationalNews.com)

by Arutz Sheva

17^th April 2010

An extraordinary row has broken out between Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, author and Nobel peace prize winner, and a group of Jewish residents of Jerusalem over who speaks for the future of the disputed city.

Wiesel prompted the argument with an open letter to Barrack Obama appealing for him not to “politicise” differences over Jerusalem by pressing Israel to stop Jewish settlement construction there. In a reflection of the divisions that sometimes exist between Jews who live in the city and those who idealise it from afar, 100 Jewish residents have responded with their own open letter expressing “outrage” at Wiesel’s call, and accusing him of sentimentality and falsely claiming that there is no discrimination against Jerusalem’s Arab population.

Wiesel, who lives in the US, made the appeal to Obama in adverts in American newspapers last month.

“For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics,” he wrote. “It belongs to the Jewish people and is much more than a city; it is what binds one Jew to another in a way that remains hard to explain. When a Jew visits Jerusalem for the first time, it is not the first time; it is a homecoming. The first song I heard was my mother’s lullaby about and for Jerusalem. Its sadness and its joy are part of our collective memory.” He went on to appeal to Obama not to press Israel on the issue of Jerusalem.

“Pressure will not produce a solution. Is there a solution? There must be, there will be. Why tackle the most complex and sensitive problem prematurely?” he asked. “Jerusalem must remain the world’s Jewish spiritual capital, not a symbol of anguish and bitterness, but a symbol of trust and hope.”

The 100 Jewish Jerusalemites, who include academics and political activists, responded in a letter in the New York Review of Books this week that expressed “frustration, even outrage” at Wiesel’s claims and at being “sacrificed for the fantasies of those who love our city from afar”.

“We cannot recognise our city in the sentimental abstraction you call by its name,” they wrote. “Your Jerusalem is an ideal, an object of prayers and a bearer of the collective memory of a people whose members actually bear many individual memories. Our Jerusalem is populated with people, young and old, women and men, who wish their city to be a symbol of dignity – not of hubris, inequality and discrimination. You speak of the celestial Jerusalem; we live in the earthly one.”

The writers accused Wiesel of being blind to history and the realities of life in Jerusalem today, including systematic discrimination against the Arab population and the efforts of “crafty politicians and sentimental populists” frantically trying to Judaize the Arab areas of the city “in order to transform its geopolitics beyond recognition”.

“Your claim that Jerusalem is above politics is doubly outrageous. First, because contemporary Jerusalem was created by a political decision and politics alone keeps it formally unified. The tortuous municipal boundaries of today’s Jerusalem were drawn by Israeli generals and politicians shortly after the 1967 war,” they wrote.

The writers added that by grabbing Palestinian land and villages and incorporating them into a greatly expanded Jerusalem, the Israeli government created “an unwieldy behemoth” larger than Paris.

“Now they call this artificial fabrication ‘Jerusalem’ in order to obviate any approaching chance for peace,” they said. The writers tartly noted that Wiesel chooses not to live in the city he claims such attachment to.

“We prefer the hardship of realizing citizenship in this city to the convenience of merely yearning for it,” they said.

Last month, a former Israeli cabinet minister, Yossi Sarid, responded to Wiesel with an open letter in which he said the author had been “deceived” into believing that all the city’s residents live freely and equally. He took Wiesel to task for claiming that Arabs were free to build anywhere in Jerusalem. The city’s Arab residents face routine obstacles to obtaining planning permission to build in the east and almost never receive authorisation for the west. “Not only may an Arab not build ‘anywhere’, but he may thank his God if he is not evicted from his home and thrown out on to the street with his family and property,” Sarid wrote.

He pointed to Arabs forcibly removed to make way for Jews.

“Those same zealous Jews insist on inserting themselves like so many bones in the throats of Arab neighbourhoods, purifying and Judaizing them with the help of rich American benefactors, several of whom you may know personally,” Sarid wrote. “Barrack Obama appears well aware of his obligations to try to resolve the world’s ills, particularly ours here. Why then undercut him and tie his hands?”

Extract from open letter to Obama from Elie Wiesel

“For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics. It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture – and not a single time in the Koran. Its presence in Jewish history is overwhelming.

“Today, for the first time in history, Jews, Christians and Muslims all may freely worship at their shrines. And, contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city. The anguish over Jerusalem is not about real estate but about memory.”

Extract from open letter from 100 Jewish Jerusalemites to Wiesel

“Your letter troubles us, not simply because it is replete with factual errors and false representations, but because it upholds an attachment to some other-worldly city which purports to supersede the interests of those who live in the this-worldly one.

