Palestine: The archipelago 'map', spaciocide, etc.

Posted by Helena Cobban
May 9, 2009 11:42 AM EST | Link
Filed in Palestine 2009

I imagine that by now most JWN readers have seen the thought-provoking nautical representation (shown below) by French cartographer Julien Bousac of the land mass that is (as of now) left to the Palestinians of the West Bank...

Bousac comments on that page that,

To make things clear, areas ‘under water’ [in the map] strictly reflect C zones, plus the East Jerusalem area, i.e. areas that have officially remained under full Israeli control and occupation following the [Oslo] Agreements.

He also seems fully aware of the irony/paradox of using a "romantic" kind of imagery like this to represent a grim reality.

I think this is a great device. One shocking aspect is, of course, that it demonstrates that the whole area of occupied east Jerusalem is "under water", i.e. unavailable for Palestinian land-use or development planning purposes.

However, readers should be aware that Bousac's map still considerably under-represents the amount of West Bank land that is available to the Palestinians, since he marks the large areas of the southeastern West Bank that have been arbitrarily designated by Israel as "nature reserves" as being somehow "above water."

You can find another representation of what is currently available to the Palestinians if you look at the small map in the bottom-left corner of this larger (PDF) map from UN-OCHA. Only the areas left white in that small map are now available to the Palestinians.

I note that designating land as a "nature reserve" is a trick the Israelis have often used to render it unavailable for Palestinian development. That sort of it puts it into a lock-box for them. Then, when the occupation authorities discover they have the budget or need to develop it for themselves, as settlements or whatever, they speedily "un-green" it-- and presto, it is available for Israeli development. Many Palestinians have, as a result, become pretty cynical about Israel's claims that it "cares for" the enviroment of the land that both peoples claim to love.

Sari Hanafi is a Palestinian sociologist who has been arguing that what the Israelis have been pursuing towards the Palestinians living in the area of Mandate Palestine constitutes a policy of "spaciocide":

the Israeli colonial project is 'spacio-cidal' (as opposed to genocidal), in that it targets land for the purpose of rendering inevitable the 'voluntary' transfer of the Palestinian population, primarily by targeting the space upon which the Palestinian people live. This systematic destruction of the Palestinian living space becomes possible by exercising the state of exception and deploying bio-politics to categorize Palestinians into different groups, with the aim of rendering them powerless...

Other examples of spaciocide abound around the world... including Saddam Hussein's draining of the marshes.

Anyway, here, for those who haven't seen it yet, is a small version of Bousac's map.

Questions for Hillary Clinton

Questions for Hillary Clinton

ON April 22, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a number of statements in which she included the issue of the downing — in a Cuban government decision in defense of national sovereignty — of two airplanes belonging to the terrorist organization Brothers to the Rescue, in 1996. These statements were made to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. Among other things, she said:

"I well remember when those two small, unarmed planes doing nothing more than dropping pamphlets were shot down by the Castro regime."

The following are questions that attorney Leonard Weinglass proposes for Clinton in relation to her comments on the downing of the Brothers to the Rescue planes.

What would the United States do if the following were true?

1. If the lead aircraft of the three airplanes involved (two were shot down) was piloted by a man who had previously committed acts of treachery and violence against the United States and had been trained by a hostile foreign government.

2. If that same pilot, according to U.S. intelligence, had recently been trained in dropping on a field not printed sheets, but handmade explosive devices, to test their effectiveness.

3. If he had publicly declared two days earlier on a radio station in his country that the flight of the three planes on that day was "on a mission" to destabilize the U.S. government.

4. If the aircraft flown that day had the same characteristics as a military aircraft used during the Vietnam War to drop small bombs on an opposing country, later remodeled and currently a Navy surplus plane recently used for that same purpose.

5. If, right before the downing, the U.S. FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) had spoken with the leader pilot by radio and warned him that he was entering a militarily protected zone and should retreat, but the warning was ignored, given that the plane continued on a course toward the U.S. capital.

6. If the three aircraft then flew over a designated open water area that the United States had closed due to army exercises and, in line with international rules and regulations, had warned all aircraft not to enter.

7. If the three pilots concerned belonged to a group of former U.S. residents who had publicly called for the overthrow by force of the U.S. government.

8. If the pamphlets previously dropped by this group of pilots had called on the U.S. people to rise up against their government.

9. If, after 25 Washington flyovers by this group of pilots during the previous 20 months, all of which were protested by the United States to the country that provided them with a base, and if, before arming its interceptor aircraft, Washington had called a high-ranking military officer to warn him that, from that moment it intended to protect its air space militarily if necessary, urged him to return home and urged the appropriate agencies to stop those flights

10. If the United States simply did all of that, but despite all its warnings, the planes continued until they were shot down.

Under such circumstances, would the United States be justified in downing the two aircraft?

A estratégica eleição no Líbano por Lejeune Mirhan*

Esta semana poderíamos tratar de dois assuntos, ambos importantes: o cancelamento da visita do presidente do Irã ao Brasil, bem como as repercussões que ainda reverberam de suas declarações na Conferência anti-racista, vinda, inclusive de setores de esquerda e o giro que o fascista Avigdor Liebermann, chanceler de Israel faz pela Europa para falar contra o Estado palestino, mas, em função da data que a coluna vai ao ar – 7 de maio – estamos a um mês das estratégicas eleições libanesas. E sobre isso quero dar algumas opiniões.

Nasralláh, liderança emergente no Líbano

A democracia libanesa

Se analisarmos a política brasileira nem sempre conseguimos produzir documentos com a profundidade que desejamos, imagina tecermos uma análise da política interna libanesa. Estudamos o Oriente Médio há tempos, mas vivendo muito distante dessa realidade. Mas, apesar da complexidade, vamos nos arriscar.

O Líbano é um dos mais antigos e prósperos países árabes existentes no Oriente Médio. Viveu uma guerra civil que quase leva o país a uma divisão territorial e religiosa, a uma cantonização e que durou 15 longos anos. Inicia-se em 1975 e praticamente só é encerrada em 1990.

Não vamos aqui detalhar os atores e o processo que levou a essa guerra civil. Mas ela tem origem, por assim dizer, na imensa imigração e deslocamentos humanos palestinos na região do Sul do país, iniciados com a diáspora palestina desde 1948. Após a fundação da OLP, os grupos mais revolucionários e de esquerda, acabaram por se transferir para o Líbano, alterando de certa forma o já frágil equilíbrio que vinha sendo mantido entre as forças políticas e as correntes religiosas desde 1943.

Nessa guerra estiveram envolvidos membros de milícias cristãs, drusas, islâmicas (xiitas e sunitas), grupos que posteriormente dividiram-se e formaram novos agrupamentos políticos. Muitos desses ainda hoje possuem forte presença no cenário político-partidário libanês.

A paz começa a se desenhar a partir de uma reunião histórica na cidade de Taif na Arábia Saudita, ocorrida em setembro de 1989. Nessa cidade, reuniram-se 62 deputados libaneses, membro do Parlamento Libanês (cujas passagens, inclusive, foram financiadas pelo riquíssimo empresário Hafic Hariri, participante desse evento e desse acordo, posteriormente primeiro ministro e assassinado em 2005).

A proposta de estabelecer os acordos de paz entre as facções libanesas, entre as correntes políticas e religiosas, acabou sendo votada por 58 votos a quatro e o referido acordo foi assinado em 21 de outubro do mesmo ano na referida cidade. Ficou conhecido como os “Acordos de Taif”. Nele manteve-se a tradição de entregar a presidência do país a um cristão maronita (mais moderado) e houve um esvaziamento do poder da presidência. O primeiro ministro ficaria sempre com um muçulmano sunita e a presidência do parlamento ficaria sempre com um muçulmano xiita (este cargo foi ocupado por muitos anos por Nabi Berry). Com isso manteve-se uma tradição que veio do chamado Pacto Nacional Libanês de 1943.

No entanto, os grupos políticos que se digladiaram na guerra civil por 15 anos, mantiveram muitas das suas divergências após esse período. A presença da Síria, tanto na forma da influência política, como a presença militar com tropas, a pedido do governo libanês que se instaurou a partir de 1990, sempre gerou problemas políticos internos, sendo que algumas facções nunca aceitaram essa presença militar. Na verdade o centro da questão não era a presença da Síria ou não, mas sim o alinhamento e a influência do Líbano sob a órbita dos Estados Unidos. Nem se tratava mais de alinhamento com a União Soviética, pois no ano seguinte ao acordo, em 1991, esta desabaria completamente.

