By MATTI FRIEDMAN Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM—The Israeli government will remove references to what Palestinians call the "catastrophe" of Israel's creation from textbooks for Arab schoolchildren, the education minister said Wednesday.
The reference to "al-naqba," the Arabic word catastrophe, as Palestinians call their defeat and exile in the war over Israel's 1948 creation, was inserted by a dovish Israeli education minister in 2007.
The phrase remains contentious six decades later, a symptom of the continuing divisions in Israel. Many Israeli Arabs identify politically with their Palestinian counterparts in the West Bank and Gaza. As a result, some Israeli Jews accuse Israeli Arabs of disloyalty to the country.
Israel's current government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his hard-line Likud Party, includes members who favor cracking down on Israeli Arabs by ordering loyalty oaths or even moving them out of Israel.
"No other country in the world, in its official curriculum, would treat the fact of its founding as a catastrophe," Education Minister Gideon Saar of Likud told Israel's parliament on Wednesday.
Israeli Arab lawmaker Hana Sweid accused the government of "naqba denial."
"It's a major attack on the identity of the Palestinian Arab citizens of the state of Israel, on their memories and their adherence to their identity," he told the Associated Press.
Teachers will be free to discuss the personal and national tragedies that befell Palestinians during Advertisement
the war, Saar said, but textbooks will be revised to remove the term, he added.
The decision applied to a third-grade textbook for Arab schoolchildren. Jewish textbooks make no mention of the term.
Yossi Sarid, a dovish former education minister, said Saar's decision showed insecurity.
"Zionism has already won in many ways, and can afford to be more confident. We need not be afraid of a word," Sarid said.
The 1948 war saw Arab nations invade the newly founded Jewish country after a United Nations decision to partition the British-controlled territory of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Jewish forces won, seizing territories beyond what the U.N. had allotted to it, while Egypt and Jordan took what was left of the territories the U.N. intended for a Palestinian state.
More than 700,000 Palestinians are thought to have fled or been expelled from areas that came under Israeli control.
Official Israeli histories of the country's establishment, especially those written for schoolchildren, have typically focused on the heroism of Israeli forces and glossed over the Palestinian flight, attributing the mass exile to voluntary escape if mentioning it at all.
In recent years, several Israeli historians have published books claiming that while many Palestinians did flee of their own accord, many others were forced from their homes as fighting raged.
Palestinians demand the right to repatriate the surviving refugees and more than 4 million descendants to their original homes in Israel.
Israel rejects the demand, saying the refugees should receive compensation and be resettled where they now live or in a Palestinian state.
The Arabs who remained inside Israel now make up about 20 percent of the country's population of 7.3 million.
ReprintPrint Email

More of Nuclear supplies and no body makes a noise...

Is every body sleeping or dead? What is Pakistan media doing? Just going after Pervez Musharraf I guess?

NEW DELHI, July 20 -- The United States and India on Monday established a high-level forum designed to further strengthen a relationship that has dramatically improved in recent years. The two governments also announced relatively modest agreements that could foster potential sales of sophisticated U.S. arms and civil nuclear reactors.

The "strategic dialogue," unveiled on the final day of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's three-day tour of India, will be one of only about a half-dozen such relationships the United States has with other countries.
The annual sessions will be co-chaired by Clinton and External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and will bring together cabinet secretaries of both countries for formal discussions.
Clinton, at a news conference with Krishna, stressed that the talks are designed to inspire broad partnerships beyond the government level, bringing Americans into closer contact with one of the world's fastest-growing economies.
"We do not, however, intend for this to be a dialogue between ministers or even between governments, but between our nations and our peoples, our scientists and business leaders, our civil society activists and academics, charitable foundations, farmers, educators, doctors, entrepreneurs," Clinton told reporters.
Underscoring that point, Clinton stretched the bounds of traditional diplomacy during her visit. She met with business leaders in the commercial capital of Mumbai, talked to poor female weavers, toured an environmentally friendly "green" building, visited a farm to learn about new crop techniques and discussed Indian education issues at a university forum.

On Monday, she delved into more-official contacts, meeting with Krishna; Manmohan Singh, the prime minister; Sonia Gandhi, the head of the ruling Congress party; and L.K. Advani, the leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
Clinton announced that she had conveyed an invitation to Singh from President Obama to visit Washington on Nov. 24 for what would be the first state visit of the new administration. Singh accepted, U.S. officials said.
The other agreements announced Monday were of less import, essentially marking incremental steps toward realizing potential military and nuclear sales.
India agreed to accept congressionally mandated monitoring of the use of sensitive military equipment, which will allow U.S. companies to compete for the sale of 126 fighter jets worth about $10 billion. India also identified two sites for potential U.S.-made nuclear reactors, also worth $10 billion, though the Indian government must still pass a controversial law limiting liability for U.S. companies before they can compete.
Clinton and Krishna also signed a technology agreement that will permit the use of U.S. parts on Indian satellite launch vehicles and established a $30 million fund for joint science and technology projects.
The United States and India had chilly relations during the Cold War, but a thaw began during the presidency of Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush built on that foundation by inking a landmark civil nuclear agreement with India, and now the Obama administration has made it clear it wants to further deepen ties.
One U.S. official involved in this week's talks said that until recently the two countries "managed problems." It was such an unsatisfactory relationship that very few senior U.S. officials wanted to meet with their Indian counterparts. But Bush's nuclear deal, which allows India to buy civil nuclear equipment even though it did not sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, cleared away a long-standing sore point between the two nations.
Meanwhile, Singh's party won a commanding victory in May, allowing it to shed left-leaning coalition partners suspicious of Washington. The U.S. official said that now the heads of various agencies are fighting over who can join the U.S.-India dialogue. "There's a sense that we can accomplish something," he said.
Still, stark differences between the two countries on such issues as a global agreement to limit greenhouse gases were apparent during Clinton's trip.
Clinton is an Indiaphile, clearly fascinated by the country, its people and its food. Speaking to about 700 students at Delhi University on Monday, she said it would be a mistake to allow stereotypes portrayed in popular culture to influence relations between the two countries.
"People watching a Bollywood movie in some other part of Asia think everyone in India is beautiful and they have dramatic lives and have happy endings," Clinton said to laugher. "And if you were to watch American TV and our movies, you'd think that we don't wear clothes and we spend a lot of time fighting with each other."

