LATEST NEWS FROM PERDANA GLOBAL PEACE ORGANISATION

By RAY CLOSE, Counterpunch, 27 August 2006

http://www.counterpunch.org/close08262006.html
Former CIA analyst

Like many people, I find it extremely difficult to believe that President Bush could actually do anything so crazy as to launch a military attack against Iran, and that even if he wanted to, the Congress, the Pentagon, and the American public would ever countenance such action. But I remember in the spring of 2002 writing a “Dear Friends” memo just like this one predicting that the apparent intentions of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq would certainly turn out to be nothing but a bluff, and supporting that assertion by listing all the reasons why actually doing so would lead to utter disaster. Many of my friends told me at the time that I was missing the point — regime change was DEFINITELY going to happen, and I was exaggerating the downside consequences. The problem is that today the downside risks of attacking Iran seem even more horrendous —- and yet? (As George Will said last Sunday to George Stephanopoulos — “When was the last time this president ever worried about getting approval in advance from the Congress or the public?”) It makes me nervous when my president truly believes he is carrying out the will of God.

So this is why I reluctantly believe today that Bush will indeed launch an attack on Iran before the expiration of his term of office:

1. As expected, Iran has offered to enter negotiations, but has rejected the precondition that they discontinue uranium enrichment. Iran will continue to stall indefinitely in the expectation that the U.S. cannot summon the international political and economic clout to damage Iran to any critical degree in the near future. Meanwhile, Iran remains totally and sincerely convinced (with ample justification) that the U.S. is committed to overthrowing the Teheran regime on the tactical level, and waging a broader war against Islam on the strategic level. Rightly or wrongly, Iranian leaders interpret Israeli-US joint collaboration in Lebanon as the final proof of both suspicions. Nothing will shake that conviction. We can huff and puff, but the reality is that we will not succeed in either persuading or intimidating the Iranian leadership into doing what we want them to do. This is the nub of the problem in Washington: none of the principal decision-makers — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice — (even Rice!) — understands and accepts this simple reality, and so all the expectations and calculations that go into the formation of U.S. policy start from a faulty premise.

2. The U.S. will fail to get the UNSC to establish (and then enforce) a regimen of sanctions that Washington considers tough enough — despite the unanimous concern of the larger powers, including China and Russia, that a nuclear Iran would be undesirable. The Bush Administration will fulminate about weakness of resolve and false friendship of its “allies”, but this will only exacerbate the divisions and further expose the enfeebled state of American political and moral leadership and the deterioration of its international credibility. Iran will watch this soap opera, smiling like a Cheshire cat.

3. Whatever sanctions are eventually applied will have zero chance of persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions; most certain is the fact that Iran will continue its development program without any slowdown until it has passed the US-Israel “red line” of possessing the necessary raw material to produce a nuclear bomb whenever it chooses to do so. (As we all know, possession of an operational bomb may be as much as a decade or more in the future, but the “red line” of achieving all the necessary technology, equipment and ingredients could be crossed MUCH sooner than that — and almost certainly before Bush leaves office in January 2009.)

4. So this is the calculus facing Bush:

a. He has vowed that he will not leave office without first ensuring that Iran cannot become a nuclear power. He has probably given the leaders of Israel a similar promise — privately and perhaps explicitly. That means that he is effectively committed to attack Iran militarily before January 2009 if all other means of accomplishing the objective fail — which they will. He believes deeply that Iran poses an existential threat to our ally Israel and an extremely dangerous threat to the American people, as well. Bush also believes that Iran is determined to sabotage American hopes of establishing a “new Middle East” —- by covert support of anti-American terrorist elements such as Hizballah and Hamas — backed up by the added power implicit in its eventual possession of nuclear weapons. Given Bush’s overarching dedication to “winning the Global War on Terrorism”, the neutralization of Iran has become a sine qua non, equal if not higher on his list of priorities than “victory” in Iraq — another impossibility that he is stubbornly unwilling to recognize, even privately — much less acknowledge publicly.

b. Bush presently intends (with little faith or sincerity) to exhaust all opportunities to achieve his objectives by diplomatic means or through economic sanctions. Failing those, he will attempt to achieve his purposes by intimidation — by raising the threat of military attack. This will only stimulate more internal support for the regime inside Iran and more international opposition to U.S. policies, especially in the Muslim world. Without question, moreover, an escalating danger of US-Iranian military confrontation will greatly intensify internal and regional opposition to US objectives in Iraq. (Note: A mystifying disconnect in logic persists on this point in Bush’s mind.)

