USA Intervention="Better Trained PA Terrorists"-JINSA

The conservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs/JINSA Reports:

In February 2005, the Administration named Lt. Gen. William Ward, USA, "American security coordinator" in the Palestinian Authority territories and tasked him with consolidating and improving Palestinian "security forces." The mission, in our view, was flawed and the result of American intervention was simply better trained terrorists.

Palestinian Minister of Information Dr Mustafa Barghouthi stated:

Israel has given itself the right to kill and destroy everything and target every Palestinian regardless of whether he is a man, a woman or a child. Israel has reached an unprecedented degree of arrogance when its Army announced that they killed only 3 Palestinian civilians in the raid on Gaza on Sunday.  This implies that 3 innocent civilians are not important but this is by itself a recognition by the Israeli Army that they have committed the crime of killing the innocent Palestinians."

According to Ha’aretz, Lt. Gen. Dayton [ Lt. Gen. Ward’s successor]is arming and training "the Presidential Guard of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to prepare it for a potential violent confrontation with Hamas forces in Gaza. Palestinian sources say the training of 400 Force 17 troops...started a month ago in Jericho under the guidance of an American military instructor." Force 17 was Arafat’s praetorian guard, attacking recalcitrant Palestinians as well as Israelis. Abu Mazen inherited it.

Messing with Force 17 suggests that the U.S. is entering the nascent Palestinian civil war on the side of Abu Mazen...The Administration, staunchly pro-Israel and anti-terrorist, still believes "Palestine" is a social problem, not an existential threat to Israel. The President said he "weeps" for the Palestinian people. http://www.jinsa.org/

This member of the New Fourth Estate wonders if Bush ever 'weeps' for Gaza, the largest open air prison in the world, where Israel has controlled ALL access of air, land and sea borders of-before and AFTER the disengagement, which was a re-deployment.

Mohammed Omer, a free-lance correspondent, photojournalist and reporter with the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs also reports the facts on the ground in Gaza @ www.rafahtoday.org

According to Palestinian and International reports at least three Israeli military divisions comprising of 20,000 troops are on stand-by near the Gaza border apparently ready for a  full-scale ground invasion.  

The following is a VERY rough paraphrase of highlights that Mohammed reported from the belly of hell that is Gaza on shortwave radio May 22, 2007:

...smell of blood everywhere targeting civilians...13 Palestinians killed in less than 24 hours...9 members of family of Dr. Khalil Hayeh, Hamas leader & Parliament member, killed yesterday.  Dr. Khalil Hayeh was the target of this targeted assassination but he wasn't inside the house when the F-16s attacked the house....9 innocent civilians killed...situation terrible.  

Tanks and bulldozers in Northern part of Gaza preparing for invasion- internal fighting between Fatah & Hamas has ended in Gaza strip but here comes Israel with its news wave of violence by helicopter and F16 raids, drones, war planes- everyone in fear from ongoing Israeli attacks due to borders closed, no way out- hospitals overwhelmed- for every rocket Hamas launches, Israeli responds with 3 or more "targeted assassinations"

...Question about the 20,000 troops amassing- unclear for time being.  seems they're preparing for the possibility.  Large numbers of tanks & bulldozers in Gaza. Warships are shooting at the fisherman.  At the moment no Israeli attack on the ground but you can hear them shooting.  All these talks aren't confirmed yet but helicopters and F16s are still hovering....

What is role of outside forces, fomented by the US & Israel, stoking the violence?

• external forces from outside perpetuating the violence.
• masked men with hidden agendas shooting at both Hamas and Fatah at the same time.  Masked men impersonating Hamas and Fatah, shooting at people,  pretending to be either Hamas or Fatah but no one knows these people.
• Egyptian mission in Gaza has worked hard to get all the militants off the streets and things are better than the last 2 days.
• relates his experience of almost getting killed by 3 militants.  Young men in their 20s.  I couldn't identify them as either Fatah or Hamas because those groups normally wear headbands.  These people are wearing no headbands....suspicious people, they are not known, they are making more chaos...hidden groups working in the streets, have no idea what their agenda is, their aim is to kill as much as possible and create chaos in Gaza...don't know if they're affiliated to any political party or are really Palestinian.

If they're really Palestinian, why are they killing Palestinians?

Updated news is at
http://rafah.virtualactivism.net/...

Only when justice is served; which requires equal human rights for all, and an end to the occupation can there be peace and security for any.

Only justice can deflate the hate that fuels militants.

•  Wait, are you claiming

  that the civil war between Hamas and Fatah is a hoax?

  by unfounded on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:52:25 AM PDT

  •  I am NOT claiming that at all!

    I am a distiller and disseminator of information.

    There is NO HOAX here!

    Violence reaps violence;

    I am sowing seeds of justice and seeking peace-

    That requires THE TRUTH;

    And we the people do NOT yet know what the truth is;

    But, The New Fourth Estate is on the job and we will continue to seek and report the facts on the ground as they happen.

    e
    http://www.wearewideawake.org/

    by eileen fleming on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:38:50 AM PDT

    •  quote:

      1. masked men with hidden agendas shooting at both Hamas and Fatah at the same time.  Masked men impersonating Hamas and Fatah, shooting at people,  pretending to be either Hamas or Fatah but no one knows these people.

      I mean, is there anything to back up that assertion whatsoever?

      by unfounded on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:56:37 AM PDT

      •  EYE WITNESS

        What is more credible:

        An eye witness or a pundit who has never been to Gaza?

        by eileen fleming on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:16:47 AM PDT

        •  Mind the gap.

