Thursday, February 28, 2008

06th January 2008

The Mask of Anarchy

"Last came Anarchy: he rode
On a white horse, splashed with blood;
He was pale even to the lips,
Like Death in the Apocalypse.

And he wore a kingly crown;
And in his grasp a sceptre shone;
On his brow this mark I saw -

"The Mask of Anarchy"-P.B.Shelley

Just as Ariel Sharon's visit to Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque in 1999 prefigured US foreign policy under Bush, I have a sense that a new spirit already suffuses through US policy even though Bush still has a year to go in office.The high noon of the neo-cons has been and gone and the ultimate paroxysm of their madness, the bombing of Iran, no longer seems likely. But from Pakistan to Bolivia, from Kosovo to Kenya this new spirit is a work: the spirit of anarchy.

In Bolivia, a democratically elected government is under threat from traditional elites
desperately hanging onto privilege with the support of the USA. Their goal is to break the power of central government by creating autonomous provinces under their own control. In Pakistan US/UK nominal support for Musharraf is in question as they seek to fragment that country, again playing on centrifugal forces.

In Kenya the US sent their congratulations to Kibaki only withdrawing it when fraud became too glaringly evident. The essentials of the situation are that the victory of America's man through a fraudulent electoral process led to massive opposition which was suppressed and channeled into tribal rivalries through provocations which involved state agencies in at least some cases.In Kosovo the US/UK are once again orchestrating mayhem through the KLA,a tactic made possible by the fading of the Clash of Civilizations paradigm(remember how the Al-Queda tinged KLA's rampage through Macedonia had to be discreetly halted after the 9/11 attacks).

Everywhere the talk is of terrorist groups, tribalism, ethnicity, secession and always the hand of Anglo-American subversion can reasonably suspected although not always proven.The goal here is not global conquest but global chaos; it is a scorched earth policy- if the empire cannot prevail then at least no one else will, and privilege will hold sway over democracy in a world of fragmented nation states and local oligarchies.

In opposition to the destructive machinations emanating from London and Washington are new democratic movements which have a new sense of the centrality of the nation state as their context and their domain. We have seen this dramatically in Lebanon and I believe also in Iraq despite the endless hype about sectarian division. We have also seen Russia and China emerging as stabilising forces in world politics and they are showing themselves skilled opponents of Western wrecking, a factor that makes me feel that it is now too late for the Soros, Democratic Party strategy, if that is indeed what we're seeing, which might have been run with some success in 2004. The world has changed since then and if 2008 is to be the year of democracy it will be the continued advance of the world's long down-trodden peoples and nations, not democracy as the mask of anarchy
02nd January 2008

Virtually there!

The difficulty of grasping the present state of affairs, particularly in the Anglosphere is due to the coexistence of two different worlds: a real one and a virtual one. Let's look at the real one first.

Faced with multiple challenges to its hegemony, Anglo-America, after failing to extend the Jugoslav scenario to Russia, embarked on a reckless invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Much ink has flown in the attempt to explain this bizarre and doomed venture. Its reason was simple: no one was able to come up with any other solution to fading US power and so the neo-con project was the only option on the table. Now, as widely predicted, defeat is guaranteed and imminent. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, deals are being done with resistance forces to gain a little time and to delay the inevitable humiliating retreat.Governments which were meant to be puppets are dissociating themselves from the occupiers and seeking their own salvation, witness the expulsion of Western diplomats from Afghanistan and the Kirkuk to Syria pipeline.

Since the Iraq War was the last gasp defence of Anglo-American hegemony, it follows from the above that its hegemony is over.In the last years of empire, that hegemony was characterised by a high dollar and pound drawing investment into the London and New York bond markets. These currencies are now going into free-fall and holders of these courrencies in quantity can do no better than buy up chunks of the US economy at knock down prices. The irony of the Communist Party of China bailing out Wall Street seems to have been lost, but the appreciation of irony rests on the perception of a clash between appearance and reality, and that is precisely what is lacking. Of course, these purchases are not just business deals: they have a geo-political component- they are a manifestation of the shift of political power from West to East.

It occurred to me a while back,that, if I was a policy maker in Beijing, I would intervene in such a way as to prop up the dollar while allowing the pound to fall, to gravitate to the level at which it would enter the Euro. Whether this fiendish scheme has in fact been hatched, this is what seems to be happening. Britain has been playing an ambiguous role as both European amd Atlanticist power, and it is not unnatural for the markets, the unbuckable markets to seek clarification: Is Britain heading for the Euro or the abyss?

So much for reality. I won't dwell on the parallel virtual world which is familiar to us all from the media. The problem is that these two worlds being so dissonant, so completely out of phase, has rendered any decision making process problematic. The real world cries out for remedial action; the virtual world sits on its laurels. Were this to be the life of an individual a breakdown would be on the way, and this is true also of the body politic. What form will the breakdown take? It is hard to say since we are in uncharted waters, a historically unprecedented situation.

The action required is the easy part: our abandonment of hegemonic pretensions; the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan; an international peace conference to resolve all outstanding issues in the Middle East; recognition of the sovereignty and integrity of Serbia;an end to hostilities against Russia, Iran and Venezuela; an end to the absurd "war on terror" and the and the disbanding of our Al-Queda networks and other instruments of international subversion; an end to our wrecking role in Europe. Such a programme would reintegrate us into the community of nations and win us goodwill and support we need to get out of the mess were in. And what a Goddamn mess it is!

Or we could just go on in our virtual world of victories in the desert, winning hearts and minds, rebuilding, international coalitions, bringing peace and democracy, sound economic fundamentals, improving standards, staving off a recession etc. etc..
28th September 2007

An existential crisis

The present financial crisis has only just started and promises to be profound and far reaching. It’s resolution can be one that favours the few who habitually monopolise political and economic power or one that favours the many who habitually strive to create some kind of life for themselves. In short, it’s resolution can be oligarchical or democratic.

In the normal course of events, if one can use that expression to describe a situation so extraordinary, I believe the latter to be the expected outcome. There is a universal trend towards democracy and its necessary companion, sovereignty; peoples and nations are reasserting themselves in the face of the arrogance of imperial domination. South America is only the most spectacular manifestation of this trend, the human face of globalisation which is turning back the tide of misery and exploitation and the humiliation of nations and peoples. The hinterlands in which the exploiters can move to take easy pickings are being blocked off; in the heartlands the dark recesses from which elite power works its malign influence are being exposed to the light of day.

I say in the normal course of events, but things will not be left to take their normal course: the elite will use all the levers of power and influence to twist the course of events, frustrating and dissipating popular aspirations and sowing discord and division. The solution to this crisis, which is also an opportunity to create a more just and egalitarian society, in the first instance through the transformation of a financial system so blatantly skewered towards minority privilege, should be simple. But those who have held power so long will not willingly let it slip from their hands; they will unleash the riders of the apocalypse.

The first of these is war. At a conference of false-flag terrorists in London, organised by the Margaret Thatcher Atlantic Bridge, the remains of the Atlantic Alliance called for war on Iran, a war which would in all probability become a global war between East and West.

The second is hunger. Fidel Castro was prescient to warn of the effects of bio fuel substitution on food supplies and is also the only world leader to note the disappearance of pollinators so essential to our food supply. Scarcity, artificially created, is the friend of the elite; a guarantee of their safety while those on the bestial floor, to use Yeat’s expression, fight for what’s left.

The third of these is the economic crisis itself, above all inflation, wiping out income and savings, bringing trauma to millions.

The fourth is political chaos and dissolution, the breakdown of society and law and order. Traditionally a fear of the privileged, in a world turned on its head, it is in our interest that the rule of law should prevail against an oligarchy which is a law unto itself.

This is a grim picture but I stress that the natural course of events favours humanity to finally reach peace and security after its long and bloody trek through history; but we must be more than ever alert to skulduggery, to conspiracy which is the quintessential modus operandi of oligarchy. Never have light and darkness been so commingled in our constellation and our world so poised to turn to one or the other.
21st September 2007

Northern Rock, the Pound and the Euro

On Monday night the government made the decision to guarantee deposits at northern Rock. This was hailed by some as an act which sacrificed shareholders and management whilst protecting depositors. What the government had really done was was to underwrite the beleaguered bank’s liabilities whilst leaving it to dispose of its assets as it pleases. Actually this is the kind of arrangement financiers have always favoured for quite obvious reasons. Meanwhile, the depositors , if they do take Darling’s word, will end up, at best with a reimbursement deeply eroded by inflation. True to form New Labour stands behind the British oligarchy. To defend his actions Darling, recalling his student days, may have come up with a slogan like this: defend the gains of the thatcherite revolution!

To guarantee Rock’s deposits was not wrong, but it was only part of the required policy: they also had to take control Rock’s assets. These of course would not themselves be very solid given the problems its clients, and British mortgage holders, in general, are having. But the government would be in a position to restructure these loans allowing mortgage holders in difficulty to remain in their homes on reasonable terms. As it is, the financial vultures are set to take over Rock, milking it for what it’s worth regardless of social consequences. The government has missed an opportunity to intervene decisively to sort out the mess at the expense of the financiers and in the interest of the British people (although, it must be said, it was an opportunity that they were never likely to take).