c. The best hope for avoidance of war with Iran (the catastrophic consequences of which are too numerous and wide-ranging even to catalog) will be opposition to the idea from the U.S. military and from American politicians of both parties who have an appreciation of the weakened state of U.S. defense forces. I am told, on the other hand, that Bush has been persuaded by some military advisers that STRATCOM (Strategic Air Command) has a workable plan for a comprehensive attack to be launched almost simultaneously against 1500 targets in Iran that will effectively prevent any Iranian retaliation, and will obviate the need for a major ground operation or post-conflict occupation. (The logic of this strategy apparently depends on the hope that destruction of Iran’s nuclear potential and its conventional military capabilities in a spectacular display of shock and awe will trigger an internal revolt against the present government, with moderate pro-western elements standing ready to seize power in the name of freedom and democracy. This must be another fantasy dreamed up in the twisted minds of people like Michael Ledeen and other neocon illusionists.) (more…)

The Star, 21 August 2006

The USS Enterprise, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, acknowledged as the largest and perhaps wielding the most destructive and devastating capability of any floating vessel in the world is currently visiting our Malaysian shores. This comes close on the heels of the recent visit of another equally deadly vessel, USS Ronald Reagan. Pilots assigned to the USS Reagan had flown almost 3000 missions around the Gulf after the warship ported here, yet we continue to allow these nuclear ships to make passage on our waters.

Malaysia, as an independent and sovereign country clearly committed to ensuring a nuclear-free zone in ASEAN as set out in the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) treaty, cannot compromise its stand on this most crucial issue. It is with deep regret that we at the PGPO must register our utmost objection to this rather new advent which now seems to signal a new trend in our countryā€™s foreign policy.

This matter should be viewed even more seriously, given the unbridled aggressive postures and unrestrained military assaults and invasions perpetrated by the foremost nuclear powers led by the USA, Britain and Israel. It also signals the immoral premise that ā€œmight is rightā€, which then ironically validates the legitimate right of others to also seek their own nuclear capability for the sake of defence of sovereignty.

The PGPO hopes that the visit of the USS Enterprise does not signal a change in Malaysian policy in ensuring ASEAN remains an anti-nuclear zone. The PGPO also urges that Malaysia as chairman of OIC and NAM, must remain resolute to not compromise on the fundamental right of all nations to live in peace, while respecting that every nation has a right to prosper and be legitimately safeguarded in their sovereign territories. The absolute commitment to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons should be upheld. We must make our stand uncompromisingly visible by words and deeds. Thus, such misplaced acts of hospitality to ships of war ready to annihilate mankind must be strenuously discouraged and halted.

Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir
Executive Director
Perdana Global Peace Organisation

CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

The terms of Resolution 1701 are stacked against Lebanon and allow Israel to continue its military operations even after a ceasefire, says CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.

THE United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is fundamentally flawed. It fails to name Israel as the aggressor in the war between Israel and the Hizbollah.

It does not demand that the aggressor ends its aggression and withdraws its troops ā€” perhaps 30,000 of them ā€” immediately and unconditionally from Lebanese soil.

That Israel is the aggressor in the war that erupted on July 12 is an irrefutable fact. True, Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a border skirmish on that day. But there have been numerous skirmishes of this sort along the Israeli-Lebanese border in the last six years.

The British journalist George Monbiot notes that “on several occasions, Hizbollah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF (Israeli defence forces) positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbollah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006″.

Even in May 2006, an alleged Mossad assassination of two Palestinians from the Islamic Jihad in the Lebanese city of Sidon led to a border incident in which “one member of Hizbollah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded”.

Cross-border skirmishes, in the words of the American analyst, Phyllis Bennis, “happen around the world on a daily basis; certainly the Israeli- Lebanon border has seen more than its share”. A skirmish need not become a war. It becomes a war only if one of the parties ups the ante.

And Hizbollah was not that party. It sought to exchange the two captured Israeli soldiers with the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the 18-year occupation of Lebanon from 1982 to 2000, in breach of Article 118 of the Third Geneva Convention. The Israeli Government was adamant about not negotiating. Instead, it deliberately chose to launch a war by bombing the Beirut international airport and Leba- nonā€™s infrastructure.

There are media reports suggesting that Israel had been planning an assault upon Lebanon for some time. According to the San Francisco Chronicle ( quoted by Monbiot in the Guardian of Aug 8 ), “More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail”.

The attack, he said, would last three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that “of all of Israelā€™s wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared… By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that weā€™re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, itā€™s been simulated and rehearsed across the board.”

(more…)

By: Professor Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research Feature Article

While Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has condemned Israel for the atrocities committed in Lebanon, his government remains a staunch ally of Israel and a major military actor in the Middle East and Central Asia, with close ties to Washington, Tel Aviv and NATO headquarters in Brussels. 

