Archive for January, 2009

THE DAY OF THE OUTBURSTS – By Ghulam Muhammed

January 30, 2009

Friday, January 30, 2009

 

THE DAY OF THE OUTBURSTS

 

Thursday, January 29, 2009 could have been a very star crossed day as it caused flare-ups in public arena at two different locations across the world. One at India‘s Supreme Court and the second at Davos meeting attending jointly by Israeli President Simon Perez and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. 

 

In Delhi, the venue was the venerable highest justice portal of the land, India‘s Supreme Court. The TOI reports:

 

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOI&BaseHref=TOIM/2009/01/30&PageLabel=10&EntityId=Ar01000&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T

 

 

“Delay in riot cases raised in SC

Senior Lawyers Engage In War Of Words Over Srikrishna Report

Dhananjay Mahapatra I TNN 


New Delhi: Muslim organisations for long have been urging the Supreme Court to ensure in toto the implementation of Srikrishna Commission’s caustic report on 1992 Mumbai riots, but their counsel — both reputed senior advocates — had a bitter face-off in full public view in the Chief Justice of India’s courtroom on Thursday. 


    Seconds after a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal left the courtroom for lunch after adjourning hearing in the case, senior advocates Rajeev Dhawan and Colin Gonsalves traded charges. 


    Gonsalves, who was unhappy over the way the other senior advocate was conducting himself during the hearing, charged Dhawan of “compromising the case”. An angry Dhawan, generally erudite in his arguments on constitutional issues, was equal to the task with a below the belt remark, calling Gonsalves “an entrepreneur of minority rights”. 

Responding angrily to the continuing muttering by Gonsalves reiterating that his colleague had “compromised” the stand of the petitioners in the case, Dhawan termed his opponent as “the tail piece in the tale”, indicating the latter’s late entry into the riot case litigation in SC. 

    

    The two grey haired lawyers were finally dissuaded from a full fledged war of words by another, who said, “It does not look nice when two seniors fight in the court.” Though both left the courtroom without looking at each other, the verbal sniping continued till they were out in the open.

 
    Before breaking into the slanging match, Gonsalves, representing Shakil Ahmed, made a serious grievance before the bench about the manner in which the prosecution and judiciary had discriminated between the two inter-linked events — 1992 Mumbai riots and 1993 serial blasts. 


    “While trial in blast-related cases have been over, majority of the accused convicted and handed down death, life and other harsh sentences, there has not been a single conviction in riot-related cases,” he said. 


    In the 1992 riots, over 900 people were killed and the commission indicted several policemen, yet there were only acquittals and no action against the erring policemen, he complained. 


    
Maharashtra counsel Ravindra Adsure raised a technical objection. Verdicts of trial court acquitting the accused had to be challenged in proper forum and the SC could not entertain a PIL on this issue, he said.

 
    Agreeing with him, the bench said the apex court could at best issue some general guidelines relating to the manner in which these cases could be dealt by the police, prosecution and the trial court. It adjourned further hearing on the case, pending since 1998, to March 19. 


    Gonsalves alleged that as many as 30 officers were indicted for their involvement in the riots and most of them had been recommended to be dismissed from service, but though the state government has accepted the recommendations, it has instead given promotions to these officers. 

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com “

 

Since Times of India is India‘s most widely read English newspaper, the news spread like wildfire. Both lawyers are supposed to be liberal and secular. But they apparently differ in degrees over their commitment to liberalism and secularism. The petition is from people of Mumbai, who had been enraged on how the supposedly secular political parties coalition of Sonia Congress and Sharad Pawar’s National Congress Party, has been stonewalling the persecution of accused singled out by Sri Krishna Commission as criminally involved in 1992-93 Bombay Riots in which Muslims were the major sufferers. While the culprits in Mumbai Bomb Blasts were promptly rounded up and all of them have been judged and guilty among them were sentence in quick order, the culprits in Bombay Riots, especially the 30 police officers that were found guilty and recommended by Justice Sri Krishna for dismissal had been, on the contrary, promoted. This is slap on the face of Muslims and at the face of Justice Sri Krishna too. A public litigation appeal was filed by several organizations, with the Supreme Court, pleading them to intervene in the matter and instruct the Maharashtra Government to speedily process the cases, so that those innocent could find freedom and justice. Both Congress and NCP governments are in the hands of Marathas and even though Muslim voters have voted overwhelming to elect both these supposedly secular political parties, their stark communalism is open for all to see how differently they have treated the accused in Mumbai blasts and those in Mumbai Riots. The difference is between Muslim accused and non-Muslim accused. The Muslim accused were swiftly tried and sentenced. The non-Muslims in Mumbai riots cases, including the non-Muslim police, has been given preferential treatment and there are chances that they will never be brought to justice, unless Supreme Court intervenes in the matter of equal justice for all.

 

The public behaviour of both coalition partners is all the more surprising, as elections to Parliament are due within next three months and Sharad Pawar is desperately trying to aim for the next Prime Minister’s post. Both secular parties need Muslim vote and both are overconfident that Muslims have nowhere to go and will vote for them, come what may. They could be surprised as Indian elections are famous for their surprises.

 

The petitioners are joined ironically by a former Congress Muslim minister, while his own government is involved in stonewalling. The public impression is that he was deliberately pushed into his role, to frustrate the ends of justice. The difference of approach by the two lawyers, Rajeev Dhawan and Colin Gonsalves could be the result of some attempt behind the scene to water down Muslim demands. One hopes, the truth will be revealed in the public arena, thanks to TOI reporting. Urdu Media is already on the trail.

 

The second outburst of the day widely telecasted on BBC, CNN, Reuters and Aljazeera, is datelined in Davos, Switzerland. Two supposedly friendly nation’s leaders were seated next to each other on the dais. They were Israel‘s President Simon Perez and Turkey‘s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Perez thundered in his baritone voice, breathing fire on Hamas in Gaza and showing no remorse on the 1200 dead and over 5000 injured in Israel’s land, sea and air onslaught on defenseless civilians. He was clapped and applauded by the European audience in the meeting.  Turkish prime minister, Israel’s only Muslim friend in the Middle East, was boiling at the way Perez was showing off his triumphal boasts. He further angered Erdogan, when he addressed him directly and asked the question, how he will feel if his country is hit by rockets. When Perez finished, the anchor started to declare the meeting close, but Erdogan intervened and repeatedly stopped him saying, one minute, one minute.  Ignatius of Washington Post deferred to him and said only a minute if you please as we are already late for dinner. In fact, Ignatius had realised that there will be fireworks if he allowed Erdogan to speak as he has seen Erdogan fuming and referring to his notes again and again. Erdogan had his say. He addressed Perez directly, saying you are elder to me and I see that you have a good voice; still you had to shout as possibly you had guilty conscious. He said, I saw your forces shooting children on the beach. Your two former prime ministers gloating over invading Gaza on the backs of tanks, and these people here are applauding. That is inhuman. He said, your own commandment says, you should not kill, and all you do is kill. He cited a Jewish Oxford professor who had come out heavily against Israel’s invasion of Gaza. He said, I am not being given time, as I have lots of points to take up. While he was struggling to speak, Ignatius kept on touching his shoulder and asking him to stop. Erdogan said, Perez spoke for 25 minutes and you are not giving me the right to reply for even half the time. I am finished with Davos, and I will never come to Davos again. Gathering his papers, he calmly stood up, ignored Perez and moved on towards the exit. While Erdogan spoke, Perez face was completely changed. Gone was the earlier cockiness and the show of bravado. Israel has lost in those moments, a vital Muslim ally that had stood with Israel in worst of days. Gaza massacre had touched all the people of the world across all divides, except die-hard Muslim haters. The reckoning for Israel is unfolding, as the blood of innocents will not go unanswered. Each day that dawns brings in news of new moves unfolding to haul Israel and its leaders for an accounting.