The consequences of the government stand have been as immediate as they have been unremarked (careless talk costs profits): the pound has plummeted on the foreign exchange markets. The prestige and high value of the pound sterling underwrites the prosperity of Britain’s post-industrial, consumer economy. Under the wing of the dollar, it is a global reserve currency: its demise is, for better or worse, the end of Britain as we know it.

It’s true that in happier times reckless financial strategies would not have ended in tears in this way. Indeed, the anglosphere has spent the last thirty years partying as we offloaded our crisis onto the rest of the world. But these are no longer happy times for ailing hegemons. The Anglo-American empire is a financial empire underpinned in the last instance by military force. That force has been put to the test in iraq and Afghanistan and found to be wanting. There is nothing left to restore the stability of the pound and the dollar. The situation is precisely analogous to that of Italy at the end of the Roman Empire where, having hollowed out its own productive capacity, it had woven itself into the heart of a division of labour around the Mediterranean on which it was dependent, but no longer controlled.

For thirty years we in Britain have subverted every notion of what it means to maintain a society, a state, a coherent body politic. We are left, not with a legal or constitutional framework, not with a public sector free from private profiteering, not with a responsible citizen body, not with a commonwealth of any form, but with nothing but money, paper money, soon to reveal itself as worthless.

In the summer of 2005 the British media were celebrating the demise of the Euro. Now things look rather different: despite massive intervention by the ECB the Euro is holding firm, although they still have the real test in the form of Spain’s total bankruptcy. So with an eye to stabilising our own rocky ship we can consider ourselves lucky to have the option of moving into the euro zone if our continental friends are satisfied that the right conditions are being met ( we will probably have to undertake considerable sanitisation of our finances before qualifying for such a move). We have that option, but not if our oligarchs of the Murdoch school have anything to do with it; these same oligarchs who now plan to mete out to us what they have been meting out to the rest of the world for a long time. For these recipients of corporate welfare the government in their pocket must not be devalued.

UKIP and others, failing to see that our sovereignty is being subverted internally, reject Europe in the belief that they are defending that sovereignty. For all that Europe has still a way to go before truly emerging into the post neo-liberal, post-imperial world, I believe it provides us with a lifeline, a context in which to claw our way back to civilization, an escape route from the horrors of a failed state run by a vicious, murderous cabal.
14th September 2007

Citizens of the world...(from Argentina about the next 9-11)


Citizens of the world, the lies about the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers (9/11/01) are falling apart: Dublin , Madrid , Buenos Aires , Rome , Paris , United States .

On September 11th, those of us who struggle for the truth will be honoring the victims in Buenos Aires , Dublin , Santiago de Chile, Caracas , Madrid , Paris , Rome , Brussels and several places of the United States . Six years ago, Bush swore that the terrorist had been Bin Laden, and the whole world except for few believed him. Today, few believe him.

Italian, Spanish, Argentine, French, German and many American organizations and investigators are working for the truth, for there are as many lies as casualties. University professor David Ray Griffin is calling for demonstrations all over the world: Because of the attack, Americans have accepted anything.

“The attacks left Americans numb enough to accept anything; in the US , this has meant severe restrictions to civil liberties. Abroad, we have had a war against terror that has been a war of aggression against Muslims. This has meant six years of torture, humiliation and death of hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq , people who were innocent civilians or soldiers fighting against an immoral and even illegal occupation.

The cover-up of the media is worldwide

We have seen an unprecedented cover-up of the media in the US and allied countries (also in Argentina). There had been cover-ups before. But in this case, the crime was larger, enormous, the consequences more serious, catastrophic, and the evidences, more obvious. (For example, just by looking at the falling down of the building 7 of the World Trade Center, anyone who knows anything about this issue must consider that it was pulled down by explosives (and not by planes).

The massive media are hiding the fact that we are not before the presence of Muslim terrorism, but terrorism generated by the government of the US.

The failure of the media in exposing the lies of the official version threatens the continuity of democracy, which simply cannot work without independent media devoted to reveal crimes of State.

Which is the truth about Bush’s war against terror? None

The war against terror is false. The “movement for the truth about 9/11” is motivated by the desire to discover the truth about what really happened and who is really behind these attacks. In these six years, the movement has made much progress.

Many can see that there was no external attack but an inside work.

More and more people are beginning to realize that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job orchestrated by the government of the United States as a pretext to apply their previously established external politics.

The advances of those who struggle for the truth are huge.

There have been two very important advances. One has been the appearance of groups of professionals. Now, not only do we have “scholars for truth about 9/11” and “scholars for truth and justice about 9/11”, which has released a magazine with studies about 9/11; we also have “veterans for truth about 9/11”, “pilots for truth about 9/11”, architects and engineers for truth about 9/11”. On the other hand, despite the fact that there still is not an organization of former intelligence agents, many of them have spoken publicly.

Importance of activism

The other great advance has been the increase of activism regarding 9/11 in Europe . But we still have a long way to go. That is why it is important that all of you do not cease to work in order to put pressure on all the politicians in the world and demand a true investigation on 9/11. Congratulations on your success in organizing this historic demonstration. It might be remembered as one of the steps that helped discover the truth about 9/11, a truth that will mean a lot to overcome the madness that we are going through”.

This is the letter by David Ray Griffin, which we support. But Argentines still can say something.

Who are the investigators, personalities, artists, governments and statesmen that are joining the struggle for the truth?

Eminem, Immortal Technique and Mortal Def have written a rap which chorus says “Bush knocked down the towers”; the artists around the world could abandon their fears and emulate them.

In Hollywood , actors like Charlie Sheen, Danny Glober, Sharon Stone, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn are committed to the demolition of the official lies. Are our actors staying behind?

Prestigious investigators like French Thierry Meyssan, Italian Giulieto Chiesa, Americans Webster Griffin Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Mike Kupferberger, Eric Hudsmichdt, etcetera; lawyers like Stanley Hilton, are advancing with discoveries that indicate that Bush’s government is the author of the attacks. The group of Argentine investigators is getting international respect by connecting the international politics of Bush based on 9/11 with the utilization of attacks in Argentina (Embassy of Israel, AMIA) to accuse and invade Iran.

Statesmen like former German minister Andreas von Bulow say that 9/11 was a self-attack, and the prominent American politician B. Brzezinski recognizes that the US may need more self-attacks. The political class and most of the Argentine journalists pretend to ignore these facts.

From Argentina , we support the activities and wish for a huge success of the movements in Europe and the US.

The self-attacks of the US were the crowning of a process that started in Lockerbie (Scotland), continued in Buenos Aires (1992, 1994) and included similar attacks in Madrid and London. Day after day, more suspicions of cover-up from the Spanish and British governments arise. Investigators and movements for the truth are taking care of what happened in the US , but so far the only country that acknowledges that its institutions were used for the cover-up is Argentina . Our country confessed “I cover up”, but it still cannot say “I cover up by orders of this and that foreign power”.

Hundreds of deaths in Madrid , London and Buenos Aires ; thousands in the US ; millions in Lebanon , Iraq , Palestine and Afghanistan . The Patriot Act that was a major blow against freedom in the US already has its pair among us, the “Antiterrorist Act” and “Intelligence Act”. How can we not fight together with the democratic citizens and investigators of Iraq , Lebanon , Afghanistan , Spain , Britain and the US ?!

On the next September 11th we shall be walking side by side with the Europeans and Americans that are showing the world that the reserves of the American democracy have not been silenced despite the acts and politics of terrorism of Blair, Olmert and Bush and the massive campaigns of local and international censorship.

Dr Oscar Abudara Bini
7th April 2007

The Case of the Bees

The humble bee finds itself at the centre of controversy as scientists seek to the respond to their disturbing disappearance which is now making itself felt as far afield as Taiwan.
We have had recantations, and denunciations within the scientific community; for the most part, they and the media, at least in the USA, throw in their lot with a theory that a fungus, Nosema ceranae, is responsible. This in preference to the politically incorrect notion that human agency, via microwave emissions from mobile phone masts and satellites, may be responsible. Unfortunately a government agency has made short shrift of the fungus theory:

“Government scientists who have been tracking the phenomenon they call Colony Collapse Disorder were skeptical, however, saying the parasite had been an early suspect in the bee die-off but that they had concluded it probably was not responsible.”

Clearly we need an investigation which is prepared to countenance all possibilities.

Why should we regard this issue as being of such importance?

Firstly, the disappearance of the bee is in itself a ecological disaster of major proportions; its direct consequence would affect about a third of the food chain, but because the interconnectedness of all aspects of nature its wider effects could be far worse.

Secondly, if the bee is being affected by microwave radiation, or blighted by something else which undermines its ability to orientate itself, it is probable, and there is some evidence, that other insects and birds are suffering similarly, pointing again to a wider ecological crisis.

Thirdly, if the microwaves( from mobile phone masts or satellites) are affecting bees then this begs the question what effect our they having on ourselves. We already have a substantial body of scientific work showing the deleterious effect of microwave communications on humans which has generally been kept away from public attention.

