PAKISTAN Special

A CONSPIRACY THEORY

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Sat, 23 May 2009 07:08:00 +0400

By: Shaukat Qadir

India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive

Finally, some American analysts have acknowledged that New Delhi is actively involved in destabilising the Pakistani province of Balochistan. They have also come to the realisation that it is also funding some of the Taliban.

Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, has published this discovery, supported by the large variety of speakers at a round table conference held recently in Washington.

The speakers at the conference included Christine Fair, a senior political analyst formerly at the RAND Corporation; Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution; Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-born American citizen; and Ashley Tellis, the author of “India’s emerging nuclear doctrine”, published by RAND in 2001.

When Ashley asked me to comment on his work, I wrote back: “You have provided India with a nuclear doctrine that no one in India could have come up with, and have legitimised it through the RAND.”

With such participants, the conclusion is indisputable, but the US chooses to consider the evidence inconclusive. Though not when the evidence is against Pakistan!

I am prepared to believe that Pakistan, through Bangladesh, is involved in supporting insurgencies in India. The reasons are obvious: India is a far larger country, with greater resources and, in due course, is likely to outstrip Pakistan, economically and militarily, unless bled constantly.

Indian involvement to destabilise Pakistan is less easily understood, except as a tit-for-tat response, because it cannot take possession of Balochistan, and if Pakistan implodes India will face disastrous consequences.

A tit-for-tat response has its own logic and, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, many Indian analysts, convinced of the Indian military’ inability to gain a decisive victory against Pakistan, suggested this policy.

One of them, Bharat Karnad, ex-member of the Indian national security advisory board, even sent me his article for ‘comments’. However, if the outcome of such a policy is as obviously self-defeating in the long run; perhaps India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive.

I am a reluctant believer in conspiracy theories, but the writings of Charles Ferndale, Norman Finkelstein, Uri Avnery and Israel Shahak — not to mention Noam Chomsky —…

PAKISTAN WAR FUELS INTERNATIONAL TENSIONS

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:37:00 +0400

P.Symonds has been just to the point while exposing US' designs and stretegy. You see how it all fits in. You see what's behind all the hu ha about terrorism. You unleash terror so you get away with terror. Age old imperial game but this time Washington’s moves will not go unopposed...

BY: Peter Symonds

Comments by China’s ambassador in Islamabad last Thursday highlight the reckless character of the Obama administration’s escalating intervention in Pakistan. By pressuring Islamabad to wage an all-out military offensive against Islamic insurgents in the Swat Valley and neighbouring districts, Washington is not only destabilising Pakistan but raising tensions in a highly volatile area.

Speaking to Pakistani business leaders, Chinese ambassador Luo Zhaohui pointedly voiced concern about the growth of “outside influence” in the region. He singled out the US in particular, saying that China was worried about US policies and the presence of a large number of foreign troops in neighbouring Afghanistan. While reiterating China’s support for “the fight against terror,” Luo declared that US strategies needed some “corrective measures”. He added, “These are issues of serious concern for China.”

Luo’s unusually blunt remarks came just one day after US President Obama spoke to his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao. While a number of issues were discussed, the escalating war in Pakistan was clearly high on the agenda. This first publicised phone call between the two men came as Obama met with the Afghan and Pakistani presidents over US strategy in the two countries. While Hu reportedly offered his cooperation, Luo’s comments express China’s underlying fears over growing US influence in South Asia.

Last week’s tripartite summit in Washington signalled a major upsurge in military violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under intense pressure from the US, the Pakistani army has launched a large-scale offensive against militants in the Swat Valley in which hundreds have already died and hundreds of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee. The summit, however, involved more than discussions on military cooperation, outlining comprehensive plans for the closer economic and strategic integration of the two countries into an American sphere of influence.

