Archives: Articles

09 December, 2012

Countercurrents.org

Dear Sisters,

We are writing again to you for the 6th time. We realize that all over our country and the world people are speaking for us. As you know the present phase of the struggle that started in August 2011 against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant has gone through so many special and intense moments. Some of which has reached the world, some have not. But for us living in Idinthakarai and Koodankulam villages, we have not respite till we hear that the KKNPP has been shelved. We would also like to see that transparency in decision making and also participation in development programs become part of the democratic process in India. This we have learnt by being here and listening to so many learned thinkers and leaders who have come with support to us. We know that the Nuclear Industry is one ridden with secrets and lies, swamped in corruption and fraud. For this, our own tryst with the implementation of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant is enough testimony.

We write this to share with you a matter that has reached our ears recently and which is troubling us no end. Our three dear sisters who were taken away by Police on September 10, 2012 are in Trichy jail. Now we hear that the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has denied them bail. They have been charged with unlawful assembling, shouting abuses and carrying deadly weapons. We cannot even think for a moment like this about our gentle sisters. We are sure that you remember Xavier Amma lamenting at the Police from the sandy beach drenched in sea water, Sundari shouting slogans in her cracked voice after days of traveling and talking to villagers, Selvi being pushed around. We rub our eyes and pinch ourselves to make sure that these are sights not seen in mindless sleep. No, these are real as the attached photos will not lie. These are images , live and real from a day taken by friends who shared our anguish by being with us. These are images, not worked on in photoshop software or manipulated to prove some vested interest. These are honest copies of our life that speak for themselves.

We are afraid that the trio will be kept indefinitely in captivity so that the morale of all of us here can be broken and trampled upon. While we want to say aloud that we are still strong and convinced, we would also like to convey that we are worried about the future of the 3 sisters. We see their families, pining for them, anxious and restless. We see the faded smiles on the faces of Sundari’s children, the weak but sensitive son of Selvi’s the pain in Xavierammal’s aged mother’s eyes. We all miss them too. If anyone thinks that by treating them like criminals or anti-national suspects, the determination of the women in the movement can be suppressed, they are mistaken.

We have gained strength and energy as we hear from people who have visited them in jail.We are proud that they are holding on conveying to all their companions in the prison the cause they are fighting for. We are inspired by their steadfast courage and will power. We feel that it is permeating through the concrete walls and iron bars of the prison and reaching us.

We wish that all of you would think of the 3 in your prayers. Please come together even as small groups and demand their release. Now it is Sundari, Selvi and Xavierammal. Tomorrow it could be you, me and us.

Do convey this message to the world

With love

Sisters from Idinthakarai

( Conveyed to Anitha.S on 9.11.2011)

 

 

By Richard Falk

9 December 2012

@ Palestine Update Edition 2 No 56

CAIRO (5 December 2012) – Concluding his week-long mission to the region, Mr. Richard Falk, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, called on Israel to abide by and fully implement the cease fire agreement that ended the recent crisis with Gaza.

“The initial purpose of my visit was to assess the overall impact of Israel’s prolonged occupation and blockade against the Gaza Strip, which is an integral part of Palestine,” Mr. Falk explained, “however there arose an urgent need to investigate Israel’s seemingly deliberate attacks against seemingly civilian targets during recent hostilities. We visited the sites of attacks and spoke with surviving family members. It is clear that some attacks killed and harmed civilians in a grossly disproportionate manner and thus clearly appear to violate international law.”

The Special Rapporteur continued, “There is a widespread feeling among Palestinians that Israel is above the law, and that Israel is likely to continue to have the benefits of impunity even when it flagrantly violates international humanitarian law. Experience has shown that Israel fails to meet its international obligation to promptly and impartially investigate its own actions. Experience has also shown that Israel is not likely to carry out its obligations under the cease fire agreement; indeed during our visit we heard Israeli warplanes flying directly overhead and received reports of Israeli military incursions into the Gaza Strip.”

For the Special Rapporteur, “Sustained pressure from the international community, including both Governments and civil society, is essential to secure Israel’s the full implementation of the cease fire agreement, without which it is extremely unlikely to hold. Worldwide support for the recent General Assembly resolution that made Palestine a non-Member observer State should serve as a starting point for the more concerted international protection of Palestinian rights.”

The Special Rapporteur stressed that talks to clarify how certain aspects of the cease fire agreement will be implemented, in particular with regard to access to maritime and agricultural resources, must be swiftly concluded. “Every day Palestinian fishermen and farmers risk being shot at or detained by Israeli forces. Already since the agreement was reached, Israel has detained 13 fishermen, confiscated 4 fishing boats and sank another fishing boat. Such actions signal an Israeli intention to maintain the continuity of its coercive style of occupation rather than explore whether implementing the ceasefire, agreement might not lead toward a more relaxed atmosphere and a more hopeful future.”

“At the same time, Palestinians and the international community are confronted with huge challenges to address underlying problems that have been severely aggravated by Israel’s occupation and blockade.” The Special Rapporteur pointed to the urgent need for access to clean water and sanitation, productive agricultural land, and new infrastructure. “We received extensive briefs on what could be done if sufficient resources and political will are made available. One example is the construction of a desalinization plant to meet urgent water and agricultural needs, but in many such cases funding is not forthcoming as donors are reluctant to invest in infrastructure projects that Israel is likely to bomb in one of its periodic large-scale attacks against Gaza.”

According to Mr. Falk, “Unless these underlying problems are addressed soon, it appears that Gaza will be uninhabitable by 2020, as predicted by a recent United Nations report. Some of the experts with whom we spoke actually believe that 2016 is a more reasonable assessment. This indicates the gravity of the human rights crisis in the Gaza Strip.”

The Special Rapporteur noted that his visit to the region consisted of meetings in Cairo and the Gaza Strip, with Governmental, inter-governmental and civil society representatives, as well as victims and witnesses. He received helpful briefings from UNRWA and other United Nations agencies, which provided an in-depth picture of the magnitude of the challenges in Gaza and the difficulties of addressing such challenges in a situation of occupation and blockade. He expressed his special appreciation to the people of Gaza and those international civil servants with whom he spoke for their support and engagement.

Mr. Falk’s next report to the Human Rights Council, which he intends to present in June 2013, will fully address the many concerns that were raised during the mission.

By Ismail Salami

09 December, 2012

@Countercurrents.org

As part of the sinister plan for Syria at work, French military agents have recently held face-to-face meetings with the foreign-backed militants inside the country in a bid to “assess the situation on the ground.”

A report carried by French paper Le Figaro on Friday indicates that “Their main task was to know who controls the battlegrounds around Damascus.”

It seems that a West-orchestrated plan to invade the country is under way and that they are teaming up and gearing up for united military action against the country.

The report adds that the meetings were held last month with the full knowledge of the French government and that the French government wants to know the “operational capacity of each group” and their “political colors.”

To make matters worse, NATO has agreed to deploy Patriot missiles on the Syria-Turkey border under the pretense of defending Turkey as Britain has warned Syria of ‘serious consequences’ if the regime used chemical weapons. All the pieces of the puzzle are being meticulously put together by the ‘foes of Syria’ to lend a cloak of legitimacy to an imminent invasion of the country: that Syria mulls using chemical weapons against its own people and the militants, that the war may spill over into Turkey and that Turkey should be able to defend herself against any potential attacks.

While in Brussels for a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, William Hague, British foreign secretary, said that Britain had delivered a stark message to President Bashar al-Assad, echoing the words of the Obama administration on Monday.

“We are worried about chemical weapons,” said Mr. Hague. “We have become more concerned about them in recent days for the same reasons the US has. We have already sent our own, clear, private message directly to the Syrians about the serious consequences that would follow from the use of those weapons.”

