|
Saturday, September 02, 2006
 SCANDAL:
9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for
the 9/11 Attacks.
A look at
reviews of "Without
Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" in the
NYT and the Independent Institute plus a look at the book.
From
James Bamford's review,
Intelligence Test, in the NYT:
"the
commission was charged with explaining not only what
happened, but also
why it
happened. In looking into the background of the
hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy was not
a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly
even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in
casual sex. Instead,
hatred
of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be
the key factor. Speaking to the F.B.I. agents who
investigated the attacks, Hamilton asked: "You’ve looked
[at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as
anybody. . . . What have you found out about
why
these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?"
These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James
Fitzgerald. "I believe they feel a sense of
outrage against the United
States," he said. "They
identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify
with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they
tend to focus their anger on the United States." As if to
reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the
original plan for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the strategist of the 9/11 plot,
"was going to fly the final plane, land it and make 'a
speech denouncing U.S.
policies in the Middle East,'" Kean and Hamilton say,
quoting a staff statement. And they continue: "Lee felt that
there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's
long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the
presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major
motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions."
Given the Bush administration's current policies in the
region, another 9/11-style attack is less a matter of if
than when."
This review in
the NYT overlooks the fact that there was no recommendations in
the 9/11 commission's report addressing US support for Israel.
Bamford's review in the NYT does not reveal the fact that there
was "some disagreement over foreign policy issues. Much of it
revolved around the question of al Qaeda's motivation." and that
"this was sensitive ground." The review doesn't reveal the ugly
fact that some commissioners were able to pressure the group
into not putting any
recommendations in the report addressing US support for Israel.
It is a
scandal that commissioners bowed to pressure to suppress what
was the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. Their
compromise was to write in their report that "America's policy
choices have consequences. Right or wrong," They were too
worried about playing politics to admit that biased US
government policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict motivates the terrorists. They
copped out and wrote that "American policy regarding the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are
dominant staples of popular
commentary." These "American actions" or more accurately,
the actions dictated by the policies of special interests, are
resulting in much more than "commentary!"
Ivan Eland's review, "9/11
Commission Chairmen Admit Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks"
is the review that clued me in on the fact that the "book by the
chairmen of the 9/11 commission
admits that
the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks."
Eland makes these critical points in his review:
"The book
usefully details the administration's willful
misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but
makes
the shocking admission that some commission members
deliberately wanted to
distort an even more important issue. Apparently,
unidentified commissioners wanted to
cover up the fact
that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating
factors behind al Qaeda's 9/11 attack. Although
Hamilton, to his credit, argued for saying that the reasons
al Qaeda committed the heinous strike were the U.S. military
presence in the Middle East and American support for Israel,
the panel watered down that frank conclusion to state
that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and
U.S. policy on Iraq are "dominant staples of popular
commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."
Some commissioners wanted
to cover up the link
between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel
because this might imply
that the United States should alter policy and lessen its
support for Israeli actions. How right they
were. The question is simple:
if the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S.
politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel,
designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home,
wouldn't it be a good idea to make this change in course?
Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for
Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and
unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more
widely known."
The book, "Without
Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" does
reveal what those studying this issue have suspected, that some
commissioners on the 9/11 Commission
argued against and stopped
the Commission from making a recommendation about
the main
motive for the 9/11 attacks: US support of Israel.
From
Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission
pp. 284-285:
"We did
however, have some disagreement over foreign policy issues.
Much of it revolved around
the question of al Qaeda's motivation. For instance,
Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a
settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to
America's long-term
relationship
with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American
forces in the Middle East was a
major motivating factor in
al Qaeda's actions. Similarly, several commissioners
pointed out that we had to acknowledge that the American
presence in Iraq had become the dominant issue in the way
the world's Muslims viewed the United States.
--- This was
sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was
motivated primarily by a religious ideology - and not by
opposition to American policies -
rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the
report. In their
view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al
Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the
United States should reassess that policy. To Lee,
though, it was not a question of altering support for Israel
but merely stating a fact that the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict was central to the relations between the Islamic
world and the United States - and to Bin Laden's ideology
and the support he gained throughout the Islamic world for
his jihad against America. ... We ended up agreeing on
language that acknowledged the importance of the two issues
without passing judgment:
America's
policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is
simply a fact that American policy regarding the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in
Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across
the Arab and Muslim world. That does not mean U.S.
choices have been wrong. It means those choices must be
integrated with America's message of opportunity to the
Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor the new Iraq
will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows
stronger.
This book lets
this flawed argument stand as the excuse for why they ended up
agreeing on what they put in the 9/11 Commission's Report.
Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily
by a religious ideology and
against
mentioning
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report
ignored the findings of the
Commission's own staff!:
-
"The staff
found that religious orthodoxy was
not a common denominator since some of the members
"reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others
engaged in casual sex."
-
By 1992, Bin
Ladin was focused on attacking the United States. He argued
that other extremists, aimed at local rulers or
Israel,
had not gone far enough; they had not attacked what he
called 'the head of the snake,' the United States. He
charged that the United States, in addition to
backing
Israel, kept in power repressive Arab regimes not
true to Islam. He also excoriated the continued presence of
U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War as a
defilement of holy Muslim land.
These Commissioners ignored
testimony from the Commission's own hearings!:
MR. SNELL: Atta was
chosen as the emir, or leader of the mission. He met with
Bin Ladin to discuss the targets, the World Trade Center,
which represented the United States economy, the Pentagon, a
symbol of the U.S. military, and the U.S. Capitol, the
perceived source of
U.S.
policy in support of Israel.
...
MR. HAMILTON:
But what have you found out about why these men did what
they did? What motivated them to do it?
MR. FITZGERALD: I
believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United
States.
