Wednesday, February 28, 2007

US Senate In Wrangle Over English

Taken from the BBC 19.2.07

The US Senate has voted in favour of making English the national language.

The measure, backed by Republicans, came as an amendment to a controversial immigration bill currently going through the Senate.

Lawmakers voted by 63-34 in favour of the move, which calls on the government to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language".

US ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
# About 11.5m illegal immigrants in the US
# Four out of 10 have been in US five years or less
# 75% were born in Latin America
# Most enter via southern US border
# California, Texas and Florida host most illegal immigrants
# Many work in agriculture, transport and construction









But the Senate also approved a milder Democrat amendment describing English as the "common and unifying language". Neither of the bills would bar the use of Spanish or other languages in government services.

'Preserving our culture' The BBC's Emilio San Pedro, in Miami, says the issue of the preservation of the English language and American culture is for many at the heart of the immigration debate in the US.

Many Americans are concerned that the influx of immigrants from the Mexican border are altering the very fabric of American life, our correspondent says.

"This is not just about preserving our culture and heritage, but also about bettering the odds for our nation's newest potential citizens," said Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, who sponsored the national language amendment.

Sen Inhofe said polls show around 80% of Americans would support a move to formalise English as the national language.

But critics fear the move could lead to discrimination against people who are not proficient in English. "Although the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. "I believe it is directed at people who speak Spanish."

Both amendments will be included in the bill that the Senate sends to the House of Representatives, where the differences will need to be reconciled.

President Bush, during a visit to Arizona to promote his immigration reform package, did not specifically endorse the move but stressed the need for unity.

"Americans are bound together by shared ideals and appreciation of our history, of respect for our flag and ability to speak the English language," he said.

Mr Bush has proposed tightening border security while giving many existing illegal immigrants the right to stay. Many Republicans say the plan is too soft, arguing that illegal immigration should be criminalised, while Central American states have attacked the US proposal to build hundreds of kilometres of fencing along its border.

Bush's Prince Charming Flies To The Rescue

On January 11 the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, sat at the witness table in Hearing Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building explaining why those who talked about engagement with Syria and Iran were all "wet". "That's not diplomacy - that's extortion," she said. On Tuesday Rice returned to the same witness table in the same hearing room. "I'm pleased to inform you that the Iraqis are launching a new diplomatic initiative, which we are going to fully support," she announced cheerfully. And guess who's coming to dinner? Iran and Syria. Heck, it's about time they all talked! Jaw Jaw is better tham War War!

Maybe it's because the long-term control of Iraq's energy assets are in the process of being awarded to foreign multinationals (due to pressure put on Iraq by the UK and USA) that will for the first time have a stake in the country since 1972. Is the Iraqi government (on the brinks of Civil war) in a position to negotiate good terms with foreign oil firms? - the answer is no. One thing is for certain if We didn't go to war in Iraq over WMD, it was more about control of Oil production levels - mission almost completed for Bush. One man who has been busy doing a work in the background is Bandar Bush. Is he involved in the talks with Iran and Syria? This is an interesting story...

Taken from The Sydney Morning Herald, February 24, 2007
By Jackson Diehl (Original article extracted from The Washington Post)

For 22 years Prince Bandar bin Sultan wheeled and dealed his way through Washington as Saudi Arabia's ambassador. By his account he had a hand in most of America's major initiatives in the Middle East over a generation. Early in George Bush's presidency, for example, he brokered US rapprochement with Libya and previewed plans for the invasion of Iraq two months before the war.

For a while after returning home in the middle of 2005, Bandar kept a low profile. Some speculated he was out of favour with the kingdom's ruler, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, despite his appointment as national security adviser. Now he's back: since the beginning of the year the prince has been wheeling and dealing his way around the Middle East.

In the past month Bandar has held three meetings with the Iranian national security chief, Ali Larijani. He has twice met Vladimir Putin, in Moscow and Riyadh; he has overseen talks between the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas leaders; and he has quietly visited Washington to brief Bush. He helped broker this month's Palestinian accord on a unity government as well as a Saudi-Iranian understanding to cool political conflict in Lebanon. And he has been talking to the most senior officials of the Iranian and US governments about whether there is a way out of the stand-off over Iran's nuclear weapons.

Can Bandar bail the US out of the multiple crises it has stumbled into in the Middle East? Maybe not, but Washington's old friend may be one of the best bets a desperate Bush Administration has going at the moment. The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has manoeuvred herself into a corner by refusing to talk to Syria and Iran and boycotting the Hamas-led Palestinian Government. Consequently, there's little the US can do diplomatically to defuse the conflicts in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, not to mention Iraq. Rice tried calling on Egypt, abruptly dropping the Administration's previous urging that its autocratic Government "lead the way" in democratising the Middle East. But Egypt has been unable to deliver: it tried and failed to pry Syria away from its alliance with Iran, and it tried and failed to win concessions from Hamas.

That leaves Saudi Arabia and the hyperkinetic Bandar. In his last visit to Washington he offered a rosy report on his travels. Iran, he assured his American friends, had been taken aback by Bush's recent shows of strength in the region, by the failure of his Administration to collapse after midterm elections and by the unanimous passage of a United Nations resolution imposing sanctions on Tehran for failing to stop its nuclear program. The mullahs, he said, were worried about Shiite-Sunni conflict spreading from Iraq around the region and about an escalating conflict with the US; they were interested in tamping both down.

Bandar also told Washington that he is hoping to split Iran from Syria, reversing the manoeuvre Egypt tried. The means would be a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran over a Lebanese settlement that included authorisation of a UN tribunal to try those responsible for the murder of the former prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

Bandar's spin and dazzle make it tempting to think he can pull off almost anything. It's also easy to forget that he works in the interests of Saudi Arabia, not the US. The results can be disappointing. Bush got a reminder of that when Bandar brokered the "Mecca agreement" between the Palestinian leaders Abbas and Khaled Meshal of Hamas. Bush Administration policy has been to strengthen Abbas at Hamas's expense; the accord undercut that approach and all but ruined Rice's plan to begin developing a "political horizon" at a meeting with Abbas and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, this week.

That doesn't mean the old Bush family friend is not still welcome at the White House. The Palestinian deal was secondary for Bandar; if he can find a way to broker a deal that stops the Iranian nuclear program and kick-starts a dialogue between Tehran and Washington, it will be his greatest feat of all.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Israeli Companies Suspected Of Aiding Islamic Jihad

We knew the Israeli government supported the rise of Hamas when Arafat's PLO was in charge of representing the Palestinions, now it seems that Israeli corporate ethics has gone to a new level...

Police investigators sweep offices of two Israeli companies with business ties to a Palestinian importer, accused of funneling monies to terror groups

Taken from Ynet News, Israel, 25.02.07,
By Efrat Weiss


Police investigators on Sunday swept the offices of two Israeli companies with business ties to a Palestinian importer of food products, accused by Israe l of funneling monies to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups.

According to police sources, Shintraco Ltd. and Maayan Ltd. ignored recommendations by the Ministry of Defense not to do business with food staples importer Abu Aker due to its connections with terror groups.

Shintraco Ltd., a Ramat Gan-based importer of food products, carried out business transactions with Abu Aker despite being informed that the Palestinian company had been banned from operating in Israel in 2005 for laundering money on behalf of terror groups.

Israeli investigators found that overseas representative for the terror groups purchased merchandise abroad on behalf of Abu Aker whose employees then paid the money back to terror operatives in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Mayan Ltd., a consultant on customs and VAT payments, coordinated Shintraco's business dealings with Abu Aker.
A number of Mayan and Shintraco employees have been remanded for interrogation.

Police said employees of both companies attempted to blur all evidence pointing to their cooperation with Abu Aker.

Sources at Maayan said the police investigation was centered on the activities of Shintraco, one of its customers, denying their company had knowingly assisted terror groups.

Monday, February 26, 2007

US Funds Terror Groups To Sow Chaos In Iran

Taken from The Sunday Telegraph, 25/02/2007
By William Lowther and Colin Freeman

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.

Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."

At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.

The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.

While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.

"It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table."

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.

Additional reporting by Gethin Chamberlain.