In his analysis published in today’s The News International, Mr. Ikram Sehgal provides an interesting assessment of the latest episode in the Pakistani political circus. The focus is on Pervez Musharraf’s legal problems, the real strength of President Zardari versus Nawaz Sharif/Prime Minister Gilani. And, most importantly, why the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the restored Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is avoiding taking up the NRO, the law that whitewashed financial corruption at the highest levels in government. Finally, Mr. Sehgal makes some interesting observations about how the Pakistani military leadership could be viewing this mess.

On Musharraf’s Fate:

Pervez Musharraf must be content in his London apartment, in less than a year Zardari has replaced him as the unpopular figure in Pakistan. Unlike Zardari, Musharraf always enjoyed a base of popularity. Given the present abysmal performance of the Zardari-Gilani government, this will force-multiply exponentially. If the Army can stomach Zardari, why should they mind Musharraf back as president one day? Even though Musharraf's Oct 12, 1999, takeover was illegal in all senses of the word, in all fairness it was popular in the streets with both the intelligentsia and the masses fed up with bad governance. No tears were shed for the Nawaz Sharif regime. Almost everyone welcomed, myself included, a military coup in the name of hope, or as hope is known in Pakistan, "the doctrine of necessity." That public faith in Pervez Musharraf eroded dramatically after the rigged 2002 elections was no surprise. That is the fate of all who close their ears to good advice and shoot messengers bringing bad news. As long as Asif Zardari does not meddle with the military, and until now he has shown no inclination for this rather fatal pastime, the military hierarchy seems more comfortable having him (Kayani was DG ISI before he became COAS, he cannot claim ignorance about all the Zardari controversies) around than Mian Sahib. One can understand the Army's lack of enthusiasm in repealing the 17th Amendment and Clause 58 (2) (b). Why shackle themselves for the next time around? It stands to reason they seem supportive (as does the US) of a strong president and an ineffectual prime minister.


On Whether Zardari Is Cornered:

Despite being under pressure lately, Zardari has made notable accomplishments. The success of sorts in Swat has been bought at a heavy price, the blood of our young men in uniform. Sufi Muhammad took a day as a sign of weakness the abject and shameful surrender by Pakistan's Parliament in its passage of a resolution for so-called peace in less than a day. The Taliban were not prepared for the outraged reaction of the Pakistani public. Their attempt to brutally take over Swat and adjacent districts was fully exploited by the Army. That most of the IDPs are returning is a clear measure of the military's success (and, it so happens, Zardari's). Complete success will only be possible when Maulana Fazlullah and his top aides are physically eliminated. Surviving March 15 virtually unscathed is a credit to Zardari's political craftsmanship, being reduced to a figurehead president is certainly not in keeping with his personality, or the shenanigans of his friends. A master of the art of playing for time, he has again consigned the 17th Amendment to the cold storage of a parliamentary committee. Yusuf Reza Gilani vacillated in the name of party unity when the opportunity arose to get back the prime minister's powers under the 1973 Constitution. By not maintaining the March 15 momentum he blew his chances. That the Supreme Court decision overturning Mian Sahib's conviction on the aircraft hijack case came the same day as Zardari's Raiwind visit is no coincidence. Zardari needed to head off Mian Nawaz Sharif running loose in the National Assembly with Gilani on constitutional issues.

On Double Standards Of Nawaz Sharif & THE RESTORED CHIEF JUSTICE:

While Mian Sahib must be congratulated for not becoming another political beneficiary of the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), nonetheless his "democratic" silence about this blackest of black laws is intriguing. Even though it seems they presently seem to lack enthusiasm, there seems to be method in the Supreme Court's benign ignorance of something that has disfigured Pakistan's politics and threatens our existence as a nation. At present all eyes are on the Supreme Court as they decide on the blatantly illegal Nov 3 action. The NRO will have to be addressed; his lordships cannot ignore it forever under "a doctrine of necessity." Ordinary mortals do expect that their lordships while suo moto-ing everything under the sun, will ultimately address this black hole in Pakistan's heart. The NRO provides for London being the first (and Dubai the second) home for our leaders. Our leaders alternate in giving us bad governance, collect their booty (and their gifts which seems to be their right by being president and/or prime minister), and go back to London (and Dubai), at least till all is forgotten and forgiven by our gullible masses, and their popularity returns.

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

02/28/06 Zogby

• Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
• While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
• Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
• Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
• Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
• Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,” Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.
Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.
The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

Washington, July 16: US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has once again highlighted that Pakistan is a terror safe haven and said that Al-Qaeda's leadership is based in that country.

Clinton's comments came a day before her significant visit to India, where she will be meeting the country's leadership. The impending threat of terrorism and several other important issues are expected to come up for discussions during her visit.
Addressing a think tank at the Council of Foreign Relations Wednesday, Clinton said that the US is ready to negotiate with the Taliban if it severs its ties with Al-Qaeda, lays down arms and participates in building a democratic Afghanistan.
She said success in Afghanistan required co-operation from Pakistan as well.
The News quoted Clinton, as saying that both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban pose an equal threat to the region, and therefore it is important to crush both.
"We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects Al-Qaeda and depends on it for support. To eliminate Al-Qaeda, we must also fight the Taliban," she said.