They identify with the Palestinian problem, they
identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I
believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States
These Commissioners ignored what
made it into the 9/11 Comission's own report!:
The report showed that the two terrorist pilots shared the same
motivation. Both Mohammed Atta,
the leader of the mission and terrorist pilot who crashed into
World Trade Center 1, and Marwan al Shehhi, the terrorist
pilot who crashed into WTC 2, were angry about what Israel was
doing to the Palestinians:
The report showed
that the architect of 9/11,
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shared the same motivation.
-
"By his own
account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United
States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student,
but rather from his violent disagreement with
U.S.
foreign policy favoring Israel."
Chapter 5
My own research has turned up
even more evidence which the Commission had access to as well:
-
Abdulaziz Alomari,
one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta,
said in his video will, "My work is a message those who
heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is
a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian
peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the
coward Jews in
Palestine."
-
Ahmed Al Haznawi, a
hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is
Palestine for more than a
half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."
In March of 2002,
MSNBC aired "The Making of the Death Pilots." In that
documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked
and talked a lot with Mohammed
Atta. Ralph said, "He (Atta) was most imbued actually
about Israeli politics in the region and about
US
protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And
he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
"We swore
that America wouldn't live in security
until we
live it truly in Palestine.
This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest
above its own people's interest.
America won't get out of this
crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and
until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama
bin Laden, October 2001
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White
House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who
is elected and supported by his people, denying reality
and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them
because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas
the reality is that we are
striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole
of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine
and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries."
-Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that
is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a
letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack
of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on
the mentioned building.
This action was done in
response for the American political, economical, and
military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the
rest of the dictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing
CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA
headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said,
"What
I did was a retaliation against the US government for
American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ."
Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle
testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America
and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing
hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who
had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that
Kasi would get
incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being
treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World
Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood,
however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government
might. -
Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
posted
by Tom at
9/02/2006 07:40:00 AM
23 Comments
23 Comments:
US Support (in the BILLIONS of US
taxpayer dollars as US states go broke as conveyed via
http://www.wrmea.com) for Israel was the PRIMARY MOTIVATION for
the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on
September 11th, 2001 (9/11):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590
New Book: The Power of Israel in the
United States:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=58391
The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion
of Lebanon:
Their Facts and Ours
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras29.htm
audio/video link for excellent interview with James Petras about
the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the USA :
http://easylink.playstream.com/currentissues/petras.wvx
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in 9/11:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=55993
Interview with Former Malaysian PM
Mahathis Mohammad:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=59370
The Gorilla in the Room is US
Support for Israel
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html
August 31, 2006
In Pro-Israel Circles, Doubts Grow Over US Policy
by Jim Lobe
A growing debate within Israel over whether United States
President George W. Bush's Middle East policies really serve the
interests of the Jewish state has spread to Washington, where
influential voices within the U.S. Jewish community are
questioning the administration's hard-line positions in the
region.
Coming in the wake of the month-long war between Israel and
Lebanon's Hezbollah, during which Washington provided virtually
unconditional support and encouragement to Tel Aviv, the debate
has focused initially on the wisdom of Bush's efforts to isolate
rather than engage Syria, the indispensable link in the military
supply chain between Iran and the Shia militia.
But the debate over Syria policy may mark the launch of a
broader challenge among Israel's supporters here to the
administration's reliance on unilateralism, military power, and
"regime change" in the Middle East – whose most fervent
champions have been neoconservatives and the right-wing
leadership of the so-called "Israel lobby."
"Bush has been convinced by self-appointed spokesmen for Israel
and the Jewish community that endless war is in Israel's
interest," asserted the lead editorial in the U.S.' most
important Jewish newspaper, the Forward, immediately after the
cease-fire took effect.
"[Bush] needs to hear in no uncertain terms that Israel is ready
for dialogue, that the alternative – endless jihad – is
unthinkable," declared the paper, which argued for Israel's
participation in a regional dialogue with its Arab neighbors,
including Syria, for a comprehensive peace settlement. "Now is
time to change the tune," the Forward concluded.
While such a regional negotiation is unlikely to be accepted
either by Washington or Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in
the short term, the question of engaging Syria is rapidly moving
up the agenda both in Israel, where several Cabinet ministers
have endorsed the idea, and in Washington, where the traditional
foreign policy elite – from Republican realists like former
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Democratic
internationalists such as former Secretaries of State Warren
Christopher and Madeleine Albright – publicly criticized Bush
for rejecting talks with Damascus, at the very least to probe
its willingness to rein in Hezbollah, if not loosen its alliance
with Iran, during the past month's fighting.
"I can't for the life of me understand why we don't [talk with]
Syria," said James Dobbins, an analyst at the RAND Corporation
who, as a senior State Department official, coordinated the Bush
administration's diplomacy during and immediately after the war
in Afghanistan.
"I think this idea that we don't talk to our enemies simply has
to be jettisoned," he told a forum at the New America Foundation
(NAF) in Washington last week.
Dobbins' critique echoes those raised by a number of prominent
Jewish figures, such as New York Times columnist Thomas
Friedman, former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Dennis
Ross, the main U.S. negotiator on Israeli-Palestinian issues
under Bush's father and former President Bill Clinton, and
organizations in recent weeks.
The most direct challenge surfaced here Tuesday when the Zionist
group Americans for Peace Now (APN) sent a letter to Bush
calling on him to clarify whether his administration opposes
renewed peace negotiations between Israel and Syria.
"Unfortunately, many in Israel and the U.S. believe that your
administration is standing in the way of renewed Israel-Syria
contacts. We urge you to clarify, publicly and expeditiously,
that this is not the case" said the letter, which also called on
Bush to "reject the thinking of those who view the Syrian regime
as irredeemable."
While the administration is likely to dodge the question, its
commitment to isolating Syria, particularly since the 2005
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri,
has never been in doubt.
Indeed, in the opening days of hostilities between Hezbollah and
Israel, the White House not only reportedly rebuffed an appeal
by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself for Washington to
quietly approach Damascus about pressing Hezbollah to release
two Israeli soldiers whose capture touched off the crisis, but
also urged Olmert, according to one account in the Jerusalem
Post, to attack Syria directly.
