NOVANEWS

Rana Baker 

Mosques and churches have coexisted in Gaza for hundreds of years.

We Palestinians have nothing to cherish more than our roots and ancestral identity. To us, olive trees and the shade in which our grandparents rested or lovers used to secretly meet weave together sweet pre-dispossession memories.

My grandmother’s depleted voice can’t but play and replay the same ecstatic melodies of a womanhood (before 1967) spent between Gaza and Jerusalem, or actually, between Gaza and an Israeli officer and from there to Jerusalem. She would repeat to me again and again how smoothly (compared to now) she and her Jerusalemite relatives could visit each other. According to her, the most difficult part was to find a carriage.

I would nod my head, sip my tea, and contemplate her face. It is really difficult to imagine that the young adventurous woman who could “smoothly” go to and enjoy Jerusalem is the same one as my wrinkled grandmother. Later, I would be struck by the fact that she is eight decades old. Eight decades! Older than the Nakba? Yes.

One of my grandmother’s clearest memories of the few years prior to the Nakba is one of a British officer who stood before a Palestinian crowd that happened to include my grandmother. According to her, everybody was there to celebrate the inauguration of a new British-established school in Gaza.

My grandmother narrates: “Can you see me, Rana? I can see the officer in front of eyes now. I remember him yelling and cheering until he uttered these words: ‘Today we are your guests, but tomorrow you will be ours.’” A deep breath and she continues: “we were too naïve to fathom the demon snoring in his speech.”

My grandmother, therefore, is a living evidence of the irrefutable fact that Palestinians had forged lives in Palestine until Zionist gangs, like the Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang, to name a few, viciously drove Palestinians out of their lands.

They destroyed our villages, but not our heritage

In our schools and families, we are raised to identify ourselves with our heritage and the villages or towns from which we originally descend.

It is neither surprising nor is it phenomenal when a seven-year-old boy knows exactly which Palestinian village or town is his home of origin and offers a brief but accurate description of his grandfather’s stolen or destroyed house, even if he’s never been allowed to visit himself.

Our heritage is not only the black or red checkered kufiyyeh scarf and the traditional embroidered dress; it is a scent wafting carried on the breeze from olive groves, vines and figs. Alas, everything was and continues to be subject to Israel’s relentless attempts to loot a deep-rooted Palestinian culture.

To us, especially the young, books are our solace from a life of turbulence and uncertainty. We are more attached to the characters of some novel than to the bombs falling down from the sky. Yet, Israel doesn’t allow that. Every single book I have was smuggled to me by one of my non-Palestinian friends who travel a lot.

Furthermore, more than 6,000 Palestinian books are now languishing on the shelves of Israel’s National Library indexed with the label AP or “Absentee Property.” Those “absentees” are Palestinian refugees whose dream and right to return have been denied for so long.

Israel, however, can never loot a culture of nonviolence and stone-throwing. Frankly speaking, without massacring and dispossessing tens of thousands of Palestinians, Israel could have never come to existence in the first place.

It is almost impossible to imagine a decked-out Israeli soldier picking up a stone to hurl it at Palestinian protestors in Nabi Saleh or Beit Hanoun in the West Bank or Gaza, respectively. On the same note, it cannot be possibly pictured that Palestinian protestors would riddle Israeli “guards” with rubber bullets, tear gas or live ammunition.

Heritage of tolerance

Walking through the roads of Palestine attests to a history of religious tolerance. With Christmas coming soon, Palestinian florists and gift shops, mostly owned by Muslims, are adorned with Christmas trees, Santa Claus costumes and glowing lights. Here, Muslims and Christians are neighbors and friends. Every Christmas, Muslims visit their Christian neighbors and offer warm hugs and outings together.

I was educated in a Christian school; I clearly remember my Christian classmates fasting during Ramadan with us or at least, avoiding eating in front of us. Christians here, despite being a minority, celebrate Eid with us. They even go get new outfits every Eid as is the Muslim custom.

Even the construction testifies to warm relations and deep respect. In the old part of Gaza, you will find a Catholic church that shares a wall with an ancient Turkish mosque. Both the church and the mosque have stood there for hundreds of years.

Prior to the Nakba, the above situation applied to relations with Jews; but when the Israeli state was established on 15 May 1948 and declared a “Jewish-state,” Jews were separated from Muslims and Christians. Even those Jews who were not affiliated with the Zionist movement had to be separated.

Palestinians do not come from Mars, but we are constantly alienated and our demands swept off to corners like dust.

I lost faith in the so-called “international community” a long time ago. I don’t even know whether I have ever had any sort of trust in it.

