Israel is the light onto the nations

Israel is the light onto the nations’ says the Torah. Indeed it is, and not just because the Torah says so. Israel is ahead of everyone else in many fronts. Take for instance, terrorizing civilian populations and practicing some of the most devastating murderous tactics upon elders, women and young.


The Jerusalem post reported yesterday that the Chairman of NATO's Military Committee, Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, visited Israel earlier this week to study “IDF tactics and methods that the military alliance can utilise for its war in Afghanistan.” A senior Israeli defence official added "The one thing on NATO's mind today is how to win in Afghanistan…Di Paola was very impressed by the IDF, which is a major source of information due to our operational experience."

I would advise both the Israeli official and Admiral Di Paola to slightly curb their enthusiasm. The IDF didn’t win a single war since 1967. Yes, it murdered many civilians, it flattened many cities, it starved millions, it has been committing war crimes on a daily basis for decades and yet, it didn’t win a war. Thus, the IDF cannot really teach NATO how to win in Afghanistan. If NATO generals are stupid enough to follow IDF tactics, like the Israeli generals, they will start to see the charges of war crimes pile up against them. They may even be lucky enough to share their cells with some Israelis in due course, once justice is performed.

Admiral Di Paola spent two days with the infamous IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, the man who led the IDF into Gaza last December.

In the Jewish state they were very enthusiastic with Admiral Di Paola’s visit. They regarded it as just another reassurance of ‘business as usual. The visit of a NATO high supreme official was there to convince them that no one takes note of the Goldstone report.

...

Israel is the light onto the nations

world heritage tour: Damascus

It is amazing the info available on the net. take a look at this site:

world heritage tours

I registered and looked at ancient Damascus. Here is a map displayed when we search for damascus. To discover more, and see the interactive panoramic photos, go and register. If you can, donate as well, and do subscribe to their feed:

world heritage tour.RSS

and for Damascus (Damishq), the link is:

Damascus interactive map

so Americans are not our enemy! then why:

Obama sends message to Muslims that Americans are not their enemy.

President to Muslim World: Americans are not your enemy

No question about that. Why should Americans be our enemy?

It is the US government, which is the enemy. Otherwise how can one explain the continued drone attacks that kill innocents, including women and children. And the continued shipment of deadly arsenal to Israel.



It is Obama's advisors one has to look at. Just as when we saw the neo-cons in important positions in the Bush administration, the result was a foregone conclusion, we see something similar in Obama's team:

Obama has three main types of Real Politik power players, who all report to the NWO:

* Militant Zionists (both Jew and Gentile), whom we mark below;

* Members of powerful "Think Tanks" (notably, the CFR - Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Conference, and the more recently founded Center for American Progress); and

* Former Bill Clinton Administration key officers (notably, in the Economic and Financial areas, because these Obama government officers are the same people - the veritable architects - of the irresponsible financial deregulation of the 90's under the Clinton Administrations that led to the present systemic global financial collapse in the first place).

Axelrod, David - Senior Adviser to President Obama - Political Consultant - journalist for The Chicago Tribune - Militant Zionist

Barnes, Melody - White Hourse Internal Policy Council - Center for American Progress

Biden, Joseph Vice-President - Senator (D-Del. from 1979 to 2008) - Member of the Senate Judiciary Commission - Former chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Biden is a Militant Zionist, who told Rabbi Mark S Golun in a TV program on the Israeli Shalom TV network,“I'm a Zionist. You don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist"

Browner, Carol - Energy and Climate Affairs Coordinator; Former director of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Bill Clinton Administration.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew - Senior Foreign Policy Advisor - Co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission - Director, CFR and the Trilateral Commission

Clinton, Hillary Rodham - Secretary of State - Wife of former president Bill Clinton - Former Senator (D- NY)- Militant Zionist - Directly linked to the CFR, Trilateral and Conferencia Bilderberg through her husband

Craig, Gregory B - Advisor - Former Policy Planning Director at the State Department during the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton's personal lawyer

Daschl, Thomas Andrew - Secretary of Health and Social Services - Former Senator (D-SD) and Majority Leaders . Former director at CitiCorp; Assisted Robert Rubin, (Advisor on Economic Affairs and former Treasury Secretary during the Bill Clinton Administration) - Zionist - Member, CFR and Bilderberg Conference

Emanuel, Rahm - Chief of Staff - Representative (D-Ill) since 2002 - Militant Zionist; Double-nationality: US and Israeli; Volunteer in the defense of Israel during the First Gulf War (1991 - led by former president George HW Bush against Iraq); Suspected of being an intelligence officer for the Israeli Armed Forces; Director at Freddie Mac; Adviser during the Clinton Administration; linked to Wasserstein Perella bank (Trilateral members); his father Benjamin Emanuel was a guerrilla fighter in the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi organization (then led by terrorist Menahem Beguin, later to become Israeli prime minister)

Froman, Michael BG - Adviser - Operates for Robert Rubin; "helped" Obama choose members of his team; Member, CFR

Furman, Jason - Advisor; Senior Adviser to Lawrence Summers (Clinton)- London School of Economics

Gates, Robert M - Secretary of Defense - Republican - Gates was named at the DoD by former president George W Bush in 2006 to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and yet was "confirmed by Obama" - Former director of the CIA under former president George H W Bush (Senior) - Co-chaired foreign policy CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski - Involved in the Iran-Contras Affair under the Reagan-Bush Administration - CFR, Bilderberg

Geithner Timothy F - Secretary of the Treasury - President since 2003 of the Federal Reserva Bank of New York. Prominent architect of the 2008 Banking Bail-out Plans, together with Bernard Bernanke (FED Governor - CFR), Henry Paulson (former Treasury Secretary – CFR) - Also held office during the Bill Clinton Administration, and was involved in the bail-outs of Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Brazil, Thailand in the nineties, under then Under-Secretary of the Treausury Lawrence Summers - Introduced to Obama by Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers - Former Director of Policy Development and Review Dept at the IMF – International Monetary Fund, from 2001 to 2003 - Former director at Kissinger Associates - Member of the Group of Thirty, his mentors include Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin. Member, CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg

Holder, Eric - Attorney General - Holder arranged for Bill Clinton to pardon racketeer Marc Rich when he was Janet Reno's Deputy Attorney General (Clinton)

Jones, James LA - Four-Star US Army Officer - National Security Officer (NSA) - Former NATO Forces Commander - Special Envoy to the Middle East for Security Affairs for former president George W Bush - Director at Chevron and Boeing - Zionist - Member of the Institute for International Affairs (founded by Air Force General Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor under George Bush Senior) together with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bobby Ray Inman (former CIA Director), Henry Kissinger and John Deutch (CIA director under Bill Clinton) - Member, CFR, TC, Bilderberg

Lippert Mark W - National Security Council Chief of Staff - Zionist - CFR

Mitchell, George - Special Envoy to the Middle East - Former officer during the Clinton Administration - Member, CFR

Napolitano, Janet - Secretary of Homeland Security - Former Attorney General for the State of Arizona - Member, CFR, TC

Orszag, Peter R - Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Member of Lawrence Summers' team – Clinton economic advisor.

Panetta, Leon - CIA Director - Former Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration.

Pfeiffer, Daniel - Deputy Commerce Director - Spokesman for Al Gore (Clinton) - His wife, Sarah Feinberg, is a Senior Assistant to Rahm Emanuel. Zionist

Podesta, John - Senior Adviser to Obama - Presidential adviser under the Clinton Administration - In 2003, he founded the Center for American Progress - Zionist

Power, Samantha - Public Policy Advisor - Wife of Cass Sunstein (director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)

Reed, Jack - Senator (D-RI) (CFR)

Rice, Susan -Permanent Representative (Ambassador) to the United Nations (under Obama ranks as cabinet level post) - Member of the National Security Council during the Bill Clinton Administration - Under-Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Clinton Administration - Member, CFR, Brookings Institution; and Aspen Strategy Group, together with CFR and Trilateral members Richard Armitage, Gral. Brent Scowcroft and Madeleine Albright.

Richardson, Bill - Secretary of Commerce (finally not confirmed) - Clintonite - Former officer at Kissinger Associates, CFR

Rubin, Robert - Senior Presidential Advisor - Director at CitiGroup, Former CEO, Goldman Sachs, Founder of the Hamilton Project, former Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton Administration - Zionist - CFR

Shinseki, Erick - Four-Star US Army General - Secretary for War Veterans' Affairs - CFR

Summers, Lawrence - Chairman, National Economic Council - Former Secretary of the Treasury during the Bill Clinton Administration (1999-2001) - Zionist - Former Economist-in-Chief at the World Bank - Former Dean of Harvard University - Member of Robert Rubin's team - Member, CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg, Brookings (director).

Sunstein, Cass - Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - Husband of Samantha Power (Advisor on Public Policies)

Sutphen, Mona - Deputy Chief of Staff - Executive Director, Stonebridge International - Member of the National Security Council (Clinton) - Member, CFR

Volcker Paul - Chairman of Obama's Advisory Board on Economic Recovery - Former Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank (1979 to 1987 – during the Carter and Reagan Administrations) - Zionist - Member of the "Group of Thirty" - President of Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, intimately linked to the Rockefeller family - CFR; North American Director of the Trilateral Commission; Bilderberger.

why Israelis are proud

Of killing more than 1400 Palestinians, overwhelmingly civilian, 410 of them children. Must be proud of using Phosphorus bombs, like they were proud of using cluster bombs in Lebanon.