Assim, o centro da questão era ser um satélite dos EUA e consequentemente de Israel ou manter-se alinhado com os povos árabes, pela soberania e independência do Líbano. Em fevereiro de 2005, o líder de correntes sunitas e ex-ministro Hafic Hariri foi assassinado. Os oportunistas de plantão apontaram de imediato o dedo acusador para o governo da Síria, o que menos tinha interesses em que isso ocorresse. Isso, mais uma vez, rompe certo equilíbrio político existente. No entanto, esse episódio acabou por precipitar a saída das tropas sírias do Líbano. Movimentos de massa acabaram ocorrendo, protestos e no processo eleitoral, as forças mais conservadoras venceram as eleições. O Movimento “14 de Março”, liderado pelo filho do ex-primeiro ministro assassinado, Saad Hariri, acabou constituindo maioria no parlamento e a oposição ficou sendo liderada pelo Partido de Deus, chamado Hezbolláh, cujo líder é o xiita Hasan Nasralláh. Esse é o período que se chama de Revolução dos Cedros.

Bem ou mal, nos últimos anos, se contarmos de 1990 em diante, podemos dizer que o Líbano vive uma democracia estável, ainda que cheio de problemas. A liberdade partidária é ampla. Estima-se a existência de cem partidos políticos legalizados e aptos a concorrerem a um cargo eletivo. Apenas três partidos políticos são proscritos no Líbano (Guardiões dos Cedros; Partido Isolacionista Regressivo e Movimento Islâmico Amal, todos de extrema direita) (1).

Não quero aqui fornecer dados sobre as eleições de outros países árabes, como o Egito, Síria, Líbia, Tunísia, Argélia e mesmo Iraque (na época de Saddam), que são Repúblicas, mas cujas eleições seus presidentes sempre venceram as eleições com índices que chegam a 99% dos votos válidos. No Líbano isso jamais ocorreria, pela pluralidade política e ideológica que o país vive e mesmo pelas diferenças de correntes de opinião e religiosas existentes (é também uma república parlamentarista e o presidente é eleito indiretamente pelo parlamento). Por isso mesmo que o Hezbolláh não defende a instauração de uma República Islâmica no Líbano, porque isso nunca seria viável.

O quadro político atual

Apesar da profusão de partidos políticos (e há quem acha que nós no Brasil temos muitos partidos... apenas 27 para um parlamento com 594 cadeiras, sendo 513 na Câmara e 81 no Senado; no Líbano são 128 vagas na Câmara, não possuem senado e têm cem partidos!), formaram-se duas grandes coligações partidárias que concorrerão ás eleições.

São várias as correntes que participam do pleito e podem ser assim definidas: sunitas (pró-imperialistas e antiimperialistas); socialistas (conservadores, só no nome ou mais de esquerda); nacionalistas libaneses (direita) e nacionalistas sírios (de centro-esquerda); liberais (de direita) e social-liberais (direita); reformistas (de direita); federalistas; centristas; xiitas (antiimperialistas); nacionalistas árabes e nasseristas (patrióticos, de centro-esquerda); social-democratas (de direita); comunistas (todas as correntes existem vários que se proclamam comunistas, sendo que o maior de todos é o PC Libanês).

Sobre essas correntes, queremos tecer alguns comentários dentro dos blocos que a compõem.

1. Coligação “Aliança 14 de Março”

O nome deriva da data da chamada “Revolução dos Cedros”, no período que compreende o assassinato de Hariri em 14 de fevereiro e 14 de março de 2005, data de um mega comício feito em resposta ao também mega comício realizado em 8 de março pelo Hezbolláh. É o campo da direita e extrema direita. Possuem entre eles falangistas, drusos, maronitas entre outros.

Esta coligação possui hoje 64 deputados e tem o primeiro ministro Fouad Siniora (sunita). O líder é Saad Hariri, filho de Hafic. O Partido principal que encabeça a coligação é o Movimento Futuro e possui hoje sozinho 34 deputados. São seculares, mas majoritariamente sunitas e pró-imperialistas. Dessa coligação/aliança participam outros partidos importantes: Partido Socialista Progressista, cujo líder é Walid Jumblat, filho de Kamal Jumblat que, no passado, jogou papel importante, mas hoje se alinhou ao campo conservador; Forças Libanesas (extrema direita, cujo líder é Samir Geagea); Bloco de Trípoli e Democracia Radical. Ao todos, esse bloco possui 20 partidos e/ou movimentos.

Regra geral, esse campo, apesar de possuir a maioria no parlamento, é do campo conservador. Pode-se dizer que se alinham ideologicamente à direita. Ao todo a aliança possui 20 partidos e movimentos registrados. Eles pretendem manter o controle do governo, com a indicação do futuro primeiro Ministro, que deve ser sempre um sunita.

Na sua recente passagem pelo Líbano, a (desastrosa) Secretária de Estado dos Estados Unidos, cujas declarações tem sido muito ruins e que destoam do que o próprio presidente Obama tem falado, ela acabou por apoiar, de certa forma essa Aliança, ainda que não possa dar uma declaração de apoio total, pois além de ser ingerência interna na política de outro país soberano (ou que luta pela sua soberania), isso poderia tirar ainda mais votos dessa coligação.

Não temos acesso a pesquisas eleitorais, mas há indicadores de muito desgaste nessa aliança, na forma como o desastroso governo vem conduzindo o país. No bombardeio que Israel fez ao Líbano entre julho e agosto de 2006, esse agrupamento pouco fez para defender a soberania libanesa. A resistência foi encabeçada pelos militantes do Hezbolláh, que angariaram amplo prestígio na sociedade.

2. Coligação “8 de Março”

O nome deriva de um imenso comício realizado em 8 de março de 2005, quando mais de um milhão de pessoas foram às ruas de Beirute para agradecer a presença da Síria no Líbano, que acabava de se retirar. Aqui cabe o registro que o general cristão Michel Aoun, ainda que tenha integrado o campo mais conservador num primeiro momento, e que sempre foi anti-Síria quando esteve exilado na França por 15 anos, mas em 2006 muda de posição e integra esse campo oposicionista.

Assim, os principais líderes desse bloco, dessa Aliança são: Movimento Patriótico Livre, do general Aoun (cristão, mas oficialmente secular); Hezbolláh (xiita), cujo líder é Hassan Nasralláh; Movimento Amal (xiitas, mais moderados), cujo líder é Nabih Bérri. Há ainda a presença de cristão maronitas, armênios, seculares entre outros. Destaca-se aqui o Partido Comunista Libanês, cujo líder é Khaled Hadadi; a Liga dos Trabalhadores que se proclama comunista e nacionalista árabe União da Juventude Democrática Libanesa ligada ao PC Libanês. Esses agrupamentos não possuem deputados. Ao todo essa aliança tem hoje 56 deputados no parlamento e luta para fazer a maioria e governar o país. Ao todo, são 39 partidos e/ou movimentos e grupos que integram essa aliança. Registre-se a presença ainda do pequeno, mas com dois deputados Partido Socialista Árabe Baath e do Partido Nacional Social Sírio, com dois deputados e cujo líder é Assad Hardan.

Análise e perspectivas

Por esses dados, vemos que os dois maiores blocos que disputam as eleições, são integrados por 59 partidos políticos e/ou movimento e agrupamentos. Outras organizações político-partidárias perfazem mais 41 partidos, que possuem um deputado apenas e praticamente não tem chances de eleger parlamentares (a conta não fecha em 128 porque alguns deputados e partidos não concorrem às eleições).

A complexidade das eleições se explicam pelos acordos, tanto de Taif de 1989, incorporados à constituição de 1990, como pelos acordos assinados no ano passado, da qual todas as forças políticas dele participaram. Ficou conhecido como Acordos de Doha, assinado em 21 de maio de 2008, por iniciativa do Emir do Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani. Por esse acordo, ocorre praticamente uma divisão de vagas no parlamento libanês entre as correntes religiosas. Foi a partir desse acordo é que foi possível eleger o general Michel Suleiman, presidente do Líbano.

