Fatah honors Saddam Hussein

The main square in the Jenin refugee camp has been renamed by Fatah after Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator who engaged in genocide against various ethnic groups, invaded two of his neighbors, and routinely had innocent people ritually killed for his own pleasure. Yeah, that Saddam Hussein.

Yet Fatah is an ally of the United States. An ally to the tune of an additional $86 million dollars of your tax dollars spent on improving Fatah's military force. The money is granted to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the road map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," according to a U.S. government document.

That's okay, though, because Fatah is fighting against Hamas, and is therefore against terrorism, against violence, and just generally a friend of the American way of life. This renaming of the main square is obviously a clerical error, a mistake, a political gaffe. Heck, just read the American media accounts of Abbas's latest speech:

AP - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told a large rally of his Fatah movement Thursday that he won't allow fighting with their Hamas rivals to continue and called on opposing factions to respect each other.

AFP - Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas assured tens of thousands of supporters that he was determined to prevent further factional clashes with rival Hamas after weeks of internecine bloodshed.

While both of these articles contain quotes from Abbas's speech, neither contain any of the following language, also from the same speech:

When Fatah was established, it was accused of treason and we were chased in every place. But with the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue. We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation.... We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation. It is forbidden to use these guns against Palestinians. The occupation has perpetrated brutal attacks in Jenin, Beit Hanun and Ramallah.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but if you want to really see the news in Israel, read an Israeli paper. If you read American news stories written by Americans, you're going to hear what Americans want you to hear. You can't be educated if you don't read both sides of every story.

The fact is Abbas did call for Palestinian restraint, as the American media claims. He just wants Palestinians to stop fighting each other, so they can use the $86 million dollars the U.S. just gave him to go fight the Israelis.

Thanks to No More Spin for the heads-up on this story.

Labels: israel, media

Permalink

Israel Fingers the Big Red Button

Israel today talked about its plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. Lots of folks are freaking out, but I think we should be clear that the fact that Israel is talking about it means Israeli isn't doing it -- yet. If the intention were to launch a strike this week, the last thing Israel would do is talk about it. Instead, this press conference was intended as a warning to Iran that Israel will not stand idly by while Iran develops nukes.

There's no doubt that Israel can do it. They've got the weaponry, they've got the training and the long-strike capability. The question is whether Israel, the most hated nation in the Middle East, would be willing to provoke retaliatory strikes from virtually all its neighbors by becoming the first country since the Second World War to split atoms in anger.

In the Nervous Rodent's opinion, yes, they would.

But that doesn't mean they will. This saber-rattling isn't intended to influence Iran. Ahmadinejad won't back down to threats from Israel, and neither will the Supreme Leader. But America will probably go out of its way, to include changing foreign policy, to keep Israel from starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Perhaps they're scared the US is going soft on Iran?

On one hand, we've been saber-rattling ourselves. Russia complained today about the U.S. imposing sanctions on Russian firms selling goods to Iran. The appointment of Admiral Fallon, a Navy admiral, to lead USCENTCOM, embroiled in two ground wars, is interesting. It's a direct warning to Iran, since a war with Iran would place America in a naval war. Add to this the fact that USCENTCOM changed policy last month and ceased considering Iranians "off-limits," upsetting both Iran and Iraq.

On the other hand, we're bogged down in two ground wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping a significant portion of our troops occupied, and more importantly, silenced hawks in our society. Who wants to stand up and say we need a third war? Do we have an exit strategy for that war?

An attack against Iran isn't necessarily a good idea at this stage. But we can't take it completely off the table until we find a way to influence Iran to cease supporting terrorist operations. Put simply, Iran is funding and supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Taliban, and Iraqi terrorists. Excluding the war in Somalia, Iran is supporting terrorism in every conflict in the Middle East. Can we win in Iraq as long as a protected nation sharing a large border is supporting the terrorists? Or does this sound too much like another war in recent history, Vietnam?

I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.

What does all this mean, then? It means we must find a way to convince Iran to cease supporting terrorists around the world. Until we do, we'll remain in a stalemate, with the best possible outcome continued low-level violence as we see in Afghanistan. So if you're wondering why America insists on toeing a hard line with Iran, now you know. Thousands of U.S. lives hang in the balance.

EDIT: AubreyJ put this link in the comments, I think it deserves to be in the body. Check out some additional info about Iran.