Copyright Asian News International/DailyIndia.com

Special Reports

By Wayne Madsen
WMR has learned from U.S. intelligence veterans that the secret intelligence operation run by Vice President Dick Cheney was not under the aegis of the Central Intelligence Agency but was a component of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Department of Defense.
The JSOC unit carried out assassinations of foreign individuals, including politicians in countries friendly to the United States, under the direct orders of Cheney. One former intelligence official described the operation as a new “Phoenix Program.”
During the Vietnam War, the CIA’s Phoenix program, carried out, with the cooperation of U.S. Special Operations forces, identified key Vietcong leaders in South Vietnamese villages and towns and later assassinated them. What the CIA was involved with from the days subsequent to the 9/11 attacks was a similar operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan that identified key leaders of “Al Qaeda” and the Taliban and planned their assassinations.
However, what the CIA abandoned was Cheney’s use of the operation, in part organized under then-CIA director George Tenet’s “Worldwide Attack Matrix” or “WAM,” to target real or perceived political enemies in other countries, possibly including individuals in the United States. CIA director Leon Panetta officially terminated the CIA’s residual role in the assassination program after an eight-year involvement and informed Congress that they had been misled about the nature of the program.
The only actual part of the CIA that worked with the Pentagon’s assassination unit under JSOC was the Special Activities Division (SAD) of the CIA, itself largely comprised of former U.S. Special Operations personnel, including a number of former Delta Force members.
Far from being concerned about revelations about the program, WMR has learned that rank-and-file CIA officers are ecstatic about the revelations concerning Cheney’s operations. In knowing that most in the CIA, perhaps with the noted exceptions of deputy director of the CIA, Stephen Kappes, and acting CIA general counsel John Rizzo, were not involved in Cheney’s assassination ring, which is considered by many CIA officers to have been illegal, there is a certain amount of glee in realizing that Cheney may soon face the legal music on ordering illegal assassinations.
One retired CIA officer who was involved in the original clandestine targeting program before it was altered by Cheney, believes that the CIA has Cheney “by the balls” over the new revelations about the death squads.
WMR has been told by a U.S. intelligence source that the one person who poses the greatest threat to Cheney is former CIA director George Tenet, who claims that Cheney’s operation was so secretive he was not aware of its details. Tenet has been described as having few friends from the Bush-Cheney administration and has nothing to lose by making public what he knows about Cheney’s role in the assassination operation. Although the Cheney/JSOC operation continued under CIA directors Porter Goss and General Michael Hayden, neither are considered particularly vulnerable, except for their possible testimonies under oath before congressional committees.
The most high-profile target of the secret Cheney assassination squad, according to high-level CIA sources, allegedly was former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, assassinated on December 27, 2007, in Rawalpindi, the heart of Pakistan’s military and intelligence community.
WMR reported the assassination as follows on December 27, 2007: “Bhutto was reportedly first shot in the neck and chest and then killed in a suicide bomb blast at a campaign rally. Bhutto’s closest advisers immediately suspected the involvement of Pakistan’s military and intelligence complex in the assassination, an event which is thought by many to strengthen the hand of Musharraf and Pakistan’s dictatorship. The global corporate media, in practical unison, began echoing the tired tripe that ‘Al Qaeda’ was responsible for Bhutto’s assassination. However, ‘Al Qaeda’ was fostered by Pakistan’s military and intelligence community with large amounts of funding from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.”
According to our CIA sources, Cheney decided that every effort should be made to ensure that his friend, Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, remain in power in Pakistan and not be replaced by Bhutto. Cheney allegedly authorized his secret assassination unit to hit Bhutto and then maximize his political gain by blaming the attack on “Al Qaeda.”
Cheney’s alleged hit on Bhutto also involved U.S. and Pakistani electronic surveillance of her communications. On February 21, 2008, WMR reported: “The late former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto knew that all her phone conversations and e-mails were being monitored by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and ‘other intelligence agencies,’ according to her long time friend and co-author Mark Siegel. Siegel made his comments last night in a speech at the National Press Club highlighting ‘Reconciliation,’ a book he co-authored with Bhutto shortly before her assassination. Siegel said he and Bhutto were convinced that during her five years of exile in Dubai that all their phone calls between Washington, DC, and Dubai were being monitored by ISI. Since ISI does not possess its own significant eavesdropping capability in the United States, Bhutto’s reference to ‘other agencies’ is an indication that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was eavesdropping on Bhutto and passing some of the intelligence to the ISI and the government of Pakistani dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf.”
The House Intelligence Committee is promising to investigate the details of the program and on July 12, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said he believes there will be additional revelations forthcoming about the super-secret Cheney program.

Occupied Jerusalem: Two Israeli warships sailed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday, Israeli and Egyptian officials said, a move that appeared to be a new signal to Iran that Israel's reach could quickly extend to its arch enemy's backyard.
The Suez Canal is a strategic waterway linking the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, the gateway to the Gulf. Use of the Egyptian-controlled canal means Israeli naval vessels could reach waters off Iran in a matter of days, instead of taking a much longer route around Africa.
Israeli vessels regularly use the canal. But what is noteworthy in recent weeks is that the navy's moves have been publicised, albeit unofficially, by Israel.
Two of Israel's Saar class missile boats crossed through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea, Israeli defense officials said.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because the move was not officially publicised, they said it was connected to "the navy's recent activities around the Red Sea."
A Suez Canal official in Egypt confirmed the report.
Israel considers Iran its most serious threat, citing Tehran's nuclear program, its support for anti-Israel militant groups and bellicose statements by its hardline president.
Israel believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons - a charge Iran denies - and has refused to rule out military action if Iran pushes forward with its atomic program.
Earlier this month, Israeli defense officials said one of the navy's Dolphin class submarines had also sailed to the Red Sea through the Suez Canal in June, returning July 5.
Beyond the ability to threaten shipping, some foreign media reports say Dolphins can fire nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and serve as Israel's deterrent "second-strike" capability, allowing Israel to launch nuclear weapons from afar even if the country itself is targeted by a nuclear attack.
"There is nothing unusual about the navy being in those waters - they often train there," said Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli general and a security expert at the Institute for National Security Studies.
"What is unusual, though, is that this information was made public. I believe it was likely leaked on purpose in order to signal to Iran that Israel has the capability of reaching them," Brom said.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Aboul Gheit said that under a long-standing treaty, warships can freely sail through Suez as long as they have no hostile intentions against the state that owns the canal.
He declined to say whether the maneuver was aimed at sending a message, saying "I don't want to analyse an issue that I am not fully aware of."