The Myth Of Muslim Support For Terror

The common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews.

Taken from The Christian Science Monitor, February 23, 2007
By Kenneth Ballen

WASHINGTON - Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

Hardly. Yet, far too often, Americans and other Westerners seem willing to draw that conclusion about Muslims. Public opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists. Given the many radicals who commit violence in the name of Islam around the world, that's an understandable polling result.

But these stereotypes, affirmed by simplistic media coverage and many radicals themselves, are not supported by the facts – and they are detrimental to the war on terror. When the West wrongly attributes radical views to all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, it perpetuates a myth that has the very real effect of marginalizing critical allies in the war on terror.

Indeed, the far-too-frequent stereotyping of Muslims serves only to reinforce the radical appeal of the small minority of Muslims who peddle hatred of the West and others as authentic religious practice.

Terror Free Tomorrow's 20-plus surveys of Muslim countries in the past two years reveal another surprise: Even among the minority who indicated support for terrorist attacks and Osama bin Laden, most overwhelmingly approved of specific American actions in their own countries.

For example, 71 percent of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79 percent in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries – not exactly the profile of hard-core terrorist sympathizers. For most people, their professed support of terrorism/bin Laden can be more accurately characterized as a kind of "protest vote" against current US foreign policies, not as a deeply held religious conviction or even an inherently anti- American or anti-Western view.

In truth, the common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews. Whether recruits to violent causes join gangs in Los Angeles or terrorist cells in Lahore, the enemy is the violence they exalt.

Our surveys show that not only do Muslims reject terrorism as much if not more than Americans, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope.

America's goal, in partnership with Muslim public opinion, should be to defeat terrorists by isolating them from their own societies. The most effective policies to achieve that goal are the ones that build on our common humanity. And we can start by recognizing that Muslims throughout the world want peace as much as Americans do.

• Kenneth Ballen is founder and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to finding effective policies that win popular support away from global terrorists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for Information I would be difficult to classify Nigeria as a major Muslim country since according to the CIA world factbook it is 50 % Muslim , 40% Christian , other indigenous beliefs 10% .

Terrorists Have Ambitions Of Empire, Says Cheney

Taken from The Sydney Morning Herald, February 24, 2007
By Cynthia Banham

TERRORISTS' ultimate aim is to establish "a caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia -and it wouldn't stop there," the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, warned yesterday.

In comments that could have been made in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but which fell flat with his Sydney audience, he said terrorists "had ambitions of empire".

Mr Cheney said if jihadists tasted victory in Iraq they would look for new missions, not only in Afghanistan but in capitals across the Middle East.

In his first public comments during a four-day trip to Sydney, Mr Cheney - an architect of the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq - told an audience that free nations "have a duty" to stand in the way of the insurgents for the sake of their long-term security.

In a week in which Britain announced a withdrawal of 3000 of its troops from Iraq by the end of the year, and Australia has promised to send 70 more military trainers there, Mr Cheney said "we are determined to prevail in Iraq because we understand the consequences of failure".

"If our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance of the country," he said.

"The violence would likely spread throughout the country, and be difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look for new missions.

"Many would head for Afghanistan … Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more sorrow and discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments."

Mr Cheney's speech to the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue was full of praise for the Prime Minister, John Howard, who he said had "never wavered in the war on terror".

"The United States appreciates it - and the whole world respects you for it."

Mr Howard, who will meet Mr Cheney today, was not in the audience, but the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, Tony Smith, were there.

Earlier Mr Cheney held a private meeting with a number of Dialogue members. It is understood he said Democrats in the US were riding public opposition to the war that could end up prejudicing their leadership credentials. He said the mood could easily shift if there was another terrorist attack.

Mr Cheney said the Australia-US alliance was "strong because we want it to be, and because we work at it, and because we respect each other as equals".

He praised Australian Defence Force members, a number of whom he later met at Victoria Barracks in Paddington, saying he had "grown in admiration" for their "skill and toughness".

Mr Cheney was critical of China. He praised its role in the agreement on North Korean nuclear weapons, but said other actions by its government sent a different message. "Last month's anti-satellite test, and China's continued fast-paced military build-up, are less constructive and are not consistent with China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise'."

Mr Cheney said the US and Australia were working closely on ballistic missile defence.

The Chief of Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, the defence secretary, Nick Warner, and the foreign affairs and trade secretary, Michael L'Estrange, attended the speech, as did the Labor frontbenchers Robert McClelland and Joel Fitzgibbon. The Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, was not there, but he had a private meeting with Mr Cheney in the afternoon.

A spokesman said they had a "one-hour positive and constructive conversation on topics of mutual interest". Before the meeting he said among the topics would be the Asia-Pacific region, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, David Hicks and climate change.

Earlier Mr Rudd said among the protesters against Mr Cheney he had seen in television footage were "a bunch of violent ferals, and they should expect absolutely no sympathy from the police".

---------------------------------------------
Considering that most of these so called countries are "Muslim" countries what is the problem with establishing a caliphate? After all most of them countries were part of the Ottoman Empire before it was broken up after the first world war. Could Mr Cheney be worried about another Economic superpower to compete with the US (after the EU and China) or is the fear that the so called caliphate will be in control of most of the world's oil resources? It's time the US stopped supported dictators in the Middle East to pursue it's own interest.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

100 Years For US Soldier In Rape And Murder Of Iraqi Girl

Taken from The Daily Mail, UK, 23 Feb 2007

An American soldier who pleaded guilty to raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing her family has been sentenced to 100 years in a military prison.

Sgt Paul Cortez, 24, was also given a dishonourable discharge after reaching a deal with prosecutors to escape the death penalty.

Military judge Colonel Stephen R Henley found Cortez guilty of conspiracy to commit rape, four counts of felony, murder, rape, housebreaking and violating a general order.

Cortez said he had conspired with three other soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division to rape the teenager, who was then killed with her parents and a younger sister.

Tears rolled down Cortez's face as he apologised for the rape and murders. He said he could not explain why he had taken part.

"I still don't have an answer," he told the judge. "I don't know why. I wish I hadn't. The lives of four innocent people were taken.

"I want to apologise for all of the pain and suffering I have caused."

Under his plea agreement, Cortez agreed to testify against the three others still facing prosecution in the case.

Cortez told how he and his companions drank whisky, played cards and plotted to attack the family at Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, in March last year.

They poured kerosene on the girl's body and set her on fire in an attempt to cover up the crime.

Cortez testified that James Barker, who also pleaded guilty, and Steven Green chose the family to attack because there was only one man in the house and it was an "easy target".

Once at the house, Green, the suspected ringleader, took the girl's mother, father and little sister into a bedroom, Cortez said, while he and Barker took the teenager, Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, to the living room, where they took turns raping her.

He said Green, who has been charged as a civilian and awaits trial in a Kentucky jail, shot the girl's family in another room and then raped the teenager.

Barker pleaded guilty in November and was sentenced to 90 years in a military prison. Green was discharged from the Army for a "personality disorder".

5,000 Child Sex Slaves In UK

Taken from The Independent, UK, 25 February 2007
By Sophie Goodchild and Jonathan Thompson

More than 5,000 children are being forced to work as sex slaves in the UK, including thousands trafficked to this country by criminal gangs, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

An important study of global slavery exposes Britain as a major transit point for the movement of child slaves around the world. Commissioned by social research charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the report paints a shocking picture of an international web of gangmasters exploiting children as young as five, as well as vulnerable women. Many are threatened with violence, then sold into the sex trade or forced to become domestic servants, says the report, to be published tomorrow.

The human trafficking trade now generates an estimated £5bn a year worldwide, making it the second biggest international criminal industry after the drugs trade. Children's charities in Britain say there has been a "dramatic" rise in referrals of trafficked children to sexual exploitation services.

An investigation by The Independent on Sunday has found that gangs, especially those from Romania and Lithuania as well as Africa, are increasingly targeting Britain because markets in other European countries such as Spain and Italy are saturated.

Tony Blair pledged in January this year that he would sign up to a European convention to "stamp out" the "evil" of slavery, which was supposedly abolished 200 years ago next month.