          You're going from fact -- not everybody doing the shooting in Gaza is wearing either a Hamas or a Fatah headband -- and implying that it's "outside forces, fomented by the US & Israel."

          That's a bit of a leap. Mind the gap.

          Especially when you stop to think a moment. If these guys are truly trying to impersonate Hamas or Fatah, why aren't they wearing Hamas or Fatah headbands? Afraid of trademark infringement?

          It's an unfortunate aspect of the discourse of both Hamas and Fatah that they tend to blame every hangnail on The Great Big Zionist Plot. I'm sure they'd both like to blame their current fighting on The Great Big Zionist Plot too. But no dice. Israel isn't making them shoot at each other. Each other is making them shoot at each other.

          by zemblan on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:17:23 AM PDT

        •   EYE WITNESS

            Alan Hart bwrote the officially authorized bio. of Arafat. Been to Gaza many a time. Doesn't stop him from spinning a conspiracy theory w/no basis here @ Alan Johnston, the kidnapped BBC correspondent,
          http://www.google.com/...
          http://alanhartdiary.blogspot.com/...
          There is a case for saying (repeat a case) that the party with most to gain from Alan Johnston's permanent disappearance was Israel.

          by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:57:43 PM PDT

•  JINSA critique of Bushco

  is reflective of a barely concealed rift in the administration: let's call it the Condi/Abrams rift.  Bush himself has never been willing to spend political capitol (or risk Christian Zionist ire) to become personally involved in seeking a resolution for Israel/Palestine, but he has given Condi free reign.  Unfortunately, Condi's efforts, at best, appear to be willing to support the creation of a truncated Palestinian state (they don't seem to be willing to push for negotiations, so they may be willing to settle for some small percentage of the West Bank that the Israeli wall hasn't expropriated) and propping up Abbas as yet another Arab strongman.  Whether Abbas is willing to play this role is not clear.

  Of course, since Israel has destroyed much of the infrastructure in Gaza -- including most of the police stations -- it would take more than a few thousand police officers (even if they were prepared to enforce the law fairly) to restore order to Gaza.

  Abrams, like the folks at JINSA and friends at CUFI, wants no compromise and no Palestinian state.  Abrams has undermined Condi's efforts on several occasions (there was an interesting article a few months ago about his interference before the I/L conflict last summer).

  Whether Bush cries for Palestinians, much less anyone at all, is debatable.

  by Rusty Pipes on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

  •  CUFI and Abrams: EVIL INCARNATE

    Author and Mid East analyst, Patrick Seale reported in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs , that Secretary Rice "has been knifed in the back by the hawkish pro-Israeli Elliot Abrams, the White House's main advisor on Middle East Affairs, but also that President George W. Bush himself has failed, at a critical moment to support her...Olmert had phoned George Bush on Feb. 16 and had secured a private assurance from him that the Mecca agreement changed nothing and that the U.S. would join Israel in continuing to shun Hamas. In the Israeli view, the Mecca accord had actually set back the cause of peace by legitimizing Hamas!" [page 12, April 2007 Vol. XXVI, No.3]

    In March 2006, this reporter spoke with Anwer M. Zboun, newly elected Hamas member to the Palestinian Parliament/PLC who lives in the Abiet refugee camp and has a Masters Degree in Physics. He stated unequivocally, "Hamas is a Palestinian resistance movement and we are not against any people. We are against the occupation. We want to rebuild what the occupation has destroyed. Hamas was born from the suffering of the Palestinian people and we belong to the global Muslim movement. It was on December 14, 1987 after an Israeli driver killed nine Palestinians that the first Intifada [uprising] began and the Islamic Resistance movement in Palestine was renamed Hamas.

    "Hamas is a national liberation movement based on Sharia; Islamic Laws and Orders. Hamas is not against any religion. We are not a terrorist movement, but we resist the occupation. Christians voted for us for many reasons and they know we are faithful to this cause: that God knows better than we ourselves know what is for our benefit. We do not force anyone to believe as we do. The public and private schools both teach Islam and Christianity.

    "In November 1988 Arafat issued a birth certificate for the Palestinian State and under religion he stated: 'None.' This is because we are a secular state. As Muslims and Christians we live together peacefully and our attitude is citizenship is for everyone. Everybody should have freedom of belief, traditions and a personal life. Hamas does not propose anything that contradicts Christianity.

    "Our slogan is: Remove Suffering for everyone. The issue of Israel is about the occupation. We have no problems with religious beliefs; our problem is that Israel is illegally occupying our land. Since March 2005, we have honored a unilateral cease-fire. But Israel martyred 200 Palestinians, injured 1,200 and has detained 3,500. Many are under the age of sixteen. In the last two weeks Israel has killed twenty-five Palestinian and yet we have maintained the cease-fire. Israel does not recognize us and recognition takes both sides.

    "Abbas has stated that we do recognize Israel, but there must be clear borders and Israel does not yet have them. The PA recognized Israel ten years ago but we Palestinians are detained in an open air prison. We resist the occupation which is our right guaranteed under International Law. International Law demands Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders, release the prisoners, and stop the assassinations, illegal wall and home demolitions.

    "Hamas defines terrorism as a violation of the rights of others and their property. Bush defined terrorism as evil. We are weak with resources and our voice is not heard in the West, only the voice of America and Israel gets press. America asked us to hold democratic elections and we did. We thank everyone who was involved in our transparent and democratic elections. We did what the USA asked and now they are punishing our people. Democracies are supposed to respect and not intervene in what others want.