"In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, [Deputy
National Security Adviser Elliot] Abrams indicated that
Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the
war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the
interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria," a
well-informed source, who received an account of the meeting
from one of its participants, told IPS this week.
While Abrams was discreetly urging Israel to expand the war to
Syria, his neoconservative allies, some of whom, like former
Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and former House of
Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, are regarded as close to
Vice President Dick Cheney, were more explicit, to the extent
even of expressing disappointment over Israel's lack of
aggressiveness or success in "getting the job done."
Cheney's own Middle East advisers, John Hannah and David
Wurmser, have long favored "regime change" in Damascus, and,
according to the New York Times, argued forcefully – and
successfully with help from Abrams and pressure from the Israel
lobby's leadership – against efforts by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to persuade Bush to open a channel to Syria in
an effort to stop the recent fighting.
But Bush's adamant refusal to engage Damascus is precisely what
has raised doubts in Israel about whether his policies are in
the long-term or even in the immediate interests of the Jewish
state.
Since the cease-fire, a growing number of former and current
senior Israeli officials, including Olmert's defense, interior,
and foreign ministers, have called for talks with Damascus. And,
while Olmert himself has rejected the idea for now, he has also
abandoned his previous precondition for such talks – that
Washington remove Syria from its terrorism list.
Of the officials, the two most important are both former Likud
Party members – Interior Minister Avi Dichter, the former head
of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency, and Foreign Minister
Tzipi Livni, who reportedly enjoys a strong relationship with
Rice and has appointed her former chief of staff, Yaakov Dayan,
to explore possible ways to engage Syria.
Meanwhile, other prominent Israelis are asking even more basic
questions about the regional strategy pursued by Bush and its
consequences for Israel.
In a column published by the Ha'aretz newspaper last week,
former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argued that, in the
aftermath of the Lebanon war, which, in his view, had "proven
the limits of [Israeli] power," a peace accord with Syria and
the Palestinians had become "essential" for Israel, particularly
in light of "the worrisome decline of the status of Israel's
ally in this part of the world and beyond."
"U.S. deterrence, and respect for the superpower have been
eroded unrecognizably," he wrote. "An exclusive Pax Americana in
the Middle East is no longer possible because not only is the
U.S. not an inspiration today, it does not instill fear."
Indeed, the widespread perception that Washington's influence in
the region has fallen sharply as a result of both the war in
Iraq and the administration's stubborn refusal to engage its
foes diplomatically has raised new questions about whether Bush
and his neoconservative advisers have actually made Israel less
rather than more secure.
"[The] Bush administration at first avoided and then was unable
to deliver the diplomatic agility that was called for, and that
is bad news for Israel," wrote former Israeli peace negotiator
Daniel Levy in this week's Forward. "The United States had no
direct channels to or leverage with key actors, and could not
commit troops to any cease-fire implementation force."
"The idea that current American policy advances Israeli security
and national interests is thoroughly discredited – something
that is now openly aired in the Israeli media, and raised,
albeit in more discreet circles, by Israeli Cabinet ministers,"
according to Levy, who currently directs the NAF's and Century
Foundation's Middle East Initiative.
(Inter Press Service)
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=9630
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-brooks1sep01,0,4657959.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday
ROSA BROOKS
Rosa Brooks: Criticize Israel? You're an Anti-Semite!
How can we have a real discussion about Mideast peace if
speaking honestly about Israel is out of bounds?
Rosa Brooks
September 1, 2006
EVER WONDER what it's like to be a pariah?
Publish something sharply critical of Israeli government
policies and you'll find out. If you're lucky, you'll merely
discover that you've been uninvited to some dinner parties. If
you're less lucky, you'll be the subject of an all-out attack by
neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.
This, at least, is what happened to Ken Roth. Roth — whose
father fled Nazi Germany — is executive director of Human Rights
Watch, America's largest and most respected human rights
organization. (Disclosure: I have worked in the past as a paid
consultant for the group.) In July, after the Israeli offensive
in Lebanon began, Human Rights Watch did the same thing it has
done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra
Leone, Congo, Uganda and countless other conflict zones around
the globe: It sent researchers to monitor the conflict and
report on any abuses committed by either side.
It found plenty. On July 18, Human Rights Watch condemned
Hezbollah rocket strikes on civilian areas within Israel,
calling the strikes "serious violations of international
humanitarian law and probable war crimes." So far, so good. You
can't lose when you criticize a terrorist organization.
But Roth and Human Rights Watch didn't stop there. As the
conflict's death toll spiraled — with most of the casualties
Lebanese civilians — Human Rights Watch also criticized Israel
for indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Roth noted that the
Israeli military appeared to be "treating southern Lebanon as a
free-fire zone," and he observed that the failure to take
appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and
combatants constitutes a war crime.
The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found
themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort
to terrorists and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun
attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hezbollah
and anti-Israel bias" and accused him of engaging in "the
de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism."
Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive
Israel-basher … who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every
turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New
Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human
Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make Israel look bad. And
writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth
of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust."
Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch — or with Roth — knows
this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan — it
doesn't "take sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is
anti-Semitic verges on the insane.
But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and
his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and
fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical.
Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize Israel
can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just
isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any
serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with
charges of anti-Semitism. Think Israel's tactics against
Hezbollah were too heavy-handed, or that Israel hasn't always
been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the United States
should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military
support for Israel? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless
you want to be called an anti-Semite — and probably a terrorist
sympathizer to boot.
How did adopting a reflexively pro-Israel stance come to be a
mandatory aspect of American Jewish identity? Skepticism — a
willingness to ask tough questions, a refusal to embrace dogma —
has always been central to the Jewish intellectual tradition.
Ironically, this tradition remains alive in Israel, where
respected public figures routinely criticize the government in
far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.