(10 pictures)

3 / 10



Amal Abed Rabbo, two, pictured after she died in an attack at the village of Izbit Abed Rabbo, on January 7, 2009. According to her father Khalid, 30, Amal and her sister Souad, seven, were killed by gunfire from an Israeli tank after soldiers ordered the family out of their house. Another sister, Samer, four, survived the attack but is paralysed below the waist. “Amal was just learning to talk,” said Khalid. “I want to know from the Israeli army: why did they kill my daughters?”
Photograph: Family photograph

Pasted from

The Gaza massacres and offshore gas fields

War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields
News Watch
Sunday, 11 January 2009

Update: in response to the request for maps mentioned in the first comment, the post has now been modified to include the maps:



The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon's Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine's gas reserves could be much larger.

Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza's gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza's offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine's sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that "Israel would never buy gas from Palestine" intimating that Gaza's offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza's offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas "was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt." (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority." The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

"Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government." (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza's offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

"Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror". (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on "The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas," March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza's Coastal Waters Threaten Israel's National Security? Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel's intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under "Operation Cast Lead" was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

"Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas."(Barak Ravid, Operation "Cast Lead": Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza's natural gas:

"Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel's wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel's request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials." (Globes online- Israel's Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new "post war" political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG's offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

"Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government's decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender." (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine's Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or "peacekeeping" troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza's maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel's offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel's energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport - pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. "What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

Boycott supporters of Israeli wars

BOYCOTT ISRAEL COMPANY LIST

AOL Time Warner
Time Life magazine, CNN, ICQ

Apax Partners
Jonny Rockets, Sunglass Hut.

Arsenal Football Club

Coca-Cola
Fruitopia, Fanta, Kia Orange, Lilt, Sprite, Sunkist..

Caterpillar

Danone
HP foods, Evian, Volvic, Jacob

Delta Galil
Hema, Barbie, Carrefour, Auchan, Tchibo, Victoria's Secret, GAP, Banana Republic, Structure, J-Crew, JC Penny, Pryca, Lindex, DIM, DKNY, Ralph Lauren, Playtex, cK, Hugo Boss, M&S

Disney

Emblaze

Estée Lauder
Aramis, Clinique, DKNY, Prescriptives, Origins, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Tommy Hilfiger, Jane, Donna Karan, Aveda, Stila, Jo Malone, Bumble & Bumble, Kate Spade

Home Depot
Villager's Hardware, Georgia Lighting, Apex Supply, EXPO Design Centres

IBM

Intel

Johnson & Johnson

Kimberly-Clark
Kleenex, Kotex, Huggies, Andrex

Lewis Trust Group
River Island, Isrotel hotels, Britannia Pacific

The Limited Inc
Express stores, Lerner New York, Structure, New York & Company, Mast Industries, Intimate Brands, Victoria's Secret, Bath & Body Works, White Barn Candle Company, Henri Bendel

L'Oreal
Giorgio Armani, Redken 5th Avenue, Lancome Paris, Vichy, Cacharel, La Roche-Posay, Garnier, Biotherm, Helena Rubinstein, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren, Carson

Marks & Spencer
M&S, St.Michaels

McDonald's

Motorola

Nestle
Nescafé, Perrier, Vittel, Pure Life, Carnation, Libby's, Milkmaid, Nesquik, Maggi, Buitoni, Cross & Blackwell, KitKat, Milkybar, Quality Street, Smarties, After Eight, Aero, Polo, Lion, Felix cat food, L'Oréal

News Corporation
TV: Fox, Sky, Star, Phoenix, Granada, CNBC. UK newspapers: Standard Newspaper, News of the World, The Sun, The Times. Australian Newspapers: The Telegraph , Gold Coast Bulletin, Herald Sun, Independent, Sunday Mail. US newspapers: New York Post. Publishers: Harper Collins Ragan, Zondervan, National Geographical. Nursery World, Rawkus, NDS, Mushroom Records, ChinaByte.com, Festival Records

Nokia

Revlon
New World Entertainment, Forbes

Sara Lee
Hanes, Playtex, Champion, Leggs, Douwe Egberts, Bryan, DIM, Ambi Pur, Bali, Superior Coffee, Just My Size, Kiwi, Maison Cafe, Nur die, Pilao, Lovable, Outer Banks, Wonderbra, Sanex, Pickwick, Gossard, Body Mist, Brylcreem, Aqua Velva, Radox

Siemens

Selfridges

Starbucks
Seattle Coffee, Pasqua, Hear Music, Tazo

Timberland


Boycott List by Brand - View the Labels to boycott

Gift for Bush from Iraq

A lifeline abroad for Iraq children

This is a step in the right direction, but the WAR profiteers should be made to pay more, much more than what Hope.MD is requesting them.

A lifeline abroad for Iraq children

Army doctor, colleague create nonprofit to link young with needed care

By Ernesto Londoño


updated 12:13 a.m. ET Dec. 3, 2008

BAGHDAD - A couple of months after Capt. Jonathan Heavey, a Walter Reed Army Medical Center physician, arrived in Baghdad, an Iraqi doctor handed him the medical file of a 2-year-old boy with a life-threatening heart ailment. The doctor said the boy couldn't get the care he needed in Iraq.

Heavey decided to help. He e-mailed a copy of the child's electrocardiogram and other information to a former colleague at the University of Virginia, who agreed to treat the boy for free. Then Heavey began the many-layered process of applying for U.S. visas for the boy and a female guardian. Among other things, Heavey had to provide proof that the guardian wasn't pregnant. Two months into the process, the boy died.

"It was pretty crushing," said Heavey, a 33-year-old battalion surgeon assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division. "It was incredibly disappointing to know there are academic facilities back home willing and able to help. But there were just too many logistical hurdles."

Appalled by the state of Iraq's health-care system and frustrated by rules preventing military doctors from treating Iraqis, Heavey and a colleague, Capt. John Knight, 36, began arranging for sick Iraqi children to receive free medical treatment abroad. During their year-long deployment, which ended last month, they created a nonprofit organization that has sent 12 children overseas for medical care, funded by $17,000 that Heavey and Knight have contributed from their own pockets and raised from family and friends.

Heavey, who is so polite and soft-spoken that he seems out of place among gruff infantrymen, and Knight, 36, a physician assistant, worked at a small aid station inside the high walls of Forward Operating Base Justice, a U.S. military base in the Kadhimiyah section of northern Baghdad.

Late last year, they visited a hospital where malnourished and neglected children rescued from an orphanage were being treated. A U.S. Army civil affairs unit had visited the orphanage and discovered children lying naked on the floor, surrounded by excrement. The plight of the children, some of whom had cholera, drew media attention in the United States and elsewhere.

Heavey and Knight, who both have young children, were haunted by what they had seen.

One day, as they worked out in the outpost's windowless gym, the pair decided to start an organization. They had their doubts: Maybe there would be mounds of red tape and cultural barriers to overcome. Maybe they'd be able to help no more than a handful of kids. Maybe it wouldn't work at all.

But as Knight later explained it: "We want to help people. We still really believe in what we do."

When they floated the idea around FOB Justice, many of their superiors and colleagues rolled their eyes. Then they approached military lawyers to ask whether, as Defense Department employees, they could solicit contributions.

"They were flippant about it," Knight said. "They didn't think it was going to go anywhere."

From that point, Heavey and Knight spent every spare minute on the organization. They lugged their laptops along on missions so they could work on their project during downtime. They spent hours downloading documents using the outpost's maddeningly slow Internet connection. They reached out to nonprofits and sent e-mails to friends, acquaintances and friends of friends asking for help.

Their first case involved an 11-year-old boy who had been admitted to a U.S. military hospital in Baghdad after being wounded in an insurgent attack. He had sustained severe burns and lost large amounts of tissue. An infection required expensive antibiotics.

Heavey contacted a friend at the University of Cincinnati, who agreed to take the case and found a family willing to take care of the boy and his grandmother during the treatment. Things came together at the last minute, just as doctors at the military hospital in Baghdad were concluding that they had to discharge the boy.

"Telling us they had to kick him out," Heavey said.

Heavey and Knight purchased the airfare for the child and his grandmother, who left Baghdad in late April. They are still in Cincinnati, where the boy's treatment at Shriners Hospital for Children has gone well.

"We got one!" Heavey told Knight after the boy and his grandmother left Iraq. "Now it's time to open the gate."

Army lawyers told them they could raise money for the foundation as long as they didn't identify themselves as military officers. They hired an Indian company to create a Web site, Hope.MD. The Internal Revenue Service responded to their application for nonprofit status with a letter saying they would need to submit additional documents to demonstrate that the organization wouldn't support terrorists.

"We found that to be particularly entertaining," Heavey said.

The next few cases Heavey and Knight took on involved children who were legally blind. Esen Karamursel Akpek, an ophthalmologist from Turkey at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, agreed to volunteer her services. The children are being treated at a hospital in Istanbul free of charge.