Syria has blasted NATO’S decision to deploy Patriot missiles as “psychological warfare,” saying the new deployment would not deter it from seeking victory over the militants it views as terrorists.

Despite some western countries claiming that NATO’s decision to deploy the missiles shows a low appetite on their part for military intervention, it is to be seen as a strong naked message that the West is indeed gearing up for military intervention.

Syria said the NATO deployment shall not make Assad change course, calling the talk of chemical weapons part of a conspiracy to justify future intervention.

“The Turkish step and NATO’s support for it are provocative moves that constitute psychological warfare,” Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said in an interview with Lebanon’s Al-Manar TV. “But if they think this will affect our determination and work for a decisive victory in this fight against terrorism, they are very wrong.”

He added, “In the event that [foreign powers] actually considered an aggression, they should consider the consequences. I believe the cost will be high…. They need to understand that they are putting the entire region and its environs to danger, if they tried to commit such a folly.”

That Assad will use chemical weapons against his own population or even the militants is a threadbare claim and a feeble excuse concocted by the West to embark on their initial militaristic voyeurism and eventual military expedition. In fact, it is very much reminiscent of Washington’s claim that Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass destruction before it launched a military invasion of the country and brought about a human loss of inconceivable degree. Sadly some realities are soon forgotten. An opinion conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) on August 12–19, 2007, indicated a human loss of 1,033,000 in Iraq War. Although the range varies between 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths, the sheer idea of such colossally disastrous human loss is beyond imagination. According to ORB, “48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance.”

Russia’s new ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, has de plano perceived some pernicious amount of threat in the move and said, “This is not a threat to us, but this is an indication that NATO is moving towards engagement and that’s it. We see a danger of further involvement of NATO into the situation in Syria as a result of provocation or some border incidents.”

It is cruel but highly likely that West may provide the militants with chemical weapons so they may use them against the Syrians and shift the blame on the Syria government so that they can carry on with their long-though-out plan of invading the country. This idea is further consolidated when we focus on the attention recently accorded to this issue by the US and some western countries. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have for their parts vowed to take action if Syria uses chemical weapons in the country. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned on Tuesday that any use of chemical weapons by Syria against gunmen would prompt an immediate military response.

The sad truth is that they have already formed their coalition against Syria with even Israel being part of this coalition. According to Hebrew-language Maariv newspaper, Tel Aviv is preparing for such a scenario amid increasing speculation that the US military will intervene in Syria “within days” if chemical weapons are used.

The ‘chemical weapons’ scenario seems to be the best cue for Washington and their western allies in order to gorge the international community on a tacit consent to another military adventurism in the Middle East.

Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian writer, Middle East expert, Iranologist and lexicographer. He writes extensively on the US and Middle East issues and his articles have been translated into a number of languages.

By Raghavan Srinivasan

09 December, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Twenty years back, on the 6th of December, the historical monument called Babri Masjid was destroyed by an armed mob. Developments leading to the destruction were orchestrated by the BJP government of Kalyan Singh in Uttar Pradesh with tacit support from Narasimha Rao’s Congress government at the centre. The criminal act of demolition was followed by widespread and large scale communal violence. The demolition symbolised a turning point in the Indian polity, for the worse.

Historical Context

The demolition had a historical and political context. The Babri Masjid dispute was a Machiavellian creation of the British colonialists who erected a fence in 1859 around the monument, and ordered that Hindus are to enter from the East gate and Muslims from the North gate. For the following 90 years, the British colonial courts allowed petitions from so-called Hindu and Muslim leaders, keeping the dispute smouldering, to be re-ignited whenever required.

After the partition, in the dark night of 22nd December, 1949, an idol of Ram was installed surreptitiously inside the mosque. The interim Government of Nehru immediately proclaimed the premises as a disputed area and locked the gates. The gates remained locked for the next 40 years, until Nehru’s grandson, Rajiv Gandhi, ordered it to be reopened in 1989.

The next three years witnessed a shrill campaign to build a temple for Lord Ram at the site where the Babri Masjid stood. The BJP built up a frenzied atmosphere through Rath Yatras demanding that the Ram temple should be built exactly where the 400-year old monument stood. The Central Government acted as the mediator between self-styled leaders of Hindus and Muslims, purportedly to strike a negotiated deal, but really keeping the dispute alive.

The Political Turning Point

The reason why the gates of the Babri Masjid were reopened after a 40-year hiatus can only be understood in the specific political context of the time. The decade of the eighties was tumultuous. The deepening economic and political crisis stared at us in the face. The old Nehruvian model had run its course and the decade ended with an acute crisis of government finances and external balance of payments. It was a period of intense conflicts and rivalries among different parties and the sectional interests they represented. There was tremendous pressure to push the country onto a path of economic reforms that would launch India into the superpower orbit and acquire world class status for India’s business houses.

The Congress Party headed by Rajiv Gandhi had come to power in 1985 on a communal platform, after the sacrilege of the Golden Temple and the genocide of Sikhs in November 1984. The next five years witnessed two important movements which prepared the political climate for a minority government to push through far-reaching policy reforms while people were otherwise preoccupied. Competing sectarian campaigns provided the justification for the law and order machinery to resort to blatant terror in the name of restoring order. There were agitations for and against the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations on caste-based reservation quotas for the “other backward classes” or OBCs. And in the midst of the ensuing chaos, the vehicle of Rath Yatras was used to launch a campaign for erecting a Ram Mandir at the site where the Babri Masjid stood.

It was a time when major and abrupt changes were taking place across the world, culminating with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the bipolar division of the world. In the new dispensation, with the US pushing for a unipolar world, certain prescriptions were laid down for all countries to follow. It was made clear that there was simply no alternative to liberalisation and privatisation and to multi-party representative democracy. Any country which did not follow these prescriptions would be liable to be branded as a rogue state.

These developments created a conducive atmosphere for a section of the powerful business houses in our country to seize the initiative and launch the liberalisation and privatisation program, aimed at getting India a seat at the high table of major imperialist powers of the world. This was accompanied by diversionary and divisive campaigns to neutralise the growing opposition to the aggressive drive of India Inc.

The BJP harped on the pseudo-secularism of the Congress Party and its “appeasement of Muslims” as being the main problem faced by the country. The Congress Party blamed the religious chauvinist outlook of BJP as being the main danger. The activities of these two parties, who were apparently at loggerheads with one another, tended to polarise public opinion into the Hindutva camp and the Secularist camp. While these camps seemed to have irreconcilable differences, they vied with each other to support the reforms platform.

Political Impact

The demolition of Babri Masjid typified the growing rot in the Indian polity. It meant that the two biggest parties in Parliament could get away with any sort of crime to expand their vote banks. The genocide against Sikhs in 1984, following the assassination of Indira Gandhi, had already confirmed the fact that the new economic offensive required a new method of governance as well. The communal violence of 1992-93 marked the institutionalisation of this criminal method of governance.

The Liberhan Commission, which was appointed by the Narasimha Rao government to investigate the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992, submitted its report after 17 years, in 2009! The report described how the Uttar Pradesh government of Kalyan Singh and top leaders of the BJP were directly involved in the destruction of the monument. But the equally shameful role of the Narasimha Rao government at the centre was downplayed by the Commission. In any case both the Congress and the BJP made sure, through a barrage of accusations and counter-accusations in Parliament at each other — after the Commission released (or rather leaked) its report — that the guilty at the highest levels went scot free.

The fall of the Babri Masjid symbolised not only the mindless destruction of a historical monument but a turning point in the Indian polity for worse. In the new system of governance ushered in by the economic reforms, political parties representing big moneyed interests increasingly resort to criminalisation and communalisation to capture or to retain power. They remain unaccountable to the voters who elected them. They fight proxy battles in Parliament for various business interests and are steeped in corruption.