 

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

 

 

VISIT: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

 

 

 

Will Obama policies bring real change for the Muslims? By Abdus Sattar Ghazali – Chief Editor – American Muslim Perspective

January 30, 2009

Will Obama policies bring real change for the Muslims?

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

 

In a bid to repair relations with the Muslim world that were damaged under the Bush administration,President Barack Obama told the Muslim world Tuesday that “Americans are not your enemy.”

 

In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV channel, Obama said: “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy — we sometimes make mistakes — we have not been perfect.”

He spoke about Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East, Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo Bay Prison. On the Middle East conflict Obama said he believes “that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. “Instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.”

“If we start the steady progress on these issues, I’m absolutely confident that the United States, working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region … can make significant progress,” Obama told the Al-Arabiya TV network.

The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.

There has been mixed reaction to Obama’s interview. While many in the Muslim and Arab world welcomed the interview but some looked at it differently by pointing out that his interview was rich in rhetoric but poor in content. He did not offer any change of policy and failed to mention the Israeli carnage of Gaza while reaffirming America’s support to Israel: “I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount.”

This says a lot to the Arabs and Muslims who have fresh memories of the US-backed 22-day Israeli carnage in Gaza that massacred about 1400 Palestinians, of whom 412 were children and a hundred were women. More than 5,000 were injured, 1,855 of whom were children and 795 were women, according to UN sources.

While the tone appears to have changed quite substantially, Obama has yet to make clear that policy changes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will follow, according to Jim Lobe of IPS.

A reader of  Lebanon’s The Star newspaper described the interview a window dressing: “The fact that Obama gave this interview to the house media of Saudi sheiks and the Egyptian dictator (some “moderates”!) shows that he is insincere. The Arab masses watch and believe in Al Jazeera. By choosing to grant the interview to this State Department allied media company he gave an unmistakable message; he talks only to the discredited Arab elites.”

“We have to lower our expectations that he has a magic wand to solve all our problems,” Reuters quoted a Mideast analyst, Mustafa Alani, as saying. “The Arab attitude is basically optimistic that Obama will turn a new page and his inaugural speech reached out to Muslims but the devil is in the detail.”

“I heard Obama, his tone is different, but I can’t believe that any U.S. president can be different when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Haytham Rafati, in Ramallah told the Associated Press. “I will believe Obama is different in his approach to the Islamic world only when I see him pulling out his forces from Iraq and pressing Israel on the Palestinian rights.”

At least 100 comments were listed on Al-Arabiya TV website about Obama’s interview, most of them welcoming his new approach to the Muslim World but many did not see anything new. The following comment perhaps represents the sentiments of those who do not see any change in Obama’s policies:

“So now Obama expected us to believe that the us is not the enemy and thus we should forget about the millions of dead souls and years of death and destruction at the hands of the Americans directly or through proxy. He was saying: Muslims are not the enemy, it is only Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran that we are trying to “isolate”. My response to him: America is not the enemy, it is only the US Military, the CIA and their proxies that we are trying to get them off our backs. The most ridiculous item in his speech is that while he was trying to please Israel in every step of the speech, he adds insults to injuries by trying the divide Muslims and splitting hair and telling us whom we should support and whom we should not. To me it is the same old sh*t.”

Obama’s Al-Arabiya TV interview came five days after he singed an executive order to close down the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. That order was one of three the President signed on that day. Another formally bans torture by U.S. interrogators, and the third establishes an interagency task force to set policies for the “apprehension, detention, trial, transfer or release of detainees.”These orders were signed on the first day of his office (January 22) when he also called President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud ‘Abbas first, followed by calls to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, President Mubarak of Egypt, and Jordan’s King Abdullah.

On his second day (January 23), the President named former Senator George Mitchell, an Arab American and the architect of the peace accord in Northern Ireland, as special envoy to the Middle East. He also appointed Richard Holbrooke as special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

George Mitchell

 

Interestingly, whilst announcing George Mitchell’s appointment, the Secretary of State HillaryClinton did not even mention Palestine and stated that Mr. Mitchell would undertake to negotiate between Israel and the Arab States. It was only after Mr. Mitchell clearly mentioned Palestine as being the key to the region, did Hillary refer to the matter.


Appearing with Mitchell, President Obama made his first substantive comments on the Middle East conflict since Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. He first mentioned his commitment to Israel’s security, without affirming his commitment to Palestinian security. He condemned Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israeli towns, but didn’t criticize the US-backed Israeli bombings of densely populated Gaza.

In carefully crafted words, President Obama said: “Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.”The President concluded his remarks with an endorsement of the Arab peace initiative saying: “the Arab peace initiative contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative’s promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”

Obama’s remarks warrant examination. To borrow Noam Chomsky: “So the thrust of his remarks, is that Israel has a right to defend itself by force, even though it has peaceful means to defend itself, that the Arabs must—states must move constructively to normalize relations with Israel, very carefully omitting the main part of their proposal was that Israel, which is Israel and the United States, should join the overwhelming international consensus for a two-state settlement. That’s missing.”

In short, both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, to whom Mitchell will report, have made clear their support for the 22-day Israeli onslaught on Gaza.

Mitchell chaired the negotiations in Northern Ireland that led to the landmark 1998 Good Friday agreement, under which the IRA disarmed and Irish Republican politicians have joined the provincial government. He later chaired a commission on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict whose report, delivered in April 2001, was ignored by the incoming Bush administration because it called for a freeze on Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

Noam Chomsky argues that Mitchell did quite a commendable job in Ireland but it was possible because Britain took into account for the first time the grievances of the population and the terror stopped. However, in the case of Israel situation is quite different which can be noticed from the statement of Mitchell. Chomsky says:

He achieved something in Northern Ireland, but of course, in that case there was an objective.  The objective was that the British would put an end to the resort to violence in response to IRA terror and would attend to the legitimate grievances that were the source of the terror. He did manage that, Britain did pay attention to the grievances, and the terror stopped- so that was successful. 

But there is no such outcome sketched in the Middle East, specially the Israel-Palestine problem. I mean, there is a solution, a straightforward solution very similar to the British one. Israel could stop its US-backed crimes in the occupied territories and then presumably the reaction to them would stop. But that’s not on the agenda. 

In fact, President Obama just had a press conference, which was quite interesting in that respect. He praised the parabolic peace initiative, the Saudi initiative endorsed by the Arab League, and said it had constructive elements. It called for the normalization of relation with Israel, and he called on the Arab states to proceed with those “constructive elements,” namely the normalization of relations. 

But that is a gross falsification of the Arab League initiative. The Arab League initiative called for accepting a two-state settlement on the international border, which has been a long-standing international consensus and said if that can be achieved then Arab states can normalize relations with Israel. Well, Obama skipped the first part, the crucial part, the core of the resolution, because that imposes an obligation on the United States. The United States has stood alone for over thirty years in blocking this international consensus, by now it has totally isolated the US and Israel. 

Europe and now a lot of other countries have accepted it. Hamas has accepted it for years, the Palestinian Authority of course, the Arab League now for many years [have accepted it]. The US and Israel block it, not just in words, but they are blocking it in actions constantly, (this is) happening every day in the occupied territories and also in the siege of Gaza and other atrocities. 

So when he skips that it is purposeful. That entails that the US is not going to join the world in seeking to implement a diplomatic settlement, and if that is the case, Mitchell’s mission is vacuous.

This is some of what Mitchell had to say: The Secretary of State has just talked about our long-term objective, and the President himself has said that his administration—and I quote—”will make a sustained push, working with Israelis and Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states: a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security.”