None of the UN resolutions that could have brought us fragments of justice have ever been implemented. The 1947 UN resolution on the partition of Palestine (181), however, was upheld and implemented. This resolution served nobody but the Zionist movement and therefore the perpetuation of our misery.

The cultural war Israel has fueled is aimed at de-Palestinianizing the Palestinians and those who choose to stand on the right side of history. This is why the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) exists. Israel has cultural obligations to meet and must be pressured into complying with them. Until it does, the campaign will not stop.

NOVANEWS 

Dictators and Depots I Have Known

by  Ingrid Rimland Zundel

From an admittedly skewed perspective of my very young, impressionable years, I’d like to shine a brief spotlight on four twentieth century dictatorships I have personally known.

Stalin first. I was too little to have witnessed his brutalities first-hand in the Ukraine where I was born to German-descent parents.

But I heard plenty of stories about the artificial famine of the mid-Thirties where the death-cart passed each day along the street to pick up the dead by the wayside.

Seven million are said to have perished.

My young parents, then still single, were students in a teachers’ college in Odessa. A particularly poignant story I heard all my life is that my father came courting my mother each evening with a handful of beans in his pocket.

Imagine Beans as a Sole Diet

They would soak them overnight on the windowsill and cook their only meal of the day in the morning. I was born the following year. I suspect that had it not been for the beans in my father’s pockets, you wouldn’t be reading my missives in Veterans Today.

My father was arrested six years later by the Soviet Torquemadas. Every male age 14 and over was arrested in our German-descent town in the early days of September 1941, only weeks before Hitler’s Wehrmacht arrived and drove the tormentors away.

My father’s “crime”? Being German. We never saw him again. He never saw a “Nazi” in his life.

Adolf Hitler in WWI

Hitler next: I know that most of my readers have a different view of history from mine. I won’t pontificate here about the power of decades of relentless atrocity tales about what the “monster of monsters” allegedly did – or at least ordered.

Let me just say that, having been raised in a pacifist setting of Germans of Russian descent in a religious community deep in the Paraguayan jungle, I was well into my thirties when it dawned on me that Hitler was perceived by most of what passes as the “civilized world” to be a ghoul who used to chew on a carpet in his rage against the Jews – and not the trustworthy liberator that I and my people experienced.

Alfredo Stroessner – Paraguay

General Stroessner of Paraguay.

He came to power when I was still a teenager and ruled, I believe, for 30-plus years in a moderate fashion.

Not so in the beginning. I heard he made short shrift of same obstreperous liberal padres of the Catholic Church by throwing them into a tiger cage, thus crushing any serious opposition.

The simple paisanos loved Don Alfredo Stroessner to abandon. I glimpsed him only once, in 1984, when I went back to the places of my youth.

Stroessner and Peron

As he did each Thursday afternoon, there he walked the streets with a handful of cronies on the way to a hotel to play a game of cards. He had no bodyguards, and people greeted him without pretense as you might greet a neighbor.

Stroessner disliked and distrusted his own son, Gustavo, a not-too-bright spoiled brat. Legend has it that when he fell mortally ill, he masterminded his own benign revolution to get himself deposed to assure a successor to his liking.

His place was taken briefly his son-in-law – who died shortly thereafter – I was told, in New York hospital. Mean conspiracy buffs claim he was killed.

Juan and Evita Peron

General Peron of Argentina. More or less the same story in terms of unreserved admiration by the populace. His wife, Evita, was worshiped like a goddess for her activism on behalf of her “descamisados” – the Shirtless Ones.

She helped arrange “aguinaldo” – at Christmas, all employees in Argentina received an extra month’s pay.

At age 17, I experienced only the end of Peron’s popular rule. A personal insight why it ended came to me by accident.

I worked at the time as a maid for a well-to-do Argentine family who, I found out much later, were personal car-racing buddies of the Perons.

As I was serving food at a small family dinner one evening, I overheard one of them say:

“Well, he finished off la rubia (the Blond One)” – and there were guffaws all around. A week later, Evita’s “terminal cancer” was announced, and after another few weeks, she was supposed to have succumbed.

A Rare Photo of Evita

Ever since, Argentina has been in the clutches of the banksters.

The four gents above were unabashed dictators. They didn’t hide behind “democracy” – as “democratic” governments these days are wont to do as they rain terror on civilians.

From the perspective of a simple youth caught in the juggernaut of a world war and brutal postwar struggles for survival, in my book only Stalin was to be feared.