Food: Assassination tool of the Israelis which they are using against the Muslims

By Sara Roy
July 14, 2009 "Electronic Intifada" -- The recent meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu generated speculation over the future relationship between America and Israel, and a potentially changed US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Analysts on the right and left are commenting on a new, tougher American policy characterized by strengthened US demands on Israel. However, beneath the diplomatic choreography lies an agonizing reality that received only brief comment from Obama and silence from Netanyahu: the ongoing devastation of the people of Gaza.
Gaza is an example of a society that has been deliberately reduced to a state of abject destitution, its once productive population transformed into one of aid-dependent paupers. This context is undeniably one of mass suffering, created largely by Israel but with the active complicity of the international community, especially the US and European Union, and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Gaza`s subjection began long before Israel`s recent war against it. The Israeli occupation -- now largely forgotten or denied by the international community -- has devastated Gaza`s economy and people, especially since 2006. Although economic restrictions actually increased before Hamas` electoral victory in January 2006, the deepened sanction regime and siege subsequently imposed by Israel and the international community, and later intensified in June 2007 when Hamas seized control of Gaza, has all but destroyed the local economy. If there has been a pronounced theme among the many Palestinians, Israelis and internationals who I have interviewed in the last three years, it was the fear of damage to Gaza`s society and economy so profound that billions of dollars and generations of people would be required to address it -- a fear that has now been realized.
After Israel`s December assault, Gaza`s already compromised conditions have become virtually unlivable. Livelihoods, homes and public infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed on a scale that even the Israeli army admitted was indefensible. In Gaza today, there is no private sector to speak of and no industry. Eighty percent of Gaza`s agricultural crops were destroyed and Israel continues to snipe at farmers attempting to plant and tend fields near the well-fenced and patrolled border. Most productive activity has been extinguished.
One powerful expression of Gaza`s economic demise -- and the Gazans` indomitable will to provide for themselves and their families -- is its burgeoning tunnel economy that emerged long ago in response to the siege. Thousands of Palestinians are now employed digging tunnels into Egypt -- around 1,000 tunnels are reported to exist although not all are operational. According to local economists, 90 percent of economic activity in Gaza -- once considered a lower middle-income economy (along with the West Bank) -- is presently devoted to smuggling.
Today, 96 percent of Gaza`s population of 1.4 million is dependent on humanitarian aid for basic needs. According to the World Food Program, the Gaza Strip requires a minimum of 400 trucks of food every day just to meet the basic nutritional needs of the population. Yet, despite a 22 March decision by the Israeli cabinet to lift all restrictions on foodstuffs entering Gaza, only 653 trucks of food and other supplies were allowed entry during the week of 10 May, for example, at best meeting 23 percent of required need.
Israel now allows only 30 to 40 commercial items to enter Gaza compared to 4,000 approved products prior to June 2006. According to the Israeli journalist Amira Hass, Gazans still are denied many commodities (a policy in effect long before the December assault): building materials (including wood for windows and doors), electrical appliances (such as refrigerators and washing machines), spare parts for cars and machines, fabrics, threads, needles, candles, matches, mattresses, sheets, blankets, cutlery, crockery, cups, glasses, musical instruments, books, tea, coffee, sausages, semolina, chocolate, sesame seeds, nuts, milk products in large packages, most baking products, light bulbs, crayons, clothing and shoes.
Given these constraints, among many others -- including the internal disarray of the Palestinian leadership -- one wonders how the reconstruction to which Obama referred will be possible. There is no question that people must be helped immediately. Programs aimed at alleviating suffering and reinstating some semblance of normalcy are ongoing, but at a scale shaped entirely by the extreme limitations on the availability of goods. In this context of repressive occupation and heightened restriction, what does it mean to reconstruct Gaza? How is it possible under such conditions to empower people and build sustainable and resilient institutions able to withstand expected external shocks? Without an immediate end to Israel`s blockade and the resumption of trade and the movement of people outside the prison that Gaza has long been, the current crisis will grow massively more acute. Unless the US administration is willing to exert real pressure on Israel for implementation -- and the indications thus far suggest they are not -- little will change. Not surprisingly, despite international pledges of $5.2 billion for Gaza`s reconstruction, Palestinians there are now rebuilding their homes using mud.
Recently, I spoke with some friends in Gaza and the conversations were profoundly disturbing. My friends spoke of the deeply-felt absence of any source of protection -- personal, communal or institutional. There is little in society that possesses legitimacy and there is a fading consensus on rules and an eroding understanding of what they are for. Trauma and grief overwhelm the landscape despite expressions of resilience. The feeling of abandonment among people appears complete, understood perhaps in their growing inability to identify with any sense of possibility. The most striking was this comment: `It is no longer the occupation or even the war that consumes us but the realization of our own irrelevance.`
What possible benefit can be derived from an increasingly impoverished, unhealthy, densely crowded and furious Gaza alongside Israel? Gaza`s terrible injustice not only threatens Israeli and regional security, but it undermines America`s credibility, alienating our claim to democratic practice and the rule of law.
If Palestinians are continually denied what we want and demand for ourselves -- an ordinary life, dignity, livelihood, safety and a place where they can raise their children -- and are forced, yet again, to face the destruction of their families, then the inevitable outcome will be greater and more extreme violence across all factions, both old and increasingly new. What looms is no less than the loss of entire generation of Palestinians. And if this happens -- perhaps it already has -- we shall all bear the cost.

Sara Roy is a senior research scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. She is the author of Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. This article was originally published by The Harvard Crimson and is republished with the author`s permission.