For all men and women of conscience, the 20th anniversary of the demolition of Babri Masjid is an occasion to dedicate ourselves to see that justice is done; that the guilty of communal violence are punished; and that our polity is cleansed of communalism and communal violence, through radical political reforms to empower the people.

(The author is the President of Lok Raj Sangathan and a political commentator and writer, email: lokrajsangathan@yahoo.com)

US Officials: Washington Decided to Include Jabhet al-Nasra in Terrorist Organizations List

Dec 05, 2012

WASHINGTON DC, (SANA) – US officials said on Wednesday that the US Administration decided to include Jabhet al-Nasra, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda, on the list of terrorist organizations.

Associated Press quoted the officials as saying that this step entails freezing the funds and assets of Jabhet al-Nasra in the US and bodies that are under US judicial jurisdiction, in addition to preventing US citizens from providing this terrorist group with financial supports.

The officials who requested that their names be withheld said that the US Administration hopes that this step would encourage other countries to take similar steps and prevent people from joining this blacklisted group.

The officials said that the US Administration planned to announce this officially this week, but decided to postpone the announcement until it reassures Syrian opposition leaders that this action isn’t directed against them.

Armed Forces Eliminate Jabhat al-Nusra Terrorists, Destroy 23 Caliber Gun-Equipped Vehicle in Damascus Countryside

Dec 05, 2012

PROVINCES, (SANA) – Units of the Armed Forces continued on Wednesday pursuing Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists and destroyed a vehicle equipped with 23 caliber cannon, three motorcycles and a van and eliminated all terrorists onboard in al-Ateibeh town in Damascus countryside.

An official source told SANA reporter that a unit of the Armed Forces eliminated terrorists in Zamalka town as they were perpetrating acts of killing and sabotage.

Terrorists Hassan Bakir, Milad Khallaq, Mohammad Maghmoumeh, Khaled Abdul-Aziz and Yehya al-Iassa were identified among the terrorists who were killed.

The source said that the Armed Forces clashed with terrorist groups near al-Zaiytoun roundabout and the Finance Building, al-Kournish Square in Aqraba town.

It added that the clashes resulted in killing many terrorists, including Abdullah al-Naqib, Mahmoud Khoulani, Mohammad Ibrahim Ma’atouq and Anas Abdul-Razzaq al-Naqqab.

The source indicated that the armed forces restored security to Aqraba town and its surrounding after dealing a series of painful blows to the terrorist gatherings in the area.

In a relevant context, an army unit killed a number of terrorists in Shabaa. Terrorist Ahmad Abboud Mashhadani, Khaled Eido Shammout, Abdullah Ammouri, Zaher Abdel-Qader Diab and Yehya al-Zain were identified among the dead.

In Beit Sahm, terrorists Adel al-Asali, Samer al-Sukkari and Bassam al-Barbari were killed.

A unit of the armed forces killed all members of an armed terrorist group at al-Kshak Street in al-Hejjeira town in al-Sayyeda Zainab area, including non-Syrians.

Jabhat al-Nusra affiliated terrorist Mohammad Mustafa and another terrorist called Abu Huzaifa, from Libya, and terrorists Mahmoud Khalili, Nasr Khalifeh and Khaled al-Ajrami, the leader of the so-called “al-Golan Battalion” were killed.

In al-Tadamun neighborhood in Damascus, a unit of the Armed Forces clashed with a terrorist group, killing and injuring many of its members.

Terrorist Attack against Aleppo Gas Station Puts 1,050 Megawatt out of Service

Terrorists attacked Aleppo gas station which feeds turbines to generate electric power in the city, putting 1,050 megawatt out of service.

In a statement to SANA, Minister of Electricity, Imad Khamis, said the terrorists fired shells on the fuel depots at the station, adding that the terrorist attack led to power outage in a number of areas in Aleppo city.

He said that the power outage will continue around the clock in some areas in the city.

The Army continues its national Duty in Aleppo and its Countryside

The armed forces today continued their pursuit operations against terrorists of al-Qaeda-liked Jabhat al-Nusra and their gatherings in Aleppo and its countryside, carrying out qualitative operations leading to the killing of tens of terrorists.

An official source told SANA reporter that units of the armed forces targeted terrorists in Darert Ezza, Handarat, Banes Village, Tal Shaer in Aleppo countryside , killing tens of terrorists and injuring many others in addition to destroying their cars.

In Assfeira area, a unit of the army destroyed a number of dens for terrorists and three cars equipped with weapons and munitions in addition to destroying terrorists’ gatherings in Kfar Naha.

In the city of Aleppo, the Army destroyed gatherings of terrorists in al-Shaar, Vegetable market , Masaken Hananou, Bustan al-Qasr, al-Kalasa and Antayia Door.

Meanwhile, the armed forces pursued terrorists in Bustan al-Basha, killing tens of terrorists and injuring many others, destroying their gatherings.

Armed Forces Kill leader of an armed terrorist group and a number of terrorists in Homs

The Army today carried out qualitative operations against terrorists of Jabhat al-Nusra in Homs and its countryside, inflicting heavy losses upon them.

An official source told SANA reporter that a unit of the Army eliminated tens of terrorists in Jisr al-Qantara in in al-Qseir.

The source added that another army unit killed leader of an armed group and all its members at Jourat al-Shaiyah in Homs.

A citizen Martyred, his Son Injured by Terrorists’ Gunfire in Hasaka

Citizen Abdel-Ahad Bashoura was martyred while his son Yousef was injured by terrorists’ gunfire in Masaken al-Mahatta area in Hasaka city.

A source in the province told SANA reporter that Abdel-Ahad died of a gunshot wound to the head while his son was admitted to hospital, adding that the child is in a critical health condition.

The locals said that the terrorists blocked the way of Bashoura and his son while on their way home, opened fire on them and fled away.

The Army destroys cars carrying a group of terrorists on Qastal Maaf road in Lattakia

A unit of the Army today destroyed 4 cars carrying a group of terrorists on Qastal Maaf road in Lattakia countryside.

A source in Lattakia told SANA reporter that ten terrorists were killed in the operation.

Al-Moallem: Syria Defends its People against Armed Terrorist Attacks

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Walid al-Moallem, stressed that Syria is defending its people against the armed terrorist attacks and the terrorists who come from several countries.

Meeting Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) Filippo Grandi on Wednesday, the two sides reviewed cooperation between Syria and the organization in light of the attack launched against Syria.

Minister al-Moallem stressed that Syria will not delay in providing help to the UNRWA.

Al-Moallem briefed Grandi on the conspiracy hatched against Syria, indicating that the armed terrorist groups are destroying the infrastructure of the Syrian economy, terrifying civilians, killing them and committing crimes against them in line with the war they waged against the Syrian Arab Army.

He referred to the terrorist attack against al-Bteiha School in al-Wafideen Camp in Damascus Countryside on Tuesday which led to the martyrdom of nine students and a teacher.

In turn, Grandi expressed appreciation for the aid provided by the Syrian government to the Palestinian refugees.

He stressed that the UNRWA is still working in Syria, rejecting all attempts to get the Palestinian refugees involved in the crisis in Syria.

Grandi added that the Palestinians’ main cause is their adherence to the Palestinian people’s legitimate rights.

Earlier, Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister Fayssal Mikdad met Grandi. Mikdad stressed the importance of preserving the UNRWA services provided to the Palestinian refugees.

Information Minister: Escalation of Media Campaign against Syria is due to Armed Terrorist Groups’ Defeat

Dec 05, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Minister of information, Omran al-Zoubi, stressed that the escalation of the frantic media campaign launched by the conspirators against Syria is because their armed terrorist groups are being defeated under the strikes of the Syrian Arab army which is making progress in all areas.