Chomsky told the Democracy Now Radio: “He (Mitchell) says, “Yes, we want to have a Palestinian state.” Where? OK? He said not a word about — lots of pleasantries about everyone should live in peace, and so on, but where is the Palestinian state? Nothing said about the US-backed actions continuing every day, which are undermining any possibility for a viable Palestinian state: the takeover of the territory; the annexation wall, which is what it is; the takeover of the Jordan Valley; the salients that cut through the West Bank and effectively trisect it; the hundreds of mostly arbitrary checkpoints designed to make Palestinian life impossible—all going on, not a word about them.”

Mitchell had nothing to say about a Palestinian state. “He carefully avoided what he knows for certain is the core problem: the illegal, totally illegal, the criminal US-backed actions, which are systematically taking over the West Bank, just as they did under Clinton, and are undermining the possibility for a viable state,” Chomsky went on to say.

Apparently, President Obama is giving very little room for Mr. Mitchell to involve all the representative forces within Palestine. Obama still believes that President Mahmoud Abbas, whose constitutional term expired on 9th January 2009, enjoys the support of his people. To borrow Robert Fisk, as every Arab knows, except perhaps Mr Abbas, he is the leader of a ghost government, a near-corpse only kept alive with the blood transfusion of international support and the “full partnership” Obama has apparently offered him. The Palestine Authority is in tatters due to the Israeli intransigence and yet Obama wants to exclude the democratically elected Hamas government from the dialogue. This is a sure recipe for a guaranteed disaster and will only serve to reduce any space for maneuver for Mr. Mitchell who faces the most daunting and onerous task.

Richard Holbrooke

US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke is a hawk and is currently part of the neoconservative organization, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). He has co-authored a statement with the extreme hawk and Neocon, Dennis Ross that openly threatens military action against Iran. Holbrooke has also been part of the National Endowment for Democracy that advocates “regime change“. Holbrooke is also part of the “Council for Foreign Relations” which is the bastion of the influential Israeli lobby.

Richard Holbrooke, is best known as the architect of the 1995 Dayton peace accords that ended three years of war in Bosnia. According to BBC, nicknamed “the Bulldozer”, Holbrooke has gained a reputation for confronting warring leaders to get them to come to the negotiating table. These skills will be tested again in his new role as US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Holbrooke has long served as one of the most ruthless American diplomat, going all the way back to his early days in the Foreign Service in Vietnam. He came to public notice as the leader of the US diplomatic team at the 1995 talks on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, held in Dayton, Ohio, that concluded with a US-imposed settlement in the civil war in Bosnia.

Tellingly, in his encouragement of ethnic cleansing by the Croatian regime of Franjo Tudjman, which drove a quarter million Serbs out of the Krajina region of southern Croatia in a 1995 offensive, Holbrooke could deservedly face war crimes charges. He later boasted, in his memoir of the Dayton talks: “Tudjman wanted clarification of the American position. He bluntly asked for my personal views. I indicated my general support for the offensive … I told Tudjman the offensive had great value to the negotiations. It would be much easier to retain at the table what had been won on the battlefield than to get the Serbs to give up territory they had controlled for several years.”

Holbrooke was fully aware at the time of the Dayton talks that the Croatian Army was carrying out atrocities against the Serbs, and was later quoted saying, “We ‘hired’ these guys to be our junkyard dogs because we were desperate. We need to try to ‘control’ them. But this is no time to get squeamish about things.”

Clinton said that Holbrooke’s mandate would be to “coordinate across the entire government an effort to achieve United States’ strategic goals in the region.” These goals have little to do with the remnants of Al Qaeda hiding out in the mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The real focus of the intervention, under Obama as much as under Bush, is to establish the United States as the principal power in the oil-rich region of Central Asia.

A pipeline from the Dauletabad gas field of Turkmenistan through to Herat and Qandahar then Multan in Pakistan and on to the Indian Ocean remains a strategic goal for Washington. Caspian Sea oil and gas are the near-equivalent in potential value to the Persian Gulf resources, but surrounded by Iran and Russia. A pipeline from Azerbaijan reaches through Georgia to end on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, but in a time of crisis Russia could easily seal it off. The international contract for pipeline construction was signed shortly after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but work has not been feasible because the construction site is largely under Taliban control. The desire the area around Qandahar for this purpose is probably a factor in the troop increase.

According to Prof. Gary Leupp of Tufts University, Holbrooke will argue that more needs to be done to stop attacks on Afghanistan from Pakistan, and will justify the continuing U.S. policy of violating Pakistan’s sovereignty with missile attacks. “Holbrooke will engineer Afghan President Karzai’s ouster, work with Gen. David McKiernan to make Afghanistan the center of the “war on terror,” try to pacify the country enough to build a pipeline. Meanwhile, he’ll keep the pressure on Pakistan to go after the Taliban, even as the Taliban and their supporters and imitators proliferate, while the U.S. continues to bomb Pakistan, insulting its national pride, violating international law, outraging its legislators, provoking official protests and mass demonstrations.”

It was pretty clear that Obama has accepted the Bush doctrine that the United States can bomb Pakistan freely. On January 23, the third day of this office, President Obama gave the go-ahead for the twin US missile strikes against targets in Pakistan’s FATA region that killed 21 innocent civilians. Since August, of the 38 drone strikes in Pakistan that have killed nearly 150 people.  The militants have responded by killing dozens of alleged US spies in the area.

Dennis Ross

President Obama told Al-Arabiya that the US would in the next few months lay out a general framework of policy towards Tehran. “It is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of US power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran…. As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.  

Obama had been expected to appoint former ambassador Dennis Ross, president Bill Clinton’sspecial Middle East envoy, to a third post that would handle US relations with Iran. But Ross’s aggressive campaign for the post, as well as his close association with key groups that make up the Israel Lobby, appears to have incited a backlash among key Obama advisers, reportedly including Clinton herself, that may have delayed his appointment, according to Jim Lob.

Dennis Ross, an Iran baiter, has supported the war on Iraq which Obama has opposed. Ross has also served with the pro-Israel think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) as well as with the Jerusalem-based “Jewish People Policy Planning Institute” (JPPPI).


Dennis Ross has co-authored the report “Meeting the Challenge: US Policy towards Iranian Nuclear Development”. This report alludes to an Iranian nuclear program that has been debunked by the CIA National Intelligence Report (Nov 2007) that said that the Iran nuclear program was on hold. The report calls for the military encirclement of Iran, pressure on Iran to abrogate its nuclear programme and thus leading to its logical extension where “war becomes inevitable”.


To borrow Prof. Gary Leupp, “by appointing Dennis Ross, Obama is sending the Iranian leaders a clear message. He is associating himself with the most extreme alarmist positions currently articulated, including those of Norman Podhoretz.”

 

Ross co-authored an op-ed with Richard Holbrooke, R. James Woolsey, and Mark D. Wallace entitled, “Everybody Needs to Worry About Iran.”  The op-ed published in the Wall Street JournalSept. 22, 2008, stated: “Iran is now edging closer to being armed with nuclear weapons, and it continues to develop a ballistic-missile capability.” As Prof Gary Leupp sated: 

“This contradicts the conclusion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies (Central Intelligence Agency, Army Military Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, etc.) as of November 2007. Those authors reported: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” In other words, in the world of empirical methods, critical thinking and analysis–the world of hundreds of trained professionals who’ve actually researched Iran’s nuclear program, with access to spy satellite data, reports from agents in the field, electronic surveillance–Iran has no nuclear program. Mohamed ElBaradei and IAEA staffers on the ground have consistently said that Iran has been thoroughly cooperative and that there are no signs of any diversion for a military program But in the world of this Chicken Little group Iran is edging ever nearer to nukes.”

The editorial describes the nuclear program as “destabilizing” (while noting that Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel all have nuclear weapons) and repeats the old Cheneyism that since Iran has so much oil it can’t have any possible real need for a civilian program. (The Iranian nuclear program was encouraged by the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations when the Shah was in power and supported by General Electric and other U.S. firms.) It repeats the old charge that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the map (adding that he’s said it could be done with one nuke) and generally assembles all the Bush-era anti-Iran talking-points: Iran sponsors Hizbollah and Hama terrorism, the regime’s repressive towards women and homosexuals, Iran could shut off the Strait of Hormuz, etc.