In a climate in which good-faith criticism of Israel is
automatically denounced as anti-Semitic, everyone loses. Israeli
policies are a major source of discord in the Islamic world, and
anger at Israel usually spills over into anger at the U.S.,
Israel's biggest backer.
With resentment of Israeli policies fueling terrorism and
instability both in the Middle East and around the globe, it's
past time for Americans to have a serious national debate about
how to bring a just peace to the Middle East. But if criticism
of Israel is out of bounds, that debate can't occur — and we'll
all pay the price.
Back to Human Rights Watch's critics. Why waste time denouncing
imaginary anti-Semitism when there's no shortage of the real
thing? From politically motivated arrests of Jews in Iran to
assaults on Jewish children in Ukraine, there's plenty of
genuine anti-Semitism out there — and Human Rights Watch is
usually taking the lead in condemning it. So if you're bothered
by anti-Semitism — if you're bothered by ideologies that insist
that some human lives have less value than others — you could do
a whole lot worse than send a check to Human Rights Watch.
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
The American government exists only
to serve the Jews and their Federal Reserve Bank. Next Israel
plans to have their American slaves destroy Iran as they did
Irak. Expect another false flag attack by Israeli agents to be
blamed on Muslims like the 9-11 attacks were.
This is another whitewash. 9/11 was
an inside job. The purpose of 9/11 was to clamp down on rights
by fencing in peaceful protestors away from events, conducting
improper wire-taps, banning books like "America Deceived" from
Amazon and starting illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another
9/11 will occur (with nukes) and the scared masses will beg for
the 'safety' of One World Gov't. That is the reason for 9/11.
Final link (before Google Books caves and drops the title):
America Deceived - Book
"The Inside Story ..." seems
credible as to the 9/11 Commission, yet appears layers distant
from the core of 9/11.
Most alleged hijackers were identified to be Saudis... US
counterattacked Afghanistan and invaded Iraq, the
long-sanctioned and indefensible center of sub-Caspian Oil&Gas
reserves and the only unfriendly remaining geographic link
between allies Turkey and the Med and Kuwait and the Persian
Gulf.
Citing the Qur'an (the particularly inflammatory Saudi-approved
version), US.Gov simultaneously defined an emergent context for
intranational and international control, namely fear of "terror"
and "fascism" (see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascism) and
tied it all to "national security".
Most US.Gov Congress signed off on the NSS and PA I/II after
receiving staff briefs on the Executive Summaries-both works in
the works before 9/11.
The result: protracted war and carnage, a strategic wedge in the
Middle East which, if it succeeds, affords proximal US.Gov
reaction forces to intervene in both the Saudi and Iranian
oilfields and in "defense" of Israel.
US.Gov Military uses or sells off expiring munitions while
Congress finances RDT&E, production and support at outrageous
levels and prices. Oil prices skyrocket to levels which render
"affordable" (profitable!)exploration and production of alleged
and estimated $trillions in oil and oil shale reserves in the US
and makes anyone in any other country involved in oil/gas
production wealthy beyond their wildest dreams (e.g. B&H Clinton
and their alleged 1992 Caspian interest holdings and 1998
executive agreement to connect delivery to/thru Turkey).
Fear-based relativism, uncertainty, and violence are
institutionalized control factors bombarding an already numbed
American society via entertainment, news, and sporadic local and
world events.
Who benefits from the aftermath of 9/11? Certainly global
corporations, banks, and the governments they have financed into
position. Certain ideologies seem also to benefit from this
carnage. Perhaps we should know about more than $70/brl oil and
Zionist Jews dancing on a rooftop as planes torch off the global
war OF terror - we need something which would make better
contextual sense than the compromised findings and opinions of a
few members of a Committee selected by the very officials, under
duress, who, themselves, should have been investigated in a
truly comprehensive search for the truth.
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=513599
9/11 conspiracy theories come under fire
Two separate reports combat belief by some that U.S. government
had role in terror attacks
By JIM DWYER, New York Times
First published: Saturday, September 2, 2006
Faced with an angry minority of people who believe the Sept. 11
attacks were part of a plot run by Americans, separate reports
were published this week by the State Department and a federal
science agency insisting that the catastrophes were caused by
hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons.
The official narrative of the attacks has been attacked as
little more than a cover story by conspiracy theorists,
including those who say the Bush administration wanted to use
the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East. Some
propose that the collapse of the World Trade Center was actually
caused by explosive charges secretly planted in the buildings.
The government reports and officials say the demolition argument
is utterly implausible on a number of grounds.
On Wednesday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
issued a seven-page study based on its earlier 10,000-page
report on how and why the trade center collapsed. The full
report, released a year ago, and the synopsis are available
online at http://wtc.nist.gov.
The State Department report is titled, "The Top Sept. 11
Conspiracy Theories" and says, "Numerous unfounded conspiracy
theories about the Sept. 11 attacks continue to circulate,
especially on the Internet." The report is dated Aug. 28 and
appears as a special feature on the department's web site, at
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/ misinformation.html.
The report brought to light one little-known detail about the
morning: a private demolition monitoring firm, Protec
Documentation Services, had seismographs at several construction
sites in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. Those machines documented
the tremors of the falling towers, but captured no ground
vibrations before the collapses from demolition charges or
bombs, according to a separate report by Brent Blanchard, the
director of field operations for Protec.
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted
in 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=55993
Mearsheimer/Walt at CAIR in
Washington, D.C. last Monday (August 28th, 2006):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=58567
911 tradgedy orchestrated by the
secret government that runs the planet folks. There is only one
police force, one military. The job of politicians is to make
fabricated war for profit and population culling look real so we
humans don't figure out were are being systematically killed or
enslaved by the super elite globalist's. The Crown in forclosing
on America Corporation. 911 is really treason, committed by our
own leaders.
"It is time for the unbelievers to
discard these incoherent and illogical beliefs," he said. "Isn't
it the time for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists and atheists to
cast off the cloak of the spiritual darkness which enshrouds
them and emerge into the light of Islam?"
