by Stuart Littlewood

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph Britain’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, claims that Iran is threatening to spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which could be more dangerous than the original East-West Cold War http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9089995/Iran-risks-nuclear-Cold-War.html .

“It is a crisis coming down the tracks,” he says. “Because they are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme… If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.

“And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the de-stabilising effects in the Middle East.

“We are very clear to all concerned that we are not advocating military action,” he assures us. “We support a twin-track strategy of sanctions and pressure and negotiations on the other hand. We are not favouring the idea of anybody attacking Iran at the moment.”

But, says Mr Hague, “all options must remain on the table.”

That same day Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Sarkozy signed a “landmark agreement” committing their two countries to a shared programme of civil nuclear power and setting out a shared long term vision of safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy.

“We are working together… to stop a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran,” said Cameron.  “As two great civil nuclear nations, we will combine our expertise to strengthen industrial partnership, improve nuclear safety and create jobs at home. The deals signed today will create more than 1500 jobs in the UK but they are just the beginning. My goal is clear. I want the vast majority of the content of our new nuclear plants to be constructed, manufactured and engineered by British companies. And we will choose the partners and technologies to maximise the economic benefits to the UK.”

Such such freedom of action or benefits must not be enjoyed by Iran, of course.

Some 3 weeks earlier Mr Hague was clamouring for an “unprecedented” package of measures including an oil embargo and financial sanctions “to increase the peaceful, legitimate pressure on the Iranian government”. It’s tempting to add “as punishment for their peaceful and (so far) legitimate civil nuclear activities”. Such measures are no doubt intended to bring ruin and terror in a way that bombing couldn’t.

Most of us remember only too well how the Iraq sanctions devastated that country’s economy and resulted in widespread hunger and disease among Iraqi people. John Pilger reported in the Guardian, March 4, 2000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9 : “This is a war against the children of Iraq on two fronts: bombing, which in the last year cost the British taxpayer £60 million. And the most ruthless embargo in modern history. According to Unicef, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the death rate of children under five is more than 4,000 a month – that is 4,000 more than would have died before sanctions. That is half a million children dead in eight years. If this statistic is difficult to grasp, consider, on the day you read this, up to 200 Iraqi children may die needlessly.”

With this evil still quite fresh in people’s minds Hague successfully obtained his “unprecedented” measures, meaning worse than those taken against Iraq presumably, to inflict on Iranian women and children.

“A mad dog too dangerous to bother”?

There are a number of issues raised by Hague’s extraordinary antics.

Why does he say the Iranians “are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme” when there’s no proof?

Why does he say “Iran is threatening to spark a nuclear arms race” when Israel has already de-stabilised the region with its nuclear arsenal?

And even if Iran really does have a weapons programme his claim that the present situation is “the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented” is rubbish.  The BBC reported recently http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 that back in 2009 the IAEA expressed concern about Israel’s nuclear capabilities and called on it to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. “Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.”

Actually, Israel is the third or fourth largest nuclear force in the world and the only one in the Middle East. But our brave politicians dare not even whisper this fact let alone criticize it. According to a 2006/7 report by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission most unofficial estimates put Israel’s nuclear arsenal in the hundreds, possibly larger than the British stockpile. “Israel… has an unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor and reprocessing capability and possibly some uranium enrichment capability, along with various other uranium-processing facilities.”

It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Israel just doesn’t care. Who can forget that much-quoted remark by former Israeli Defense Minister, General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother”?

And is anyone surprised at reports that European cities are targeted?

Against this background it is difficult to understand how Hague’s aggressive escalation against Iran is in the British national interest – or anyone’s interest except Israel’s. Do the British people want it? If Mr Hague’s purpose is to help preserve the imbalance of power in the Middle East so that a rogue regime, Israel, remains the dominant military force, he must be called on to explain the wisdom of it.

Hague and Cameron both voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war, and we know the consequence in lives and irreversible damage to the country, its heritage, its social fabric and infrastructure and its survivors… and of course to Britain’s reputation.  We want no repetition, surely.

William Hague, according to the Jewish Chronicle, told David Cameron when he became Conservative party leader in 2005 that a deep understanding of the Middle East would be crucial if he wished to be taken seriously as a statesman… “because you can’t understand it without the history. That’s been one of the failings sometimes with the Western governments.”

The pair’s support for Israel and its Zionist ambitions is such that no sane world would allow them anywhere near the levers of international power. Besides, Hague seems to have jettisoned his history. In March 1951 the Iranian Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian Oil, in which the British government had a majority interest and which had controlled Iran’s oil industry since 1913 under terms that were disadvantageous to Iran. Dr Mohammad Mossadeq, the newly elected prime minister, carried out his government’s wish to cancel Anglo-Iranian’s oil concession, which was not due to expire for another 42 years, and take over its assets.

In a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525) he explained: “The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provides that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation…

“It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention…”

Considering Britain paid Iran only 16% of the profits during the inter-war years and treated Iranian oil workers abominably, while profiting hugely herself, these were generous terms.

History repeats itself

Faced with nationalisation the British government went mad and imposed a blockade and vicious sanctions, quickly bringing Iran to its knees. Mossadeq, popular and highly regarded, was removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death. The Iranians were condemned to suffer the re-imposition of the hated Shah and his secret police for another 25 years. The Islamist Revolution of 1979 was the inevitable consequence.

