Following a trend of voting at the United Nations, the U.S.-led western diplomacy twice this week used two U.N. forums to protect the military atrocities of the Israeli occupying power, in a 50-year old pattern that has pre-empted peace, security and development in the whole Middle East region, with tragic and devastating effects on the Arab world in particular.

The U.S.-led western diplomacy in the worst cases used to veto or threaten to veto draft resolutions presented by Arab, Islamic, Non-aligned or formerly Soviet-oriented nations. Otherwise this diplomacy used to abstain or absent its ambassadors from voting sessions.

Normally and mostly such resolutions deal with the territorial expansionist military adventures or the military atrocities of the Israeli occupying power, "the" strategic ally of the U.S. in the Middle East.

Justifying their opposition, the US-led western diplomats always claimed the draft resolutions were "not balanced."
 This trend and pattern of voting discredits not only the international body, but also the U.S.-led western diplomacy's self-appointed role of a peace maker in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This week the U.S. led western diplomacy against an Arab draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council in New York and an Islamic draft resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva.

On Thursday the newly constituted 47-member HRC in a special session in Geneva adopted a resolution, presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), to immediately dispatch a fact-finding mission to the region to investigate the Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip.

The resolution called also for an immediate end to the Israeli military operations, asked Israel to abide by the provisions of international human rights laws, called for a negotiated solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle-East, criticized Israel for the arrest of Palestinian government ministers, other officials and civilians, and authorised the HRC to immediately dispatch a fact-finding mission to the region.

The Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in an ongoing invasion of the Gaza Strip, which was launched on June 27, reoccupied the northern Gaza Strip and parts of the east and south, including the airport, bombed the power, water, road and government infrastructure to rubble, plunged the Mediterranean coast into a humanitarian crisis and darkness, paralyzed the executive, legislative and local government, with a lot of bloodletting.

Special U.N. Investigator, John Dugard, presented a report to the HRC in which he accused Israel of collective punishment.

The HRC resolution is non-binding.

However, the US-led western opposition has stripped it from the realpoitic weight to make it potentially applicable, thus giving Israel the diplomatic green light to carry on with its military onslaught against the Palestinian people.

The United States opposed the resolution, which was passed by a 29-11 vote. Canada, Japan and nine European countries voted against it.

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Itzhak Levanon, said the "resolution isn't even-handed. It's not equitable and it's not balanced."
Why should and how could a "human rights" forum be "even-handed" between an occupying power and a people under occupation, a violator of human rights and those whose rights are violated, an overwhelmingly crushing military power and civilian population, an invading army and civilian defenders with their meagre, primitive and home-made arms, or between state and individual terrorism?

In his capacity as the diplomatic attorney for the occupying power, Levanon could not but demand "even-handedness," but how could the western diplomatic mediators who sidelined the U.N. and self-appointed themselves as the peace brokers between the Palestinian and Israeli protagonists?

The U.S. envoy Warren Tichenor, although his country is not a member of the council, delivered a statement during the debate, which called on the HRC to act "in an even-handed, fair and equitable way."
Similarly Terry Cormier, Canada's representative on the HRC, justified his country's vote against the resolution because it did not provide a balanced perspective. "
This draft resolution focuses almost entirely on Israel while ignoring that party's legitimate security concerns," he said.

Japan also called the resolution "one-sided and not constructive."

Five members abstained from the vote, including Britain, France and Germany.

Pakistan's Ambassador, Masood Khan, speaking on behalf of the OIC, expressed his dismay. He said he could not understand how any country could vote against the resolution in the face of the Israeli escalation and violation of human rights in the territory.

"The crisis, Mr. President, is serious," he said. " A provocation does not justify disproportionate use of force against civilians and non-combatants in contravention of the Geneva Conventions."
Also on Thursday, the U.S. and France, two permanent members of the 15-member Security Council, foiled a similar resolution presented by Arab states, represented by Qatar, to the UN Security Council demanding Israel "immediately cease its aggression against the Palestinian civilian population" and release of the democratically-elected Palestinian cabinet ministers and legislators.

Both countries, who have veto power over any resolution, said the resolution was "not balanced" and would not be voted on any time soon.