Labels: afghanistan, iran, iraq, israel, nukes

Permalink

More News on Iran

Where to start? With Iran trying to minimize the hatemongering spewing from their "elected" leader, the last thing they need is further evidence that they are providing weapons to the terrorists in Iraq. However, it appears the British have found such. Hyscience has the story here.

You would think that this kind of news would put a damper on Iran's attempts at hegemony, right? Not on the anniversary of the 1979 embassy takeover, where over 10,000 demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" outside the former compound (news story).

Well, if Iran is going to be confrontational, then at least we ought to be preparing for war with them, right? Not so, claims Iran, which declared its intention to resume uranium production "for peaceful purposes." (news story) Iran has already produced enough uranium to fuel a nuclear weapon, but apparently it screwed up. The uranium is too impure to convert to UF6, which is needed to enrich uranium into the state required for a nuclear weapon. So, as the old adage goes, "try, try again."

So Iran is arming terrorists, chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!", threatening countries with extinction, and would like, pretty please may I, to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Dream on, Ahmadinejad. Stay the course, President Bush.

In other news, Paulieworld is carrying two new letters from the front. Well worth reading!

Labels: iran, israel

Permalink

Did I Say Holocaust? No, I meant Holocaust.

Yesterday I linked to a new story entitled Arab States Silent on Iran's Remarks. I thought about it some more, and decided it was worthy of further discussion.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." All but a full declaration of war, from a country trying to defend its right to develop nuclear technology. Western nations have been quick to condemn his comments, but Arab states has been mostly silent.

Chad Evans posted in In the Bullpen that this wasn't the first time Iran had called for the destruction of Israel. He linked to a 2003 article in the Guardian where Iran had threatened the same thing.

Some Iranian diplomats are trying to downplay the issue. According to this AP story, the Iranian embassy in Moscow released a statement saying "Mr Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

Hey, I've got a bridge in Moscow I'll sell ya. Would you like to know what Ahmadinejad said when he heard that? "My words are the Iranian nation's words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid."

Pop quiz: Which of these statements was made by Usama bin Laden, and which by President Ahmadinjad:

• "We won't hesitate to kill the Israelis who occupied our land and kill our children and women day and night. And every person who will side with them should blame themselves only."
  
• "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

The complete text of Ahmadinejad's recent speech is here.

Labels: iran, israel

Permalink

Profiting From Dictators

Before I begin, I just want to link to this AP story. Should a later post talk about the Iranian government, I want everyone to know just how dangerous that country is.

In a speech Wednesday, [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

In other news, the Independent Inquiry Committee investigating abuses in the Oil for Food program released its final report that clearly shows who was and wasn't profiting from the program. Not surprisingly, those who profited most (France, Russia, and Germany) were the ones most strongly against the war.
What does the report say?

Iraq received $1.8 billion in kickbacks and bribes from 2,200 companies. That would be one-point-eight billion dollars paid to Saddam Hussein's coffers. American, British, and Japanese companies did not make any such bribes, if only because Saddam Hussein would not allow companies from those countries to obtain contracts. On the other hand, French, Russian, and Chinese companies were given preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts -- a move that successfully split the Security Council on all matters involving Iraq.

Worse, Iraq paid some of this money back out to those it needed to secure support. Most notably, France's ambassador to the United Nations received $165,725 from the Iraqi government.

One issue that was not covered in depth by the report is the $34.5 billion dollars in "humanitarian goods" sold to Iraq. Table Seven of the report (linked above) describes loosely what the UN was allowing Iraq to buy despite the sanctions. Some of the items are clearly humanitarian (e.g., rice). Others are very questionable (e.g., black tea). And still others are just downright confusing (e.g., decorated wall tiles). Since when has decoration been a basic human need? What's the point of sanctions if those sorts of deals are allowed? What were we sanctioning, anyway? Keep searching, and you'll find cars, art supplies, computers, stained glass, office chairs, cigarettes, and other assorted "humanitarian needs." You'll also find items that clearly have military applications, just as mobile radios and radio relay links.

Now that the final report is out, it's time to take action against the companies that profited from supporting Saddam in violation of UN sanctions. With this report we can account for every dollar illegally made by various companies around the world. The United Nations should take that money back, and donate it to Iraqi reconstruction. To let them keep the money would be to reward criminal profiteering.

Labels: iran, iraq, israel, UN

Permalink