His move was in response to fierce lobbying by MPs and human rights charities.

But the report finds that the UK's response to trafficking is too biased towards law enforcement at the expense of victim protection. It also reveals that many victims are deported to their home country where they face assault from gangs and the threat of being retrafficked. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is urging ministers to draw up policies that treat those in slavery as victims, not as immigration cases.

From this month, police forces are being issued with specially adapted iPods. Officers will be able to play to women too afraid to testify against their abusers messages in their own language, reassuring them they will not be arrested.

Child protection charities also warn of the second-class status in the system of trafficked children. At least 48 children sold into slavery in Britain are missing, because of lapses in care by officials, according to a recent report by the Ecpat UK, which campaigns against the sexual exploitation of children. Ecpat's director, Christine Beddoe, said: "Child trafficking is a contemporary form of slavery but trafficked children are labelled 'undeserving' because they are seen as immigration cases."

Child trafficking is one of the worst violations of children's rights, believes Unicef. "There remains no specialised safe house for trafficked children or adequate care and support for victims," said Sarah Epstein of Unicef UK.

MPs are calling on law enforcement agencies to increase their efforts to catch human traffickers by setting up a central database of the DNA samples, gun profiles and fingerprints of those involved in the trade.

Anthony Steen MP, chairman of the All Party Group on Trafficking of Women and Children, said trafficked women and children are still not receiving the protection they deserved.

"Despite his promise Tony Blair has still not signed up to the convention. In the meantime, these girls who are victims of these gangs are having to look over their shoulders," said the Conservative MP for Totnes.

The Rowntree study was carried out by the University of Hull along with Anti-Slavery International and the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

UK: Psychics 'Hired To Find Bin Laden'

Taken from The Daily Mail, UK, 23rd February 2007
by BEN CLERKIN

Psychics were recruited by the Ministry of Defence to locate Osama Bin Laden's secret lair, it was claimed yesterday.

Newly declassified documents revealed that the MoD conducted an experiment to see if volunteers could 'see' objects hidden inside an envelope.



It is claimed the ministry hoped positive results would allow it to use psychics to 'remotely view' Bin Laden's base and also to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

However, after running up a bill of £18,000 of taxpayers' money, defence chiefs concluded there was 'little value' in using psychic powers in the defence of the nation and the research was taken no further.

The study, conducted in 2002, involved blindfolding test subjects and asking them to 'see' the contents of sealed brown envelopes containing pictures of objects and public figures.

The MoD tried to recruit 12 'known' psychics who advertised their abilities on the Internet, but when they all refused they were forced to use 'novice' volunteers.

The report, released under the Freedom of Information Act, shows 28 per cent of those tested managed to guess the contents of the envelopes, which included pictures of a knife, Mother Teresa and an 'Asian individual'.

But most subjects, who were holed up in a secret location for the study, were hopelessly off the mark. One even fell asleep while he tried to focus on the envelope's content.

A former MoD employee who received a copy of the report said the timing of the study must have been related to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nick Pope, who ran the MoD UFO research programme and worked at the ministry for 21 years, said: "It can only be speculation, but you don't employ that kind of time and effort to find money down the back of the sofa.

"You go to this trouble for high-value assets. We must be talking about Bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction."

The MoD last night defended its decision to fund the secret tests despite the questionable use of taxpayers' money.

And Mr Pope said: "I don't think this was a waste of public money. Many people will say so, but I think it is marvellous that the Government is prepared to think outside the box.

"And this is as outside the box as it gets."

----------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the psychics should've been used to see if Tony Blair had a heart for sending troops into Iraq and Afganistan into their death beds.

UK: Police Bust Worldwide Paedo Ring

A few weeks ago a worldwide porn ring was discovered in Austra now this...

Taken from The Metro, UK, February 21, 2007

A massive police operation has uncovered an alleged paedophile ring based in Britain with more than 300 members worldwide, it was revealed today.

The London-based Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) co-ordinated a global undercover "sting" which pinpointed alleged key suspects in the UK.

An undisclosed number of children were also rescued from alleged sexual abuse.

Officers from Britain, the US, Australia and Canada operated a shift system to infiltrate the suspected paedophile ring on the Web.

Ceop chief executive Jim Gamble said: "There have been a number of arrests and a number of children rescued from abuse.

"We identified an online area used by individuals with a deviant interest in children - in my mind that's a paedophile ring.

"That was then infiltrated by us in conjunction with our international partners.

"We closed what we believe was a paedophile ring with excess of 300 members. Principal suspects were in the UK."

The news comes as a major conference opens in Washington DC on the Virtual Global Taskforce (VGT), a joint initiative designed to ensnare online paedophiles across the globe.

Mr Gamble said information on the 300-plus alleged paedophiles in other countries will be shared with their local law enforcement agencies.

"We had undercover officers from Canada, America, Australia and the UK involved simultaneously," said Mr Gamble.

"Through an eight-hour shift pattern there was a continuous covert investigation trying to infiltrate the group."

Since Ceop was set up last April, its work has already led to 27 predatory paedophiles being placed in custody and about 70 children safeguarded from abuse, he added.

It also has 18 investigations currently under way to identify child sex victims from clues given away in abuse photographs.

Eight children have been identified and rescued from abuse.

Ceop brings police, computer industry experts and specialists from children's charities together under one roof.

The British-led VGT is currently targeting suspects in south-east Asia with the assistance of local police and law enforcement agencies, Mr Gamble said.

The Washington conference, attended by Mr Gamble, will bid to move international cooperation to a new level, and other countries may also sign up to the task force.

A new 60-second film designed to show children the danger of speaking to people they do not know on the internet will receive its premier at the conference.

It also warns online paedophiles that they may also face police "stings" on the Web.

Friday, February 23, 2007

UK Not Part Of Anti-Missile Defence Plans, US Says

Taken from The Guardian, February 23, 2007
Mark Oliver

The UK is interested in hosting part of Washington's contentious "son of Star Wars" missile interceptor system, Downing Street said today, only to have US officials respond by saying Britain is not currently part of its plans. If the UK did host a missile silo or radar site it would likely prompt considerable opposition from the anti-war movement, and might spark protests echoing those at RAF Greenham Common in the 1980s.



The prime minister's office confirmed today it had discussed the missile system with Washington. However, a senior US diplomat said the country was not as yet interested in placing it in Britain.

"As we go forward there may be opportunities for us to talk to other countries about their needs, but right now we are concentrating on the Czech Republic and on Poland as the primary sites where we would be looking for this," the US deputy chief of mission in London, David Johnson, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

The US Missile Defence Agency added that it had also not heard anything about involving the UK in the system.

Surveys had shown Poland was the best place for the interceptors and that the radar should be in the Czech Republic, the agency spokesman Rick Lehner said. No other site would be necessary.

"Those are the best locations, the ones that best meet the technical requirements of a missile defence system," he said.

Earlier this week, the prime ministers of the Czech Republic and Poland said they were "likely" to accept a formal request from the Pentagon to part-host the system.

This prompted condemnation from a Russian general who said it would wreck the post-cold war balance of power in Europe. Moscow is furious at the prospect of former Soviet states being involved in the defence shield so close to its borders.

Russia claims that it is the missile shield's intended target, rather than a "rogue state" such as Iran, as the US insists.

Following a report in today's Economist that the UK was in talks with the US, a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that discussions were at an "early stage".

The Economist said a new missile silo could be sited at an existing US military base in the UK, but not at RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire, which already houses early-warning radar equipment used within the system.

Britain's decision in 2003 to upgrade facilities at Fylingdales to support the missile interceptor system sparked enormous controversy and was bitterly opposed by some Labour MPs.

The Downing Street spokesman said: "The objective of these conversations was to make sure that the UK is kept in consideration to be one of the locations for the system should the US press ahead.

"No party to these discussions has got as far as discussing the specifics. We are simply at the stage where we have decided we want to be part of the discussion."

Downing Street sought to play down parts of the Economist report, which claimed the prime minister, Tony Blair, had been "discreetly waging a campaign since last autumn to secure the missile-interceptor site for Britain". The No 10 spokesman said the article "goes too far" in its account of the stage of talks.