Finally, this an issue about truth, not in some higher ideological or religious sense but about simple factual truth and our ability to tell it. Are we re-enacting on a grand scale Ibsen’s great drama “ The Enemy of the People” in which the whole superstructure of official society, media , trade unions, vested interests etc. conspire to prevent the reality, that the waters of a local spa are poisoned, being revealed? If we have many Dr Stockmans( Ibsen’s hero who wishes to expose the truth) we also have an unprecedented apparatus of official society, of experts, scientific bodies, academia etc., much of which is working on behalf of private interests. This is a public interest question par excellence; the internet has already been singled out as a vehicle for politically incorrect conclusions regarding this case; it may be it is only hope in building momentum for a truly scientific, open-ended, and urgent, inquiry into this disturbing state of affairs.
18th July 2007

The Moment to Counter-attack

Two recent events could point to the emergence of a genuine opposition to the ruling elite in the anglosphere: the break from the left by Cindy Sheehan and her decision to stand against Pelosi and Michael Moore’s belated recognition of the dark underside of 9/11 and the need for a proper investigation. Both cases revealed a high level of disillusionment with the Democratic Party and its failure to exploit its election success in November.

What would constitute a genuine opposition? One not run by the people it was meant to be opposing. That doesn’t seem too much to ask but the dismal failure of the so-called anti-war movement and its fawning submissiveness before the Democratic party, or a supposed oppositional wing within New Labour, showed quite clearly that the strategy of running both sides, developed over the course of centuries by the Anglo-Saxon elite, was in play.

But the process of control through co-option has its limits and we are seeing these now. What happens when such a strategy becomes ineffective? The elite need something more drastic, to enforce their rule in a more direct, coercive fashion. Now is the moment they need the “war on terror” like never before. Another “catalysing event”, to use the PNAC’s euphemism for an attack on their own population, would provide a chance to overthrow the constitution at home and to bounce a reluctant military into the madness of an attack, likely nuclear, against Iran.

How does the Downing Street’s absurd anti-Russian campaign fit in the picture? Maybe they see conflict with Iran as inevitably leading to a wider conflict, in fact, a world war - all flowing form the conundrum the war party faced from the moment they became bogged down in Iraq: escalate or withdraw. They have since become paralysed unable to choose a clear direction largely because they faced an increasingly disaffected military. Will Cheney and his crew finally cast off their shackles and bury their own crimes in the rubble of a global conflagration?

It will be difficult: many have wisened up to the false-flag tactic. Furthermore, with the left-right political game exposed as a sham we have a chance to form a genuine opposition to the criminals whose war against terror is now a war against humanity, a war they are conducting on multiple fronts; bankrupting and impoverishing the population, destroying our health and environment, undermining our rights as citizens and plunging us into the horror of war without end. We face a terrifying regression at the hands of an elite whose deepest wish is to break once and for all from the the constraints of the nation state(or, more fundamentally, any notion of society), its institutions, its productive capacity, its notion of a common good and its people.

But they are overstretched on all fronts, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dramatic housing crash in the US must inevitably bring into question the way in which people have been lured into debt. In Britain we see the clear emergence of a movement, at the present on a local basis, of opposition to the proliferation of mobile phone masts on the basis of the clear perception that we are being lied about their safety. The farcical “terrorist attacks” in London and Glasgow of the last weeks cannot have assuaged the growing suspicion about who was behind the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks. Finally, the Iraq war is more unpopular than ever and people can only look on in disbelief as it becomes clear that we are to “stay the course until the job is done”.
Now is the moment for a counter-attack on all fronts. We are engaged in a struggle to survive as human beings not human machines( as Aristotle defined slavery)and even to survive at all: can we finally throw off the ideological chains that have bound us and get to our enemies before they get to the button?
09th April 2007

Chomsky calls for regime change in Iran

Here under the pretence of calling for a movement to stop a possible war against Iran, Chomsky, in all but name, calls for regime change in Iran and shows that he is gravitating towards the position of the likes of HOPOI and Iran Workers Bulletin,whose position is in turn barely distinguishable form that of the likes of Michael Ledeen. I post Chomsky’s article below with my own commentaries.

Preventing War with Iran(Alternet)

Naom Chomsky

Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble.
What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.
This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

[But how is this unstated doctrinal orthodoxy imposed? In the Anglo-Saxon world there have always been a behind- the –scenes oligarchical networks. These permeate all the organizations and institutions of society: academia, political parties of right and left(including the far left, by the look of it), media, think-tanks, quangos, NGOs etc..
One of the distinctive features of contemporary oligarchy is the crystalisation of their power in alternative state organizations such as Homeland Security, Northern Command, COBRA, John Reid’s new Home Office etc.]

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.
In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.

[A gentle insinuation a la Robert Fisk that the alternative is between war and a nuclear-armed Iran.]

"The Iran effect"
The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

[Corelli Barnet is right but Chomsky contends that that WWIII means an escalation of terror, presumably “Islamic terror” as a response to a US attack. No, WWIII would not mean that, it would mean a war between states like the US, Russia and China. Chomsky tries to reinforce the idea that terrorism is an Islamic response to imperialism ignoring the possibility, backed by considerable evidence, that the US/UK is behind “Islamic terror” both in the US and in Iraq.]

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.

[ There has been a whole series of leaks about US intentions to attack Iran from prominent figures like Giraldi, Hersch and Brzezinski but since the left has kept things hush-hush Chomsky discreetly suggests “we cannot know” about this open secret.]

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

[“And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice.” However, it would probably require the concocting of an “incident” on the scale of 9/11 to set this war going, a possibility that Chomsky and most of the left dismiss as a “conspiracy theory”]

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.

[ This little flurry of revolutionary élan costs Chomsky nothing, since there is no such movement, the existing “antiwar movement” having carefully avoided highlighting the dangers, or mobilizing against, an Iran war.]

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

[If I was living in the anglosphere, I wouldn’t be focusing on condemnation of other people’s governments- all the regimes in the world are as nothing, in terms of criminality, compared to our own]

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

[He can’t resist it- the Fiskian insinuation, worthy of the master himself!]

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.

[Surely no sane anti-war activist would insinuate, without evidence, that Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons, knowing that that could be the pretext for an attack.

“A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons”

This is precisely what Iran argues- did you not know, Oh great professor? Is it that, whereas we inevitably must remain ignorant of the machinations of our own government, we have secret knowledge that the Iranians are really intent on getting nuclear weapons. After all, isn’t that just what these mad mullahs would do in disobedience to the fatwa of the great Ayatollah himself.]

As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.

[“If public opinion were to have....”. Yes, but how is that opinion to manifest itself in a country where you can’t move without coming up against the left-gatekeepers.]

Promoting democracy -- at home
These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.

[Preventing war depends entirely on checking and overthrowing the War Party in US/UK. Their goal is the destruction of Iran not a democratic Iran. It’s not up to Iran to stop itself being attacked- it’s up to us to refrain from attacking it.
Democracy promotion at home is “feasible” but in what, concretely, would such a project consist. Never mind, let’s get on to supporting the Iranian opposition. Do you concern yourself with the question of how many Iranians want to weaken there country with internal revolution just at this moment when they face a mortal foreign threat? You could almost be a closet Leninist were it not that Lenin, at least, had the merit of distinguishing between imperialism and its victims.]

We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).

[I see, so the democratic revolution here consists merely of changing state policy(albeit “sharply”), whereas, judging by the groups you espouse, in Iran it consists of regime change. Furthermore the main point of changing policy here is to facilitate regime change in Iran. The threats are a problem because they’re “ a gift to hardliners” not because they are wrong in themselves, an act of war, accompanying actions within Iran to undermine Iranian sovereignty. For my part I cannot stress sufficiently the extent that regime change begins at home.]

Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.

[“Democracy promotion in the United States” turns out to be a wish list of good things. Never mind the effective overriding of the constitution, the human rights abuses, the surveillance of the entire population, the moves to overthrow posse comitatus and the implied threat of martial law, the domination of neo-con networks etc.]

The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.

[It all looks so rosy. Far from being in terminal decline the US has merely strayed a little of late but will soon set all to right. It’s as if nothing was ever really at stake and empire doesn’t bring with it the dilemma of expansion or collapse. The collapse of US/UK power, though necessary and desirable, will undoubtedly be cataclysmic ]

If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.

[“If public opinion mattered, the US...” This passage goes quite well to the theme “If I ruled the world”.But there is a dark note: “terror”. I wonder who could be behind that]

Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.

[And we could work for regime change in Iran and then, why not?,in Russia. That is, if we are really serious about the Soros agenda]

Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.
Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.

[The problem with being a bully is that no one likes you. But I’m being unfair Noam- you’re right about the need for the US and the UK to become “responsible stakeholders” in the international order. I prefer to think of it as a community of nations relating to each other on the basis of equality and respect for sovereignty. Rather along the lines of the principles outlined at Bandung(note particularly principle no.4):

The result of the 1955 Asian-African Conference was known as the Ten Principles of Bandung, a political statement containing the basic principles in the efforts to promote peace and cooperation in the world. The following are the Ten Principles of Bandung:
1. Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.
3. Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small.
4. Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country.
5. Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself singly or collectively, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
6. Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defense to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers, abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries.
7. Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country.
8. Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
9. Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation.
10. Respect for justice and international obligation. ]

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Christmas Thoughts in Tescos

by Colin Buchanan

Can I give you a hand to pack?
Just mulling over the plan of attack.
And what about a clubcard as well?
This time it really could be hell.
Christmas offers all around,
a peacekeeping force to the Gulf is bound
of this, our civilization, in defence
So we can consume in recompense.
Far be it from me to decry the notion
Or create any untoward commotion.
A chosen people we once were,
It takes more than Armaggedon to make us stir.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Regime Change: The British Way

“Now does he feel his secret murders sticking on his hands;
Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach;
Those he commands move only in command,
Nothing in love: now does he feel his title hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe
Upon a dwarfish thief.”