And Iran has not forgotten…

Perhaps Mr Hague, before pressing the ‘History Repeat’ button too many times, should pause to reflect and answer just ten questions…

(1) Have we so easily forgotten the cruel and devastating effect of economic sanctions on civil society, especially children?

(2) Would the Foreign Secretary kindly explain the reasons for his hostility towards Iran?

(3) What concrete proof is there of Iran’s military application of nuclear technology?

(4) Why is he not more concerned about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, the threat it poses to the region and beyond, and the mental attitude of the Israeli regime?

(5) Why is he not seeking sanctions against Israel for its refusal to sign up to the NPT or engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other WMD?

(6) How many times has a British foreign secretary visited Tehran in the 32 years since the Islamic Revolution?

(7) Did Mr Hague make an effort to go and talk before embarking on his punitive sanctions programme?

(8) Britain’s conduct towards the Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed out Iran’s democracy and reinstated a cruel dictatorship, was largely responsible for bringing about the Islamic Revolution and setting the pattern of future relationships. Is it not shameful that this Conservative government is spoiling for another fight? Shouldn’t the Foreign Office focus on exerting influence through trade and co-operation?

(9) Iran’s present administration, like others, may not be to our liking but nor was Dr Mossadeq’s democracy 60 years ago. Similarly the Israel-leaning administrations of the US and Britain are not much to the liking of the rest of the world. In any event, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why is Mr Hague leading the charge?

(10) By pulling our people out of Tehran and kicking Iran’s people out of London Mr Hague has shut the door on diplomacy. How can he now communicate effectively with a nation he seems determined to goad into becoming an implacable enemy?

On this last point I hear that Baroness Ashton, the EU’s ‘foreign minister’, is handling contact with Iran on behalf of the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. So much for Hague’s talk of negotiations alongside sanctions. While playing the role of chief bully he has shut himself out of any direct conversation. As for Ashton, she hasn’t made the slightest impact on the crisis in Palestine, even with the clout of 500 million citizens behind her, so is anyone holding their breath?

Most of those questions were put to Mr Hague through my MP (who happens to be one of Hague’s junior ministers) two-and-a-half months ago and repeated early January, but Mr Hague isn’t replying.

Until he does, the Foreign Secretary ought to be made to stand in the parliamentary ‘naughty corner’.

Stuart Littlewood

20 February 2012

******

Stuart Littlewood’s book ‘Radio Free Palestine’ can now be read on the internet by visiting www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk .

by John Glaser

Mere days after U.S. officials leaked intelligence that al-Qaeda’s branch in Iraq has been infiltrating Syria to conduct terrorism, arm the opposition, and take advantage of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, al-Qaeda’s #1 Ayman al-Zawahiri condemned the Assad regime and urged support for the opposition.

Simultaneously, a growing number of influential members of Congress have openly advocated aiding the rebel Free Syrian Army with weapons and training in order to facilitate the fall of Assad. The Pentagon and U.S. Central Command are currently reviewing possible U.S. military options against the Syrian regime. And now a bipartisan group of Senators has attempted to legislate such action, introducing a resolution on Friday to that end. Excerpt from that resolution:

“The Senate… urges the President to support an effective transition to democracy in Syria by identifying and providing substantial material and technical support, upon request, to Syrian organizations that are representative of the people of Syria, make demonstrable commitments to protect human rights and religious freedom, reject terrorism, cooperate with international counterterrorism and nonproliferation efforts, and abstain from destabilizing neighboring  countries.”

Oddly enough, this is not the first time in recent memory that the leadership in the U.S. has explicitly advocated merging U.S. policy with al-Qaeda’s goals. From early on in the NATO mission to aid the Libyan rebels and oust Muammar Gadhafi, it was known that many of those so-called “freedom fighters” had ties to al-Qaeda. In fact, U.S. intelligence found that al-Qaeda fighters had swarmed to Libya and tried to “drum up extremist activities.” After Gadhafi was killed, an al-Qaeda flag was raised in the center the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Following that, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) publicly called themselves the “main beneficiaries” of the instability caused by the NATO war, noting specifically their receipt of weapons.

Aside from all of the terror and abuse the newly empowered National Transitional Council has brought the people of Libya in the form of murder, theft, torture and thuggery, they and their varied militias have also been imposing a harsh brand of militant Islam on Libyans, as opposed to the democratic paradise Obama predicted.

I’m not suggesting a conspiracy theory, just plain stupidity. As I’ve explored elsewhere, while I’m no stranger to Imperial Grand Strategy, I think the system operates in a way such that backward policies are carried out even when many elites recognize they’re against the “national interest.” The real question is how nobody is calling them out on it. Joe Lieberman has just recently called the Syrian rebels “brave freedom fighters” almost synchronous with Ayman al-Zawahiri. How is this not headline news?

Update: What was I thinking: only criticisms of government policy can be described as “enabling al-Qaeda.” That charge of course doesn’t apply to actually advocating the same policies as al-Qaeda. Silly me.

Source: Anti-War.blog

Paul Balles

Six months ago, I wrote about Alvin Toffler’s book Future Shock, which looks at a world with “too much change in too short a period of time”.

In Toffler’s view, change overwhelms people, leaving them disconnected and suffering from “shattering stress and disorientation” –- or “future shocked”.

The majority of social problems are symptoms of future shock according to Toffler. From his discussion of the components we also suffer from “information overload”.

Journalist William J. Lynott explains that the brain has limits on how much information it can handle. Beyond that limit the brain becomes overloaded; thinking and reasoning become dulled, decision-making flawed and, in some cases, impossible.