If you REALLY want to know what is
behind 911 which kicked off Israel's War Plans and its use of
the U.S. Neocons, read
THIS.
Ex-Iranian leader blames Bush
policies for terrorism
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/04/iran.khatami/index.html
Subject: Khatami
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvXEXKg8nas
http://www.ft.com
Iran ‘accepts two-state answer’ in Mideast
By Guy Dinmore and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Chicago
Published: September 4 2006 22:38 | Last updated: September 4
2006 22:38
Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s former president, says Iran would
accept a Palestinian state “ready to live alongside Israel” if
the elected Hamas government freely adopted such an outcome.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Khatami, a
reformist, distanced himself from the hardline statements
expressed by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, his fundamentalist successor,
who has called the Holocaust a myth and said Israel should be
removed from the map by the Palestinians.
Mr Khatami, a cleric and the most senior Iranian politician to
visit the US since the 1979 Islamic revolution, is on a 12-day,
private speaking tour. At the weekend he addressed the annual
convention of the Islamic Society of North America near Chicago,
where 13,000 mostly American Muslims greeted him with a standing
ovation.
Criticising the Bush administration’s approach to the “war on
terror”, Mr Khatami said the US was fanning conflicts and
inflaming sentiments. On the nuclear issue, he reiterated Iran’s
rejection of US demands for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment
as a precondition for talks.
But asked if Iran could accept a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr Khatami appeared more
conciliatory. Although now a private citizen, he stressed his
words represented Iran’s policy.
“I think Hamas itself, which has come to power today in a
democratic process, is ready to live alongside Israel if its
rights are met and it is dealt with like a democratic state and
as the Palestinian government, and pressures are removed from
Hamas,” he said.
“Of course whatever Palestinians think is respected by us,” he
said.
Iran’s officially stated policy is that all Palestinians must
decide their future through a referendum. Mr Khatami is the most
senior Iranian politician to accept the possibility of a
two-state solution.
Iran’s policy toward Israel had not fundamentally changed since
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad was elected, Mr Khatami said. Referring to the
role of the Supreme Leader, he noted that Iranian presidents in
general were “not deciding about fundamental and general
policies at all” although their interpretation, tactics and
words might be different.
Mr Khatami spoke of the Holocaust as fact and said Iran wanted
“sustainable peace” in the Middle East for Jews, Muslims and
Christians.
In his eight years as president, Mr Khatami ultimately failed to
overcome opposition by regime hardliners to his domestic
political reforms. Now, on the international stage, his main
mission is to avert what many Iranians fear is a looming
military confrontation with the US, and promote dialogue and
reconciliation among the major religions.
How his message will be digested by the Bush administration
remains unclear. The State Department ignored the protests of
neoconservatives and hardline pro-Israel lobbyists by granting
him a visa, but US officials are under instruction not to meet
him and walked out of the Islamic Society’s Chicago convention
before he spoke.
Nonetheless, the State Department impressed the Iranian
delegation by providing elaborate security. Mr Khatami says the
“wall of mistrust” between the US and Iran has grown under the
Bush administration, warning of the dangers of another Middle
East war. “As miscalculations about Iraq have created problems
for the US, the Iraqi nation and the region, if the same
miscalculation is repeated about Iran, the damages for everyone
will definitely be much more than Iraq,” he said.
Mr Khatami – who will also address an Alliance of Civilisations
conference at the UN this week – denounces President George W.
Bush’s description of the enemy as Islamic fascists. He then
turns the table on the western powers, accusing them of
uprooting fascism from the national level but transferring it to
the international arena.
“Today at the international level we see a kind of fascism,
apartheid, unilateralism and a kind of totalitarianism [by the
west] according to which nations are distributed, their
interests are distributed and wars are created.”
Asked if the moment was right to apologise to the US diplomats
held hostage in Tehran for 444 days in the aftermath of the
revolution, Mr Khatami repeated that he “regretted” what
happened.
He said he appreciated an invitation by Jimmy Carter – president
during that crisis – to meet in Atlanta, but said his schedule
was already full. He said he hoped they might work together
later on international peace and reconciliation issues “if the
grounds are prepared”.
Read the interview transcript
Najmeh Bozorgmehr, the FT’s Tehran correspondent, is currently a
visiting fellow at the Saban Center, Brookings Institution, in
Washington.
FT interview: Mohammad Khatami
Published: September 5 2006 00:43 | Last updated: September 5
2006 00:43
Mohammad Khatami, former Iranian president, interview by Guy
Dinmore and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Chicago, Sunday, September 3,
2006 (partial transcript as translated by the FT)
Financial Times: What are you hoping to achieve from your visit
to the US? Nine years ago, you talked about “the wall of
mistrust”. Is this wall bigger now? Do you see the danger of a
military confrontation between the two countries?
Mohammad Khatami: I said that the mistrust between Iran and the
US had a historical background and that we had to deal with it
thoughtfully. The US is an important and influential country in
the world, and Iran is also an important and influential country
in the Middle East. This mistrust can create problems for both
sides and the whole region.
I think some effective steps were taken [by Iran], and the
[Bill] Clinton administration reciprocated some steps. But these
steps [by the US] were little. If they were continued, they
could lead to a more appropriate situation for both sides, which
regrettably did not happen.
In the post-Clinton time, for various reasons, misunderstandings
increased, while some US policies on Iran and the Middle East
fuelled suspicions in Iran and created more problems in the
Middle East.
I hope this situation would not lead to any violent
confrontation, which would not benefit Iran, the world and the
region. I still believe the problems should be resolved
thoughtfully and wisely, with reliance on common interests and
goals, which can be found. The best solution is talks. I got
happy when the recent proposal was made to Iran for multilateral
talks to include both Europe and the US. The fact that both Iran
and the US accepted to hold talks opened a window of hope. But
unfortunately a big mistake was made by putting a condition for
starting the talks. This fuelled suspicions about the very
willingness to hold talks. I still believe that if the same
proposal is put forward without precondition, it can prevent
probable problems in the future.