Macbeth, William Shakespeare

The dismissal of Rumsfeld in Washington raises more insistently and urgently than ever the central question in British politics – when will Blair go?

But, surely, Blair has already promised to go by next summer. There are three basic problems with this.

1) Why should we take his word on this?

2) It’s not soon enough.

3) As long as he is in office he can use his position to conspire against the public safety starting new wars and using the “war on terror” to manipulate us.

Sir Christopher Meyer, interviewed on Wednesday after the US election hinted that it would be necessary for Blair to go by January at the latest. Citizen Meyer is not alone in this appreciation. But as Ted Heath once blurted to a political associate who had just picked up the phone – how do we get rid of him?

There has been a lot of talk about impeachment but this is a lengthy process and we need Blair out soon. It also suggests a process of scapegoating which won’t help us do what is necessary: Blair is guilty but who exactly is innocent? So many people are implicated in Iraq that its hard to see where to start let alone where it will all end. The fact is that Blair’s violent inclinations were made absolutely clear by the attack on Yugoslavia and a significant section of the British public were glad to see a show of strength on the world stage.( It is only since it became a show of weakness that attitudes have shifted). And who precisely has lifted a finger to stop him? Even last year we voted him back and spurned the opportunity to support exemplary anti-war candidates like Rose Gentle. If this is not collective guilt it is not far off it.

Blair is so weakened by events in the US that it should be possible to persuade him to stand down . Admittedly, recent statements by the Margaret Becket and Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller to the effect that “we will fight them on the beaches, we will never surrender” suggest otherwise, but hopefully this is just grandstanding. They must know the game is up and if it is fear of prosecution which drives them then I see no harm in allowing Blair and other ringleaders to slip away to Florida (if the Americans will have them) to join Jose-Maria Aznar in his befuddled fantasising about ruling the world. All that matters is that the levers of power should be taken away from these people. Only then can we begin to extricate ourselves from the mess we are in.

I propose the following simple and practical programme concerning Iraq. Stop doing what we are doing , make amends for what we have done, uncover all the truth about the whole affair and begin a reappraisal of ourselves and our place in the world.

To extricate ourselves from Iraq will probably mean entering into negotiations with the Iraqi resistance who will want, if they have any sense, certain guarantees before agreeing to a ceasefire and to allow the British army safe passage out of the country( that our army does require such a safe passage appears clear from the well known fact that they are at present mainly confined to base for their own safety or driving around in areas of remote desert in order to keep out of harm’s way). Thus we require a more realistic assessment of the Iraqi situation than we have so far been able to give. We are not there protecting the Iraqis from each other but fighting and losing against Iraqi forces involved in legitimate resistance to the illegal occupation of their own country. Jeremy Greenstock has called for a comprehensive peace conference for the whole Middle East and I’m sure that the need for this will soon make itself evident.

We must take responsibility for the destruction of Iraq and must compensate the Iraqi nation for it. Since we are bankrupt a thousand times over, realistically most of the construction will be undertaken by Russia, China and others. But our particular knowledge of the mess in Iraq, stemming from the fact that we helped to cause it, gives us a special role such as in the environmental cleaning up of depleted uranium and cluster bomb damage. This in itself would be an immense task.

We need to get to the truth of every aspect of this war and know the whole history of the rise and fall of the War Party. A truth commission similar to that set up in South Africa could be the best way to go about it, the principle being that the whole truth is more important for human evolution than mere retribution.

Finally, we must take stock of our past and our present, and decide how we can relocate ourselves in the world as a nation amongst others, divested of all imperial pretension.

But first, Blair must go.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

The Counter-coup has begun.

By Colin Buchanan

The counter-coup has begun and thanks to the simple beauty of the US constitution it didn’t require tanks rolling down to Congress. What is more as Pelosi has made quite clear it doesn’t mean impeachment. The presidency has emerged strengthened despite the rather hapless figure who continues to occupy it. What has changed is who controls it.

Back in 2001 at a celebratory dinner three months after 9/11, Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, leading neo-con thinktank, made the following remarkably revealing statement:

"It's taken us 13 years to get here, but we've arrived," (,3604,619784,00.html)

The thirteen years were the neo-con years in the wilderness after Bush senior’s election victory in 1988. Now after 9/11 they were back in the driver’s seat and set to impose their policies on a weak president. Now the dream (our nightmare)is in tatters and an old Bush senior CIA hand is back at the helm. Where did it all go wrong?

The Achilles heel of the chickenhawks, as the civilian Pentagon leadership came to be known, was that someone was going to have to die for that dream. Rumsfeld’s drivel about special forces, and the extensive use of mercenaries couldn’t cut out the main body of the armed forces. Rumsfeld’s dismissal was the fruit of their rebellion.

Darn that dream.

But are the War Party going to sit back and watch as the mere President of the United States, the commander-in –chief, now with the ear of the military, buoyed up by congressional support for his new policy direction, attempts to sideline them? Is it for nothing that they have spent years painstakingly constructing a whole new state apparatus stuffed with their own supporters - Eberhard at Northern Command, Chertoff at Homeland security, Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence with Cheney de facto leader in consultation of the likes of Gaffney at CSP – only to be outdone by a piece of paper, the US constitution? After all their efforts to protect us can it really be that the people don’t care?

The sparks can only continue to fly. They may be losing in Iraq but there is still the “War on Terror” and a frightened American public. Can’t they continue to milk the “Muslim threat” for all its worth. Just to keep that dream alive.

“Darn that one track mind of mine
It can’t understand that you don’t care
Just to change the mood I’m in
I’d welcome a nice old nightmare.”
The Israeli Embassy and AMIA bombings. Timeline: 1992-2006


17th March. Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.

At 10 pm that same day, according to investigating judge Bisordi, the head of security at the Israeli embassy, Roni Gorni made an intervention pushing the investigation towards the theory of a suicide car bomb. The local police thought the bombs had been taken into the building. Bisordi recalls the irregular manner in which evidence purporting to support the car bomb thesis had been collected [1]


18th July. Bombing of the Asociacion Mutual Israelita de Argentina(Argentine Israelite Mutual Association, or AMIA) building in Buenos Aires, killing 85 people.

Hours after US and Israeli governments blamed Iran and Hezbollah. Israeli soldiers are involved in the clean up operation with the blessing of President Menem.

Later that same day, Argentinian intelligence agents claim to have identified the car allegedly used in the bombing and its owner, Carlos Telleldin, a policeman, of Lebanese descent who runs a suspect car business on the side. He is personally linked to the higher echelons of the Federal police( the perfect patsy, involved in petty crime, of middle- eastern descent and linked to others who can be implicated). [2]

23rd July. Investigating Judge Galeano travels to Caracas to interview Monoucher Moatamer, a former Iranian diplomatic who presents detailed claims of Iran’s supposed role in the AIMA bombing. These claims, which allege the implication of personnel at the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires, were to form the basis of Galeano’s investigation.

27th July. Arrest of Telleldin

31st July. “Clarin”, a Buenos Aires daily, outs Moatamer as a CIA agent.[3]


Throughout 1995 the investigation centers around Telleldin with intention of pressuring him to implicate circles within the Argentinian police. Included in this process are Verges, torturer from the dirty war of the seventies, the Mossad , SIDE(Secretaria del Inteligencia del Estado, the Argentinian intelligence agency) and Judge Riva Aramayo who conveyed a message to Telleldin from minister of the interior Corach that “nothing bad will happen to him” if he implicates other police in the bombing.[4]

But, all to no avail, until:


At the beginning of July, Telleldin is offered $400,000.

Shortly afterwards three high- ranking police officers and one retired policeman are accused of participation in the bombing attacks.This is designated as the “local connection” to Hezbollah and, ultimately, to the Islamic Republic of Iran.[5]

Towards the end of the year a document entitled “Buenos Aires police are being scapegoated” is circulated, presumably from within the Federal Police. It questions, in an ironic manner, the car bomb thesis, listing all the witnesses who say that there was no car bomb. It mockingly questions how the car bomb managed to make it to the fourth floor, the epicenter of the explosion, and points out the exceedingly suspicious circumstance that none of the Israeli personnel in charge of security were killed in either of the two terrorist attacks.[6]


A video showing Judge Galeano making the above, particularly generous, inducement to Telleldin is circulated from within the SIDE and even appears on Argentinian TV. This is not seen as in any way affecting the ability of Galeano to continue at the head of the investigation. In order to strengthen the case against the “local connection”, Dr. Alberto Nisman is added to the team. Together, Galeano, prosecutors Mullem, Barbaccia and Nisman along with Beraja, head of DAIA (Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, the leading organization of the Jewish community in Argentina) constitute in the words of Memoria Activa, the association of relatives of the AIMA victims, “La Gran Confradia” – “The Brotherhood” [7].

15th May The report of the National Academy of Engineers, commissioned by the Supreme Court, is heard. On the insistence of Beraja and DAIA this was held behind closed doors. However, the seventy seven page document came into the possession of Libre Opinion, who have published a summary on their website[8]. In their report, these experts expressed their absolute certainty that the explosions at the Israeli Embassy came from bombs within the building.

