Here's what passes for plain speaking in the US media. It comes from CNN's Jack Cafferty, 13/3/12:
"How much is enough? The US has been in Afghanistan for more than 10 years. President Obama insists we will remain in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. Why? What's going to be accomplished by staying in that godforsaken hellhole for another 20 months that hasn't been accomplished in 10 and a half years?"
Yes, I agree, Jack. Get out of Afghanistan NOW! But what's this godforsaken hellhole business? Has CNN and the rest of the corporate media pack played no role in helping Bushama turn Afghanistan into a GFH? Jack? Oh, I see, you've got SFA to say about that. And anyway, if Afghanistan's a godforsaken hellhole, maybe it's because the Great Satan's taken up residence there, what do you think?
"Events are beginning to conspire against the US mission there. We had pictures of US marines urinating on dead bodies. We had the accidental burning of the copies of the Koran which further inflamed the hatred of the American presence there. And now we have the US soldier allegedly massacring 16 Afghan civilians, including women and children."
I understand. It's not the US "mission" that's been screwing Afghanistan and its people, it's "events" that have been screwing the US "mission." Right. Damn events! And shouldn't that have been accidentally or allegedly urinating on dead bodies?
"The Taliban are threatening to begin beheading US soldiers in response to this latest outrage, yet the Obama Whitehouse is out with the statement insisting that none of this will deter us from our mission. Which is what exactly? I have no idea what the hell we're still doing there anymore. Isn't Osama Bin Laden dead? The Karzai government is a puppet regime barely friendly to our government and the rest of the country hates our guts not unlike how we might feel if an army of occupation had taken up residence here in the US and begun desecrating our dead, burning our Bibles, and massacring our women and children."
At last, an insight! But why not call a spade a spade, Jack? What's this mission crap? What we've got over in Afghanistan ain't no mission! It's a regular, jackbooted army of occupation! And as such it's generated a stiff resistance, aka the Taliban. Face it, Jack, the Taliban's an own goal. But what's that you're telling me? Oh I see, you don't want to upset the viewers.
"Not to be cynical, but it's my nature. The one thing is if President Obama's election campaign is in trouble by Labor Day, suddenly, with a second term in doubt, my guess is he might decide to move up the timetable for bringing our troops home. Hey, whatever it takes. I don't know about you. I've had a bellyfull of Afghanistan."
And you know what, Jack? Afghanistan's had more than a bellyfull of your bullets, your drones and your colossal yankee arrogance.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
He said That?!
To say that most Zionist comments on Israel-related blog posts are as boring as batshit is the mother-of-all understatements. This is because, as brain-dead ideological defenders of the indefensible, their authors have little but lame talking points churned out by Zionist propaganda mills to work with.
Just occasionally, however, a klutz among them comes up with a comment so hilariously dumb as to warrant my sharing it with you. The comment in question, from someone calling himself Frankel, comes from the thread following the January 2012 post Because policing the discourse is punk rock at the US blog L'Hote. Enjoy:
"I'm no fan of much of what Israel does, but as a Jew is it so unreasonable for me to become suspicious when I see so many people who have no skin in the game (that is, people who are neither Jews nor Arabs) take such a critical concern to the behavior of Israelis? And please spare me the line about the aid we give to Israel. The US gives plenty of money or other aid to countries with transgressions far worse than Israel and you don't hear a peep about it.
"I mean, look how women, gays, christians and palestinian refugees have to live in most of the middle east. I guess none of them are fortunate enough to be victims of Jews." JANUARY 28, 2012
What? Run that by you again?
Sure: Palestinian refugees are fortunate enough not to be victims of (presumably Israeli) Jews.
I mean where does one begin with this bloke?
What part of the following eye-witness testimony to Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine's indigenous Arab population, for example, does he not get (providing, of course, he can get his head around its use of capital letters)? The setting is Israel, 1950. Migdal (al-Majdal in Arabic) is now the Israeli coastal town of Ashkelon:
"When I got on to the bus, I could already feel the bitterness of the Arab inhabitants; the two Arab passengers with whom I tried to begin a conversation (without touching on the questions which I had in mind) gave laconic answers. When we arrived in Migdal Gad, I went to the barber, a new immigrant who had already been living in the city for 18 months, and asked him what had been happening over the previous 2 months. He said that the Agency - for him that was the government - had sent the Arabs away from the place and that they had not left of their own free will. He advised me to get further information from the military authorities. Tomorrow, he said, there will be no more Arabs in Migdal. His wife added, 'They are foul and dirty, those ghetto creatures'.
"I went to the ghetto. A soldier on guard stopped me: no entry. I talked to him and showed him my identity card. He let me through when he saw that I was a Jew - superior race. The picture that I then got was very depressing. People were settling their affairs in preparation for the exodus. The next day they would have to leave their houses, the homes of their fathers and forefathers, family possessions for centuries. One man was selling a writing desk in the street and others were selling all kinds of possessions. Armed soldiers were going through the streets keeping order. There was no one to visit, no one to talk to...
"At the other end of the street, about 300 yards from the ghetto, were the offices of the military governor. There was a notice on the door: 'housing committee'. New immigrants were standing in a queue here to be assigned the houses that would be vacated the next day. But what was particularly striking, juxtaposed to this oppressive poverty within the ghetto, was the number of luxury cars parked in front of the offices of the military governor; in one of the rooms I could see a group of 10 to 12 people sitting round a conference table littered with beer mugs. I could not hear what they were talking about, but I automatically assumed that they were discussing the last stages of the expulsion and redistribution of the homes of these unfortunate homeless people.
"I tried to get an official account of events from the military governor, but he was not there. The mayor, whom I found hard at work in the ghetto, remarked that now was not the time to write anything, and that if he was asked, he would supply details in a couple of weeks. He also said that this was not a good place for talking aloud: the Arabs understood Hebrew and the street had ears.