Como dissemos, não temos acesso às pesquisas de opinião sobre os blocos em disputa. Mas além do desgaste de ser governo da Aliança “14 de Março”, houve um fato semana passada que chamou a atenção tanto do povo libanês como da comunidade internacional que acompanha essas estratégicas eleições. A libertação de quatro generais ligados à inteligência libanesa, que ficaram presos por quatro longos anos sob a acusação – falsa – de terem conspirado para matar Hafic Hariri. O tribunal da ONU especialmente formado para apurar os episódios – que comentamos no mesmo ano de 2005 sobre esse assunto, que violou a soberania libanesa – determinou a libertação destes generais por absoluta falta de provas. Isso fortalece imensamente o campo oposicionista.

A grande mídia vai falar que o bloco “8 de Março” é ligado á Síria e ao Irã. Vão querer confundir os eleitores. A mudança de agenda – sinalizada inclusive pelo governo fascista de Israel – de querer discutir o Irã e seu programa nuclear (pacífico) ao invés de discutir a questão palestina, não dará certo. Não vai colar, pelo menos entre os libaneses. Estes estão vendo que é muito mais benéfico ser amigo e aliado da Síria e do Irã do que dos Estados Unidos e de Israel!

O que estará em jogo nestas eleições será a soberania do Líbano, defendida hoje com firmeza pelos xiitas do Hezbolláh de Nasralláh, pelo PC Libanês de Hadadi, pelos cristãos ligados ao Movimento Patriótico Livre do general Aoun e pelos xiitas do Amal, de Bérri. Não há mais do que dois campos em disputa. O outro lado, o outro campo é do imperialismo, ainda que possa ter siglas que se digam “socialistas” ou “democracia radical” ou ainda “democracia de esquerda”. Pura fraseologia de fachada dita progressista, mas que escondem interesses dos mais escusos e reacionários possíveis.

Um governo progressista a ser eleito em 7 de junho reconhecerá de imediato a legitimidade do Hezbolláh como movimento armado de libertação e de luta pela soberania e independência do Líbano. Espera-se que nunca mais o país possa estar sujeito às invasões perpetradas por Israel em sua fronteira Sul, ainda parcialmente ocupada pelo exército israelense. A Síria será tratada como sempre deveria ter sido tratada: como país irmão do Líbano, país árabe milenar, soberano e que defende a unidade árabe, contra as políticas imperiais, coloniais e sionistas na região. Guerrilheiros e lutadores libaneses da resistência não mais serão tratados como “terroristas”, mas como deveriam ter sido sempre tratados: como lutadores pela independência nacional, como patriotas e defensores da nação árabe e libanesa. São amigos do povo libanês e não inimigos, como grande parte da mídia os trata.

Tratar o Irã como inimigo é o maior erro que o governo libanês e seus aliados fazem no momento, como o governo de Israel. Esse país já cansou de propor que todo o Oriente Médio seja desnuclearizado. Isso afetaria profundamente Israel, que é uma das nove nações do mundo a ter bombas nucleares e isso as potências ocidentais nada falam a respeito.

Não adianta – e não colará na propaganda interna do Líbano – a tentativa de demonização que Israel vem fazendo do Irã, como diz o professor Franklin Lamb (2). Este estudioso das questões libanesas menciona uma recente pesquisa onde apenas 46% declararam que a “religião é extremamente importante para mim”, apesar de toda a divisão religiosa estabelecida. Na mesma pesquisa, 90% dos muçulmanos disseram respeitar as ideias dos cristãos libaneses. Ou seja, fica claro uma elevação da consciência política do povo e dos eleitores libaneses e que colocá-los contra o Hezbolláh, vinculando esse grupo ao Irã não irá influenciar o seu voto nas eleições. O libaneses sempre souberam conviver com as diferenças e as diversidades. Os muçulmanos em sua história também. Como sempre disse, o problema não é e nunca foi religioso, mas sim político, tanto no Líbano como na palestina.

No discurso de posse de Netanyahu ele disse algo mais ou menos assim, como sinalização de mudança clara de agenda, escondendo que a questão central é a criação do Estado Palestino: “o maior de todos os perigos para Israel e para toda a humanidade esta na possibilidade de surgir um governo radical armado com bombas atômicas”. Ora, é sabido que o arsenal israelense possui entre 250 e 400 ogivas nucleares e o atual governo é o mais fascista e direitista de toda a história de 61 anos de Israel (a completar em 14 de maio próximo). Terá sido uma confissão que Bibi fazia de seu próprio governo? Que libanês vai acreditar que o Irã é inimigo do Líbano na conjuntura atual?

Não tenho bola de cristal para prever resultados eleitorais. Mas, suspeito seriamente que a coligação “8 de Março”, de centro-esquerda, patriótica e nacionalista, progressista, sagrar-se-á vencedora. A Aliança “14 de Março” deve sair derrotada nas urnas. O que precisa ficar claro de uma vez por todas é que o Irã só é inimigo do sionismo, do racismo do governo de Israel, que discrimina os palestinos e os muçulmano em seu estado de caráter judeu. Acho que os libaneses devem estar atentos, mais do que nunca, à eventuais provocações, criação de factóides políticos que podem embotar as eleições. A seguir o rumo atual, a direita deve perder as eleições.

Não me cabe fazer escolhas nestas eleições, pois sou brasileiro. Isso é uma atribuição exclusiva do povo e dos eleitores libaneses. Apenas me cabe “torcer” por assim dizer. Espero, sinceramente, que nestas estratégicas eleições – que a mídia brasileira ainda ignora completamente – vençam os que defendem um Líbano progressista, soberano, verdadeiramente independente, dono de seus destinos, que reforce a sua vocação árabe e que esteja sempre unido e irmanado com todos os países e com o povo árabe no Oriente Médio. Esse é meu desejo sincero neste momento.

Até junho voltaremos mais a este tema.

Nota

(1) Não confundir Movimento Islâmico Amal, com o Movimento Amal, que tem 15 deputados e é de linha antiimperialista e contra Israel.

(2) Atualmente pesquisador sobre o Líbano e o seu artigo pode ser lido em http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb04172009.html cujo título é Iran Offers More Than Just Cash (O Irã oferece mais do que apenas dinheiro). Aqui se comenta que pode ajudar mais o Líbano, se Estados Unidos ou o próprio Irã.

---

*Lejeune Mirhan, Presidente do Sindicato dos Sociólogos do Estado de São Paulo, Escritor, Arabista e Professor Membro da Academia de Altos Estudos Ibero-Árabe de Lisboa, Membro da International Sociological

---

* Opiniões aqui expressas não refletem, necessariamente, a opinião do site.

---

Was Clan Bush involved in looting of other Federal Reserve Banks?

There is additional information to report on the Treasury Note that is secured by $250 billion in gold (2500 metric tons) at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. After the sudden resignation of New York Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Stephen Friedman, a one-time top economic adviser to President George W. Bush and someone who apparently profited from the government's bailout of Goldman Sachs while he served as both Chairman of the New York Fed and as a board member for Goldman Sachs, the entire Federal Reserve Bank system appears to be involved in a massive ploy to loot the United States of its gold and cash reserves.

On May 5, 2009, WMR reported: "According to WMR's sources, the FBI and London police are working together on a case that involved a $250 billion U.S. Treasury Note seized by the FBI from a London safety deposit box company, London Safe Deposit Company, Ltd. The box was reportedly placed at the London firm by self-described 20-year CIA veteran Robert Booth Nichols, who reportedly died in Geneva, Switzerland on February 14, 2009.

A heart attack was believed to have been the cause of death but there was a blow to Nichols's head. A 'friend' of Nichols, a New York stockbroker who was reportedly helping Booth move a large sum of cash, bonds and gold in Geneva, arranged for a quick cremation of Nichols's body and the U.S. embassy in Bern was notified.

The T-Note is reportedly secured by 2500 metric tons of gold at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta."

The scheme involving the Atlanta Fed T-Note, according to court papers filed in the U.S. Court for the Southern District of New York, involves the jailed former chairman of the collapsed Bayou hedge fund, Samuel Israel III, and a first cousin of George W. Bush, former Fox News political adviser John P. Ellis.