Lynott says “We are being overwhelmed with information. Each new day introduces an unrelenting flow of data — TV news, the Internet, e-mail, voicemail, faxes, cell phones, pagers, billboards, junk mail, newspapers, magazines, books, catalogues, nonstop cable news.”

Even without considering social media like the current fascination with Facebook, twitter and LinkedIn, Lynott argues there’s no escape. “It assaults us at home, at work, even at play,” he says.

“By one estimate, a single issue of the New York Times contains more information than the average 17th-century person would come across in an entire lifetime.”

Sociology Professor William I Robinson writes “As the crisis of global capitalism spirals out of control, the powers that be in the global system appear to be adrift and unable to propose viable solutions.”

Is this a result of information overload as Toffler predicted and Lynott observed? It has become very difficult to handle all of the information bombarding us while trying to keep focused on anything.

With a spotlight on the current situation, Robinson says “There will be no quick outcome of the mounting global chaos. We are in for a period of major conflicts and great upheavals.”

Following the recent movements (if that’s what the gatherings can be called) by “rioters” or “demonstrators” or “hooligans”, Robinson argues:

From the slaughter of dozens of young protesters by the army in Egypt to the brutal repression of the Occupy movement in the United States, and the water cannons brandished by the militarised police in Chile against students and workers, states and ruling classes are unable to hold back the tide of worldwide popular rebellion.

Can there be much doubt that these events are chaotic? What do we have so far? Too much change happening too fast. Information overload is reflected in global chaos leading to major conflicts and worldwide upheavals.

How does information overload figure in chaos and how do we react to it? Remember, information overload comes when we are trying to cope with more information than we’re able to process to make sensible decisions. In this situation, we either delay making decisions or we make the wrong decisions.

The solution is to be clear about key priorities and primary interests, use scanning to get through the piles of data and determine which information is actually relevant.

Instead of having dulled senses as a result of being bombarded by information overload, we can manage time better.

The volume of information we have today “throttles productivity, reduces our capability to absorb and learn, puts our physical and mental health at risk, and interferes with personal and business relationships,” according to Jonathan Spira, CEO of Basex, a research firm focusing on issues companies face.

Spira has no doubt that “too much information without reflection can stall our productivity. It affects our ability to manage thoughts and ideas, contemplate and even to reason and think.”

Solutions: avoid too much TV, focus, organize, take time to reflect, meditate, prioritize, Google “information overload”.

*******

Paul Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He’s a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the GULF DAILY NEWS . Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

So here’s a theory. Netanyahu and his camp followers here do not really want a war now. They just want it understood that they can dictate whether there is one or not. And when. In other words, they want to show who is boss (it’s not like we don’t know).

Upcoming AIPAC conference March 2012

by M J Rosenberg

[ HUFFPOST ] These are strange times for those of us who follow the debate about a possible war with Iran. It is clear that the Israeli government and its neoconservative camp followers here in the United States are increasing pressure on President Obama to either attack Iran or let Israel do it (in which case, we would be forced to join in). But the idea of another Middle East war is so outlandish that it seems inconceivable it could actually occur.

Still the conventional wisdom holds that it can, and the main reason is that this is an election year and no one will say no to Binyamin Netanyahu in an election year.

War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will, if past example holds, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met by stony silence.

Image credit: Whatreallyhappened.com

From the convention center, 10,000 delegates will be dispatched to Capitol Hill with two or three “asks” for Members of Congress. One will, no doubt, be that “containment” of a nuclearized Iran be ruled off the table (leaving war as the only remaining option should Iran get the bomb). Another will likely be that the U.S. stop all dealings with the Palestinian Authority should Hamas and Fatah permanently reconcile. A third could apply either to Iran or Palestine and will, no doubt, demand fealty to whatever Netanyahu’s policy of the moment happens to be. I’ve sat in those meetings where the AIPAC “asks” are developed and it was always clear that the substance didn’t matter all that much.

The goal of the “asks” is ensuring that Congress follow the script. Invariably at least one of these AIPAC goals will be put into legislative language and quickly pass both chambers of Congress. In fact, usually the “ask” is already in legislative form, so that the AIPAC citizen lobbyists can simply demand that their legislators sign on as co-sponsors (if they haven’t already done so). Once the AIPAC bill has the requisite number of co-sponsors, the House and Senate leadership brings it to the floor where it passes with few dissenters.

All hell breaks loose if a member of Congress objects.

One Member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC “ask.” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all U.S. contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance.

Rep. Betty McCollum

In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr, McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a terrorist supporter and warned that her behavior “would not be tolerated.” In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologized.

McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way. She is, however, the only one in memory who went public.

As one who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I know that many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics — but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC’s arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion. Although AIPAC calls its requests “asks,” they are, in fact, “tells” and “no” is not a permissible response. (Staffers who like AIPAC, and there are a few, tend to work with it hand-in-glove which is how AIPAC invariably knows what is going on even before the elected representatives do).

Despite all this, I do not think that either Netanyahu or his lobby is all that eager to go to war. After all, Israel’s intelligence community opposes it for a host of reasons starting with the fact that it would not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. There is also the fear that Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, on Israel’s northern border, have tens of thousands of missiles that they can let fly if Iran is attacked. Above all is the understanding that no one knows if an attack would make Israel safer or threaten its very existence.