It is the same old obsolete Western rhetoric justifying the old unbalanced U.S.-led diplomacy.

For more than half a century the U.S., which led the west after WW2, has voted against and vetoed dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions, which otherwise could have solved the Arab – Israeli conflict in Palestine a long time ago and spared the instable and poor region five major wars, and billions of dollars squandered on wars.

Instead the U.S. vetoes have pre-empted peace, motivated the Israeli expansionist military adventures, prolonged the Israeli occupation of Arab land, undermined Arab peace initiatives, embarrassed Arab friends of the U.S. and the west, placed Arab states that had peace treaties with Israel in a difficult position vis-à-vis their peoples, exacerbated the regional insecurity and instability, and created an incubator-environment for terrorism.

Moreover this failing diplomacy has had tragic and devastating effects on the peoples of the region, derailed regional development, and tarnished the image of the United States and its western allies.

It is anti-Americanism made in the United States.

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Ramallah, West Bank. He is the editor of the English-language Web site of the Palestine Media Centre (PMC).

Al-Jazeerah to Remove Mike Whitney's Article, The Washington Post's Prevaricating Buffoon, Tomorrow, to Avoid a Lawsuit

By Hassan El-Najjar Al-Jazeerah, July 10, 2006

It's absolutely outrageous that Al-Jazeerah has no choice but removing Mike Whitney's article below, in order to avoid a lawsuit against the author.

The article compares the position of  Krauthammer in 2003 and his new position about the US war in Iraq. The author is using quotations and facts. To threaten him with a lawsuit is an assault on freedom of the press and freedom of expression, particularly because the plaintiff is close to the government in his ideas.

This is the second time I'm forced to remove an article written by the same author under threat of a lawsuit that neither the author nor Al-Jazeerah is capable financially to be involved with. (The first threat was from Black Water, the company that recruits "security contractors" to work in Iraq).

I urge US lawyers who specialize in this issue to write about it in defense of our freedom of expression in a truly independent press.

I also urge members of Congress to interfere and protect freedom of the press with a clear legislation that assures authors and media units that they would not be punished for expressing their ideas and views.

Without free press, particularly in the internet, the American people will be exposed only to the information disseminated through the embedded corporate media. There will be no scrutiny of government and its policies. If this is allowed to continue to happen, God forbid, the US becomes a totalitarian regime.

It's an outrage and a wake up call ... before it is too late.

***

The Washington Post's Prevaricating Buffoon

By Mike Whitney Al-Jazeerah, July 7, 2006

"The war on terrorism many people believe is an endless war. It is not. It is a war which is winnable. ....I would venture a guess that this war is winnable in five years." Charles Krauthammer, Iraq Victory Speech to American Enterprise Institute April 2003

"The only people in the world who still question whether or not we won in Iraq are Upper West Side liberals who aren't quite sure that we won the Cold War either". Krauthammer Ibid. April 2003 Charles Krauthammer is a signatory of the Project for the New American Century and the unofficial spokesman for the warmongering neoconservatives. He was a main proponent of the war in Iraq and has since led the cheerleading for the occupation.

It's always handy reading Krauthammer to find out what the current thinking is among administration power-brokers. His articles are a window into the emergent fantasies of the Bush brain-trust. In fact, it's astonishing how efficiently Rumsfeld and Cheney's sinister ideas are channeled into Krauthammer's keyboard.

In this week's article, "Drying up the Jihadist Sea", Krauthammer has taken a sudden about-face and abandoned his normally strident militarism. Instead, he devotes his entire column to promoting "amnesty" for the members of the Iraqi resistance. This abrupt change of heart would have been inconceivable just a few months ago.

Are things really so bad in Iraq that the fire-breathing Krauthammer is ready to send up the white flag?

On the 4th of July Bush vowed that the US "would never accept anything less than victory" to the troops at Fort Bragg North Carolina. Was the dissembler-and-chief lying, yet again?

Apparently so.

Krauthammer does an admirable job of dressing it up, but the bottom line is, the Bush team is tossing in the towel and calling it a day. According to Krauthammer, Swaggering George knows all about the amnesty plan and "is firmly behind this policy."
 Well, now, that does change things. Can we expect to see G.W. in a flight-suit tottering behind Krauthammer with his Appomattox sword in hand?