The Treasury Note in question is not the only one in existence that is involved with the massive money movement operation out of the United States. Sources tell WMR that there are two additional Treasury Notes, each for an equal amount of money in gold reserves as the note secure by 2500 metric tons of gold at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. They are Treasury Notes drawn on 2500 metric tons at the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago and 2500 metric tons of gold at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Together, the gold in question is worth $750 billion in U.S. gold reserves, ironically about equal to the sum of money allocated by the administration for the bailout of Wall Street and the banks.

There is additional information and documents on the attempted $250 billion U.S. Federal Reserve heist found at this blog. The current malfeasance found within the Federal Reserve system can be traced back to the administration of George H. W. Bush.

$30 Billion For Israel's Military

$30 Billion For Israel's Military

By Haitham Sabbah • Mar 13th, 2009 at 17:32 • Category: Haitham's Choice, Israel, Newswire, Palestine, War, Zionism

Same old story, new president:

U.S. President Barack Obama will not cut the billions of dollars in military aid promised to Israel, a senior U.S. administration official said Wednesday. The $30 billion in aid promised to Israel over the next decade will not be harmed by the world financial crisis, the official told Israel Radio. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. military aid to Israel was increased in a decade-long deal agreed to by Bush in 2007. OTOH, U.S. will pay close to $1 billion for rebuilding the wreckage in Gaza mostly caused by armaments paid for by the U.S.! To add insult to injury, there is a condition on that money:

Clinton: Some $900 million pledged by the United States to the Palestinians will be withdrawn if the expected Palestinian Authority coalition government between Fatah and Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist, Western and Israeli diplomats said Wednesday.

Key Facts

• Total direct aid to Israel, 1948-2003, $89.9 billion (uncorrected for inflation)
• Since 1976 Israel has been the largest annual recipient of US aid. It is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II.
• Direct U.S. aid for each Israeli citizen in 2001 (per capita annual income of Israel = $16,710) — over $500
• Direct U.S. Aid for each Ethiopian citizen in 2001 (per capita annual income of Ethiopia = $100) — about $.45
• REGULAR US GRANT AID in FY 2003
1. $2.76 billion military aid grant
2. $2.1 billion economic support funds
3. $600 million refugee resettlement grant
• COMMERCIAL LOAN GUARANTEES IN FY 2003, $2 billion
• BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR FY 2003
1. Military aid grant $1 billion
2. Commercial loan guarantees $9 billion
3. Arrow missile development $60 million
• TOTAL AID FOR FY 2003 $14.82 billion
• Percentage of U.S. foreign aid that goes to Israel — 30%
• Israel's population as a percentage of world population — .01%
• Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) states, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." 22 U.S.C. 2304(a)
• Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act prohibits selling military equipment to countries that use them for non-self-defense purposes.
• The U.S. State Department determined in February 2001 that Israel has committed each of the acts that the law defines as "gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person." It described Israeli army use of live ammunition against Palestinians when soldiers were not in impending danger as "excessive use of force."

SOURCES: Clyde R. Mark, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, Congressional Research Service, updated April 1, 2003; Clyde R. Mark, Middle East: U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY 2001, FY 2002, FY 2003 Congressional Research Service, March 28, 2002

From Victimhood to Aggression: Jewish Identity in the Light of Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children

by Gilad Atzmon / May 7th, 2009

Identity is a very tricky concept. It can very mean many opposing things and at the same time it can mean nothing. One may start to wonder about one’s identity only when one feels he is under the threat of losing it. The case of Jewish identity is a very good example. Judging by the literature and history textbooks, Jews started to explore the notion of their identity following the emancipation, assimilation and the collapse of the rabbinical authority. In short, Jews started to wonder who they were once their collective self-notion was already melting down. Seemingly, the notion of ‘Jewish identity’ was there to replace the tribal, rabbinical and racially orientated notion of the ‘Jew’ with a tolerant acceptable ‘liberal’ discourse that aims at a universal awareness.

In the post-modern era, Identity is regarded as a means to impose a sort of legitimacy to separateness as a decent civil political collective consciousness. Generally speaking, identity is a social concept that allows the figure that may be considered as marginal to celebrate his unique symptoms while at the same time regarding himself as a perfectly qualified member of an extended open society. Identity Politics, accordingly, is a concept that integrates the different margins into an ideal phantasmic image of multicultural and multiethnic society.

As much as identity politics refers to an imaginary celebration of differences in a world that regards itself as a cosmopolitan global village, Jewish identity (whether it locates itself politically on the left, right or centre) is a unique setting that aims to enjoy it all while giving very little in return. Jewish Identity Politics is there to maintain legitimately that the Jews must be accepted and respected by others for what they are: their history, their suffering, their religious belief, their culture, yet, within this call for others to recognise their identity claims, they somehow surprisingly fail to assimilate any notion of tolerance towards others. All forms of Jewish identity political schools maintain some elementary and fundamental tribal exclusivist code of engagement. Whether it is the rightwing Zionist who celebrates Jewish identity at the expense of the Palestinian people, or the Lefty Jew for Justice who, for some reason, celebrates his craving for peace in a ‘Jews only club’, it seems as if the entire spectrum of Jewish political identity is a tribally orientated exclusivist practice. It seems as if the entire spectrum of Jewish identity politics lacks the true awareness and acceptance of universal attitudes as an acknowledgment of being amongst others.

This behavioural pattern can be easily grasped in historical retrospective. Bearing in mind that the discourse of identity arose as a reaction to 20th century disastrous nationalist reality, identity was an outlet that allowed a sense of belonging in a newly formed tolerant civic reality. However, the course of Jewish identity politics was very different. Within the concept of Jewish identity, Jewish suffering and victimhood are set as unique Jewish symptoms. For a Jew to celebrate his identity means to celebrate Jewish pain, to visit and to revisit the agony. To be a Jew is to religiously believe in the Holocaust. To be a Jew is to be chased. To be a Jew is to be able to find an anti-Semite under every stone and behind every corner. To be a Jew is to chase senile Nazis into their graves. Forgiveness doesn’t seem to attract the leading proponent of Jewish identity politics.

Within such a notion of Jewish identity and bearing in mind the Zionist expansionist project, it is hardly surprising that Jewish collective ideology had become a bipolar schizophrenic volley between Victimhood and Aggression.

True Lies

To view the play

Caryl Churchill’s play Seven Jewish Children, that was written and performed in the light of the last Israeli military devastating campaign in Gaza, turns the floodlights on the confusion within Jewish identity.

On the face of it, the short play is an historical journey form victimhood into aggression. In just nine minutes we are joining an expedition that departs in the horror of the Shoah:

“Don’t tell her they’ll kill her..
Tell her it’s important to be quiet..
Tell her to curl up as if she’s in bed..”

and eventually ends up with the Israelis taking the role of the Nazis

“Tell her they (the Palestinians) are animals
living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out,
… tell her I look at one of their children covered in
blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her…”

As much as Churchill’s reading of Jewish’s recent history as a transformation from innocence into ruthless barbarism is not a revelation, the message is delivered in a rather profound and sensitive manner.

But there is a far deeper layer in Churchill’s play that is hardly discussed or addressed. Churchill, like other commentators engaged in issues to do with Jewish identity, is highly observant of the elastic qualities of Jewish identity, history and reality. Jews can be whatever they want to be as long as it serves one cause or another. The Jewish narrative is obviously neither coherent nor consistent.

Tell her it’s a game,	as if we (the Jews) are on the top of it all.
Tell her it’s serious,	as if we are actually going down.
But don’t frighten her,	as if we are somehow on top of it all again.
Don’t tell her they’ll kill her,	as if we it all about to end in a matter of seconds.

The Israeli Historian Shlomo Sand elaborated on the phantasmic qualities within the Jewish historical discourse in his recent book ‘When And How The Jewish People Was Invented’. Sand manages to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jewish people never existed as a ‘nation-race’, they never shared a common origin. Instead they are a colourful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. Similarly, at a certain stage in history they had invented their national identity. As we sadly realise, the phantasmic qualities at the core of Jewish identity politics do not stop Jews from celebrating their aspiration at the expense of the Palestinian people. The reason is simple, as Sand proves in a scholarly way and as Churchill conveys theatrically, Jewish identity is a very flexible realm.