In conclusion the authors announce their establishment “along with other policy advocates from across the political spectrum” of the nonpartisan group United Against Nuclear Iran.

Prof. Gary Leupp says Ross is known to favor the recommendations of a September 2008 report by something called the Bipartisan Policy Center. These include forcing Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and meet other demands by imposing blockades on Iranian gas imports and oil exports (acts of war) as well as striking “not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.” So it looks like the official Obama line towards Iran, at least for the beginning, will be the Cheney-neocon line. And that is worrisome.

So what foreign policy change is expected by the Obama administration? State policy does not change with the changing of politicians, but is laid out years in advance. This is more clear in the case of Obama because of the deep expectations of change; and probably change there will be none. This message was also brought home by the former president of Pakistan Parwez Musharraf. Commenting on the latest US missile attacks on Pakistan, Musharraf told the CNN:

“But as far as this issue of the new president — President Obama having taken over and this continuing — but I have always been saying that policies don’t change with personalities; policies have national interest, and policies depend on an environment. So the environment and national interest of the United States being the same, I thought policies will remain constant.”

 

Obama’s election has aroused optimism in the Muslim world that he would reverse the Bush administration policies that created negative image of America and fomented anti-American feelings throughout the world. President Obama said in his Al-Arabiya interview that ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration’s actions. Let us hope that his policies will bring peace to all.

 

Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Executive Editor of the online magazine American Muslim Perspective: www.amperspective.com email: asghazali@gmail.com

 

A running thread of deep saffron – By Christophe Jaffrelot – The Indian Express

January 29, 2009

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-running-thread-of-deep-saffron/416409/

 

A running thread of deep saffron

 

Christophe Jaffrelot

Posted: Jan 29, 2009 at 1107 hrs IST

The people behind the Malegaon terrorist attack fell into three categories — Sangh parivar cadres, army men and old Savarkarites. The first person to be arrested by the police, Pragya Singh, was a sadhvi and former ABVP leader. A second group of the accused comprised army men, retired or not, related to the Bhonsle Military School (BMS). Major Ramesh Upadhyay, a former defence services officer was arrested first, but the key figure was Lt Col Prasad Purohit, who had approached Upadhyay when he was posted at Nasik as liaison officer. Purohit and Upadhyay imparted military training to young activists — including bomb making — and were instrumental in getting arms and explosives. 

Most of the training camps took place in the BMS, which had been directed by Rtd Major P.B. Kulkarni between 1973 and 1988, andwho had been associated with the RSS since 1935. In fact, the Bajrang Dal organised training camps in the BMS (Nagpur) as early as 2001. The five accused mentioned above were all members of Abhinav Bharat, a Pune-based movement initiated by Purohit in June 2006, whose working president was Ramesh Upadhyaya but whose president was none other than Himani Savarkar, V.D. Savarkar’s daughter in law, who also headed the Hindu Mahasabha.  

The people, the places and the modus operandi are revealing of the continuity that underlines the Hindu tradition of terror, harking back to V.D. Savarkar. The young, revolutionary Savarkar had created the first Abhinav Bharat Society in 1905. The movement drew its name and its inspiration from Mazzini’s ‘Young Italy’, but was also influenced by Frost Thomas’s Secret Societies of the European Revolution, a book dealing mostly with the Russian nihilists. The movement was dissolved in 1952, but ten years back, just before finishing his term as Hindu Mahasabha president, Savarkar had created the Hindu Rashtra Dal, another militia whose mission was to impart military training to the Hindus in order to fight the Muslims, Gandhi’s followers and the Mahatma himself. This movement cashed in on the work of the same institution — the Bhonsle Military School, started in 1935 by B.S. Moonje, another Nagpur-based Savarkarite, after a European tour which had exposed him to Mussolini’s Balilla movement.

Like the Abhinav Bharat of today, the Hindu Rashtra Dal attracted Hindutva-minded Maharashtrian Brahmins — especially from Poona — who found the RSS insufficiently active. Some of them also had connections to the British Army.

Nathuram Godse and N.D. Apte, the two main architects of Gandhi’s assassination, are cases in point. Godse thought that RSS strategy contented itself with “organisation for the sake of organisation”. The Hindu Rashtra Dal, by contrast, organised training camps where volunteers learnt how to manufacture bombs and use guns from bicycles and cars. The key instructor was N.D. Apte who had served the army as Assistant Technical Recruiting Officer. In this capacity, he could use the War Service Exhibitions — which were intended to attract young Indians to the army — to initiate Hindu Rashtra Dal members into the art of modern arms.

The Hindu Rashtra Dal’s terrorist agenda culminated in the assassination of Gandhi, who had already been a Savarkarite target before — in 1934, they threw a bomb in Poona Municipal Town Hall where Gandhi was making a speech against untouchability.  

While today’s Abhinav Bharat belongs to an old tradition harking back to Savarkar and even Tilak, the new element here lies in the implication of one serving officer of the Indian army. Certainly, any institution can have a black sheep. But was he that isolated? He has already named other officers who would have been his more or less passive accomplices and his colleague, Upadhyay, who once headed the Mumbai unit of the BJP’s ex-servicemen cell. The BJP, indeed, inducted ex-army men in large numbers since the 1990s. After the BJP came to power in 1998, two dozens ex-servicemen more joined the party. This inflow of ex-army men may reflect the increasingly communal atmosphere of the institution. In December 2003, a survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies for Tehelka, one of the first among army men — and probably the most comprehensive — showed that 19 per cent of the soldiers interviewed felt that the army practised some religious discrimination — and 24 per cent of the Muslims among them shared this view. 

Instead of distancing itself from the Hindu terrorists, as it had done in the 1940s, this time the Sangh Parivar has decided to support the Malegaon accused. Bajrang Dal chief Prakash Sharma declared that “policy makers should be worried if the Hindus were taking to arms because of the government’s skewed approach to war on terror” and admitted that the Bajrang Dal was running training camps too “to boost their morale [the Bajrang Dal’s members]. The country wouldn’t get its Abhinav Bindras if there were no armed training for the youth”.

In a way, the RSS, with the Bajrang Dal, has created a buffer organisation to handle the dirty work that the Sangh was earlier obliged to do itself — work similar to that of the Savarkarite organisations, whether they are called Hindu Rashtra Dal or Abhinav Bharat. 

     

The writer is a political scientist and South Asia specialist at CERI, Paris

CAN SUCH PEOPLE BE DEFEATED?

January 28, 2009

http://ara.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20090120&t=2&i=7917250&w=450&r=2009-01-20T000519Z_01_ACAE50J008Y00_RTROPTP_0_OEGTP-GAZA-DESTRUCTION-SK4

CAN SUCH PEOPLE BE DEFEATED?

Obama should win the war of ideas – By Ghulam Muhammed

January 27, 2009

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

 

Obama should win the war of ideas

 

By Ghulam Muhammed

 

Newly elected US President’s first TV interview was to an Arabic channel, Al Arabia, apparently in his opening to Muslim world. The interview was re-telecast on CNN. Obama agreed with interviewer Hisham Melham, that in Muslim world, US was respected as it did not have a colonizing past. However, he said, it only within the span of last twenty to thirty years that US has been seen as antagonist to Arab and Muslim world.