China, which has longstanding ties with Pakistan, is obviously disturbed by these developments. As Ambassador Luo told his business audience, more than 60 Chinese companies are involved in 122 projects in Pakistan. He noted the “close liaison” with Pakistan over the security of over 10,000 Chinese engineers and…

PAKISTAN AT THE PRECIPICE

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:19:00 +0400

By: Dr Akmal Hussain

The speech by Sufi Muhammad, leader of the Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi, before a huge crowd in Mingora (Swat) last Saturday, represents a critical moment in the crisis of the Pakistani state. It clearly laid out the ideological framework within which the Taliban seek to achieve power and establish governance in Pakistan.

The Sufi specified the following six important postulates, which made clear the strategic objective of overthrowing the existing constitutional order of Pakistan:

1. He asserted that sharia (as interpreted by the Taliban) is seen as divine law.
2. He defined a Muslim not just in terms of someone who believes in the Oneness of God and the fact that Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet of God, but as one who supports and helps to implement the sharia.
3. He stipulated that the existing democratic order was an “un-Islamic system of the infidels” and that supporting such a system was a great sin.
4. The persistence of the “un-Islamic system of the infidels”, in his view, would destroy Pakistan and that he and his supporters would defend the country in the sense of attempting to establish their version of the sharia.
5. The superior courts of Pakistan were seen as part of the un-Islamic system of infidels and therefore rejected as institutions where legal appeals against qazi courts were to be made. Instead, he claimed that such appeals would be made before the soon to be formed institution of Darul Qaza.
6. The Nizam-e Adl (the system of justice established in Swat) as an application of the Taliban version of sharia under the “peace deal” was seen by the Sufi as only the first stage of the implementation process of sharia. According to him, sharia would be completed when it encompassed the institutional structures of Pakistan’s polity, economy and education.

These six postulates taken together constitute an ideological clarion call to all Muslims to join in the struggle of the Taliban to overthrow the existing democratic constitutional order in Pakistan for the establishment of their version of an Islamic state.

In this sense, Swat, like the other areas in the NWFP occupied and governed by various Taliban groups, is a base area from which the ideological, political and military struggle to establish a Taliban state in Pakistan is to be conducted.

Of course, the government regards the compromise in Swat as a “peace deal”, even…

The Boss Has Gone Mad

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:21:00 +0400

By: URI AVNERY

169 years before the Gaza War, Heinrich Heine wrote a premonitory poem of 12 lines, under the title “To Edom”. The German-Jewish poet was talking about Germany, or perhaps all the nations of Christian Europe. This is what he wrote (in my rough translation):

For a thousand years and more
We have had an understanding
You allow me to breathe
I accept your crazy raging

Sometimes, when the days get darker
Strange moods come upon you
Till you decorate your claws
With the lifeblood from my veins

Now our friendship is firmer
Getting stronger by the day
Since the raging started in me
Daily more and more like you.

Zionism, which arose some 50 years after this was written, is fully realizing this prophesy. We Israelis have become a nation like all nations, and the memory of the Holocaust causes us, from time to time, to behave like the worst of them. Only a few of us know this poem, but Israel as a whole lives it out.

In this war, politicians and generals have repeatedly quoted the words: “The boss has gone mad!” originally shouted by vegetable vendors in the market, in the sense of “The boss has gone crazy and is selling the tomatoes at a loss!” But in the course of time the jest has turned into a deadly doctrine that often appears in Israeli public discourse: in order to deter our enemies, we must behave like madmen, go on the rampage, kill and destroy mercilessly.

In this war, this has become political and military dogma: only if we kill “them” disproportionately, killing a thousand of “them” for ten of “ours”, will they understand that it’s not worth it to mess with us. It will be “seared into their consciousness” (a favorite Israeli phrase these days). After this, they will think twice before launching another Qassam rocket against us, even in response to what we do, whatever that may be.

It is impossible to understand the viciousness of this war without taking into account the historical background: the feeling of victimhood after all that has been done to the Jews throughout the ages, and the conviction that after the Holocaust, we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality.

WHEN THE killing and destruction in Gaza were at their height, something happened in faraway…

Who calls the shots in America?

