A constant Nakba for Palestine’s Bedouin (Part 2)
Electronic Intifada - 7 Jul 2008
rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr r”We [Bedouin] are the [Native Americans] of Palestine,” is how 60-year-old Mohammad Ahmad Abu Dahook introduced the author and a colleague to Beit Iksa, located on land targeted by Israel for expanding Ma’ale Adumim settlement. Abu Dahook is one of the approximately 50,000 Bedouin whose traditions and lifestyle have been nearly destroyed by Israeli colonization. Ida Audeh reports from Beit Iksa.

A constant Nakba for Palestine’s Bedouin (Part 1)
Electronic Intifada - 7 Jul 2008
rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr r”We [Bedouin] are the [Native Americans] of Palestine,” is how 60-year-old Mohammad Ahmad Abu Dahook introduced the author and a colleague to Beit Iksa, located on land targeted by Israel for expanding Ma’ale Adumim settlement. Abu Dahook is one of the approximately 50,000 Bedouin whose traditions and lifestyle have been nearly destroyed by Israeli colonization. Ida Audeh reports from Beit Iksa.

Gaza locked in despite truce
Electronic Intifada - 7 Jul 2008
rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr rCAIRO (IPS) – Despite a torrent of mutual recriminations, the fragile truce between Israel and Palestinian resistance faction Hamas survived into its third week. Israel, however, has been slow to fulfill its pledge—as laid down in an Egypt-brokered ceasefire agreement—to allow desperately-needed humanitarian supplies into the outdoor prison that is the Gaza Strip. “Repeated closures of the border crossings [by Israel] ... are indicative of Israel’s lack of seriousness regarding the Egyptian ceasefire agreement,” Ismail Haniyeh told reporters Friday on 4 July.

Boris Johnson?s return to ?traditional Tory values?
UKWatch.net - 7 Jul 2008
It is only two months since the newly elected Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson promised he would, with a new broom, sweep clean the sleaze and corruption he declared characterised the outgoing administration under the Labour Party?s Ken Livingstone. Johnson also proclaimed that his mayoralty would be a return to ?traditional Tory values.? As it has turned out, it is this pledge that is being realised as his own administration has begun to fall apart amidst accusations of racism and the type of ?sleaze and corruption? he promised to root out. Last week, longstanding allegations of financial and sexual misconduct against deputy mayor Ray Lewis ended in his resignation, and forced Johnson to set up an inquiry. The media hailed Lewis?s appointment as deputy mayor for young people as a shrewd move aimed at countering adverse reports of comments made by Johnson in an article on Tony Blair in which he referred to ?picaninnies? with ?watermelon smiles.? Lewis?s Eastside Young Leaders Academy in Edmonton, London, and its ?tough love? ethos of army-style drilling, religion, uniforms and discipline, was proclaimed as the real answer to gang-related violence. In the past several days, however, it was revealed that the former Church of England Minister had had restrictions placed on his ministry because of a series of allegations of sexual and financial misconduct against parishioners. In 1993 he was accused of ?sexually inappropriate behaviour? by two members of the congregation at St. Matthew?s, West Ham and he was banned from preaching for six years. Two years later he was accused of failing to repay a total of 41,000 borrowed from three parishioners, though the investigation was subsequently dropped. Lewis also faces accusations of assaulting pupils at his academy, all of which he denies. The Lewis resignation follows that of Johnson?s chief policy advisor, James McGrath. When asked by a journalist if Johnson?s election would provoke a flight of black Londoners back to the Caribbean, McGrath replied, ?Well, let them go if they don?t like it here.? Johnson mounted a feeble defence of both men, but then dropped them fairly quickly. McGrath was chosen as an advisor by fellow Australian, Lynton Crosby, the architect behind Johnson? electoral campaign who earlier spearheaded electoral campaigns for former Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Central to the campaign was a barrage of allegations of misconduct against Livingstone and his leading aides. Almost daily, the conservative Evening Standard newspaper ran stories charging the Livingstone administration with corruption. This claimed its first scalp shortly before the election, when Lee Jasper?the focus of many of the unproven allegations of corruption?resigned his post as Senior Policy Advisor on Equalities following the leaking of sexually explicit emails he had sent to a female friend