Ever heard of the “School of Americas”- the place where torturers were trained in Fort Benning, Georgia? The following press release was sent to me last night:

SOA Watch – info@soaw.org

Solemn voices lifted up the spirits of those killed by graduates of the School of the Americas and filled the air as the music team sang out their names from the stage during this morning’s funeral procession in front of the entrance to Fort Benning. The crowd of thousands responded, “PRESENTE!”

Joining actor Martin Sheen on stage this weekend was Georgia NAACP State President Edward DuBose, who told the crowd many had asked him why he’d come here.

“I made a promise to Troy Anthony Davis that I would continue to speak out against any system that takes any innocent life,” DuBose told the crowd. “However long it takes, we’ll be here. We’re on this road until justice is served!”

United Auto Workers President Bob King also addressed the gathering, lifting up the voice of organized labor standing in solidarity with workers all across the Americas.

School of the Americas – Ft. Benning Georgia

Social movement leaders from Colombia, Haiti, Honduras and Costa Rica joined the thousands of activists who made the trek to this year’s vigil. Jimena Paz, who helped organize the SOA Watch Encuentro in Venezuela, and who, as a young member of the Honduran Resistance, has lost friends to the SOA-led repression campaign, shared her compelling story from the stage.

Dr. Luther Castillo, a young, Afro-indigenous Garifuna doctor and community organizer, directs the foundation For the Health of Our People (“Luagu Hatuadi Waduheñu” in the Garifuna language), and is the founder and director of the First Popular Garifuna Hospital of Honduras.

Exposing the effects of SOA training of Honduran soldiers since the 2009 graduate-led military coup, Luther shared that he and the hospital have been subject to many threats of closure and other attacks by the military and coup government.

Jani Silva, a community organizer from La Perla Amazonica, Putumayo, Colombia, addressed the reality of US foreign policy in her country, which has sent more than 10,000 soldiers to be trained at the SOA with chilling results.

Mario Joseph, a prominent Haitian human rights lawyer, is representing political prisoners and victims of political violence in Haiti. He spoke from the stage, urging solidarity with Haitian struggle to keep the army from being brought back.

Also present among those giving testimony to SOA violence was Nelly del Cid, one of the Feminists in Resistance in Honduras. She shared her deep concerns about the huge number of femicides since the coup.

Costa Rican lawyer and peace advocate Luis Roberto Zamora also gave updates about the lawsuit he filed against the Costa Rican government for sending police to the School of the Americas/WHINSEC.

Theresa Cusimano, 43, of Denver, Colorado, crossed the line for the second time following the morning’s solemn funeral procession. She was arrested by military police and faces up to six months in prison. Stay tuned for a message from Theresa!

Editing: Jim W. Dean

NOVANEWS 

by Stephen Lendman

Knesset summer session bills grievously harm civil and human rights if passed. Basic freedoms are at risk, including speech, assembly, association, and right to dissent.

On October 16, a Haaretz editorial addressed one measure affecting press freedom headlined, “Free press in Israel is in danger,” saying:

Knesset extremists want to silence it “through the threat of libel suits that would jeopardize the economic foundations of the media outlets.”

Last week, Knesset Law and Justice Committee chairman David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu party) approved MK Yariv Levin’s (Likud) bill for first reading. It calls for more punitive libel compensation from 50,000 to NIS 300,000 (Israeli new shekel) with no need to prove damages.

Moreover, the penalty could rise to NIS 1.5 million if the complainant’s response isn’t published in full.

Levin claimed “freedom of expression is not freedom of transgression.” MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) wants Israelis protected from “the great power of the media.”

Neither addressed core democratic principles. Free expression is fundamental. Feigning support for civil rights, both want press freedom silenced. At issue is preventing criticism of business, government, and other influential figures.

“For years now, democracy in Israel has been under attack from the right-wing parties….(They) control the Knesset and enjoy” protective Kadima support in their efforts to establish ‘Jewish supremacy’ using the tools of law.”

Israel’s “Prohibition on Instituting a Boycott” law prohibits actions against Israeli products, persons and activities connected to Israel and its settlements.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) said passage gravely weakened Israeli democracy. So did other enacted measures. Those now pending may destroy it entirely.

ACRI discussed them in its summer Knesset review. They include:

Committees of Inquiry to Investigate NGOs

Two pending bills seek to establish committees of inquiry into NGO financing. So far neither measure passed. Rejecting them as written in July, they may be reintroduced in new form. At issue is targeting NGOs critical of Israeli policies.

An Amendment to the 2002 Civil Service Law

If enacted, applicants with Israeli military or other national service will receive preferential treatment regardless of qualifications. Arabs will be marginalized.

The measure violates Israel’s Equal Opportunity in Employment Law. The bill passed its first reading. So far, no further action was taken.