All the pompous victory speeches and blather about "dead-enders and terrorists" was just more empty rhetoric. The real strategy is to conceal America's ignominious defeat while keeping a couple of well-placed bases in the Iraqi oil fields.

Krauthammer is as capable as anyone at camouflaging the truth and bending the facts to fit his crackpot ideology. He begins his article with a paragraph-long summary of the reasons that the nation went to war: "deposing Saddam and replacing his regime with a democratic government unthreatening to the region and strategically friendly to the United States."
 Hmmmm? That's an interesting theory but, unfortunately, it is a lie.

The United States went to war with Iraq to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction (as Krauthammer is well aware). His synopsis is pure neocon revisionism.

He adds that the "most serious misconception had nothing to do with troop levels or whether to disband an army that had already disbanded itself."
 Wrong again. Nearly every critic of the war including Colin Powell has stated unequivocally that the lack of troops on the ground and the disbanding the Saddam's army were major miscalculations which contributed heavily to the US'
s inability to establish security and win the peace. Krauthammer is just trying to protect fellow-traveler and bungler George Armstrong Rumsfeld from additional criticism.

Krauthammer goes on, "The melting away of the Ba'athist regime gave the Sunni resistance weaponry, discipline and organizational know-how of a high-order"
 "Melting away"? There was no melting away. Rumsfeld energized the resistance by ordering his stooge Paul Bremer to initiate a process of de-Ba'athification. It was a disastrous decision that has resulted in the unintended deaths of 2600 American soldiers. Just yesterday the Associated Press reported that the top leaders in Saddam's regime were running the "
insurgency". In other words, the US government now admits that the resistance is mainly controlled by members of the Ba'
ath party. Krauthammer finds it too uncomfortable to admit that we're now caving in to the very people that Bush promised to defeat.

Then, Krauthammer makes this startling admission: "The insurgency continues, and NOT GOING TO BE DEFEATED MILITARILY."
 Finally, the cold light of reason has found its way into the dark corner of neoconservative denial.

"But", Krauthammer adds, "that does not mean we lose. Insurgencies can be undone by co-optation."
 Already the wheels are turning as Krauthammer and crew work out the details for a permanent presence in Iraq. But, how? "
Co-optation" is a neat sounding word but what does it mean?

It means that Bush plans to give the Ba'ath Party a place at the political table with the Shiite death squads and the Kurds who've been subjugated by Saddam for the last 40 years.

It is utter madness and it will not work. But, beyond these major drawbacks, how is Bush going to sell "
amnesty" (which many see as synonymous with surrender) to the American people?

This isn't a problem for the pliable Krauthammer whose set of principles would fit comfortably in a matchbox.

"Amnesty will be an essential element in any reconciliation policy….The posturing over amnesty can only make it more difficult."
 In other words, "Get over it".

Krauthammer scolds the Democrats for quibbling over something so incidental as joining forces with the "evildoers"
 who have been killing American servicemen for 3 years. What's so bad about that? After all, no one in Krauthammer's family died.

Can we really grasp how whacky this idea is? War is not something that the neocons can casually turn off like a water faucet. It's crazy.

For those who think that Bush's Iraq policy is totally adrift, Krauthammer offers these soothing words to assuage their anxiety: "Our objective in any war is not revenge but success."
 Really? Tell that to the people in Abu Ghraib and Falluja.

It doesn't seem like the Bush administration has the remotest idea of what they are doing. They simply lurch from one bad idea to the next while the mountains of carnage continue to rise.