    "We had democratic and transparent elections and how are we rewarded? By the EU and the USA who have cut funds to the poorest of people who live under occupation. Hamas suggested that the International community monitor all the financial aid to assure that it went to the people and not to Hamas. We offered this suggestion to the world and we have been ignored.

    "We know there are people in Europe and America who will not allow us to go hungry. We believe aid and support are in Gods hands and not governments."

    Tomorrow I will post a blog about CUFI-

    I hope you will comment Rusty Pipes!

    xox,
    e

    by eileen fleming on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:05:11 PM PDT

•  >...masked men with hidden agendas

  >...masked men with hidden agendas shooting at both Hamas and Fatah at the same time.  Masked men impersonating Hamas and Fatah, shooting at people,  pretending to be either Hamas or Fatah but no one knows these people.

    Remember when Reagan said a massacre by the Contras was really the Sandinistas dressed in Contra uniforms?
  That is an example of right-wing denial at work...how could the Contras, "the equivalent of our Founding Fathers, " as Reagan said, really be what they were a
  counter-revolutionary, right-wing bunch of terrorists who got off on killing Sandinista civilians working as health clinic doctors and nurses in clinics.
   This post, is an example of rad left or left-liberal denial at work...how could the (romanticized) Palestinian guerillas, whether the secular Fatah or the Islamist Hamas not have the same (overdetermined to use Freudian jargon) set of complex, rivalries, internal to their mutual struggle to assert hegemony vs. the Israeli Occupation.
    As one who was active in the 80's, in the Committee In Solidarity With The People of El salvador (CISPES), which was the coordinating org. in solidarity with the marxist-leninist Farabundo Marti Liberation Nacional, itself a coalition of about a dozen marxist and christian leftist "politico-military" orgs, I remember quite well the fratricidal assasinations within the FMLN. Roque Dalton, communist poet, a founder of one of the FMLN guerilla orgs. killed by Joaquin Villalobos, a founder of another of the FMLN guerilla orgs. which leaned towards Maoism, As a supposed dual CIA and CUBAN DGI agent! Bollocks.

  by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:48:08 PM PDT

•  Hersh

    On a related tangent, a set of critiques of Seymour Hersh, who alleged the USG and the Lebanese regime were REALLY supporting the Fatah al Islam Sunni guerillas, months ago.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/...
  The Dark Side of Spun a Lot?
   It's become a habit to greet whatever journalist Seymour Hersh writes with reverence. However, after his ludicrous claim last summer that Israel's war in Lebanon was a trial run for an American bombing of Iran - an accusation undermined by postwar narratives showing the confused way Israel and the United States responded to the conflict - my doubts hardened. In his latest New Yorker piece, Hersh maintains that he has unearthed more dirt on the Bush administration: The US is involved in containing Iran by directly or indirectly "bolstering Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

  The broad tropes of Hersh's arguments are correct. The US has indeed abandoned the neoconservative approach to the Middle East (which Hersh so loathed), to return to political "realism" based on imposing a balance of power. Much like the US did during the 1980s when it supported Iraq in its war against Iran, the Bush administration is today using Sunnis against Shiites (though in Iraq it is mainly using Shiites against Sunnis). The policy is risky - fiddling with sectarianism may ultimately backfire - but the problem with Hersh is that he offers little hard evidence for many of his controversial assertions. In fact his discussion of Lebanon in particular and his broader charge that the administration is engaging in clandestine activities without proper legislative approval are ill-informed or partial. The New Yorker has signed off on a piece shoddily constructed, often tendentious, and driven almost entirely by Hersh's sources (most of the more significant ones left unnamed), rather than his own independent confirmation of the details.

  Let's start with Lebanon, where the American and Saudi effort to counter Iran and its allies is in full swing. Today, the US and the kingdom, but also much of the international community and the Muslim world, are shoring up the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, which has for the past three months been facing a serious challenge to its authority from the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hizbullah. We learn from Hersh that, in the context of this struggle against Hizbullah, "representatives of the Lebanese government" have supplied weapons and money to a Palestinian Sunni extremist group called Fatah al-Islam, which allegedly broke off from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, before moving to North Lebanon. Fatah al-Intifada was created by the Syrian regime in the early 1980s to oppose Yasser Arafat. Hersh also points out that "the largest" of the Sunni groups, Esbat al-Ansar, located in the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp in Sidon, in South Lebanon, "has received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal-security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government."

  What is Hersh's evidence for these extraordinary statements? Which "militias" is he referring to? In the ongoing Lebanese standoff, Hizbullah has used the term to describe pro-government supporters, without ever substantiating that such militias even exist. The Fatah al-Islam story is based entirely on a quote by one Alistair Crooke, a former MI6 agent, who, we learn, "was told" that weapons were offered to the group, "presumably to take on Hizbullah." The passage on Esbat al-Ansar is not even sourced.

  The Fatah al-Islam story is instructive, because it shows a recurring flaw in Hersh's reporting, namely his investigative paralysis when it comes to Syria. In articles past, Hersh has acted as a conduit for those defending the post-9/11 intelligence collaboration between the US and Syria, and lamenting the Bush administration's subsequent isolation of Damascus in the run-up to and aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Most Lebanese analysts believe that Fatah al-Islam, far from being aided by the Lebanese government, is in fact a Syrian plant, deployed to Lebanon to be used by the Assad regime to destabilize the country and prevent formal endorsement by the Siniora government of a court to try suspects in the February 2005 assassination of the former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syria is the main suspect in the crime.