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:06:28 +0400

BY: BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

“Peace for all children,” said Obama. But does he include Palestinian children? Will he continue to stand with Israel, the country that has laid waste a land and murdered or maimed hundreds?

Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were pretty close, politically and personally. They led the fight against fascism in the early 1940s, and although they had their disagreements they got on well. They were both blunt in their views, but there was no doubt who was the more powerful: Roosevelt called the shots, although Churchill had a lot of influence on him. But it would have been unthinkable for Churchill to behave in the way that the present (though not for long) prime minister of Israel did on January 8 with the (now mercifully departed) president of the United States.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, who has been forced to stand down because of allegations of corruption, telephoned George W Bush to make the latter alter his orders to his secretary of state to support a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The barely believable transcript of Olmert’s boasting of his success is on public record.

He said: “I [Olmert] spoke with him [Bush]; I told him: You can’t vote for this proposal. He said: listen, I don’t know, I didn’t see, don’t know what it says. I told him: I know, and you can’t vote for it! He then instructed the secretary of state, and she did not vote for it.”

There is no other person in the world who could say such words to a president of the United States. And will Olmert’s successor be able to speak with Bush’s successor in the same way and with similar results?

The next Israeli prime minister could be Tzipi Livni or Binyamin Netanyahu, both steel-minded sadists and dedicated haters of Palestinians and Arabs in general. Will they be able to call President Obama to suggest forcefully that he alter the voting intention of the United States of America at the UN Security Council? And what would he do if they did?

Given the commitment to Israel of Mr Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as was obvious in their grovelling speeches last year to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, which apparently runs American politics, there is no guarantee that either of them will utter a word in criticism…

REVISITING OUR US ALLIANCE

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:03:55 +0400

BY: SOBIA ADIL

Pakistan today experiences an increased level of conflict and a perception is being built to undermine its military capability.

In this context, America's approach needs to be seen in the context of its long-term strategic interests in the region, which forces it to engage with Pakistan. However, to achieve this it pursues a policy of controlled chaos enabling it to keep the option of political and military intervention alive.

In the case of Pakistan this shifting of conflict and creation of chaos serves the interests of most of the regional stakeholders and power-brokers operating inside Afghanistan. The coalition finds benefit in reduction of military operations on its side. Afghanistan finds it beneficial because the world's attention is diverted towards Pakistan. India is obviously happy, and so is Russia, while Iran is content since because its potential economic competitor – Pakistan – is handicapped by persistent security concerns.

In this regard the worrisome aspect is that while the US can pinpoint even a needle on the ground from space, it never finds sufficient evidence of miscreants hostile to Pakistan. One never reads about any Predator strike in terrorist sanctuaries in Swat and Bajaur. Neither has one heard of any blocking position by coalition and Afghan forces opposite Bajaur, where the militants flee and find sanctuary. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the conflict in FATA and elsewhere in the NWFP is being aided and abetted by Washington.

Another contributing factor is the increased presence of US Special Forces in the region and the presence of mercenaries in the garb of contractors and representatives of NGOs operating on both sides of the border. These elements provide security to individuals/organisations. They are reported to be extensively employed in conjunction with SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and the CIA. These former soldiers are mercenaries not constrained by any rules of engagement. Around 30,000 work in Afghanistan and many operate near and around FATA.

Yet another contributor worth evaluating is the arrangement of sustaining coalition forces in Afghanistan. On average, around 2,000 trucks travel every month through Pakistan and this operation is managed by the US Embassy through private contractors. The contents of these trailers are not known to Pakistan. The arrangement is a security hazard, to say the least.

The solution to extremism is not a military one and instead requires a long-term approach which can change hearts and minds. Of course, this…

A shattering moment in America's fall from power

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:27:00 +0400

By: JOHN GRAY

Our gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large. Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over.

You can see it in the way America's dominion has slipped away in its own backyard, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez taunting and ridiculing the superpower with impunity.

The setback of America's standing at the global level is even more striking. With the nationalization of crucial parts of the financial system, the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive American administrations have lectured other countries on the necessity of sound finance. Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina and several African states endured severe cuts in spending and deep recessions as the price of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which enforced the American orthodoxy.

