Between the Lines

Quest to answer the question, “What is anti-Semitism today?” Does it remain a dangerous and immediate threat? Or is it a scare tactic used by right-wing Zionists to discredit their critics? Speaking with an array of people from across the political spectrum (including the head of the Anti-Defamation League and its fiercest critic, author Norman Finkelstein) and traveling to places like Auschwitz (alongside Israeli school kids) and Brooklyn (to explore reports of violence), Shamir discovers the realities of anti-Semitism today. His findings are shocking, enlightening and, surprisingly, often wryly funny.

Watch it at the Internet Archive.

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has reappointed Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum as his chief of army staff.

General Dostum, for those who don’t know, is “one of the most ruthless warlords” in Afghanistan, and as a member of the Northern Alliance, a U.S. ally and likely C.I.A. asset in the war to overthrow the Taliban following the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

It was Dostum who was responsible for the Dasht-i-Laili massacre, in which evidence indicates 2,000 prisoners of the U.S-led war to overthrow the Taliban were suffocated to death in shipping containers.

Dostum is also a key player in the Afghan drug trade, according to former U.K. Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, as well as the U.S. military’s own files.

In addition, there are suspicions that he is involved in the growing arms trade as evidence mounts that the Taliban are purchasing arms from warlords.

While the Obama administration was waiting until after the Afghan elections to announce the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, there was a lot of talk about pressure on Karzai to do something to clean up the corruption in his government. Dostum was among the key figures named that Karzai was expected to prevent from returning to government, although for Karzai he was a key ally who would secure the Uzbek vote.

Obviously, doing business with corrupt warlords is only a problem when it causes public relations problems for U.S. policymakers. Otherwise, it’s a perfectly acceptable practice. So far, to my knowledge, the U.S. has been mum about Dostum’s reappointment.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Chidambaram-slams-IPL-for-not-picking-Pak-players/articleshow/5499429.cms

The link copied above takes you to the article where Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram has expressed his disappointment over the exclusion of Pakistani players from the prestigious IPL cricket tournament.

“…I think it is disservice to cricket that some of these players were not picked. I don’t know why the IPL teams acted in the manner they acted. But certainly to suggest that there was a hint or nudge from the government is completely untrue,” the minister told in an interview to Times of India. He also dispelled the impression that the decision comes in line with the strict visa regime New Delhi has imposed on Pakistani nationals in the wake of November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

While Pakistani observers and cricket lovers are fuming, many Indian commentators are rejoicing over the IPL management’s decision to exclude Pakistani players citing terrorism and frosty political relations between both the countries as the main reason.

One Times of India blogger noted: “We all know the fan following in the current scenario is fickle. Fans may adore someone, but one brutal attack in Kashmir or elsewhere will change the situation diametrically in a jiffy. Now, if I am a franchisee who has invested in a Pakistani player, why would I risk it?”

The question here, I may dare ask, what has any Pakistani national, be it an ordinary citizen or a sportsman, to do with an attack in Kashmir or any part of India. If any Pakistani national is visiting India, either to take part in a sporting event or meet his/her relatives, and any terror attack takes place, on what grounds can you hold the visitor responsible for the untoward incident? Is it only because the suspects of the incident will happen to be coming from Pakistan? I cannot think of any other reason…

Rajesh Kalra, the above mentioned Times of India blogger also suggests: “Why would a franchisee invest heavily in a great player if the wrongdoings by his country somewhere works against his interest? The franchisee, after all is investing in these teams for brand building, not negative publicity.”

Very nice! Would he ask, say for example, American nationals not to travel to India and take part in sporting events there as their government is directly involved in two wars at the moment and is indirectly involved in covert operations that destabilise several countries in the world? The answer would definitely be a big NO!!!

As far as my observation works, cricket is one great game that brings people across the Indian subcontinent together and promotes sportsman spirit. Bigots on either side of the border try to hijack the sporting event by taking extreme measures but millions of peace loving people sacrifice many things to watch a test or one-day match between India and Pakistan. For them it is holy…it is their Ashes…only the ferocity of the competition multiplied x times…

I wrote a series of articles on the November 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai, India:

The Mumbai Attacks: More Than Meets the Eye

While the evidence strongly points to LeT and a network of associates affiliated with the group or with each other, that web also includes the CIA and MI6. Theories that this was a false flag operation have already begun to spread around the internet, with varying culprits and motives. Whatever the truth is, what is clear from the facts one is able to piece together from media accounts is that there is more to the Mumbai attacks than meets the eye.

Role of Alleged CIA Asset in Mumbai Attacks Being Downplayed

The role in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month of an underworld kingpin that heads an organization known as D-Company, has known ties to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and who is alleged to have ties with the CIA is apparently being whitewashed, suggesting that his capture and handover to India might prove inconvenient for either the ISI or the CIA, or both.

Elements of an Inside Job in Mumbai Attacks

What’s clear now, as further developments have come to light, is that there are also elements within India, both in the criminal underworld and the government, that are perfectly willing to see the role in the Mumbai attacks of an even larger shadowy international criminal network whitewashed; a network with links to numerous moneyed interests, including trafficking in drugs and arms, and to numerous intelligence agencies, including the ISI, the CIA, and India’s own RAW.