With dozens of additional cases in the pipeline and the end of their deployment just a few months away, Heavey and Knight started thinking of ways to broaden the reach of their organization. Knight jokingly suggested that they raise money from defense contractors.

"The next thing I knew, Jon was actually doing it," Knight said.

Heavey hovered around the computer during the seven hours it took to download Securities and Exchange Commission financial reports on the top 10 defense contractors. Two weeks later, with all the documents in hand, he created a database that juxtaposed the companies' revenue and net income for 2002 and 2007. Lockheed Martin, for example, posted $26.58 billion in revenue in 2002 and $41.86 billion in 2007. Halliburton saw its revenue increase from $12.57 billion to $22.58 billion during the same period.

"You always have a hunch that there are people who make money off a war," Heavey said. "But you never really grasp the extent of it until you look at the figures. It's mind-blowing."

In October, Heavey sent letters to Lockheed Martin, Halliburton and eight other companies, detailing what he had learned about their revenue.

"Greetings from sunny Kadamiyah Baghdad!" Heavey wrote, telling them briefly about Hope.MD and the handful of children the organization had been able to help. "Using our own funding we have helped nearly a dozen children receive surgery for life-threatening and disabling conditions they suffered in violent attacks. According to the revenue and income metrics below, it appears to us that you have considerably greater resources to help more children."

Heavey asked the executives to match, dollar for dollar, any money that Hope.MD is able to raise online.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28025600/

What does the US stand for?

What Do We Stand For?

By Paul Craig Roberts

18/02/08 "ICH" --- - Americans traditionally thought of their country as a "city upon a hill," a "light unto the world." Today only the deluded think that. Polls show that the rest of the world regards the U.S. and Israel as the two greatest threats to peace.

This is not surprising. In the words of Arthur Silber:

"The Bush administration has announced to the world, and to all Americans, that this is what the United States now stands for: a vicious determination to dominate the world, criminal, genocidal wars of aggression, torture, and an increasingly brutal and brutalizing authoritarian state at home. That is what we stand for."

Addressing his fellow Americans, Silber asks the paramount question: "why do you support" these horrors?

His question goes to the heart of the matter. Do we Americans have any honor, any humanity, any integrity, any awareness of the crimes our government is committing in our name? Do we have a moral conscience?

How can a moral conscience be reconciled with our continuing to tolerate our government which has invaded two countries on the basis of lies and deception, destroyed their civilian infrastructures and murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children?

The killing and occupation continue even though we now know that the invasions were based on lies and fabricated "evidence." The entire world knows this. Yet Americans continue to act as if the gratuitous invasions, the gratuitous killing, and the gratuitous destruction are justified. There is no end of it in sight.

If Americans have any honor, how can they betray their Founding Fathers, who gave them liberty, by tolerating a government that claims immunity to law and the Constitution and is erecting a police state in their midst?

Answers to these questions vary. Some reply that a fearful and deceived American public seeks safety from terrorists in government power.

Others answer that a majority of Americans finally understand the evil that Bush has set loose and tried to stop him by voting out the Republicans in November 2006 and putting the Democrats in control of Congress – all to no effect – and are now demoralized as neither party gives a hoot for public opinion or has a moral conscience.

The people ask over and over, "What can we do?"

Very little when the institutions put in place to protect the people from tyranny fail. In the U.S., the institutions have failed across the board.

The freedom and independence of the watchdog press was destroyed by the media concentration that was permitted by the Clinton administration and Congress. Americans who rely on traditional print and TV media simply have no idea what is afoot.

Political competition failed when the opposition party became a "me-too" party. The Democrats even confirmed as attorney general Michael Mukasey, an authoritarian who refuses to condemn torture and whose rulings as a federal judge undermined habeas corpus. Such a person is now the highest law enforcement officer in the United States.

The judicial system failed when federal judges ruled that "state secrets" and "national security" are more important than government accountability and the rule of law.

The separation of powers failed when Congress acquiesced to the executive branch's claims of primary power and independence from statutory law and the Constitution.

It failed again when the Democrats refused to impeach Bush and Cheney, the two greatest criminals in American political history.

Without the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, America can never recover. The precedents for unaccountable government established by the Bush administration are too great, their damage too lasting. Without impeachment, America will continue to sink into dictatorship in which criticism of the government and appeals to the Constitution are criminalized. We are closer to executive rule than many people know.

Silber reminds us that America once had leaders, such as Speaker of the House Thomas B. Reed and Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Sr., who valued the principles upon which America was based more than they valued their political careers. Perhaps Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are of this ilk, but America has fallen so low that people who stand on principle today are marginalized. They cannot become speaker of the House or a leader in the Senate.

Today Congress is almost as superfluous as the Roman Senate under the caesars. On Feb. 13 the U.S. Senate barely passed a bill banning torture, and the White House promptly announced that President Bush would veto it. Torture is now the American way. The U.S. Senate was only able to muster 51 votes against torture, an indication that almost a majority of U.S. senators support torture.

Bush says that his administration does not torture. So why veto a bill prohibiting torture? Bush seems proud to present America to the world as a torturer.

After years of lying to Americans and the rest of the world that Guantanamo prison contained 774 of "the world's most dangerous terrorists," the Bush regime is bringing six of its victims to trial. The vast majority of the 774 detainees have been quietly released. The U.S. government stole years of life from hundreds of ordinary people who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were captured by warlords and sold to the stupid Americans as "terrorists." Needing terrorists to keep the farce going, the U.S. government dropped leaflets in Afghanistan offering $25,000 a head for "terrorists." Kidnappings ensued until the U.S. government had purchased enough "terrorists" to validate the "terrorist threat."

The six that the U.S. is bringing to "trial" include two child soldiers for the Taliban and a car-pool driver who allegedly drove bin Laden.

The Taliban did not attack the U.S. The child soldiers were fighting in an Afghan civil war. The U.S. attacked the Taliban. How does that make Taliban soldiers terrorists who should be locked up and abused in Gitmo and brought before a kangaroo military tribunal? If a terrorist hires a driver or a taxi, does that make the driver a terrorist? What about the pilots of the airliners who brought the alleged 9/11 terrorists to the U.S.? Are they guilty, too?

The Gitmo trials are show trials. Their only purpose is to create the precedent that the executive branch can ignore the U.S. court system and try people in the same manner that innocent people were tried in Stalinist Russia and Gestapo Germany. If the Bush regime had any real evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it would have no need for its kangaroo military tribunal.

If any more proof is needed that Bush has no case against any of the Gitmo detainees, the following AP report, Feb. 14, 2008, should suffice: "The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to limit judges' authority to scrutinize evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

The reason Bush doesn't want judges to see the evidence is that there is no evidence except a few confessions obtained by torture. In the American system of justice, confession obtained by torture is self-incrimination and is impermissible evidence under the U.S. Constitution.

Andy Worthington's book, The Guantanamo Files, and his online articles make it perfectly clear that the "dangerous terrorists" claim of the Bush administration is just another hoax perpetrated on the inattentive American public.

Recently the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity issued a report that documents the fact that Bush administration officials made 935 false statements about Iraq to the American people in order to deceive them into going along with Bush's invasion. In recent testimony before Congress, Bush's secretary of state and former national security adviser, Condi Rice, was asked by Rep. Robert Wexler about the 56 false statements she made.

Rice replied: "[I] take my integrity very seriously, and I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false." Rice blamed "the intelligence assessments" which "were wrong."

Another Rice lie, like those mushroom clouds that were going to go up over American cities if we didn't invade Iraq. The weapon inspectors told the Bush administration that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as Scott Ritter has reminded us over and over. Every knowledgeable person in the country knew there were no weapons. As the leaked Downing Street memo confirms, the head of British intelligence told the UK cabinet that the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq and was making up the intelligence to justify the invasion.

But let's assume that Rice was fooled by faulty intelligence. If she had any integrity she would have resigned. In the days when American government officials had integrity, they would have resigned in shame from such a disastrous war and terrible destruction based on their mistake. But Condi Rice, like all the Bush (and Clinton) operatives, is too full of American self-righteousness and ambition to have any remorse about her mistake. Condi can still look herself in the mirror despite one million Iraqis dying from her mistake and several million more being homeless refugees, just as Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, can still look herself in the mirror despite sharing responsibility for 500,000 dead Iraqi children.

There is no one in the Bush administration with enough integrity to resign. It is a government devoid of truth, morality, decency, and honor. The Bush administration is a blight upon America and upon the world.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.

Did Canada stay out of the Iraq War?

Canada’s Secret War in Iraq

By Richard Sanders

How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again! – Mark Twain

18/02/08 "CommonGround" -- - On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:
Escorting the US Navy: Thirteen hundred Canadian troops aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar warships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq.

Leading the coalition Navy: Canadian Rear Admiral Roger Girouard was in charge of the war coalition’s fleet.

Providing war planners: At least two dozen Canadian war planners working at US Central Command in Florida were transferred to the Persian Gulf in early 2003 to help oversee the war’s complicated logistics.

Commanding the war: In 2004, Canadian Brigadier General Walt Natynczyk commanded 10 brigades totalling 35,000 troops. He was Second-in-Command of the entire Iraq War for that year. When Governor General Clarkson gave Natynczyk the Meritorious Service Cross, her office extolled his “pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations [which] resulted in a tremendous contribution… to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and… brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.”