The spokesman did not comment on BBC reports suggesting that Mr Blair had raised the issue directly with the US president, George Bush, or that Mr Blair had charged his chief foreign affairs adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, with liaising with the US national security council about the missiles.
It is thought the Pentagon wants to site a radar station in the Czech Republic, which would work in tandem with a silo of 10 interceptor weapons in neighbouring Poland. The cost of a European-based system has been estimated at £810m.

The various reports give the impression that the UK is actively seeking a role, whereas the Czechs and Polish appear to have been courted by the US. While the prime ministers of the east European countries have signalled support for the plan, both have also expressed misgivings.

Reports have also claimed that the Pentagon wants the interceptor silo to be considered as US territory, something about which the Polish prime minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has said he is uneasy. Maintenance of the silo might require 500 US personnel.

Polls in both the Czech Republic and Poland reflect public unease; a recent poll showed that 53% of Poles opposed hosting such a base, while 34% were in favour. Since 2002, the US has built two missile interceptor sites in Alaska and California.

The system is supposed to work by firing missiles to shoot down enemy missiles targeting the territory of the United States or its allies.

US Intelligence On Iran Proves 'Unfounded'

Taken from The Guardian, February 23, 2007
By Julian Borger

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.

The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, and raises the possibility that the US might resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.

At the heart of the debate are accusations, spearheaded by the US, that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations. "They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities."

"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."

One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.

Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.

"First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away," one official said. "The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer."

IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.

A western counter-proliferation official accepted that intelligence on Iran had sometimes been patchy but argued that the essential point was Iran's failure to live up to its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

"I take on board on what they're saying, but the bottom line is that for nearly 20 years [the Iranians] were violating safeguards agreements," the official said. "There is a confidence deficit here about the regime's true intentions."

That deficit will be deepened by yesterday's IAEA report. It concluded bluntly: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities", in defiance of a December UN ultimatum to stop.

The report noted that Iran had continued with the operation of a pilot enrichment plant.

Furthermore, the report said that Iran had informed the agency of its plan to install 18 arrays, or cascades, of 164 centrifuges in an underground plant by May - a total of nearly 3,000. At the moment, Iran's centrifuges are being used to make low-enriched uranium, but if they were switched to making highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium, they could produce enough for a bomb in less than a year.

Dr ElBaradei's report said that Iran had so far not agreed to the IAEA installing remote monitoring devices in the enrichment plant to keep constant tabs on what the Iranians were doing with them.

Furthermore, the IAEA still has a string of questions about the Iranian programme that remain unanswered. Until they are, the agency will not give Iran a clear bill of health.

One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake in October 2005. That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.

Last night Iran, which says its nuclear fuel programme is designed only to produce electricity, remained defiant. "Regarding the suspension mentioned in the report, because such a demand has no legal basis and is against international treaties, naturally, it could not be accepted by Iran," Muhammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told Reuters in Tehran. Mr Saeedi said the report showed that returning to talks was the best way to resolve the dispute.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he was "deeply concerned". "I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the demands as soon as possible and engage in negotiations with the international community so that we can resolve this issue peacefully."

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Iraq: Mission Imperial

While Iraqis struggled in the chaos of Baghdad after the invasion, the Americans sent to rebuild the nation led a cocooned existence in the centre of the capital - complete with booze, hot dogs and luxury villas.

This is an interesting read of an edited extract from a book called Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, as published in the Guardian, UK, 19 Feb 2007


A US soldier jumps from a platform as he enjoys Saddam Hussein's swimming pool at the Republican Palace.

Unlike almost anywhere else in Baghdad, you could dine at the cafeteria in the Republican Palace in the heart of the Green Zone for six months and never eat hummus, flatbread, or a lamb kebab. The palace was the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the American occupation administration in Iraq, and the food was always American, often with a Southern flavour. A buffet featured grits, cornbread and a bottomless barrel of pork: sausage for breakfast, hot dogs for lunch, pork chops for dinner. The cafeteria was all about meeting American needs for high-calorie, high-fat comfort food.

None of the succulent tomatoes or crisp cucumbers grown in Iraq made it into the salad bar. US government regulations dictated that everything, even the water in which hot dogs were boiled, be shipped in from approved suppliers in other nations. Milk and bread were trucked in from Kuwait, as were tinned peas and carrots. The breakfast cereal was flown in from the US.

When the Americans arrived, the engineers assigned to transform Saddam's palace into the seat of the American occupation chose a marble-floored conference room the size of a gymnasium to serve as the mess hall. Halliburton, the defence contractor hired to run the palace, brought in dozens of tables, hundreds of stacking chairs and a score of glass-covered buffets. Seven days a week, the Americans ate under Saddam's crystal chandeliers.

A mural of the World Trade Centre adorned one of the entrances. The twin towers were framed within the outstretched wings of a bald eagle. Each branch of the US military - the army, air force, marines and navy - had its seal on a different corner of the mural. In the middle were the logos of the New York City police and fire departments, and on top of the towers were the words, "Thank God for the coalition forces & freedom fighters at home and abroad."

At another of the three entrances was a bulletin board with posted notices, including those that read:

- Bible study: Wednesdays at 7pm.
- Go running with the hash house harriers!
- Feeling stressed? Come visit us at the combat stress clinic.
- For sale: like-new hunting knife.
- Lost camera. Reward offered.

The seating was as tribal as that at a high-school cafeteria. The Iraqi support staffers kept to themselves. They loaded their lunch trays with enough calories for three meals. Soldiers, private contractors and mercenaries also segregated themselves. So did the representatives of the "coalition of the willing" - the Brits, the Aussies, the Poles, the Spaniards, and the Italians.

The American civilians who worked for the occupation government had their own cliques: the big-shot political appointees, the twentysomethings fresh out of college, the old hands who had arrived in Baghdad in the first weeks of occupation. In conversation at their tables, they observed an unspoken protocol. It was always appropriate to praise "the mission" - the Bush administration's campaign to transform Iraq into a peaceful, modern, secular democracy where everyone, regardless of sect or ethnicity, would get along. Tirades about how Saddam had ruined the country and descriptions of how you were going to resuscitate it were also fine. But unless you knew someone really, really well, you didn't question American policy over a meal.
If you had a complaint about the cafeteria, Michael Cole was the man to see. He was Halliburton's "customer-service liaison", and he could explain why the salad bar didn't have Iraqi produce or why pork kept appearing on the menu. Cole was a rail-thin 22-year-old whose forehead was dotted with pimples. He had been out of college for less than a year and was working as a junior aide to a Republican congressman from Virginia when a Halliburton vice-president overheard him talking to friends in an Arlington bar about his dealings with irate constituents. She was so impressed that she introduced herself. If she needed someone to work as a valet in Baghdad, he joked, he'd be happy to volunteer. Three weeks later, Halliburton offered him a job. Then they asked for his CV.

Cole's mission was to keep the air in the bubble, to ensure that the Americans who had left home to work for the occupation administration felt comfortable. Food was part of it. But so were movies, mattresses and laundry service. If he was asked for something, Cole tried to get it, whether he thought it important or not.

From April 2003 until June 2004, the CPA ran Iraq's government - it enacted laws, printed currency, collected taxes, deployed police and spent oil revenue. At its height, the CPA had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad, most of them American. It was headed by America's viceroy in Iraq, Lewis Paul Bremer III, who always wore a blue suit and tan combat boots, even on those summer days when Iraqis drooped in the heat.

He was surrounded by burly, sub-machine gun-toting bodyguards everywhere he went, even to the bathroom in the palace. The palace was Saddam's Versailles on the Tigris. Constructed of sandstone and marble, it had wide hallways, soaring columns and spiral staircases. Massive bronze busts of Saddam in an Arab warrior's headdress looked down from the four corners of the roof. The cafeteria was on the south side, next to a chapel with a billboard-size mural of a Scud missile arcing into the sky.

