Ron Paul’s statement opposing the US House resolution supporting Israel’s war in Gaza:
Back in July, I wrote a post on this blog with the title, â€œIs Petraeus Preparing to Betray the Neo-Cons?â€ in which I suggested that, given his expanded geographical jurisdiction as CentCom commander, Gen. David Petraeus, like the Joint Chiefs (and candidate Barack Obama for that matter) at the time, would soon see Afghanistan/Pakistan as the â€œcentral front on the war on terrorâ€ and thus develop a sense of urgency about diverting more U.S. military and related resources from Iraq to Southwest Asia. At that time, neo-cons like Fred Kagan and Max Boot were arguing that Iraq was far more important than Afghanistan and that any diversion of troops eastward could have catastrophic geo-political consequences for the U.S. position in the Gulf and the Middle East.
Since then, of course, Petraeus has occasionally noted the necessity of a regional approach in dealing with Afghanistan/Pakistan, one that would include India to the east, the â€œStansâ€ to the north, and Iran to the west, but he has never been as explicit about common U.S. and Iranian interests in the region as he was today in a presentation to the U.S. Institute of Peace (sponsored, incidentally, by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, as well as McDonalds and Coca-Cola). Despite evidence that Tehran has provided some weapons to anti-NATO forces in Afghanistan, he noted, Iran doesnâ€™t â€œwant â€¦to see Afghanistan in the grip of ultra-fundamentalist extremist Sunni forces. Nor do they want to see the narcotics problem get worse. In fact, they want to see it reduced; itâ€™s a huge issue in Iran,â€ he said, noting again that Iran, like India, could be critical to stabilizing Afghanistan.
Petraeusâ€™ appreciation for the importance of bringing Iran into a regional effort to stabilize Afghanistan â€” he spoke shortly after former UN Special Envoy on Afghanistan Ibrahim Brahimi told the same conference that Iran was â€œsecond perhaps in influence to Pakistanâ€ in Afghanistan and would not hesitate to create problems if it felt its interests there were threatened â€” may, of course, lead him into conflict not only with the neo-conservatives (as I suggested back in July), but, more importantly, with Dennis Ross and his backers within the Obama administration. Ross, who, according to numerous reports now, appears certain to be made special envoy on all matters pertaining to Iran (and possibly the entire Middle East) has even less expertise on Afghanistan and Southwest Asia than he does on the Islamic Republic. Moreover, his Israel-centric worldview (in which Iran, rather than al Qaeda, represents the greatest regional threat to both the U.S. and Israel) is almost certain to clash with Petraeusâ€™ (and the Pentagonâ€™s) view that Iranâ€™s cooperation â€” or at least acquiescence â€” is critical to stabilizing Afghanistan and ultimately Pakistan as well. In other words, a serious conflict is likely to develop between those, like Ross, who see Iran as the greatest threat to U.S. interests and Israel in the region defined as the â€œMiddle Eastâ€) and those who believe that al Qaeda and its allies in â€œSouthwest Asiaâ€ represent the greatest immediate threat to U.S. security.
Of course, Richard Holbrooke, who will be special envoy on Afghanistan/Pakistan (and India in parenthesis, according to the latest news), generally shares Rossâ€™s views on Iran â€” they are co-founders, after all, with James Woolsey and Fouad Ajami of a group called United Against Nuclear Iran; see this Wall Street Journal op-ed, for example â€” and may be expected to back him up in inter-agency debates about how confrontational a policy Obama should pursue toward Iran. But I think Petraeus and the military will have some pretty strong views about how well-positioned Tehran is to make life much more difficult for the U.S. in both Afghanistan and even in Pakistan, not to mention Iraq â€” and how much easier it could be if some sort of a â€œgrand bargainâ€ â€” even one that recognizes Iranâ€™s right to enrich uranium under strict international inspection â€” with the Islamic Republic could be forged. Perhaps, if things really went well, Iran could even offer NATO a desperately needed new and inexpensive supply route for its troops in Afghanistanâ€¦
So the U.S. Senate on Thursday passed by voice vote a resolution blindly supporting Israeli attacks on Gaza and heaping derision on Hamas.
This craven display should awaken anyone who sanguinely assumed that “everything changed” on November 4.
The resolution contained numerous twists of history, but the most glaring absurdity is the following:
“Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying Israel…”
Perhaps the senators were in a rush to collect campaign contributions, so they did not have time to glance at the history of how Hamas arose to power.