Helping coordinate the war: Canadian military personnel working aboard American E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System warplanes helped direct the electronic war by providing surveillance, command, control and communications services to US war fighters.

Providing airspace and refuelling: Countless US troop and equipment transport aircraft have flown over Canada, to and from the Iraq War, and many refuelled in Gander, Newfoundland.

Providing air transport: At least three Canadian CC-130 military transport planes were listed by US military to supply coalition forces during the Iraq War.

Freeing up US troops: Canada’s major role in Afghan war has freed up thousands of US troops for deployment to Iraq.
Providing ground troops: At least 35 Canadian soldiers were directly under US command, in an “exchange” capacity on the ground, participating in the invasion of Iraq.

Testing weapons and drones: Two types of cruise missiles (AGM-86 and -129) and the “Global Hawk” (RQ-4A) surveillance drone, used in Iraq, were tested over Canada.

Depleted uranium (DU) weapons: Canada is the world’s top exporter of uranium. Our government pretends that Canada’s uranium is sold for “peaceful” purposes only, but absolutely nothing is done to stop the US from using DU in their weapons. America’s A-10 Wart Hog warplanes have fired DU munitions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, while each cruise missile contains three kgs of DU ballast. Providing RADARSAT data: Eagle Vision, a US Air Force mobile ground station, ­which controls Canada’s RADARSAT-1 satellite and downlinks its data­, was used from the start of the Iraq War.

Diplomatic support: Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien supported the “right” of the US to invade Iraq, although Kofi Annan said it was an illegal occupation. Chrétien criticized Canadian citizens who questioned the war, saying they provided comfort to Saddam Hussein.

Training Iraqi police: Canada has spent millions sending RCMP officers to Jordan to train tens of thousands of cadets for Iraq’s paramilitary police force.

Training Iraqi troops: High-level Canadian military personnel joined the “NATO Training Mission in Iraq” to “train the trainers” of Iraqi Security Forces who are on the leading edge of the US occupation. A Canadian colonel, under NATO command, was chief of staff at the Baghdad-based training mission. Canada was the leading donor to this centre, providing an initial $810 thousand.

Funding Iraq’s interior ministry: Canada provides advisors and financial support to this ministry, which has been caught running torture centres. Thousands of its officers have been withdrawn for corruption, and it has been accused of working with death squads that executed a thousand people per month in Baghdad alone in the summer of 2006.

Military exports: At least 100 Canadian companies sold parts and/or services for major weapons systems used in the Iraq War. Quebec’s SNC-TEC sold millions of bullets to the US military forces occupying Iraq. General Dynamics Canada, in London Ontario, sold hundreds of armoured vehicles to the US and Australia. Between October 2003 and November 2005, these troop transport vehicles logged over six million miles in Iraq. Winnipeg’s Bristol Aerospace sells cluster-bomb dispensing warheads used by US aircraft in Iraq.

Canada Pension Plan investments: Canadians are forced to invest their pension money in hundreds of military industries, including most of the world’s top 20 weapons producers, which are the leading prime contractors for virtually all the major weapons systems used in Iraq.

So the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq War, remind them of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

For more information on the myth of Canada’s role as a global peacemaker, read Press for Conversion, http://coat.ncf.ca or write to COAT, 541 McLeod St., Ottawa, ON, K1R 5R2. Richard Sanders is the coordinator for the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade.

CommonGround.ca © Copyright 1982-2006 Common Ground Publishing Corp.
All rights reserved.

girl solo in Arabia

a pictorial and written redord of a woman trying to trace ibne batuta's travels. A goldmine of the Islamic world

The Saudi Royal Family (2002) - CBS News -

The Saudi Royal Family video by CBS

odious excuses

Here come the odious excuses

The philosophers behind the bloodbath in Iraq are now washing their hands

By Robert Fisk

11/11/06 "The Independent" -- -- "Great news from America!" the cashier at my local Beirut bookshop shouted at me yesterday morning, raising her thumbs in the air. "Things will be better after these elections?" Alas, I said. Alas, no. Things are going to get worse in the Middle East even if, in two years' time, America is blessed with a Democrat (and democratic) president. For the disastrous philosophers behind the bloodbath in Iraq are now washing their hands of the whole mess and crying "Not Us!" with the same enthusiasm as the Lebanese lady in my book shop, while the "experts" on the mainstream US east coast press are preparing the ground for our Iraqi retreat - by blaming it all on those greedy, blood-lusting, anarchic, depraved, uncompromising Iraqis.

I must say that Richard Perle's version of a mea culpa did take my breath away. Here was the ex-chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee - he who once told us that "Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform" - now admitting that he "underestimated the depravity" in Iraq. He holds the president responsible, of course, acknowledging only that - and here, dear reader, swallow hard - "I think if I had been Delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said: 'Should we go into Iraq?' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies...'"

Maybe I find this self-righteous, odious mea culpa all the more objectionable because the same miserable man was shouting abuse down a radio line to me in Baghdad a couple of years ago, condemning me for claiming that America was losing its war in Iraq and claiming that I was "a supporter of the maintenance of the Baathist regime". This lie, I might add, was particularly malicious since I was reporting Saddam's mass rapes and mass hangings at Abu Ghraib prison (and being refused Iraqi visas) when Perle and his cohorts were silent about Saddam's wickedness and when their chum Donald Rumsfeld was cheerfully shaking the monster's hand in Baghdad in an attempt to reopen the US embassy there.

Not that Perle isn't in good company. Kenneth Adelman, the Pentagon neocon who also beat the drums for war, has been telling Vanity Fair that "the idea of using our power for moral good in the world" is dead. As for Adelman's mate David Frumm, well he's decided that George Bush just "did not absorb the ideas" behind the speeches Frumm wrote for him. But this, I'm afraid, is not the worst to come from those who encouraged us to invade Iraq and start a war which has cost the lives of perhaps 600,000 civilians.

For a new phenomenon is creeping into the pages of The New York Times and those other great organs of state in America. For those journalists who supported the war, it's not enough to bash George. No, they've got a new flag to fly: the Iraqis don't deserve us. David Brooks - he who once told us that neocons such as Perle had nothing to do with the President's decision to invade Iraq - has been ransacking his way through Elie Kedourie's 1970 essay on the British occupation of Mesopotamia in the 1920s. And what has he discovered? That "the British tried to encourage responsible leadership to no avail", quoting a British officer at the time as concluding that Iraqi Shia "have no motive for refraining from sacrificing the interests of Iraq to those which they conceive to be their own".

But the Brooks article in The New York Times was also frightening. Iraq, he now informs us, is suffering "a complete social integration", and "American blunders" were exacerbated "by the same old Iraqi demons: greed, blood lust and a mind-boggling unwillingness to compromise, even in the face of self-immolation". Iraq, Brooks has decided, is "teetering on the edge of futility" (whatever that means) and if American troops cannot restore order, "it will be time to effectively end Iraq", diffusing authority down to "the clan, the tribe or sect" which - wait for it - are "the only communities which are viable".

Nor should you believe that the Brooks article represents a lone voice. Here is Ralph Peters, a USA Today writer and retired US army officer. He had supported the invasion because, he says, he was "convinced that the Middle East was so politically, socially, morally and intellectually stagnant that we (sic) had to risk intervention - or face generations of terrorism and tumult". For all Washington's errors, Peters boasts, "we did give the Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy".

But those pesky Iraqis, it now seems, "preferred to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry and a culture of corruption". Peters' conclusion? "Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it." As a result, "it's their tragedy, not ours. Iraq was the Arab world's last chance to board the train to modernity, to give the region a future...". Incredibly, Peters finishes by believing that "if the Arab world and Iran embark on an orgy of bloodshed, the harsh truth is that we may be the beneficiaries" because Iraq will have "consumed" "terrorists" and the United States will "still be the greatest power on earth".

It's not the shamefulness of all this - do none of these men have any shame? - but the racist assumption that the hecatomb in Iraq is all the fault of the Iraqis, that their intrinsic backwardness, their viciousness, their failure to appreciate the fruits of our civilisation make them unworthy of our further attention. At no point does anyone question whether the fact that America is "the greatest power on earth" might not be part of the problem. Nor that Iraqis who endured among their worst years of dictatorship when Saddam was supported by the United States, who were sanctioned by the UN at a cost of a half a million children's lives and who were then brutally invaded by our armies, might not actually be terribly keen on all the good things we wished to offer them. Many Arabs, as I've written before, would like some of our democracy, but they would also like another kind of freedom - freedom from us.

But you get the point. We are preparing our get-out excuses. The Iraqis don't deserve us. Screw them. That's the grit we're laying down on the desert floor to help our tanks .

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

The missing trillions

When the Democrats vacated the White House, there were 5 trillion dollars surplus in the US Treasury.

Six years later, with bipartisan support, that five trillion is gone. At the end of 2005, the US foreign debt was $3.7 trillion. By the end of 2006 it would be more than $4.6 trillion:

http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/91472

The Outstanding US Public Debt as of 09 Nov 2006 at 12:38:54 PM GMT is:

$8,596,772,293,773.06

The estimated population of the United States is 300,183,662
so each US citizen's share of this debt is $28,638.56.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.19 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

The US has fought wars in this time to the tune of 1/2 a trillion in direct costs, and much much more in indirect ones. Let us say a cost of one trillion dollars.