Tell her her uncles died
Don’t tell her they were killed
Tell her they were killed
Don’t frighten her.”

The Jewish narrative is the art of making a story. It has no commitment to facts or truth. Accordingly, you make sure that you “don’t tell her they were killed”, so she can keep up the cosmopolitan dream. Or maybe, you better “tell her they were killed”, so she can rush back to the Ghetto and stay with us. Alternatively she may learn the ‘necessary’ lesson and join the IDF so she can spread death amongst the enemies of Israel. Anyhow, make sure you “don’t frighten her”, as if she isn’t frightened enough already.

The Jewish identity is a form of tactical detachment. It is a methodical strategy that creates an imaginary symbolic order with a clear pragmatic agenda.

“Tell her for miles and miles all round they (the Arabs) have lands of their own.” Misleading her to think that Palestinians and Arabs are literally the same thing.

“Tell her again this is our promised land.” As if the Jews are people, as if their origin is in Zion, as if the biblical promise has any legal validity, as if they actually believe in the Torah.

Churchill, like Sand, is eloquently exposing the zero integrity at the core of the Jewish national cause, discourse and narrative. The Jewish historical plot is not about telling the truth. Instead, it is all about the making up a ‘truth’ that would fit the current tribal needs. There is an old joke about Marxist ideologists. It tells that once the facts do not fit into the Marxist determinist textbook, all you have to do is to change the facts. Jewish identity discourse is employing exactly the same strategy. Facts and lies are produced as we move along. In short, all you have to ‘tell her’ is that sometimes we need to be innocent victims, other times we plunder, kill, throw WMDs. It all depends what serves our tribal interests best at a given time.

Victimhood - the Birth of the Collective

Churchill seems to be very observant tracing the disastrous toll Jewish identity politics achieved in turning the Jewish state into a cold blooded murderer.

Tell her I don’t care if the world hates us
Tell her we’re better haters	as if she has to be told after what she saw in Gaza.
Tell her we’re chosen people”,	as if she doesn’t realise by now.

And yet, one may wonder, who is that young innocent girl whom Caryl Churchill referring to. Who is the protagonist at the receiving end of the text, who is the hidden ‘her’ that is referred to in each line of this interesting play?

The image of an innocent young female victim is one of the pillars of the Jewish identity and the post-Shoah Jewish victim self image. Anna Frank is probably the most famous literary character within that very genre. As much as Frank is an innocent victim, she is also very effective in inflicting guilt on the Goyim.

As we know, Anna Frank tragically perished at the end of WW2. She didn’t make it to the newly born ‘Jews only’ state. Yet, within the context of Jewish identity politics Anna Frank had been adopted as a Jewish cultural icon by means of collective transference. In practice she had successfully settled in the heart of every subject who identifies as a Jew. Those who succumb to the notion of Jewish identity insist upon regarding themselves as innocent and blamelessness. From a Jewish identity political perspective, the Jewish nation is a tribe of very many innocent Anna Franks.

I allow myself to guess that Churchill’s little girl refers metaphorically to the ‘people of Israel’. The newly born Jewish nation is indeed a very young concept that is submerged with righteousness and innocence. The little girl at the receiving end of the play is there to convey an image of naivety and blamelessness. But it is also that little girl’s metaphorical innocence that makes Israel’s crimes so sinister. In the light of the Israeli propaganda that presents the Jewish state as a vulnerable innocent blameless entity, the devastating reality of Israeli brutality leads towards the inevitable cognitive dissonance.

The reality of the racist ethnic cleansing ‘Jews only state’ together with the images of the Israeli war machine pouring tons of white phosphorous on Gazans does not leave much room for doubt. Israel has nothing to do with the phantasmic self-image of a ‘little blameless girl’. If anything, the image of the naïve girl makes things worse for the Israeli Hasbara project. We are dealing here with a horribly naughty child who was despised first then ’she’ turned into a bully and soon after proved to be ruthless, sadistic and monstrous with no comparison.

Tell her we’re the iron fist now,
tell her it’s the fog of war.
Tell her we won’t stop killing them till we’re safe,

tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policemen…
tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out.”

Seemingly we are dealing here with a uniquely and seriously disturbed immature nation. We are dealing with a self-loving narcissistic child who is terrorised by ‘her’ own cruelty. It is the sadistic youngster who is horrified by the demons ’she’ finds in herself. The more the Israelis love themselves and their delusional phantasmic innocence, the more they are frightened that people out there may be as sadistic as they themselves proved to be. This behavioral mode is called projection.

Tell her we love her.
Don’t frighten her.

So ends Churchill’s play. Seemingly, Jews have a very good reason to be frightened. Their national state is a racist genocidal entity.

After the Shoah, Jews had an opportunity to transform their fate, to turn a new page. They could even explore collectively the notion of forgiveness and mercy. A few Jewish intellectuals insisted that Jews must locate themselves at the forefront of the battle against racism and oppression. As it happened, it took just six decades for the Jewish national state to establish its primacy as the ultimate racist nation state that employs the ultimate sadistic ruthless oppressive tactics. “Don’t frighten her,” says Churchill. If to be honest, the young girl must be frightened for a very good reason. If she ever would be courageous enough to look in the mirror, she would be gravely devastated

Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He lives in London, and is an editor at Palestine Think Tank, where this essay first appeared, and author of two novels: A Guide to the Perplexed and the recently released My One and Only Love. Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. He can be reached at: atz@onetel.net.uk. Read other articles by Gilad.

Balochistan is the ultimate prize By Pepe Escobar

REBRANDING THE LONG WAR, Part 2
Balochistan is the ultimate prize
By Pepe Escobar
PART 1: Obama does his Bush impression

It's a classic case of calm before the storm. The AfPak chapter of Obama's brand new OCO ("Overseas Contingency Operations"), formerly GWOT ("global war on terror") does not imply only a surge in the Pashtun Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). A surge in Balochistan as well may be virtually inevitable.

Balochistan is totally under the radar of Western corporate media. But not the Pentagon's. An immense desert comprising almost 48% of Pakistan's area, rich in uranium and copper, potentially very rich in oil, and producing more than one-third of Pakistan's natural gas, it accounts for less than 4% of Pakistan's 173 million citizens. Balochs are the majority, followed by Pashtuns. Quetta, the provincial capital, is considered Taliban Central by the Pentagon, which for all its high-tech wizardry mysteriously has not been able to locate Quetta resident "The Shadow", historic Taliban emir Mullah Omar himself.

Strategically, Balochistan is mouth-watering: east of Iran, south of Afghanistan, and boasting three Arabian sea ports, including Gwadar, practically at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz.

Gwadar - a port built by China - is the absolute key. It is the essential node in the crucial, ongoing, and still virtual Pipelineistan war between IPI and TAPI. IPI is the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, also known as the "peace pipeline", which is planned to cross from Iranian to Pakistani Balochistan - an anathema to Washington. TAPI is the perennially troubled, US-backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, which is planned to cross western Afghanistan via Herat and branch out to Kandahar and Gwadar.

Washington's dream scenario is Gwadar as the new Dubai - while China would need Gwadar as a port and also as a base for pumping gas via a long pipeline to China. One way or another, it will all depend on local grievances being taken very seriously. Islamabad pays a pittance in royalties for the Balochis, and development aid is negligible; Balochistan is treated as a backwater. Gwadar as the new Dubai would not necessarily mean local Balochis benefiting from the boom; in many cases they could even be stripped of their local land.

To top it all, there's the New Great Game in Eurasia fact that Pakistan is a key pivot to both NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which Pakistan is an observer. So whoever "wins" Balochistan incorporates Pakistan as a key transit corridor to either Iranian gas from the monster South Pars field or a great deal of the Caspian wealth of "gas republic" Turkmenistan.

The cavalry to the rescue
Now imagine thousands of mobile US troops - backed by supreme air power and hardcore artillery - pouring into this desert across the immense, 800-kilometer-long, empty southern Afghanistan-Balochistan border. These are Obama's surge troops who will be in theory destroying opium crops in Helmand province in Afghanistan. They will also try to establish a meaningful presence in the ultra-remote, southwest Afghanistan, Baloch-majority province of Nimruz. It would take nothing for them to hit Pakistani Balochistan in hot pursuit of Taliban bands. And this would certainly be a prelude for a de facto US invasion of Balochistan.