A 14-year-old boy, Irfan, was crossing the road near his house in Delhi when a Tavera car screeched to a halt near him, he was bundled into the car and pinned down under the heavy feet with pistol kept to his head.
The mother kept searching for the boy. Had it not the car's numberplate and the judiciary's help, the boy may not have been tracked and released in ten days, from a secret Abu Gharaib-like torture cell in faraway Gujarat where he underwent such torture which even the adults can't even dream to endure.
This explosive story by news magazine 'The Week' has caused ripples in administrative circles. After a long time, a news magazine has done such an investigative story that brings to light something which was either not known or just talked about in whispers.
The magazine's journalist has unearthed and located these secret detention camps a la Abu Ghraib in Iraq, which are present in several Indian cities. The Week's managing editor Philip Mathew has written a special full page introduction for the story and the purpose of this extraordinary revelation. He writes:
..The muffled cry will never reach you. Nor the snap of bone. It is a strange silence, as if tranquilised by terror....the cover story is vastly different from Hitlerian terror, what is common though is the sadistic streak that strips a human of his dignity and sometimes his life...
The Week's cover story on secret torture champers comes at a time when mature democracies are pausing to listen to their conscience....many innocents suffer grievously as they were picked up on mere suspicion and had no access to legal help, nor their families know where they had been taken...
The extensive groundwork and the interviews by The Week's senior correspondent Syed Nazakat are a revelation. Yes, terrorists need to be treated differently. But does the organised might of the state need to torture 14-year-old innocent minor by abducting them and keeping them in soundproof cells that don't have windows and where new definitions of torture are scripted every minute?
Many are traumatised for their life and others die in these chambers without anybody's knowledge. Former DGP and Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer, Dr KS Subramanian's interview is also an eye-opener. He doesn't deny about such practices and says, "...in terrorist-related cases, the police may feel incentive to describe people as terrorists and kill them for professional reasons and career advancement.'
He mentions how farmers were killed in the name of Naxalites. The exhaustive report also tells about the exact location of these terror cells in Kolkata, Palanpur (Gujarat), Delhi, Mumbai and Guwahati--often in houses faraway from police stations.
The importance of the story lies in the fact that often journalists working on a particular beat get sympathetic and close to the system, rather than the citizens. In turn, they turn their back on such grave abuse of human rights. However, the issue is that we always feel it is 'the other' who suffers, not us and we forget.
When women get gang raped in custody, many feel that such incidents keep happening to Dalits and Tribals or perhaps to that particular class of 'poor'. When innocents get killed in encounters, we remain indifferent. And in process cede our rights and liberties.
The use of drugs through injections, water boardings, attaching electrodes on genitals and other techniques of torture (as described by the magazine) are not something which any civilised state should allow on innocent citizens.
As the Week's editor writes, "...Irfan is not just Tasleema's 14 year old son. He is an Indian citizen with rights, just like your son and mine..... ". Read the story. Link to the editor's introduction and the story 'India's secret torture chambers'. It's chilling and shocking to say the least. Congratulations to the writer and the magazine for their courage.

Maoists have a presence in 182
districts of India


The number of policemen killed in an attack
by suspected Maoist rebels in India's Chhattisgarh
state has risen to 29, police say.
The attack took place in Rajnandgaon, 90km (56 miles) from capital Raipur.
Two officers were killed initially, and a larger force sent to the scene was then attacked, according to police reports
The district police chief was also killed in what is said to be one of the worst attacks by rebels in the state.
Maoist rebels are fighting for communist rule in a number of states. The conflict has killed more than 6,000 people in 20 years.
Convoy ambushed
The first attack took place in Madanwada early Sunday morning in which two policemen were killed.
Superintendent of police for Rajnandgaon, Vinod Kumar Choubey, was killed when he was leading police reinforcements to the area, the deputy inspector general of police, Pawan Dev, said.
His convoy was ambushed between Khoregaon and Karkoti villages.
Between 200 and 300 rebels attacked the police convoy.
The two sides fought a fierce gun battle in which Mr Choubey and several other policemen were killed, Mr Dev said.
A total of 29 bodies had been recovered and search operations were continuing in the area, he said.

It comes as little surprise that Pakistanis harbor antipathy toward the United States. Support for a country’s oppressive dictator and its geopolitical enemy tends to garner a little wrath. The United States has known for some time that its policies toward Pakistan and South Asia peeved off the Pakistanis but it was a price that U.S. officials were willing to pay to achieve greater strategic goals. However callous a calculation this may seem, there now exists an equally practical strategic reason for trying to win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis: China is making inroads.
A recent poll from World Public Opinion found that Pakistan’s perception of the United States under the Obama administration has not changed substantively from its perception of the United States during George W. Bush’s reign. Only 30% of Pakistanis polled had any confidence that the U.S. president would do “the right thing regarding world affairs.” Contrast this with Pakistani opinion of China’s president, Hu Jintao, who received an 80% confidence vote on the same question.
Pakistan’s favorable view of China is consistent with political realities. India is a historical rival of Pakistan’s and a strategic rival of China’s; India even fought a brief war against China in 1962. China’s strict policy of noninterference in the domestic affairs of other nations also distinguishes it quite favorably from the United States, which has long meddled in Pakistan’s domestic affairs, most recently supporting Pakistan’s strongman dictator, General Pervez Musharaf, in spite of the will of the Pakistani people to remove him from office. As recently as the Fall of 2008, China even provided a $500 million financial aid package to Pakistan to help with its balance of payments crisis as it worked out a deal with the International Monetary Fund.
Meanwhile, the United States has provided 200-400% greater military aid to Pakistan than non-military aid since 2002. On the basis of allocations of assistance alone, it is clear where U.S. priorities have been relative to China’s. While it supported Pakistan’s dictator militarily, politically, and financially, the United States simultaneously became a closer ally with India, Pakistan’s historic rival. In 2005, the Bush administration even attempted to construct a nuclear fuel agreement with India--but not Pakistan--in clear contravention of the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Pakistanis, perhaps rightly, have little faith in U.S. policy toward South Asia while viewing their relationship with China as a positive one. In the coming age of multi-polarity, it is unlikely that China and the United States will become open enemies but, even as strategic allies, they will probably remain strategic competitors. In this context, the United States will increasingly rely on its influence, popularity, and credibility--that is, its soft power--to attain U.S. interests. Ceding soft power to a rising competitor in strategically important countries like Pakistan is no way to preserve U.S. interests. The Obama administration has started signaling that it could be changing its policy toward Pakistan and well it should. Momentum should continue to build behind this kind of change.