An Amendment to Israel’s Anti-Defamation Law

Passage will permit libel suits and criminal prosecutions against anyone slandering Israel or its institutions. It would also let affected persons bring civil suits. NGOs critical of Israeli policies are specifically targeted. No action so far was taken.

Amending Israel’s Income Tax Ordinance (Taxation of Public Institutions Receiving Contributions from Foreign Political Entities)

NGOs, mainly human rights ones, are again targeted by imposing a 45% tax on foreign contributions received. State funded organizations will be exempt. No action so far was taken.

Amending the Associations Law (Prohibition of Support from a Foreign State Entity to Political NGOs in Israel)

If passed, human rights organizations will be prohibited from accepting foreign contributions exceeding 20,000 NIS annually. Bill explanatory notes say:

“(M)any organizations operating under the guise of ‘human rights groups’ come here to influence the political discourse, the character, and the policies of the State of Israel.”

Hearings so far were postponed. Foreign affairs and other officials fear the measure harms Israel’s image. So do others reviewed in this article and bills now law.

The Courthouses Bill Amendment (Transparency in the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices and in the Appointment of the President and Vice-President of the Supreme Court)

The measure seeks to establish public hearings and making appointments dependent on the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.

At issue is politicizing appointments, violating separation of powers, and further weakening checks and balances. The bill was tabled. No further action was taken.

Return of the Wisconsin Program

The bill aims to give far-reaching powers to corporations at the expense of workers. They include authority to deny them income support benefits that provide social safety net protection for families with no other income source.

Privatizing this power will deprive hundreds of thousands of employees of their right to live in dignity, besides issues of liberty, property and privacy.

Passage also will violate Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. It would expand the program nationwide as fixed policy. ACRI strongly opposed the original Wisconsin Plan. It promises strong opposition to this one. It’s being debated in the Knesset’s Labor, Welfare and Health Committee.

Planning and Building Reform

This measure would replace the current Planning and Building Law. According to the Council for Responsible Planning, the bill damages the public’s interest and violates environmental standards.

Among other issues, it fails to ensure fair representation on planning councils. It gives no clear authority to government over local concerns. It impairs citizen rights to oppose plans and appeal council decisions.

It excludes provisions for public decision making participation. It also omits mechanisms to ensure social interests such as social consulting, social impact studies, assuring affordable housing, and others.

Under debate, the measure’s preparing for its second and third readings.

The National Housing Committees Law

The bill potentially harms public and social interests by bypassing Planning and Building Law provisions. It excludes local planning committee authority to promote affordable housing in neighborhoods of mixed social character. It’s discriminatory and unfair.

It passed the Knesset plenum last August.

Amending the Entry into Israel Law, it authorizes a “Tribunal for Foreign Nationals” to hear issues relating to legal residency, including for children of permanent residents.

It lets both Interior and Justice ministries rule on immigration and residency status of non-Jews. Concentrating executive, legislative and judicial authority this way violates democratic principles, including separation of powers, public court proceedings, and judicial fairness.

It also harms non-citizen and permanent resident spouses, East Jerusalem children, migrant workers, stateless persons and others. The Interior Committee approved the measure for its second and third readings.

Prevention of Infiltrators Law

It authorizes arrest of asylum seekers and their children for up to three years. Israel’s Entry into Israel Law permits up to 60 days.

If passed, every asylum seeker potentially could face criminal prosecution and imprisonment for up to five years. It also applies to anyone aiding and abetting them. Repeat offenders may face 15 years.

The bill trashes fundamental human rights principles. The Committee on Internal Affairs is debating it in preparation for its second and third readings.

Enforcement and Protection of Public Safety Bill

The measure dramatically expands municipal inspectors’ powers, authorizing them to prevent violence in local jurisdictions. It abrogates state responsibility to provide essential services to all its citizens. Instead, it would transfer core services to local municipalities.

The original text was draconian. It’s now softened but still worrisome. It permits conflict of interest and the politicization of law enforcement. At the same time, it widens the gap between law enforcement in various communities.

It discriminates on the basis of religion, ethnicity, and nationality. It lacks an independent, effective way to handle public complaints. It also gives inspectors police powers.

The Committee on Internal Affairs approved it as a Temporary Order. Valid for two years, it applies only to 13 localities already running a pilot project. A final vote is expected soon.

Prisons Ordinance (Amendment 32 – Preventing a Prisoner from Meeting with a Specific Lawyer)

The measure seeks to prevent security prisoners from consultations with specific lawyers, based on secret information. It also applies without having to prove attorneys committed improper behavior.

Israeli law already prevents lawyer/client meetings in cases involving (secret) suspicions it could be used to commit a crime, endangering public security or prison discipline.