Al-Zoubi’s remarks came as the Balance and Budget Committee at the People’s Assembly was discussing the Information Ministry’s report on its investment plan for the year 2013 which amounts to SYP 1,986 billion.

He pointed out to the necessity of supporting the various establishments affiliated with the Information Ministry in light of a plan to establish media centers in cooperation between the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) and the General Establishment of Radio and TV and supporting the media center in Moscow.

Al-Zoubi noted the importance of moral and financial support given to the Ministry through the People’s Assembly in spite of the economic challenges and their repercussions on the budget.

The Minister added that the Information Ministry needs more expenses currently due to the enormous damages which hit its establishments and infrastructure as a result of the armed terrorist groups’ attacks on the Syrian Arab TV and al-Ikhbariya channel, in addition to the need to produce films that suit the current stage.

He pointed out that the Government Statement concerning the Information Ministry focuses on working to change the conception of media to become “the media of the state, institutions, citizens and genuine issues of the people.”

Al-Zoubi added that the media should express the reality and aspirations of the citizens, pointing out that the current crisis imposed new standards to deal with corruption.

He reiterated that there is no ‘veto’ against anyone to appear in the public media, calling on all members of the People’s Assembly to be guests on the national media.

The Minister stressed that Syria has never been fragmented or changed throughout history, adding that the new attempts of the conspirators against Syria will not succeed in spite of the high cost of destruction and sabotage.

He pointed out that the Ministry has alternatives in case Eutelsat ceased transmission of the Syrian channels because of the sanctions imposed on the national media means, explaining that the Russian satellite EM44 will broadcast the Syrian channels without changing the dish.

Interpositions of the Balance and Budget committee members focused on the necessity of producing TV programs that face the conspiracy hatched against Syria and supporting the Syrian drama morally and financially.

They called for training media staff and increasing the number of reporters and extending TV and radio centers.

Directors of media institutions reviewed the work situation of their institutions and the challenges they are facing.

Director-General of the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) stressed that the Agency has field reporters who accompany the Syrian Arab army units in all provinces to relay the true image of what is happening.

He pointed out that the agency is working on new projects to be implemented next year concerning launching a satellite channel in cooperation with the Information Ministry and the Syrian Arab TV, in addition to establishing a new website.

For his part, Director-General of the General Commission of Radio and TV said the ministry and the commission are working to update news programs, pointing out that the sabotage which hit the radio and TV centers hindered the flow of information from these centers.

UN Secretary General Calls for Political Solution in Syria and Ending Violence and Battles in It

Dec 05, 2012

KUWAIT, (SANA) – UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for reaching a political solution in Syria and ceasing violence immediately in it.

In a press conference in Kuwait on Wednesday, Ki-moon said that violence and battles must stop immediately in Syria, and that the military option cannot be a sure solution, affirming that all unresolved issues must be dealt with through political means.

He said that the continuation of the crisis in Syria is utterly unacceptable, voicing concern over the escalating situation in it.

Ki-moon is visiting Kuwait as part of a tour in the region. He is due to visit Bagdhad on Thursday.

 

UN: Armed Opposition in Syria Pose Threat to Peacekeeping Forces in the Golan

Dec 05, 2012

NEW YORK, (SANA) –United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Hervé Ladsous, said that the armed opposition in Syria pose a threat to the safety of the international forces stationed in the occupied Syrian Golan.

In a press conference held on Wednesday in Paris, Ladsous said that the situation in Syria “sparked a cascade of insecurity which has had consequences highlighted by the presence of armed groups belonging to the Syrian opposition in the disengagement zones.”

He added “we will reinforce security, most notably with armored vehicles and we plan to send more political advisers to analyze the situation on the ground.”

Larijani: Solution in Syria Should be through Dialogue, Halting Terrorism

Dec 05, 2012

TEHRAN, (SANA) – Speaker of Iranian Shura Council, Ali Larijani stressed that the solution in Syria should be through national dialogue among the Syrians, in addition to halting terrorism and stopping the arms and money supply to the terrorists.

Larijani remarks came during a meeting with the Syrian Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, Subhi al-Abdullah, in Tehran.

He stressed that Syria is facing a huge conspiracy and it is paying the price of its stances in support of the resistance, adding that “we should support Syria because it is in the front line.

Larijani asserted the need for conducting the national dialogue away from foreign intervention, reiterating the Shura Council’s support to the Iranian government’s decisions in support of the Syrian government and people.

He pointed out to the enemies’ frustration over the steadfastness of the Syrian people in the face of the western-U.S. targeting of their country.

In turn, Minister al-Abdullah stressed the Syrian government’s determination to carry out reforms and confront terrorism which targets the Syrian people and their properties and infrastructure, adding that the government has called for holding a dialogue under the umbrella of the homeland.

Al-Abdullah reviewed what has been achieved over the past two days in terms of cooperation with Iranian institutions in the field of agriculture, food industries and livestock.

He underlined the importance of unifying efforts to push bilateral cooperation forward and strengthen Syria’s steadfastness against what it is facing.

Minister al-Abdullah and the accompanying delegation held several talks with his Iranian counterpart Sadeq Khalilian, with the two sides stressing the need for activating trade exchange in the field of agricultural fertilizers, olive oil and citrus.

Rahimi: Dialogue is the Only Way to Resolve Crisis in Syria

In a speech during the 11th meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member countries in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, Iranian Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi said that the crisis in Syria can only be solved through political methods and dialogue.

Rahimi warned against the consequences of arming terrorist groups in Syria and the militarization of the crisis, affirming that is doesn’t help resolve the situation; rather it makes the situation in the region more complicated and expands violence.

Russian Foreign Ministry: Targeting Children in Syria Unjustified, Terrorists and Foreign Powers are Responsible

Dec 05, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA) – The Russian Foreign Ministry said targeting children at school in Syria is unjustified and terrorists and the foreign powers which support them are to blame for this.

The Russian Ministry’s remarks came in a statement commenting on the armed terrorist group’s firing shells on a school in al-Wafideen Camp in Damascus Countryside yesterday.

The statement pointed out that there is no justification whatsoever for killing children and destroying schools and hospitals, adding that those who carry out these terrorist acts are criminals and deserve the harshest penalties and the foreign sides which support the terrorists are to blame.

The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed condolences to the families of all children who were martyred and condemned all forms of terrorism.

9 children and a teacher were martyred as terrorists targeted with shells a school in al-Wafideen Camp in Damascus Countryside

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Chris Marsden

05 December, 2012

@ WSWS.org

Protests Tuesday against the dictatorial powers assumed by Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi on November 22 and his efforts to ram through a new constitution via a referendum scheduled for December 15 culminated in a massive march on the presidential palace.

Outside the presidential palace protesters cut through a barbed wire and police fired tear gas in response. Mursi quit the palace amid fighting between protesters and hundreds of police.

The march began from several mosques and converged towards the Itihadiya palace in Heliopolis. “Freedom or we die,” chanted protesters. Others chanted, “Mohammed Morsi! Illegitimate! Brotherhood! Illegitimate!” Still others shouted, “Down with the sons of dogs. We are the power and we are the people,” and “The people want the downfall of the regime.”

Large numbers also gathered in Tahrir Square and a major protest was held in Egypt’s second city Alexandria.

Earlier protests had mobilised over 200,000 on Tahrir Square on November 27 and November 30. In addition, thousands of workers from Misr Spinning in Mahalla al-Kubra protested last week along with local residents in a 5,000-strong demonstration that ended in pitched battles with supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood responded with a national mobilisation on December 1, followed by a siege of the Supreme Constitutional Court December 2. That body, dominated by Mubarak-era loyalists, was expected to declare the constitutional assembly that passed the pro-Islamic draft charter illegitimate and disband the Shura Council, parliament’s upper house. The judges responded by declaring a strike.