Justice Richard Goldstone and former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold engaged in a pointed, searching discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in Gaza on Nov. 5 at Brandeis University.

Zarar Ahmad Moqbel has been appointed by President Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan’s counter-narcotics minister. British officials are reportedly “dismayed” at the appointment, since they lobbied to have him removed from his post as Interior Minister in 2008 for his alleged involvement in corruption. Reports the Telegraph:

The interior ministry, which is responsible for the police, became notorious during his stewardship for selling positions and appointing predatory police chiefs who often colluded with drugs traffickers.

At the time of his sacking from the Interior Ministry, the New York Times reported:

The pattern of corruption, senior diplomats in Kabul say, is so pervasive that it has contributed, with deteriorating security conditions, to a collapse in the popular backing for the Karzai government.The diplomats point to the Interior Ministry, responsible for a police force of 80,000, as the most corrupt of all government organizations, with top officials routinely taking bribes for appointing police officers and protecting from arrest a wide range of wrongdoers, including drug traffickers who run Afghanistan’s $4-billion-a-year opium trade.

So a guy sacked for alleged corruption, who oversaw “the most corrupt” organization in the entire Afghan government, with corruption including involvement in the drug trade, is now heading the Afghan government’s “anti-drug” efforts.

I keep seeing Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 used in arguments favoring the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities. For example, from the Heritage Foundation just yesterday:

In June 1981, Israel launched a successful air strike against Iraq’s Osiraq reactor and inflicted a major setback on the Iraqi nuclear weapons program…. The 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor did not end Iraq’s nuclear weapons efforts, but it paid large dividends because Saddam Hussein’s regime never was able to replace the reactor.

The basic thrust of these arguments is that Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s reactor helped to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is absolutely false.

Read the rest of this entry

Channel 4 interview with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. For the report, click here.

A headline in today’s London Times:

Iran condemned by Western leaders over test of long-range missile

There was, unsurprisingly, no similar headline in the West reading anything like:

Israel condemned by Western leaders over test of long-range UAV

But a headline in the Jerusalem Post just a few days ago read:

Elbit tests UAV that can reach Iran

That article reported that Israel has a new UAV that could carry out surveillance over Iran (such as in preparation for an airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and which is also capable of carrying a payload of up to 300 kilograms.

The Times article reports:

Western governments united to denounce Iran’s test-firing of a long-range ballistic missile yesterday, warning that it would only increase international determination to press for more sanctions on Tehran if it refused to negotiate over its nuclear programme.

…

The extended range of 1,200 miles puts not only targets across the Middle East within striking distance but also reaches southeastern Europe. The new solid-fuel missile is also believed to have greater accuracy than previous models, which were capable of hitting Israel.

The implication is that Iran might use the missile to attack Israel. A bit further on, we read this not insignificant fact (emphasis added):

Israel, which has repeatedly threatened to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, declined to comment on the test.

The U.S. response was summarized by National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer, who said:

At a time when the international community has offered Iran opportunities to begin to build trust and confidence, Iran’s missile tests only undermine Iran’s claims of peaceful intentions.

Again, the implication is that Iran intends to use this missile to commit an act of aggression. The Times continues (emphasis added):

The US and its allies fear that Iran is covertly developing the technology to produce a nuclear weapon, and fear that its long-range missiles could be used to deliver them.

Israel considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its very existence after President Ahmadinejad called for it to be eliminated, and has repeatedly threatened to take military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a move most Western countries are desperate to avert. Israel has refused to rule out an attack should international sanctions against Iran fail to have the desired effect.

Iran has threatened to bomb Israel’s civilian nuclear reactors if it is attacked.

Read the rest of this entry

Earlier this month, the Taliban offered what was essentially a guarantee to prevent the return of Al Qaeda to Afghanistan in return for a withdraw of foreign troops. As Anand Gopal reported in the Wall Street Journal:

The Taliban said in a statement Saturday they would provide a “legal guarantee” that they wouldn’t intervene in foreign countries if international troops withdraw from Afghanistan, the closest the movement has come to publicly distancing itself from al Qaeda.

The Taliban have “no agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal guarantee if the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan,” the group said in a statement emailed to news organizations.

Gopal reported the U.S. response as follows:

U.S. officials are skeptical that the Taliban can be taken at their word. “This is the same group that refused to give up [Osama] bin Laden, even though they could have saved their country from war,” said a U.S. official. “They wouldn’t break with terrorists then, so why would we take them seriously now?”

But, on the contrary, the Taliban was reportedly furious at Osama bin Laden, who had offered them a written pledge not to engage in any attacks on other countries from his base in Afghanistan.

As for the assertion that the Taliban “refused to give up bin Laden”, while it’s certainly become an obligatory part of the official legend of 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terrorism”, it’s not exactly the whole story. They did refuse, yes, but only after offering to turn bin Laden over if the U.S. provided the evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. refused to provide the evidence; ergo the Taliban refused to turn him over.

Read the rest of this entry