So here’s a theory. Netanyahu and his camp followers here do not really want a war now. They just want it understood that they can dictate whether there is one or not. And when. In other words, they want to show who is boss (it’s not like we don’t know).

As for Obama, he may just be playing along with Netanyahu and AIPAC because he understands their strategy. Perhaps he knows that it isn’t war they want but the illusion of control.

Only, it’s not an illusion. And it certainly won’t be if Netanyahu gets the president he wants in November, a Republican who will fight the war Netanyahu wants but isn’t eager to fight himself. Surely Mitt or Rick or Newt will do it for him.

MJ Rosenberg Since 1998, M.J. Rosenberg has been the Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum (IPF). He heads the organization’s Washington, D.C. office and writes IPF FRIDAY, a widely-circulated weekly opinion column which focuses upon U.S. Middle East policy and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Proir to joining IPF, Rosenberg worked for 14 years on Capitol Hill as an aide to Representatives Jonathan Bingham (D-New York), Edward Feighan (D-Ohio), Nita Lowey (D-New York) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan). From 1982 to 1986, Rosenberg edited NEAR EAST REPORT, the American Israel Public Affair Committee’s (AIPAC’s) biweekly publication on Middle East Policy. He is Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network (http://politicalcorrection.org/)

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg

Benjamin Freedman’s 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel (Complete)

by Jamal Kanj

WHEN Newt Gingrich called Palestinians “invented people” last December, most did not realise it was his deep pockets, not his brain lateralisation, which transmitted the claptrap through his mouth.

Gingrich’s political career highlights include helping write the “contract with America” in the early 1990s, setting out a Republican manifesto if they became the majority party in the House of Representatives.

This propelled him after a mid-term election to become House speaker and culminated with his eventual resignation after a special ethics committee censured him for lying and violating tax laws. He was fined $300,000 (BD113,400).

To understand Gingrich today, we must first learn where he comes from.

Soon after high school, Newt married his former maths teacher Jackie who supported him through college, meaning he avoided the army draft and service in Vietnam.

Two years after he was elected to Congress, the reputed womaniser allegedly walked into a hospital room where Jackie was recovering from a uterine cancer operation, proposing terms for divorce. Following the divorce in 1980, he married his lover Marianne Ginther.

Years later, Marianne received a highly paid job working for an influential pro-Israel Jewish lobbyist promoting Israeli exports with Israel Export Development Council.

While married to Marianne, Mr Gingrich started yet again another extramarital affair with House staffer Callista Bisek, 23 years his junior. They tied the knot in 2000, soon after he divorced his second wife.

Mr Gingrich’s egoistic ambition is limitless. He used his first wife to get him through college, dodged serving in Vietnam, got his second wife a well-paid job with an Israeli lobbyist and is having his presidential campaign bankrolled by Israeli firster and billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson.

Mr Adelson was listed by Forbes magazine as the eighth richest person in America with a net worth of $22 billion. He and Mr Gingrich first met when Mr Sheldon was lobbying on Capitol Hill for Israel.

Henceforth, Mr Sheldon became the chief funding source for Mr Gingrich’s election team – known as a super Political Action Committee (PAC).

In this election cycle, Mr Adelson contributed more than $10 million to the Gingrich PAC in two primaries: South Carolina and Florida. Mr Gingrich won the first, but lost the second.

With Mr Sheldon’s backing, Mr Gingrich is gearing up for the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries in southern conservative states.

Meanwhile, the other Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, is luring Mr Adelson’s camp, Jewish voters and money by making vitriolic anti-Palestinian statements in preparation for the post-Gingrich era.

In addition to financing Mr Gingrich, Mr Adelson and his young Israeli wife Miriam have funded several right-wing PACs.

During the last mid-term congressional election, the Adelsons poured more than $30m into the “Freedom’s Watch” PAC supporting pro-Israeli Republican candidates.

Ironically, in a 2008 interview with the Las Vegas Weekly, Mr Adelson represented himself as “Very liberal. Too liberal.”

Yet when it comes to a US election, his Zionist ideological commitments – not his “liberal” American values – dictate where his money goes.

Americans in general understand and loath the role of money in elections.

However, what makes this arrangement exceptional is the peculiar partnership between a liberal Jewish American gambling tycoon and an adulterous Republican nominee appealing to Christian fundamentalists with “family value” slogans.

Besides making a mockery of the strongest democracy, special interest money is unifying a pretentious presidential candidate and an ideologically antithetic liberal Zionist.

Unfortunately, they are not partnering up for what they can offer America, but what they can promise Israel.

******

Jamal Kanj

Jamal Kanj writes frequently on Arab issues and is the author of Children of Catastrophe, Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. He can be reached at jkanj@yahoo.com.

The French have called it a “water occupation” against the Palestinians…

British Water’s complicity with the Israeli occupation authorities who are not only stealing Palestinian water, but also overseeing the flooding of Palestinian fields and villages with untreated sewage from hilltop Jewish settlements.

by Stuart Littlewood

There are few crimes more despicable then stealing your neighbour’s water and polluting what’s left, then watching him and his children suffer thirst, disease and ruin.

Most of us would want nothing to do with the perpetrators of such evil.

British Water describes itself as the voice of the water industry. It talks about best practice and corporate responsibility, and lobbies governments and regulators on behalf of its members. No doubt it does a good job.

It also has international ambitions including in the Middle East. So presumably it knows what’s going on water-wise in the Holy Land.