China, in particular, was hectored relentlessly on the weakness of its banking system. But China's success has been based on its consistent contempt for Western advice and it is not Chinese banks that are going bust.

Despite incessantly urging other countries to adopt its way of doing business, America has always had one economic policy for itself and another for the rest of the world. Throughout the years in which the US was punishing countries that departed from fiscal prudence, it was borrowing on a colossal scale to finance tax cuts and fund its overstretched military commitments.

Now, with federal finances critically dependent on continuing large inflows of foreign capital, it will be the countries that spurned the American model of capitalism that will shape America's economic future. The dire condition of America's financial markets is the result of American banks operating in a free-for-all environment that these same American legislators who have been debating a bail-out created. It is America's political class that, by embracing the dangerously simplistic ideology of deregulation, has responsibility for the mess.

In current circumstances, an unprecedented expansion of government is the only means of averting a market catastrophe. The consequence, however,…

Unwilling to shake off America's grip?

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:40:08 +0400

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
The big picture for Pakistan should be more visible now in terms of what the US agenda is for this country. But that agenda has been carefully operationalized since the opportunity presented itself to the US in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 – in which, by the way, no Pakistani was involved. Some of us have been highlighting that agenda for some years since, and also pointing out how complicity of our leadership was a requirement for that agenda to continue moving ahead. And what is that agenda?

Clearly, it involves the US creating space within the tribal areas to move in militarily and eventually restructure the whole Muslim nuclear entity of Pakistan. Attacking civilians and thereby creating chaos and panic which would inevitably lead to a mass displacement and add to the pressure on the central government in Islamabad. Also, knowing full well – after all if we can conclude that such killings will create more space for extremists and terrorists, one can assume the US analysts and advisers must have done the same – that by unleashing a war against our tribals and abusing our sovereignty they will create more space for the terrorists; and thereby more reasons to further destabilise us from outside while we face increasing attacks from our home-grown terrorists. Let us not fool ourselves – the US is no friend but a powerful enemy and its ultimate aim is to defang us in terms of our nuclear assets. Already the statements have become more honed in terms of our nuclear assets – both directly, in terms of a bizarre fear that our nukes will fall into "terrorist" hands even though it is the US that seems to have a problem of loose nukes (remember the US planes flying with such weapons only last year?); and, indirectly, by having their politicians and some international agencies build up a crescendo of Pakistan being the most dangerous country in the world and a new "war zone".

That was the first phase of the plan for Pakistan. As the US war on terror has unfolded in our part of the world, we have suddenly seen the emergence of a Tehrik-i-Taliban, Pakistan and countless other militant groups – some of whom were raised and funded by the CIA in earlier years and may well have sustained that linkage. The most aggressively loyal Pakistanis…

UNITED STATES...A Hog Gone Berserk

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:40:00 +0400

BY: “THE INSIDER”

As I write these lines, somewhere in US Bush and Co are giving final touches to intended action plan against Iran . Indicators are that US is very much likely to go ahead with it’s plans within forty or fifty days from now.

Extraordinary and impressive preparations have been made for it which include strategic positioning of US forces in and around gulf and successful placing of pro US governments in countries like Germany, France and Italy (CIA, MI-8 and Mossad must have worked over time to achieve this) Additionally the strategic petroleum reserve of US has been beefed up to last for at least three years in the event of a disruption of oil supplies. Needless to point out the horrendous impact of this enormous oil buying spree of USA on world economy. Are US’ European allies also busy storing the precious commodity for that rainy day? Sure they are.

What exactly will USA’s action against Iran be like? Will it be confined to bombing of the nuclear facilities and infrastructure alone or it will also commit it’s ground troops? In the first case US will obviously attempt to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, causing obvious disruption to oil supplies to the countries like China in particular and Europe in general. This may well be a brief campaign spread over a couple of months. In the second case (though it seems less likely) committing ground troops will essentially mean a forced regime change and physical occupation of Iran’s oil facilities (as in case of Iraq) leading to a consolidation of US’ position in the region that will actually mean presence of US (or so called NATO forces) in Iran for a long time in future.