Whatever could be outsourced, was. The job of setting up town and city councils was performed by a North Carolina firm for $236m [£121m]. The job of guarding the viceroy was assigned to private guards, each of whom made more than $1,000 [£513] a day. For running the palace - cooking the food, changing the lightbulbs, doing the laundry, watering the plants - Halliburton had been handed hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Green Zone was Baghdad's Little America. Everyone who worked in the palace lived there, either in white metal trailers or in the towering al-Rasheed hotel. Hundreds of private contractors working for firms including Bechtel, General Electric and Halliburton set up trailer parks there, as did legions of private security guards hired to protect the contractors. The only Iraqis allowed inside the Green Zone were those who worked for the Americans or those who could prove that they had resided there before the war. Saddam had surrounded the area with a tall brick wall. There were only three points of entry. All the military had to do was park tanks at the gates.

Americans drove around in new GMC Suburbans, dutifully obeying the 35mph speed limit signs posted by the CPA on the flat, wide streets. When they cruised around, they kept the air-conditioning on high and the radio tuned to 107.7 FM - Freedom Radio, an American-run station that played classic rock and rah-rah messages. Every two weeks, the vehicles were cleaned at a Halliburton car wash.

Shuttle buses looped around the Green Zone at 20-minute intervals, stopping at wooden shelters to transport those who didn't have cars and didn't want to walk. There was daily mail delivery. Generators ensured that the lights were always on. If you didn't like what was being served in the cafeteria - or you were feeling peckish between meals - you could get a takeaway from one of the Green Zone's Chinese restaurants. Halliburton's dry-cleaning service would get the dust and sweat stains out of your khakis in three days. A sign warned patrons to remove ammunition from pockets before submitting clothes.

Iraqi laws and customs didn't apply inside the Green Zone. Women jogged on the pavement in shorts and T-shirts. A liquor store sold imported beer, wine and spirits. One of the Chinese restaurants offered massages as well as noodles. The young boys selling DVDs near the palace parking lot had a secret stash. "Mister, you want porno?" they whispered to me.

Most of the CPA's staff had never worked outside the United States. More than half, according to one estimate, had got their first passport in order to travel to Iraq. If they were going to survive in Baghdad, they needed the same sort of bubble that American oil companies had built for their workers in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Indonesia.

"It feels like a little America," Mark Schroeder said as we sat by the pool on a scorching afternoon, sipping water bottled in the United Arab Emirates. Schroeder, who was 24 at the time, had been working for a Republican congressman in Washington when he heard that the CPA needed more staff. He sent his résumé to the Pentagon. A few months later, he was in the Republican Palace.

He was an essential-services analyst. He compiled a weekly report for Bremer with bar graphs and charts that showed the CPA's progress in key sectors. Schroeder lived in a trailer with three roommates and ate all his meals in the mess hall. On Thursdays, he'd hitch a ride with a friend to the al-Rasheed's disco or another bar. In the two and a half months since he had arrived in Baghdad, he had left the Green Zone only once - and that was to travel to Camp Victory, the US headquarters near the airport.

When he needed to buy something, he went to the PX, the military-run convenience store next to the palace. There he could pick up Fritos, Cheetos, Dr Pepper, protein powder, Operation Iraqi Freedom T-shirts and pop CDs. If the PX didn't have what he wanted, he'd go to the Green Zone Bazaar, a small pedestrian mall with 70 shops operated by Iraqis who lived in the Green Zone. The bazaar had been built so that Americans wouldn't have to leave the Green Zone to purchase trinkets and sundries. Several shops sold mobile phones and bootlegged DVDs.

Others hawked only-in-Iraq items: old army uniforms, banknotes with Saddam's face, Iraqi flags with the words "God is great" in Saddam's handwriting. My favourite was the JJ Store for Arab Photos, the Iraqi version of a wild-west photo booth at Disneyland: you could get a picture of yourself in Arab robes and a headdress.

The Green Zone also provided its own good time. The CPA had a "morale officer" who organised salsa dancing lessons, yoga classes and movie screenings in the palace theatre. There was a gym with the same treadmills and exercise machines you would find in any high-end health club in America.

Even in the first months after the fall of Saddam's government, Schroeder was incredulous when I told him that I lived in what he and others called the Red Zone, that I drove around without a security detail, that I ate at local restaurants, that I visited Iraqis in their homes. "What's it like out there?" he asked.

I described the pleasure of walking through al-Shorja market, and of having tea in cafes in the old quarter. I spoke about discussions of Iraqi culture and history that occurred when I went to the homes of my Iraqi friends for lunch. The more I talked, the more I felt like an extraterrestrial describing life on another planet.

From inside the Green Zone, the real Baghdad - the checkpoints, the bombed-out buildings, the paralysing traffic jams - could have been a world away. The horns, the gunshots, the muezzin's call to prayer, never drifted over the walls. The fear on the faces of US troops was rarely seen by the denizens of the palace. The acrid smoke of a detonated car bomb didn't fill the air. The sub-Saharan privation and wild-west lawlessness that gripped one of the world's most ancient cities swirled around the walls, but on the inside, the calm sterility of a US subdivision prevailed.
One morning, as a throng of Shia pilgrims jostled their way inside the Imam Kadhim shrine in northern Baghdad, a suicide bomber detonated his explosives belt. A second bomber waited round the corner and set off his belt when survivors ran away from the first blast. Then a third bomber blew himself up. And a fourth. The courtyard of the shrine filled with smoke and the screams of the dying. Blood pooled on the concrete floor. Dazed young men staggered about seeking help. Other survivors stacked the maimed on to wooden carts and pushed them toward wailing ambulances.

When I arrived at the scene an hour later, I saw corpses covered with white sheets. Arms and fingers had been blown onto third-story balconies. Piles of shoes belonging to the dead dotted the floor. Later, I saw dozens of bodies piled outside the morgue, covered with blue sheets, rotting under the sun.

That evening, I met a group of CPA staffers for dinner in the palace. Nobody mentioned the bombings. The shrine was just a few miles north of the Green Zone, no more than a 10-minute drive away. Had they heard about what had happened? Did they know dozens had died? "Yeah, I saw something about it on the office television," said the man to my right. "But I didn't watch the full report. I was too busy working on my democracy project"

Party on the tigris: sports bars, disco balls and sexual tension
General Order 1 prohibited military personnel from consuming alcohol in Iraq, but it did not apply to CPA staffers.

Drinking quickly became the most popular after-work activity. The Green Zone had no fewer than seven watering holes: the Halliburton-run sports bar in the basement of the al-Rasheed hotel, which had a big-screen television along with its Foosball table; the CIA's rattan-furnished bar - by invitation only - which had a mirrored disco ball and a games room; the pub in the British housing complex where the beer was served warm and graffiti mocked the Americans; the rooftop bar for General Electric contractors; a trailer tavern operated by Bechtel, the engineering firm; the Green Zone cafe, where you could smoke a water pipe and listen to a live Arab drummer as you drank; and the al-Rasheed's disco, which was the place to be seen on Thursday nights. A sign at the door requested patrons not to bring firearms inside. Scores of CPA staffers, including women who had had the foresight to pack hot pants and four-inch heels, danced on an illuminated Ba'ath party star embedded in the floor.

The atmosphere was thick with sexual tension. At the bar, there were usually 10 men to every woman. With tours of duty that sometimes stretched to six months without a home leave, some with wedding rings began to refer to themselves as "operationally single."

Ex-Envoy Says Iraq Rebuilding Plan Won't Work

Taken from Yahoo News, 17 Feb 2007
By By Sue Pleming, Reuters

Kiki Munshi was showcased by the media in September as a seasoned U.S. diplomat who came out of retirement to lead a rebuilding group in Iraq.

Now she is back home, angry, and convinced that President George W. Bush's new strategy of doubling the number of such groups to 20 along with a troop surge of 21,500 will not help stabilize Iraq.



A diplomat for 22 years, she quit her job last month as leader of a Provincial Reconstruction Team -- groups made up of about 50 civilian and military experts that try to help Iraqi communities build their own government while strengthening moderates.

"In spite of the magnificent and often heroic work being done out there by a lot of truly wonderful people, the PRTs themselves aren't succeeding. The obstacles are too great," Munshi said this week in Washington, where she was pressing her view at the State Department and to Congress.