Mursi’s November 22 decree placed his decisions beyond judicial oversight and barred any judicial body from dissolving the Islamist-dominated body that drafted and approved the new constitution.

On Monday, a rift emerged within the judiciary when top judges on the Supreme Judicial Council said they would ensure judicial supervision of the referendum. This was against demands for a boycott by a thousand judges, members of the Egyptian Judges Club, who had declared a boycott of the referendum Sunday. Al Zind from the Judges Club countered claims that the statement of the Supreme Judicial Council was proof of acceptance of Mursi’s move by insisting that 90 percent of judges were refusing to participate “but there are also Muslim Brotherhood judges.”

The Egyptian and world media also reported as a significant breakthrough for Mursi a meeting Sunday of the electoral commission, also led by senior judges. But Yousseri Abdel-Karim, a former spokesman of the electoral commission, said the meeting had to take place for legal reasons and did not mean that judges would oversee the referendum. “Judges don’t retreat and we fear nothing, and we will not change our position,” he said.

Protests were also mounted involving the refusal of at least 12 major independent newspapers and four television stations to publish or broadcast Tuesday and/or today. Article 48 of the draft constitution supports freedom of the press, but adds the caveat that “there may be an exception in times of war or national mobilization.”

The protest also spread to state-controlled media, with staff of the Internet edition of al-Ahram marching Monday to the journalists’ union in central Cairo. On Sunday, state television presenter Hala Fahmy carried a white shroud while hosting a current affairs program and was taken off the air. She told viewers, “We have to tell the truth whatever the price is.”

Despite the scale of popular opposition, Mursi has been emboldened by calculations that his liberal and secular opponents are unwilling to risk escalating a conflict that could get out of their control and threaten the interests of the entire Egyptian bourgeoisie. The eruption of an insurgent movement of the working class of the type that brought down Hosni Mubarak in 2011 is anathema to both sides of the bitter factional conflict that has erupted within ruling circles.

In a piece written for the Financial Times, Mohamed ElBaradei, the coordinator of the opposition National Salvation Front, insisted that Mursi had to rescind his decree, drop plans for the referendum and agree on a new, more representative constituent assembly to draft a democratic constitution. But ElBaradei added a warning: “If they [the Muslim Brotherhood] continue to try, they risk an eruption into violence and chaos that will destroy the fabric of Egyptian society.”

The National Salvation Front was formed by ElBaradei along with the Nasserist Dignity Party leader and presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabbahi and the former Mubarak-regime stalwart Amr Moussa.

Emad Gad, a leader of the Social Democratic Party, spoke of plans for “a permanent coalition” of opposition groups, but added, “I’m afraid of a confrontation. I do not want to use the term civil war.”

The opposition’s official statement on yesterday’s marches stressed that their aim was confined to sending “a message to President Mohammad Mursi that he has to listen to the national opposition, who is keen to fulfil the objectives of the revolution.”

The Islamists ultimately base themselves on the tacit backing of the United States and other imperialist powers, who view the Brotherhood as a vital regional ally in Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, as well as in Egypt, where they expect it to safeguard their substantial investments from any threat from below. To this end they all want Mursi’s constitution, with its measures safeguarding military rule and allowing for repression, to be passed, whatever their pro-forma concerns about sharia law, women’s rights, separation of powers and the like.

Even as the Supreme Court was being surrounded by protesters Sunday, Prime Minister Hisham Qandeel was announcing his policies to enhance “the business environment in the coming period and its commitment to all international agreements in all areas… thus making Egypt an ideal destination for foreign direct investments.”

He spoke by video to the National United States-Arab Chamber of Commerce, insisting that trade with the US “will be crucial for all world countries in the coming period.” He boasted that the trade exchange between Egypt and the US reached $8.2 billion in 2011 and US investments in Egypt reached $14.5 billion.

The Cairo stock market made gains on news that the referendum would go ahead despite what Mohamed Radwan at Pharos Securities derided as “all the noise and demonstrations that might take place until then.”

For its part, the mouthpiece of the British liberal bourgeoisie, the Guardian, urged the opposition parties to act in accordance with the essential requirement to return Egypt to political stability so that social unrest can be quelled and profits restored.

It called on Mursi’s opponents, “secular, liberal and Christian,” to recognise that, for all its faults, the draft constitution was “a mixed bag” that did not merit “walkouts, months of paralysis.” The commentary continued: “Both sides have forgotten what happened 22 months ago when Egyptians put aside their sectarian identities on entering Tahrir Square and waved the national flag instead. In the name of that flag, those who claim to be democrats need to rediscover the long forgotten art of compromise.”

Compromise is not what motivates the hundreds of thousands of working people who took to the streets of Cairo yesterday. Still less does it motivate Mursi and his supporters. What is urgently required is a socialist political leadership that articulates the independent interests of workers and youth rather than those of rival factions of the capitalist class, all of which seek to exploit the workers and hide their own aims behind hollow democratic and nationalist rhetoric.

Now that the explosions have stopped, we are obligated to delve into the truth behind Operation Pillar of Defense.

By Reuven Pedatzur

4 December, 2012

@ www.haaretz.com

The real story behind Operation Pillar of Defense in Gaza has not yet been investigated, but now that the explosions have stopped, we are obligated to delve into the truth. The decision to kill Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari, which was the opening shot of the operation, was made even though he was involved in negotiations on signing a long-term cease-fire agreement.

A few hours before he was assassinated, he had received a draft of an agreement for a permanent cease-fire with Israel, and he was apparently expected to reply to it affirmatively. The indirect contacts with Jabari had taken place over the course of months via Hamas’ deputy foreign minister, Ghazi Hamad, with the knowledge and consent of Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

These contacts with Hamas were conducted by Gershon Baskin, who served as an intermediary in the deal for the return of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Baskin had reported his progress toward a draft agreement to the members of a special committee appointed by Barak back in May, a panel that also included representatives of other government ministries.

In other words, our decision makers, including the defense minister and perhaps also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knew about Jabari’s role in advancing a permanent cease-fire agreement. Jabari was the strongman of the Gaza Strip – Israel’s “subcontractor,” as Haaretz editor-in-chief Aluf Benn characterized him – so Hamad submitted each draft prepared with Baskin to Jabari for approval.

Also party to the negotiations on a permanent cease-fire were Egyptian intelligence officials. Some of the meetings between Baskin and Hamad took place in Cairo. These Egyptian intelligence officials were in constant contact with Barak’s envoys, so one would assume that in addition to Baskin, they too were informing Israel of their impressions of the progress in the talks on a draft agreement.

At no point in the negotiations between Baskin and Hamad was the former ever told to stop.

Moreover, about a week before Jabari’s assassination, Israeli military officials asked permission from their commanders to meet with Baskin and get a briefing. This permission was denied.

Thus the decision to kill Jabari shows that our decision makers decided a cease-fire would be undesirable for Israel at this time, and that attacking Hamas would be preferable. It seems a view had developed that Israel needed to strengthen its deterrence against Hamas rather than reach agreement with it on a period of calm. In the view of the defense establishment and the prime and defense ministers’ bureaus, a cease-fire agreement might have undermined Israel’s deterrence and weakened its image of resolve. Bolstering its deterrence, in this view, would be achieved by killing Jabari, who was liable to respond affirmatively to the offer of a long-term cease-fire.

In this way, Israel’s leaders killed three birds with one stone: They assassinated the man who had the power to make a deal with Israel; they took revenge on someone who had caused more than a few Israeli casualties; and they signaled to Hamas that communications with it will be conducted only through military force.

Quite aside from the fact that the results of Operation Pillar of Defense didn’t meet the expectations of those who launched it, the decision makers must answer one important question: If they knew it was possible to reach a cease-fire agreement (whose provisions, incidentally, were better than those of the agreement reached after the operation ) without going to war, why did they assassinate Jabari, and thereby also assassinate the chances of achieving calm without shooting? Is it possible, heaven forbid, that Barak and Netanyahu feared the opportunity to conduct a military operation at the end of their government’s term would elude them, and that’s why they ordered Jabari’s liquidation?