I don’t think conditions are ready for any attack against Iran.
It would be a miscalculation by the US to think attacking Iran
would resolve any problems. Any attack will cause trouble for
Iran, the region and the world. I hope wisdom and thought will
dominate emotions and not to see miscalculations and mistakes.
As miscalculations about Iraq have created problems for the US,
the Iraqi nation and the region, if the same miscalculation is
repeated about Iran, the damages for everyone will definitely be
much more than Iraq.
I don’t think public opinion in the US will allow the US to get
involved in more troubles, which would cost American tax-payers
and those who want to have a safe and secure life in the US.
FT: Going back to the time your government had some kind of
engagement with Mr Clinton’s administration, how much do you see
yourself responsible for missing opportunities and preventing
the current crisis?
MK: No one can say all his work has been 100% correct, or better
work couldn’t be done. However, the complication of the issue
was so much that the mutual problems couldn’t be expected to be
resolved overnight. I think even if we made any mistake in
tactics, we certainly had the right strategy. It paved the
ground for more direct relations in different fields like sports
and art and more people exchanges. Some comments and
confrontations between the officials were also moderated.
However, I think time was not sufficient. Regrettably,
appropriate policies were not adopted after Mr Clinton. This not
only damaged all the grounds prepared before, but it worsened
the suspicions between the two countries, which have continued
till now. But one should not lose hope.
FT: You had some responsibility on the nuclear issue for eight
years. Are you absolutely sure some elements would not want to a
develop nuclear weapons programme?
MK: Definitely! I am familiar with the issue and I know the
supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] who determines policies
and strategies is definitely against it and has called any
efforts to produce and maintain atomic weapons haram [forbidden
in Islam]. I strongly say that no official individuals and
organisations, with determining roles and responsibilities,
think of producing atomic weapons.
FT: As a critic of the Iranian government, do you think it
should suspend enrichment and start talks?
MK: Voluntary suspension was carried out during my term, we had
good talks [with the EU-3 of UK, France and Germany]. Naturally
a lot of time was needed to reach a conclusion. I believed that
if we achieve our rights later, it is better than facing a
crisis… The whole system was convinced to carry it out until the
end of my term, but I think Europe could have taken quicker
steps and more confidence building after our showing of good
will. But because of European hesitations and regrettably due to
pressure on Europe from outside, Europe failed to use that
chance and created this suspicion in the whole Iranian
leadership that our voluntary suspension would not only not
resolve any problem but would be a pretext for those who want
Iran to give up its rights completely to carry out their
policies. For this reason that relative confidence building was
damaged. Now I believe nothing has really changed. There is
nothing of utmost concern. Having a cascade of 164 centrifuges
cannot provide sufficient enriched material for anything, let
alone a bomb. It will only help complete the experiments of our
engineers. Now all the problems and concerns that we have and
they have can be dealt with, and talks with patience without
preconditions are accessible. Europe, the IAEA and the US should
not miss this chance of trying talks… I still believe the
problem can be resolved through fair talks and based on good
will.
FT: What have been the consequences of President Bush’s policies
on the “war on terror” and what do you think about his use of
the term Islamo-fascism? Not to link this with the term you used
in Iran, but you also warned against the danger of fascism
coming out of populism.
MK: I don’t like to repeat inappropriate, impolite terms used
against Islam. I do respect the status of words. Islamic fascism
is as wrong as if we talk about Christian or Buddhist fascism.
The spirit of Islam, Christianity and other religions is in no
way compatible with what represents fascism and Nazism. I am
really sorry to say that fascism was created in Europe and the
modern world as anti-semitism was created in the west and modern
world. You see a coexistence of Jews and Muslims for centuries
when hatred never dominated their relations. You see today
Muslims and Arabs are extremely furious with Israeli suppressive
policies. However this anger has never created hostility between
Arabs and Jews and Muslims and Jews… the Holocaust was one of
the Nazis’ crimes in the world. As I have said before, Europe is
proud and the US is proud in its help to Europe to eliminate
fascism from the national level, but unfortunately I have to
admit that fascism was not uprooted and was transferred from the
West’s national level to the international stage. Today at the
international level we see a kind of fascism, apartheid,
unilateralism and a kind of totalitarianism according to which
nations are distributed, their interests are distributed and
wars are created… It is true that there might be radicalism as
has existed in the West. There have not been few wars among
Christians. The terrors committed by non-Muslim factions are not
few. If anyone under the name of Islam resorts to violence and
terrorist acts, I condemn it for the very act of terrorism, and
also for it to be done under the name of Islam, which is a
religion of kindness and compassion. What is dangerous today is
inappropriate unilateralist policies and having double standards
at the international level and this wrong mentality that all
problems can be resolved by force. Some high sacred and humane
values like human rights are also exploited to secure unilateral
policies. I regret the use of this term [Islamo-fascism]. I am
sure the spirit of the American nation is far from such terms.
Once before a similar mistake was made and there was talk of new
crusade wars, which thanks to wise advisors, was withdrawn. I
hope this mistake will be corrected too, which would have no
result but creating hatred and problems for countries and
nations. I hope this is a misquote.
FT: The US has issued you a visa and facilitated your visit –
are these hopeful signs that something will come out of your
visit? Will you meet Jimmy Carter and make some kind of gesture
to make amends over the hostage crisis, just as Madeleine
Albright did regarding the 1953 coup?