  Nowhere does Hersh mention two items that were all over the Beirut media: that the Lebanese authorities have arrested several of the group's members, and that the Lebanese and Palestinian security services have collaborated in opposing Fatah al-Islam in the northern Palestinian refugee camps of Nahr al-Bared and Baddawi. The mainstream Palestinian leadership in Lebanon has criticized the entry of such groups into the country, fearing this will provoke tension between Palestinians and the Lebanese state. Fatah al-Islam's leader, Abu Khaled al-Amleh, is said to be under house arrest in Damascus, but for a number of Lebanese analysts who closely follow Palestinian affairs the story is bogus, designed only to provide Syria with plausible deniability.

  As for Hersh's Esbat al-Ansar allegation, so little is said that it's difficult to know where to begin a refutation. The history of Esbat al-Ansar is convoluted, but the group was, as French researcher Bernard Rougier notes in a book on the rise of militant Islam in Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps, "the first armed group to claim a Salafist-Islamist orientation in ... Ain al-Hilweh." Where Hersh stumbles is in his lack of knowledge of Lebanese-Palestinian relations. First of all, it's not clear to whom he's comparing Esbat al-Ansar when describing it as "the largest" Sunni Islamist group. According to Palestinian sources, the group includes no more than 70-80 men. If the Lebanese government, and Sunnis in particular, were to collaborate with anyone in the camps, it would be with the main Palestinian organizations, particularly Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, which are more powerful militarily and represent far more people than Esbat al-Ansar.

  Second, in its dealings with the Palestinians, the Lebanese government tends to work through the mainstream Palestinian parties, given that the camps are largely autonomous areas. This may vary depending on the region, but the idea that Lebanon's internal security forces would directly arm Esbat al-Ansar, which is hostile to Fatah, is not credible. The Lebanese would not spoil their relationship with Fatah over Esbat al-Ansar, and it is utterly implausible that Esbat al-Ansar could or would "take on Hizbullah," with which the group was close in the mid-1980s, before it moved away from Iran, toward Salafist-Islamism. Nowhere does Hersh prove his point; worse, nowhere are readers given a larger context that would affirm how weak his contentions are.

  Hersh errs in trying too hard to somehow tie the Bush administration in with the most militant groups. In fact, it is true that the Lebanese government is allied with Sunni Islamists - most notably Al-Jamaa al-Islamiyya, the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It may indeed have allowed "some aid," as Hersh writes, to end up in the hands of "emerging" Sunni militant groups, though this is very imprecise language. The reality is that amid the sectarian polarization in Lebanon today, most Sunnis have rallied to the government's side, against the Shiite Hizbullah. Al-Jamaa is close to Saudi Arabia, and in 2005 the Saudis intervened prior to parliamentary elections that followed the Syrian withdrawal to ensure the group would not vote against candidates in North Lebanon backed by Saad Hariri, Lebanon's most powerful Sunni leader who enjoys American and Saudi backing. However, Al-Jamaa is nothing like Esbat al-Ansar or Fatah al-Islam; it has integrated into the state and has had members in Parliament. Doubtless it holds views of Israel and the West that the Bush administration would find distasteful, but so too do the Saudi, Jordanian, and Egyptian clergy. Is Hersh suggesting that the US end ties with Riyadh, Amman, and Cairo?

  What is going on today is power politics at their most essential. While Hersh may consider his disclosures news, he must make a better case that the American shift to a Sunni-centric policy against Iran is strengthening violent Islamists. The evidence he presents is scant.

  What about Hersh's belief that the Bush administration is illegally hiding aspects of its pro-Sunni regional strategy? "The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution of the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process." The administration's point man in this endeavor is purportedly Vice President Dick Cheney.

  This revelation is noteworthy, but when we turn to the final part of Hersh's text in which he addresses congressional oversight issues, we find little meat. Unexplainably, the piece jumps from Hersh's interview with Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to a flashback on how the Iran-Contra affair undermined the oversight process. That's because two of those involved in the mid-1980s arms-for-hostages deal, Elliott Abrams, a senior official in the US National Security Council, and Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the US who heads his country's National Security Council, are key players in the tilt toward the Sunnis.

  But Iran-Contra was then. When it comes to now, all Hersh can tell us is that "the issue of oversight is beginning to get more attention from Congress." Is that it? Other than quoting unnamed skeptical sources, Hersh doesn't enlighten us on specific instances where the administration broke laws. He does mention, not for the first time, that US military and special operations teams "have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence" and to pursue Iranian operatives from Iraq. This merits more investigation, but it is not directly related to his more disturbing point that the US is somehow bolstering extreme Sunni Islamists.

  Hersh goes on to remind us that any administration, in order to engage in clandestine activities, "must issue a written finding and inform Congress." The argument is a fair one, if the Bush administration has failed to do so. But in that case why does Hersh not mention a Daily Telegraph report published in January, which suggested that "senators and congressmen have been briefed on [a] classified 'non-lethal presidential finding' that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the [Lebanese] prime minister, Fouad Siniora" to oppose Hizbullah? Did The New Yorker's fact checkers miss that one? If Bush is so keen to hide his hand in Lebanon and elsewhere, then this news item implies that the picture is more complicated. And if Hersh disagrees with the Telegraph, shouldn't his editors have asked him to place a rebuttal in his article?

  But the editors, I suspect, weren't really looking. Sy Hersh has written some remarkable pieces in the past, but his latest is not one of them. It is badly argued, displays shaky knowledge of the details, and seems mainly propelled by antipathy for the Bush administration.

  When there are serious political repercussions in the Middle East from Hersh's much-read pieces, it would help for him to know better what he's talking about.

  Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

  by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:05:38 PM PDT

  •  More on Hersh

    Monday, February 26, 2007
    The Sylight Zone

    That Seymour Hersh's reporting is shrill, hilariously conspiratorial, thin, ideologically skewed, and based on dubious sources is hardly news. His latest doesn't break with that shoddy tradition. It does, however, reflect a bonus trait to add to his pieces: seamless meshing with the propaganda and ideological agenda of the Syrian regime and Hezbollah -- the fruit of his recent trip and dinner parties, as well as his sources.

    There are several things I can rip apart in this typically ridiculous piece, but I will confine myself to Lebanon-related material.

    In order to fully understand the piece, you must read it with Hersh's comments to Wolf Blitzer earlier today, where Hersh offered the "interpretive key" so to speak, as well as an interview with the pro-Syrian as-Safir daily. It also gives you a sense of the unfiltered, wide-eyed lunacy that got edited out in the New Yorker piece, and shows just how ludicrous Hersh's "reporting" is, amounting to little more than wholesale, verbatim regurgitation of Hezbollah and Syrian propaganda.

    Hersh immediately presents the underlying, pathetically reductionist and silly premise: who is the "real" enemy and the "real" danger, Iran or the Sunnis? It was succinctly summarized in his as-Safir interview: "we are against Sunni jihadism, for it was responsible for 9/11, not the Shi'a." This was reflected in the article in a quote by Vali Nasr (who along with other Iranian analysts -- Ali Ansari, Kaveh Afrasiabi, Hossein Askari, Ray Takeyh, et al. -- has been pushing this line from that particular trench): "It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals." It was also "confirmed" by the useless Flynt Leverett in a side-splitting comment dripping with conspiracism and Flynt's usual narrow, shallow nonsense: "The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq ... The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them." The latter part is really the part that concerns Hersh the most.

    The next step in Hersh's mental construct -- guided by overt hatred of the Bush administration -- is how this is setting the stage for war with Iran. This translates into covert (naturally!) action by the US against Iran and its allies and interests in the region. The basic idea is that the United States (namely the NSC, the OVP, and the DoD) are going after Iran and the axis it leads in cooperation with the Saudis, namely Prince Bandar. How are they going about it? By funding and arming Sunni extremist groups to counter pro-Iranian Shiites and Iran's sidekick, Syria. And the fun begins!

    Again, Nasr provides the hook: "The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis." We've almost reached the heart of the theory. The next step: How does this relate to Lebanon and Syria?

       Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that "they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran."

    Now, you are entitled to wonder here who Hersh's source is on this. Who is the person privy to this sensitive information? Surely, an NSC or OVP official. Perhaps even a DoS official, or perhaps someone from the DoD. What about a Saudi source? No, it's even better than that! It's a "U.S. government consultant." It's air tight!

    But why stop there? Hersh insists on dazzling us with his -- and this "consultant's" -- superior knowledge of things relating to Lebanon. The "plan," known in its entirety to the "consultant," has "at least" four points. Might as well jump to the fourth!

       Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah. The Saudi government is also at odds with the Syrians over the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, in Beirut in 2005, for which it believes the Assad government was responsible. Hariri, a billionaire Sunni, was closely associated with the Saudi regime and with Prince Bandar. (A U.N. inquiry strongly suggested that the Syrians were involved, but offered no direct evidence; there are plans for another investigation, by an international tribunal.)

    Um, Sy, if you want people to take your theories seriously for more than five seconds, it might help to actually get some basic facts rights, like perhaps Assad's name (Bashar), or that the international tribunal is not "another investigation," but, er, as its name suggests, an "international tribunal" as in "trying" suspects in the murder. If you're picky, you might want to discuss that issue a bit more, but you know, I'm sure it wasn't the topic of choice at Imad Moustapha's dinner table. But certainly tying Hariri to Prince Bandar (based on what information?) might be something Moustapha could pander to people. After all, his boss's internet propaganda tool, Cham Press, has been doing just that with Hariri's son, Saad. We'll get to that later.

    Also, perhaps you could've spent more time on the reason for Syrian-Saudi tension. After all, you are suggesting that Saudi Arabia is about to fund Salafis to take down Assad's regime. I'm sure there's more at stake there than Hariri's murder. Details, details... Who has time for that?

    But Hersh hasn't yet provided us with the juice. It's just a tease. The rest is coming: "The focus of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, after Iran, is Lebanon, where the Saudis have been deeply involved in efforts by the Administration to support the Lebanese government."

    Now, the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Sunnis, Druze and Christians who took to the streets to support Seniora's government might be surprised to learn that "[m]any in the Arab world" view "Siniora as a weak politician who relies on America’s support." And perhaps, King Abdullah (of KSA and of Jordan), Hosni Mubarak, France and a host of Paris III donor countries might also take issue with Hersh's contention that Seniora relies on "America's support" to survive. Furthermore, one could also argue that Nasrallah is also seen by "many in the Arab world" as a Shiite tool of Iran's Khamenei. But this (Nasrallah = supported by the Arab world vs. Seniora = propped by America) is part and parcel of what I described as pathetic reductionism and a penchant for facile dichotomies, which I will explore further below.

    But there's more than just the US supporting a democratically elected government. Here comes the heavy stuff, based on what "American, European and Arab officials" told Hersh. The basic idea was summarized in his CNN interview:

       My government, which arrests al Qaida every place it can find them and sends -- some of them are in Guantanamo and other places, is sitting back while the Lebanese government we support, the government of Prime Minister Siniora, is providing arms and sustenance to three jihadist groups whose sole function seems to me and to the people that talk to me in our government, to be there in case there is a real shoot-'em-up with Hezbollah and we really get into some sort of serious major conflict between the Sunni government and Hezbollah, which is largely Shia.