“The day after this session, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires deplored these conclusions and accused the Supreme Court of anti-semitism.” [9]

21st July. Clarin.

“Spokesmen from the Isreali embassy reaffirm to this paper their position of holding Iran responsible, as the ideological godfathers of the bombings at their embassy and AMIA, and demand that the case should be delegated to a federal judge”

[The judge in question was, of course, to be Galeano.]

“In the President’s office the complaints are even more strident: “A short time ago this ridiculous hypothesis of the bombs inside the building came out whereas the only thing which is certain is that there was a car bomb””.[10]

What this really meant was that the Supreme Court, having associated itself with the Engineers report, was to renounce its constitutional primacy. Opponents of this move argued that:

“it would not be correct to delegate the investigation, since, according to Article 117 of the constitution, in cases connected to embassies the supreme Court has “original and exclusive competence”” [11]

In reality, Argentina had already, from the start, ceded its sovereignty around this issue, Isreal assuming sole competence to investigate within the embassy and blocking access to the Argentinian authorities.

At the end of 1997 a cross-party commission of the two legislative chambers, with a remit to oversee the investigation, concluded that: “..there is no concrete evidence of a link between the police force of the province of Buenos Aires and the AMIA bombings. [12]


At the beginning of the year and with the “Brotherhood” back in the driver’s seat, the investigation “bore fruit” with new, more acceptable, findings.

The investigation now claimed to have proof of the implication of Iran in the AMIA bombings and duly expelled seven embassy staff. A former Iranian agent Abdolghassen Mesbahi specifically pointed the finger at Mohsen Rabbani, cultural attaché to the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires as a key planner of the attack, with the help of the “local connection” [13]

. Rabbani was held in Germany but released due to lack of evidence. [14]

But there are always the party poopers:

“We have had official contacts with Mossad and the Israeli police. From what they have told us, there is absolutely no evidence of a connection with Iran and Hezbollah. We have also asked for help from the CIA and they haven’t contributed much either.” Carlos Corach, Argentinian Minister of the Interior. [15]


For the developments throughout this year I quote from Memoria Activa’s short history of the affair.

“Another of the big announcements which government offered society whilst backing the criminal actions of Galeano was the creation of the “Departamento Unidad de Investigación Antiterrorista”of the Federal Police (DUIA). Corach had thought it up to act as the armed wing of the Brotherhood. They placed in charge a senior police chief: commissioner Palacios, who had been linked to the investigation from the start. Years later this same DUIA would receive much deserved recognition when the DAIA in an official public ceremony presented it with a bronze plaque. It was almost like saying: “to the Federal Police, purveyors of cover-ups, for cover-up services provided”.

…..And in the years that followed the detention of the “Buenos Aires brigades”, [i.e.the “local connection”] this DUIA under Palacios was a real mob outfit under the protection of the Brotherhood. They went looking for possible suspects and after detaining them and pressuring them as necessary, left them malleable in the hands of Judge Galeano in the courtrooms of comodoro Py, so he could get more fake evidence against the police and add it in to the false hypothesis he was constructing.

….Even so, and before that inexcusable bronze plaque, it was the Israeli ambassador to Argentina himself, Yitzak Aviran, who thanked Corach for having helped the Jewish community with this initiative: “- you have helped in many ways, including some that I can’t even mention” he said.

……And so it went on, with , on offer this year to calm the demonstrations in the calle Pasteur[ seat of AMIA] , the demand of prosecutors Mullen, Barbaccia and Nisman for a life sentence for Carlos Telleldin and the Buenos Aires Brigade, reinforcing in this way each and every crime and irregularity in the proceedings.

At the end of the year the country’s luck, as well as that of the case itself( which would change for ever with the setting up of new tribunal ) , appeared to change with the fall of Menem.[16]


September, 2001. A Federal hearing, a judicial review of the case against the Carlos Telleldin and the “local connection”, is opened under judges Larrambere, Gordo and Pons.

“The September 11th attacks against the twin towers provoked one of the last and most embarrassing blunders by the Brotherhood: they tried to link Osama Bin-Laden to the AMIA bombings.”[17]


The DAIA and the Menemist branch of the SIDE oppose the interviewing of members of the intelligence services at the hearing, alleging a threat to national security.[18]


21st August. Hade Soleimanpour arrested in UK after Argentinian investigators requested his extradition. Presiding judge, Mr Justice Royce said that the 400 page report presented by the Argentinian authorities did not contain “any clear evidence demonstrating his involvement”.[19] Soleimanpour’s counsel, Mr Alun Jones QC, described the Argentinian government’s case as being based on “innuendo, hearsay and suspicion.[20]

13th November. Soleimanpour released due to lack of evidence.[21]

“Israeli diplomatic sources, claiming to have read a “final” report from the SIDE, attributed the authorship of the alleged suicide bombings to Ibrahim Hussein Berro despite the claims by his brother that he was already dead at the time of the AMIA bombings”. [22]

December, 2003. Judge Galeano is finally dismissed and replaced by Canicoba Corral.


12th September.The Federal hearing concludes its investigation. Carlos Telleldin and the “local connection” are cleared of all charges relating to the bombings.[23]

The court continued, however, to insist on the car bomb thesis despite the testimony of at least a dozen witnesses, who swore blind that there was no car bomb. This was dealt with in a section of the report headed “Those who didn’t notice it”[i.e.the car bomb]. Prominent amongst those was Gabriel Alberto Villalba.

“He related that…..his glance being directed towards the police patrol car in front of AMIA, he saw suddenly an explosion which came out of the main entrance of the building, from the inside outwards, which covered everything “and a ball of fire which came from the building towards the street”.

Another witness was Juan Carlos Alvarez, a street cleaner who was standing in front of the main entrance just where the car bomb was meant to have passed- he would have been knocked over by it or all but- when the explosion happened. Miraculously, he survived, the doorman with whom he had been speaking only seconds before dying instantly. He also failed to “notice” the car bomb, laden with 300 kilos of explosive, turn at speed, its breaks screeching as it came straight at him. He paid a heavy price for his insistence: in an article which appeared in October 2006 [24] he recounts how his treatment at the hands of the prosecutors nearly lead him to suicide. He has suffered terrible after effects from the bombing and now lives in poverty in Buenos Aires without the medical support that he needs.

Effectively, the court claimed that the failure of these witnesses to see the car bomb was attributable to post-traumatic stress rather than to the more obvious explanation that it simply wasn’t there. It therefore claimed that the alleged discovery of the parts of the car bomb ( the one that they now alleged that Carlos Telleldin had innocently sold to persons unknown –not the “local connection” – without realizing for what purposes it was required) constituted more solid evidence than the adverse eye-witness accounts, despite its agreement with defence counsel that “ the identification and registration of the evidence had not been carried out in a trustworthy manner”. In other words, in spite of the fact that the evidence could have been planted, as judge Bisordi had suggested was the case in the embassy bombing.

With regard to the the alleged Iranian connection to the local police the ruling was categorical:

“Firstly, we must emphasise that the prosecutors have raised this grave accusation but have provided absolutely no evidence to back it up”.

The alleged connection was that of Mohsen Rabbani, cultural attaché at the Iranian Embassy with Ribelli, of the “local connection”. The ruling effectively ridicules the evidence purporting to establish this link:

“On the other hand, inexplicably they tried to establish a link between Ribelli and Rabbani on the basis that the district of Canuelas – where Rabbani’s mosque was located – was close to Lobos where several members of Ribelli’s family lived.
This argument doesn’t stand up to the least analysis on account of its puerility and light-mindedness. It is beyond all logic to resort to the mere geographic proximity of two districts in order to establish culpability. Note that, on this basis, all the residents in the vicinity of Canuelas must have been implicated in this bombing”.

However, by reaffirming the thesis of the car bomb, against tremendous odds, the 2004 ruling left the gate open to acusations against Iran.( The court had ruled merely that Telleldin and co. were not the “local connection” to Iran: it had not ruled on the question of possible Iranian culpability)


And so it was that early in 2005, after a meeting with members of the American Jewish Committee , Kirchner decided that the inquiry was to continue on the basis of the car bomb thesis [25], which had taken such an awful battering over the years and which, if not exactly unscathed, at least had not yet been untirely blown apart, as it were; at least not in the minds of the prosecutors.

But who were the prosecutors to be, given that they had all been thoroughly discredited after the long and painstaking attempt to implicate local police linked to Islamic terrorists had been shown to be an immense criminal conspiracy?

Well I never! If it ain’t ……


25th October, “The report of AMIA prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who was appointed by Kirchner to fully investigate the bombing, identifies seven Iranians, including former Iranian President Rafsanjani, who should be arrested for their involvement in the attack. The 800 page report also lays out in detail the decision- making process in planning the AMIA bombing”. [26]

So are old friend , Alberto Nisman, has risen like a phoenix from the ashes of so many burnt out attempts to implicate the Islamic Republic of Iran in the AMIA bombing, to, once again, lead the charge. He plows a lonely furrow as his former colleages, veterans, one and all, of the Brotherhood’s 14 year campaign of manipulation and falsification, now face serious criminal charges:

September. 2006. “Hugo Anzorreguy, SIDE, Juan Jose Galeano, ex federal judge, Ruben Beraja, ex president of the DAIA (Delegacion de Associaciones Israelitas Argentinas), ex prosecutors Eamon Mullen and Jose Barbaccia are charged with embezzlement,perverting the course of justice, illegal detention, forced confessions, falsification of official documents, with the prospect of from 2 to 20 years imprisonment.” [27]

But Nisman was as much part of the cover-up as they were – a fact that has not esacaped the attention of a leading Argentinian film-maker:

“Following a meeting in Washington in May 2006 at which two senior judges from Buenos Aires were present, strong pressure was applied against both the Argentinian government and judicial authorities. In response, a group of Argentinian citizens lead by Dr. Oscar Abduri-Bini has issued a legal indictment before the Buenos Aires High Court against the American Jewish Committee and the prosecutors Nissman and Martinez Burgos for obstruction of justice”.[28]

We will continue to monitor events as they unfold in this truly astounding and disturbing case at:

[1] Bisordi, leading judge in Isreali embassy case denonces influence of Israel and rejects car bomb theory.