British Water should know, for example, that the 400-miles long structure known worldwide as Israel’s Apartheid Wall bites deep into the Palestinian West Bank dividing and isolating communities and stealing their lands and water.

If the Wall was simply for security, as Israel claims, it would have been built along the internationally-recognised 1949 Armistice ‘Green Line’, although not even this is an official border. The Wall’s purpose is plainly to annex plum Palestinian land and water resources for illegal Israeli settlements, and to that end it closely follows the line of the Western Aquifer.

In 2004 the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled that the construction of the Wall is “contrary to international law” and Israel must dismantle it and make reparation for damage caused. The ICJ also ruled that “all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction”.

But the Wall marches on, aided by American tax dollars and America’s protective veto, so that Israel can wield complete control over the water resources it sees as necessary to the regime’s present and future needs. This makes the Palestinians, who sit on top of enough water to be self-sufficient, entirely dependent on Israel for God’s life-giver. Israel also consumes most of the water from the Jordan River despite only 3% of the river falling within its pre-1967 borders. Palestinians now have no access to it whatsoever due to Israeli closures.

Most of the Coastal Aquifer, on which Gaza’s inhabitants rely for water, is contaminated by sewage and nitrates, and is unfit for human consumption. Children particularly are at great risk .The aquifer is depleted and in danger of collapse. The damage could take generations to reverse, say experts.

During Israel’s deadly assault on Gaza (Operation Cast Lead) in 2008/9 over 30 km of water networks were damaged or destroyed in addition to 11 wells. A UN Fact Finding Mission (the Goldstone report) considered the destruction “deliberate and systematic”. Proper repairs have been impossible these last 3 years because Israel blocks the import of spare parts.

Palestinians must buy their own water from Israel at inflated prices

“Thirsting for Justice” is an aptly-named campaign by the Emergency Water Sanitation and Hygiene group (EWASH http://www.ewash.org/en/), a coalition of 30 Palestinian and European humanitarian organisations, including Oxfam. It calls on European governments to put pressure on Israel to respect international law and the Palestinians’ basic rights to water and sanitation.

Under the warped arrangements of the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1995) Palestinians are only allowed to abstract 20 percent of the “estimated potential” of the Mountain aquifer beneath the West Bank. Israel not only takes the balance (80 percent) but overdraws its sustainable yield often by more than 50 percent. A Joint Water Committee (JWC) was set up to implement the Agreement but Israel was given veto power and the final say on decisions. As a result a number of essential projects for Palestinians have been denied or delayed. To make up for part of the supply shortfall, Palestinians are forced to buy water from the Israeli national water company Mekorot, some of which is extracted from wells within the Palestinian West Bank. In other words they are having to buy their own water, and at inflated prices.

Oxfam, which is very active on the ground in Gaza, confirms http://globalministries.org/news/mee/pdfs/OXFAM-The-Big-Uneasy-Gaza-Factsheet-December-2011.pdf that 90-95 percent of water from Gaza’s only source, the Coastal Aquifer, is undrinkable. At the current rate the aquifer will be unusable by 2016 and the damage irreversible by 2020.

Gaza residents are restricted to an average of 91 litres of water per day compared to 280 litres used by Israelis. 100-150 litres a day are required meet health needs, says the World Health Organization. Marginalized Palestinian communities in the West Bank survive on less than 20 litres per capita per day, the minimum amount recommended by the WHO to sustain life in an emergency.

Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are said to have full legal rights to nearly 750 million cubic metres of water but they have to make do with a trickle, or go without, while Israelis fill their swimming pools, sprinkle their lawns and wash their cars. In Bethlehem’s Aida refugee camp the water is turned off for days. When the street taps come on again, usually for a few hours, there’s a desperate scramble to refill domestic tanks and other containers before the next cut.

Water an apartheid weapon in a brutal occupation

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz last month reported on the French parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee findings on the geopolitical impact of water in confrontation zones like Israel-Palestine http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/french-parliament-report-accuses-israel-of-water-apartheid-in-west-bank-1.407685.

According to the report water has become “a weapon serving the new apartheid… Some 450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there. In times of drought, in contravention of international law, the [illegal] settlers get priority for water”.

Israel is waging a “water occupation” against the Palestinians, says the report accusing the Israelis of “systematically destroying wells that were dug by Palestinians on the West Bank” as well as deliberately bombing reservoirs in the Gaza Strip in 2008-09. Furthermore “many water purification facilities planned by the Palestinian Water Ministry are being blocked by the Israeli administration.”

Head of the Palestinian Water Authority, Dr Shaddad Attili, observed: “Palestinians need to be able to access and control our rightful share of water in accordance with international law. The Oslo Accords did not achieve this… Without water, and without ensuring Palestinian water rights, there can be no viable or sovereign Palestinian state.”

And not content with robbing the Palestinians of their water, the Israelis are in the habit of flooding Palestinian fields and villages with untreated sewage from their hilltop settlements.

Under the radar

Against this background British Water has decided to co-operate with MATIMOP, an Israeli government agency that has been ordered to enter into international agreements and “aggressively expand opportunities for Israel’s industry”.

Always eager to oblige, the UK Trade & Investment Department’s briefing on Environment Opportunities in Israel contains this advice: “Israeli companies are keen to form alliances with companies abroad, and this is where the UK can benefit. In addition, growing development and marketing costs compel Israeli environmental companies to seek co-operation with foreign partners….