The proposed amendment goes further, and lengthens incarceration periods before judicial oversight is required. It violates fundamental prisoner rights. Approved for second and third readings, a final vote is expected soon.

Criminal Procedures Law (Powers of Enforcement – Bodily Searches and Means of Identification, Amendment 3)

Earlier legislation authorized establishing a genetic database. Doing so raised privacy and dignity issues. It also enhances law enforcement. As a result, balances and limits were imposed on what data could be stored, how, and how it’s used.

The current measure overturns this delicate balance, intrusively affecting privacy. It authorizes more bodies (including international ones) to receive information. It also lets more types of information be collected and maintained.

The bill passed.

Biometric Database Pilot

The measure authorizes establishing it with little attention paid to issues causing other governments to reject similar projects. Nonetheless, regulatory oversight was approved by a special Knesset committee with little debate.

Planning and Construction Law (Proposed Amendment – Financing the Demolition of Illegal Construction at the Expense of the Builder)

The measure proposes doing so without judicial review and without letting builders demolish structures themselves. State costs are much higher.

Second and third readings were approved. The bill is seriously flawed despite moderating its original form. Further Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee debate is expected.

Entry into Israel Law (Amendment 21)

The measure pertains to work permits given migrant workers. It seeks to restore binding them to one employer. Israel’s High Court earlier ruled it illegal, calling it “a modern form of slavery.”

The bill was approved to become law after its second and third readings.

Counter-Terrorism Bill

It seeks to legally anchor “state of emergency” regulations regarding the fight against terrorism into permanent legislation. Its provisions are draconian, threatening irreversible human rights damage.

Administrative detention and control orders are established, authorizing anti-democratic authority to arrest and detain people indefinitely without charge.

Secret evidence may be used. Terrorist organizations and acts of terror are broadly defined. Illegal interrogation methods may be used. New rules contradict basic criminal law standards.

Unchecked executive branch authority is granted without trial based on uncorroborated suspicions. The measure is classic police state extremism. The bill passed its first reading in August.

Authority to Protect Public Safety Bill (Amendment – Police Search Authority)

The measure lets police conduct intrusive searches at places of entertainment and in their vicinity, even without suspicion of wrongdoing. It essentially grants police state authority to discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality and other inappropriate criteria.

Proposed Amendment to the Police Ordinance (Obligation to Wear Identification Tags)

The measure seeks to require police to identify themselves. ACRI supports the bill. Earlier it wrote police authorities about concerns regarding masked police and other disguises.

Police now condone it, especially when confronting demonstrations. The bill passed its first reading.

Discrimination against Women within the National Insurance Law

Under current law, the National Insurance Institute (NII) defines women who haven’t worked for four consecutive years as housewives, regardless of how long previously employed.

Housewives don’t pay insurance premiums. As a result, they forfeit some of rights. A Labor, Welfare and Health Committee raised the problem. The NII assistant director said legislation was being prepared to address it. At this time, nothing further is known.

Water

ACRI calls water a fundamental human right. It emphasizes state responsibility to ensure equitable distribution without discrimination. High water rates charged by private corporations pose problems. ACRI seeks legislative relief.

A Final Comment

Israel’s current Knesset under Netanyahu is its worst ever. Repressive legislation threatens Arabs and Jews. Democracy is illusory, not real. Bad conditions worsen.

Civilized societies accept all citizens as equals, or should. Israel rejects that standard, even for most Jews.

Israeli Arabs never had rights. Increasing numbers of Jews are now affected. Wealthy and privileged ones prosper at the expense of others. Israel resembles America. Social justice and democratic freedoms in both countries are fast disappearing.

Recent and current Knesset legislation gravely endanger them. It’s time for Israelis to rally again like last summer for social justice. Otherwise they may lose out entirely.

NOVANEWS

by Philip Giraldi

An increasing number of former intel officers that I network with are convinced that the alleged plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington is not only completely implausible as described by the Justice Department and White House but also possibly the contrivance of an intelligence or security service other than that of Iran. There is a  consensus that the Iranian government has no motive for carrying out the attack, as it would have only further isolated Tehran internationally and could easily have led to massive retaliation.

The “rogue element” theory that Iran’s fractured politics might mean that someone in the Quds group was actually trying to embarrass someone else in the government has a certain plausibility, but no one who knows anything about Iran actually believes it to be true. Nor is it likely that Iran mounted the complicated operation to avenge the assassinations of several of its nuclear scientists. The scientists were killed by the Israelis, who would have been the target if that had been the case. So the only question becomes, who is doing what to whom and why?