“This war is unjust… The Israeli war …is simply fueling hatred… It is not difficult to see that a terrible global war and a huge disaster await us.””, said Erdogan  at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in Kuala Lumpur, in early August

In a cruel irony, Turkey, through its military alliance with Israel and the US, is a de facto partner in the “terrible global war” alluded to by Prime Minister Erdogan. 

The Turkish head of government’s apparent indignation responds to strong anti-Israeli sentiment within Turkey and the Middle East. His Justice and Development Party (AKP), which dominates the ruling coalition is considered to be a “pro-Islamic political entity”. Yet beneath the gilded surface of Turkish party politics, the ruling AKP coalition government led Prime Minister Erdogan is complicit in Israeli war crimes. 

Turkey’s condemnation of Israel is in blatant contradiction with the substance of its longstanding military cooperation agreement with Israel, which the ruling AKP government has actively pursued. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not only supported Israeli interests, he had also developed a close personal rapport with (former) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 

The contradictions underlying Turkey’s foreign policy also relate to complex divisions within the ruling coalition as well as between the government and the Military hierarchy, which historically  has maintained a close rapport with the Pentagon and NATO. While the alliance with Israel may be the source of political contention in the Turkish parliament, it has, nonetheless, been accepted and endorsed, since the mid-1990s, by successive government coalitions.

The Israeli-Turkish Military Alliance 

A significant turnaround in Turkish foreign policy occurred in the immediate wake of the Cold War, which contributed to redefining the Turkey-Israel relationship. Initially forged under the helm of Prime Minister Tansu Çiller, the Israeli-Turkish military pact is characterized by the landmark 1994 Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA). This strategic realignment of Turkey with Israel was part of Washington’s post Cold War agenda in the Middle East, which was also supported by US covert intelligence operations. In 1997, Mrs. Ciller was accused of having been recruited by the CIA and “of accepting money from foreign governments [the US] to work against Turkey’s national interests”. (Voice of America, 17 July 1997) 

(more…)

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 2 (IPS) - As Israel’s bombing of Lebanon continues unabated into its fourth consecutive week, the United States says it stands ready to provide food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to the thousands of internally displaced Lebanese caught in the crossfire.

But Washington has also decided to accelerate the supply of lethal weapons to Israel — ”perhaps intended to kill the very Lebanese the United States is planning to feed and shelter,” says one Arab diplomat at the United Nations.

”It is U.S. hypocrisy at its worst,” he told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity, because his country receives millions of dollars in U.S. economic aid.

”The right hand obviously does not know what its left hand is up to. Or does it?” he asked.

Irene Khan, secretary-general of the London-based Amnesty International (AI), is equally harsh in her reaction. ”It is ridiculous to talk about providing humanitarian aid on the one hand, and to provide arms on the other,” she says.

In the face of such human suffering in Lebanon and Israel, Khan says, ”It is imperative that all governments stop the supply of arms and weapons to both sides immediately.”

Asked if there is a contradiction between the two, U.S. President George W. Bush told reporters last week: ”No. I don’t see a contradiction in us honouring commitments made prior to Hezbollah attacks into Israeli territory.”

Bush also made an obvious slip when he said: ”I am concerned about loss of innocent life, and we will do everything we can to help move equipment… I mean, food and medicines, to help the people who have been displaced and the people who suffer.”

In a statement released last week, AI quoted British press reports relating to two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes filled with GBU 28 laser-guided bombs containing depleted uranium (DU) warheads and destined for the Israeli airforce landing at Prestwick airport, near Glasgow. The planes landed for refuelling and crew-rests after flying from the United States.

”Other reports claimed that the USA has requested that two more planes be permitted to land in the UK en route to Israel in the next two weeks. The reports said the aircraft will be carrying other weapons, including bombs and missiles,” AI said.

“The UK government should refuse permission for its sea and air ports to be used by planes or ships carrying arms and military equipment destined for Israel or Hezbollah,” said Khan.

(more…)

Prosecuting Israel

FRANCIS A. BOYLE
1 August 2006

The United Nations General Assembly must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a “subsidiary organ” under U.N. Charter Article 22. The ICTI would be organized along the lines of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the Security Council.

The purpose of the ICTI would be to investigate and prosecute Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine–just as the ICTY did for the victims of international crimes committed by Serbia and the Milosevic Regime throughout the Balkans.

The establishment of ICTI would provide some small degree of justice to the victims of Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine–just as the ICTY has done in the Balkans. Furthermore, the establishment of ICTI by the U.N. General Assembly would serve as a deterrent effect upon Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, Chief of Staff Halutz and Israel’s other top generals that they will be prosecuted for their further infliction of international crimes upon the Lebanese and the Palestinians.