But why act against Iran at this point of time? Reasons are few but clear. One, Iran ’s becoming a symbol of defiance against US in the Muslim world is unacceptable to Zionist world. In this role Iran actually appears to have taken over the traditional role of Muslim World’s leadership from Saudi Arabia . Therefore like Libya and Iraq, Iran must also face the menace and be punished well and proper. Two, by only targeting Iran, USA aims to achieve other strategic benefits in context to China, Asia and Middle East . And since Obama almost surely destined to win the presidential campaign, is understood to be against the…

With Friends Like These

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:55:04 +0400

BY: URI AVNERY

Lately we are flooded with friends. The Great of the Earth, past and present, come here to flatter us, to fawn on us, to grovel at our feet.

"God, save me from my friends, my enemies, I can deal with myself!" says an old prayer.

They disgust me.

Let's take for example the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem . Her pandering was free of any criticism and she reached new heights of obsequiousness in her speech to the Knesset. I was invited to attend. I relinquished the privilege.

I shall also pass the pleasure when I am invited to the session with the hyper-active Nicholas Sarkozy, who will try to break the flattery record of his German rival. Before that we were visited by John McCain's mentor, the evangelical pastor John Hagee, the one who described the Catholic Church as a monster. Oozing sanctimonious flattery from every pore, he forbade us, in the name of (his) God, to give up even one inch of the Holy Land and commanded us to fight to the last drop of (our) blood.

However, not one of them has come close to George Bush. Approaching the end of the most disastrous presidency in the annals of the Republic, he really forced a lighted match into the hand of our government, encouraging it to ignite the barrel of gunpowder between our feet.

But the list of present-day leaders who participate in the pandering competition pales in comparison with the long parade of Has-Beens who lay siege to our gates. A world-wide swarm of Has-Beens is flying from place to place like bees, all for one and one for all. This week they alighted in Jerusalem, on the invitation of Has-Been No. 1: Shimon Peres, a politician who in all the 84 years of his life has never won an election, and who was finally handed, out of sheer compassion, the largely meaningless title of President of Israel.

The common denominator of this group is that their prestige at home is close to nil, while their standing abroad is sky-high. Their mutual adoration compensates them for the lack of respect in their own countries. One of the senior members of this club is Tony Blair, who has been pushed from power in his own country but is not content to enjoy his pension and raise roses. As a consolation…

The Saudi Exception

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:05:35 +0400

BY:SORAYA SEPAHPOUR ULRICH

There is nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot ….Scott Adams

Is Mr. Bush the idiot who attempts to be resourceful at the expense of world citizenry?

The Bush White House with its democratic war doctrine has threatened world peace and by using coercion and threat of war is bent on depriving Iran of civilian nuclear technology, even though Iran has not violated the NPT. Yet, in a move that defies all logic, Mr. Bush has offered Saudi Arabia nuclear technology. Given the Kingdom's past attempts to gain access to nuclear weapons and its record on human rights violations, either his sanity is questionable or his motives.

According to documents released from the British National Archives under the 30 year rule (dated December 12, 1973 and marked 'UK Eyes Alpha'), it was revealed that after the 1973 war, "[that] British intelligence believed the United States was ready to take military action" that is, invade, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, "to prevent further disruption to oil supplies" and "to secure control of their oil fields". The jittery Saudis, cognizant of a possible future invasion, offered to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq's Osirak-reactor which was destructed by Israel in 1981. As late as 1985 Iraqi and Saudi military and nuclear experts were co-operating closely, the extent of which cooperation included sending Saudi nuclear scientists to Baghdad for months of training.