    Yes, "largely" Shia. But where were we? Ah. The Seniora government is "providing arms and sustenance" to jihadist groups! Evidence? Oh yes, "American, European, and Arab officials." Who exactly? Let's start with the "European" one, Hezbollah-hugger Alastair Crooke!

       "The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous." Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. "I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah," Crooke said.

       The largest of the groups, Asbat al-Ansar, is situated in the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp. Asbat al-Ansar has received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal-security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government.

    Come again!? The pro-Hezbollah Crooke "was told"?! OK, how about this. "It was reported" that in fact, members from Fateh al-Islam were arrested by the government and during interrogation, two of them (one of whom was Syrian) confessed to receiving orders from Syria to assassinate Lebanese figures associated with the anti-Syrian coalition, and also to plan operations against UNIFIL, as many a Syrian official, including "Bashir" Assad himself, have threatened (specifically about unleashing such groups in Lebanon). The other members of the group, "it was reported," were smuggled into Lebanon, via Syria, after participating in action (again, via Syria, who in Hersh's facile scheme is on the receiving end of Salafi attacks!) in Iraq.

    ّIn fact, about two weeks ago, the government forces clashed with Fateh al-Islam members who managed to capture three policemen (ISF) on patrol near the Nahr el-Bared camp and hold them for two hours. Maybe they thought they were Hezbollah! But wait, I thought the ISF was "the Sunni militia" that the US was arming, as irresponsible reporters like Megan Stack and Michael Slackman propagated in recent months.

    Sultan Abul Ainein, the representative of Fateh (the original one) in Lebanon, strongly criticized this new phenomenon of Fateh al-Islam and gave support for the Lebanese Army to take the necessary measures to preserve stability. Maybe he didn't get the memo from Alastair Crooke.

    What about Asbat al-Ansar? ّIs Alastair Crooke the source for that claim as well? What is the evidence? Was he "told"!? This is flat out preposterous reporting. We have now gone from Stack's and Slackman's "the ISF -- an official institution -- is a Sunni militia" to "the ISF is arming Asbat al-Ansar and Fateh al-Islam." Simply pathetic.

    But Hersh added that not only is the ISF responsible for arming these groups, but also "militias associated with the Siniora government"! Apparently, what Hersh wanted to put here was edited out by the New Yorker. But never fear, he revealed it in all its hilarity to as-Safir. Who is this "militia associated with the Siniora government"? Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces! Why, of course! They are known to arm and support Salafist groups in Palestinian camps!

    Naturally, Hersh's evidence and sources for such a preposterous claim are typically impeccable. Here's what he told as-Safir (emphasis mine):

       Samir Geagea was strongly opposed to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and to his agreement with Michel Aoun. His Lebanese Forces were involved, I was told, in directly or indirectly helping a Sunni jihadi group that snuck in [to Lebanon.] The problem is that when my government distributes money to people in order to "take care of Hezbollah," we don't always know where it ends up. One of the theories of one of my sources, was that the money received by the security services and the Lebanese Forces comes from American aid unappropriated by Congress for this purpose. This is a very important point.

       AS: Is this aid simply money or arms also?

       SH: Money buys arms. There is a point I didn't write about. Money always flows in Lebanon, mainly from the Gulf states.

    Simply impeccable reporting. What utter garbage. "One of the theories" of one of my sources?! Unappropriated funds sent to the Lebanese Forces?! Just what the hell is this nonsense? Oh wait, Hersh has an irrefutable response to such criticism. He conveyed it to Wolf Blitzer:

       And a lot of this money, and I can't tell you with absolute assurance how, exactly when and how, but this money has gotten into the hands, among other places, in Lebanon, into the hands of three, at least three jihadist groups.

       There's three Sunni jihadist groups whose main claim to fame inside Lebanon right now is that they are very tough. These are people connected to al Qaida who want to take on Hezbollah. So this government, at the minimum, we may not directly be funneling money to them, but we certainly know that these groups exist.

    As Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would put it: "Oh Yes!" You gotta love Hersh. He starts with the assertion that the money "has gotten into the hands" of "at least" three jihadist groups, but he can't tell us with absolute certainty! Then asserts the purpose of these "funds" to these jihadist groups: to take on Hezbollah. And then, the coup de grace: the government, "at the minimum," we may not directly be funneling money to them, "but we certainly know these groups exist"! Oh Yes! That we know for sure! Such compelling Cartesian logic: I exist, therefore I am a jihadist funded by the Americans through the Seniora government! And people respect this guy?!

    OK, Hersh, give us another one. Who's the American "official" who told you these things? Oops! No one else is quoted to that effect aside from Crooke. But don't worry, we'll take your word on it. Or rather, we'll take your word on one of the theories of one of your anonymous sources who is not quoted on this issue.

    All joking aside, there is something incredibly disturbing about all this. For anyone familiar with the situation in Lebanon, and who follows the political discourse closely, as I do, will immediately realize that Hersh is internalizing and uncritically disseminating the propaganda of Hezbollah and its allies. There are unmistakable key words and claims used by Hersh that are a dead give away. The rest was supplied by Syria's ambassador to the US, Imad Moustapha, I'm sure.

    In fact, I bet you that the "Middle East ambassador" quoted in the piece is none other than Moustapha. That too might be discernible for those who follow the Syrian political discourse and official statements. For instance, the ambassador told Hersh:

       Bandar’s mission—which the ambassador said was endorsed by the White House—also aimed "to create problems between the Iranians and Syria." There had been tensions between the two countries about Syrian talks with Israel, and the Saudis’ goal was to encourage a breach. However, the ambassador said, "It did not work. Syria and Iran are not going to betray each other. Bandar’s approach is very unlikely to succeed."