WASHINGTON -- When a virulent disease is ravaging you like a cancer, you don't want a cacophony of voices promoting different or contradictory cures. Yet that is what we're starting to hear about the economic crisis, not only from a politically divided -- and pretty scared -- capital, but from within the Obama administration itself. In just the past few days, Vice President Joe Biden has said the young administration misread the depth of the recession -- an honest account, since most private economists did as well. Laura Tyson, an outside economic adviser to the White House, said it's wise to start preparing another stimulus package.

Then President Barack Obama made everything perfectly muddy when he said in an ABC News interview that the seriousness of the downturn and how to attack it is "something we wrestle with constantly." Yet in the next breath, he expressed concern about the burgeoning deficit. But if anyone's looking for some clear voices, there are 650,000 of them just waiting to be heard. That is roughly the number of long-term unemployed who will begin losing their jobless benefits in September, according to the National Employment Law Project. Remember, the recession didn't start last fall when the government bailed out AIG and the financial system froze. It began in December 2007 -- and 6.5 million jobs have been lost since then. Depending on which state and the sort of triggers that apply to benefits, hundreds of thousands of workers laid off early in the downturn are soon to be left without the basic sustenance of an unemployment check.
Meanwhile, the Labor Department says, the number of unemployed people out of work for 27 weeks or longer continues to grow, reaching 4.4 million last month. In June, three out of 10 jobless workers had been out of work for at least six months, according to the department's data. The stimulus package the president signed soon after taking office did provide extended benefits, and boosted weekly payments. But even that extension runs out on Dec. 26, and would not apply to all the unemployed. Does anyone really believe that a significant portion of the unemployed will have found new work by then? Hardly. Both private and government economists now predict that unemployment will continue to rise at least through the end of this year.

"We can't ignore this moment when all these folks are running out (of benefits)," says Maurice Emsellem of the National Employment Law Project.
"That needs to be a top priority, to help these workers." Let's stop kidding ourselves. In no contemporary economic crisis -- not even those that unfolded on the Republicans' watch -- has Congress left the unemployed completely in the lurch. So some sort of spending package -- call it stimulus, call it stopgap emergency aid, whatever works -- is going to have to be passed.

The unemployment emergency helps feed another crisis Congress is going to be forced to address: the state budget disasters unfolding around the country. So far, 42 states have cut budgets that already had been enacted for fiscal 2009, according to the National Governors Association. More and deeper cuts are expected next year.
Already states have laid off and furloughed workers -- including, in some states, the very workers who process unemployment claims. Generally speaking, states are required to balance their budgets each year, a mandate that forces them to pull money out of the economy through spending reductions and tax hikes, counteracting the federal government's efforts to juice things up. "That is what happened during the Great Depression, we had states working against what the federal government was doing," says Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. With red states and blue, Republican governors and Democrats, all struggling against the same relentless, recession-driven drops in tax revenue, an almost irresistible political coalition for more aid to states eventually will take shape. And with the fast-approaching September deadline for extending some unemployment benefits, there will likely emerge one of those must-pass measures that may or may not be called another stimulus bill.

Any hot air expended trying to stop it serves no purpose but to fuel political fires. Remember, that is the whole point of those now huffing and puffing most heartily. They don't want to figure a way out of this morass; they just want to figure out a way to unseat those now in office.
Marie Cocco's e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.

(c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

The truth is that the three murdered Pakistani Baloch politicians had become a political liability and a security risk for Brahamdagh Bugti and a threat to his entire infrastructure of terror inside Pakistan. The three had developed a good working relationship with Pakistani security officials during hostage negotiations. Brahamdagh and his handlers knew that the three were in direct contact with Pakistani security officials and could compromise the security of the terrorist activity and the routes of secret funding from across the border and the terrorist hideouts inside Pakistan. The inside story of five days that changed Balochistan, a story of deception, intrigue and espionage.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Two distinct sketches are emerging of what happened in Pakistan’s largest province –Balochistan— over the past ten days.

The three murdered Pakistani Baloch political activists were in contact with Pakistani security and intelligence officials during the negotiations to release John Solecki, an American citizen and U.N. official. The three were also in contact with U.S. diplomats, U.N. officials, and with the kidnappers. In fact, the three politicians were considered to be part of the political front of the terrorist-insurgent movement that has its logistical, financial, and military bases in Afghanistan, built with generous funding over the past five years after the American occupation of that country.

So there is no question that Pakistan’s security agencies were in direct contact with the three politicians. Before their murder, the terrorists-separatists did not dare publicize their presence and actions and relied on sporadic violence to spread terror and create media impact. The triple murder changed everything. It gave these separatist and terrorist elements an opportunity for the first time to publicly display their anti-Pakistan activities. In a tribal society like that of the Pakistani Baloch, controlled by a handful of tribal bosses through intimidation, brutality and economic control, the majority succumbed to the terror.

But who murdered the three local politicians?

The following report is based on firsthand information of what transpired between April 4 and April 9, five days that give the clearest insight yet into the wider battle in and around Pakistan.

THE CAPTORS

What is beyond doubt is that Mr. Solecki was kidnapped by terrorists trained and financed by Brahamdagh Bugti, a grandson of the late politician-turned-terrorist Akbar Bugti.

[Mr. Bugti was a smalltime village thug who murdered his cousins and relatives, stole their lands and exiled them to other parts of Pakistan. He got lucky when huge reservoirs of natural gas were found in the lands under his forced control. Mr. Bugti received a fortune every year from the federal government as ‘royalty’ for selling the gas. For three decades, his village lived in abject poverty as Mr. Bugti refused to allow the government to build schools or allow the poor villagers to improve their lifestyles. Mr. Bugti spent the money on building and maintaining a small army, a chain of underground prisons and on defending himself against his numerous enemies. After the occupation of Afghanistan, it is believed that the Indians and the Americans sold him on the idea that he could launch a war for an independent country. He apparently received strong guarantees that he will be supported and protected by the United States and India in case of an angry Pakistani reaction, which encouraged him to go to extremes. An advanced insurgency infrastructure complete with printed material in Urdu and English, audio and video tapes and propaganda in local dialects was prepared inside Afghanistan and smuggled to Pakistan. Mr. Bugti launched the war in January 2005, with massive supply of weapons and money. He died almost two years later when his own cousins backed by the Pakistani government stormed into his stronghold and seized their lands and forced him to flee to the mountains.]