MK: … In my interview with CNN [in 1998] for the first time I
expressed regret over the hostage taking, although I also said
that in the revolutionary atmosphere and because of
inappropriate US policies, an over-reaction happened. And I am
also saddened and can understand the feelings of the relatives
of the hostages. But that incident will not be repeated because
the Islamic republic has been consolidated. What needs to be
done is to look into the roots and condemn the policies that led
to the sad act. As the American nation was saddened to see the
dead bodies coming back from Vietnam but they managed to condemn
the policies that led to the war. What Albright did was in
response to my message to the American nation and my paying
respect to the American nation and understanding their
bitterness over the hostage crisis. I asserted that as a
responsible government that incident would not be repeated. I
thank the response by the Clinton administration but believed
that bigger steps should have been taken by the US to remove
misunderstandings. Regarding my visa, I have come at the
invitation of Kofi Annan and invitations by some religious and
academic organisations in the US. I am happy to be in the US and
be in touch with the learned and the intellectual elite, as well
as the American nation. I received Carter’s invitation late. It
was at a time when all my plans were sorted out. I fully
understand Carter’s plans and believe that he is a figure who
has put his background and dignity to fight against poverty and
reducing tension whether through criticising pro-violence
policies or through preparing grounds for peace and more
understanding. Many of their plans at the Carter Center can be
close to the plans I have in my center for dialogue of
civilisations. In this short time and with intense schedule I
did not have a chance to go to Atlanta but I respect Mr Carter
and wish him success. Maybe if conditions are prepared we can
work together for peace and decreasing international tensions,
also to create understanding among nations. I don’t think there
would be any problem to do this.
FT: There have been harsh comments by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad about
Israel. Do you see this as a change of Iran’s policy towards the
Israel-Palestine issue, compared to your time in office? Do you
see a day when Iran can recognize Israel?
MK: I don’t think Iran’s policies have changed fundamentally. In
fact in the system that works in Iran the president is not
deciding about fundamental and general policies at all. Of
course the interpretations, tactics and words might be different
but the policy I know has been my interpretation of it, that
morally speaking we condemn considering occupation as a source
of legitimacy… for this reason our policy has always been
sustainable peace in the Middle East where Jews, Muslims and
Christians are determining their faith and the refugees, who
live in camps and die there, will have the right to come back…
Naturally whatever Palestinian people accept should be abided by
the others as well. I believe sustainable peace would benefit
all sides involved, including Iran. This insecurity and grounds
for tension are dangerous for everyone. But there is one
problem. There have been lots of peace plans, but they have been
unsuccessful. The reason is because they were not just. If the
rights of Palestinian people, including their right to return to
their land, is recognised and if they feel those who advocate
peace are neutral toward the two sides, and treat them equally
and fairly, I think then the ground for establishment for
sustainable peace will be provided. I don’t think there has been
any basic change in Iran’s fundamental policies, including
non-interference in the domestic affairs of that land. The
problem should be resolved through observing the rights of both
sides within that land.
FT: Are you saying that a two-state solution is possible?
MK: I think Hamas itself, which has come to power today in a
democratic process, is ready to live alongside Israel if its
rights are met and it is dealt with like a democratic state and
as the Palestinian government, and pressures are removed from
Hamas. Of course, whatever Palestinians think is respected by
us. Before Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas has said the same thing.
FT: During your two terms in office, you complained a lot about
crises created by your opponents to stop reforms. Your close
allies also talked about the threat of a military coup against
your government. Do you think instead of a direct military coup
your reforms lost to a creeping coup?
MK: I finished my terms and did not step down as a result of
pressures. Maybe, many anticipated my government would not be
able to survive and carry out its slogans following the line-up
against my government. But I don’t believe at all there was any
coup involved. Differences of opinion are natural. But we have
to learn to have differences of opinion in a democratic
atmosphere with equal chances for all sides. There should be
justice for all sides to express their views, not some to face
restrictions and the others to have immunity and enormous
chances to express their views…. We could have done more and
better work, if we had had better planning and if there were not
explicit and implicit obstacles against reforms. We have not
been unsuccessful. Our practice of democracy is new, and we have
to learn not to change rivalry into hostility… The ground should
be prepared for people to judge…. People’s views should be
respected in a free and fair atmosphere, as a necessity to
establish democracy… Different aspect of democracy should be
strengthened. I never felt any coup attempt. Such comments were
mostly imaginations… If we believe in democracy, we should also
accept opposition.
FT: Apart from being blocked by opponents of reforms, you have
admitted that you also made mistakes. Could you possibly give us
one or two examples of your own mistakes?
MK: Real reforms should do two things. One is to make people’s
expectations realistic, because people who want freedom and
progress are in a rush. This can put expectations beyond
realities. We were not really successful in bringing down the
level of people’s expectations. We came short of convincing the
intellectual elites in a way to gain their understanding on one
hand, and came short of communicating with the masses on the
other hand.
We could not even inform people of the achievements we had. The
problem was also because we didn’t have broad-based media to
talk to the people.
Second issue is for reforms to increase the tolerance level of
the state. If these two are materialized, the democracy process
will go on better and more smoothly. A more realistic view by
the people would put the government under less pressure and a
freer atmosphere can be created. As for the first issue, we
could not establish a logical relation with the intellectual
elite and the masses, but as for the tolerance my government had
a record amount of pressure it went under compared to both
before and after the revolution. No government had ever been so
much criticized and under so much pressure. One of the most
magnificent memories I had was the student day in 1383 [2004] in
Tehran University. That was what I wanted for people to stand in
front of the number one executive figure and not to have any
concerns about expressing their views, even though sometimes it
was mixed with injustice.