"There are now 1100 new immigrant families totalling about 4000 people; a large number of them are descended from oriental [Jewish] communities. Neighbouring [Arab] villages like Isdud, Yibna, Julis and other places have been devastated and the new immigrants have been settled in new settlements in the vicinity of the devastated villages. Not in Migdal, where no new houses have been built and where the immigrants are settled in the homes of former inhabitants; in their homes and on land that they have been forced to leave." (Joseph Abileah, from a letter published in the Palestina Bulletin, The Hague, 6 September 1969 - quoted in Palestine Comes First, Lucas Grollenberg, 1980, pp 72-73)
[To place the above in context: "al-Majdal/Migdal-Ashqelon About 2,500 Arabs still lived in Migdal-Ashqelon until the beginning of 1950. Most of them were already displaced persons who had been uprooted from their homes and gathered into the ghetto the state established for them on the outskirts of the town. Their freedom of movement was limited, and they were allowed to leave the ghetto primarily to work. Depending on how much freedom of movement each had been granted they'd seen or heard how their homes had been given to Jewish families who were moving into them. About 10 months elapsed from the day Moshe Dayan decided they were unwelcome in the town until the expulsion of all Arabs had been completed. The main argument was, as always, that they provided 'a haven for infiltrators'. The success of the project, which depended on the cooperation of more than a few Israelis - truck drivers, government ministers who were familiar with the decision, journalists adhering to the official line - would not have been possible had those involved not been convinced that it was 'for the refugees' own good' - they were treated as refugees even before being expelled. It wasn't enough that the Israeli Jews accept the separation of the 'refugees' from family members who had already been expelled to Gaza, or their life in the ghetto, as a fact not subject to appeal. Israel also tried to convince the Palestinians themselves that their evacuation to refugee camps in Gaza was a rescue. The procedures were similar to those the army and the state had previously employed elsewhere, but this time a few months of systematic effort were invested, including a 'campaign of whispers', lies and deception, daily violence and abuse, and a slightly more favorable currency exchange rate." (From Palestine to Israel: A Photographic Record of Destruction & State Formation, 1947-1950, Ariella Azoulay, 2011, p 196)]
Just occasionally, however, a klutz among them comes up with a comment so hilariously dumb as to warrant my sharing it with you. The comment in question, from someone calling himself Frankel, comes from the thread following the January 2012 post Because policing the discourse is punk rock at the US blog L'Hote. Enjoy:
"I'm no fan of much of what Israel does, but as a Jew is it so unreasonable for me to become suspicious when I see so many people who have no skin in the game (that is, people who are neither Jews nor Arabs) take such a critical concern to the behavior of Israelis? And please spare me the line about the aid we give to Israel. The US gives plenty of money or other aid to countries with transgressions far worse than Israel and you don't hear a peep about it.
"I mean, look how women, gays, christians and palestinian refugees have to live in most of the middle east. I guess none of them are fortunate enough to be victims of Jews." JANUARY 28, 2012
What? Run that by you again?
Sure: Palestinian refugees are fortunate enough not to be victims of (presumably Israeli) Jews.
I mean where does one begin with this bloke?
What part of the following eye-witness testimony to Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine's indigenous Arab population, for example, does he not get (providing, of course, he can get his head around its use of capital letters)? The setting is Israel, 1950. Migdal (al-Majdal in Arabic) is now the Israeli coastal town of Ashkelon:
"When I got on to the bus, I could already feel the bitterness of the Arab inhabitants; the two Arab passengers with whom I tried to begin a conversation (without touching on the questions which I had in mind) gave laconic answers. When we arrived in Migdal Gad, I went to the barber, a new immigrant who had already been living in the city for 18 months, and asked him what had been happening over the previous 2 months. He said that the Agency - for him that was the government - had sent the Arabs away from the place and that they had not left of their own free will. He advised me to get further information from the military authorities. Tomorrow, he said, there will be no more Arabs in Migdal. His wife added, 'They are foul and dirty, those ghetto creatures'.
"I went to the ghetto. A soldier on guard stopped me: no entry. I talked to him and showed him my identity card. He let me through when he saw that I was a Jew - superior race. The picture that I then got was very depressing. People were settling their affairs in preparation for the exodus. The next day they would have to leave their houses, the homes of their fathers and forefathers, family possessions for centuries. One man was selling a writing desk in the street and others were selling all kinds of possessions. Armed soldiers were going through the streets keeping order. There was no one to visit, no one to talk to...
"At the other end of the street, about 300 yards from the ghetto, were the offices of the military governor. There was a notice on the door: 'housing committee'. New immigrants were standing in a queue here to be assigned the houses that would be vacated the next day. But what was particularly striking, juxtaposed to this oppressive poverty within the ghetto, was the number of luxury cars parked in front of the offices of the military governor; in one of the rooms I could see a group of 10 to 12 people sitting round a conference table littered with beer mugs. I could not hear what they were talking about, but I automatically assumed that they were discussing the last stages of the expulsion and redistribution of the homes of these unfortunate homeless people.
"I tried to get an official account of events from the military governor, but he was not there. The mayor, whom I found hard at work in the ghetto, remarked that now was not the time to write anything, and that if he was asked, he would supply details in a couple of weeks. He also said that this was not a good place for talking aloud: the Arabs understood Hebrew and the street had ears.
"There are now 1100 new immigrant families totalling about 4000 people; a large number of them are descended from oriental [Jewish] communities. Neighbouring [Arab] villages like Isdud, Yibna, Julis and other places have been devastated and the new immigrants have been settled in new settlements in the vicinity of the devastated villages. Not in Migdal, where no new houses have been built and where the immigrants are settled in the homes of former inhabitants; in their homes and on land that they have been forced to leave." (Joseph Abileah, from a letter published in the Palestina Bulletin, The Hague, 6 September 1969 - quoted in Palestine Comes First, Lucas Grollenberg, 1980, pp 72-73)
[To place the above in context: "al-Majdal/Migdal-Ashqelon About 2,500 Arabs still lived in Migdal-Ashqelon until the beginning of 1950. Most of them were already displaced persons who had been uprooted from their homes and gathered into the ghetto the state established for them on the outskirts of the town. Their freedom of movement was limited, and they were allowed to leave the ghetto primarily to work. Depending on how much freedom of movement each had been granted they'd seen or heard how their homes had been given to Jewish families who were moving into them. About 10 months elapsed from the day Moshe Dayan decided they were unwelcome in the town until the expulsion of all Arabs had been completed. The main argument was, as always, that they provided 'a haven for infiltrators'. The success of the project, which depended on the cooperation of more than a few Israelis - truck drivers, government ministers who were familiar with the decision, journalists adhering to the official line - would not have been possible had those involved not been convinced that it was 'for the refugees' own good' - they were treated as refugees even before being expelled. It wasn't enough that the Israeli Jews accept the separation of the 'refugees' from family members who had already been expelled to Gaza, or their life in the ghetto, as a fact not subject to appeal. Israel also tried to convince the Palestinians themselves that their evacuation to refugee camps in Gaza was a rescue. The procedures were similar to those the army and the state had previously employed elsewhere, but this time a few months of systematic effort were invested, including a 'campaign of whispers', lies and deception, daily violence and abuse, and a slightly more favorable currency exchange rate." (From Palestine to Israel: A Photographic Record of Destruction & State Formation, 1947-1950, Ariella Azoulay, 2011, p 196)]
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Rudd & The Israel Factor Revisited
The Party Thieves (2010), by the host of ABC Television's Insiders program, Barrie Cassidy, is subtitled: The Real Story of the 2010 Election. It incorporates, need I say, the story of the revolt by key Labor parliamentarians against Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his replacement by current PM Julia Gillard. That story has been pretty well canvassed by now, but, in light of this blog's focus, I find the following extract from Cassidy's book most intriguing:
"[Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities] Bill Shorten was typical of those who had become increasingly frustrated and disillusioned with Rudd's style and direction through 2009, and then even more so when the polls started to collapse... Two issues in particular troubled Shorten. He thought the government's backdown on climate change should have been formally announced by the Prime Minister and properly explained around the country. And he was annoyed when the government expelled an Israeli diplomat over the Dubai passports affair, where the passports of 4 Australians with dual Israeli citizenship were falsified as part of a hit on a top Hamas leader. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said that 'was not the act of a friend', and as such, it could not be tolerated. Bill Shorten believed the expulsion was an overreaction." (p 81)
Something rather strange is going on here.