"Once again we are proceeding to lay people's lives on a line drawn with faulty information. Once again the fantasies of the 'policy-makers' drive decisions without much link to the realities on the ground," said Munshi, who retired from the foreign service in 2002 .

Her postings included Romania, India and Sierra Leone before Iraq, where Munshi said he had felt a "moral obligation to sort out the mess we have made there."

An audit by the special inspector general for Iraq last October found similar problems with the PRTs to those listed by Munshi, including an "ever-changing security situation, the difficulty of integrating civilian and military personnel, the lack of a finalized agreement on PRT operational requirements and responsibilities."

REJECTION
Members of Congress have also been critical of the program, which suffered early on from not being able to attract enough civilian staff and a dispute between the State and Defense departments over who would provide security for the teams.

The Bush administration rejects Munshi's views and the State Department said the expanded PRT plan was more focused, requiring team members to do pre-deployment training and with a clear goal of bolstering moderates and sidelining militants.

"We have been very mindful of the problems our PRT leaders have reported to us. We have worked very hard to streamline it," said Barbara Stephenson, the deputy coordinator for Iraq at the State Department, which oversees the PRT plan.

Munshi said the PRT plan was ill-conceived, under-funded and poorly staffed.

She said security was so bad that the council in the town in Diyala province where she was based had not had a quorum since last October and that death squads were rife.

PRT members found it hard to meet with Iraqis because of intimidation, she said, giving the example of training sessions that had been canceled because of poor security.

The PRTs are embedded with the military, a tactic Munshi says has varying results depending on the ability of the unit.

"All the PRTs embedded with the military are subject to the vicissitudes of military fortune, for good or ill," she said.

But the State Department countered that Munshi's experiences were not repeated in all the provinces and set up interviews with two PRT leaders who said while there were difficulties, they believed their work was making an impact.

Stephanie Miley, a PRT leader in the Iraqi town of Tikrit, said her teams managed to get out to see Iraqi officials five or six times a week but security issues meant they could not stay for long.

"I just hope that people will recognize that this is not something we will achieve overnight," she said.

'Israel Resembles An Apartheid State'

Taken from The Jerusalem Post, 22 Feb 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

An independent report commissioned by the United Nations compares Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza to apartheid South Africa - charges that drew angry rebukes from Israel and were sure to revive charges that the UN Human Rights Council is biased against the Jewish state.

The report by John Dugard, independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the council, is to be presented next month, but it has been posted on the body's Web site. In it, Dugard, a South African lawyer who campaigned against apartheid in the 1980s, says "Israel's laws and practices in the (Palestinian territories) certainly resemble aspects of apartheid."

The 24-page report catalogues a number of accusations against the Jewish state ranging from restrictions on Palestinian movement, house demolitions and preferential treatment given to Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

"Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group - Jews - over another racial group - Palestinians - and systematically oppress them?" he asks.

Israel says it aims mainly to prevent Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks that have killed more than 1,000 Israelis in the past six years, and officials note that violence broke out in 2000 after Israel's proposal to pull out of the vast majority of the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for peace was rejected.

Its ambassador in Geneva criticized Dugard for directing attacks only at the Jewish state. "Any conclusions he may draw are therefore fundamentally flawed and purposely biased," said Yitzhak Levanon.

The report will be presented next month at the 47-nation rights council's first session of the year. The new body has been widely criticized - even by its founder, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan - for only censuring one government in the world, Israel's, over alleged abuses.

Dugard's report accuses Israel of "terror" by F16 fighter jets setting off sonic booms above residential areas. In the West Bank "residents live in fear of settler terror."

He says it is "grossly inaccurate" to say Israel's 2005 removal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza constituted an end to its occupation of that territory, captured from Egypt in the 1967 war.

"Israel retained control of Gaza's air space, sea space and external borders, and the border crossings," he writes. "Gaza became a sealed off, imprisoned and occupied territory."

War crimes have been committed by both sides, he says: "This applies to Palestinians who fire Kassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale."

Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the United States to dismiss his reports as one-sided. Israel refused to allow him to conduct a fact-finding mission on its Gaza offensive last summer.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Israel: 'Outposts' Thriving In The West Bank

'Outposts,' Stepchildren of Israel's Settlement Drive, Are Thriving in the West Bank

Taken from ABC News, Feb 17, 2007
By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press

With its playgrounds, identical houses and manicured flower beds, Bruchin looks like any placid Israeli suburb. Except that Bruchin is not supposed to exist.

Bruchin is among more than 100 West Bank outposts never officially authorized by the Israeli government. And Israel's repeated commitments to freeze settlement construction haven't hampered Bruchin's transformation from a cluster of trailers less than eight years ago into a thriving community of 380 people, girded by government supplied roads, electricity and water.




"Normally, when you think of an outpost you think of a water tower. This is a real town," said Amishai Shav-Tal, one of Bruchin's founders.

Unlike the full-blown settlements that have been built in the face of international criticism, the outposts have never gone through the public process of gaining official government approval.

Many of them began as little more than a cell phone tower or trailer erected by settlers on a West Bank hilltop to establish a presence there, a seed they used to quickly establish a new community.

The outposts infuriate the Palestinians, who see them as part of a plan to strengthen the Jewish grip on land they want for an independent state.

With the international community focusing its disapproval mainly on the traditional settlements, Israel has managed to quietly plant a slew of the outposts across the West Bank, say Palestinians, Israeli critics and even the settlers themselves.

"This is the game that the government always played with the settlers: 'You will do it, we will turn a blind eye and then one day when we are politically able to, we will legalize it,'" said Dror Etkes, who monitors settlements for the Israel's Peace Now movement.

Israel has not built an official settlement in more than a decade. When it approved a new one in late December, it quickly backed down under international condemnation.

But Bruchin is a different story. Settler leaders and a former Cabinet minister say the government cooperated through every phase of its creation in the northern West Bank. In recent talks with the Defense Ministry, which must approve new settlement construction, the settlers demanded Bruchin be the first in a string of developed outposts to be recognized as full settlements, which would ease fears that they could be forcibly removed.

"They have no choice, they have to recognize most of the outposts," said Bentzi Lieberman, a settler leader.

Over the 40 years since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast War, the settlers have cultivated political allies and manipulated divided coalition governments in their favor.

They capitalized on Palestinian hostility toward Israel to push the claim that the entire West Bank is the Jews' biblical birthright and a vital security buffer with the Arab world.

But some outpost residents fear the government may be turning against them.

As prime minister, Ehud Olmert started out with what looked like a campaign to tear down the unauthorized settlements, and was elected on a platform calling for the country to abandon much of the West Bank and all but the largest settlement blocs.

Political troubles following last summer's war in Lebanon have forced Olmert to put his plan on hold, but the settlers of Bruchin say they felt the change.

The army office in charge of the West Bank has issued orders to stop construction at the outpost and to demolish what has already been built, spokesman Capt. Zidki Maman said without providing details. It has also prevented Bruchin from upgrading its electricity hookup, which the settlers complain is too small for its growing population.

"Bruchin is an illegal outpost," Maman said.

The settlers blame U.S. pressure, and say they feel betrayed by the government.
Meanwhile, Bruchin continues to thrive with the government's help.

On a sunny winter morning, soldiers sent by the government stand guard at Bruchin's gates, while the squeals of children at play ring out from the outposts' nine preschools, many of them funded by the Education Ministry.

Down a tidy road lined with tall street lights and brick sidewalks, past the marble-walled synagogue and the community center, stand 40 two-story yellow stucco houses in two rows. A large sign says they were built with Housing Ministry help.

Nearby, a cluster of nearby trailers houses another 40 families, who arrived in recent years.

Residents describe Bruchin as a quiet, close-knit, religious suburb. They have neighborhood barbecues, cooking classes for the wives, and after-school judo, ceramics, basketball and Torah for the kids.

"It's a good place," said Avi Galimidi, a 30-year-old student who moved here 2 1/2 years ago with his wife and four children. "It has wonderful and good people. And I want to settle the land."

Israel has repeatedly promised to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, where nearly 270,000 settlers a 6 percent increase from a year ago, according to government figures live among 2.4 million Palestinians.