in an organisation that received funding from the Assembly. However hostile a section of the Tory press was to Livingstone, he retained the backing of the City of London as its favoured candidate and also had the support of newspapers running the political spectrum from the Financial Times to the Guardian. It is a measure of the widespread resentment and hostility felt towards Labour?and towards Livingstone himself?that this failed to win him re-election and that Johnson?s posturing as ?Mr. Clean? was partially successful. Livingstone?s defeat coincided with the disastrous performance of Labour in the May 3 local elections, as the party continues to lose what remains of its working class base and is deserted by the better-off traditional Tory and ?swing voters? it won in 1997. Johnson benefited on both counts. Turnout among Labour supporters was down while Johnson successfully mobilised his own party?s ?natural constituency.? In addition, Labour?s reputation as a party of big business, sleaze, incompetence, authoritarianism and militarism could no longer be countered by Livingstone invoking his radical past. Labour promoted Livingstone?s support in the City of London, but the Greens, Respect Renewal and the Socialist Workers Party?s Left List, together with the Guardian, promoted him as the ?progressive candidate? and sought to mobilise support in the inner-city areas, particularly amongst black and Asian workers. But such claims could no longer be reconciled after two terms in which Livingstone made his peace with Labour after first being elected as an independent. He famously denounced striking London Underground workers as ?selfish? and defended Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair after an Old Bailey jury convicted the Met of corporate failure over the killing of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. Livingstone insisted there were no grounds for the resignation of this ?incredibly talented officer,? stating that the court?s verdict might make stopping suicide bombers more difficult. Anyone foolish enough to believe that Johnson?s would be the ?clean hands? administration he had promised has soon been disabused. Johnson?s record since taking office has provided a glimpse of what can be expected. Once in power, he quickly set about appointing his own cronies?an army of consultants and advisors?stating bluntly that ?it is not intended that the fees for these (other) individuals will be made public.? Reports suggest that many will receive a salary of more than 100,000. The chief executive of the London Development Agency (LDA)?which declares itself the ?Mayor?s agency responsible for driving London?s sustainable economic growth??was sacked and Harvey McGrath, former chairman of the hedge fund specialists the Man Group, nominated in his place. A ?forensic audit team? has been set up to investigate allegations of corruption in the LDA and Greater London Authority, headed by the former editor of the Sunday Telegraph Patience Wheatcroft, who had stirred up controversy after censoring a critical article about Conservative leader David Cameron. Multimillionaire former asset stripper and private equity chief Tim Parker was made first deputy and chief executive, as well as being appointed the new chairman of Transport for London. Full delegated powers over major planning decisions were given to Ian Clement, an unelected advisor from Bexley Council, who became notorious for cutting the ?meals on wheels? scheme for pensioners. Johnson has appointed Simon Milton as director of planning, but had to backtrack after it was revealed that he is also chairman of the Local Authorities? chief lobbying group. Although losing his title, he will still remain in Johnson?s office in the role of consultant. Munira Mirza, a former radical, has arrived at the heart of a Tory administration as the new cultural advisor to the mayor, thanks to her opposition to ?multiculturalism? and professions that the extent of ?Islamophobia? is exaggerated. She writes for the Policy Exchange think tank, whose founder Nick Boles will likely work on marketing for the mayor along with Dan Ritterband, a former Saatchi & Saatchi advertising executive. Policy Exchange, which is described as the most influential think tank ?on the right,? is headed by Charles Moore, former editor of the Thatcherite Spectator magazine?a position held previously by Johnson. The organisation was embroiled in controversy only recently over allegations that documents it circulated to prove the influence of Islamic extremists in Britain?s mosques were fakes. Once in office, Johnson swiftly implemented the right-wing policies outlined in his manifesto. Central to this agenda is to ?beef up the police