Why does Cassidy merely record the above? Where's the raised eyebrow?
Could it be that he regards the second of Shorten's alleged motives for involvement in the plot to axe Rudd, namely the perfectly justified expulsion of an Israeli diplomat (something John Howard also did), as somehow quotidian?
I'm sorry, but surely the simple fact that Israel was in some way a factor in Rudd's fall is truly extraordinary and suggests that we may have reached the stage where, as in the US, politicians, even prime ministers, can be made or unmade by the Zionist lobby.
For newsmakers like Cassidy, the question arises: if the role of the Israel factor in knocking off an Australian prime minister is not worthy of real media scrutiny, what is?
[NB: This post should be read in conjunction with my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy. On Shorten's background, see my 18/3/10 post Portrait of a Labor Zionist.]
"[Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities] Bill Shorten was typical of those who had become increasingly frustrated and disillusioned with Rudd's style and direction through 2009, and then even more so when the polls started to collapse... Two issues in particular troubled Shorten. He thought the government's backdown on climate change should have been formally announced by the Prime Minister and properly explained around the country. And he was annoyed when the government expelled an Israeli diplomat over the Dubai passports affair, where the passports of 4 Australians with dual Israeli citizenship were falsified as part of a hit on a top Hamas leader. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said that 'was not the act of a friend', and as such, it could not be tolerated. Bill Shorten believed the expulsion was an overreaction." (p 81)
Something rather strange is going on here.
Why does Cassidy merely record the above? Where's the raised eyebrow?
Could it be that he regards the second of Shorten's alleged motives for involvement in the plot to axe Rudd, namely the perfectly justified expulsion of an Israeli diplomat (something John Howard also did), as somehow quotidian?
I'm sorry, but surely the simple fact that Israel was in some way a factor in Rudd's fall is truly extraordinary and suggests that we may have reached the stage where, as in the US, politicians, even prime ministers, can be made or unmade by the Zionist lobby.
For newsmakers like Cassidy, the question arises: if the role of the Israel factor in knocking off an Australian prime minister is not worthy of real media scrutiny, what is?
[NB: This post should be read in conjunction with my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy. On Shorten's background, see my 18/3/10 post Portrait of a Labor Zionist.]
Colonel Vivian Gabriel
As promised in my last post, what follows is the little I know about the author of the invaluable 1922 whistle-blowing essay The Troubles of the Holy Land, Vivian Gabriel. It's taken from that richest of all sources on the early years of British collusion with Zionist skullduggery in Palestine, JMN Jeffries' Palestine: The Reality (1939):
[NB: Louis Brandeis was the American equivalent of Britain's Chaim Weizmann, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and friend of President Woodrow Wilson. He visited Palestine in 1919; Major-General Sir Arthur Money was the Chief Administrator in Palestine, 1918-19.]
"One way and another, between the pressure brought by the [Zionist] Organization chiefs in London and by Brandeis of the golden memory, British officers who did not, like Balfour, see eye to eye with the Zionists, began to lose their posts. They were either forced into resignation or removed. 'One of the chief saboteurs of the Balfour Declaration was removed through his (Mr Brandeis's) influence', writes Mr Kallen, a cautious commentator. Our faithful Zionist Organization Report, too, has something to say of the last days of Major-General Money's rule. He had made a speech condemning the policy of creating 'separate institutions for different communities', whether charitable or educational.
"Shortly afterwards a circular letter was sent from Headquarters to all Military Governors asking their opinion as to the advisability of creating mixed Government schools, for Arabs and Jews alike. The Zionist Commission, it goes without saying, energetically resisted all these attempts, and it is possible that its endeavours, as well as representations made by the London Office to the Home Government had something to do with Major-General Money's recall from the post of Chief Administrator.
"As it happens, General Money already, and for the second time, had tendered privately to Lord Allenby his resignation from his thankless post. But if he had not decided to retire it is evident enough that he would have had to retire. He is not to be confounded with the 'chief saboteur of the Balfour Declaration' just mentioned. This was Colonel Vivian Gabriel (now Sir Vivian Gabriel). Colonel Gabriel was Assistant Administrator of OETA [Occupied Enemy Territory Administration] South. Before the War he had held several highly responsible positions in the Indian Civil Service. In 1914 he had been attached to the Headquarters Staff in Egypt. He then became a member of the British Military Mission to the Headquarters Staff of the Italian Army. At the time he was Financial Adviser to the Palestine Administration. He does not appear to have pleased the Zionists for a number of reasons. Among them, 'he busied himself in promoting British commercial interests. His circulars betrayed in culpable language the belief that Palestine was part of the British Empire'. (Wise-de Haas.)
"Lord Sydenham, when the opportunity occurred, some months later during a Lords debate, directly accused the Government of taking action against British officials, under Zionist influence. 'The military Administrator at the time', said he, 'found that his position had become impossible, and then a most capable Indian Civil Servant, appointed by the War Office as Financial Adviser, and specially commended for good work, was suddenly dismissed... He was condemned unheard, because it was stated that he had adopted 'an attitude inconsistent with the Zionist policy of the Government'. Lord Curzon, who closed the Debate for the Government, had not a word to say in reply." (pp 316-317)
It is to Gabriel's credit that he didn't go quietly, penning at least his eloquent account of Palestine's nascent troubles and warning against the catastrophe to come.
[See also my 26/12/11 post Zionism in the Dock.]
[NB: Louis Brandeis was the American equivalent of Britain's Chaim Weizmann, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and friend of President Woodrow Wilson. He visited Palestine in 1919; Major-General Sir Arthur Money was the Chief Administrator in Palestine, 1918-19.]