Without such a deterrent, Israel might be emboldened to attack Syria with the full support of the Likhudnik Bush Jr. Neoconservatives, who have always viewed Syria as “low-hanging fruit” ready to be taken out by means of their joint aggression.

The Israeli press has just reported that the Bush Jr administration is encouraging Israel to attack Syria. If Israel attacks Syria as it did when it invaded Lebanon in 1982, Iran has vowed to come to Syria’s defense.

And of course Israel and the Bush Jr administration very much want a pretext to attack Iran. This scenario could readily degenerate into World War III.

For the U.N. General Assembly to establish ICTI could stop the further development of this momentum towards a regional if not global catastrophe.

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU

More than 60 people, including 34 children, killed by Israeli attack on home where families were sheltering

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, Jonathan Steele and Clancy Chassay in Qana; Rory McCarthy at the Israel-Lebanon border; Wendell Steavenson in Beirut and Julian Borger in Washington

The Guardian

A man screams for help as he carries the body of a young girl after Israeli air strikes on the southern Lebanese village of Qana. Photograph: Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images

It was an unremarkable three-storey building on the edge of town. But for two extended families, the Shalhoubs and the Hashems, it was a last refuge. They could not afford the extortionate taxi fares to Tyre and hoped that if they all crouched together on the ground floor they would be safe.

They were wrong. At about one in the morning, as some of the men were making late night tea, an Israeli bomb smashed into the house. Witnesses describe two explosions a few minutes apart, with survivors desperately moving from one side of the building to the other before being hit by the second blast. By last night, more than 60 bodies had been pulled from the rubble, said Lebanese authorities, 34 of them children. There were eight known survivors.

As yet another body was removed from the wreckage yesterday morning, Naim Raqa, the head of the civil defence team searching the ruins, hung his head in grief: “When they found them, they were all huddled together at the back of the room … Poor things, they thought the walls would protect them.”

The bombing, the bloodiest incident in Israel’s 18-day campaign against Hizbullah, drew condemnation from around the world. Late last night Israel announced a suspension of aerial activities in southern Lebanon for 48 hours and said it would coordinate with the UN to allow a 24-hour window for residents in southern Lebanon to leave the area if they wished.

The bombing sparked furious protests outside the UN headquarters in Beirut. Lebanon’s prime minister, Fouad Siniora, accused Israel of committing “war crimes” and called off a planned meeting with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Israel apologised for the loss of life but said it had been responding to rockets fired from the village.

(more…)

Max Elbaum, Political Affairs.Net

LEBANON & GAZA: “NOTHING IS SAFE” Israel’s continuing military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza are producing a human catastrophe, and have immense political consequences.

First, the human cost, as of July 30:

*at least 52 Israelis dead, 19 civilians and 33 soldiers; dozens wounded.

LONG-PLANNED IN TEL AVIV & WASHINGTON

Israel’s initial claims that it went into battle to rescue a soldier captured by Palestinians and then two captured by Hezbollah have proven false. Instead, as revealed in the San Francisco Chronicle (July 21), the invasion of Lebanon was long planned by Israel in consultation with Washington. Middle East expert Juan Cole summarizes:

“More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. The Israelis tend to launch their wars of choice in the summer, in part because they know that European and American universities will be the primary nodes of popular opposition, and the universities are out in the summer. This war has nothing to do with captured Israeli soldiers. It is a long-planned war to increase Israel’s ascendancy over Hizbullah and its patrons.”

Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery agrees, and adds: “The very same thing happened two weeks earlier in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and its partners captured a soldier, which provided the excuse for a massive operation that had been prepared for a long time and whose aim is to destroy the Palestinian government.”

WAR CRIMES, COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT

Targeting civilian populations and infrastructure is an integral part of Israel’s war policy. Israeli Army Chief of Staff Dan Halutz announced this publicly, even if the U.S. media (alone in the world) remains in denial about the meaning of his words. “Nothing is safe,” Halutz declared July 13, “as simple as that.” A few days later, he added for emphasis that Israel plans to “turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.”

(more…)

July 31 (Bloomberg) — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel hasn’t called a cease-fire in Lebanon and won’t do so until the threat from the Hezbollah Islamic fundamentalist organization has ended.

“There is no cease-fire and they’re won’t be any cease- fire in the coming days,” Olmert said in a speech to a meeting of mayors in Tel Aviv late today. “This is an almost one-time opportunity to change the rules of the game in Lebanon.”