Brahamdagh was last sighted in Kabul. Indian intelligence agents posing as diplomats in the Afghan capital are some of his most frequent visitors. The Indian diplomacy and intelligence have been keen since 2002 on finding ways to drive a wedge between Washington and Islamabad. India’s diplomatic actions in this regard are well known but the British and the American media have been silent on growing evidence of Indian covert activities in Afghanistan under an American nod.

One of the earliest Indian actions in Afghanistan after 2002 included acting as a spoiler, poisoning the minds of U.S. military commanders on the ground regarding Pakistan. One of the most common tactics has been to identify and penetrate groups of Afghan resistance fighters and then indirectly goad them into attacking the Americans and leaving behind evidence pointing the finger at Pakistan. Similarly, there have been attacks inside Pakistan where evidence was left behind implicating U.S. intelligence operatives to mislead Pakistani investigators.

BRAHAMDAGH’S FRIENDS

One line of thinking in the current Pakistani investigation into the murder of the three politicians is that there is a high probability that the Indians initially encouraged Brahamdagh to kidnap Solecki to add new tensions to the frail Pak-American relationship. That was the original plan. The U.S. media would jump on the story as another example of anti-Americanism in Pakistan and embarrass the Pakistani government and military. The upshot for Brahamdagh would be more international news coverage.

That was apparently the original plan. What Brahamdagh and his handlers did not expect is that the kidnapping would backfire and blow the cover of the terrorists and their links all the way inside Afghanistan.

Immediately after Solecki’s kidnap, the Pakistani authorities wasted no time in reminding the Americans of the information that Pakistan shared at the highest levels with the United States in July 2008 about Indian activities inside Afghanistan. Adm. Mullen and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Stephen R. Kappes were shown irrefutable evidence on how the Indians were using Brahamdagh right under the nose of the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

In February 2009, after kidnapping Solecki, Brahamdagh’s men and his backers tried to create the impression that there are many separatist groups backing his cause. The first demand made by the kidnappers was to release Pakistani Baloch women detained by security forces. This turned out to be an outright lie. Prisons in the entire province and other parts of Pakistan were checked and it was confirmed there was not a single Pakistani Baloch woman in jail or detention. No one had registered any case of missing Pakistani Baloch women as the separatist propaganda from Afghanistan alleged. The elected provincial government of Balochistan, which is considered to be sympathetic to the separatist tribal chiefs including Brahamdagh, was allowed access to all parts of the Pakistani security establishment – civilian and military – to ascertain this fact. This proved a blessing in disguise. One of the most lethal propaganda tools exploited by Brahamdagh Bugti and his backers was proven false.

In the initial days after Solecki’s kidnapping, some of the Baloch tribal chieftains sympathetic to Brahamdagh and his grandfather [and equally corrupt and tyrannical like him] tried to mislead Washington and the U.N. against Pakistan by suggesting that Pakistani intelligence agencies were behind the kidnapping of Solecki.

But the Pakistani government moved quickly to turn the tables on the terrorists and their Afghan-based masters.

On Feb. 27, 2009, Frontier Corps Chief Maj. Gen. Saleem Nawaz told reporters in Quetta that all the four major separatist groups that release statements to the media don’t even exist. “Organizations like the Balochistan Liberation United Front, the Baloch Liberation Army, the Baloch Republican Party, and the Baloch Republican Army are one and the same. Brahamdagh Bugti is behind these organizations,” he said. “Brahamdagh is involved in a series of kidnappings, targeted killings, sabotage and attacks on forces and installations in different parts of the province.”

None of these groups existed before the Americans came to Afghanistan in 2001.

So the writing was clear on the wall for the Pakistanis, the United Nations and the United States that the Indians at some level were involved in kidnapping Mr. Solecki through Brahamdagh Bugti and their recruits inside Pakistan and that individuals based in U.S.-run Afghanistan issued the orders for the kidnap.

But did Pakistani intelligence agencies kill the three politicians who helped release Solecki?

Why The Three Were Killed

The timeline here is very important:
4 April 2009: Mr. Solecki is released by the terrorists after receiving a huge payment worth several million dollars.
6-7 April 2009: Mr. Richard Holbrooke receives the biggest cold shoulder any senior U.S. official has received on Pakistani soil since 9/11.
9 April 2009: The mutilated bodies of the three politicians are found dumped in a public area.

Pakistani police, security and intelligence organizations are not beginners in their fields. Even if any one of them were to kill the three activists, no one would have dumped the bodies in full public view and certainly never after a high profile hostage negotiation involving the three murdered activists where they also interacted with U.N. and U.S. officials.

The truth is that the three murdered Pakistani Baloch politicians had become a political liability and a security risk for Brahamdagh Bugti and a threat to his entire infrastructure of terror inside Pakistan. The three had developed a good working relationship with Pakistani security officials during hostage negotiations. Brahamdagh and his handlers knew that the three were in direct contact with Pakistani security officials and could compromise the security of the terrorist activity and the routes of secret funding from across the border and the terrorist hideouts inside Pakistan.

Mounting evidence indicates that Brahamdagh or his handlers in Afghanistan ordered the elimination of the three Baloch politicians. The triple murder has clearly served the interest of the separatists-terrorists and their backers. The Pakistani state has been a net loser.

THE AMERICAN CONNECTION

After Mr. Holbrooke’s failed visit to Pakistan on April 6 and 7, three things happened in fast succession.

One, Britain discovered a “very big” terrorist plot, as a British police officer described it, involving 12 Pakistani students. The British Prime Minister immediately telephoned President Zardari and threw his usual line about Pakistan needing to do more in the war against terror. The interesting part is that the Brits failed to offer any evidence to support the existence of the “very big” terrorist plot. Knowing that the charge won’t stick in the courts, London announced it was arbitrarily deporting the students.