The speculation by Gareth Porter that the whole affair might have been a drug deal that morphed or was manipulated by an FBI sting into yet another terrorism story is compelling. If that was the case, then the U.S. government is guilty yet again of taking a vulnerable individual and turning him to make him into what will pass muster as a genuine terrorist. Nearly every terrorism case since 9/11 has been precisely that — finding a disgruntled individual or group through communications intercepts, inserting an informant into the process, and developing the case to enhance its terrorism potential.

Another possibility that has been mentioned is that it might have been an operation planned by the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, the Iranian opposition group supported by a number of U.S. lawmakers. But the MEK would not have the resources or technical expertise to carry out such a deception, unless it were working in cooperation with the CIA or the Mossad, which raises the possibility that this has been from the start the work of an intelligence agency rather than law enforcement.

Law enforcement normally begins with some kind of case and then allows it to grow, whereas an intelligence operation would be phony from start to finish. If it is indeed an intelligence operation, there are three principal suspects: the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. All three countries have highly sophisticated intelligence services capable of the technical measures required to carry out what is essentially a false-flag operation, in which they would be portraying themselves as representatives of the Iranian government in order to obtain the cooperation of an expat Iranian living in the United States. All three intelligence organizations are highly knowledgeable of Iranian intelligence service operations, and all three have easy access to Farsi speakers capable of role playing. The operation would be tricky to execute but far from impossible if the right resources were dedicated to the problem and the right spin were put on the narrative used to initiate contact with and then develop Mansour Arbabsiar or someone like him.

The United States would have the simplest task in mounting such a false-flag operation. As immigrants to the U.S. are required to identify close relatives in foreign governments as part of their visa process, it would be easy to come up with a candidate for the plot who has a relative in Iran’s security services through inspection of the immigration records. I am certain that the CIA and the FBI both have been exploiting such records since 9/11. Once you have your candidate, you set up a scenario for him in which he receives a phone call quite possibly innocuous in nature, money is dangled in front of him, and your plot to assassinate and bomb gradually takes shape. After you introduce your own informant into the operation, you then run it like the classic FBI sting operation, which we have seen so many times over the past 10 years.

You monitor and guide your target, going step by step, getting him more involved and committed. You provide him with money that comes out of an overseas account that you have set up, which is no problem at all for a sophisticated intelligence agency. You can even redirect calls using a switch so that when your target thinks he is dialing Tehran he is actually connected to a listening post in Washington. When the operation is ready to go, you arrest him, claiming as Preet Bharara, the federal attorney for the southern district of Manhattan recently did, that “no one was ever actually in any danger.” You time the arrest and the revelation of the case to the media to obtain maximum possible advantage from it.

Israel would run the operation in precisely the same fashion, assuming that it has access to U.S. immigration records, which may or may not be true, either with the consent of the federal government or clandestinely through one of its many friends in the bureaucracy. The rest of the operation would proceed just as if the CIA were running it. Indeed, one should not rule out the possibility that Israel might have run the operation jointly with the CIA.

Saudi Arabia would likely not have any access to U.S. immigration records, but it is possible that it could come up with a candidate using other resources, including work and travel records from the nearby Emirates, which are much frequented by Iranian travelers.

Given the fact that all three countries’intelligence services could have run the false-flag operation, who would have the strongest motive? Cui bono, who benefits? Undoubtedly Israel would. Tel Aviv has been demanding military action against Iran for many years. A terrorist plot to assassinate a friendly ambassador in Washington would be considered a godsend by the Benjamin Netanyahu government, which has stated repeatedly that Iran is a threat and Washington should be taking the lead against it.

The United States has much less motive to create a new crisis with Iran, even accepting that the president would like to appear to be strong against terrorism and what he chooses to call state sponsors of terror in the lead-up to elections. If an armed conflict were somehow to start and go wrong, there would be considerable downside, making this far too risky to contemplate. The White House has several times warned Israel against starting a war with Iran, most recently three weeks ago when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited Tel Aviv. President Obama might be willing to push hard against the Iranians to satisfy demands from Congress, the media, and the Israel Lobby, but he appears unwilling to employ military force.

The Saudis have no love for Iran but would be fearful of the consequences of what could quickly become a major war escalating on their doorstep, so their motivation for heightening tension is also very questionable, even if they would welcome someone else dealing with what they see as the Iranian threat.

The final question: Was it a conspiracy that was designed to fail? It would be a mistake to assume that just because the plot appears idiotic it could not be the product of a sophisticated intelligence service. In my own experience in the CIA, many operations were poorly planned and executed, and often something that appears implausible might be driven by its own perverse logic. In this case, the involvement of an identifiable DEA informant in the plot, if that was done deliberately, suggests that exposure was desired, perhaps due to some laudable squeamishness about blowing up a restaurant or killing an ambassador in cold blood.