“The UK are world leaders in many aspects of the environment and so the UK and Israel complement each other and have much to offer each other in this sector. Teaming up with Israeli environment companies will give UK companies access to innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. UK companies can also benefit by providing their experience in marketing and management for Israeli companies.” [my italics]

So British Water signed a Memorandum of Understanding with MATIMOP on 21 December, so close to the Christmas holidays that it went unnoticed here. The event was not even recorded on British Water’s website but it was proudly featured on the Embassy of Israel site http://www.embassyofisrael.co.uk/news/in-the-media/british-water-and-israeli-rd-centre-matimop-sign-landmark-water-agreement/ and treated by the Israeli press as a triumph.

MATIMOP calls it “a strategic co-operation agreement”. Its Executive Director, Israel Shamay, said: “We are pleased to be working closer with British Water than we have worked with any foreign trade organisation before. The UK water sector is well respected internationally for its world-leading capabilities, solutions and services, making it the perfect partner to help commercialise and market Israeli innovation and R&D in this sector.”

British Water agreed the text for an announcement by the Embassy of Israel but didn’t release it themselves, apparently happy for Tel Aviv’s propaganda boys to take care of it. In the press release MATIMOP says: “Israel has been coping with water scarcity since its founding.”

Yes, coping my thieving.

The Palestinians have been subjected to the longest and most brutal military occupation in modern times and are held prisoner within the fragmented remnants of their own country, unable to develop its resources or travel freely within it to find work, attend university, visit family, or worship at their holy places in Jerusalem. Is helping Israel to become a water superpower really the right thing for British Water to be doing?

Question: “EU agreements require Israel to show “respect for human rights and democratic principles” and provide for the agreement to be suspended otherwise. Does the MATIMOP agreement include similar good behaviour conditions?”

British Water: “The agreement with MATIMOP is a Memorandum of Understanding. Both parties are professional organisations with admirable aims and objectives.”

Question: “British Water will be aware that Israel illegally occupies its neighbour Palestine and has seized control of its water resources. The path of Israel’s 400-mile Separation Wall closely follows the line of the Western Aquifer and encloses key supplies. In 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled that the construction of the Wall in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, is ‘contrary to international law’ and ‘all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction’. In the circumstances, should ethically-minded British companies allow themselves to become embroiled?”

British Water: “I’m not sure what you mean by ‘embroiled’ or ‘ethically-minded’. The aim of the MoU is for businesses to work together for the good of the global water industry… It’s no part of our role to exchange philosophical concepts with you. The arrangement with MATIMOP is one of commercial intent for the benefit of UK and Israeli companies…”.

Question: “Is British Water being evenhanded in this Holy Land confrontation zone? Are you offering help to the Palestinian Water Authority? Have you responded positively to the sea-water desalination project for Gaza and other programmes for West Bank towns and villages?”

British Water: “We notify our member companies of potential commercial opportunities wherever they may arise, leaving them – as they’re best-qualified – to weigh the relative attractiveness of different markets.”

David Neil-Gallacher is British Water’s CEO and also Director-General of Aqua Europa, which does the same sort of job on a Europe-wide basis. This was his parting shot:

“Regions of tension are bound to engender strong views and conflicting principles, and it’s usually notoriously difficult to discern unequivocal moral ascendancy on the part of any of those involved… In my dealings with our companies active in the region, however, I’ve never seen any evidence that they are lacking in principle or moral locus… British Water’s perspective has to be a commercial one… We do our best to conduct our activities in the best interests of our part of British industry and strictly within the requirements of the law…”

How will British Water avoid complicity with Israel’s endless oppression of the Palestinians and the deadly strife with its other neighbours in the region? Perhaps Mr Neil-Gallacher should ask one of his own member companies, Veolia, what can happen if caught up in Israeli projects that violate international law. Veolia dumps Israeli waste on Palestinian land and is helping to build and run a tramway connecting Jerusalem with illegal Israeli settlements. The company must rue the day it ‘crossed the line’ to fall foul of those nice folks at BDS (the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions movement).

Stuart Littlewood

9 February 2012

*******

Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine can now be read on the internet by visiting www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0kLWRMhiok

Israeli sewage-dumping affects Palestinian villages

An intelligence report has revealed that British and Qatari troops are leading armed terror gangs in the Syrian city of Homs in their bloody battle against civilians and the Syrian army forces.

By Dr. Ismail Salami – Intifada-Palestine.com

The volatile situation in Syria generated by the Saudi-Qatar-funded Wahhabi armed group known as the Free Syrian Army and backed by the West is now an accident waiting to happen.

There is certainly one ulterior motive behind the US-friendly Syrian crisis extravagantly fuelled by the presstitute media which keep distorting the facts on the grounds. A recent article published by the New York Times by Efraim Halevy, who headed Mossad from 1998 to 2002, sheds light on this motive. He states that Iran’s foothold in Syria has enabled Tehran to pursue its “reckless” regional policies, and to stop those policies, Iran’s presence in Syria must be ended.

To this end, the events in Syria must be so choreographed that they should lead to the overthrow of Assad regime and consequently “result in a strategic debacle for the Iranian government.”

“THE public debate in America and Israel these days is focused obsessively on whether to attack Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons ambitions; hardly any attention is being paid to how events in Syria could result in a strategic debacle for the Iranian government,” he said.