[2] Memoria Activa is an association of relatives of the victims of the AMIA bombing. They have an excellent year by year account of the entire history at




[6] This document can be found on the website of Libre Opinion who have played a central role in exposing the cover-up.





[11] ibid.

[12] La Nación, Buenos Aires, 19-12-97


[14] (

[15] (Haaretz, 6 de enero de 1998)





[20] ibid.



[23] The full judicial report can be found at:


[25]. .





Sunday, September 24, 2006

La défaite d’Israël au Liban
par Thierry Meyssan

The Israeli defeat in Lebanon
Thierry Meyssan (

With accompanying translation by Colin Buchanan

Après avoir rencontré de nombreux leaders politiques et responsables militaires libanais, Thierry Meyssan tire les leçons de la guerre. Selon lui, le recours par Israël aux bombardements massifs des zones urbaines et sa défaite face à une guérilla populaire n’ont pas d’équivalent depuis le bombardement d’Hanoï et la victoire du peuple vietnamien sur les troupes US. Surtout, explique-t-il dans ce premier article, le sort des armes a renversé les problématiques internationales transformant une guerre d’Israël contre une « organisation terroriste » en un conflit idéologique régional entre forces sionistes et anti-sionistes qui traverse aussi bien le Liban qu’Israël.

After having met with many politicians and Lebanese military officials, Thierry Meyssan draws the lessons of the war. According to him, Israel’s resort to carpet bombings of urban areas and her defeat by a popular guerilla army are unprecedented since the bombing of Hanoi and the victory of US troops by the Vietnamese people. Above all, he explains in this article, the outcome has overturned the existing paradigm transforming an Israeli war against a “terrorist organization” into a regioinal and ideological conflict between Zionist and anti-Zionist forces across both Israel and Lebanon.

Échec de « l’Air Power »

The Failure of Air Power.

Le plan d’attaque a été conçu de concert par les états-majors états-unien et israélien. Le Pentagone a imposé la technique du Shock and Awe dans le cadre, classique pour Tsahal, du Blitzkrieg.

The plan of attack had been conceived jointly by the US and Israeli chiefs of staff. The Pentagon superimposed its Shock and Awe tactics on Tsahal’s classic Blitzkrieg approach.

Pour les généraux états-uniens, le moment était venu de faire la démonstration du « Pouvoir aérien ». Depuis les années 30, l’armée de l’air tente de démontrer qu’un bombardement aérien massif peut suffire à contraindre un ennemi à se rendre, sans combats au sol. Il conviendrait pour cela de faire tomber un
déluge de feu qui plongerait l’ennemi dans un état d’hébétude. Cette théorie a été mise en pratique sans succès par les États-Unis un peu partout dans le monde depuis 60 ans. Cette fois, l’idée était que la destruction systématique et complète de toutes les villes du Sud-Liban pousserait les Libanais à se révolter contre la dictature du Hezbollah et à acclamer la famille Hariri.

For the US generals, the moment had come to give a demonstration of air power. For the last thirty years, the air force had sought to show that massive aerial bombardment is sufficient to force an enemy to surrender without the need for combat on the ground. It would be sufficient to unleash a deluge of bombs to leave the enemy hopelessly incapacitated. This theory has been put into practice throughout the world for the last 60 years. This time, the idea was that complete and utter destruction of all the towns in Southern Lebanon would drive the Lebanese to rebel against the dictatorship of Hezbollah and turn their support to the Hariri family.

Au bout d’une journée et demie de bombardements, Tsahal avait coupé les communications entre le Nord et le Sud du pays, rendu l’aéroport de Beyrouth impraticable et détruit les réserves d’hydrocarbures, bloqué les docks des principaux ports, et imposé un embargo aérien et naval. Seules restaient des routes reliant le Nord du Liban à la Syrie, sur lesquelles se pressaient des colonnes de déplacés.

After a day and a half of bombing, Tsahal had cut communications between the north and the South of the country, rendered the airport unusable and destroyed petrol reserves, blockaded the main ports and imposed a sea and air embargo. There only remained the routes linking the north of Lebanon and Syria, filled with refugees.

Le problème est que le Hezbollah n’est pas une dictature, mais un mouvement de résistance et de solidarité. Les bombardements ont déplacé un million de personnes. Le premier quart a émigré à l’étranger, le second quart a trouvé refuge en Syrie et la moitié restante s’est déplacée au Nord-Liban. Les réfugiés n’ont reçu aucun secours de l’État. Ils ont par contre été pris en charge par le Hezbollah aidé du Courant patriotique libre du général chrétien Michel Aoun. Certains ont été accueillis par d’autres réfugiés, des Palestiniens, qui vivent misérablement dans des camps de fortune depuis 60 ans. Loin de considérer le Hezbollah comme responsable du malheur qui les frappait, les déplacés ont maudit Tsahal qui les frappait, les États-Unis qui l’armait, et le gouvernement Siniora qui collaborait.

The problem was that Hezbollah is not a dictatorship, but a movement of resistance and solidarity. The bombings displaced a million people. The first quarter emigrated, the second found refuge in Syria and the remaining half went to north Lebanon. The refugees received no state aid. They were rather taken charge of by Hezbollah, helped by the free patriotic current of the Christian general Michel Aoun. Some received the hospitality of other refugees, the Palestinians, who have been living in poverty in the refugee camps for 60 years. Far from considering Hezbollah as the being responsible for their plight, the refugees blamed Tsahal, armed by the Americans with the collaboration of the Siniora government.

La chose la plus étonnante est que les Libanais restés dans le Sud, 34 jours sous un déluge de bombes cinq fois supérieur à la puissance d’Hiroshima, ne sont pas tombés en état de choc. Cette endurance est d’abord due à leur expérience antérieure de la guerre, mais elle doit aussi beaucoup à leur formation et à leur encadrement, sinon à leur foi. Loin de perdre espoir, ils se sont préparés à une guerre longue et ont été surpris par la rapidité de leur victoire.

The most amazing thing was that the Lebanese who remained in the South throughout a deluge of bombs equivalent to five Hiroshimas didn’t collapse into a state of shock. Their endurance was due, first of all, to their previous experience, but also to their training and organization, if not to their faith. Far from giving up they had prepared themselves for a long war and were surprised by the rapidity of their own victory.

Accessoirement, Tsahal a bombardé dès le second jour les studios de la télévision Al-Manar et le siège national du Parti de Dieu, tous deux situés dans un quartier populaire de Beyrouth. Cette attaque n’ayant interrompu les programmes d’Al-Manar que deux minutes et n’ayant eu aucun effet sur l’organisation du Hezbollah, l’état-major israélien a cru que les dirigeants de la télévision et du parti s’étaient réfugiés dans des bunkers situés sous les décombres. Tsahal a donc poursuivi six autres jours les bombardements pour venir à bout des installations souterraines avant de se rendre compte qu’elles n’existaient que dans la fertile imagination des journalistes de Fox News. Au passage, ces bombardements ont dévasté tout le Sud de la capitale qui n’est plus qu’un tas de gravois. Cet acharnement dans l’erreur a psychologiquement profité au Hezbollah qui est apparu invincible face à l’une des armées les mieux équipées au monde.

In addition, Tsahal bombed from day two, the TV studios Al-Manar and the headquarters of the Party of God, both situated in a working class area of Beirut. Since this only interrupted broadcasts for two minutes and had no effect whatsoever on the organization of Herzbollah, the Israeli high command assumed that the TV studio and the party leadership were situated underneath the rubble. Tsahal then embarked on six days of further bombardment of these supposed underground installations before realizing that they existed only in the fertile imagination of Fox News. In passing , these bombings devastated the south of the capital which is now nothing but a pile of rubble. This unremitting pursuit of an imaginary target was to Hezbollah’s advantage psychologically, making them look invincible against one of the best equipped armies in the world.

Les bombardements israéliens sont sans rapport avec la réplique du Hezbollah. Tsahal a utilisé des F-15 pour déverser un tapis de bombes et réduire en poudre toutes les villes du Sud-Liban. Jamais une nation n’avait osé recourir à ce type de bombardement en zone urbaine depuis la destruction d’Hanoï en 1972 par l’US Air Force, jamais depuis lors une armée moderne n’avait essuyé une telle défaite face à une guérilla. Le Hezbollah quant à lui a utilisé des roquettes exclusivement tournées vers des objectifs militaires, même si l’ajustement d’artillerie a nécessairement atteint des sites civils. Il est établi que la Résistance libanaise a détruit un aéroport militaire, le principal centre de transmissions électroniques, le quartier général du Commandement-Nord israélien, et gravement endommagé deux navires de guerre.