What would the Balochis do? That's a very complex question.

Balochistan is of course tribal - just as the FATA. Local tribal chiefs can be as backward as Islamabad is neglectful (and they are not exactly paragons of human rights either). A parallel could be made with the Swat valley.

Most Baloch tribes bow to Islamabad's authority - except, first and foremost, the Bugti. And then there's the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) - which both Washington and London brand as a terrorist group. Its leader is Brahamdagh Bugti, operating out of Kandahar (only two hours away from Quetta). In a recent Pakistani TV interview he could not be more sectarian, stressing the BLA is getting ready to attack non-Balochis. The Balochis are inclined to consider the BLA as a resistance group. But Islamabad denies it, saying their support is not beyond 10% of the provincial population.

It does not help that Islamabad tends to be not only neglectful but heavy-handed; in August 2006, Musharraf's troops killed ultra-respected local leader Nawab Akbar Bugti, a former provincial governor.

There's ample controversy on whether the BLA is being hijacked by foreign intelligence agencies - everyone from the CIA and the British MI6 to the Israeli Mossad. In a 2006 visit to Iran, I was prevented from going to Sistan-Balochistan in southeast Iran because, according to Tehran's version, infiltrated CIA from Pakistani Balochistan were involved in covert, cross-border attacks. And it's no secret to anyone in the region that since 9/11 the US virtually controls the Baloch air bases in Dalbandin and Panjgur.

In October 2001, while I was waiting for an opening to cross to Kandahar from Quetta, and apart from tracking the whereabouts of President Hamid Karzai and his brother, I spent quite some time with a number of BLA associates and sympathizers. They described themselves as "progressive, nationalist, anti-imperialist" (and that makes them difficult to be co-opted by the US). They were heavily critical of "Punjabi chauvinism", and always insisted the region's resources belong to Balochis first; that was the rationale for attacks on gas pipelines.

Stressing an atrocious, provincial literacy rate of only 16% ("It's government policy to keep Balochistan backward"), they resented the fact that most people still lacked drinking water. They claimed support from at least 70% of the Baloch population ("Whenever the BLA fires a rocket, it's the talk of the bazaars"). They also claimed to be united, and in coordination with Iranian Balochis. And they insisted that "Pakistan had turned Balochistan into a US cantonment, which affected a lot the relationship between the Afghan and Baloch peoples".

As a whole, not only BLA sympathizers but the Balochis in general are adamant: although prepared to remain within a Pakistani confederation, they want infinitely more autonomy.

Game on
How crucial Balochistan is to Washington can be assessed by the study "Baloch Nationalism and the Politics of Energy Resources: the Changing Context of Separatism in Pakistan" by Robert Wirsing of the US Army think-tank Strategic Studies Institute. Predictably, it all revolves around Pipelineistan.

China - which built Gwadar and needs gas from Iran - must be sidelined by all means necessary. The added paranoid Pentagon component is that China could turn Gwadar into a naval base and thus "threaten" the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

The only acceptable scenario for the Pentagon would be for the US to take over Gwadar. Once again, that would be a prime confluence of Pipelineistan and the US empire of bases.

Not only in terms of blocking the IPI pipeline and using Gwadar for TAPI, control of Gwadar would open the mouth-watering opportunity of a long land route across Balochistan into Helmand, Nimruz, Kandahar or, better yet, all of these three provinces in southwest Afghanistan. From a Pentagon/NATO perspective, after the "loss" of the Khyber Pass, that would be the ideal supply route for Western troops in the perennial, now rebranded, GWOT ("global war on terror").

During the Asif Ali Zardari administration in Islamabad the BLA, though still a fringe group with a political wing and a military wing, has been regrouping and rearming, while the current chief minister of Balochistan, Nawab Raisani, is suspected of being a CIA asset (there's no conclusive proof). There's fear in Islamabad that the government has taken its eye off the Balochistan ball - and that the BLA may be effectively used by the US for balkanization purposes. But Islamabad still seems not to have listened to the key Baloch grievance: we want to profit from our natural wealth, and we want autonomy.

So what's gonna be the future of "Dubai" Gwadar? IPI or TAPI? The die is cast. Under the radar of the Obama/Karzai/Zardari photo-op in Washington, all's still to play in this crucial front in the New Great Game in Eurasia.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

"Stellar Wind" routinely eavesdropped on journalists and public officials

The warrantless National Security Agency (NSA) electronic eavesdropping program known to only a handful of Bush administration officials by its code word "Stellar Wind" and by a few other Justice Department officials only as "The Program" routinely intercepted the communications and transactional data, including credit card usage, of journalists and public officials, according to sources familiar with the program.

The Stellar Wind program was considered so illegal by the Justice Department and FBI agents who knew about it, there was a belief that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft would be indicted for allowing the interception program to operate. Known also as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," the warrantless wiretapping was authorized by President George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11 and had to be re-certified every 45 days. In March 2004, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, upon the determination of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, decided that certification would not occur because the program was deemed as illegal.

After Comey became acting Attorney General after Ashcroft went to George Washington University hospital suffering from acute pancreatitis, there was a now infamous scene of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales demanding that a barely conscious Ashcroft re-certify "the program." Comey, with Ashcroft's wife by the bedside of her husband, were present as Card and Gonzales demanded that Ashcroft re-certify the surveillance program. Ashcroft said Comey was the attorney general. The min-rebellion within the top echelons of the Bush administration resulted in the White House re-authorizing the illegal Stellar Wind without the concurrence of the Department of Justice. Bush called his illegal surveillance program, using NSA to spy on innocent Americans, the "crown jewels of national security."

WMR has also learned that the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, was, after the 2004 Ashcroft hospital scene, informed of the illegal wiretap program. Conyers took no action when informed by a contact within the Justice Department and replied in an email to the contact, "Whistleblowers don't fare very well."

Conyers also refused to take any action when NSA employees like Russell Tice, familiar with the illegal NSA program, validated the information about "The Program" that was coming from within the Justice Department. Congress, including then-Senator Barack Obama, then gave telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon, which were cooperating in the illegal NSA surveillance program by granting the firms immunity from prosecution. These telecommunications firms maintained a number of "secret rooms" at their major switching centers that allowed NSA to conduct illegal surveillance on Americans.

WMR has also learned that one of the main architects of the Stellar Wind program was Vice President Dick Cheney's then-chief counsel David Addington. Cheney and Addington decided to keep a number of details of the super-classified Stellar Wind program secret from the Congress. What we were told is that "Cheney did not view Congress as a co-equal branch" of the executive. The so-called "unitary executive," which has powers greater than the legislative and judicial branches in violation of the U.S. Constitution, was an idea that was being pushed by Addington and other officials within the Bush White House.

WMR has also discovered that Addington once joked about "blowing up the FISA Court."

Sources have also told WMR that there was a "pre-disposition" by the Bush White House to implementing Stellar Wind prior to 9/11. Cheney was also particularly fond of using NSA to illegally spy on Americans. The Stellar Wind program was so classified that Comey's predecessor as Deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, was never "read into" the special access program that minimally required a Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clerance along with clearance to the Stellar Wind program.

WMR has learned from informed sources familiar with Stellar Wind that it was used to create a Richard Nixon-style "enemies list" and that one of the victims of the surveillance of his transactional data and communications traffic was New York's then-Governor Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer's Internet web page visits, e-mails, credit card transactions, and phone calls were all used by the Bush administration to discover his activities with a New York escort service and bring about his humiliation and resignation from office.

The NSA, when it learned something juicy about a public official like Spitzer, would scrub the information of all "intelligence sources and methods" information, including the involvement of companies like AT&T and Verizon, and provide it to Justice Department prosecutors for action or White House political operatives for a political sting operation targeting the individual eavesdropped upon.

There is also reason to believe that Stellar Wind was used to eavesdrop on Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich, New Mexico Democratic Governor Bill Richardson, New Jersey Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, former North Carolina Democratic Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards, and then-Illinois Democratic Senator and current President Barack Obama to "dig up" political dirt by the Bush-Cheney White House.

Others on the Bush-Cheney enemies list subject to surveillance were certainly those opposed to the Iraq War, Ironically, one of those who may have been subjected to NSA surveillance was the late former NSA director under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom, one of the earliest retired military top brass who came out publicly in opposition to the Iraq war.