presence on our streets by increasing police numbers and cutting red tape at the Metropolitan Police Service.? Within hours of his election, dozens of extra police were deployed to carry out random ?stop and search? procedures across the city in ?Operation Blunt 2,? exploiting the media frenzy over youth-related gun and knife crime in the last few months. This has not been addressed on the basis of tackling the wider issues of poverty, job opportunities and social inequality, but by increased police powers and a zero tolerance policing policy. In a city with the dubious honour of having the most surveillance cameras in the world, Johnson has also promised more closed circuit TVs. These initiatives closely parallel those undertaken by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, whose critics have argued that the fall in street crime had more to do with enrolling an extra 7,000 officers than with any strategic master-stroke, and that much crime simply moved to neighbouring districts. Bloomberg made a special visit to London?s City Hall to congratulate Johnson on his electoral victory, but the content of their meeting has remained strictly confidential. Another indication of the real agenda of the new mayor is in his attitude to low-income earners. Johnson has cancelled the cheap oil deal Livingstone made with the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez last year and declared that he will annul applications for cheap fares, which have benefited more than 80,000 Londoners on Income Support benefits. Livingstone used the deal as part of a handful of populist gestures to buttress his neo-liberal economic policies, making sure they did not conflict with the fundamental interests of the City of London, or compromise his record in promoting London as a magnet for global capital. It is Livingstone and Labour that have paved the way for a deepening of the assaults they began on the working class in London, only now with Boris Johnson at the helm.

Homeland Insecurity
UKWatch.net - 7 Jul 2008
In another bizarre twist to Washington’s often illegal, irrational ‘war on terror,’ peaceful, lawful human rights campaigners are now apparently being refused entry to the US — without any right of appeal. Noordin Mengal, a British citizen and Baluch human rights defender, was detained and deported by US immigration when he arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport from Dubai last week. Mengal is the grandson of the veteran Baluch national leaders Sardar Attaullah Mengal and Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri. He is a representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council on behalf of Interfaith International and is a member of the lawful, non-violent Baluchistan National Party (BNP). Baluchistan was invaded and annexed by Pakistan in 1948. It has been under military occupation ever since. Washington’s ally in the so-called war on terror, the Pakistani President and long-time dictator Pervez Musharraf, has been waging a savage war against the people of Baluchistan, This has included indiscriminately bombing civilian areas using US-supplied fighter aircraft and attack helicopters. Unlike Musharraf, some of whose army and intelligence services are protecting the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the BNP is peaceful, democratic and secular. Its members ought to be supported, not harassed, by the US. But the ignorant, simple-minded Bush regime doesn’t like human rights defenders who challenge its foreign allies and stooges. In particular, it is fearful of campaigners who expose US complicity with dictators and with the perpetration of crimes against humanity. Presumably, this is why Mengal was stopped and sent back? There is no other explanation, since all his papers were in order and all his humanitarian campaigning is non-violent and constitutional. Mengal has never been arrested in the past and has never been convicted or charged by any government. He has never been accused of any offence and has no charges pending against him. Does the US government care? Apparently not. It seems to ignore the US constitution when it suits it to do so. After being held in custody in appalling conditions for over 26 hours by the Department of Homeland Security, Mengal was refused entry to the US and deported. No reasons given. No right of appeal. This is Bush-style democracy (sic) in action. Apart from humiliating and inconveniencing Mengal, does this matter to the rest of us? Yes. It is further evidence of the corrosion of the rule of law and human rights by a US administration that is making major blunders in its bid to protect the country from terrorist attack. Mengal’s mistreatment by the US authorities is worth