    Anyone who reads the official Syrian leaks, which usually are put out by the Syrian regime through their man in al-Hayat, Ibrahim Hamidi, would suspect that the speaker is probably Syrian, as the same exact line was put out by Hamidi. Syrian functionaries, like the hapless Moustapha, are hardly the "free thinkers" who make statements on their own. They are people who follow the official line and regurgitate it. This is a perfect example. My money is on Moustpaha.

    Therefore, all of Hersh's claims come either directly from Hezbollah, or from Hezbollah sympathizers, or functionaries of Hezbollah's regional allies.

    To give you an example of the kind of "information" Hersh got from his meeting with Nasrallah. In December, Walid Jumblat revealed in a press conference that when he met with Hersh, he [Hersh] told him that Nasrallah had told him [Hersh] that when Jumblat and Marwan Hamade went to the US in March (before the summer war, started by Hezbollah), they went there in order to plan the summer war with the Americans!

    The "information" put out by Hersh in this piece and in his interviews is of the same caliber, from the same sources, and is equally unprocessed.

    Take this other claim for instance, attributed to seemingly two people, who may actually be the same person:

       A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, "The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement." He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

    Let's start with the basics. The delegation of the NSF met with members of the NSC in 2006, not 2005 (it wasn't yet formed in 2005). Now, again, my hunch is that this "former" CIA officer and "former" White House official is none other than the above-mentioned Bashar cheerleader, Flynt Leverett. As for the information, Hersh needn't have talked to Leverett (oops, I meant the "former CIA officer" and the "former White House official") about it. He could've asked me, and I would've told him that Bashar's internet propaganda tool had put out the same exact "information" months ago! My feeling is that once again the source of this "information" is probably the same.

    As for the "travel documents," Khaddam doesn't need them. He holds Saudi citizenship. Did Hersh even try to confirm any of this "information," if not with someone from the NSF (Ammar Abdulhamid lives in the DC area), at least with a "current" official or CIA officer (they could even be two different people!)? Details, details...

    Speaking of Cham Press, that bit of unchecked "information" fed to Hersh by (who else) Narallah's aides about how "they believe he is a prime target of fellow-Arabs, primarily Jordanian intelligence operatives" was also available on Cham Press in the summer! Wouldn't you know it, Cham Press also claimed that Jordan was training Hariri and Geagea militias and had set up offices in Lebanon for such purposes! What a surprise! Hell, I believe I could've written Hersh's entire article myself -- including the Leverett and Moustapha quotes -- based on Cham Press and Hezbollah "reports" and official Syrian leaks!

    Although, I must admit, I can never make up the kind of stuff given to Hersh by Robert Baer. I mean who else could've provided this gem: "we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites."

    Yeah, let the militant Khomeinist Islamist group -- who burned tires and blocked roads and attacked Christian neighborhoods after a program on a Christian TV station satirized their leader -- be the "protector" of the Christians! Why didn't I think of that one!? Hell, let's also make Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi Army the "protector" of Christians in Iraq too! Sometimes I wonder if Hersh's articles, and this type of quotes, isn't just dark humor, or The Onion-style writing. Yet it's not a joke. This too is part of the Syrian and Hezbollah propaganda. That the "crazies" are the Sunnis, who are the real threat to the Christians. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is disciplined, pure, not seeking an Islamic state, etc. This is how Michel Aoun is trying to sell his unnatural alliance with Hezbollah to the Christians as well.

    Moreover, this is the result of the facile dichotomies that I mentioned earlier and which underline the entire piece. The entire premise predicates that Iran and Syria are not themselves active supporters of Sunni Islamists and jihadists. That it's the exclusive realm of Saudi Arabia and the Lebanese Sunni Hariri! This approach is dangerously silly.

    For one, a recent report (and earlier ones) noted how Iran is in fact actively supporting both Shiite militias and Sunni jihadists in Iraq. As for Syria, well, its alliance with Sunni jihadists and Islamists needs no introduction. Just ask the Syrian regime's US-based flack. I quote: "The al-Qaeda type jihadist groups are not emerging in Syria because Syria encourages them in other countries." That they do, especially in Iraq, where Bashar actively aided jihadists, and his regime worked openly with recruiters. Also don't forget the above-mentioned Fateh al-Islam and other Palestinian Islamists, pace Mr. Alastair Crooke. This is not to mention Hamas, because we don't want to upset Mr. Crooke, who is also a Hamas cheerleader.

    There's also one other interesting Salafi Islamist allied with Hezbollah in Lebanon and who was received like royalty by Bashar Assad himself. He is one of the very few Sunnis in Lebanon who are openly allied with Hezbollah. He is also an open supporter of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden. His name is Fathi Yakan. Check him out sometime, Sy.

    So you see, it's hardly the clear-cut scheme that Hersh and his one-sided sources want to make it out to be. But then again, without that neat configuration, how would we get the stellar conspiracism and all the "supportive" florilegium of priceless quotes!? I should also note though that some other quotes in there, like those by Patrick Clawson and the one by Leslie Gelb are rather interesting.

    I could go on and demolish other parts of this ridiculous piece, especially the section on Nasrallah, but I don't want to ruin the fun for you. Just make sure you can find your way back out of the Sylight Zone.

    posted by Anton Efendi at 8:06 PM Comments (11) | Trackback

    by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:08:53 PM PDT

  •  Got permission?