"One way and another, between the pressure brought by the [Zionist] Organization chiefs in London and by Brandeis of the golden memory, British officers who did not, like Balfour, see eye to eye with the Zionists, began to lose their posts. They were either forced into resignation or removed. 'One of the chief saboteurs of the Balfour Declaration was removed through his (Mr Brandeis's) influence', writes Mr Kallen, a cautious commentator. Our faithful Zionist Organization Report, too, has something to say of the last days of Major-General Money's rule. He had made a speech condemning the policy of creating 'separate institutions for different communities', whether charitable or educational.
"Shortly afterwards a circular letter was sent from Headquarters to all Military Governors asking their opinion as to the advisability of creating mixed Government schools, for Arabs and Jews alike. The Zionist Commission, it goes without saying, energetically resisted all these attempts, and it is possible that its endeavours, as well as representations made by the London Office to the Home Government had something to do with Major-General Money's recall from the post of Chief Administrator.
"As it happens, General Money already, and for the second time, had tendered privately to Lord Allenby his resignation from his thankless post. But if he had not decided to retire it is evident enough that he would have had to retire. He is not to be confounded with the 'chief saboteur of the Balfour Declaration' just mentioned. This was Colonel Vivian Gabriel (now Sir Vivian Gabriel). Colonel Gabriel was Assistant Administrator of OETA [Occupied Enemy Territory Administration] South. Before the War he had held several highly responsible positions in the Indian Civil Service. In 1914 he had been attached to the Headquarters Staff in Egypt. He then became a member of the British Military Mission to the Headquarters Staff of the Italian Army. At the time he was Financial Adviser to the Palestine Administration. He does not appear to have pleased the Zionists for a number of reasons. Among them, 'he busied himself in promoting British commercial interests. His circulars betrayed in culpable language the belief that Palestine was part of the British Empire'. (Wise-de Haas.)
"Lord Sydenham, when the opportunity occurred, some months later during a Lords debate, directly accused the Government of taking action against British officials, under Zionist influence. 'The military Administrator at the time', said he, 'found that his position had become impossible, and then a most capable Indian Civil Servant, appointed by the War Office as Financial Adviser, and specially commended for good work, was suddenly dismissed... He was condemned unheard, because it was stated that he had adopted 'an attitude inconsistent with the Zionist policy of the Government'. Lord Curzon, who closed the Debate for the Government, had not a word to say in reply." (pp 316-317)
It is to Gabriel's credit that he didn't go quietly, penning at least his eloquent account of Palestine's nascent troubles and warning against the catastrophe to come.
[See also my 26/12/11 post Zionism in the Dock.]
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Original Tat
"[I]n Palestine it is not consequences but causes which cry out for examination. The causes, which have been kept concealed or as far out of sight as possible, all are to be sought within the period from the [First World] War to 1923." (JMN Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 1939, p 574)
As the ms media frame it, Palestine/Israel is primarily a matter of tit-for-tat, a term which invariably crops up with each new round of Israeli savagery in the Gaza Strip, the latest included. The repetition of this term, with its historically contextless perspective, tends to deter the casual reader/viewer from a consideration or examination of the underlying causes of the problem, causes which cannot be lost sight of if one is to truly understand the problem and envisage a just and peaceful solution for it.
With this in mind, I have found it useful to consult those who were there at the time to witness the original tat, if I may call it that, namely, the forced imposition of an alien, European settler-colonial regime on a war-ravaged and defenceless non-European people, a regime so virulent and toxic as to turn their world literally upside down.
Vivian Gabriel (of which more in a follow-up post) is the author of one of the earliest, if not the earliest, critiques of the Zionist invasion of Palestine ever penned. His lengthy, 25-page article, The Troubles of the Holy Land, appeared in The Edinburgh Review of January, 1922. While the whole is well worth seeking out and reading, for the purposes of this post I've picked out some of the key passages and added linking summaries:
Beginning with a thumbnail sketch of Palestine's geography and population, Gabriel moves to an account of Ottoman Palestine. And what a contrast it is to Palestine under the succeeding British/Zionist heel.
"Before the war the people had their own elected representatives, generally from the leading local families, in the Imperial Parliament at Constantinople. They had also local self-government in the administrative council of the province. This was elected by the district councils, which were in turn chosen by the municipalities and village councils. Very few Turkish officials were stationed in Palestine, the majority of functionaries there being natives of the country. The administration, whatever its faults, was simple, inexpensive and suited to the people. Until the war, it was popular enough. The people resented conscription for the Turkish army and despised their Turkish rulers as men of inferior culture; but, on the whole, they were contented, secure and tranquil. The normal Turkish garrison was only about 400 men. The established religion was Moslem but there was complete toleration for other religions, and the various communities, e.g., the Orthodox Greeks, the Jews, the Catholics, each had their own charter of liberties and their own jurisdictional courts. The incidence of taxation was about 26 shillings a head of the population, but much latitude was allowed and actually not more than 20 were collected. The country paid its way and even yielded a handsome surplus to its Turkish rulers, to say nothing of the assigned revenues that went to the bondholders of the Ottoman Public Debt. Concessions for the development of mineral resources, ports and railways, had already been granted and work on them commenced. Fruit and grain enough for export were produced, and there were large gains also from the Christian pilgrim traffic.
"It has long been the fashion in this country to decry the 'unspeakable' Turk and to talk glibly of Ottoman misgovernment. To the student of administrative methods, the 'Corps du Droit Ottoman' tells quite a different tale. The regulations it contains are certainly suited to the people and conditions, and many of them, particularly those relating to representative institutions and the collection of the revenue, had been drawn up by the best experts in Europe and were the direct survivals of the old Roman law that was applied in the Asiatic provinces, with later infiltrations from the Napoleonic codes. Among these laws was one protecting the people from foreign exploitation by restricting immigration, and another confining transactions in real estate to Ottoman subjects.
"During the war, the people of Palestine suffered very badly. They were treated by the Turks as an alien hostile race, for their pro-Ally sympathies were well known: they were robbed and starved; their crops were seized, their fields cut up for trenches; their businesses were ruined and their able-bodied men were forcibly conscripted, even after 3 payments of exemption tax; tens of thousands of them died from pestilence or famine. When therefore the British and Allied forces over-ran the Holy Land, they were welcomed with such joy as had not been known before. It was indeed a liberation and the traditions of the British name promised great things for the future. Men wore their best clothes and strangers embraced each other on the roads from sheer gladness. There were endless 'Te Deums' in village mosques and churches, or in what the law had left in them."
Gabriel has more to say in the same vein but the following sentence on 1918 Palestine is telling: "The problem of Palestine was perhaps the easiest of solution of those that had been left to Great Britain as a result of the war." But no, they had to stuff it up, didn't they?