 

It is at this point of argument that Obama should have further tried to analyse why this change came over. It is too early or too undiplomatic for him at his stage to pin-point the source of this estrangement, this disenchantment, but until and unless he realises and publicly frames his foreign politics initiatives countering the source of this estrangement, he will be belying the promise of change that brought him to world’s most powerful office. This singular source of America‘s estrangement with the world at large is Jewish neo-con’s exploitation of America‘s armed might to further Israel‘s convoluted ideas of security and expansion. Israel has been carved and supported by the US, partly as a military outpost in the heart of Muslim world; however, the way Israel has evolved and impacting US foreign policies, it is more like the case of tail wagging the dog.

 

Jews have found a weak spot in American people. They had cultivated brawn, but neglected brains. The vacuum is filled by a small minority of Jews, specializing in ideating the Americas, especially in the field of use of power.

 

Right from the days of the beginning of the Second World War, when the US was reluctant to break its isolated security existence, secured by world’s two great oceans, Atlantic to the East and Pacific to the West, Jews have been conspiring to drag the US into war for their own ‘noble’ cause of survival in the midst of anti-Semites of Europe. Nobody can deny, that US was blessed with peace while Europe was constantly embroiled in wars and human sufferings. In fact, US came into existence in its new avatar, mainly to escape the war torn history of European nations, bleeding each other at various legitimate and/or illegitimate pretext. It was the Jews, who were expert at propaganda and fear-mongering that changed the very ethos of the US. In the field of ideas and conspiracies, US people were laggards. They had stuck out to what their forefathers had sanctified in their constitution, the Bill of rights. Jews relentlessly worked to claim monopoly of supplying ideas and conspiracies to the brainless Americans. In fact, the Jewish thinkers and activists were so powerful and overwhelming in propounding their ideas and conspiracies, that US like President Bush, had nowhere to go other than following their dictats.

 

It is in this context, that US was singularly exploited by the Jews to form a prejudiced and biased opinion about the Muslim world, where an ongoing struggle was going on against the Israelis who were working day and night through endless initiatives of  confrontation with their neighbours in order to expand and secure their ‘greater Israel’ Zionist agenda.

 

The American Jews,  which can be identified at least partially as ‘Israeli lobby’, had forced US administration to put ‘clash of civilizations’ and ‘war against Islam’ —  neatly camouflaged as ‘war against terror’ as their first order of business. They proposed howAmerica‘s brute power can be profitably used to take over nations in the Middle East. The bait was the oil resources some of them possessed. They had chalked out a series of wars on their potential ‘enemies’ – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan. This was to take upAmerica‘s half century in the service of Israeli interests, en-noblised as the greatest service to humanity by world’s lone super power.

 

9/11 was their masterstroke. The earliest American people come to terms with the glaring facts of the ghastly assault on their sense on invincibility, as the game-plan of Jewish-Israeli agents, infiltrating gullible disgruntled elements in Muslim world, the sooner they will be able to come to grip with their own destiny. Americans must realise that they are losing in a war of ideas to the Jewish/Zionist lobbyists. With the inauguration of Obama, there is an opening that a new beginning could be made to shake away the shackles of convoluted thinking imposed on American psyche by the Zionists and let them start thinking independently and freely, to bring in the change that Obama has so repeatedly promised.

 

That change should start with deliberate and conscious thwarting of all devilish moves that American Jewry and their compatriots in Israel make to subjugate America to their will. Obama is human, and if he cannot tackle Emanuel Rheum who can humiliate him in front of others in White House, by countering him in a weird show of camaraderie with the Chief, it is difficult to figure out, how he can break the stranglehold of the Jews around him. However, he must realise that the American people by giving him such a robust support across so many diving lines, have in fact revolted against the Jewish-Israeli lobby that had made the Bush administration the most hellish experience that American people and the world at large were forced to endure.

 

Obama wants to be friends with everybody. To an extant, that is a good public relations gambit. But he will have to have an enemy against which he can marshal his forces and unify his ranks. If he looks around and has courage of his conviction, he should legitimately make Israel and Jewish lobby his enemy number one. He may not get a second term, but even in his first term he should move fast to place ideas in motion, that would be difficult to dismantle in future. He should organise a think tank, that debars Jews and Israel from its thinking agenda and let it come out with alternatives, that go back to the earthy set of fundamentals and rule of law that founders of America had propounded and which had been thoroughly dismantled by the Jewish thinkers and conspirators. If America has to gain the goodwill and trust of the people within its boundaries and of the people around the world, he must junk Bush junkies who had chewed the world with their narrow parochial hidebound ideas of ruling the world, for the Jews and by the Jews to the exclusion of all ‘zombies’ that they are determined to make the rest of the world.

 

The Muslim world is now in disarray but has a king’s ransom of ideas as how to make the world a peaceful paradise through diplomacy rather than through brute force. All human lives are sacrosanct. If Obama as he has broadly hinted over and over again, succeeds in bridling his cronies and friends from the other side that are famously known for their hawkish arrogant ways, and boldly uses the office of his presidency for wider good of the nation and the world, he is sure to redeem his own dream of stepping in the shoes of US President Abraham Lincoln.

 

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

A shadow PM: Advani signals ‘main hoon na’ – By Rajeev Sharma – Sunday Free Press Journal, Mumbai

January 25, 2009

http://www.freepressjournal.in/FPJ/FPJ/2009/01/25/ArticleHtmls/25_01_2009_001_014.shtml?Mode=1

A shadow PM: Advani signals ‘main hoon na’
By Rajeev Sharma
NEW DELHI

IT was a deft political stroke that cerebral politician L K Advani made today while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was undergoing coronary surgery at AIIMS: the leader of Opposition convened a meeting with some three dozen noted security experts and commentators. Advani’s message to the nation was: main hoon na! At a time when the Prime Minister was under the knife at AIIMS, the BJP made two moves. One, its Prime Minister-in-waiting held a meeting of his advisory council on national security matters, timing it brilliantly with the ongoing Indo-Pak diplomatic tug-ofwar in the wake of 26/11. Many of those who attended Advani’s meeting are prominent members of his shadow cabinet.Two, the BJP orchestrated media leaks that it has found a new ally in Uttar Pradesh and the name of this political party with which the BJP would contest the AprilMay general elections would be announced next week. The BJP also reminded the media about its performance in the just-concluded assembly polls in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan, saying it won 40 Lok Sabha seats, got 300 MLAs and got 34 per cent vote in these three states as against 280 seats and 32 per cent vote share of the Congress. The BJP also maintained that the Congress retained only a city-state and won in Rajasthan because of the BJP’s failure at micro level management.

Those who attended Advani’s national security affairs-related meeting were from four spheres: (i) political: Advani, Rajnath Singh, Arun Jaitley and Arun Shourie; (ii) top journalists and commentators : M J Akbar, Chandan Mitra, Brahma Chalani and Swapan Das Gupta; (iii) 13 from civil services including Vijay Kapoor, Anil Baijal, Ajit Doval, Yogendra Narayan, KPS Gill, K P Singh, Satish Chandra, B Raman and K Santanam; and (iv) 14 from defence— former Air Chief Marshals- A Y Tipnis, S Krishnaswami and S P Tyagi, former Naval Chief Arun Prakash, and ten Lt Generals.

The mission objective of the conclave was that the BJP-led NDA government-in-waiting was here to fill in the vacuum created by the sudden absence of Manmohan Singh from the Congress and the government scene. The idea was to convey to the people of India that it was not just Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but the Congress too was under the knife as the Congress has no face for governance other than Manmohan Singh. Advani’s meeting also set the agenda for governance if the BJP were to return to power. Today’s deliberations also threw up some important points from the BJP’s perspective which the party would be incorporating in its election manifesto. At the meeting, concern was expressed on the defence preparedness and also post- 26/11 situation. M J Akbar felt that British foreign minister David Miliband was trying to link terrorism with the Kashmir problem and the danger was that the Barack Obama administration too could toe this line. Akbar stressed that India needed to be tough. Former defence top honchos expressed concern on slowing down of the weapons procurement process and resentment in the armed forces over the implementation of 6th Pay Commission. They lamented that the Group of Ministers after the 1999 Kargil war had suggested a number of measures to beef up national security but most of these could not be implemented. One suggestion that came up was that before the Crisis Management Group meets to decide upon a development impinging on the national security, there should be a person who can take immediate decisions the moment the crisis breaks out. Mumbai terror attacks and their security fallout were discussed in detail and a recent study of the US think tank Rand

Comments posted on New York Times website article by Bob Herbert: More than Chrisma

January 24, 2009
Comments posted on New York Times website article by Bob Herbert: More than Chrisma

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/01/24/opinion/24herbert.html#postComment

READERS’ COMMENTS

More Than CharismaBack to Article »

I’ve seen charismatic politicians come and go like sunrises and sunsets over the years. There was something more that was making people go ga-ga over Barack Obama. Something deeper.