Between 1985 and 1990, up to the time Saddam invaded Kuwait , payments were made on condition that some of the bombs be transferred to the Saudi arsenal. Muhammad Khilewi, the second-in-command of the Saudi mission to the United Nations Khilewi brought with him more than 10,000 documents he obtained from the Saudi Arabian Embassy. The cache included transcripts of a secret desert meeting between Saudi and Iraqi military teams a year before the invasion of Kuwait . The transcripts depict the Saudis funding the nuclear program and handing over specialized equipment that Iraq could not have obtained elsewhere.

The defector's documents also showed that Riyadh had paid for Pakistan's bomb project and signed a pact that if Saudi Arabia were attacked with nuclear weapons, Pakistan would respond against the aggressor with its own nuclear arsenal. What Khilewi did not know was that the Fahd-Saddam nuclear project was also a closely held secret in Washington . According to a former high-ranking American diplomat, the CIA was fully apprised. The funding…

Killers Without Borders

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:15:00 +0400

BY: MUHAMMAD DAUD MIRAKI, Director Afghan DU & Recovery Fund
It is interesting that people describe different periods in history with existing adjectives in use in each respective period. To judge an era as either beneficial or harmful, people in different periods in time used their respective linguistic terms such as good, comfortable, bad and evil describing the ambiance created by a regime, ruler or empire. Rarely, have people resorted to events as descriptive indicators of their experience in a particular period in time; instead, they used linguistic means, namely, adjectives in describing some period in history as either good or bad. The reason for this is that each period in history has established terminology in use denoting the events, phenomena and social reality around them. For example, the Stalin era could easily be described by words such as evil, or Stalin and his crimes could easily be viewed as manifestation of evil. Although American academics of the Jewish faith have used 'holocaust' describing the mass murders of Stalin's era as a type of descriptive synonym equivalent to the Jewish experience under the Nazis. To my knowledge, no one has used one current event or social phenomenon in place of existing adjective as a type of antonym trying to describe another current event, until now. The reason that compels me to do so in this paper stems from the ineffectiveness of adjectives in describing our current state of affairs.

The boundless murders committed by the government of the United States under variously false pretexts make the government of the United States and its armed forces 'Killers without Borders'. The group that I chose to use as an antonym in describing the heinousness of the United States crimes worldwide is 'Doctors without Borders'. The reason I chose this group to serve as an antonym in this essay is rather straightforward. That is, 'Doctors without Borders' engage in benevolence with the sole purpose of saving lives irrespective of national borders, while, the US policy makers and armed forces serve as 'Killers without Borders' ready to murder innocent people without the slightest regard to basic human decency, national sovereignty or official borders.

The group 'Doctors without Borders' as its name connotes are doctors who do not value political and geographic borders in bringing life saving treatments and medicines to the needy whenever violence and disease have taken their toll on the poor and the…

A Human Rights Crime

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:57:19 +0400

The world must stop standing idle while the people of Gaza are treated with such cruelty

BY: JIMMY CARTER

The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world. An entire population is being brutally punished. This gross mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was escalated dramatically by Israel, with United States backing, after political candidates representing Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. The election was unanimously judged to be honest and fair by all international observers.

Israel and the US refused to accept the right of Palestinians to form a unity government with Hamas and Fatah and now, after internal strife, Hamas alone controls Gaza . Forty-one of the 43 victorious Hamas candidates who lived in the West Bank have been imprisoned by Israel , plus an additional 10 who assumed positions in the short-lived coalition cabinet.

Regardless of one's choice in the partisan struggle between Fatah and Hamas within occupied Palestine, we must remember that economic sanctions and restrictions on the supply of water, food, electricity and fuel are causing extreme hardship among the innocent people in Gaza , about one million of whom are refugees.

Israeli bombs and missiles periodically strike the area, causing high casualties among both militants and innocent women and children. Prior to the highly publicised killing of a woman and her four children last week, this pattern had been illustrated by a report from B'Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organisation, which stated that 106 Palestinians were killed between February 27 and March 3. Fifty-four of them were civilians, and 25 were under 18 years of age.