"The picture now presented by [High Commissioner] Sir Herbert Samuel's report, and by the reports of the commission on the Palestine disturbances [of 1921] and of the Zionist Organization, is by no means so refreshing, and recent visitors to Palestine find the situation overhung with clouds, the population sullen, morose and angry. The people say openly that they were better off under the Turks and are only restrained from violence by the fear of British bayonets; the machinery of military coercion is everywhere in evidence; public security no longer exists and even the High Commissioner himself travels with an armed escort; concessions have been suspended and developments remain in abeyance; the Holy Places are neglected, the government is out of touch with the people.
"Something must have gone seriously wrong in the interval to have produced a change so marked and unexpected. History records no other instance of the same kind under British rule."
Gabriel goes on to sketch the rise and rise of the Zionist movement, culminating in the issuance, by the government of Lloyd George and Lord Balfour, of the Balfour Declaration, which gave official British backing to the creation of a Jewish state... sorry, National Home, in Palestine, a development which quickened the pulse of many a European and North American Jew.
"In Palestine itself," however, writes Gabriel, "the people whose national home it already was took quite another view. They were still under the Turks, from whom they first heard of it. It was, to use their own phrase, a bolt from the blue, and they were thoroughly alarmed at the economic difficulty of two national homes in one house. Their great ambition was the promised independence and, notwithstanding Turkish taunts, they refused to believe that the British would not keep their word. This was their attitude at the beginning of the occupation, but a few months later, when a Zionist Commission under the leadership of Dr Weizmann arrived in Palestine, they began to be seriously perturbed."
This semi-official body, in its arrogance, proceeded to behave as though it owned the place. Hebrew was made an official language and the Zionists were given a monopoly over development. "Matters reached such a pass towards the end of 1918 that the chief administrator of Palestine was compelled to ask either for a military force to repress the civil population, or for a definite pronouncement of policy that would enable him to allay the popular excitement," wrote Gabriel.
A joint British-French proclamation promising popularly elected governments in their respective colonies... sorry, Mandates, was issued but the smooth-talking Dr Weizmann had Whitehall's ear and the proclamation's promise of democratic rule vanished as quickly as an Obama statement calling for an Israeli settlement freeze in the occupied Palestinian territories today. Things came to a head with the appointment of Britain's first civilian ruler, the British Zionist politician, Sir Herbert Samuel.
"The public had become thoroughly alarmed, and the tension was not allayed by the acts of Sir Herbert Samuel's government. The Jewish element in the public service was disproportionately increased and in nearly every position where a native was found he was counterbalanced by a Jew. The employment of a large number of Jewish workmen and labourers out of all proportion to the Jewish population of the country had displaced Arab labour and was a means of using public money for the very support of the immigrants whose introduction was viewed with hostility and alarm; men talked in whispers in the street and were afraid to use the post or telegraph; the official use of Hebrew was largely extended, and the native's ignorance of this tongue provided a reason for edging him out in favour of the Jew; even the postage stamps were surcharged with an inscription signifying 'the Land of Israel'; Zionists openly referred to the High Commissioner as 'the Prince of Israel'; the natives suffered great loss in 1920 by the prohibition of the export of grain in order to feed the foreign immigrants; an advisory council was formed, but it was nominated by the High Commissioner and contained an official majority; there was no representative government such as the people had been used to. A spark would have set the country in a blaze at any moment, and the High Commissioner evidently lived in constant apprehension of concerted action by the people. Machine guns and armoured cars were frequently paraded; at every railway station there was a Jewish linesman to watch the native station-master; the Arab notables were required to give security to keep the peace, although they had never broken it, or be imprisoned by default; the native press was muzzled while the Zionist ran free."
Gabriel concluded, in part: "It should not be forgotten that the Balfour Declaration is a pact between the Government and the Zionists, not between the latter and the Arabs, who were no party to it at all, and still refuse to have any official dealings whatever with Zionists. If by pursuing the present policy a worse than Irish question is allowed to grow, the land of our 3 great cognate faiths will be a shame to the whole world."
Now, what was that about tit-for-tat?
As the ms media frame it, Palestine/Israel is primarily a matter of tit-for-tat, a term which invariably crops up with each new round of Israeli savagery in the Gaza Strip, the latest included. The repetition of this term, with its historically contextless perspective, tends to deter the casual reader/viewer from a consideration or examination of the underlying causes of the problem, causes which cannot be lost sight of if one is to truly understand the problem and envisage a just and peaceful solution for it.
With this in mind, I have found it useful to consult those who were there at the time to witness the original tat, if I may call it that, namely, the forced imposition of an alien, European settler-colonial regime on a war-ravaged and defenceless non-European people, a regime so virulent and toxic as to turn their world literally upside down.
Vivian Gabriel (of which more in a follow-up post) is the author of one of the earliest, if not the earliest, critiques of the Zionist invasion of Palestine ever penned. His lengthy, 25-page article, The Troubles of the Holy Land, appeared in The Edinburgh Review of January, 1922. While the whole is well worth seeking out and reading, for the purposes of this post I've picked out some of the key passages and added linking summaries:
Beginning with a thumbnail sketch of Palestine's geography and population, Gabriel moves to an account of Ottoman Palestine. And what a contrast it is to Palestine under the succeeding British/Zionist heel.
"Before the war the people had their own elected representatives, generally from the leading local families, in the Imperial Parliament at Constantinople. They had also local self-government in the administrative council of the province. This was elected by the district councils, which were in turn chosen by the municipalities and village councils. Very few Turkish officials were stationed in Palestine, the majority of functionaries there being natives of the country. The administration, whatever its faults, was simple, inexpensive and suited to the people. Until the war, it was popular enough. The people resented conscription for the Turkish army and despised their Turkish rulers as men of inferior culture; but, on the whole, they were contented, secure and tranquil. The normal Turkish garrison was only about 400 men. The established religion was Moslem but there was complete toleration for other religions, and the various communities, e.g., the Orthodox Greeks, the Jews, the Catholics, each had their own charter of liberties and their own jurisdictional courts. The incidence of taxation was about 26 shillings a head of the population, but much latitude was allowed and actually not more than 20 were collected. The country paid its way and even yielded a handsome surplus to its Turkish rulers, to say nothing of the assigned revenues that went to the bondholders of the Ottoman Public Debt. Concessions for the development of mineral resources, ports and railways, had already been granted and work on them commenced. Fruit and grain enough for export were produced, and there were large gains also from the Christian pilgrim traffic.
"It has long been the fashion in this country to decry the 'unspeakable' Turk and to talk glibly of Ottoman misgovernment. To the student of administrative methods, the 'Corps du Droit Ottoman' tells quite a different tale. The regulations it contains are certainly suited to the people and conditions, and many of them, particularly those relating to representative institutions and the collection of the revenue, had been drawn up by the best experts in Europe and were the direct survivals of the old Roman law that was applied in the Asiatic provinces, with later infiltrations from the Napoleonic codes. Among these laws was one protecting the people from foreign exploitation by restricting immigration, and another confining transactions in real estate to Ottoman subjects.