Congratulations, US! I am sure anyone with a little common sense would have been able to provide you security at a much, much less price, and instead of you losing world goodwill, would have been able to enhance it.

This of course does not count the loss and destruction:

o of lives,
o of infrastructure,
o of peace,

but then the US doesn't do body counts, nor estimate the cost to others of its wars.

U.S. vetoes resolutions critical of Israel

Vetoes: 1972-1982

Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote

Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1

Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)

Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1

Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)

Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0

Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4

Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4

Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5

Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1

Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0

Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0

Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1

Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3

Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1


Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Subject Date Vote

Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983

S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)

Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)

Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)

Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)

Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)

Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)

Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)

Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)

Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions (Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)

Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Britain and Norway)

On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse 12/19/2002 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Bulgaria and Cameroon)

Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US) ith three abstentions (Britain, Germany and Bulgaria)

Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon)

Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three absentations (Britain, Germany, Romania)

Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 10/05/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three absentations (Britain, Germany, Romania)

Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 7/13/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US) with four absentations (Britain, Peru, Denmark and Slovakia)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. State Department; UN, various news sources

Fictions About the Failure at Camp David

July 8, 2001

Fictions About the Failure at Camp David

Fictions About the Failure at Camp David
By ROBERT MALLEY

WASHINGTON — A year ago this week, President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat gathered at Camp David for what, in retrospect, many consider a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. From right to left, hawks to doves, comes unusual harmony of opinion both here and in Israel: Camp David is said to have been a test that Mr. Barak passed and Mr. Arafat failed. Offered close to 99 percent of their dreams, the thinking goes, the Palestinians said no and chose to hold out for more. Worse, they did not present any concession of their own, adopting a no-compromise attitude that unmasked their unwillingness to live peacefully with a Jewish state by their side.

I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment. But there is no purpose — and considerable harm — in adding to their real mistakes a list of fictional ones. Here are the most dangerous myths about the Camp David summit.

Myth 1: Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions.

Mr. Arafat told us on numerous occasions that he had not wanted to go to Camp David. He thought that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had not sufficiently narrowed the gaps separating their positions before the summit, and once there, he made clear in his comments that he felt both isolated from the Arab world and alienated by the close Israeli-American partnership. Moreover, the summit occurred at a low point in Mr. Arafat's relationship with Mr. Barak — the man with whom he was supposed to strike a historic deal. A number of Israeli commitments, including a long-postponed Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and the transfer to Palestinian control of villages abutting Jerusalem, remained unfulfilled, and Mr. Arafat believed that Mr. Barak was simply trying to skirt his obligations. It also took a genuine leap of faith — for Mr. Barak as for the United States — to imagine that the 100-year conflict between Jews and Palestinians living in this region, with roots going back thousands of years more and tens of thousands of victims along the way, could be resolved in a fortnight without any of the core issues — territory, refugees, or the fate of Jerusalem — having previously been discussed by the leaders.

Myth 2: Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations.

Yes, what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past — whether with the Palestinians or with Washington. But it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective.

To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?

In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third- holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees — for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter — the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a "satisfactory solution," leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.

Myth 3: The Palestinians made no concession of their own.

Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises.

If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.

The facts do not indicate, however, any lack of foresight or vision on the part of Ehud Barak. He had uncommon political courage as well. But the measure of Israel's concessions ought not be how far it has moved from its own starting point; it must be how far it has moved toward a fair solution.

The Palestinians did not meet their historic responsibilities at the summit either. I suspect they will long regret their failure to respond to President Clinton — at Camp David and later on — with more forthcoming and comprehensive ideas of their own.

Finally, Camp David was not rushed. It was many things — inadequately prepared for, perhaps; too informal, possibly; lacking proper fall-back options, without a doubt — but premature it was not. By the spring of 2000, every serious Israeli, Palestinian and American analyst was predicting an outbreak of Palestinian violence absent a major breakthrough in the peace process. The Oslo process had run its natural course; if anything, tackling the sensitive final status issues came too late, not too soon.

The gloss that is put on the past matters. The way the two sides choose to view yesterday largely will determine how they choose to behave tomorrow. And, if unchallenged, their respective interpretations will gradually harden into divergent versions of reality and unassailable truths — that Yasir Arafat is incapable of reaching a final agreement, for example, or that Israel is intent on perpetuating an oppressive regime. As the two sides continue to debate what went wrong at Camp David, it is important that they get the lessons right.

Robert Malley was special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. He is joining the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior fellow.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information

War Profiteers

Iraq for Sale

That’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

Alas, the truth is out. This Forum has discovered and agreed that Islamic extremism is the greatest threat the world faces today. Everyone can see it but the moronic Muslims themselves:

· There protests and boycotts and burning of Embassies and threats over things so innocuous as cartoons. Surely cartoons are for laughing. Don’t Muslims have a sense of humor?

· The suicide bombings, and the sacrifice of their sons and daughters for political mileage. Don’t we know that 99% of all Muslim suffering is either fake or self-inficted. For example, wasn’t Ibrahim Durra killed by Palestinian’s own gunfire. They are known to kill their own children just to show that the Israelis are bad. Everyone knows that except for the Trotskyites and Anarchists who have thrown their lot with the Muslims.

· I mean if the Muslims wanted to fight fair and square, they would have surrendered all their weapons, and come out in the open fields, and be game for the helicopter gunships and the F16s and the smart bombs and the daisy cutters and the cluster bombs and the depleted Uranium. Then they would see how benign and benevolent civilised nations are, for after annihilating their extremists, for whenever a Muslim is killed, an extremist bites the dust, of course the benevolent nations would look after the remaining ones. Didn’t the West nurse defeated Germany and Japan back to economic health. So what if the folk in Hiroshima are dying of Cancer. Someone has to pay a price for exterminating extremism.

· Oh! I like that. Let me repeat it. Exterminating extremism!!!

· I could go on and on, but for the good intelligent people on forum, this should be enough.

So the big question is not that there is a manipulative huge war industry, or a similar oil industry, or that the Bretton Woods sisters have had the people of the third world in bondage. The big isssue is that Muslims are extremists.

Never mind that the thousands abducted and kidnapped in the wake of the war on terror have been shown the kindness of being allowed the chance of a lifetime, of spending years on end in a tropical paradise without having to work for an honest living. Isn’t this Heaven for them? If these Muslims had any sense, they would be grateful.

These whiners and extremists keep parroting that the world major powers are sick, that they have made life miserable for a lot, a very huge lot, of the world’s population.

Had they accepted their position in life, of not having title to property, of not being able to pass on their heritage to their children, of not having to worry about families because if we separate them from their families, it is for their own good. What one doesn’t see doesn’t hurt one. But as I said, this is an ungrateful mob.

The question is why are these Muslims extremists, and how to cure them of this disease. Why do they not accept the status quo? If they had started living in bantustans when these were offered to them, they would have graduated to municipalities by now. But they have no foresight.

Why, oh why, are the Muslims so stupid and extremist. We mean the best for them.

Didn’t we in Sabira and Shatila?

So why are these Muslims extremists?

There is an answer that will satisfy the religious, another that will satisfy those who think in terms of politics, yet another other that involves a clash of civilizations, and then there is the truth. I weighed the options of all these very carefully, for we know I am a Muslim, and Muslims do not tell the truth. Why? This is confirmed by the very fact that I am secretive about myself, and by extention, would be too of my religion’s hideous extremism. But by the look of things, this is a Forum for truth and free speech.

OK then, I will take the plunge and tell you the truth about us Muslims.

There is a huge secret about us that is known only to a few, but perhaps some of the truth has got out, hence this great urge to know and destroy the evil that is in Muslims.

G-d knows the world has tried. All countries of the world are trying their best to kill this cancer, but it hasn’t been conquered yet. The Phillipines tried with the Moros. The Thais with their Malay population in the southern provinces. The Russians deported the whole lot of them to Siberia, not once but twice, yet their extremism isn’t cured. The Indians keep an army of seven million in Kashmir to control these extremists. The US (and the UN forces) tried this in Afghanistan and it looked like they had succeeded in Tora Bora, yet these cursed ones have resurfaced. The US went all out to destroy the WMDs they possessed in Iraq, never mind that Iraq had any. The US gave them democracy (replacing the dictator Saddam, who admittedly was funded and supplied with weapons to fight another Muslim country. Mind you, that thing also looked like it was working, but when the US decided, in its infinite wisdom – the wisdom that only the High and Mighty have – that it needed bases in Saudi Arabia, these extremists cried foul, and the US had to give a demonstration of its might, funded of course by the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. And so on and so forth …

These Muslims think the US wants Israel as its viceroy in the ME, and wants to control the oil. Why, the US pays for the oil, and is it any fault of the US if these Muslims can only be controlled by murderous dictators and corrupt kings?

But these extremists would not let well enough alone, and started to fight the might of the one SuperPower. What hopeless cause? Israel has tried time and again to knock this sense into them, yet they persist in their evil ways of resisting what is offered to them.