Krauthammer's Ruminations at the Warmongers Lair

It is astonishing to consider the 180-degree reversal the neocons have managed since the onset of the war in 2003. Here'
s a sampling of Krauthammer's triumphant speech at the American Enterprise Institute in April 2003 immediately following the fall of Baghdad. Its boastful tone pretty well summarizes the delusional aspirations of its author:

"The importance of the war in Iraq is that it has demonstrated for the first time in history the capacity of one country, the United States, to destroy a totalitarian regime without destroying the country. That's never been done in human history."
 "We did in ..Iraq.. (what) could only be called surgical preemption, in a way that had been previously unimaginable... the Ba'ath Party (was) a classic Stalinist state and it collapsed as a result of our precision, high-tech and the very novel kind of warfare." (preemption)

"The brilliance of the campaign on Iraq was not just the military pyrotechnics, the integration of intelligence, the use of air power, et cetera. At the root of the success of the war in Iraq was a deep understanding of the nature of Stalinist totalitarian regimes. It understood that it was a brittle form of regime, that it existed entirely on fear, repression and terror, that it has a desiccated ideology."
 (Compare this statement to Krauthammer's sudden willingness to make amends with the Ba'atist resistance)

"We have the capacity to wage this kind of war with relatively few casualties, both among combatants on the allied side and among civilians on the other side. And that I think has had a deep impression in the region and around the world."

"The only people in the world who still question whether or not we won in Iraq are Upper West Side liberals who aren't quite sure that we won the Cold War either".

[Laughter.]

"The fact is that in the Arab World, they understand that they have suffered the most significant, and in their eyes, humiliating defeat since the Six Day War. There are tyrants throughout the region who sit uneasily on their thrones. All of them have seen the statues toppled in Baghdad, and they know that their citizens also have seen those statues, and they know that the statues outside the windows of those who saw it in Cairo, and in Damascus, and elsewhere also can be toppled."

"What we have produced is a revolution in military doctrine, a revolution in national security doctrine, and also a revolution in the region and the world in understanding what the power of the United States is and what it is capable of doing."
 "We ought to make the Syrians think that anything is possible. We are in a position, after the shock and awe of this war, of influencing the behavior, if not the composition, of regimes in Iran, Syria and elsewhere. We ought to use that momentum. We ought to use the uncertainty in the region to try to impose changes in behavior on regimes like that in Damascus and leave them wondering and thinking."
 "The war on terrorism many people believe is an endless war. It is not. It is a war which is winnable. ....I would venture a guess that this war is winnable in five years."
 "The brilliance of the campaign"
…. "the deep understanding of the nature of totalitarian regimes"
…. "a revolution in military doctrine...."
 Perhaps, we should keep in mind Krauthammer's unqualified praise for the war as Bush prepares to negotiate a settlement with the resolute Ba'athist resistance.

Accountability for Journalists?

Iraq is in ruins. The "cradle of civilization" has been decimated by US ordinance and a savage occupation. The primary infrastructure is devastated, clean water is scarce, the electrical-grid is severely damaged, business has been disrupted, the society is in tatters, death squads control the streets, and depleted uranium will continue to produce cancer and birth-defects into the next millennium. These are the costs of Krauthammer's war in real terms.

Hamas Leader, Khaled Mesha'al, in Damascus Press Conference, Insists on Prisoner Swap

AP Headline: Hamas Leader Insists on Prisoner Swap

Jul 10, 2006, 7:15 AM EDT

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) --

Hamas political leader Khaled Mesha'al on Monday insisted that Israel must free Palestinian prisoners to win the release of an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas-linked Palestinian resistance fighters.

Hours earlier, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched in the Syrian capital in a government-sanctioned protest against Israel's ground offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Mesha'al spoke at his first public appearance since Israel threatened to kill him after the soldier was seized in a cross-border raid on June 25. Israel claims Mesha'al ordered the operation.

"The Palestinian people are united on insisting that the (Israeli) prisoner soldier be traded for (Palestinian) prisoners in Israeli jails," he told a news conference, reiterating Hamas demands.

Israel has rejected such a deal.

Israeli's 13-day-old assault on Gaza has caused widespread destruction, left 51 Palestinians dead and led to international complaints that Israel was using excessive force.

Mesha'al accused Israel and the United States of providing the "ugliest example of terrorism" against Palestinians, saying that Israel was breaking international law. He also criticized the West for keeping silent on Israel's ground offensive in the Gaza Strip.

"The Palestinian people are facing consecutive strikes by the Zionist, aggressive and terrorist entity," Mesha'al said.