"During the war, the people of Palestine suffered very badly. They were treated by the Turks as an alien hostile race, for their pro-Ally sympathies were well known: they were robbed and starved; their crops were seized, their fields cut up for trenches; their businesses were ruined and their able-bodied men were forcibly conscripted, even after 3 payments of exemption tax; tens of thousands of them died from pestilence or famine. When therefore the British and Allied forces over-ran the Holy Land, they were welcomed with such joy as had not been known before. It was indeed a liberation and the traditions of the British name promised great things for the future. Men wore their best clothes and strangers embraced each other on the roads from sheer gladness. There were endless 'Te Deums' in village mosques and churches, or in what the law had left in them."
Gabriel has more to say in the same vein but the following sentence on 1918 Palestine is telling: "The problem of Palestine was perhaps the easiest of solution of those that had been left to Great Britain as a result of the war." But no, they had to stuff it up, didn't they?
"The picture now presented by [High Commissioner] Sir Herbert Samuel's report, and by the reports of the commission on the Palestine disturbances [of 1921] and of the Zionist Organization, is by no means so refreshing, and recent visitors to Palestine find the situation overhung with clouds, the population sullen, morose and angry. The people say openly that they were better off under the Turks and are only restrained from violence by the fear of British bayonets; the machinery of military coercion is everywhere in evidence; public security no longer exists and even the High Commissioner himself travels with an armed escort; concessions have been suspended and developments remain in abeyance; the Holy Places are neglected, the government is out of touch with the people.
"Something must have gone seriously wrong in the interval to have produced a change so marked and unexpected. History records no other instance of the same kind under British rule."
Gabriel goes on to sketch the rise and rise of the Zionist movement, culminating in the issuance, by the government of Lloyd George and Lord Balfour, of the Balfour Declaration, which gave official British backing to the creation of a Jewish state... sorry, National Home, in Palestine, a development which quickened the pulse of many a European and North American Jew.
"In Palestine itself," however, writes Gabriel, "the people whose national home it already was took quite another view. They were still under the Turks, from whom they first heard of it. It was, to use their own phrase, a bolt from the blue, and they were thoroughly alarmed at the economic difficulty of two national homes in one house. Their great ambition was the promised independence and, notwithstanding Turkish taunts, they refused to believe that the British would not keep their word. This was their attitude at the beginning of the occupation, but a few months later, when a Zionist Commission under the leadership of Dr Weizmann arrived in Palestine, they began to be seriously perturbed."
This semi-official body, in its arrogance, proceeded to behave as though it owned the place. Hebrew was made an official language and the Zionists were given a monopoly over development. "Matters reached such a pass towards the end of 1918 that the chief administrator of Palestine was compelled to ask either for a military force to repress the civil population, or for a definite pronouncement of policy that would enable him to allay the popular excitement," wrote Gabriel.
A joint British-French proclamation promising popularly elected governments in their respective colonies... sorry, Mandates, was issued but the smooth-talking Dr Weizmann had Whitehall's ear and the proclamation's promise of democratic rule vanished as quickly as an Obama statement calling for an Israeli settlement freeze in the occupied Palestinian territories today. Things came to a head with the appointment of Britain's first civilian ruler, the British Zionist politician, Sir Herbert Samuel.
"The public had become thoroughly alarmed, and the tension was not allayed by the acts of Sir Herbert Samuel's government. The Jewish element in the public service was disproportionately increased and in nearly every position where a native was found he was counterbalanced by a Jew. The employment of a large number of Jewish workmen and labourers out of all proportion to the Jewish population of the country had displaced Arab labour and was a means of using public money for the very support of the immigrants whose introduction was viewed with hostility and alarm; men talked in whispers in the street and were afraid to use the post or telegraph; the official use of Hebrew was largely extended, and the native's ignorance of this tongue provided a reason for edging him out in favour of the Jew; even the postage stamps were surcharged with an inscription signifying 'the Land of Israel'; Zionists openly referred to the High Commissioner as 'the Prince of Israel'; the natives suffered great loss in 1920 by the prohibition of the export of grain in order to feed the foreign immigrants; an advisory council was formed, but it was nominated by the High Commissioner and contained an official majority; there was no representative government such as the people had been used to. A spark would have set the country in a blaze at any moment, and the High Commissioner evidently lived in constant apprehension of concerted action by the people. Machine guns and armoured cars were frequently paraded; at every railway station there was a Jewish linesman to watch the native station-master; the Arab notables were required to give security to keep the peace, although they had never broken it, or be imprisoned by default; the native press was muzzled while the Zionist ran free."
Gabriel concluded, in part: "It should not be forgotten that the Balfour Declaration is a pact between the Government and the Zionists, not between the latter and the Arabs, who were no party to it at all, and still refuse to have any official dealings whatever with Zionists. If by pursuing the present policy a worse than Irish question is allowed to grow, the land of our 3 great cognate faiths will be a shame to the whole world."
Now, what was that about tit-for-tat?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
In Whose Interest?
Pure coincidence, but it's interesting how the following news should come on the heels of my last post:
"A secret squadron of Australian SAS soldiers has been operating at large in Africa, performing work normally done by spies, in an unannounced and possibly dangerous expansion of Australia's foreign military engagement... The Herald has confirmed that troopers from the [SAS 4] squadron have mounted dozens of secret operations during the past year in various African nations, including Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Kenya. They have been out of uniform and not accompanied by Australian Secret Intelligence Service [ASIS] officers with whom undercover SAS forces are conventionally deployed. It is believed the missions have involved gathering intelligence on terrorism and scoping rescue strategies for Australian civilians trapped by kidnapping or civil war. But the operations have raised serious concerns within the Australian military and intelligence community because they involve countries where Australia is not at war... Despite the dangers, the then foreign affairs minister Kevin Rudd last year asked for troopers from 4 Squadron to be used in Libya during the conflict. His plan was thwarted by opposition from the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, and the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General David Hurley." (Secret SAS teams hunt for terrorists, Rafael Epstein & Dylan Welch, Sydney Morning Herald, 13/3/12)
But really this should come as no surprise:
"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has phoned Prime Minister John Howard to thank him for the role played by Australian special forces sent deep into Iraq to destroy missile sites aimed at Israel. While little detail has emerged about the activities of the SAS in the second Gulf War, indications are that its soldiers went in to knock out missiles aimed at Israel and at Arab countries helping the coalition cause. A major concern of coalition planners was that the hawkish Israeli Government would launch its own attacks on Iraq if Iraqi missiles landed on its territory - particularly if they were loaded with chemical or biological weapons... The US is understood to have assured Israel that it would be in a position to deal with any such threat before hostilities started.