telling in some detail because it highlights the lawless abuses and shamelful ignorance that often characterises President Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. On his arrival at Newark at 6.30pm on 23 June, Mengal was detained and interrogated by officers of the Customs and Border Protection Enforcement section of the Department of Homeland Security. Mengal was questioned about the situation in Baluchistan and his human rights activities. Although he cooperated fully and gave a truthful account, he was subsequently told that he would not be granted entry to the United States and was, in effect, deported. Under the US visa waiver programme, however, law-abiding British nationals are exempted from formal visa procedures and can freely visit the US for a maximum stay of up to three months on each entry. Mengal asked an officer if he could call an official at the British embassy. The official confirmed his right to do so, but told him it would only be possible just prior to his departure. In the end, this assurance was voided. Moreover, Mengal was denied access to a telephone to contact his family and no one from the US government informed Mengal’s family of what was happening to him. According to Mengal, at the wholly unreasonable hour of 2am the next morning he was re-interrogated. At one point he was asked if he would like to phone someone within the US, as he was not allowed to call internationally. But then he was told it was too late in the night and he would have to wait until later in the morning. But this offer to later phone a US contact never materialised. A transcript of his interrogation was supposed to be given to him but wasn’t. It was eventually sent to him after he left the US, but it was doctored to falsely allege that he had declined offers to contact a lawyer and the British embassy. A little later Mengal was informed that he would be given a place to rest, but was made to sit on a chair for nearly 10 hours, during which time he was repeatedly told that he would soon be taken to another facility. At approximately 6am on 24 June he was belatedly given a thermoplastic blanket (disposable emergency sheet made of yellow polythene with a cellulose matting insulation) to keep warm. At around 11 am, officers moved Mengal to another facility. The authorities shackled him like a common criminal, locking his handcuffs to a heavy chain looped around his waist, and led him through the airport lounge to an armoured detention vehicle. Mengal was driven to the Elizabeth detention facility in New Jersey, where he was placed in a cell with a solid steel door. He estimates he was there for over five hours. On questioning the detention officer regarding his status, Mengal was told that he was not a criminal, nor an offender. Mengal asked the officer if a British citizen had ever been detained at this facility. The officer replied: “Never.” In the evening of 24 June, Mengal was once again restrained with fetters and manacles and transported back to the airport. He asked officers of the Department of the Homeland Security if he had the right to call a lawyer. He was told he was not now entitled to one and could only have done so on the day of his arrival. On the day of his arrival, however, he was not informed of any of his rights, nor was he allowed to contact anyone. At 8pm, Mengal was interrogated again by officials from US Immigration and Customs enforcement. They disparaged and dismissed his human rights work. He was made to feel like an enemy of the US. Shortly before he was put on a Qatar Airways flight at about 9pm, Mengal was told he was being sent back to Dubai and that if he returned to the US, even having attained a visa, there was still a possibility he would be denied entry. With typical US government double-speak, Mengal was informed that he was not being deported, but rather was regarded as “inadmissible.” At no point was he ever told why he was refused admission to the US. Even now, he doesn’t know why. Throughout his detention, Mengal was denied the right to contact an official from the British embassy. Isn’t this a violation of the Vienna Convention? Are not detained foreign nationals supposed to have the right to contact their diplomatic representatives? It seems like the Department of Homeland Security can’t tell the difference between a terrorist and an anti-terrorist, democratic, secular, peaceful Baluch human rights defender. In which case, the war on terror is bound to fail. The US government’s clumsy, ignorant victimisation of another innocent person — Mengal isn’t the first and he won’t be the last — helps explain why so many people hate America. This is a nation that professes a love of liberty yet often acts like a tin-pot tyranny.