That might mean that whoever constructed the operation was willing to have it become public knowledge because the publicity itself would be nearly as damaging as success, which is frequently how covert intelligence operations are designed. Would Israel be bold enough to stage a major terror operation in the United States capital? The Lavon Affair, the USSLiberty,Jonathan Pollard, and the still unexplained actions of Israel before 9/11 suggest that it might. If an Iranian plotter had killed the Saudi ambassador in Washington while blowing up a restaurant full of people, it would have been an act of war, a Pearl Harbor moment. If Tehran had apparently plotted to do so and failed because the plot was discovered, it could still be construed as an act of war by those willing to see it that way (Sen. Carl Levin, for instance). Either way it is blamed on the Iranian government, not on the actual false-flag perpetrator.

I am not suggesting that the above scenario necessarily took place, just describing how it might have been accomplished. My account differs in several details from the information that the U.S. government has either revealed through its court filing, stated in press briefings, or leaked to the media to bolster its case. At least some of the leaked material, most notably the information provided to The Washington Post’s Peter Finn, might reasonably be described as disinformation. Above all, the Obama administration and the  FBI have made no effort to explain the role of the informant, who might have been an instigator or enabler of the terrorist plot, if such a plot ever existed, nor will they be generous in releasing information when Arbabsiar is tried.

Of course, if the entire affair was a broadly based conspiracy orchestrated by the White House for political reasons, it would have been easy to carry out, as all the evidence and corroboration could have been fabricated from start to finish. That is perhaps the scariest possibility of all, a “homegrown”answer to the question “Whodunit?”

NOVANEWS

NOVANEWS

NOVANEWS

By Richard Silverstein 

Tikun Olam

You’ll recall that the the U.S. claimed that the Iranian alleged conspirator in the terror plot against the Saudi ambassador, Gholam Shakuri, was a Revolutionary Guard (IRG) official.  Though many Iranians have scoured every resource they could think of, none have found evidence of such a person with any IRG affiliation.  If the U.S. has such evidence it ought to produce it if it wants to be believed.  Yesterday, the well-placed Alef site, run by an Iranian majlis member who’s run for president twice, alleged that Shakuri is in fact a high level Mujahadeen al Khalq (MEK) leader.  It offered evidence to support the charge.

Today, the official MEK leadership has denied that Shakuri is a member and the U.S. has also denied the charge.  But in fact, a former high-ranking MEK leader, Massoud Khodabandeh (he has allowed me to use his name), writing in the Gulf2000 listserv, confirmed that Shakuri is in fact an MEK member.  He cautions that there may be more than one Gholam Shakuri, and the one who is the MEK member may not be the same Shakuri the U.S. has named.  While this may be true, this new development moves Shakuri a lot closer to being MEK than being IRG.  And moves the entire U.S. account of this supposed crime closer to the trash heap.

In its story containing the U.S. denial, the NY Times quotes U.S. sources responding to the Iranian charge that Shakuri held or holds a U.S. passport:

Mr. Shakuri is not a United States citizen and does not have an American passport.

I have no doubt that Shakuri is not a U.S. citizen and also that he may not currently have a U.S. passport.  But this statement, at least as portrayed by Scott Shane, does not say the U.S. never issued such a passport in his name.  There are many ways and reasons a non-U.S. citizen may obtain a U.S. passport including fraud and the possibility that Shakuri was performing a task for the U.S. government or CIA and needed such a document.  I am speculating, but in light of the paucity of evidence the U.S. has offered to support its claims, we must parse the information it has distributed to try to determine credibility and accuracy.

There is another intriguing element that the Alef story added to the mix.  It claimed that Interpol had released information allowing confirmation of Shakuri as an MEK official.  The NY Times says this:

An Interpol spokeswoman declined to comment. But an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Interpol had discovered no link to the opposition group, calling the Iranian news report “pure fiction.”

While I do not know the protocols that Interpol follows in making public statements, I’d think that if the organization had been portrayed falsely by Iran, that it would want to say so.  I’d also think that the U.S. would be a far more important national partner to Interpol than Iran and that Interpol would also want to deny this story if it were false because the U.S. would benefit from this.  The fact that it refuses to do so raises if not a red, then surely a yellow flag for me.

The fact that a U.S. official seeks to speak on behalf of Interpol and under the cloak of anonymity is highly dubious.  If they want us to believe what they claim, then I’m afraid it will have to be Interpol speaking on its own behalf.