"Israel's ambassador to Australia, Gabi Levy, told The Sunday Age that Mr Sharon rang Mr Howard a week ago to convey his appreciation for the part Australia played. That followed a March 25 call from Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, to his Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, in which he passed on the appreciation and gratitude of Israelis for the job the SAS soldiers did in western Iraq. Mr Levy said Mr Downer briefed Mr Shalom on the coalition forces' activities in western Iraq and said that their aim was to prevent Scud missile attacks on Israel. Mr Downer said a high priority was given to that goal. It seems likely that the SAS moved into Iraq at least 2 days before the 'official' war started on March 20 with a cruise missile bombardment of Baghdad intended to kill the Iraqi leadership... Mr Levy said he knew nothing of speculation from the US that Australian and Israeli special forces operated together in western Iraq. On March 29, New York's Daily News reported that Israel was engaged behind the scenes providing satellite intelligence to supplement that of the US. It said Israeli agents in Baghdad had provided sensitive information to the US and its Sayeret Matkal commandos were operating in the desert in western Iraq with American and Australian special forces." (Sharon thanks PM for help, Brendan Nicholson, The Age, 13/4/03)
The question arises: Are we off on a frolic all our own, or are we just gormlessly tagging along with our USraeli mates again?
After all, the Israelis recently concluded a deal with Kenya, declaring that "Kenya's enemies are Israel's enemies" (Israel increase in support for Kenya's al-Shabaab battle draws fresh threats, Mike Pflanz, telegraph.co.uk, 15/11/11).
Ditto for Nigeria. In the words of Israel's ambassador to that country: "Our hands are always open to our friends and partners. Nigeria is one of them. Efforts are on the way over this, we cannot say more than that now. It falls under a bi-lateral arrangement and relationship" (Israel joins Nigeria to fight Boko Haram, Konye Obaji Ori, theafricareport.com, 8/3/12).
Further, hadn't Haaretz' security expert, Yossi Melman, declared on our own Radio National in 2010:
"A third role [of Mossad] was to maintain secret, clandestine but very vital and useful contacts with its counterparts, whether it's... ASIO or... the CIA or... MI6. And they have developed over the years, very, very intimate relations, sharing information and... assessments and even, nowadays, going into the field, enjoying the operations in the war against global terrorism"* (The Mossad, Rear Vision, 24/3/10).
Watch this space.
[*See my 29/5/10 post All the Way with Mossad.]
"A secret squadron of Australian SAS soldiers has been operating at large in Africa, performing work normally done by spies, in an unannounced and possibly dangerous expansion of Australia's foreign military engagement... The Herald has confirmed that troopers from the [SAS 4] squadron have mounted dozens of secret operations during the past year in various African nations, including Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Kenya. They have been out of uniform and not accompanied by Australian Secret Intelligence Service [ASIS] officers with whom undercover SAS forces are conventionally deployed. It is believed the missions have involved gathering intelligence on terrorism and scoping rescue strategies for Australian civilians trapped by kidnapping or civil war. But the operations have raised serious concerns within the Australian military and intelligence community because they involve countries where Australia is not at war... Despite the dangers, the then foreign affairs minister Kevin Rudd last year asked for troopers from 4 Squadron to be used in Libya during the conflict. His plan was thwarted by opposition from the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, and the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General David Hurley." (Secret SAS teams hunt for terrorists, Rafael Epstein & Dylan Welch, Sydney Morning Herald, 13/3/12)
But really this should come as no surprise:
"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has phoned Prime Minister John Howard to thank him for the role played by Australian special forces sent deep into Iraq to destroy missile sites aimed at Israel. While little detail has emerged about the activities of the SAS in the second Gulf War, indications are that its soldiers went in to knock out missiles aimed at Israel and at Arab countries helping the coalition cause. A major concern of coalition planners was that the hawkish Israeli Government would launch its own attacks on Iraq if Iraqi missiles landed on its territory - particularly if they were loaded with chemical or biological weapons... The US is understood to have assured Israel that it would be in a position to deal with any such threat before hostilities started.
"Israel's ambassador to Australia, Gabi Levy, told The Sunday Age that Mr Sharon rang Mr Howard a week ago to convey his appreciation for the part Australia played. That followed a March 25 call from Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, to his Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, in which he passed on the appreciation and gratitude of Israelis for the job the SAS soldiers did in western Iraq. Mr Levy said Mr Downer briefed Mr Shalom on the coalition forces' activities in western Iraq and said that their aim was to prevent Scud missile attacks on Israel. Mr Downer said a high priority was given to that goal. It seems likely that the SAS moved into Iraq at least 2 days before the 'official' war started on March 20 with a cruise missile bombardment of Baghdad intended to kill the Iraqi leadership... Mr Levy said he knew nothing of speculation from the US that Australian and Israeli special forces operated together in western Iraq. On March 29, New York's Daily News reported that Israel was engaged behind the scenes providing satellite intelligence to supplement that of the US. It said Israeli agents in Baghdad had provided sensitive information to the US and its Sayeret Matkal commandos were operating in the desert in western Iraq with American and Australian special forces." (Sharon thanks PM for help, Brendan Nicholson, The Age, 13/4/03)
The question arises: Are we off on a frolic all our own, or are we just gormlessly tagging along with our USraeli mates again?
After all, the Israelis recently concluded a deal with Kenya, declaring that "Kenya's enemies are Israel's enemies" (Israel increase in support for Kenya's al-Shabaab battle draws fresh threats, Mike Pflanz, telegraph.co.uk, 15/11/11).
Ditto for Nigeria. In the words of Israel's ambassador to that country: "Our hands are always open to our friends and partners. Nigeria is one of them. Efforts are on the way over this, we cannot say more than that now. It falls under a bi-lateral arrangement and relationship" (Israel joins Nigeria to fight Boko Haram, Konye Obaji Ori, theafricareport.com, 8/3/12).
Further, hadn't Haaretz' security expert, Yossi Melman, declared on our own Radio National in 2010:
"A third role [of Mossad] was to maintain secret, clandestine but very vital and useful contacts with its counterparts, whether it's... ASIO or... the CIA or... MI6. And they have developed over the years, very, very intimate relations, sharing information and... assessments and even, nowadays, going into the field, enjoying the operations in the war against global terrorism"* (The Mossad, Rear Vision, 24/3/10).
Watch this space.
[*See my 29/5/10 post All the Way with Mossad.]
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Things They Do...
... to keep HIM happy:
"This week's meeting between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was said to have ended more cordially than their last face-to-face. And Netanyahu does seem to have cooled his calls for war and threats to attack Iran even without notifying the US. After all, Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapons program.