Iraq task, Iran risk
UKWatch.net - 7 Jul 2008
The architects of the “war on terror” in the George W Bush administration will soon be leaving office. But the four months until the United States presidential election on 4 November 2008 could be momentous. In Iraq and Iran, what happens in the next four months – or does not happen – will shape events in the next four years and even beyond (see “Washington’s choice: subdue Iran, secure Iraq”, 12 June 2008). The current level of conflict in Iraq is lower than for most of the period since the start of the war in March-April 2003, but it continues at a substantial level. The United States military’s losses have also been on a declining trend [1], but it still lost twenty-nine people in June 2008, an increase from nineteen in May. But this is far from the only index [2] of the fragility of the current security environment, as two recent incidents and one longer-term factor show. The first incident is a US military raid on 27 June 2008 on the town of Janaja in southern Iraq that killed a civilian reported to be a relative of Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. The operation involved sixty US soldiers as well as Apache helicopter-gunships; did not include Iraqi units; and was apparently conducted without the knowledge of the provincial authorities, even though Karbala province was supposed to have been under Iraqi control. The response [3] of the Iraqis was, not surprisingly, sharp (see Hannah Allam & Sahar Issa, “U.S. Raid Angers Iraq [4]”, Miami Herald, 28 June 2008). The second is a suicide-bombing attack in Anbar province on 28 June that killed twenty-three people including three US marines, which an al-Qaida insurgent group said that it had perpetrated (see Alissa J Rubin, “Group Claims Responsibility for Iraq Attack [5]”, New York Times, 29 June 2008). The attack was targeted [6] against local Sunni leaders who were supporters of the anti-al-Qaida “awakening movement”, and the militant responsible had been a member of the movement. It was, in short, an “inside job”. The trend is the construction right across Baghdad of a network of walls designed to separate armed factions and communities. These have contributed to the decrease in violence, but have also produced a prison-like environment that is resented by many citizens (see Hamza Hendawi, “Iraqis Say Walls Protect But Feel Like Prison [7]”, Associated Press, 28 June 2008). The Iraq outlook Beyond the immediate security environment, two large developments are a signal of Washington’s current strategic thinking in relation to Iraq. The first is the opening up of Iraqi oil reserves to thirty-five companies in a bidding competition to increase oil production. At the outset the process involves six oilfields, though five short-term contracts are also being offered to American and European companies (see Sudarsan Raghavan & Steven Mufson, “Iraq Opens Oil Fields to Global Bidding [8]”, Washington Post, 1 July 2008). The opening of the Iraqi oil industry to private companies represents a major departure from the nationalised industry of the Saddam Hussein era. Such a process was an early aim of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA [9]) established in the wake of the US invasion as the key instrument of US political control in the post-Saddam flux. Many believed and more hoped that a partially functioning Iraqi government has been able to take an independent line on this issue, though it now appears that the process of privatisation has been closely overseen by a group of American advisers. This group itself, moreover, was led by a team from the US state department, thus giving the George W Bush administration a direct role in the process (see Andrew E Kramer, “U.S. helped Iraqis on oil contracts [10]”, International Herald Tribune, 1 July 2008). This series of columns has consistently argued that the primary purpose of the termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was less to gain control of Iraq’s oil reserves, even if they were around four times the size of US domestic reserves; rather, it was the location of Iraq in a region containing nearly two-thirds of all of the world’s oil that was more significant (see, for example, “Iraq’s danger signals [10]”, 13 December 2007). Nonetheless, the manner in which Iraq’s oil is coming under external control does begin to give some credence to those who claim a more direct connection between Iraq’s oil and the decision to go to war. The plan to expand Iraqi oil production carries a real concern for its designers: that the pipelines and processing plants will be vulnerable to the kind of insurgent activity that inflicted such enormous economic damage in 2004-05. This fear may be connected with the second large development – the plan to maintain US military forces at current levels for at least until mid-2009. The last of the five additional combat-brigades that formed the year-long US “surge” is now departing the country, but plans are already underway to bring 30,000 fresh troops into the country early in 2009 (see Lolita C Baldor, “U.S. To Send 30,000 Troops To Iraq [11]”, Associated Press, 28 June 2008). These will replace existing contingents in a routine fashion, but what is less remarked is their effect on overall US deployment; namely, that that 142,000 troops will remain in Iraq, a number actually 7,000 more than were present before the surge began in February 2007. It is always possible that violence will decrease to the extent that further withdrawals can take