The Israeli bombardment was completely disproportionate to Hezbollah’s response. Tsahal used F-15s to carpet bomb and reduce to dust all the towns of southern Lebanon. No nation has dared to resort to this type of bombing in an urban context since the bombing of Hanoi in1972 by the US Airforce and never since then has a modern army suffered such a defeat by guerilla forces. As for Hezbollah, they used rockets aimed exclusively at military targets even though they inevitably hit some civilian facilities. It is confirmed that the Lebanese resistance destroyed a military airport, the principal electronic communications centre, the command centre of Israeli Northern Command as well as seriously damaging two naval vessels.

Lors de la proclamation par l’ONU de la cessation des hostilités, et alors même que le Hezbollah hésitait sur la conduite à tenir, les déplacés libanais ont spontanément repris le chemin du retour. Une demi-heure après le moment tant attendu, les routes praticables du pays n’étaient qu’un unique embouteillage. Les déplacés sont venus immédiatement camper sur les ruines de leurs habitations, refusant symboliquement de céder leur terre. Ce flot humain a contraint les forces terrestres israéliennes a accélérer leur repli.

From the moment of the declaration of a ceasefire by the UN, and while Hezbollah was still hesitating as to how to react, the Lebanese refugees spontaneously began to return to their homes. Half an hour after this long- awaited moment, the roads which were still open became one immense traffic jam. They returned to camp on the ruins of their homes, refusing symbolically to desert their homes. This human flood forced the Israelis to accelerate their retreat.

L’armée de l’air israélienne affirme également avoir détruit en 72 heures la totalité des rampes de lancement de missiles Sahar livrés par l’Iran au Hezbollah. Cependant, le Hezbollah assure qu’il n’en est rien et qu’il est toujours en mesure de frapper Tel-Aviv. Ce qui est vraisemblable puisque lorsque Tsahal a tenté de reprendre les bombardements sur Beyrouth et qu’Hassan Nasrallah a menacé de rétorsion sur Tel-Aviv, les Israéliens ont renoncé à tenir le pari.

The Israeli air force claims also to have destroyed all the Sahar missile launchers provided to Hezbollah by Iran. Hezbollah, however, deny this claiming they are still capable of striking Tel Aviv. This seems credible since when Tsahal tried to resume the bombing of Beirut they backed down when Hassan Nasrallah threatened to bomb Tel Aviv in retaliation.

Les responsables du Hezbollah affirment n’avoir utilisé qu’un neuvième de leur arsenal et être actuellement en mesure de livrer une guerre identique de onze mois. Les éléments recueillis sur place montrent que plusieurs de leurs unités anti-tank ont été conservées en réserve et n’ont pas participé aux combats.
Hezbollah claims only to have used a ninth of their arsenal and to be able to continue a similar war for eleven months. The evidence gathered on the ground shows that several of their anti-tank units have been held back in reserve and weren’t used in combat.

En définitive, la totale dominance aérienne de Tsahal n’a aucunement servi ses objectifs de guerre. Le déploiement terrestre, quant à lui, a tout de suite tourné au fiasco.

Clearly, Tsahal’s complete air dominance didn’t help them to achieve any of their war aims. As for the ground invasion, it immediately turned into a fiasco.

Échec de l’offensive terrestre.

The Failure of the Ground Offensive.

Dès le premier jour, la tentative de pénétration par des blindés a échoué et la cavalerie a du faire demi-tour. Or, traditionnellement, l’une des forces de Tsahal est sa capacité de progression rapide. Ce premier échec a été interprété comme une tentative prématurée. Les états-majors ont estimé qu’une fois le terrain déblayé par les bombardiers, les troupes au sol n’auraient pas de difficulté à nettoyer les poches de résistance. Le Hezbollah était présenté comme un groupuscule terroriste disposant de 250 à 500 combattants et d’armes sophistiquées. Les déclarations d’Hassan Nasrallah selon lesquelles le Parti de Dieu disposait de plusieurs milliers de combattants aguerris et de 15 000 réservistes ont été prises pour des fanfaronnades. C’est une très lourde erreur, exclusivement imputable à de l’auto-intoxication. Il n’était nullement besoin de services de renseignements complexes pour évaluer la donne, d’autant que le Hezbollah organisait depuis des années des visites de ses installations pour la presse, dans un but dissuasif. Mais la rhétorique de la « guerre au terrorisme », qui assimile tout mouvement patriotique à des groupuscules de fanatiques, l’a emportée sur une réalitée connue de tous.

From the first day, the attempt by tank divisions to break through failed and the cavalry was obliged to make an about turn. Now, traditionally, one of Tsahal’s strengths has been the rapidity of its forward thrust. This first failure was initially seen as a merely a premature operation. The chiefs of staff thought that once the terrain had been cleared by aerial bombardment, ground troops would have no difficulty in clearing up any pockets of resistance. Hezbollah was presented as a small terrorist group of some 250 to 500 fighters with some sophisticated weapons. The statements by Hassan Nasrallah, according to which the Party of God had at its disposal several thousand seasoned fighters and 15,000 reservists, were taken for so much boasting. It was a very big error, the result of the Isrealis believing their own propaganda.You didn’t need sophisticated intelligence networks to see the reality, especially since, for some years now, Hezbollah had been organizing tours of its bases with a view to dissuading the Israelis from doing anything rash. But the rhetoric of “the war on terror” which equates all patriotic groups with small groups of terrorist fanatics, blinded the Israelis to a reality known to all.

Le Hezbollah est un réseau de résistance constitué au cours de l’occupation israélienne (1982-2000). Parfaitement conscient que la paix est impossible dans la région tant que n’aura pas été réglé la question du régime politique en vigueur en Israël, il a consacré les six dernières années à se préparer à de nouvelles batailles. Il a conservé sa structure clandestine, tout en développant une aile politique et parlementaire. Il a formé ses membres, hommes et femmes, à une discipline combattante. Il a constitué un arsenal impressionnant aux frais de ses alliés syriens et iraniens, peut-être russes.

Hezbollah is a network of resistance formed during the Israeli occupation (1982- 2000). Perfectly aware that peace in the region is impossible as long as the question of the nature of the Israeli regime has not been resolved, it has dedicated the last six years to preparing for new battles. It has maintained its underground structure at the same time as developing a political and parliamentary wing. It has trained its members, men and women, to be disciplined fighters. It has built up an impressive arsenal provided by its Syrian, Iranian and possibly Russian allies.

Il a analysé ses propres erreurs de la période antérieure et étudié les méthodes de combat des Israéliens en Palestine et des États-uniens en Irak. Il a parfaitement assimilé les techniques de guérilla et les a modernisées. Suivant les théories élaborées par les généraux libanais A. H. et E. H., il a inventé une forme de guérrilla qui joue sur une palette d’armements disparates. Ainsi, il a enfouit à l’avance dans le sol d’archaïques téléphones de campagnes, impossible à intercepter à la différence des communications numérisées, tout en utilisant des lunettes infra-rouges hi-tech de vision nocturne pour accroître la mobilité de ses commandos.

It has analyzed its errors during the previous period and studied the combat methods of the Israelis in Palestine and the US in Iraq. It has completely assimilated and modernised its methods of guerilla war. Following the theories elaborated by the Lebanese generals A.H. and E.H. it has invented a type of guerilla war which uses a wide range of different weapons. For example, it buried in advance old fashioned combat phones which unlike digital phones couldn’t be intercepted and used hi-tech infra-red night vision goggles to increase the mobility of their commandos.

La guerre du Liban n’a donc pas été une guerre asymétrique opposant une armée moderne, bien équipée, à une guérilla de va-nu-pieds. Dans cette bataille du Goliath israélien contre le David libanais, le faible ne disposait pas que d’une fronde, mais aussi des RPG-29 Vampire, les lance-roquettes les plus performants au monde.
The Lebanese War was not, therefore, an asymmetric war confronting a well-equipped modern army with a ragtag band of guerillas. In this battle between the Israeli Goliath and the Lebanese David, the weaker side didn’t just have slings ; they also had the RPG-29 Vampire, the best rocket-launcher in the world.

La technique du Blitzkrieg, qui fit la victoire allemande de 1939, a trouvé sa limite. Elle était entièrement basée sur les chars. Avec le temps, ceux-ci sont devenus de plus en plus lourds pour résister à des projectiles de plus en plus puissants. Certains sont aujourd’hui recouverts d’uranium appauvri pour renforcer leur blindage. Ils ont été des proies faciles pour les RPG russes du Hezbollah. On doit d’ailleurs se demander si la guerre du Liban ne va pas marquer la fin des chars, comme la bataille d’Azincourt marque celle des chevaliers en armures. Au demeurant, le ministère israélien de la Défense vient d’annoncer qu’il cessait la production des chars Merkava, jusqu’ici considérés comme parmi les meilleurs au monde.

War by Blitzkrieg, which brought Germany victory in 1939, has found its limit. It was based entirely on tank warfare. With the course of time, tanks have become heavier and heavier to counter increasingly powerful anti-tank rockets. Today, some are reinforced with depleted uranium armour plating. They turned out to be easy prey for Hezbollah’s Russian RPGs. We must, then, question whether the war in Lebanon won’t mark the end of the tank, just as Agincourt marked the end of the heavily armoured mounted knight. Incidently, the Israeli defence minister has just announced that the production of the Merkava tank, considered amongst the best in the world, is to be ended.