"According to Marc Ambinder, this is because Obama shared with Bibi 'the US's significantly ramped-up American covert sabotage and non-proliferation campaign' inside Iran, calming his fears of an impending nuclear weapon. Ambinder says 'the CIA's ops arm, the National Clandestine Service, along with the US military' are 'scrutinizing and seizing cargo shipments bound for Iran, tapping the black market for nuclear supplies and buying up spare parts, and maximising the collection of Iranian signal traffic'. One primary type of intelligence the US has on Iran's nuclear program is what is called 'measurement and signature intelligence', or MASINT. These are 'sensors on satellites, drones, and on the ground' measuring 'everything from the electromagnetic signatures created by testing conventional missile systems to disturbances in the soil and geography around a hidden nuclear facility to streams of radioactive particles that are byproducts of the uranium enrichment process'. The US 'knows what Iran has and doesn't have', says Ambinder.
"Ambinder's account of covert intelligence gathering conforms to a report from the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh in May of last year. Hersh reported that for years 'soldiers from the Joint Special Operations Force, working with Iranian intelligence assets' went directly into Iran to set these systems up. 'Street signs were surreptitiosly removed in heavily populated areas of Tehran - say, near a university suspected of conducting nuclear enrichment - and replaced with similar-looking signs implanted with radiation sensors. American operatives, working under cover, also removed bricks from a building or two in central Tehran that they thought housed nuclear enrichment activities and replaced them with bricks embedded with radiation-monitoring devices. High-powered sensors disguised as stones* were spread randomly along roadways in a mountainous area where a suspected underground weapon site was under construction. The stones were capable of transmitting electronic data on the weight of the vehicles going in or out of the site; a truck going in light and coming out heavy could be hauling dirt - crucial evidence of evacuation work. There is also constant satellite coverage of major suspect areas in Iran and some American analysts were assigned the difficult task of examining footage in the hope of finding air vents - signs, perhaps, of an underground facility in lightly populated areas'.
"Ambinder's piece doesn't get deep into the sabotage elements of the covert war on Iran, but we of course know that the Stuxnet computer virus that infected Iran's nuclear facilities and broke a bunch of their equipment was a US project and that the US has sold broken equipment to Iran through third parties in international markets. Incidentally, Ambinder notes, while the US is sharing all this top secret information with Israel, Israel isn't sharing anything with us. 'Often', he writes, 'the US government finds out about explosions that kill Iranian scientists at the same time as the world press does'. Apparently Bibi doesn't feel comfortable divulging Israeli proxy terrorism with Obama." (Comforting Bibi: covert activity in Iran, John Glazer, antiwar.com, 7/3/12)
[*Of related interest: "The Lebanese army said Thursday its units had found and dismantled an Israeli spying device, apparently disguised as a rock, in southern Lebanon. 'The device was located thanks to intelligence from resistance forces (Hezbollah) near the area of Chamaa in southern Lebanon', the army said in a statement. According to the statement, the device, which was camouflaged as a rock, took and transmitted photographs. On December 16, 2010 the Lebanese army said it dismantled a similar device in the area of Barouk, southeast of Beirut. More than 100 people in Lebanon have been arrested since 2009 on suspicion of collaborating with Israel." (Lebanese army claims to have dismantled another Israeli spy device, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 17/5/11)
"This week's meeting between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was said to have ended more cordially than their last face-to-face. And Netanyahu does seem to have cooled his calls for war and threats to attack Iran even without notifying the US. After all, Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapons program.
"According to Marc Ambinder, this is because Obama shared with Bibi 'the US's significantly ramped-up American covert sabotage and non-proliferation campaign' inside Iran, calming his fears of an impending nuclear weapon. Ambinder says 'the CIA's ops arm, the National Clandestine Service, along with the US military' are 'scrutinizing and seizing cargo shipments bound for Iran, tapping the black market for nuclear supplies and buying up spare parts, and maximising the collection of Iranian signal traffic'. One primary type of intelligence the US has on Iran's nuclear program is what is called 'measurement and signature intelligence', or MASINT. These are 'sensors on satellites, drones, and on the ground' measuring 'everything from the electromagnetic signatures created by testing conventional missile systems to disturbances in the soil and geography around a hidden nuclear facility to streams of radioactive particles that are byproducts of the uranium enrichment process'. The US 'knows what Iran has and doesn't have', says Ambinder.
"Ambinder's account of covert intelligence gathering conforms to a report from the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh in May of last year. Hersh reported that for years 'soldiers from the Joint Special Operations Force, working with Iranian intelligence assets' went directly into Iran to set these systems up. 'Street signs were surreptitiosly removed in heavily populated areas of Tehran - say, near a university suspected of conducting nuclear enrichment - and replaced with similar-looking signs implanted with radiation sensors. American operatives, working under cover, also removed bricks from a building or two in central Tehran that they thought housed nuclear enrichment activities and replaced them with bricks embedded with radiation-monitoring devices. High-powered sensors disguised as stones* were spread randomly along roadways in a mountainous area where a suspected underground weapon site was under construction. The stones were capable of transmitting electronic data on the weight of the vehicles going in or out of the site; a truck going in light and coming out heavy could be hauling dirt - crucial evidence of evacuation work. There is also constant satellite coverage of major suspect areas in Iran and some American analysts were assigned the difficult task of examining footage in the hope of finding air vents - signs, perhaps, of an underground facility in lightly populated areas'.
"Ambinder's piece doesn't get deep into the sabotage elements of the covert war on Iran, but we of course know that the Stuxnet computer virus that infected Iran's nuclear facilities and broke a bunch of their equipment was a US project and that the US has sold broken equipment to Iran through third parties in international markets. Incidentally, Ambinder notes, while the US is sharing all this top secret information with Israel, Israel isn't sharing anything with us. 'Often', he writes, 'the US government finds out about explosions that kill Iranian scientists at the same time as the world press does'. Apparently Bibi doesn't feel comfortable divulging Israeli proxy terrorism with Obama." (Comforting Bibi: covert activity in Iran, John Glazer, antiwar.com, 7/3/12)
[*Of related interest: "The Lebanese army said Thursday its units had found and dismantled an Israeli spying device, apparently disguised as a rock, in southern Lebanon. 'The device was located thanks to intelligence from resistance forces (Hezbollah) near the area of Chamaa in southern Lebanon', the army said in a statement. According to the statement, the device, which was camouflaged as a rock, took and transmitted photographs. On December 16, 2010 the Lebanese army said it dismantled a similar device in the area of Barouk, southeast of Beirut. More than 100 people in Lebanon have been arrested since 2009 on suspicion of collaborating with Israel." (Lebanese army claims to have dismantled another Israeli spy device, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 17/5/11)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)