place, but the Pentagon is not currently planning for this. Its calculation is most likely based on a real fear that many of the insurgents are lying low and will return to the conflict in the coming months. If this proves correct, then a likely target will be Iraq’s oil installations just as foreign companies are moving in. This too will become clear by November 2008. The Iran prospect The Pentagon’s current preparation for a major long-term military presence in Iraq is accompanied by a sharpening of rhetoric over the putative threat posed by Iran’s nuclear plans. Most of this is at present emanating from some Israeli commentators and some of the Washington-based think-tanks and policy groups that identify themselves with what they imagine Israel’s national interest to be. Most analysts are aware of the capacity of the Iranians to respond to any military attack by the United States or Israel in numerous ways, by (for example) escalating tension in Iraq or engineering a massive spike in crude oil prices. This often leads them as a result to discount the risk of an attack on Iran. Against this, some circles in Washington argue that Iran’s capacity to react has been much overplayed; in this view, Iran is actually far weaker than is commonly appreciated (see Seymour M Hersh, “Preparing the Battlefield [12]”, New Yorker, 7 July 2008). The conclusion is that now may be a good time to demonstrate resolve by targeting Tehran’s nuclear facilities, however limited they might currently be (see Gareth Porter, “‘Weak’ Iran ripe to be attacked [13]”, Asia Times, 1 July 2008). What has always to be remembered in weighing the effect of these nuances is that there is a bottom-line for Israel: namely, there must never be another country in the region that has nuclear weapons – deterrence must work only one way if Israel is to be secure. In addition, a strong thread within hardline Israeli political thinking in the present political conjuncture (though opinion on the matter is not uniform) is that a Barack Obama presidency would be bad news. He may have sounded hardline over Iran in his speech [14] to Aipac on 4 June 2008, but Obama is seen as a highly intelligent politician with a worrying streak of independence in him (see “Iran and the American election [14]”, 5 June 2008). It is troubling, then – a matter of concern to those in Israel and Washington who seek to resolve the Iran issue by force – that Obama is ahead of John McCain in the opinion polls. Perhaps, in such uncertain and unpredictable circumstances, now is the time to pre-empt Iranian nuclear developments – whatever the costs – rather than wait for an Obama victory and the nightmare prospect of talking to the enemy? These, then, are the four months that will determine the future of the region and much of the world – not least the long-term security of the state of Israel – for years ahead. Iran and Iraq at the heart of present concern, though the security deterioration in other areas deserves to be noted: Afghanistan and Pakistan (see Julian E Barnes & Peter Spiegel, “Afghanistan Attacks Rise, U.S. Says [15]”, Los Angeles Times, 25 June 2008), and parts of north Africa (see Michael Moss, “Algerian militants win new lease on life as Al Qaeda affiliate [16]”, International Herald Tribune, 1 July 2008). Whether the incoming White House tenant faces the ashes of a new landscape of war or merely the fallout of the old one, the world is in for a long and bumpy ride. Links: [1] http://icasualties.org/oif/ [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR200807… [3] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080629/ts_nm/iraq_raid_dc_1 [4] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/586350.html [5] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html?ref=middl… [6] http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/06/28/qaeda_claims_iraq_suicide_bom… [7] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_inside_the_walls… [8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/01/ST20080701… [9] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/cpa/ [10] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/business/contracts.php [11] http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&sid=1430221 [12] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?yrail [13] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG02Ak04.html [14] http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/HQblog/gG5CKp [15] http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/25/world/fg-usafghan25 [16] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/africa/01algeria.php

Israel Should be Referred to the ICC for Threats to Attack Iran’s Civil Nuclear Power Facilities
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 7 Jul 2008
Summary: VanunuOn Monday 30th June you allowed an Israeli spokesperson Mr Hertzog to make false accusations against Iran without any balanced response from an Iranian spokesperson. The BBC’s world reputation is damaged by this one sidedness and it probably offends against the Charter. It also ramps up the propaganda for war. source: CASMIIread more

Can Bush Attack Iran With Oil at $140 per Barrel?
AlterNet: War on Iraq - 7 Jul 2008
Forswearing military action against Tehran would ease the upwards pressure on world oil prices.

A War on Iran Would Be Like Another War on Iraq
AlterNet: War on Iraq - 7 Jul 2008
With covert operations against Iran poised to be carried out from Iraqi territory, Iranian retaliation would target the already embattled country.