Several thousand Israelis are believed to be living in outposts.

Under the 2003 "road map" peace plan, Israel agreed to remove dozens of outposts built since March 2001, but that deal that does not include Bruchin, since it was started two years earlier.

Israel also agreed to freeze settlement growth, which should have ended all expansion at Bruchin. Israel did not follow through on either of those commitments.

The Palestinians have also failed to live up to their road map commitment to disband militant groups, who effectively rule the streets of the West Bank and fire missiles at Israeli towns from Gaza.

The U.S. sees the settlements and their continued construction as obstacles to peace, at a time when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has scheduled a Feb. 19 summit between Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to foster a rapprochement.

"The Israel government should live up to its commitments, and that includes on the settlements, that includes on outposts. These are commitments, by the way, to the United States, they're not commitments to the Palestinians," U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones said.
The Israelis "should not create facts on the ground," he said.

But more than 100 outposts have been built since 1995, and most now have at least some form of basic infrastructure, Etkes said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat calls the outposts "baby settlements."

"Our worst fear there is being realized, which is that they will boom and become major settlements," he said.

Like many outposts, Bruchin was a response to violence the fatal shooting of an Israeli woman, Yael Mevar, as she drove near an Arab town on Dec. 31, 1997.

Angry settler leaders dusted off old plans for a settlement about 12 miles east of Tel Aviv, between Israel and the large settlement of Ariel, deep in the West Bank. In the spring of 1999, Jewish seminary students moved into trailers on a hilltop.

"You can't come and just shoot Jews and we'll do nothing," said Shav-Tal, 31. "We'll show them that we live in this country, and we are the people that own this country."

In October, Shav-Tal and five other families answered the students' call to settle in Bruchin.

They moved into trailers powered by electricity generators, with water tanks filled every three days, Shav-Tal said.

"The challenge that you have of building something where there is nothing that's real Zionism," he said.

That core group posted fliers in nearby settlements, advertised on the Internet, and were flooded with applications, Shav-Tal said.

"Our problem from the first day was more people want to come than the places we have," Shav-Tal said.

More trailers rolled in. The government-owned electricity company hooked Bruchin up to the grid. The water company installed a pump and pipes. The local council paved 1.5 miles of roads. Public bus service began.

The settlers received approval from the Housing Ministry to build 40 permanent houses, and their occupants moved in 2 1/2 years ago, well after the road map was unveiled. Their newly empty trailers became available for new arrivals, and by December, these too were filled, bringing Bruchin's population to 380.

The army may call Bruchin illegal, but in her government-commissioned report on the outposts two years ago, attorney Talia Sasson said the Housing Ministry spent $785,000 on Bruchin's infrastructure and public buildings.

The government was deeply complicit in the creation of many of the outposts, Sasson wrote.

"Most of the outposts were financed by some ministry in Israel," she told The Associated Press.


"We helped build it," said Yitzhak Levy, who was housing minister in 1999. "It is supposed to be a city. It has a large area. It is clear that this is a place that was going to grow, and therefore there was investment. It was done openly."

Yehudit Passal moved here 1 1/2 years ago with her husband and two children because it allowed her family to be near the Tel Aviv job market while strengthening Israel's hold over the West Bank, she said.

Her decision was strengthened, she said, by Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which included the dismantling of 21 settlements and another four in the northern West Bank.

She said she wanted the remaining settlements to be large, "so it would be that much harder to take them down."

A few hundred yards down the hill lies a town of 4,000 Palestinians. Its name is Brukhin, the Arabic form of Bruchin. Mayor Akrima Samara says the outpost's existence blocks Palestinians from their olive groves and grazing land, and has dimmed their hopes for a state of their own.

"With every passing day we see the outpost grow," he said. "This land is lost."

The settlers of Bruchin have big plans. A detailed blueprint envisages expanding their community tenfold, to 750 families, said Itzik Turk, the outpost's general secretary.

But the sympathy the settlers once enjoyed in Israel has weakened as Israelis have wearied of war with the Palestinians and the burden of being an occupying power.

Galimidi, the student, says he is not worried about Bruchin's future.

"I believe that all the problems will be solved little by little," he said. In another 20 years, "Bruchin will be a city, and we will have malls."

UK: Jewish Group Says Criticism Of Israel 'Censored'

Claims made by group of British Jews that Jewish community is censoring attempts to criticize Israel stir row

Taken from YnetNews, Israel, 13 Feb 2007
By Yaakov Lappin

The Jewish community in Britain is "stifling debate" on Israel – that at least is the claim being made by a group of around a hundred British Jews, who have formed Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) .

"None of us is suggesting that there is an unofficial censor who prevents individuals from expressing unpopular views about Israel or Zionism. It's what happens after people speak out - how their words are received - that is the point," Brian Klug, a founder of the group, wrote on the IJV's website.

"Moreover, individual dissenting voices get lost or drowned out when weighty bodies (like the Board of Deputies or the Chief Rabbi) appear to speak on behalf of all Jews in Britain. It is the combination of these two factors that closes down a debate that should be open," Klug added.

Last Sunday, the British Observer newspaper claimed a "furious row has been raging in the international Jewish community over the rights and wrongs of criticizing Israel."

The report declared that "one thing's for sure: any appearance of consensus over the Middle East has been shattered."

'Enlightening Jews about the truth'
So far, the "furious row" has been mostly confined to the opinion sections of the British Guardian newspaper website, known for being a stage for hostile stances towards Israel.

Other than excited reports in sections of the British press not known for their love of Israel, the group has also drawn support from figures such as Azzam Tamimi, spokesman of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), which is the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a London rally against Israel last year, Tamimi shouted: "Anyone in the world, with faith or without faith, must come together in order to eradicate this cancer from the body of humanity."
"The Independent Jewish Voices project is excellent news. It will hopefully pave the way for enlightening Jews about the truth of what happened to them," Tamimi wrote in the Guardian website on Saturday, under the title of "Let us co-exist."

Voices from outside the community?
Members of Britain's Jewish community, attending the Global Forum Against Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, dismissed out of hand claims that debate was being stifled. "I think they assert something that isn't true," Anthony Julius, a prominent British Jewish lawyer, and activist within the community, told Ynetnews on Monday. "It's a shame they talk about an oppressive atmosphere," he added.

"I'm struck of by the vacuous nature of their arguments, their lack of answer to so many issues" Julius said, noting that IJV members failed to address the attempts to boycott Israel in Britain. The IJV's claims of "Zionist censorship" were reminiscent of rhetoric from other quarters, Julius added.

Members of IJV should be "welcomed" into the Jewish community, irrespective of their views, Julius said. "Many of them don't have links to the institutions of the Jewish community, such as synagogues… they have not been involved in discussions on the future of the Jewish people. Existing institutions should reach out and involve them," he added.

'No impact on mainstream'

Jeremy Newmark, CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council in Britain, said members of IJV had no ties to the community. "These are people who have no profile in the community or in Jewish life in recent history," he told Ynetnews, adding: "In reality, they have no track record of attempting to engage with the mainstream."

Newmark added that the group has "failed to make an impact in mainstream UK media… most of the media seems to have basically ignored them, after realizing they don't represent the majority of the Jewish community." He added that during one televised BBC debate, an IJV representative "was left speechless" by pro-Israel columnist Melanie Phillips.

US debate
In the US, a parallel controversy has begun following a paper by an Indiana University professor, Alvin Rosenfeld, who said a number of prominent Jews, including historian Tony Judt, and playwright Tony Kushner, were responsible for encouraging anti-Semitism by exaggerated and extreme criticisms of Israel.

"I am certainly not looking to shut down debate, I'm looking to advance it," Rosenfeld was quoted by the Jewish Week as saying last week. "I'm looking to join the issue in terms that don't, in fact, smear Israel with a Nazi brush or a South African apartheid brush," he added.

Groups such as IJV were nothing new in the history of the Jewish people, Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice-Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told Ynetnews. "If they want to do irresponsible things to justify the existence of their organization, they can," Hoenlein said, adding: "We've had these groups all along. They spring up, and then they disappear."