Research on Islam is not new. It has been going on for a very long time – a decade and a half of centuries. Some of this has resulted in good, like for example starting the Renaissance. However, some of this has exposed such dark secrets about us that these secrets have to be kept under wraps, lest the rest of the world goes into shock.

The CIA thought it knew all about us, but then something happened, and the CIA had to commission this research. Some time ago in the last century it happened so that the Shah of Iran fell, and Iran became an Islamic Republic, and gave up all the goodies and the civilized behaviour like nudity and nightclubs and wine and gambling (all things that enhance the GDP and make one civilized), that it had learnt from the West, and the women went back to wearing the oppressive veil (or at least the hijab) and the like; and horror of horrors, they even voted in the dreaded backward Shariah (the Shia version).

The Director of CIA was grilled on German TV about not being able to foresee it even while the CIA for Asia was centered in Tehran. He said in his defence something to the effect that "we thought we understood the Muslims, but obviously they (the Muslims) have some trait that is unpredictable."

The CIA then set about to remove this unpredictability by commissioning the research. That research has yielded what I am going to tell you:

You see we Muslims are violent.

No big deal here as any sensible non-Muslim and even the sensible and moderate Muslims have seen by now. However, the CIA research goes further, and tells you why we Muslims are violent and extremist creatures.

Now, hold your breath, and have some one to support you for the shock when the dark secret about us is revealed.

We Muslims have an "extremism" gene, and a "extremism" meme.

If we are born Muslim, we are violent by virtue of this gene, and if we are converts, then alas the meme thing comes into play, because just saying the shahada puts the meme in there.

There really is no hope for the world, as we multiply faster than rabbits and we are immigrating into other cultures, we will take over the world. You see Israel understands us, and that is why EL Al is the safest airline in the world.

At one time Europe understood us better, and the truth about us is told in the frightening stories of yore. The Inquisition understood us the best. Oh, for that to be here again! The world would be rid of the Muslims like Spain had been.

So what are we?

We are the Borg!

Resistace is futle. You will be assimilated!

That’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Old Feud Over Lebanese River Takes New Turn

Old Feud Over Lebanese River Takes New Turn

Israel's airstrikes on canals renew enduring suspicions that it covets water from the Litani. The Jewish state denies having any such designs.

By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer
August 10, 2006

QASMIYA, Lebanon — Israeli bombing has knocked out irrigation canals supplying Litani River water to more than 10,000 acres of farmland and 23 villages in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, prompting accusations here that Israel is using its war against Hezbollah to lay claim to Lebanon's prime watersheds.

Heavy fighting and a series of targeted strikes on open water channels and underground water diversion pipes have suspended much of Lebanon's agricultural use of the Litani River along the coastal plain and in parts of the Bekaa Valley near Qaraoun Dam, said water engineers who have surveyed the south.

ADVERTISEMENT
The damaged or broken facilities include a pumping station on the Wazzani River, whose inauguration by Lebanon in 2002 prompted Israel to threaten military action because it diverted water a few hundred yards from the Israeli border, in a watershed that feeds the Jordan River, Lebanese officials said. At the time, Hezbollah promised to defend the facility.

The strikes went largely unnoticed by the outside world in the nearly monthlong air assault targeting Hezbollah guerrilla strongholds in southern Lebanon. But Lebanese point to the extensive damage to their irrigation and drinking water system as evidence that border security and water issues remain intertwined in a region short on both.

"Whenever Israel throughout history has thought of its northern border, they don't talk, for example, of the mountains as a border. They always think of the valley of the Litani," said Mohammed Shaya, dean of the college of social sciences at Lebanese University in Beirut.

Israel has said repeatedly that it has no designs on Lebanon's water.

"There's a policy decision at the highest level not to target those water pumping stations," said Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. "We don't claim an inch of Lebanese sovereign territory. We don't claim a gallon of Lebanese water. We have no hostile intentions whatever towards Lebanon as a country, towards the Lebanese people or towards Lebanese natural resources."

But the enduring suspicion in Lebanon that Israel regards the water of the Litani as its own and the lands to its south as a security perimeter help explain Beirut's reluctance to accept any U.N. cease-fire resolution that does not call for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from the region.

At a minimum, Lebanese officials fear that the repeated attacks on water facilities — as well as bridges, highways, power plants and roads — signal an intention to debilitate Hezbollah-dominated southern Lebanon and enable a long-term Israeli presence there.

"They started [bombing] with the Litani water reservoir, the Litani dam. And we all know that the Litani has a special place in this country," said Fadl Shalaq, president of the Lebanese Council for Reconstruction and Development. "It's a big reservoir of water, and the Israelis don't hide it that there are several parts of the Litani that they would like to take for themselves."

Officials in southern Lebanon said the attacks hit not only bridges, but open water canals, crippling irrigation to thousands of acres here in the Tyre region and in the Bekaa Valley.

During fighting near the Wazzani springs, a guard at the pumping station was killed, the pump was knocked out of service and the underground pipes through which water is transported were heavily damaged, said Hussein Ramal, an engineer for the Litani Water Authority, which operates irrigation systems in the region. "Now every one of these villages is without water."

The Litani flows 102 miles, entirely within Lebanon. It courses south through eastern Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, before turning sharply westward just 2 1/2 miles from the Israeli border, then heading through the coastal plain, past the town of Qasmiya to the Mediterranean, north of Tyre.

Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, who would become the first president of Israel, in 1919 included the Litani valley among the "minimum requirements essential to the realization of the Jewish National Home." David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, proposed including the Litani again in the 1940s on the eve of the creation of the Jewish state. In the 1950s, historical records show, Moshe Dayan, then chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, and others favored occupying and ultimately annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.

Occupation of the West Bank and Golan Heights, though motivated by security concerns, has provided Israel with an important source of water. Experts note that the small slice of land known as the Shebaa Farms, one of the issues in the current conflict, is graced with abundant groundwater flowing from the slopes of Mt. Hermon.

Israel also sees Shebaa Farms as a strategic asset because of its proximity to the Israeli, Syrian and Lebanese borders.

Israel has always argued that much of the Litani's water flows to the sea, wasted.

A large portion of the river's flow is diverted to a series of hydropower dams, leaving relatively little for irrigation in southern Lebanon. But the Lebanese government had planned to offer a $200-million contract this summer to irrigate major new sections of the region.

Both states would benefit if Israel sold Lebanon power and Lebanon sold Israel water, said Haim Gvirtzman, hydrology professor at Hebrew University.

"Should there be peace between Israel and Lebanon, then it will be possible to use the Litani's water as a trigger for a fruitful cooperation between the two countries," Gvirtzman said.

Old feuds over water ...

The Litani river of Lebanon

THE LITANI RIVER OF LEBANON

By HUSSEIN A. AMERY

Source: Geographical Review, Jul93, Vol. 83 Issue 3, p229, 9p.

ABSTRACT. This article examines the hydropolitics of the Middle East, through a case study of the Litani River of Lebanon. The main thesis is that the desire to obtain additional water sources has been a primary influence on geostrategic interactions of Israel and its Arab neighbors. Israeli efforts to utilize the waters of the Litani help explain the establishment of the security zone in southern Lebanon. The apparent decision by Israel to retain access to the river makes it difficult for Lebanon to regain political stability and economic viability.

More forcefully than ever, politicians and analysts assert that the next casus belli in the Middle East will be control and use of water. Security of water supply is becoming at least as important as territorial security. Thus resolution of water-related issues is essential for the success of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Many Israeli policymakers view the water supply from the Litani River as a promising solution to their country's impending water crisis. However, the Litani River, whose entire basin is in Lebanon (Fig. 1), is crucial for rebuilding and effectively integrating that country in the post-civil-war period. Specifically, the waters of the Litani are essential for agricultural and industrial development of southern Lebanon. This competition for water, a prized resource in a water-scarce region, makes the river a potential source of serious international conflict in the future and complicates the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The conceptual premise of the analysis presented here is that countries suffering from resource scarcities, be they perceived or real, tend to reach beyond their borders. If access to foreign resources is obstructed or denied, countries with superior capabilities seek to establish such access by pressures that may range from peaceful interactions such as trade agreements to coercive actions involving the military (North 1977; Gurr 1985).

HYDROPOLITICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST

The regional context is one of potential conflict between states in the basins of the Jordan, Nile, Euphrates, and other rivers. Riparian states share a substantial percentage of their surface water resources with neighboring states. The diverse and opposing ethno-religious groups, which include' Turks, Arabs, and Israeli Jews, exacerbate the situation. For example, in the late 1970s, a water pipeline from the Nile River to the barren Israeli Negev desert was proposed by Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat. However, that gesture . of peace prompted negative responses in Egypt, Israel, Ethiopia, and Sudan. In Egypt, planners asserted that the waters of the Nile would be insufficient to meet their own country's future needs. Although many Israelis were optimistic about the proposal, some officials objected because they thought it was dangerous to depend on a former enemy and untried friend for such a vital resource (Gerti 1979). Ethiopia reacted by declaring its intent to construct dams on the Blue Nile, the largest tributary of the Nile, which led Sadat to threaten military intervention (Starr 1991). Relations between the two countries were tested again in 1989, when it was rumored that Ethiopia, with Israeli aid, was building dams on the Blue Nile. The recent end of the civil war in Ethiopia and the potential settlement of the conflict in southern Sudan bode ill for Egypt, a downstream state. Political stability and rapid population growth in drought-prone upstream countries will likely result in further efforts to harness the Nile drainage to improve their agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

The Euphrates River rises in Turkey and crosses both Syria and Iraq before emptying into the Persian Gulf. All three countries depend in some measure on the river for economic development, Iraq and Syria perhaps more so than Turkey, simply because the latter has significantly more alternative surface water resources. Turkey recently completed the mammoth Ataturk Dam on the Euphrates, the first in a series of seven dams on that river (Kolars and Mitchell 1991). Relations between the three riparian states deteriorated when Turkey diverted the water from the Euphrates during January 1990 to fill the massive reservoir. Consequences of that action in Syria and Iraq included power shortages, water rationing, and failed crops. In 1975 Iraq mobilized its armed forces against Syria, and war was narrowly averted, when Syria reduced the flow of the Euphrates to fill the al-Thawra Reservoir.