To keep us from suspecting their motives, the prime minister and defense minister must explain their considerations and decisions in the Jabari affair.

By Noam Chomsky, Alternet

04 December 12

@ Readersupportednews.org

An old man in Gaza held a placard that read: “You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.”

The old man’s message provides the proper context for the latest episode in the savage punishment of Gaza. The crimes trace back to 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled from their homes in terror or were expelled to Gaza by conquering Israeli forces, who continued to truck Palestinians over the border for years after the official cease-fire.

The punishment took new forms when Israel conquered Gaza in 1967. From recent Israeli scholarship (primarily Avi Raz’s “The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the Aftermath of the June 1967 War”), we learn that the government’s goal was to drive the refugees into the Sinai Peninsula – and, if feasible, the rest of the population too.

Expulsions from Gaza were carried out under the direct orders of Gen. Yeshayahu Gavish, commander of the Israel Defense Forces Southern Command. Expulsions from the West Bank were far more extreme, and Israel resorted to devious means to prevent the return of those expelled, in direct violation of U.N. Security Council orders.

The reasons were made clear in internal discussions immediately after the war. Golda Meir, later prime minister, informed her Labor Party colleagues that Israel should keep the Gaza Strip while “getting rid of its Arabs.” Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and others agreed.

Prime Minister Levi Eshkol explained that those expelled could not be allowed to return because “we cannot increase the Arab population in Israel” – referring to the newly occupied territories, already considered part of Israel.

In accord with this conception, all of Israel’s maps were changed, expunging the Green Line (the internationally recognized borders) – though publication of the maps was delayed to permit Abba Eban, an Israeli ambassador to the U.N., to attain what he called a “favorable impasse” at the General Assembly by concealing Israel’s intentions.

The goals of expulsion may remain alive today, and might be a factor in contributing to Egypt’s reluctance to open the border to free passage of people and goods barred by the U.S.-backed Israeli siege.

The current upsurge of U.S.-Israeli violence dates to January 2006, when Palestinians voted “the wrong way” in the first free election in the Arab world.

Israel and the U.S. reacted at once with harsh punishment of the miscreants, and preparation of a military coup to overthrow the elected government – the routine procedure. The punishment was radically intensified in 2007, when the coup attempt was beaten back and the elected Hamas government established full control over Gaza.

Ignoring immediate offers from Hamas for a truce after the 2006 election, Israel launched attacks that killed 660 Palestinians in 2006, most of whom were civilians (a third were minors). According to U.N. reports, 2,879 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire from April 2006 through July 2012, along with several dozen Israelis killed by fire from Gaza.

A short-lived truce in 2008 was honored by Hamas until Israel broke it in November. Ignoring further truce offers, Israel launched the murderous Cast Lead operation in December.

So matters have continued, while the U.S. and Israel also continue to reject Hamas calls for a long-term truce and a political settlement for a two-state solution in accord with the international consensus that the U.S. has blocked since 1976 when the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution to this effect, brought by the major Arab states.

This week, Washington devoted every effort to blocking a Palestinian initiative to upgrade its status at the U.N. but failed, in virtual international isolation as usual. The reasons were revealing: Palestine might approach the International Criminal Court about Israel’s U.S.-backed crimes.

One element of the unremitting torture of Gaza is Israel’s “buffer zone” within Gaza, from which Palestinians are barred entry to almost half of Gaza’s limited arable land.

From January 2012 to the launching of Israel’s latest killing spree on Nov. 14, Operation Pillar of Defense, one Israeli was killed by fire from Gaza while 78 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire.

The full story is naturally more complex, and uglier.

The first act of Operation Pillar of Defense was to murder Ahmed Jabari. Aluf Benn, editor of the newspaper Haaretz, describes him as Israel’s “subcontractor” and “border guard” in Gaza, who enforced relative quiet there for more than five years.

The pretext for the assassination was that during these five years Jabari had been creating a Hamas military force, with missiles from Iran. A more credible reason was provided by Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin, who had been involved in direct negotiations with Jabari for years, including plans for the eventual release of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Baskin reports that hours before he was assassinated, Jabari “received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the cease-fire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.”

A truce was then in place, called by Hamas on Nov. 12. Israel apparently exploited the truce, Reuters reports, directing attention to the Syrian border in the hope that Hamas leaders would relax their guard and be easier to assassinate.

Throughout these years, Gaza has been kept on a level of bare survival, imprisoned by land, sea and air. On the eve of the latest attack, the U.N. reported that 40 percent of essential drugs and more than half of essential medical items were out of stock.

 

In November one of the first in a series of hideous photos sent from Gaza showed a doctor holding the charred corpse of a murdered child. That one had a personal resonance. The doctor is the director and head of surgery at Khan Yunis hospital, which I had visited a few weeks earlier.

In writing about the trip I reported his passionate appeal for desperately needed medicine and surgical equipment. These are among the crimes of the U.S.-Israeli siege, and of Egyptian complicity.

The casualty rates from the November episode were about average: more than 160 Palestinian dead, including many children, and six Israelis.

Among the dead were three journalists. The official Israeli justification was that “The targets are people who have relevance to terror activity.” Reporting the “execution” in The New York Times, the reporter David Carr observed that “it has come to this: Killing members of the news media can be justified by a phrase as amorphous as ‘relevance to terror activity.’ ”

The massive destruction was all in Gaza. Israel used advanced U.S. military equipment and relied on U.S. diplomatic support, including the usual U.S. intervention efforts to block a Security Council call for a cease-fire.

With each such exploit, Israel’s global image erodes. The photos and videos of terror and devastation, and the character of the conflict, leave few remaining shreds of credibility to the self-declared “most moral army in the world,” at least among people whose eyes are open.

The pretexts for the assault were also the usual ones. We can put aside the predictable declarations of the perpetrators in Israel and Washington. But even decent people ask what Israel should do when attacked by a barrage of missiles. It’s a fair question, and there are straightforward answers.

One response would be to observe international law, which allows the use of force without Security Council authorization in exactly one case: in self-defense after informing the Security Council of an armed attack, until the Council acts, in accord with the U.N. Charter, Article 51.

Israel is well familiar with that Charter provision, which it invoked at the outbreak of the June 1967 war. But, of course, Israel’s appeal went nowhere when it was quickly ascertained that Israel had launched the attack. Israel did not follow this course in November, knowing what would be revealed in a Security Council debate.

Another narrow response would be to agree to a truce, as appeared quite possible before the operation was launched on Nov. 14.

There are more far-reaching responses. By coincidence, one is discussed in the current issue of the journal National Interest. Asia scholars Raffaello Pantucci and Alexandros Petersen describe China’s reaction after rioting in western Xinjiang province, “in which mobs of Uighurs marched around the city beating hapless Han (Chinese) to death.”

Chinese president Hu Jintao quickly flew to the province to take charge; senior leaders in the security establishment were fired; and a wide range of development projects were undertaken to address underlying causes of the unrest.

In Gaza, too, a civilized reaction is possible. The U.S. and Israel could end the merciless, unremitting assault, open the borders and provide for reconstruction – and if it were imaginable, reparations for decades of violence and repression.

The cease-fire agreement stated that the measures to implement the end of the siege and the targeting of residents in border areas “shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the cease-fire.”

There is no sign of steps in this direction. Nor is there any indication of a U.S.-Israeli willingness to rescind their separation of Gaza from the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords, to end the illegal settlement and development programs in the West Bank that are designed to undermine a political settlement, or in any other way to abandon the rejectionism of the past decades.