Share your thoughts.

RSS

All Comments – Oldest First

SHOW:                          Oldest First                                               Newest First                                               Readers’ Recommendations                                               Editors’ Selections                                               Replies                     

There are no comments in this view.

Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.
 
January 24th, 2009 2:37 pm
It was long a coming. The way WASP had chewed up the very foundation of a great nation, by their chicanery, their corruption, their unbridled arrogance, their skewed notions of greed as the essence of their capitalist utopia, their pathological sadistic warmongering instinct nurtured by a whole brainwashed society, US desperately needed change. Obama just being not from the old chip of the block, was clearly the answer to everybody’s prayers. Any other WASP could not have achieved so much just by being on the ticket. Obama correctly promised change. Now he has to be extra conscious that those that he had picked from the old background, will not hijack and frustrate his dream to remake America. He must collect resignation of each and every member of his team and let them know that he means business. Any lobbying for the old vested interests and his team members should be shown the door.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai— Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai, India

 

——————————————————————————————–

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/opinion/24herbert.html

 

OP-ED COLUMNIST

More Than Charisma

Published: January 23, 2009

Boston

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

On a rainy October night in 2006, I took a cab to the John F. Kennedy library here to conduct a very public interview. As we pulled up, the driver asked, “Who’s on the program?”

“Barack Obama,” I said.

“Oh,” he replied, “our next president.”

I mentioned this to then-Senator Obama during the program and he got a good laugh out of it. He hadn’t yet announced that he was running. The capacity crowd in the auditorium was clear about what it wanted. It cheered every mention of a possible run. Obama-mania was already well under way, and it would only grow.

I was back at the library this week to interview Gwen Ifill about her new book, “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,” and I wondered aloud about this continuing love affair with all things Obama — the feverish excitement, the widespread joy and pride, and the remarkable surge of hope in an otherwise downbeat, if not depressing, period.

Where was all this coming from? What was it about?

Yes, as everyone agrees, Mr. Obama is handsome, fit, smart, and a great speaker. As Ms. Ifill noted in her book, “Voters are attracted to youth, vitality and change.”

And Americans tend to get giddy over winners, especially underdogs who take the measure of a foe thought to be impregnable — in this case, the mighty forces carefully assembled over several years by the Clintons.

And it’s not just the president himself who looks good. Even the shameless purveyors of fantasy at central casting would blush at the thought of crafting a family as picture perfect as the Obamas. So, yes, there is an awful lot to like about the Obama phenomenon.

But I’ve seen charismatic politicians and pretty families come and go like sunrises and sunsets over the years. There was something more that was making people go ga-ga over Obama. Something deeper.

We’ve been watching that something this week, and it’s called leadership. Mr. Obama has been feeding the almost desperate hunger in this country for mature leadership, for someone who is not reckless and clownish, shortsighted and self-absorbed.

However you feel about his policies, and there are people grumbling on the right and on the left, Mr. Obama has signaled loudly and clearly that the era of irresponsible behavior in public office is over.

No more crazy wars. No more torture, and no more throwing people in prison without even the semblance of due process. No more napping while critical problems like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global warming, and economic inequality in the United States grow steadily worse.

“We remain a young nation,” Mr. Obama said in his Inaugural Address, “but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.”

On Wednesday, his first full day in office, the president took steps to make the federal government more transparent, signaling immediately that the country would move away from the toxic levels of secrecy that marked the Bush years.

“Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” he said. It was a commitment to responsible behavior, and a challenge to the public to hold the Obama administration accountable. It reminded me of the wonderful line written into a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 by Judge Damon Keith:

“Democracies die behind closed doors.”

This has been the Obama way, to set a responsible example and then to call on others to follow his mature lead. In Iowa, after his victory in the Democratic caucuses a year ago, he promised to be “a president who will be honest about the choices and challenges we face, who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

In a cynical age, the inclination is to dismiss this stuff as so much political rhetoric. But Mr. Obama carries himself in a way that suggests he means what he says, which gives him great credibility when he urges Americans to work hard and make sacrifices, not just for themselves and their families but for the common good — and when he tells black audiences that young men need to hitch up their trousers and behave themselves, and that families need to turn off the TV so the kids can do their homework.

Or when he says of the many serious challenges facing the nation, as he did in his Inaugural Address: “They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.”

The bond is growing between the nation and its new young leader. Let’s hope it’s a mature romance that weathers the long haul.

FROM TERRORISM TO FASCISM : The bloody trail of Malegaon Blasts and the Israel-US-RSS nexus – Proved: RSS took Money from ISI! By Amaresh Misra

January 23, 2009

From Terrorism to Fascism: The bloody trail of Malegaon Blasts and the Israel-US-RSS nexus

Proved: RSS took Money from ISI!

By Amaresh Misra

Hindutva elements of India—there is still time—do not shirk your responsibility—Muslims have condemned terrorism and have even said that they will deny burial space for any terrorist—now it is your turn—condemn RSS-Hindutva type terrorism or perish in hell! Come back to the fold of Sanatan Dharma—there is no such thing as Hinduism or Hindu—there is only Sanatan Dharma and Sanatanis—and Sanatan Dharma has a historical pact with Islam to fight Israel and western Imperialism.

Seek forgiveness from Shankaracharya of Dwarika and Badrinath—and enroll your Muslim brothers in the cause of nationalism. Otherwise NATO forces are knocking at your doors—they will destabilize both Pakistan and you—they will not see who is a Muslim and who a Hindu.

Most Hindu NRIs living in the US and UK have sold their souls to the devil—ANYONE SUPPORTING THE RSS OR HINDUTVA OR ISRAEL OR EVEN DEFENDING THEM IS A HINDU NRI RUNNING DOG OF ISRAEL AND US OF THE FIRST ORDER—HE OR SHE IS ANTI-NATIONAL AND ANTI-INDIA.

Article

The Mumbai Police has failed miserably to put the lid on the can of worms opened by Hemant Karkare during the Malegaon Blast Investigations. There was widespread fear that the appointment of Raghuvanshi, a known RSS man, as the Mumbai ATS chief will lead to the emasculation of the Malegaon probe—but in the charge-sheet filed against Sadhvi Pragya Singh, Raj Kumar Purohit, Dayanand Pandey and others in the Malegaon Blast investigations by the Mumbai ATS, the fact that there indeed was a plot for a fascist takeover in India has been confirmed officially.
The 4,000 page long charge-sheet reveals that Purohit and his accomplices had planned to “suspend the Indian Constitution, and write a new Constitution” and force a regime change by a coup or some other armed method by the year 2024. Furthermore, they had received assurances and concrete help from Israel and the ex-Nepalese King Gyanendra for their project of a `Hindu Rashtra’.
In fact, in their reports on the charge-sheet the Times of India and Asian Age conveniently omitted the Israel angle. Both these papers also included the `Maoist’ angle—saying that Hindutva terrorists also sought and received help from Maoists, when even a political science rookie knows that Nepalese Maoists are not only against `Hindu Rashtra’, they have been instrumental in ending `Hindu Rashtra’ in Nepal.
Both the Hindustan Times and the Mumbai Mirror carried the Israeli angle in detail. In fact the Mumbai Mirror published a telephone conversation between the accused; a conversation which is a landmark in the history of criminal investigation in India, as it exposes, for the first time, that Mossad and Israel were not only supporting Hindutva terrorism, they were also keen on backing the project for a regime change and suspension of democracy in India.
The conversation given out in the charge-sheet is reproduced below. It tells of a harrowing anti-national conspiracy. The Mumbai Mirror report is as follows:

`Prasad Purohit in 2007 floated Abhinav Bharat with an intention to propagate a separate Hindu Rashtra with their own constitution, aims and objects as Bharat Swarajya, Surajya and Suraksha in its preamble,’ says the charge-sheet.