So, it seems that the fate of Syria is intimately interwoven with that of Iran. The exorbitant efforts the West is expending in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime are in fact directed against the Islamic Republic. Once the regime of Assad is trampled under the imperialist boots, the political influence of Iran will be severely damaged. In the meantime, some media such as the state-funded BBC, the Qatar-funded Al Jazeera and the Saudi-run Al Arabiya are carving out a similar scenario in league with western imperialists.

In point of fact, Qatar’s sabotage activity in Syria started in February 2011 when Al Jazeera embarked on a pointlessly mischievous act. A page titled “The Syrian Revolution 2011” was created on Facebook which was an open invitation to rebellion in Syria. It was sonorously called “Day of Wrath” in the manner of similar Facebook pages created for uprisings in the region. Instantly, the page received over 80000 likes which was of course a technical manipulation to create multiple accounts. Interestingly, the only channel which promoted and highlighted the spurious event was Al Jazeera which was bitterly disappointed with the failed attempt as the snare it laid failed to catch any game.

Furthermore, Al Jazeera’s reporting is partly based on what it receives from the London-based “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”, an ostensibly independent institute which has recently come into limelight thanks to its fallacious name. Funded by the Qatari and Saudi Wahhabis, the institute is composed of two groups: some members of the extremist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and some elements from the PKK, a branch of the terrorist PKK groups who are scattered in parts of Syria, Iraq and Turkey.

Along the lines of the same policy, Saudi-run Arabic channel Al Arabiya keeps delivering exaggerated reports on the number of those killed in Syria and pointing the finger of blame at the Syrian government while independent reports reveal that the terrorists financed by the West and the Wahhabis are behind the killings. On 13 December 2012, armed terrorists exploded a gas pipeline in the Syrian province of Homs. In Idleb province, a homemade bomb killed six workers of a textile factory and wounded 16 others who were going to work on a minibus. The terrorists have also engaged in a number of sabotage activities including attacking Syrian military facilities and law enforcement agencies, exploding oil pipelines, railroads, and killing citizens, burning schools and killing students and teachers all in the name of Syrian government.

On January 18, the Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani in an interview called for deployment of Arab troops in Syria in order to put an end to what he described as “deadly crackdown” in Syria.

Also, a recent report by DEBKAfile reveals that “British and Qatari troops are directing rebel ammunition deliveries and tactics in the bloody battle for Homs”.

According to the report, Britain’s intelligence arm MI6 has set up four operation centers in the city with the troops on the ground gearing up for an undercover Turkish incursion into Syria.

Reportedly, part of the talks between Syrian officials and head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Mikhail Fradkov which took place on Tuesday (7 February) was focused on the presence of British and Qatari forces in Homs.

Apart from the extremist Wahhabis, the US and Turkey have been training Syrian armed groups in southeastern Turkish city of Hakkari. A former employee with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Sibel Edmonds says the US is involved in smuggling arms into Syria from Incirlik military base in Turkey in addition to providing financial support for Syrian rebels.

The US has reportedly released hundreds of terrorists from its prisons in Iraq provided that they leave the country for Syria and fight against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The terrorists have entered Syria via Turkey.

Therefore, the US and Turkey have been paving the ground for military intervention in Syria by providing the terrorists with training and arms. Large caches of weapons including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, mortar bombs and heavy machine guns have been sent via ground to major unrest-wracked Syrian cities.

Add Israel to this list of anti-Syria and anti-Iran groups.

In recent years, Qatar and Israel have cemented their ties to brotherly levels. In January 2008, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Khalifa al-Thani at the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland.

In line with this meeting hitherto kept secret by Israel, a senior Qatari figure reportedly paid a visit to Israel in mid-January 2008 and met Israeli officials with a common agenda: Iran. Also, former Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni visited Qatar in April 2008 and met the Emir, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Oil and Gas. Numerous meetings between the two sides have taken place since then under different pretexts; yet, they have agreed on a number of points, inter alia, diminishing Iran’s influence in the Middle East.

Be it as it may, they are all moving in one single direction in targeting Syria without consciously wishing to form a concerted front.

What a farce!

The extremist Wahhabis, the neo-colonist Zionists and the Western imperialists have taken up arms against those who fly in the face of extremism and expansionism in the region each with its own agenda on Syria as a whipping boy with the ultimate goal of relegating Iran to the outer fringes of political power.

******

Dr. Ismail Salami is the author of ‘Iran, Cradle of Civilization’. He writes extensively on the US and Middle East issues and his articles have been translated into a number of languages.

********************************************************************

An intelligence report has revealed that British and Qatari troops are leading armed terror gangs in the Syrian city of Homs in their bloody battle against civilians and the Syrian army forces.

Arab League Report Shows that Syria Has Been Mischaracterized

While the Western media act like the Syrian government is wantonly and indiscriminately killing its own people without provocation, an independent investigation has found a different reality on the ground.

Specifically, over 160 monitors from the Arab League – comprised of both allies and mortal enemies of Syria – toured Syria and published a report on January 27th showing that the situation has been mischaracterized.

Initially, the report noted general cooperation by the Syrian government:

The Mission [i.e. the Arab League investigative team] noted that the Government strived to help it succeed in its task and remove any barriers that might stand in its way. The Government also facilitated meetings with all parties. No restrictions were placed on the movement of the Mission and its ability to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the Government and those loyal to it.

The report noted that the media has greatly exaggerated the amount of violence in Syria:

The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.

The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.

***

Since it began its work, the Mission has been the target of a vicious media campaign. Some media outlets have published unfounded statements, which they attributed to the Head of the Mission. They have also grossly exaggerated events, thereby distorting the truth.