Someday, and it must be soon, the world will respond to the plea issued by the distinguished Gazan human-rights lawyer Raji Sourani while the bombs were once again raining down on defenseless civilians in Gaza: “We demand justice and accountability. We dream of a normal life, in freedom and dignity.”

By Bill Van Auken

04 December, 2012

@ WSWS.org

The Obama administration and the corporate media have cited unspecified “intelligence” about the movement of chemical weapons to issue new threats of direct intervention in Syria, where Washington and its allies have been backing so-called “rebels” in a bid to topple the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both made public statements Monday alleging a danger of Syria using chemical weapons and threatening US retaliation.

Appearing before a military audience at the National Defense University in Fort McNair, Obama declared, “I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and anyone who is under his command… If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.”

“This is a red line for the United States,” Clinton said earlier in the day after a meeting in Prague with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

“I’m not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people, but suffice it to say that we’re certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur,” Clinton warned.

Schwarzenberg told the media that Czech troops specializing in chemical weapons had been sent to Jordan and were “training” with forces there.

Citing unnamed senior officials who claim to have seen unspecified intelligence on Syrian chemical weapons, the New York Times, CNN and other media have joined forces with the Obama administration in promoting the chemical weapons justification for another US war of aggression.

What becomes clear in examining these reports, as well as the statements from the administration, is that the alleged threat from Syrian “weapons of mass destruction” is entirely concocted. Not a single piece of hard evidence is cited by any government official or any media source.

In a breathless report on Monday, CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr quoted an unnamed “senior US official” as describing “worrying signs” of supposed activity around chemical weapons sites in Syria in “the last few days.”

“The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitiveness of the information discussed, declined to specify the exact intelligence that the United States has gathered in the past few days,” Starr said.

The CNN report quotes one US official as saying that “this puts us into the contingency of potential US action.”

The chemical weapons story was initially broken on Sunday by the New York Times in a front-page article co-authored by David Sanger, the Times’ chief Washington correspondent, and Eric Schmitt, its national security correspondent. Writing that “what exactly the Syrian forces intend to do with the weapons remains murky,” the Times correspondents cited as their source unnamed “officials who have seen the intelligence from Syria.”

Syria’s Foreign Ministry categorically denied that the country’s military is preparing to use chemical weapons. A statement released in Damascus said that Syria “would not use chemical weapons—if there are any—against its own people under any circumstances.”

What is particularly significant in the statements of Obama and other US officials is the absence of any expression of concern over the Syrian military’s chemical weapons stockpile falling into the hands of the so-called rebels whom Washington is supporting.

It has become impossible to conceal the fact that the main fighting force challenging the Assad regime is dominated by Islamist militias, including forces tied to Al Qaeda, who would be prepared to use such weapons against civilian populations in Western Europe or the United States. That this is a matter of official indifference only underscores the glaring contradiction between the official expressions of concern and the real motives underlying the US intervention.

The leaks about chemical weapons were made on the eve of a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Tuesday and Wednesday. The meeting will decide on Turkey’s request for the deployment of Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries on the country’s 560-mile border with Syria.

The Turkish government has claimed that the missiles are necessary to counter an alleged threat of missiles with chemical warheads being fired towards its territory by the Syrian armed forces.

Turkey has been among the most important state sponsors of the Syrian insurgency, funneling arms and supplies and reportedly providing Turkish military officers as “advisers.” It has allowed the anti-Assad forces to use its territory as a base and hosted a CIA station, where US operatives have coordinated the provision of arms, money and intelligence to the “rebels.”

The deployment of the Patriot missiles, which both US and NATO officials have indicated will be approved at this week’s meeting, will mark a major turning point in the imperialist intervention in Syria. It will place US and NATO forces in direct confrontation with the Syrian military and pave the way for a far more open intervention.

While the missile batteries are supposedly aimed against a threat of surface-to-surface missiles from Syria, a far more likely use is to deny Syrian military aircraft the ability to operate in northern Syria, effectively carving out a “no-fly zone” in which the US-NATO-backed “rebels” can operate with relative impunity. As in last year’s US-NATO intervention in Libya, such a development would likely prove the first step in a direct war for regime-change.

The claims of threats from Syrian chemical weapons also serve as a pretext for a direct ground invasion. As the New York Times article notes, the US and its allies “have long been developing contingency plans in case they decided to intervene in an effort to neutralize the chemical weapons, a task that the Pentagon estimates would require upward of 75,000 troops.”

The article also points to the Pentagon’s having “quietly sent a task force of more than 150 planners and other specialists to Jordan to help the armed forces there to, among other things, prepare for the possibility that Syria would lose control of its chemical weapons.” The phrase “among other things” serves to mask the essential mission of this force of US special operations troops, which is to aid the “rebel” operations inside Syria and serve as an advance guard for a more direct US-NATO intervention.

Debka.com, a web site with close ties to Israeli intelligence, reported that last week the “rebels” had carried out an attack that destroyed a Russian-built electronic warning radar station in southern Syria, effectively blinding the regime in the face of any attacks prepared by the Israeli military. According to a report in the Atlantic Monday, Israel has approached the Jordanian government with plans for air strikes on Syrian chemical weapons sites. Debka described the deployment of the Patriot missiles and the attacks on Syrian radar as representing “a coordinated military effort.”

Within just weeks of the US election, concerted preparations are underway for yet another war of aggression in the Middle East. The warnings about supposed threats from “weapons of mass destruction” are an unmistakable echo of the lies used to justify the catastrophic US war against Iraq a decade ago. The New York Times, the “newspaper of record” and voice of official liberalism, served as the indispensable conduit for government disinformation about non-existent Iraqi WMD, lending credibility to the propaganda used to justify the unprovoked US invasion. Clearly, the same modus operandi is being employed in Syria.

In the offing is a war with potentially far more devastating consequences than the eight-year US intervention in Iraq or the more than decade-long war in Afghanistan. In attacking Syria, US imperialism is aiming to pave the way for an assault on Iran in a bid to reorganize the entire region in its own interests.

By Don Hazen, AlterNet

03 December 12

@ readersupportednews.org

“The public would not be accepting of drones, if they knew how kill decisions are made, and how many innocents are killed in the process.”– Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films

Robert Greenwald, head of the progressive internet video and documentary film company, Brave New Films, recently traveled to Pakistan, supported financially by hundreds of BNF donors, to witness first hand the stories of families who have had innocent loved ones killed by U.S. drone attacks. Greenwald is challenging both the morality and the factual effectiveness of the U.S drone program as we learn more about the failures and questionable policies. The U.S. claims that drone missiles are aimed at potential terrorists but because the ground rules of who can be targeted is both vague and has been loosened, the number of innocents being killed has risen sharply. Furthermore, the information that is used to target people, appears to be the result of a system of bribery at the local level, which is of questionable reliability.

It wasn’t until April 2012 that John Brennan, White House counter-terrorism adviser admitted for the first time publicly, that our government has been using drones in Pakistan, and later Yemen, to attempt to kill those they consider as potential terrorists. This was the first public acknowledgment, despite the fact that the program had been going for at least several years. Still far more information was withheld in Brennan’s announcement about the the program, than was revealed.

As The Washington Post reports: “Brennan’s speech was also noteworthy, however, for what he withheld. He did not disclose how many people have been killed, list all the locations where armed drones are being flown or mention the administration’s increasing reliance on ‘signature’ strikes, which allow the CIA to fire missiles even when it doesn’t know the identities of those who could be killed.”

The CIA runs the drone program and it is shrouded in secrecy, which enables people like Brennan to characterize the program in glowing terms, which go mainly unchallenged by the media, and contribute to the public assumption that drones are accurate, safe, and taking out the bad guys. Thus Brennan is able to get away with saying, as reported in the Post : Drones’ capability to linger over targets for days enables unprecedented “surgical precision,” Brennan said, “the ability, with laser-like focus, to eliminate the cancerous tumor called an al-Qaeda terrorist while limiting damage to the tissue around it — that makes this counter-terrorism tool so essential.” This despite little evidence that active or powerful elements of Al-Qaeda are operating in the Swat area of Pakistan which has been targeted by drones.