It is important to note that while the NSA and White House Stellar Wind operation "minimized" intelligence reports, in a normal and legal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant, there is no such minimization of sources and methods. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants must be specific as to their relevance to a counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism investigation. However, the illegal Stellar Wind reports merely provided incriminating information without providing sources, methods, or justification information since no judicial concurrence was necessary. Under a FISA warrant, a target may only be wiretapped for 90 days in foreign counterintelligence cases. WMR has learned that during the Bush administration, FISA warrants were obtained by NSA on a number of foreign dignitaries visiting the United States. In addition, FISA warrants were issued for anyone, including American citizens, with Middle Eastern names who traveled to the Middle East. The warrants were requested even though there was no evidence that they were connected to any terrorist organizations.

WMR has also learned that John Bolton, while Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, used Stellar Wind to target a number of U.S. ambassadors, especially those career diplomats who were known to privately oppose the Bush administration's war against Iraq. One of those ambassadors was likely John Danforth, former Republican Senator from Missouri, who resigned in December 2004 as U.S. ambassador to the UN after less than six months in office. Danforth cited "policy differences" with the State Department. Danforth's resignation followed by a few weeks that of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was also subjected to NSA eavesdropping.

WMR previously reported that Bolton received NSA transcripts of phone conversations between his boss, Powell, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson concerning back channel nuclear talks with North Korean diplomats in New York.

We have also learned that journalists were "high on the list" for surveillance by the Bush White House under the Stellar Wind program. In December 2005, WMR first reported on a CIA/NSA program called Firstfruits that was authorized in October 2004 that was a "database that contained both the articles and the transcripts of telephone and other communications of particular Washington journalists known to report on sensitive U.S. intelligence activities, particularly those involving NSA." Targeted journalists, reported by NSA sources, included targeted journalists included author James Bamford, the New York Times' James Risen, the Washington Post's Vernon Loeb, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the Washington Times' Bill Gertz, UPI's John C. K. Daly, and this editor [Wayne Madsen].

Risen was one of the New York Times journalists who first became aware of the illegal NSA intercept program. The other was Eric Lichtblau, the author of Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice.

Rudman: Deus ex Machina on Torture

by Ray McGovern

The announcement in mid-March that CIA Director Leon Panetta had picked former Sen. Warren Rudman to act as CIA "liaison" with the Senate Intelligence Committee during its "review" of interrogation and detention practices has drawn virtually no criticism from the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).

Yet, it is a dead give-away as to how congressional leaders plan to go through the motions for a year or so, and then let everyone off the hook.

Why let everyone off the hook? Because congressional leaders, Republican and Democratic alike, were informed of the Bush/Cheney administration plans for torture - perhaps not chapter and verse, but enough to be complicit in their silence. Both parties have amply soiled the dirty linen that could be hung out.

So here's the plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, looking toward reelection in 2010, calculates that the last thing he needs is a bonafide investigation that would make him vulnerable to Cheneyesque charges of being weak in the "war" on terrorism. These days, if you take a hard line against torture, you can be made to appear soft on terrorism.

Worse still, other prominent Democrats like Sen. Jay Rockefeller and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were given intelligence briefings on interrogation, warrantless eavesdropping, and God knows what else. And they let Bush and Cheney run right over them with nary a whimper.

Surely, the Washington power structure concurs that what is needed is the kind of "thorough investigation" which President Richard Nixon loudly called for, with tongue in check, on Watergate. So, Senate team managers Reid and Rockefeller have gone to their bench for an ace utility infielder - quintessential practitioner of "thorough" investigations, Warren Rudman. They are eager to bring Rudman on as liaison with the Senate Intelligence Committee led by Dianne Feinstein with Rockefeller sitting at her right hand, so to speak.

The FCM, whether from indolence or timidity, have completely missed the boat on Rudman, calling him a "respected" veteran of investigations of national security issues. Does no one do due diligence - or simple homework - anymore?

Are the FCM journalists determined to make it easy for Attorney General Eric Holder to shirk his duty to see that the law is faithfully enforced, by giving him the out of saying, "Well, let's first see what the Senate Intelligence Committee comes up with."

It's been seven weeks since word got out that Rudman is back in service; yet hardly a word about Rudman's reputation as designated fixer par excellence. Rudman has been wildly successful in covering up past national security crimes.

It is troubling that it should have to fall to the likes of us - far from the comfortable environs of the FCM - to point this out.

‘Respected Politician'

The FCM has been quite busy applying the sobriquet "respected politician" to Rudman, though in his case it is truly an oxymoron.

In the 1980s, Rudman earned his spurs by working hand in glove with then-Rep. Dick Cheney to limit the scope of the Iran-Contra investigation. Rudman was essentially the good cop to Cheney's bad.

Rudman was one of three "moderate" Republican senators who collaborated with "moderate" Democratic co-chairman Lee Hamilton in soft-peddling the roles of President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush in authorizing and overseeing the Iran-Contra law violations.

While Hamilton and Rudman laid most of the blame on Oliver North and other low-level "men of zeal," Cheney led the rear-guard Republican defense, insisting that the Reagan administration had committed no crimes and instead blaming Democrats in Congress for daring to pass laws interfering with the President's powers.

In the end, Hamilton got what he wanted, a veneer of "bipartisanship" with the signatures of Rudman and two other GOP senators (William Cohen and Paul Trible); Rudman got a watered-down "majority report"; and Cheney went ahead with his in-your-face "minority report" that he later proclaimed had laid the foundation for George W. Bush's views on expansive presidential powers.

In the end, none of the White House folks or other senior officials who played fast and loose with the law during the Iran-Contra affair were held to account.

A noxious precedent was set. This kind of experience, one might say, has a way of emboldening lawbreakers to try again - and again.

Dissing Gulf War Veterans

In this next example, I am having difficulty controlling my anger. For I remain outraged by Rudman's willingness to do the Pentagon's bidding in refusing to acknowledge that the illnesses of over 200,000 U.S. Gulf War veterans were related to exposure to several toxic chemicals - pesticides, experimental pills and vaccines, depleted uranium, oil-well fire pollution, and nerve gas - for starters.

Dual-use technologies needed to make nerve agents were sold to Iraq during the Reagan and Bush I administrations (when Saddam Hussein was something of a secret ally) and the stockpiles of nerve agents were then blown up by U.S. Army engineers in 1991 oblivious to the fact that 145,000 U.S. troops were downwind. After a decade of denials, the Pentagon fessed up and notified those 145,000 Gulf War veterans they may have been exposed to low levels of chemical warfare agents.

Patrick and Robin Eddington, former colleagues of mine at CIA, had been appalled at the cover-up of Gulf War illnesses orchestrated by the Pentagon and by then-CIA Director John Deutch. I watched closely as the Eddingtons tried, in vain, to do the right thing by Gulf War veterans who had served in the Iraq Theater. (When the couple saw no alternative to quitting and exposing the continuing injustices by writing a book, "Gassed in the Gulf," I was honored to be asked to write the Foreword.)

But U.S. government bureaucrats and politicians had other priorities, such as deflecting attention from - and cost of - the Gulf War illnesses.

So, in May 1997, Warren Rudman was appointed the Pentagon's special adviser on Gulf War syndrome by his old Senate colleague William Cohen, who had moved on to be President Bill Clinton's bipartisan choice as Defense Secretary.

In this advisory post, Rudman dismissed all evidence that challenged the Pentagon's conclusion that Gulf War illnesses were not caused by multiple toxic exposures. Rudman succeeded in sparing the Pentagon embarrassment, but at the price of denying over 200,000 Gulf War veterans the medical care they needed to cope with a wide array of neurological and other maladies. The result was to delay for over a decade medical research, treatment and disability benefits for Gulf War veterans.

That's right, over 200,000 of the 700,000 U.S. troops remain ill 18 years after the March 1991 cease-fire.

For readers with strong stomachs and a yearning for more detail, we include below the gist of a short piece I wrote at the time to chronicle Rudman's role in this unconscionable cover-up from May 1997 until January 2001, when Clinton awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal for services performed.