Such contrived reports have helped to increase tensions among the Syrian people and undermined the observers’ work.

Indeed, some of the observers themselves violated their oath of neutrality and exaggerated the violence:

Some observers reneged on their duties and broke the oath they had taken. They made contact with officials from their countries and gave them exaggerated accounts of events. Those officials consequently developed a bleak and unfounded picture of the situation.

While the government has exaggerated the number of detainees released, it has in fact thousands of detainees:

On 19 January 2012, the Syrian government stated that 3569 detainees had been released from military and civil prosecution services. The Mission verified that 1669 of those detained had thus far been released. It continues to follow up the issue with the Government and the opposition, emphasizing to the Government side that the detainees should be released in the presence of observers so that the event can be documented.

The Mission has validated the following figures for the total number of detainees that the Syrian government thus far claims to have released:
• Before the amnesty: 4,035
• After the amnesty: 3,569.
The Government has therefore claimed that a total of 7,604 detainees have been released.

The Mission has verified the correct number of detainees released and arrived at the following figures:
• Before the amnesty: 3,483
• After the amnesty: 1,669
The total number of confirmed releases is therefore 5152. The Mission is continuing to monitor the process and communicate with the Syrian Government for the release of the remaining detainees.

While the government has not withdrawn all of its forces, the military has withdrawn from many areas:

Based on the reports of the field-team leaders and the meeting held on 17 January 2012 with all team leaders, the Mission confirmed that all military vehicles, tanks and heavy weapons had been withdrawn from cities and residential neighbourhoods. Although there are still some security measures in place in the form of earthen beams and barriers in front of important buildings and in squares, they do not affect citizens.

Perhaps most importantly, the report notes that the Syrian people do not want foreign intervention:

However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab
mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire.

The report condemns violence by both sides, but stresses that much of the violence has been perpetrated by the rebels against government forces:

In Homs and Dera‘a, the Mission observed armed groups committing acts of violence against Government forces, resulting in death and injury among their ranks. In certain situations, Government forces responded to attacks against their personnel with force. The observers noted that some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles.

In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.

***

Recently, there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free
Syrian Army [the main opposition group] and some by other armed opposition groups.

Why Hasn’t The Report Received Media Coverage?

Why hasn’t the Arab League report received any press, given that it provides a much more reassuring and less apocalyptic picture of what is going on in Syria?

Pepe Escobar reports in the Asia Times:

When the over 160 monitors, after one month of enquiries, issued their report … surprise! The report did not follow the official GCC [i.e Arab League] line – which is that the “evil” Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.

The Arab League’s Ministerial Committee had approved the report, with four votes in favor (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and GCC member Oman) and only one against; guess who, Qatar – which is now presiding the Arab League because the emirate bought their (rotating) turn from the Palestinian Authority.

So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed – by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed – because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League’s website.

Until it was leaked.

***

Still [the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar - what Escobar calls the NATOGCC], blocked from applying in Syria its one-size-fits-all model of promoting “democracy” by bombing a country and getting rid of the proverbial evil dictator, won’t be deterred. GCC leaders House of Saud and Qatar bluntly dismissed their own report and went straight to the meat of the matter; impose a NATOGCC regime change via the UN Security Council.

So the current “Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown” in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing – a la Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as “a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria’s unity and institutions”.

But BRICS members Russia and China see it for what it is. Another BRICSblank Independent Report Contradicts Western Portrait of Syria member – India – alongside Pakistan and South Africa, have all raised serious objections to the NATOGCC-peddled draft UN resolution.

There won’t be another Libya-style no fly zone; after all the Assad regime is not exactly deploying Migs against civilians. A UN regime change resolution will be blocked – again – by Russia and China [this happened last week]. Even NATOGCC is in disarray, as each block of players – Washington, Ankara, and the House of Saud-Doha duo – has a different long-term geopolitical agenda. Not to mention crucial Syrian neighbor and trading partner Iraq; Baghdad is on the record against any regime change scheme.

Sound familiar? No wonder.

Source: Washington blog

Armed Terrorist Groups also know in the Westen World as Peaceful Protesters are killing everyday innocent Civilians and Army Members. Schools are burning everyday. This is School number 1951 that has been burned by them.

Full Translation:

man 1, All the glass is broken in this School
They shot at this school
We can’t send our kids to school, because of this issue
Thank God, we don’t have any injured here
What should i tell you
I ask all people to stay at home
Shooting are coming from all Directions
We wish the Army will control this
man 2, It is enough we are scared the whole time…
We know the Army are suffering like us…
Those Terrorist are not Muslims…
man 3, We want the Army to enterfer
we have no other solution…
we are suffering
Now more than a Kid was shot
We just want the Army to come
man 2, A Kid running the street was shot, what did he wrong to be shoot
It’s Enough
It’s the 3 time they attack these schools
girl, We want from the President to bring the Syrian Army to us and protect us…
An RPG was shoot at our school… We are afraid… We want the Army
…minutes later an armed terrorist groups were attacking again
man 4, Come on
Camera man, look there an RPG
…man 2 who was speaking before was shoot in his face
man 5, This is the 3 Rpg at this School
Is this what the Arab League wants?!
This is what Hamad (Qatari Leader) wants?!
Isn’t this Syrian Blood?!
This is their Freedom
We want the Army to come (They repeat it several times)
look at this school, this is their Freedom
man 5, Please Mr President, may your father Rest in Peace…
We need your help!
*