On a recent trip through the Middle East , I attempted to gain a better understanding of the crisis. One of my visits was to Sderot, a community of about 20,000 in southern Israel that is frequently struck by rockets fired from nearby Gaza . I condemned these attacks as abominable acts of terrorism, since most of the 13 victims during the past seven years have been non-combatants. Subsequently, I met with leaders of Hamas - a delegation from Gaza and the top officials in Damascus . I made the same condemnation to them, and urged that they declare a unilateral ceasefire or orchestrate with Israel a mutual agreement to…

Surrendering sovereignty willingly?

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:20:00 +0400

Yet another brilliant article by Dr Mazari, highlighting how a compromise of Pakistan's sovereignity is being very brazenly facilitated by incompetent Pakistan governmet. How the new prime minister and his cabinet views these advancements and what is their aproach towards checking this dangerous trend is yet to be seen. Indicators are not very encouraging, though. It is obvious that these dwarfs are only busy killing their time in tackling the matters of a lesser importance and are incapable of objectively assessing the present threat to Pakistan's very existence.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
While the nation continues to watch the "back and forth" drama over the restoration of the judges issue, increasingly aware of where it will all end; and while the poor look beyond the judicial issue to the basics of survival in the face of rising costs of staple food and utilities; scant attention is being paid to the rapid threats to the country's sovereignty that are emerging from different quarters that are linked together in an overarching strategic partnership – that is India and the US with the UK an avid supporter. If one only examines events that took place April 23 to April 29 and connects them up, it becomes clear that either by default or by design Pakistan is in danger of losing its sovereignty.

To begin with, take the incident of April 23 when NATO forces (actually US forces) along with some Afghan soldiers attacked FC posts in Bajaur Agency. What is intriguing is the way in which this direct assault on the country's sovereignty was explained away. First we were told that it was a misunderstanding. Then some of us were told that in fact this action was in response to firing from across our side of the international Pakistan-Afghan border.

However, on exploring further it transpires that the firing from our side took place a day earlier so the violence from the US troops was not an immediate response to the firing -- although it is difficult in any case to actually assess the exact spot of the initial firing given the nature of the border. Instead, this was a pre-planned operation, conducted a day later, targeting our FC posts at a time when there were a few FC personnel on duty, and involved 600 US troops along with Afghan soldiers as well as helicopter gunships and tanks! Also, the attack continued for a…

What the Iraq war is about

noreply@blogspirit.com (PakistanSpecial) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:55:58 +0400

BY: PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The Bush Regime has quagmired America into a sixth year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. The cost of these wars of aggression is horrendous. Official US combat casualties stand at 4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 US troops have been wounded in Iraq. Experts have argued that these numbers are understatements. Regardless, these numbers are only the tip of the iceberg.

On April 17, 2008, AP News reported that a new study released by the RAND Corporation concludes that “some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries.”

On April 23, 2008, Online Journal reported that an internal email from Gen. Michael J. Kussman, undersecretary for health at the Veterans Administration, to Ira Katz, head of mental health at the VA, confirms a McClatchy Newspaper report that 126 veterans per week commit suicide. To the extent that the suicides are attributable to the war, more than 500 deaths should be added to the reported combat fatalities each month.

Turning to Iraqi deaths, expert studies support as many as 1.2 million dead Iraqis, almost entirely civilians. Another 2 million Iraqis have fled their country, and there are 2 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq.

Afghan casualties are unknown.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered unconscionable civilian deaths and damage to housing, infrastructure and environment. Iraq is afflicted with depleted uranium and open sewers.

Then there are the economic costs to the US. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates the full cost of the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq to be between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The dollar price of oil and gasoline have tripled, and the dollar has lost value against other currencies, declining dramatically even against the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his wars of aggression, one US dollar was worth 45 baht. Today the dollar is only worth 30 baht.

The US cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month, US Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated unfunded liabilities of the US government total 53 trillion dollars. The US government cannot cover these liabilities. The Bush Regime even has to borrow the money from foreigners to pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no more certain way to bankrupt the country and dethrone the dollar as…