Hamas was created with massive aid from the Israeli government. Following is an excerpt from my Terrorism & Tyranny (2003):
Perhaps the single largest mistake in the history of the Israeli governmentâ€™s long war on terrorism was its covert financing, cosseting, and arming of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon denounced Hamas as â€œthe deadliest terrorist group that we have ever had to face.â€ But the Israeli government is reticent about admitting its role in creating this Frankenstein.
Beginning in the 1970s Israel began pouring money into Islamic organizations â€”especially the Moslem Brotherhoodâ€”hoping that religion would distract the Palestinians from political activism and the radical left-wing Palestinian Liberation Organization. Hamas was a late offspring of the Moslem Brotherhood. Prior to 1988 Moslem Brotherhood activists â€œhad refrained from openly anti-Israel activities.â€ But with the outbreak of the first Intifada (uprising) in late 1987, the Israeli government was stunned to see how fast Hamas became the primary source of deadly attacks against Israelis.
Anthony Cordesman, a former State Department and Defense Department intelligence officer and currently a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, stated that the Israeli government â€œaided Hamas directlyâ€”the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO.â€ A United Press International analysis reported, â€œAccording to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.â€ UPI noted that, according to documents provided by Israeli terrorism experts, â€œHamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movementâ€™s spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association by the name Al-Mujamma al Islami.â€
The Jerusalem Post reported on May 29, 1989, that, until the late 1980s, the Moslem Brotherhood â€œorganizations in Gaza and the Islamic University received much encouragement from the [Israeli] military government. . . . The military government believed that their activity would undermine the power of the PLO and of leftist organizations in Gaza. They even supplied some of their activists with weapons, for their protection.â€ During the first Intifada (uprising), the PLO and Hamas openly clashed over how to resist the Israeli occupation. The Jerusalem Post noted: â€œThe [Israeli] security forces greeted this tension [between Palestinian groups] with satisfaction, in line with the principle of divide and conquer. In several cases, Palestinians noticed that troops stood by quietly during Hamas street activity, but did interfere when PLO activists engaged in the same activity.â€ The Israeli government assumed that if the PLO could be thwarted, the Palestinian problem would be solved. But Hamas was far more bloodthirsty and radical than the PLO. The PLO effectively recognized Israelâ€™s right to exist in 1988, while Hamas devoted itself to seizing all of Palestine for an Islamic state.
Last night’s PBS NewsHour featured a debate on the nomination of Leon Panetta to be CIA Director.
The participants were two Antiwar.com contributors: former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and former CIA official Michael Scheuer. Judy Woodruff was the interviewer.
I found myself much more in agreement with Mr. McGovern.
Want to see first-hand reporting from Gaza? Al-Jazeera’s team was there before journalists were banned.
Want to watch English-language TV news from Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, Korea?
Want to watch Hezbollah TV without your provider going to prison?
Want to watch special movie channels, documentary channels, and various specialty channels without paying for them?
A new application called LiveStation allows you to watch thousands of different channels on your PC for free, in very high quality. Stations are being added daily, and users are able to add any stations that offer public feeds. Stations added by users become available to all LiveStation users. A chat function is also available to interact with other viewers.
The download is fast and free, and the program doesn’t appear to be buggy or a memory hog. The video quality is very good, even in full-screen mode.
LiveStation has become my new addiction. I highly recommend downloading the program and giving it a try. It is available for PC, Mac, and Linux.
Reading the justifications that Israeli supporters are offering for the IDF assault, I don’t see any rationale being offered that would not justify killing everyone in Gaza.
If a single rocket is fired from Gaza territory, does that mean that everyone living in that area has automatically forfeited their life? The New York Times notes today that Israeli supporters believe that “the issue of proportionality… is a false construct because comparing death tolls offers no help in measuring justice and legitimacy.”
And we are obliged to accept whatever exonerations are offered by the IDF and their apologists. Max Blumenthal had an excellent piece on Huffington Post on the response to the initial IDF attacks on Gaza:
Almost as soon as the first Israeli missile struck the Gaza Strip, a veteran cheering squad suited up to support the home team. “Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life,” Charles Krauthammer claimed in the Washington Post. Echoing Krauthammer, Alan Dershowitz called the Israeli attack on Gaza, “Perfectly ‘Proportionate.'” And in the New York Times, Israeli historian Benny Morris described his country’s airstrikes as “highly efficient.” …. “It was Israel at its best,” Yossi Klein Halevi declared in the New Republic.
The cheering by Bush and top Republicans and Democrats for the bombing of the Gaza concentration camp epitomizes how the American political leadership has learned nothing since 9/11. The United States will be blamed for atrocities committed with American weapons and planes.
[This comment is also posted at my blog here]