NOVANEWS

Drove coach and horses through government’s Ministerial Code for mysterious buddy

by Stuart Littlewood

The dodgy relationship between Britain’s defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox, and his friend Adam Werrity has been entertaining the media and public here for the last several days.

Werrity, a onetime flat-mate of Fox’s and best man at his wedding, has been traipsing around the world after the defense secretary, popping up “by amazing coincidence” in the same cities and organizing and appearing at meetings where Fox discussed state business. And he turned up at Fox’s London office so many times that tongues began to wag.

Werrity falsely claimed to be an adviser to the defense secretary and even handed out business cards inscribed with that title.

MOD

Fox has now admitted meeting his bosom-buddy on 18 overseas visits and in 22 get-togethers at the Ministry of Defence HQ – altogether 40 times in the 16 months Fox has been in office, even though Werritty has no security clearance and no official position.

Craig Murray, our former ambassador to Uzbekistan sacked for daring to speak out against torture and other human rights abuses, had this to say…

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/10/fox/

I had presumed that Fox’s “ex-flatmate” Adam Werritty was of his own age, a flatmate from students days or impecunious early employment. I also presumed that Werritty had been Fox’s best man back in a similar period. I am surprised to find that the 40 year old Fox picked up the 24 year old Werritty at a meeting in Edinburgh Unversity only ten years ago, shortly after that Werritty moved into his flat, and after they had known each other just four years, Werrity was apparently Liam’s closest buddy on earth and became his best man.

Fox accommodated Werritty in taxpayer funded accommodation and around the best man period was funding him on his MPs expenses – before the “Atlantic Bridge” fake charity wheeze. Fox was found by the expenses scandal investigation to have “overclaimed” over £20,000 in mortgage payments and was forced to pay it back. It is unclear why Fox was not prosecuted. He also charged mobile phone bills of over £17,000 to the taxpayer. There must now be an investigation of how many of those calls were to Adam Werritty.

The fact that when Liam Fox was shadow health secretary, Werritty ran a health consultancy, and when Fox became defence secretary, Werritty became a defence consultant, tells you all that you need to know about this relationship.

Is this what passes for “the highest standards of propriety”?

The Prime Minister has foolishly declared “full confidence” in Liam Fox and was echoed by Conservative MPs, who closed ranks around their colleague and dutifully spouted the same drivel. But in the foreword to the Ministerial Code, issued in May 2010, David Cameron wrote: “In everything we do – the policies we develop and how we implement them, the speeches we give, the meetings we hold – we must remember that we are not masters but servants. Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct. We must not let them down.”

The Code’s first words – its General Principles – make it clear that “Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety… Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”.

On overseas visits the Code says ministers “should be satisfied that their arrangements could be defended in public”. Furthermore the relevant Permanent Secretary’s approval must be obtained before a special adviser accompanies a minister overseas.

One of the great mysteries is why Fox’s senior civil servants didn’t say: “Who is this guy, what’s he doing hanging around here, get rid of him.”

In the event of an allegation about a breach of the Code and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, he will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests (Sir Philip Mawer). Enforcement “is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary”.

So why is the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, heading enquiries? Did the PM actually stop to read what he was writing a foreword to?

The Ministerial Code also spells out the Seven Principles of Public Life, including the one about Integrity… “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

But they might as well not be there. You see, Liam Fox is a high-ranking Israel flag-waver, a stooge the Zionist lobby doesn’t wish to lose… as are others in the Cabinet.

When he was Shadow Defense Secretary, Fox was proudly quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website saying: “…We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.”

Yesterday The Jewish Chronicle reported: “The Defence Secretary is known as a champion of Israel within the government. Speaking at the Herzliya Conference in February, which Mr Werritty also attended, he urged tougher sanctions against Iran, Mr Werritty’s area of expertise.”

Iran is suddenly Werrity’s area of expertise? Is there no end to the man’s advisory talent?

We simple-minded citizens expect a person accepting appointment as a Minister of the Crown to take the trouble to read and understand the Code and, as a man of honour, live by it. Fox has apologized to Parliament for “blurring” the distinction between his professional responsibilities and personal loyalties. But that’s not enough. He appears to have thrown caution and common sense to the wind and driven a coach and horses through the Code.

Aside from his obvious lack of judgment we have to consider the implications of his distorted reading of the Middle East and infatuation with a foreign military power that poses a nuclear threat to the region and is contemptuous of international law and human rights.

This “champion of Israel” dangles by his finger-nails pending further enquiries. Will he fall on his sword or wait to be tossed over the battlements?

‘Free Palestine’ Book Now On Internet