It further says that Purohit wanted to adopt a National Flag i.e. a solo themed saffron flag having golden ancient torch in the middle.

The charge-sheet also includes certain transcripts of conversations between Purohit, Dayanand Pandey and Ramesh Upadhyay, which has details about their men visiting Israel and also been in touch with Nepal based Maoists; excerpts from the transcripts of a conversation that the police claim was retrieved from Swami Dayanand Pande’s laptop.

The conversation reveals India dirtiest secret:

Purohit: I have contacted Israel. One of our captains has been to Israel…very positive response from their side. They have asked us to show them something on the ground.

Our website had not been launched yet. We just gave them on paper…they asked us to wait and watch for six months.

We had asked for four things…continuous and uninterrupted supply of equipment and training. Second thing allow us to start our office with saffron flag in Tel Aviv.

Number three…political asylum. Number four support our cause in UN that Hindu nation is born.

They have accepted two things. They don’t want to fly our national flag in Tel Aviv saying they don’t want to spoil their relations with India. Also they are saying that they cannot support us on international forum for two years.

Purohit: Let me also tell you our meeting had been fixed with King Gyanendra (of Nepal) on June 24, 2006 and then in 2007…the King had accepted the proposal…20 people from my side will train as officers there every six months…I’ll get 40 persons every year and 200 persons will train as jawans…I’ll get 400 soldiers. You being an independent nation, ask for Aks from Czekoslovakia, we will pay the money and the ammunition. The king has accepted…

The Mumbai Mirror continues:

Purohit again talks of a meeting in which relatives of King Gyanendra participated. There is also a reference of Queen Aishwarya, King Gyanendra’s wife.

Purohit clearly mentions that Israel agreed to two things—namely training and supply of equipment. And that they did not agree to the flying of a `Hindu Rashtra’ flag in Tel Aviv or recognizing a rebel `Hindu Rashtra’ Government in the UN.

The charge-sheet while attempting to take into account Karkare’s findings steers a course clear form blaming Israel directly. Then it states that no other leader was involved in the plot!

Did I hear this correctly—no other leader involved…why is the ATS trying to say `no other leader’? This is like the Mumbai Police’s statement during the Antulay controversy that `Karkare was hit by four bullets and they were not Police bullets’!

So the ATS is obviously trying to clear Narendra Modi, Praveen Togadia and who knows Lal Krishna Advani and maybe some Congress leaders.

But even this `compromise’—of naming Israel but clearing big leaders of involvement in the Malegaon blasts, and of not defining Israel’s role to the fullest, and of actually saying that Purohit’s group was not involved in other blasts in India, says a lot—it makes the buck stop but only tentatively. Because once you take Israel’s name, and once an accused in a bomb blast is quoted as saying that Israel has agreed to training and supply of equipment, the worms in the can get nastier. And though apolitical and opportunist civil libertarians and NGO type politicians and pseudo-leftists can still appear mum on the revelations, the end of their era of liberal-left double speak has begun.

This is the time for all patriotic forces in India to take stock—even communal elements in the establishment cannot hide Karkare’s findings. The charge-sheet also mentions that Mohan Bhagwat and Indranesh, two top RSS functionaries, took 20 Crores from the ISI and the Purohit gang was planning to kill them!

So two things are obvious—that the Hindutva camp, including the RSS are linked to the ISI—and that there are deep divisions within the Hindutva forces—to the extent that a part of them have broken loose and could have turned upon their ideological teachers.

What do we make of this? Why is there is no hue and cry over the RSS-ISI link? The RSS should not only be banned. Its leaders ought to be boycotted by their supporters for misleading their supporters by their tirade against Pakistan, when all the while they were taking money from the ISI!

There are also revelations about funding—it is written in the charge-sheet that Purohit collected Rs. 21 Lakhs—but it is not said whether those 21 lakhs went into the organization of Malegaon blasts. Again it is a rookie’s guess that a blast would require much more—and then what about the sources of funding?

Here, it is clear that the ATS is not carrying Karkare’s findings forward—Karkare, perhaps unwittingly had stumbled upon the source of funding of nearly all major terror attacks in India. Was the Israeli mafia involved? Was Mossad involved? Was the International diamond trade, which is controlled largely by the Jewish Mafia, involved?

It is well known that a conference of diamond traders was going on in the Taj when the attack took place on 26th November—some diamond traders were killed. But quite a few managed to escape. I will just leave the reader with a poser for now—remember that initial reports on the terror attack spoke of a gang-warfare; it is obvious that there were several groups, some working at cross purposes during the November 26th attack; was there one group belonging to one mafia force/security agency-secret service which carried out Karkare’s assassination and another which executed the Taj/Oberoi operation? The interesting thing is that the Israeli mafia currently controls much of the International diamond trade; and in that trade, a major Jewish diamond cartel, linked to Condelltza Rice, Bush’s Secretary of State, is locked in a fierce competition with a Dutch diamond cartel.

So the political alliance of Jewish fascists, called Zionists, and American fascists, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP) is linked also to the diamond trade; I leave you with the poser posted on a blog:

“Is it a coincidence that blasts in Mumbai, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Akshardham all targetted diamond traders and workers? In Mumbai train blasts all bombs were placed in the first class compartment which is mostly occupied by diamond traders of Panchratna building at the time of explosion. In 26/11, the CST random firing was started to divert the entire police action away from Leopold, Taj, Oberoi, Chabad house so that maximum diamond traders could be killed at these places. Is it a coincidence that Taj and Oberoi were hosting diamond trade conferences and meetings and had large number of diamond related guests put up? Is it a coincidence that the Chabad house founder is an ex- Israeli army-man who later started his own diamond polishing plant in Israel? Is it a coincidence that a few diamond traders got shot at Leopold cafe in the random firing? There is a lot sinister here and a lot more than meets the eye. Who could be the people who want to destroy the diamond trade and for what reasons? It could be a few top politicians from Maharashtra or Gujarat with whom the diamond industry may have touched a raw nerve on political matters? It could be Lev Leviev cartel, a Lubavitcher Jew, who is in cut throat competition with De Beers diamond firm? Are the De Beers polished diamond suppliers being systematically targeted by the Lev Leviev cartel? Are Qasab and company the ‘contractual killers’ hired from Pakistan to do the dirty job for politicians and diamond cartels? Did Hemant Karkare during his Malegaon probe bump into the ‘diamond terror’ network?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPECIAL ENVOY’S, SO WHERE IS THE CHANGE ?? by Feroze Mithiborwala

January 23, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPECIAL ENVOY’S, SO WHERE IS THE CHANGE ??

by Feroze Mithiborwala
23rd January 2009

President Obama in his urge to show the world that one of the first acts of his administration will be to get actively involved in the Palestine / Israel conflict and the larger Arab arena as well as the South Asian theatre has made three appointments. But the imbalance inherent in the appointments of George J. Mitchell as special envoy to Palestine / Israel and the Arab states, Richard Holbrooke to Afghanistan / Pakistan and Dennis Ross to Iran have sowed the seeds for further destruction and war.