Mesha'al spoke to journalists at a Damascus hotel's conference room under tight security. Journalists were taken by buses from a meeting point to the hotel.

Al-Jazeerah comment on the news:

The importance of this press conference is that there were rumors last week about a disagreement between Hamas leader Khaled Mesha'al and President Assad about how to handle the Israeli offensive on Gaza Strip.

US Threats of Vetoing UNSC Resolution Encourage Israeli Crimes and Threaten International Peace

Foreign Affairs Ministry: American threats of veto threaten the international peace

Gaza, July 10, 2006 (RNA) –

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave a caution on Monday that the Israeli threats of a large-scale offensive on Gaza Strip would not help reach a diplomatic solution for the captured soldier's crisis.

In a press release issued today, the Ministry said that the international complete reticence about "the Israeli crimes does not contribute to propping up law prevalence, but backs the law of jungle", warning that this strategy would whet the appetite of the Israeli forces to go to extremes in brushing aside all the international conventions.

The American opposition and threats of a veto against the Arab draft resolution would provide a cover for "these dangerous crimes" which are being committed against the Palestinian civilians, the release said.

The centerpiece of the nine-point draft resolution is for Israel to stop immediately its aggressions against the Palestinian territories, to pull back its forces from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not to target the Palestinian civilians as well as doing a swap for Prisoners.

The MFA demanded the international community together with its institutions to work out a suitable machinery to stop the Israeli aggression and to bring to trial "the crimes' perpetrators against our people".

The high contacting parties, not least Switzerland, the custodian of the Geneva conventions, called a meeting over the security situation of the Palestinians.

The other day Switzerland departed from the norms when it accused Israeli of violating the international laws by using disproportionate force.

Fateh Resumes Temporary Control Over Palestinian Authority, Abbas Appoints Al Qaddoumi Minister of Foreign Affairs

President Abbas Asserts Al Qadoumi Foreign Affairs Minister of Palestine

RAMMALLH, Palestine, July 10,2006 (IPC+ Agencies) - -

President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree in which he appointed the chief of PLO politburo Farouq Al Qaddoumi as the Foreign Affairs Minister of Palestine and is entitled to speak about the foreign affairs of the Palestinians and representing it in the international arena.

Abbas said in his decree, circulated to Palestinian embassies and Palestinian representatives abroad alongside the United Nation, Arab League, "the politburo Tunisia-based is the foreign affairs ministry and the chief of the politburo is responsible for Palestine's political profile.

A Palestinian source said that Hams led government is a local government and has nothing to do with drawing foreign policies of Palestine.

The source added that the new ministry is responsible for issues of negotiations, dealing with international arenas, delegations sent to the conferences, and representation at the international organizations such as Arab League, United Nation.

Al-Jazeerah comment on the news, by Hassan El-Najjar:

During the previous Fateh government, a dispute arose between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ramallah and the PLO Politbureau in Tunis about who represents Palestine. President Abbas sided with Ramallah against Tunis then.

It seems that Al-Qaddoumi's viewpoint finally won the debate, particularly after the Hamas government has been forced to disappear under the ongoing Israeli terrorist campaign. Many of the cabinet members and legislators have been abducted by Israeli occupation terrorist forces, the rest have been forced to disappear from the public arena.

The Fateh Party has assumed a de facto control over the Palestinian authority as a result of the forced absence of the elected Hamas government.

No Hamas official has been spotted in the media, except Prime Minister Haniyeh, who would appear examining areas destroyed by savage Israeli bombardment or air strike.

At the same time, Fateh ex-officials have been seen in various occasions filling the vacuum. These included Nabil Sha'ath, Nasser Al-Kidwa, Saeb Erikat, and Muhammed Dahlan.

Olmert has reiterated in a press conference that he would not negotiate with Hamas but he would with Abbas.

The Israeli objective is very clear, canceling the results of the Palestinian elections by force. Temporarily, he has been successful, as the Hamas government has been forced to go underground. However, in the long-run, his savage aggression to do that will prove to be a big failure.

It is apparent that the Fateh temporary take over of the Palestinian public affairs, with Hamas consent, is more an expression of flexibility and adaptation than succumbing to Israeli will.