If Turkey and Syria implement all their development plans along the Euphrates, at least fifteen billion cubic meters of water may be extracted for irrigation. In effect, this will deny Syria 40 percent of the water it once received from the river (Jerusalem Post 1990a) and Iraq an amount that ranges between 55 and 90 percent (Jerusalem Post 1990a; Roberts 1991). It is projected that Syria will require one billion cubic meters of water by 2005 and that Iraq will need an additional two billion cubic meters to meet the minimum requirements of their populations and economies. Substantial water deficits could seriously worsen relations between riparian countries and intensify the distrust that was rekindled by the recent Gulf conflict and the ensuing Kurdish rebellion.

ISRAEL AND WATERS OF THE WEST BANK

The long-disputed Jordan River has headwaters in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. The river constitutes a main source of fresh water for both Israel and Lebanon. The issue of fresh water is especially acute in rapidly developing Israel, which obtains approximately 35 percent of its water supply from the Jordan River. Israel is consuming virtually all its replenishable annual water potential of 1.9 billion cubic meters, as well as an additional 400 million cubic meters from desalination plants and diminished aquifers. Sixteen senior Israeli hydrologists recently reported that the country is using its water reserves 15 percent faster than they can be replenished each year (Jerusalem Post 1990a). On a per capita basis, Israelis consume seven to ten times more water than do Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and approximately two to three times more than do their Lebanese and Jordanian neighbors.

In winter 1990, water in the Sea of Galilee dropped to the lowest levels ever recorded, which led the Israeli water authority to consider emergency measures to restrict water discharge to prevent a decrease below the crucial level of 212.5 meters below sea level. For the last five years, Israel has implemented water-rationing schemes that mainly affect the politically powerful farming sector, which consumes more than 70 percent of the country's water supply.

The migration of East European and former Soviet citizens to Israel has resulted in a vast increase of its population. Consequently, it has begun to build one hundred thousand new houses, many of which are on the West Bank, and it is making long-term plans to boost output of electricity. This situation exerts additional strain on the already overextended water supply. A lack of water resources is alleged to be one of the motives for the 1967 war, in which Israel occupied the West Bank (al-Bargouthi 1986; Saleh 1988). The water supplies from the West Bank constitute as much as 40 percent of the water consumed in Israel. The primary sources of this water are two aquifers that originate in the West Bank but extend into pre-1967 Israel.

The vision of a Greater Israel, held by some Israeli political factions, encompasses the currently occupied territories with their vital resources. Use of this vision as a governmental policy has been an obstacle to the land-for-peace formula on which the current Arab-Israeli peace talks are based. The outcome of that formula would be a gradual end of Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which some Israelis call Judea and Samaria, in exchange for the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Arab countries. A geographical application of the policy was demonstrated in a full-page advertisement that the Ministry of Agriculture placed in leading Israeli newspapers (Jerusalem Post 1990b). The advertisement argued that a Palestinian state on the West Bank, whether sovereign or autonomous, would draw on the water resources that are vital to the survival of Israel. Relinquishing the land to a potential Palestinian state would likely result in the repatriation of Palestinian refugees, whom the advertisement referred to as poverty-stricken humanity, from surrounding Arab countries. That in-migration "would generate an impossible strain on the already over-extended water supply and inadequate sewerage system, endangering even further Israel's vulnerable and fragile source of life." The commentary concluded with the assertion that "it is difficult to conceive of any political solution consistent with Israel's survival that does not involve complete, continued Israeli control of water and sewerage systems, and of the associated infrastructure, including power supply and road network, essential to their operation, maintenance and accessibility" (Jerusalem Post 1990b).

These statements accent old and new realities. They strongly underscore an Israeli feeling of great dependence on the water resources of the West Bank not only for everyday use by Israel but also for its continued national existence. The advertisement also gives credibility to previous reports arguing that, although territorial physical security was a concern for Israel in 1967, the water resources were at least one, and perhaps the prominent, factor in Israeli strategic calculations. Moreover, this advertisement amounts to an official policy shift that binds territorial and resource security. Relinquishing the water-rich western slopes of the West Bank would be perceived by Israel as surrender of its water sovereignty and a threat to its national existence. This position could seriously complicate the peace process and set resource security as the new context for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

ISRAEL AND THE LITANI RIVER

Because of current Israeli utilization of all its renewable water resources and the predicted annual water deficit of 500 to 600 million cubic meters, Israeli occupation of the water-rich area in southern Lebanon raises questions about Israel's hydrological imperative. Israel has had historical interest in the Litani River, whose entire flow is within the borders of Lebanon. The river rises in the northern Biqa'a Valley and runs southward to Beaufort Castle, where it turns westward to the Mediterranean Sea. Diverting the Litani's water southward is an old proposal, first suggested in 1905 by an engineer who concluded that the waters of the Jordan basin would be insufficient for the future needs of Palestine (Saleh 1988). He recommended that waters from the Litani River be diverted into the Hasbani River, a tributary of the Jordan.

Prestatehood Jewish interests in the Litani River were made explicit in letters from Chaim Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organization (wzo), to various British governmental officials in 1919 and 1920 (Weisgal 1977). In a letter to Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Weizmann argued that Lebanon was "well watered" and that the river was "valueless to the territory north of the proposed frontiers. They can be used beneficially in the country much further south." Weizmann concluded that the WZO considered the Litani valley "for a distance of 25 miles above the bend" of the river essential to the future of the Jewish "national home" (Weisgal 1977, 267). Nevertheless, the British and the French mandate powers retained the Litani basin entirely in Lebanon. David Ben-Gurion, a leading Zionist and the first prime minister of Israel, suggested to a 1941 international commission on the question of Palestine that the Litani be included in the borders of the future Jewish state. The commission recommended that seven-eighths of the river's waters be leased to Israel (Saleh 1988).

Access to the Litani River was a concern during Israel's formative years. The diaries of Moshe Sharett, an Israeli prime minister during the mid-1950s, reveal that Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan, chief of staff and defense minister, were strong advocates of Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon to the Litani River (Rabinovich 1985). In the wake of the 1967 war and in view of Israeli territorial gains from three of its four neighbors, Dayan reiterated his long-standing opinion that Israel had achieved "provisionally satisfying frontiers, with the exception of those with Lebanon" (Hof 1985, 36).

Decision makers who perceive scarcities in their own state will meet demands by using their specialized capabilities to control territory and people farther and farther from its boundaries (Choucri and North 1972, 90). Specialized capabilities, including political influence, economic performance, and military skill and hardware, tend to determine the type of peaceful or coercive pressure that a resource-deficient but capability-rich state can apply to improve its access to foreign resources. Israel's water scarcity is leading to high-risk strategies that it can use with confidence because its military, economic, and political capabilities are superior to those of Lebanon.

The hyrdostrategic significance of southern Lebanon is rarely considered as an explanation of current Israeli occupation of the security zone there. The zone stretches along the northern border of Israel and straddles the westward bend of the Litani River. Israel unilaterally established the zone in 1978, after Israeli troops invaded and remained as a hegemonic occupier. Although there are between one and two thousand Israeli troops in the zone, it is controlled and administered by a Christian Lebanese army general who heads the South Lebanese Army (SLA). Trained, equipped, and paid by the Israeli government, the SLA is nonetheless a quasi-militia, composed of Lebanese. The zone has 850 square kilometers, with 85 villages and a population of approximately 180,000.

Shortly after establishing the zone, the Israeli army prohibited drilling of wells there (al-Bargouthi 1986). Moreover, after the 1982 invasion, Israeli army engineers carried out seismic soundings and surveys near the westward bend of the river, probably to determine the optimum place for a diversion tunnel, and confiscated hydrographical charts and technical documents of the river and its installations from the Litani Water Authority offices in the Biqa'a and Beirut (Cooley 1984, 22). Israel also controlled most or all of the waters from the Hasbani and Wazzani rivers, which rise in Lebanon. Over the years, there have been reports of water siphoning from the Litani into the Jordan River basin, a distance of less than ten kilometers (Cooley 1984; al-Bargouthi 1986; Saleh 1988; Abu Fadil and Harrison 1992; Gemayel 1992).