Of the three, George J. Mitchell is the only honest negotiator in the Obama team with a track record of proven results in Ireland. He is a true Democrat, in the legacy of Jimmy Carter, with both a commitment and a conviction to bring peace to Palestine and Israel and thus all the region.

Whilst announcing Mr. Mitchell’s appointment, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who herself is beholden to the Israeli Lobby and is a Zionist herself, did not even mention Palestine and stated that G. J. Mitchell would undertake to negotiate between Israel and the Arab States. It was only after Mr. Mitchell clearly mentioned Palestine as being the key to the region, did Hillary refer to the matter.

One may also recall that Hillary had also threatened to “nuke Iran” and today she is the Secretary of State.

Moreover President Obama himself is giving very little room for Mr. Mitchell to involve all the representative forces within Palestine.

Unfortunately Obama still believes that ex-President Mahmood Abbas enjoys the support of his people, moreover since his constitutional term expired on 9th January 2009. The Palestine Authority is in tatters due to the Israeli intransigence and yet Obama wants to exclude the democratically elected Hamas government from the dialogue. This is a sure recipe for a guaranteed disaster and will only serve to reduce any space for maneuver for Mr. Mitchell who faces the most daunting and onerous task.

Especially after the Israeli genocidal attack on Gaza, where Obama chose to keep mum, the will of the Palestinian people to resist the occupation has grown and so has the global support for the cause of the Palestinian nation. Even during Obama’s inaugural speech, he chose to desist from condemning the “shoah” in Gaza that was witnessed across every household in the world and had miraculously (?) come to a halt two days prior to the swearing in of the new president.

Richard Holbrooke the special envoy for Afghanistan & Pakistan is a hawk and is currently part of the neoconservative organization, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). Mr. Holbrooke is also referred to as a Hillary Neoconservative. He has co-authored a statement with the extreme hawk and Neocon, Dennis Ross that openly threatens military action against Iran.

Holbrooke has also been part of the National Endowment for Democracy that advocates “regime change”. Holbrooke is also part of the “Council for Foreign Relations” which is the bastion of the Israeli lobby and it is the CFR that dominates and determines US foreign policy.

Dennis Ross who is the special envoy to Iran is a hardened Neocon, an Iran baiter and an Israel-Firster. He supported the war on Iraq which Obama has opposed. Ross has also served with the pro-Israel think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) as well as with the “Jewish People Policy Planning Institute” (JPPPI), based in Jerusalem.

Dennis Ross has co-authored the report “Meeting the Challenge: US Policy towards Iranian Nuclear Development”. This report alludes to an Iranian nuclear programme that has been debunked by the CIA National Intelligence Report (Nov 2007) that said that the Iran nuclear program was on hold.

The report calls for the military encirclement of Iran, pressure on Iran to abrogate its nuclear programme and thus leading to its logical extension where “war becomes inevitable”.

It is clear to all those who understand the regions of the Middle East and South Asia that the Obama appointees are doomed to fail. If Obama was serious in pursuing peace then Holbrooke and Ross would not have been the considered choice.

And failure, as per the calculations of the Neoconservatives and the Zionists will lead to war.

The call for war under a McCain would have not found support either within America or the world at large, but the Neoconservative / Zionist calculation is to have a supposed liberal called Obama, who having tried to negotiate and use diplomacy and having failed, will then appeal for war.

Obama in his inaugural speech had also stated that,

“Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” &

“We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense”

and more ominously he further states that,

“For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughter of innocents (very applicable to Israel), we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken, you cannot outlast us & we will defeat you”.

All of the above are classic Bush-Neoconservatism, couched in the suave & sophisticated liberalism of a Black president, with Hussein as his middle name.

And therein lies the danger !!

awamibharat.blogspot.com

Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel – By Gideon Levy – Haaretz, Israeli English Daily

January 22, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057670.html

Last update – 04:19 22/01/2009

Gideon Levy / Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel

By Gideon Levy

Tags: israel news, gaza, hamas, IDF

On the morrow of the return of the last Israeli soldier from Gaza, we can determine with certainty that they had all gone out there in vain. This war ended in utter failure for Israel.

This goes beyond the profound moral failure, which is a grave matter in itself, but pertains to its inability to reach its stated goals. In other words, the grief is not complemented by failure. We have gained nothing in this war save hundreds of graves, some of them very small, thousands of maimed people, much destruction and the besmirching of Israel’s image.

What seemed like a predestined loss to only a handful of people at the onset of the war will gradually emerge as such to many others, once the victorious trumpeting subsides.

The initial objective of the war was to put an end to the firing of Qassam rockets. This did not cease until the war’s last day. It was only achieved after a cease-fire had already been arranged. Defense officials estimate that Hamas still has 1,000 rockets.

The war’s second objective, the prevention of smuggling, was not met either. The head of the Shin Bet security service has estimated that smuggling will be renewed within two months.

Most of the smuggling that is going on is meant to provide food for a population under siege, and not to obtain weapons. But even if we accept the scare campaign concerning the smuggling with its exaggerations, this war has served to prove that only poor quality, rudimentary weapons passed through the smuggling tunnels connecting the Gaza Strip to Egypt.

Israel’s ability to achieve its third objective is also dubious. Deterrence, my foot. The deterrence we supposedly achieved in the Second Lebanon War has not had the slightest effect on Hamas, and the one supposedly achieved now isn’t working any better: The sporadic firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip has continued over the past few days.

The fourth objective, which remained undeclared, was not met either. The IDF has not restored its capability. It couldn’t have, not in a quasi-war against a miserable and poorly-equipped organization relying on makeshift weapons, whose combatants barely put up a fight.

The heroic descriptions and victory poems written abut the “military triumph” will not serve to change reality. The pilots were flying on training missions and the ground forces were engaged in exercises that involved joining up and firing weapons.

The describing of the operation as a “military achievement” by the various generals and analysts who offered their take on the operation is plain ridiculous.

We have not weakened Hamas. The vast majority of its combatants were not harmed and popular support for the organization has in fact increased. Their war has intensified the ethos of resistance and determined endurance. A country which has nursed an entire generation on the ethos of a few versus should know to appreciate that by now. There was no doubt as to who was David and who was Goliath in this war.

The population in Gaza, which has sustained such a severe blow, will not become more moderate now. On the contrary, the national sentiment will now turn more than before against the party which inflicted that blow – the State of Israel. Just as public opinion leans to the right in Israel after each attack against us, so it will in Gaza following the mega-attack that we carried out against them.

If anyone was weakened because of this war, it was Fatah, whose fleeing from Gaza and its abandonment have now been given special significance. The succession of failures in this war needs to include, of course, the failure of the siege policy. For a while, we have already come to realize that is ineffective. The world boycotted, Israel besieged and Hamas ruled (and is still ruling).

But this war’s balance, as far as Israel is concerned, does not end with the absence of any achievement. It has placed a heavy toll on us, which will continue to burden us for some time. When it comes to assessing Israel’s international situation, we must not allow ourselves to be fooled by the support parade by Europe’s leaders, who came in for a photo-op with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Israel’s actions have dealt a serious blow to public support for the state. While this does not always translate itself into an immediate diplomatic situation, the shockwaves will arrive one day. The whole world saw the images. They shocked every human being who saw them, even if they left most Israelis cold.

The conclusion is that Israel is a violent and dangerous country, devoid of all restraints and blatantly ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, while not giving a hoot about international law. The investigations are on their way.

Graver still is the damage this will visit upon our moral spine. It will come from difficult questions about what the IDF did in Gaza, which will occur despite the blurring effect of recruited media.

So what was achieved, after all? As a war waged to satisfy considerations of internal politics, the operation has succeeded beyond all expectations. Likud Chair Benjamin Netanyahu is getting stronger in the polls. And why? Because we could not get enough of the war.