Taking no credit away from Rudman for his effective hatchet-man role, it is only fair to point out that it was Clinton who chose to cave in to the Pentagon. Rudman was merely a willing functionary - a hired gun doing his best to protect his client in The Pentagon v. Gulf War Veterans.

That Clinton would single out Rudman for a special award, however, was a gratuitous slap in the face of tens of thousands of ill veterans without a voice in the high councils of our government.

Rudman Rebuffed

The findings of the panel led by Rudman from 1997 to 2001 have now been thoroughly discredited.

Late last year, after reviewing hundreds of peer-reviewed research studies, an independent Research Advisory Committee (RAC) mandated by Congress, concluded that prior investigations were biased against veterans, slanted in favor of the military and VA leadership, and woefully incomplete.

The November 2008 RAC report found that scientific research has determined a conclusive link between Gulf War illnesses and toxic exposures during deployment. The RAC also called pointedly for a reduction in government interference in the scientific process.

When I mentioned the re-emergence of Rudman to shepherd yet another "investigation" - this one on torture, Paul Sullivan, a former project manager for the Veterans Administration and now executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, expressed outrage. I asked Sullivan why the Pentagon was so stubbornly resisting the reality that over 200,000 troops needed proper care - many of them for the long term.

"Previous administrations fought against our veterans because the government wanted to save money and preserve the myth of an easy, cheap Gulf War victory," said Sullivan. "Healthcare and disability benefits for life might well cost over a million dollars for each of the 200,000 Gulf War veterans who are ill - a total price tag in the billions of dollars per year.

"This means the inexpensive, "casualty-light" Gulf War portrayed by the Pentagon and FCM was actually a very expensive, high-casualty conflict," said Sullivan, who served as a Cavalry Scout during Desert Storm.

Speaking on behalf of Veterans for Common Sense, Sullivan indicated that VCS strongly opposes the involvement of Warren Rudman in investigating torture, given his role in covering up the Gulf War scandal of the 1990s. Sullivan noted that at least one active duty Army soldier committed suicide rather than follow orders to torture detainees.

Veterans for Common Sense is co-plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit that is forcing President Obama to release torture documents and photos.

Another Cover-up?

Covering up President Bush's torture policies is more about avoiding liability to prosecution - or, at least, acute political embarrassment. But the tools of cover-up are the same; and, again, what is needed is an experienced hand.

CIA Director Panetta seems confident that he has that kind of person in Rudman. It was while Panetta was White House chief of staff under President Clinton that Rudman became head of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), after the previous chairman, Les Aspin, died in May 1995. Rudman, the consummate insider, was officially named chair of PFIAB in 1997 and served in that capacity until 2001.

He is now 79, but can be assumed to be well rested and no doubt has been warming up for his new job with Panetta and CIA operatives-some of whom were involved in implementing the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld torture policy. It is becoming clearer and clearer what Panetta meant when, at his confirmation hearings in early February he tried to reassure members of the Senate Intelligence Committee they should expect little trouble from him. "I am a creature of Congress," he said with a broad smile, which was returned by smiles of equal width from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Rudman, another "creature of Congress," can be expected over the coming months to exhibit his characteristic exuberance in coming off the bench to play the role of designated hitter. If all goes as our distinguished Senators expect, the torture thing will be fixed by this time next year, when Rudman reaches 80.

We shall have to wait to see if the FCM will wake up and take some interest so that the American body politic has an opportunity to be informed and perhaps even to summon the courage to prevent a Rudman Redux - this time on torture.

* * *

Chronicling Rudman Role on Gulf War Illness

May 1997: Rudman is retained by his close friend, Defense Secretary William Cohen, to act as special adviser on Gulf War illnesses. The announcement coincides with a report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses criticizing the Pentagon for being too slow to investigate possible chemical incidents and for obstructing the Committee's work.

November 1997: The final Presidential Advisory Committee report covering the months since May 1997 finds that "public mistrust about the government's handling of Gulf War veterans' illness has not only endured, it has expanded." The Committee charges that the Pentagon-run battlefield surveys and research and analysis had hopelessly biased conclusions against the possibility that low-level exposures to chemical agents were a factor.

This stinging critique notes that many U.S. alarm and detection systems could not detect lower levels of chemicals that might have delayed effects, and that the Pentagon had summarily dismissed virtually all other reported detections - by British, French, and Czech forces, for example - as unproven. President Bill Clinton names Rudman to head an "independent panel" (The Presidential Special Oversight Board) to ensure that the Pentagon's inquiry into Gulf War illnesses "meets the highest standards."

In view of the Committee's findings and Rudman's close relationship with Cohen, then-Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Connecticut, and others immediately question how independent such a panel could be. How could Rudman be expected to perform an unbiased investigation of the behavior of a major client on an issue on which Rudman had been advising that client for the preceding half-year?

October 2000: The Pentagon announces that 30,000 additional Gulf War servicemen and women are to be told they have been exposed to Iraqi nerve gas. In 1997, 99,000 were informed they might have been exposed. At a public meeting convened to announce the new notifications, Rudman interrupts to ask (and answer) rhetorically, "Does this (the additional 30,000) mean any more people are ill? So far, there is no evidence of this."

The Pentagon briefer explains that 30,000 of those who earlier were told they had been exposed would now be told they were not, leaving the overall total for exposures at 99,000. [Since then, the total has risen to 145,000.]

November-December 2001: Dr. William H. Taylor and Dr. Vinh Cam, members of the Rudman-led Presidential Special Oversight Board, object strongly to his attempts to steer it toward findings favorable to the Pentagon. Vinh charged that under Rudman, the Board has acted as a mere extension of the Pentagon.

In a letter to Rudman, Taylor wrote:

"OSAGWI (the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses) selectively ignored evidence that it did uncover, and repeatedly showed an unwillingness to investigate leads that suggested a conclusion contrary to its assessment. In short, OSAGWI's investigations are biased, and the conclusions and assessments that OSAGWI states in its reports cannot be considered credible."

Dr. Taylor went on to decry efforts by the Board's executive director to "depejoratize" (sic) Board members' reports, "particularly concerning the presence of chemical warfare agents," and sharply criticized Rudman's expressed wish to give the Office of Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses "an ‘A' for effort."

The correspondence makes it abundantly clear that Drs. Taylor and Cam would not give Rudman's Pentagon client a passing grade, and that they have little but disdain for Rudman's (successful) attempt to manipulate the Board's findings.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

A Moldovan-Israeli Werewolf in Paris

By Will

Israel's racist-thug-turned-racist-Foreign-Minister Avigdor Lieberman continues his sideshow tour of Europe. While the party in the Washington DC Hilton that housed the AIPAC conference moved to Capitol Hill, Minister Lieberman made his way to Paris.

In the City of Love, the chauvinistic hatemonger was a virtual Pepé Le Pew (sorry for the mixed metaphors, but there's more to come). He was met by protesters calling him a fascist. The French weekly Journal du Dimanche ran the headline, "Lieberman, a bothersome visitor," and called his views "nefarious."

The debonair French leader, Nicolas Sarkozy, was too embarrassed to slap palms with the former nightclub bouncer, and probably did not want to have to wait in line behind the velvet ropes to make the club look popular.

The Sark chose to duck out of town, leaving his own Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to repeat the French demands for "the complete halt of settlement building, including that linked to 'natural growth.'"

Kouchner also told Lieberman there is no military solution to the Gaza problem and that the Strip must be opened permanently to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis. He then slapped the visiting minister in a face with a baguette.

While these diplomats apply pressure, day-time Lieberman seems minimally diplomatic -- perhaps he's comforted by the cast of expert Palestinian-screwers, Bibi, Barak and Peres, who expertly fend off any outside pushes for Israeli concessions.

I just fear that a full court diplomatic press will be the full moon, setting off the true monster, candidate Lieberman and the pro-settler constituency that put the goon in office. This wolf has a particular appetite for Palestinians, and their crushed bones feed the careers of many Israeli pols. Israel's alarming move to revoke the citizenship of some non-Jewish citizens is an alarming sign of possible future paths to keep the Jewish state Jewish -- especially with growing demographic evidence that Jews are no longer a majority in the lands the government presides over.

If I could leave with one positive note, I love that Lieberman is just another public relations fiasco for Israel. It causes the state to spend that much more of its resources on PR clean-up.