“We invite you to our city to view with your own eyes the catastrophic effects of the frenzy of construction. You will witness that, contrary to some media reports, Arabs are not allowed to build their homes anywhere in Jerusalem. You will see the gross inequality in allocation of municipal resources and services between east and west.”

by Chris McGreal in Washington

12 May 2010

guardian.co.uk

In a recent public letter to President Obama, Elie Wiesel urged the President not to “pressure” Israel to cease settlement activity in Jerusalem. According to Wiesel:

For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics. It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture—and not a single time in the Koran. Its presence in Jewish history is overwhelming…. To many theologians, it IS Jewish history…. It belongs to the Jewish people and is much more than a city; it is what binds one Jew to another in a way that remains hard to explain. When a Jew visits Jerusalem for the first time, it is not the first time; it is a homecoming…. Contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city. The anguish over Jerusalem is not about real estate but about memory.

The views expressed by Wiesel are not shared by a growing movement of Israelis who oppose the continued expansion of settlements and who have been protesting the eviction by the Israeli government of Palestinian residents of the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. These Israelis have responded to Mr. Wiesel in the following letter. Among the one hundred signers are Israel Prize Laureates Avishai Margalit and Zeev Sternhell, former Knesset Speaker and Jewish Agency Chairman Avrum Burg, Professors David Shulman and Moshe Halbertal, former Knesset member Zehava Galan, and other Jerusalemites, many of whom are prominent intellectuals and academics.[1]

—Avner Inbar and Assaf Sharon

Dear Mr. Wiesel:

We write to you from Jerusalem to convey our frustration, even outrage, at your recently published letter on Jerusalem. We are Jewish Jerusalemites—residents by choice of a battered city, a city used and abused, ransacked time and again first by foreign conquerors and now by its own politicians. We cannot recognize our city in the sentimental abstraction you call by its name.

Our Jerusalem is concrete, its hills covered with limestone houses and pine trees; its streets lined with synagogues, mosques, and churches. Your Jerusalem is an ideal, an object of prayers and a bearer of the collective memory of a people whose members actually bear many individual memories. Our Jerusalem is populated with people, young and old, women and men, who wish their city to be a symbol of dignity—not of hubris, inequality, and discrimination. You speak of the celestial Jerusalem; we live in the earthly one.

For more than a generation now the earthly city we call home has been crumbling under the weight of its own idealization. Your letter troubles us, not simply because it is replete with factual errors and false representations, but because it upholds an attachment to some otherworldly city that purports to supersede the interests of those who live in the this-worldly one. For every Jew, you say, a visit to Jerusalem is a homecoming, yet it is our commitment that makes your homecoming possible. We prefer the hardship of realizing citizenship in this city to the convenience of merely yearning for it.

Indeed, your claim that Jerusalem is above politics is doubly outrageous. First, because contemporary Jerusalem was created by a political decision and politics alone keeps it formally unified. The tortuous municipal boundaries of today’s Jerusalem were drawn by Israeli generals and politicians shortly after the 1967 war. Feigning to unify an ancient city, they created an unwieldy behemoth, encircling dozens of Palestinian villages that were never part of Jerusalem. Stretching from the outskirts of Ramallah in the north to the edge of Bethlehem in the south, the Jerusalem that the Israeli government foolishly concocted is larger than Paris. Its historical core, the nexus of memories and religious significance often called the “Holy Basin,” makes up a mere one percent of its area. Now the government calls this artificial fabrication “Jerusalem” in order to obviate any approaching chance for peace.

Second, your attempt to keep Jerusalem above politics means divesting us of a future. For being above politics is being devoid of the power to shape the reality of one’s life. As true Jerusalemites, we cannot stand by and watch our beloved city, parts of which are utterly neglected, being used as a springboard for crafty politicians and sentimental populists who claim that Jerusalem is above politics and negotiation. All the while, they frantically “Judaize” East Jerusalem in order to transform its geopolitics beyond recognition.

We invite you to our city to view with your own eyes the catastrophic effects of the frenzy of construction. You will witness that, contrary to some media reports, Arabs are not allowed to build their homes anywhere in Jerusalem. You will see the gross inequality in allocation of municipal resources and services between east and west. We will take you to Sheikh Jarrah, where Palestinian families are being evicted from their homes to make room for a new Jewish neighborhood, and to Silwan, where dozens of houses face demolition because of the Jerusalem Municipality’s refusal to issue building permits to Palestinians.

We, who live in Jerusalem, can no longer be sacrificed for the fantasies of those who love our city from afar. The Jerusalem of this world must be shared by the people of the two nations residing in it. Only a shared city will live up to the prophet’s vision: “Zion shall be redeemed with justice.” As we chant weekly in our vigils in Sheikh Jarrah: “Nothing can be holy in an occupied city!”

By Avner Inbar & Assaf Sharon

27^th May 2010