Hours earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed hope the United Nations can arrange a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah by the end of the week. Israel called a 48-hour “suspension” of attacks starting early today after an attack on a building in the Lebanese town of Qana left at least 54 dead, including 37 children.

Olmert apologized to Lebanese citizens for the loss of life and property but said Israeli attacks would continue. “We will end it when the threat over our heads is removed, when our kidnapped soldiers return to their homes and when we can live in security,” he said.

Israel opened operations against the Lebanese Islamic group Hezbollah July 12, using its air force to attack Beirut and other parts of the country and sending soldiers to clear Hezbollah gunmen from their strongholds nearest the Israeli border.

‘A Larger Struggle’

U.S. President George W. Bush linked Israel’s fight against Hezbollah to the broader war against “the forces of terror.”

“The current crisis is part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East,” Bush said in a speech at a U.S. Coast Guard command in Miami, Florida. “To achieve the peace that we want, we must achieve certain clear objectives.”

Hezbollah, founded in 1982, is sponsored by Syria and Iran. It has been linked to scores of attacks on Israelis and Americans, including rocket attacks on Israeli towns, the 1983 bombing that killed 241 U.S. soldiers in Beirut and the 1994 attack that killed 95 at a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

Israeli ground forces continued operations today in three Lebanese towns close to Israel’s border, battling Hezbollah gunman with troops backed by aircraft. The fighting in Maroum ar-Ras, Taibeh and Aita as-Shaab left three soldiers injured, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said by telephone.

Supporting Ground Troops

Israel acknowledged its war planes conducted a number of strikes to cover ground troops, saying that was not a violation of its commitment to suspend the air war. It fired on a vehicle mistakenly thought to contain a senior Hezbollah member. Hezbollah fired three mortars into the Israeli towns of Kiryat Shemona and Ma’alot, the army said.

(more…)

Michael Carmichael

In the final phase of the ministry of Jesus, he performed miracles. The first of Jesusā€™s final array of miracles took place at a wedding at Qana in the Galilee. The Madonna attended the wedding, and she told Jesus that the party had no wine. Filling three stone jars with water, the attendants realized that Jesus had transformed the inert mineral water into a fine wine. One week later, Jesus would go to Jerusalem for Passover where he would enter his final conflict and suffer crucifixion.

This past weekend, an Israeli bomb incinerated 37 school children and killed dozens more in the town of Qana, Lebanon, the same location that provided the backdrop for Jesusā€™s first miracle in the final phase of his ministry.

In the aftermath of the atrocity at Qana, western policy for the Middle East hit critical mass triggering a meltdown of its moral authority.

While she was meeting in Tel Aviv with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Condoleezza Riceā€™s request to visit Beirut was spurned by the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Fouad Siniora, who informed the US Secretary of State that her jet will not be allowed to land in his war-torn country. Instead of Riceā€™s summit conference, a chilling scene unfolded in Beirut.

A huge throng stormed the UN building, breaking its shatterproof glass windows and carrying placards proclaiming, ā€œCondy, ur bombs?!! Nice gifts to our children.ā€ And, ā€œCondy, Thanks for ur smart Bombs??!!ā€

Searingly unpopular, Condoleezza Rice is now reviled as a demonic persecutor of peoples ā€“ especially children - across the globe, a fit accomplice to the war crimes attributed to her masters, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

In his official remarks following the Qana tragedy, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora praised Hizbullah for its ā€˜sacrificesā€™ in protection of the Lebanese people, and he accused Israel of committing ā€œwar crimesā€. Unexpectedly, Siniora cancelled all further meetings with Rice telling her that she is no longer welcome in his country. Rebuked by the Lebanese, Rice slinked back to Washington where she purports to preside over a new plan for a ceasefire.

After hundreds of protestors in Beirut launched their militant attack on the UN headquarters to demand immediate multilateral intervention, Kofi Annan called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Even Pope Benedict XVI was finally driven to make what for him must have been a wretched pronouncement in view of his history of Islamophobic diatribes and warm political relations with George Bush. After the desecration of Qana, the Pope was literally compelled to issue his belated plea to stop the Israeli reign of terror and violence.

Oddly, a spokesman for the US Department of State named ā€˜Adam Ereliā€™ actually made the official announcement of the 48-hour cessation of bombing by Israel. Ereli, a deeply conservative Yale graduate, is a strident Islamophobe, a harsh critic of Syria and a stalwart defender of Richard Perleā€™s peculiar brand of neoconservativism. Ereliā€™s announcement was the final gesture that unmasked the root of the hostilities ā€“ the neoconservative US policy of the Bush-Rice-Cheney-Bolten-Bolton administration.

(more…)