That was the success of my government. I expected that tolerance
to be expanded to all the levels of the state, which naturally
were not under my influence…. One of the works I am doing now is
to extensively evaluate [those eight years] and provide the
Iranian nation and future generations with historical documents
about the weak and strong points of those years… We did have
some weak points, as we had some strong points.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Israel plans for war with Iran and
Syria:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=59426
Robert Fisk on His Interview with
Former Iranian President Khatami, Why "The IDF Could Not Protect
the People of Israel" and More
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/05/1311248
From: BGJDAVID
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:25:11 EDT
Subject: Over U.S. Objections, Israel Approves West Bank Homes
Wouldn't it be nice if someone in Congress would introduce a
bill and vote on it the same day that would freeze any future
aid to Israel until they stopped building more illegal
settlements? After all, when the Palestinians or the Lebanese do
something that the U.S. objects to, the first thing we have are
Jewish Congress members such as Ilena Ros-Lehtinen and Tom
lantos rushing to the podium to introduce bills supporting
Israel's slaughter of innocent Arabs or suspension of U.S. aid
for Lebanon's reconstruction, or immediate halt in aid to the
newly elected Palestinian democratic government. But when Israel
continues to violate U.S. peace initiatives all we have is U.S.
objections without any constructive acts. Is it any wonder why
the violence will never end? If we want peace in the Middle East
the first thing that must be done is a major overhaul of our
complete government, starting with the White House, Secretary of
State, and the U.S. Congress. In other words, don't look for
peace anytime soon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html
Over U.S. Objections, Israel Approves West Bank Homes - New York
Times
Over U.S. Objections, Israel Approves West Bank Homes
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: September 5, 2006
JERUSALEM, Sept. 4 — The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert,
authorized construction bids on Monday for another 690 homes in
the occupied West Bank in the face of pro forma American
criticism.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
U.N. Expects to Mediate Talks on Captured Israelis (September 5,
2006)
Hostilities in the Mideast
Go to Complete Coverage »
The houses will be built in Maale Adumim and Betar Illit, two
settlements near Jerusalem that the Israeli government says it
intends to keep in any agreement with the Palestinians.
Mr. Olmert, whose Kadima Party was elected earlier this year on
a promise to pull thousands of Israeli settlers out of the West
Bank, beyond the route of Israel’s separation barrier, has
been clear about keeping and expanding settlements inside the
barrier, even though they are on land occupied since the 1967
war.
The Construction and Housing Ministry published advertisements
on Monday seeking construction proposals for the largest
settlement activity undertaken by this government. Israel has
also promised President Bush that it will pull down more than 20
illegal outposts created since March 2001, but has not done so.
The Bush administration’s position is that Israel should not
expand settlements in the West Bank, because it makes the
process of a final agreement harder. In general, much of the
world considers Israeli settlements in territory seized in the
1967 war, including East Jerusalem, to be illegal, which Israel
disputes.
Stewart Tuttle, the spokesman for the American Embassy in
Israel, said Monday that “in general it’s a principle of the
road map — a foundation to reach peace in the region — that
Israel not only remove illegal outposts, but also not expand
settlements in the West Bank.�
The road map is the multistage peace plan supported by the
United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations
and agreed to in principle by the Palestinians and Israel. The
Palestinians, in the first stage, are supposed to begin the
disarming and dismantling of armed militias and terrorist
groups.
The United States, Mr. Tuttle said, opposes “any actions that
would prejudice final status negotiations, which would include
the final borders of Israel and Palestine.�
But such criticism has had little effect on Israeli policy in
the past, and is not expected to matter in this case. In
general, Israel says it is not “expanding� settlements, but
“thickening� them within existing built-up areas.
A former United States ambassador here, Daniel C. Kurtzer, tried
to get Israel to agree with the United States on mapping the
existing built-up areas of settlements in order to make it clear
when settlements were being expanded. But Israel — which has
detailed satellite maps of nearly every building in the West
Bank — regularly refused.
The mayor of Maale Adumim, Benny Kashriel, said Monday that many
units were under construction. “In short, it is just a matter
of completing construction within a town,� he said. Maale
Adumim has a population of 31,615 and looks like a Jerusalem
suburb. The construction in Betar Illit is intended to house
haredim, or ultra-Orthodox Jews.
The government’s move was criticized in Israel as well.
“Instead of dismantling outposts and freezing construction in
the settlements, the Olmert government is constructing further
units and plans to authorize tens of illegal outposts,� said
Yariv Oppenheimer, the director of the leftist lobby Peace Now.
“All these actions are in contradiction of the Israeli
commitment to the road map, and the commitment of the Labor and
Kadima Parties to their voters.�
Mr. Olmert is also facing tough budget pressures. He has
supported more military spending after the recent war in Lebanon
and his coalition partner, Labor, supports more social spending
and opposes cuts proposed by the Finance Ministry. Because of
the sharp criticism of tuition increases and cuts in child
support, publication of the budget was delayed Monday.
Labor’s leader, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, is being widely
criticized for his performance, and aides to Mr. Olmert believe
that Labor is creating a crisis over the budget to try to
restore some of its credibility as a left-leaning party.
Mr. Olmert appeared before Parliament’s Committee on Foreign
Policy and Defense on Monday for the first time since the war in
Lebanon. He said that a war with Syria would be handled with
full force.
He also confirmed that his plan for another unilateral
withdrawal from part of the occupied West Bank was being shelved
for now as the government concentrates on rebuilding the north.
“What I saw as right several months ago has changed now,�
Mr. Olmert said, according to an aide and Israel Radio. “At
this moment, the issue of the realignment is not in the order of
priorities as it was two months ago.�
The capture of three Israeli soldiers on raids into Israel from
Gaza and Lebanon and the heavy use of rockets by Hezbollah have
brought many Israelis around to the thinking of the Likud
leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. He argues that it would be unsafe
for Israel to hand over large areas of the West Bank to a
Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, which refuses to recognize
Israel’s right to exist, even though it says it is prepared to
negotiate a long-term “truce� with Israel in its pre-1967
borders.
In Lebanon, a Qatari airliner landed at the Beirut airport on
Monday afternoon with 142 passengers, piercing an Israeli air
and sea blockade that was imposed July 12, at the start of the
war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas. The Israeli Army
said it had given its permission.
Like almost everything in Lebanon now, the blockade is murky.
Israel has recently allowed relief flights and a limited shuttle
service to Amman, Jordan, where passengers can board flights for
other destinations.
But the flight on Monday was the first to arrive directly from a
distant country, and it was greeted by local and Arab television
crews as a mild triumph.
The maritime blockade continues, however, and is viewed as much
more serious by many Lebanese merchants, who complain that their
supplies are running short.
More Articles in International »
Post a Comment
|