Nevertheless, increasingly another story is emerging which raises fundamental questions about the wisdom and the morality of our policy vis a vis Pakistan, and Brennan’s effort to pretend that the drone program isn’t destructive, and hugely alienating to Pakistan. According to Greenwald, speaking to his staff in a briefing upon his return from Pakistan, people with whom he spoke ” said the Drone attacks were a great recruiting tool for the Taliban, because powerless people want to fight back for the losses they have suffered, as their communities and families are attacked. Many businesses have been destroyed in the Swat area, and schools are empty because everyone is afraid of drone attacks.

Greenwald explains: Let’s assume for a moment the drones can be technically accurate, although that is questionable. What information are they using to establish their targets? Basically it is a form of bribery, where the CIA gives former Pakistani military large sums of money to pass out to sources on the ground in Swat, where the Taliban are most active. Sometimes, — and it is impossible to tell how much — these bribes lead to the settling of old and local scores .”

So there is another painful and tragic side to the drone story — not the one of killing so called “militant targets” but rather the slaughter of innocent civilians, as stories of drone victims have emerged in the Fata area of Swat where the drones are targeted.

Greenwald recounted one situation, as told to him from people from area of the bombing that there was a group of elders were meeting in a Jirga — a kind town meeting of elders — to resolve a community conflict , this one a dispute about mining. But the meeting was interpreted by drone intelligence as a group of men with guns — obviously not unusual for the region — and it became a “signature strike” — and a missile killed between 20 and 40 of the elders.

Like with their intense efforts to work to end the war in Afghanistan, Greenwald and Brave New Films started their quest to change U.S. drone policy with heavy odds (and check out his latest efforts at WarCosts.com). But just as the public attitude toward the Afghan war shifted over time, with heavy dosages of strong factual information contrary to the administration’s line, Greenwald is confident that thee attitude toward drones will shift.

AlterNet spoke with Greenwald in his Culver City California offices on November 26th, just after his return from Pakistan.

Don Hazen: Tell us a little bit about what it was like in Pakistan, and what surprised you, and made you think you were doing the right thing by going there and pursuing the drone story.

Robert Greenwald: The first-hand experience immediately was that the people couldn’t have been more gracious, and that was surprising, given how hated the drones are — by virtue of all measure of statistics — in the great majority of the country.

Don Hazen: What was their message to you? Did they understand you to be a messenger to the public here in the US?

Robert Greenwald: Many of the people asked me to talk to the president of the United States, and to explain to him who they were — that they were not terrorists; they were farmers, they were peasants, they were poor people, they were working people, they were religious people. I heard that over and over again — to please explain this to the President how much damage this was doing. And some of them had the belief that just his understanding who they really were would force him to change his mind about the drone attacks.

Don Hazen: What is your sense of the Obama policy’s effect in Pakistan? What’s your thinking about why we have moved to the use of drones as a major policy shift, and is it working?

Robert Greenwald: After a trip to the region, is very hard to understand or justify why we’re doing it. I feel, like when I went to Afghanistan — there two minutes after walking around on the streets, and you knew this was a country that invading and occupying was not going to be a security solution. After a short period of time in Pakistan, it’s clear that drones are not a security solution either.. If you believe in drones, the original idea was to go after so-called high-value targets, which according to the NYU-Stanford study 2% of the people killed by drones are high-value targets — now, who are all the rest of the people? Well, it’s a secret program, so therefore the CIA doesn’t have to tell us anything, yet they claim that with each attack they’re getting militants. Now we have people coming forward, saying, actually, no we’re not terrorists. One man, he had a picture of a 65 year old woman with grey hair — his mother. She’s not a militant terrorist. So the notion that we’re killing terrorists exclusively is fundamentally inaccurate. It has been estimated by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that as many as 178 children have been killed in drone attacks (Read the full report on child casualties from the drone war on WarCosts.com and watch Greenwald’s related video at the bottom of this interview).

Don Hazen: Why is the CIA in charge of this? What would they say to argue with you? And Why do they think the drone policy is working?

Robert Greenwald: The CIA is in charge, because remember, we’re officially not at war with Pakistan. Tell that to the population and in Pakistan, who see this as an extreme violation of their sovereignty. The Pakistan Parliament voted three times unanimously against the use of drones. One of the original justifications by the CIA was that there was this “imminent threat” of terrorism. Well, I defy anyone to prove that the individuals attacked by drones in Pakistan pose an imminent security threat to the security of the United States. I think the CIA would say, and they have said that it’s the least-bad solution, but I have concluded it’s far from the least bad solution. Basically the CIA has decided that they can unilaterally pick who should be assassinated — No proof, no evidence, no court of law. A small group of people are deciding who should be assassinated and which countries its OK to do this in, and they are often very very wrong.

Don Hazen: And how do we fight that? As more people are mobilized to be against drones, what would be the strategy and tactics to try to change the policy; It seems like there’s no access to changing this policy in a democracy, since much of it is secret, and a “matter of national security.” Nobody is voting on it. The Congress isn’t saying — Yes , on drones; or No on drones.

Robert Greenwald: It’s somewhat analogous to Afghanistan — Congress had to have a series of votes over the years to fund that war, keep it going. I think the first step is to have investigations — It looks like they’re going to have an investigation in the UK, and also now that the United Nations is going to be conducting its own. We need to first know: what exactly is the policy, how is it being decided, and to push for transparency. There’s absolutely no reason — with the exception of avoiding outside scrutiny — for the CIA to keep this hidden. Everyone knows drones are being deployed outside the US for assassinations. Let’s say you even believe in drones. Shouldn’t we have a system that would “justify” their use? i.e. we did this attack, because these bad guys were there, and here’s what we did. We don’t even have that. So that’s where we start. We are asking for people to contact Pelosi/Boehner and push for the House Resolution that Dennis Kucinich introduced that calls for an investigation.

Don Hazen: Do you have a sense of where this is coming from beyond the CIA? Is Obama and his national security staff all pro-drone?

Robert Greenwald: Based on limited information, it appears to be primarily driven by the CIA and especially John Brennan, chief counter-terrorism advisor to Obama. But now we hear that Brennan is trying to rein the program .

Don Hazen: Moral issues aside, what do you say to the people who a. believe drones will save American lives, b. cost a lot less than the traditional model of bombers? For example there was a huge issue in Afghanistan of bombing weddings, where part of the celebration involves firing machine guns into the sky — the proponents of drones say, look we’re avoiding a lot more casualties with this approach.

Robert Greenwald: Well, the accuracy argument — whether it’s a wedding in Afghanistan or a funeral in Pakistan, it comes down to who was on the ground giving you the information telling you who the attendants were. And we know that the people who give that kind of information are being bribed. So their intelligence is going to be faulty. It’s an approach that creates doubts from the outset.

Don Hazen: All this is going on in Swat, a semi autonomous area of Pakistan right? How much of a threat are the Taliban there?

Robert Greenwald: Yes, the Swat area is part of the nation state of Pakistan, but it follows its own set of rules and regulations. It’s semi-autonomous. Highly uneducated, extreme levels of poverty as we understand the word poverty, and highly mountainous. That area is where almost all of the attacks on Pakistan have been unleashed.

As far as the he Taliban goes, it is not one unified organization Some of them are brutal to the population, some are less aggressive. But the key is that none of them pose an immediate threat to the U.S. So what’s central here, is that it’s the drone attacks that are creating the threat, as angry people may try to seek revenge against us, as has already been the case.