The average annual flow of the Litani River is estimated at 920 million cubic meters, of which an estimated 480 million cubic meters is measured at the Khardali Bridge near the westward bend of the stream. Before the river empties into the Mediterranean Sea, an estimated 125 million cubic meters of water is consumed in the Kasmieh irrigation project. Permanent occupation of southern Lebanon and continued access to the Litani could augment the annual water supply of Israel by up to 800 million cubic meters, or approximately 40 percent of its current annual water consumption. This volume is attainable only if Israel reoccupies the Karaoun Dam, as it did between 1982 and 1985, and if the zone's subterranean springs, aquifers, and the Wazzani water flow are included (Baalbaki and Mahfouth 1985; Al-Nahar 1986). The Karaoun reservoir has a storage capacity of 220 million cubic meters, which is used for irrigation, domestic and industrial water supply, and hydropower. Furthermore, the largest single withdrawal from the Litani is the diversion of 236 million cubic meters annually through the Markaba tunnel to the Awali River for hydroelectric generation to supply Beirut and other coastal areas. In fact, 35 percent of Lebanon's total production of electricity comes from the Litani waters directly or from the Markaba-Awali diversion.

Another attraction of the Litani River is the high quality of its water. The salinity level is only 20 parts per million, whereas that of the Sea of Galilee is 250 to 350 parts per million. Many aquifers in Israel are stressed, especially along the coast, and the water in them is increasingly brackish. The water of the Litani would lower the saline level of the Sea of Galilee, from which the National Water Carrier channels water to much of the country. "It is this purity that makes the Litani very attractive to the Israelis, who have developed their National Water Carrier System with a view towards potable (as opposed to irrigation quality) water" (Naff and Matson 1984, 65).

Water production by desalination is costly, and cloud seeding to induce precipitation is not always controllable. Turkey proposed a peace pipeline to meet the needs of numerous southern water-deficient countries, including Israel, but importation over hundreds of kilometers of unfriendly territory is seen in Israel as untenable and easily subverted, thus a threat to national security. It is therefore becoming increasingly evident that the only feasible solution, in terms of water quality, volume, and proximity of the resource, to Israel's growing water problem is to tap a nearby source, namely the Litani River.

No one can yet document categorically that the Litani waters are being diverted, because large tracts of land near the crucial westward bend of the river are cordoned off by Israeli troops, which prevents researchers, journalists, and United Nations observers from approaching the area (al-Bar-gouthi 1986; Al-Nahar 1990). Independent water analysts, however, have reported that Israel has been diverting some water from the Litani River into the Jordan River (Collelo 1989, 117) by tapping the massive underground water resources. Hence the measured flow of the Litani is not affected (Cooley 1984, 22-23).

The weak post-civil-war Lebanese government and Israel's continued occupation of the security zone make it difficult to prevent an Israeli role in the use of Litani waters. This could be accomplished either through a unilateral water-diversion scheme, which appears to be the solution now, or through bilateral negotiations, in which the security zone would be used as a bargaining pawn to reach a water-sharing agreement with Lebanon (Amery and Kubursi 1992a).

LEBANON AND THE LITANI RIVER

The Litani River basin is predominantly inhabited by Shia Muslims, the largest sect of the country, who are estimated to number more than 850,000. The largely rural Shia community has historically complained that the Christian-led central government neglects it. This is partially due to the central government's distrust of the Shias, who over the centuries have maintained strong ties with their coreligionists in Iran. Moreover, the political instability in the south, primarily the result of Israeli and Palestinian presences, has given the Lebanese government even less incentive to assert its authority and a justification for the absence of development projects in this largely agricultural area.

The Litani Project, planned in the early 1950s, envisaged the irrigation of 20,000 hectares in the south and 10,000 hectares on the Biqa'a plain. Electrical power for much of Lebanon was to be provided by six hydroelectric stations. The project is decades behind its planned completion date. The northern portion of the project, located in the western Biqa'a administrative unit, is more or less complete, but the government has yet to implement the southern part of the project. Currently, fewer than 50,000 hectares are under irrigation in all of Lebanon, which is a very small area compared with the estimated need of 360,000 hectares (al-Bargouthi 1986). A Ministry of Irrigation study also reported that the south and the Biqa'a provinces require one billion cubic meters of water annually, of which 800 million cubic meters would be used for agriculture, 85 million cubic meters for domestic consumption, and 115 million cubic meters for industry. Harnessing the water of the Litani is essential to the industrial and agricultural development of southern Lebanon. Development of the agricultural sector and investment in agriculturally related schemes may mitigate the Shia community's feelings of alienation and strengthen their sense of national allegiance.

The Lebanese government is under increasing pressure to assert its sovereignty over the entire country, and it may ultimately have to concede to Israeli demands of water in exchange for territory. But that would precipitate a new Lebanese crisis. Diverting the Litani would stunt the economic development of the country, frustrate the postwar nation-building process, and strengthen the hands of groups calling for the cantonization or Islamization of the country.

Without the Litani waters, irrigation would be virtually impossible in the south, and much of the region would become desert (Cooley 1984, 24). Denying the Shia of southern Lebanon water for domestic and agricultural uses would aggravate their frustrations with the central government. For example, rumors in 1974 that the Litani waters were to be diverted to Beirut to meet forecast shortages sparked massive antigovernmental demonstrations.

Any current or future scheme to divert the river from its basin violates the principles of international law. "Water within one catchment area should not be diverted outside that area--regardless of political boundaries--until all needs of those within the catchment area are satisfied" (Cooley 1984, 10). In the province of Biqa'a, immediately north of the springs where the Litani rises, twenty-two villages lack domestic running water, and in the south there are at least thirty-six such villages. If Israel shared or unilaterally diverted the river, the hand of the antigovernment forces would be strengthened, especially the fundamentalist movement. The result would be continued instability in Lebanon (Amery and Kubursi 1992b).

CONCLUSION

Transboundary water resources in the arid Middle East have long been the source of conflict. The modern quest for industrial and agricultural development rests on greater generation of hydroelectric power and on higher levels of water consumption for irrigation. Occupation of the West Bank and the security zone in southern Lebanon provides Israel with the political and territorial conditions necessary to mitigate the effects of the rapidly approaching water crisis. Israel is interpreted as being motivated largely by environmental prudence in extending its sphere of influence into southern Lebanon. Israeli desire to gain access to the Litant water resources serves its national interest, but to the detriment of Lebanon. If, in an effort to exercise authority throughout the country, the Lebanese central government agrees to any sort of sharing of the Litant waters, Lebanon might face another challenge to stability.

* This article benefited from comments by J. D. Booth, B. Carment, A. A. Kubursi, B. Sallouk, and W. D. Swearingen.

MAP: FIG. 1--Hydrostrategic significance of the Israeli security zone in southern Lebanon.

REFERENCES

Abu Fadil, M., and D. Harrison. 1992. Arab-Israeli negotiations: that was not the idea. Middle East (March):21-27.

Amery, It. A., and A. A. Kubursi. 1992a. Le Litant cle de la renaissance economique et de la stabilite politique du Liban.
Ecodecision (September):55-57.

------. 1992b. The Litant River basin: the politics and economics of water. Beirut Review 1(3):95-107.

Baalbaki, A., and F. A. Mahfouth. 1985. The agricultural sector in Lebanon: the significant changes during the civil war [in
Arabic]. Beirut: Dar al-Farabi.

al-Bargouthi, B.S. 1986. Israeli interests in the water of Palestine and nearby Arab states [in Arabic]. Amman: Galile
Publishing Centre.

Choucri, N., and R. North. 1972. Dynamics of international conflict. Theory and policy in international relations, eds.
R. Tanrer and R. Ullman, 80-122. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Collelo, T. 1989. Lebanon: a country study. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.

Cooley, J. K. 1984. The war over water. Foreign Policy 54:3-26.

Gemayel, A. P. 1992. A peace based on justice not weaponry. Al-Hayat [in Arabic]. 30 October.

Gerti, M. 1979. Project 'Yeor' or the Nile in blue and white. Ha'aretz [in Hebrew]. 21 September.

Gurr, T. R. 1985. On the political consequences of scarcity and economic decline. International Studies Quarterly 29:51-75.

Hof, F. C. 1985. Galilee divided: the Israel-Lebanon frontier, 1916-1984. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Jerusalem Post (international edition). 1990a. 9 June.

-----. 1990b. 10 August.

Kolars, J. F., and W. A. Mitchell. 1991. The Euphrates River and the southeast Anatolia development project. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.

Naff, T., and R. C. Matson. 1984. Water in the Middle East: conflict or cooperation? Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Al-Nahar. 1986. 24 March. 1990.

-----. 1990. 3 March.

North, R.C. 1977. Toward a framework for the analysis of scarcity and conflict. International Studies Quarterly 21:469-591.

Rabinovich, I. 1985. The war for Lebanon, 1970-1985. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Roberts, N. 1991. Geopolitics and the Euphrates' water resources. Geography 76:157-159.

Saleh, H. A. 1988. The water war between the Arabs and Israel [in Arabic]. Arab Affairs 55:55-68.

Starr, J. R. 1991. Water wars. Foreign Policy 61:17-36.

Weisgal, M. W., ed. 1977. The letters and papers of Chaim Weizmann, vol. 9. Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press.

The Litani river of Lebanon