Une tragique erreur d’analyse

A Tragic Error of Analysis

Mais au-delà de la stratégie, de la tactique et de l’armement, la leçon la plus importante de la guerre du Liban, c’est la valeur des troupes. Au cours des conflits précédents, Tsahal plaçait en première ligne des unités professionnelles et déployait en quelques jours une nuée de réservistes. Ceux-ci se montraient âpres au combat pour défendre la terre acquise et pour en conquérir de nouvelles. Mais les temps ont changé. Les héros de la Légion juive et de la Hagannah sont morts. Leurs petits enfants sont les bénéficiaires d’un régime d’apartheid qui ne se battent plus pour une patrie, mais pour leurs privilèges. Leur expérience militaire se borne à des ratonnades en uniforme dans les Territoires palestiniens. Ils n’ont pas supporté l’affrontement avec la résistance patriotique d’un pays indépendant.

But, apart from questions of strategy, tactics and armament, the most important lesson from Lebanon concerns the quality of the troops themselves. In previous conflicts Tsahal deployed a professional force in the front line following up in a few days with a swarm of reservists. These proved resolute both in defense of land conquered and in conquering fresh terrain. But times have changed. The heroes of the Jewish legion and of Hagannah are dead. Their grandchildren are the beneficiaries of an apartheid regime who fight, not for their country, but for their privileges. Their military experience is limited to racist attacks in uniform in the occupied territories. They haven’t been able to stand up to the patriotic resistance of an independent country.

En réalité, cette guerre n’a pas été celle d’Israël contre le Liban, mais du sioniste contre l’idéal égalitaire. Il convient de rappeler ici que Tsahal n’est pas composé par le peuple israélien, mais par les Israéliens juifs par filiation pour combattre les arabes, fussent-ils israéliens. Au fil des ans, cette armée s’est surtout consacrée au maintien de l’ordre, ou plutôt au maintien de l’apartheid. Les juifs israéliens anti-sionistes ont d’abord opté pour l’objection de conscience et pour l’insoumission. Aujourd’hui, ils placent leur espoir dans le Hezbollah. Ils ont transmis à la Résistance libanaise toutes les documentations internes de Tsahal, qui ont été rapidement traduites en arabe et distribuées à la guérilla. Les maquisards disposaient ainsi des descriptions précises des unités qu’ils combattaient. Informés du détail de la hiérarchie et des insignes de commandement, ils ciblaient les officiers avant de disparaître.

In reality this war was not between Israel and Lebanon, but between Zionism and the egalitarian ideal. It’s worth remembering that Tsahal is not composed of the Israeli people but of Israeli Jews fighting against Arabs, including Israeli Arabs. Over the years, this army has dedicated itself , above all to maintaining order, or, rather, maintaining apartheid. The anti-Zionist Israeli Jews opted initially to be conscientious objectors or simply refused to serve. Nowadays they place their hope in Hezbollah. They passed on to the Lebanese resistance all Tsahal’s internal documents which were immediately translated into Arabic and distributed to the guerilla fighters. The resistance, therefore, had detailed descriptions of the Israeli units. Informed of the details of the military chain of command and their insignia, they were able to target the officers.

Cette qualité du renseignement de la Résistance, qui contraste avec l’auto-intoxication du renseignement militaire sioniste, explique en partie le résultat sur le terrain. Le souvenir restera de la ville d’Aïta Al-Chaab, à la frontière libano-israélienne, où une centaine de combattants résista pendant 34 jours aux assauts de Tsahal sans jamais tomber.

This high quality of intelligence available to the resistance contrasted with the delusional notions which the Israeli army fed itself, explains, in part, the outcome. The town of Aita Al-Chaab, on the Lebanese frontier, where, for 34 days, about a hundred fighters successfully resisted the Israeli army, will always be remembered.

Hassan Nasrallah : à la fois Ho Chi Minh et Mandela ?

Hassan Nasrallah : Ho Chi Minh and Mandela rolled into one?

Les gouvernements israélien et états-unien persistent à présenter le conflit comme une étape de la « guerre au terrorisme » bien que le caractère populaire de la résistance et la défaite de Tsahal contredisent cette analyse. De son côté, le Hezbollah présente ces combats comme une bataille dans la guerre qui oppose dans la région l’idéologie sioniste à l’idéal égalitaire. C’est cette analyse politique qui vient de s’imposer sur le terrain et qui renverse la donne au Proche-Orient, provoquant la colère des généraux les plus extrémistes au sein de l’état-major de Tsahal.

The US and Israel persist in seeing this war as part of the war on terrorism” even though the popular nature of the resistance and Tsahal’s defeat contradict this analysis. For its part, Hezbollah presents the war as a regional struggle between Zionist ideology and its own egalitarian ideals. It is this analysis which has imposed itself on the ground, overturning the prevailing view of the Middle East and provoking the anger of the more extremist generals within Tsahal.

S’il est impossible de quantifier le nombre d’officiers anti-sionistes israéliens qui sont en contact secrètement avec le Hezbollah, il est par contre aisé d’évaluer la manière dont les Israéliens perçoivent la Résistance. Des études d’opinion ont montré que les émissions quotidiennes en hébreu d’Al-Manar ont été plus écoutées par les Israéliens que les bulletins d’information de leurs propres chaînes de télévision [1]. Elles ont aussi mis en évidence que les Israéliens font deux fois plus confiance à Hassan Nasrallah qu’à Ehud Olmert pour résoudre la crise. Loin d’avoir été éradiqué par Tsahal, le Hezbollah est devenu un acteur politique invisible en Israël où il incarne la possible fin de l’apartheid et l’établissement d’une paix durable pour toutes les populations sans exclusive.

If it is impossible to quantify the precise number of Israeli officers in contact with Hezbollah, it is , on the other hand, easy to evaluate the Israeli perception of the resistance. Surveys have shown that more Israelis listen to the daily Hebrew broadcasts of Al-Manar than to news reports from there own TV channels. They also show that the Israelis have twice as much confidence in Hassan Nasrallah to resolve the crisis than they do in Ehud Olmert. Far from being eradicated by Tsahal, Hezbollah has become an invisible political player within Israel where it embodies the possibility of ending apartheid and establishing an inclusive peace for all the peoples of the region.

La défaite israélienne

The Israeli Defeat

L’offensive israélienne au Liban répond à une conjunction d’intérêts.
Pour les néo-conservateurs au pouvoir aux États-Unis, qui font ici office de donneur d’ordre, il s’agit stratégiquement de poursuivre le plan de remodelage des frontières du Grand Moyen-Orient, et tactiquement d’éliminer le Hezbollah avant d’attaquer la Syrie, puis l’Iran [2].

Pour le régime sioniste au pouvoir en Israël, il s’agit stratégiquement de chasser les populations du Sud-Liban, d’annexer cette zone et ses nappes phréatiques, d’y créer un bantoustan pour les Arabes de Cisjordanie –voire de Gaza-, et tactiquement d’éliminer le Hezbollah en tant qu’opposition au gouvernement Siniora.

Pour le système financier, incarné au Liban par la famille Hariri, les destructions permettent de rééditer la vaste opération de réhabilitation du pays qui les a enrichis dans les années 90.

The Isreali offensive in Lebanon brings together a variety of interests.
► for the neoconservatives in power in the US, who are giving the orders here, the strategic goal is to transform the frontiers of the Middle East, the tactical goal is to eliminate Hezbollah before attacking Syria and Iran.
►for the Zionist regime in power in Israel, the strategic goal was to clear the population of Southern Lebanon, to annex this area and its water supplies, to create a Bantustan for the Arabs of the West Bank – indeed , of Gaza too-, and, tactically, to eliminate Hezbollah as an opposition to the Siniora government.
►for the financial system, personified in Lebanon by the Hariri family, the destruction offered them the opportunity to make a vast fortune out of the reconstruction of Lebanon, as they had done in the 90s.

Or, les frontières du Liban n’ont pas été modifiées ; les populations du Sud-Liban ont regagné les terres dont elles ont été chassées ; le Hezbollah est devenu la première force politique et militaire du Liban et devient un acteur essentiel de la vie politique intérieure israélienne ; les Libanais ont refait leur unité ; la Syrie a retrouvé un leadership régional ; l’Iran est renforcé par la victoire de son allié libanais. Quant aux objectifs financiers, la famille Hariri loin d’être en mesure de se maintenir au pouvoir à Beyrouth risque de perdre les immenses propriétés qu’elle a acquises illégalement au cours de la première reconstruction [3].

Now, the frontiers of Lebanon haven’t been altered ; the population of South Lebanon has returned to the homes which they were forced to leave ; Hezbollah has become the leading political and military force in Lebanon as well as a key player in Israel’s own internal politics ; Lebanese unity has been reaffirmed ; Syria has regained its regional leadership ; Iran is strengthened by the victory of its Lebanese allies. As for the financial objectives, far from being in a position to keep its hold on power, the Hariri family is in danger of losing the vast properties which they acquired illegally during the last reconstruction.

En tous points, l’offensive militaire est une défaite.

On all fronts, then, the military offensive has been defeated.