    For cross-posting an article in full?  The admins enforce copyright fairly consistently these days.

    by Rusty Pipes on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:27:11 PM PDT

    •  perhaps michaelthemshevik has an agneda

      To get me banned by doing something known to be illegal?

      I am still new at the DK and grateful for intelligent thought- thanks for being around Rusty Pipes.

      by eileen fleming on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:08:29 PM PDT

      •  banned?

          oy vey 'sez this (catholic) gentile...i am a aclu free speech absolutist, having been in my twenties a marxist (active in democratic socialists of america), in my 40's a somewhat chastened liberal w/ a few residual social democratic policy stands (national health care/single payer for example) I debate those far to my left and far to my right all the time. And except for trotskyists like this loon who manage this marxist list http://www.marxmail.org/...
        and has sent me death threats and a chicago neo-nazi who also sent me (far more specific, he had my street address in san francisco, yikes) I have never called for or desired anyone be banned from a left-wing, right-wing or centrist listserv or blog.
         When one posts a political or religious or aesthetic or any other opinion, esp. if it is rooted in conspiracy theorizing like the above diary, expect one to be challenged. In my marxist days I would cite Jurgen Habermas, a German marxist academic on the "dialectics" of "discourse", yada, yada...these days John Stuart Mill liberalism.

        by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:25:19 PM PDT

      •  perhaps michaelthemshevik has an agneda

        In the words of the Kinks, Paranoia will destroy 'ya.
         On conspiracy theorizing, right and left, on the Zionists...
        http://findarticles.com/...
         ZOG ate my brains: conspiracy theories about Jews abound. Chip Berlet unpacks their appeal
        New Internationalist,  Oct, 2004  by Chip Berlet\
         http://www.publiceye.org/...
         New Internationalist - Antisemitism and Conspiracism
         
        Supplement for New Internationalist Magazine
        Article by Chip Berlet - 2004
        Understanding the relationship between antisemitism, conspiracism, and apocalypticism

        by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:39:18 PM PDT

      •  Agenda?

        Who knows!  He certainly has taken an interest in you.  His primary activity on the site since he has registered has been in writing about you or in response to you: his only diary was a call-out diary about you and 25 of the 32 comments he has written have been either in your diaries or about you in the diaries of others.

        by Rusty Pipes on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:06:42 PM PDT

    •  cross posting

        Point taken, my ignorance of the protocols (not of the elders of zion, humor is accetable here I hope ;-)
        One of those posts was a blog entry, uncopyrighted and the other was Counterpunch, which I see no sign of them copyrighting an original contribution ever. Still in future I'll cut and paste a paragraph or two of the intro of a copyrighted piece then give tbe URL like this http://www.menshevismiscounterrevolu...

      by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:32:31 PM PDT

      •  It's all in the FAQ

        At the bottom of the FAQ page are some links to various diary series, some of which are especially helpful for newbies.

        by Rusty Pipes on Wed May 23, 2007 at 03:40:39 PM PDT

      •  OH GOOD HUMOR!!!

        I am learning the rules from readers kind enough to point them out- I am grateful you are as ignorant as I am: on a few things.

        e

        by eileen fleming on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:48:31 PM PDT

•  Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

    A good source but, this gives me the creeps w/ its echo of the far right, "Zionist Occupied Government, " thesis ala Aryan Nations.
    Richard H. Curtis of WRMEA.

  http://www.google.com/...
  http://www.aljazeerah.info/...
  One Nation Under Israel By Andrew Hurley Reviewed by Richard H. Curtiss
  Truth Press, Scottsdale, AZ, http://www.whtt.org/... One
  Nation Under Israel" may be the first historically documented expose of the
  hijacking of the American Congress. It is a popular lament that, "Congress
  is out of control," but nothing could be further from the truth. For as
  Author Andrew Hurley clearly explains, Congress is not under the control of
  its constituents but of a foreign power. Former United States Senator J.
  William Fulbright, Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations
  Committee, stated repeatedly in 1973, "Israel controls the (U.S.) Senate."
  Fulbright soon became a "former Senator.")

  by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:46:59 PM PDT

•  Hamas

    "Not against any religion, "???
   http://www.yale.edu/...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:52:52 PM PDT

  •  Hamas conspiracy theory in their charter

      Those crafty Jews, why they control , "international finance capitalism, ", the Communist movements under the late Comintern, and the Rotary Clubs! Just like,
    http://www.crusader.net/...

    >...Another characteristic of the Hamas charter is the frequent references it makes to conspiracy theories, in order that adepts might better understand events in the dar al-harb (region of war), as distinct from the dar al-Islam (region of Islam). On "Jews" and "Zionists" — called "the enemies" — the charter follows in Hitler's footsteps by appealing to the crudest of forgeries (rightly called a Warrant for Genocide by Norman Cohn): "Their plan is embodied in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ... The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates..." Article 22 states that "the enemies" have long since taken over the world's financial centers, controlling the world's media: "agencies, press, broadcasting, publications, etc.... With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions, and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests." Indeed, "they" have been stirring up revolutions since the one in France in 1789 — including Communist revolutions.

            David G. Littman is a historian and an NGO representative of the Association for World Education to the United Nations in Geneva, where he has been active on many human-rights issues since 1986.

    ©2002 - The New Republic

    by michaelthemenshevik on Wed May 23, 2007 at 03:00:32 PM PDT

  •  I QUOTED a SOURCE

    I am a reporter reporting my experiences in Occupied Territory;

    There are NO Card carrying Hamas- they run the gamut from militant fundamentalists to NONVIOLENT centrists;

    Kind of like many Christians in USA, don't you think?

    e

    by eileen fleming on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:50:36 PM PDT