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Pope An Anglican? Church Unity Plan

Taken from The The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Feb 2007
By Barney Zwartz and Linda Morris

A RADICAL proposal to reunite Anglicans with the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope has been delivered by bishops from both churches.



Their 42-page statement suggests the churches could turn back the ecclesiastical clock, 450 years after Henry VIII separated from Rome in the Reformation.

Australian leaders from both churches dismissed the move as highly improbable last night, although the Australian who heads the Catholic side of the project, Brisbane's Archbishop John Bathersby, said it was a significant step forward in an attempt at unity that began 35 years ago.

Archbishop Bathersby, the co-chairman of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, said the relationship between the churches was closer than ever.

The statement was leaked to The Times in London, but Archbishop Bathersby said a suggestion that an agreement was close was too strong.

Neither church had yet officially launched the report. It is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.

Worldwide, there are about 78 million Anglicans compared with a billion Catholics. The commission was established in 2000 by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, and Australia's Cardinal Edward Cassidy, then head of the Vatican's Council for Christian Unity. Its aim was to find a way of moving towards unity through "common life and mission".

Problem areas on the Anglican side include the Pope and on the Catholic side women bishops and the ordination of a practising gay as bishop in America. The world's Anglican leaders are meeting in Tanzania to discuss the crisis over sexuality that may lead to schism and Archbishop Bathersby says they will also consider the 42-page report.

It says: "We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesiastical communion."

Sydney's Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, said unity was "highly unlikely". The Anglican Bishop of North Sydney, Dr Glenn Davies, could not see his church submitting to the Pope's authority. "We believe Jesus Christ is the true leader of the church. If a Pope gives a directive, every parish priest follows it. If the Archbishop of Canterbury offers a directive, most ministers of a parish would think that a nice piece of advice. The very thought we would hand over our authority would be a romantic notion at the least."

However, Archbishop Bathersby, an "optimist", said: "Discussion about a universal primate has been going on since 1976. There is a fair degree of support within the Anglican Communion … Within that there would be freedom and diversity."

Rome has already accepted dozens of married priests from the Church of England into the Catholic priesthood when they left over women's ordination.

Romanian Priest Sentenced For Exorcism

Romanian Priest Sentenced To 14 Years In Prison For Nun's Death In Exorcism Ritual

Taken from USA Today, 19/02/2007
By The Associated Press

A Romanian priest was sentenced to 14 years in prison Monday for causing the death of a nun during an exorcism ritual, state news agency Rompres reported. Four nuns were also sentenced in connection with her death.


Irina Maricica Cornici, 23, died in June 2005 at the secluded Holy Trinity convent in the northeast Romanian village of Tanacu.

She was tied up for several days without food or water and chained to a cross during an exorcism ritual led by Daniel Petru Corogeanu, 31, a monk who served as the convent's priest, and four other nuns.

The court in the northeast city of Vaslui convicted Corogeanu and the nuns of holding Cornici captive, resulting in her death, Rompres reported. One of the nuns — Nicoleta Arcalianu was sentenced to eight years in prison, and the other three — Adina Cepraga, Elena Otel and Simona Bardanas — received five-year sentences.

The defendants' lawyers plan to appeal, Rompres reported.

Cornici's death stunned Romania and prompted the Orthodox Church to promise reforms, including psychological tests for those seeking to enter monasteries.

The church, which has benefited from a religious revival in recent years, condemned the Tanacu ritual as "abominable" and banned Corogeanu from the priesthood and excommunicated the four nuns from the church.

In 1999, when the Vatican issued its first new guidelines since 1614 for driving out devils, it urged priests to take modern psychiatry into account in deciding who should be exorcised.

Monday, February 19, 2007

War With Iran Is In No One's Interests

Taken from the Telegraph, UK, 14/02/2007
By Anne Applebaum

'War in Iraq, war in Iran?" That's a headline I saw in Britain earlier this week. In Washington, the headlines read more like "Tentative nuclear deal reached with North Korea" and "Obama must show more than potential", but never mind: the American invasion of Iran appears imminent, at least in some quarters of the British Isles, so it has to be taken seriously.

But before we all head off to the next round of anti-war demonstrations, it's important to separate the facts from the rhetoric.

Fact Number One: Iran is a large country containing 75 million people, in possession of a large and competent army. We don't have the men, we don't have the machines and we don't have the money to stage an invasion. If we were even to contemplate such a thing, we would have to reduce force levels elsewhere, but where? In Iraq, the policy is to send more troops, the war in Afghanistan isn't going away anytime soon, and, just as diplomacy there is starting to produce results, this isn't a great time to start monkeying about with the military balance on the Korean peninsula either.

Fact Number Two: even if we were to contemplate a more limited military strike - the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, for example - there are some pretty serious obstacles to overcome.

The most serious is the fact that we don't know where all Iran's nuclear facilities are located, which is not a minor problem if we are contemplating their destruction. Even if we could hit a few of them, which we probably could, that would merely delay Iran's nuclear programme by a few years.

Such a limited result hardly justifies either the political fallout or the (literal) environmental fallout which would follow. Even the Israelis, who do indeed believe that Iran's nuclear programme is designed to create the bomb that could destroy their country, appear unconvinced, at least for the moment, that selective bombing can succeed.

Fact Number Three: neither at home, nor internationally, does the Bush Administration have a shred of support for military action of any kind.

This is one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, and he is already fighting an unpopular war. More to the point, his credibility on intelligence matters was damaged - perhaps the better word is "eviscerated" - by the Iraq intelligence debacle, so no one is likely to believe his claims about Iranian nuclear prowess or Iranian anything, whatever the evidence. More to the point, Iran is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which had been under UN surveillance for a decade. It is a sovereign state which has relatively normal relations with America's allies, not to mention China and Russia.

Fact Number Four: contrary to some other British press reports, America is "talking" to Iran, or at any rate using diplomacy to deal with what is a nasty regime. In fact, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has pretty much staked her reputation on her belief that diplomacy, in co-operation with Germany, France and Britain, will produce results in Iran, just as it now appears to have done in North Korea. So far, it is true, these results - a weak UN Security Council resolution and some huffing and puffing - are thin.

Nevertheless, President Bush on Monday night repeated his preference for diplomacy, calling the Iranians a "good, honest, decent people" with a "government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening". America's, objective, he went on to explain, "is to keep the pressure so rational folks will show up and say it's not worth the isolation". For those who need a translation from Texan dialect, that means: "We really do hope they'll remove Ahmedinijad as rapidly as possible."

Of course it is true that American rhetoric about Iran has lately taken on a harsher tone, and that America is using some of what one Middle East expert, Tamara Wittes, calls "coercive diplomacy".

The administration has started to apply selective sanctions - restricting Iran's access to hard currency, for example - and has pointed out, rather late in the game, the fact of Iranian support for Iraqi militias and terrorists. They've sent a few ships in Iran's direction, and have also tried to get other Arab states to push back against Iranian intervention in Iraq as well as Lebanon.
There is some evidence that this sort of thing is working. It does indeed seem as if the good, honest, decent people of Iran are getting sick of their loud and noisy leaders, at least if election results can be believed.

Last weekend, Iran's nuclear negotiator also sounded more conciliatory when he offered to re-open the stalled Iranian-European negotiations. Iran's president has also gone out of his way to say that his country poses "no threat to Israel", despite earlier promises to "wipe Israel off the map".

But it is also true that at least one of Iran's tactics is also working. For some time now, the Iranians have been trying to play America off against Europe, so as to relieve the pressure on themselves. After all, if there aren't joint American-European sanctions, then the Iranians will find it that much easier to ignore them. Thus do the "war in Iran" headlines - guaranteed to stir up fear and loathing of the American government - feed right into Iranian interests.

Which matters: for we are at an unusual juncture in history. If Britain, France and Germany go along with America's "coercive diplomacy", that diplomacy might stand a slim chance of success.

If they do not, then yes, the distant, but not completely unthinkable military option might begin to loom larger in the minds of politicians in both Washington and Tel Aviv.

Having started an unpopular war already, having no prospect of being re-elected to anything, President Bush might decide that, in the absence of allies, there is no other way. For the first time in a long time, it really is up to Europeans to influence what comes next.