At the same time, Indian prime minister made the startling announcement that the Afghan Taliban, who have never operated outside their country, were planning to bomb Indian elections. Again, no evidence whatsoever.

Pakistani officials smelled a rat in both of these statements coming from two close allies of the United States.

These statements, and the dramatic terrorism in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, came immediately after the dressing down that Mr. Holbrooke received in Pakistan.

Could there be an American connection to the disturbances in Balochistan in addition to the Indian connection? The answer, in my view, is yes. Balochistan has U.S. military bases dating back to 2001. Washington has been opposed to China constructing the Gwadar sea port in the province overlooking the Gulf oil supply lines. And CIA is using Pakistani Balochistan to infiltrate the Iranian province of Sistan-Balochistan and ignite a Sunni rebellion there against Iran’s religious Shia regime.

Within hours of the news that the bodies of the three Pakistani politicians were found near the Iran border, and while separatists and terrorists exploited the story to ignite violence and destroy public property, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad released a press statement that appeared to pour fuel on fire and give the impression that Pakistan was somehow responsible for killing its own three politicians. The statement was also a blatant interference in an internal Pakistani issue where the U.S. diplomats had no business sticking their noses.

Encouraged by this unexpected support from the U.S. Embassy, some of the opportunist tribal chiefs in Balochistan who are supporting terrorism were emboldened to demand a U.N. probe, scoring a cheap point against Pakistan and implying that the state was involved in the murders.

WHAT PAKISTAN SHOULD DO

Feudal chiefs in Pakistan, whether in Balochistan or Punjab, Sindh, and NWFP, have traditionally been protégés of the British colonial rule. While there are bright exceptions of Pakistani nationalism by some of the feudal gentry, the majority damaged the interests of Pakistan over the longer run and has generally shown little commitment or a sense of nationalism and destiny with regards to the homeland.

For the short term, Pakistan needs to register murder cases against Brahamdagh Bugti and other terrorists. They should be charged of murdering the poor Pakistani Baloch driver who accompanied Mr. John Solecki’s. The driver was killed in cold blood by Brahamdagh’s terrorists.

The issue of Balochistan is part of a wider problem facing a failed Pakistani political system led by failed feudal politicians. This system needs to be changed and de-politicized to focus on economic development and providing opportunities to Pakistani citizens.

Ethnic-based provinces need to be abolished and existing districts converted into provinces with their own directly elected governors and local parliaments and development budgets. This way Pakistani politics will be localized and prevented from becoming a source of constant headache and destabilization for the state.

This change cannot come through democracy and requires a period of technocratic government backed by the military in the background and tasked with strictly executing a list of urgent political and administrative reforms.

The U.S. is clearly working against Pakistan’s vital security and economic interests in the region. Islamabad should declare Washington’s occupation of Afghanistan as illegal and advise the U.S. to desist from using Afghan soil to destabilize neighboring countries. Pakistan needs to immediately distance itself from the messy American agenda in Afghanistan that is fast turning Pakistan into a war zone. Islamabad should also confront the Americans and the Indians with the evidence that both are exporting terrorism into Pakistan and fostering insurgencies using the Afghan soil. Let the world know what the Americans and their Anglo-Indian poodles are doing in the region.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

WOOTTON BASSETT, England — Thousands of mourners bowed their heads in tribute Friday to the passing coffins of British soldiers killed in a new offensive in Afghanistan, where the climbing toll has created doubts in Britain about the human cost of the war.
News of 15 battlefield deaths in 10 days has many Britons rethinking the country's commitment to a conflict that seems no closer to a successful conclusion than when troops first arrived seven years ago.
A Ministry of Defense spokeswoman said a total of eight deaths were announced Friday, making it one of the darkest days of the war. She spoke on condition of anonymity in line with department policy.
"The casualties should fix peoples' minds on the fact that we've let the soldiers down," said Adam Holloway, an opposition Conservative Party lawmaker who sits on Parliament's defense committee. "The death toll means we should do it properly or we shouldn't do it at all."
Holloway, a frequent visitor to Afghanistan, said Britain has never had the troop strength needed to hold ground there and has failed to provide the promised security or reconstruction, leading many Afghans to believe the Taliban militants will outlast Western forces.
"We're in a mess," he said.
He cautioned that there is still no widespread public revolt against the government's war policy. He said his constituents do not seem extremely worried about the troubled Afghan campaign, despite the increasing casualties.
But some communities are grieving. Schoolchildren, businessmen and army veterans stood side by side in Wootton Bassett, a small market town about 85 miles (135 km) west of London, as the bodies of five soldiers killed between Saturday and Tuesday were driven through the crowds after being flown to a nearby air base.
Wootton Bassett's mayor, Steve Bucknell, said it was becoming increasingly hard to accept the rising number of British casualties.
"We keep on asking ourselves how many more? Each time we pray it's the last one, knowing it probably isn't going to be," Bucknell said.
It has become traditional for the residents to line the streets when hearses carrying soldiers' coffins pass through the town on the sad trip from a military airport to a cemetery.
The casualty count mounted Friday night when officials said five soldiers were killed in two separate explosions while on patrol. Earlier in the evening, the Ministry of Defense announced that a soldier from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment had been killed in an explosion. Two other deaths were announced earlier in the day.
The names of the dead soldiers are likely to be released in the next 24 hours.
The deaths have come in volatile southern Helmand province in the past nine days amid a new offensive to uproot Taliban fighters. Seven years after British forces first deployed to Afghanistan — and after the loss of 185 troops — ex-military chiefs are criticizing tactics and equipment while members of the public wonder about the benefit of taking part in the conflict.
Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth and Prime Minister Gordon Brown claim that Britain's role in Afghanistan is crucial to root out extremist terrorists who could potentially attack the United Kingdom, and to prevent a tide of Afghan heroin from reaching British streets.
Brown said Friday that the war is vital to Britain's security.
"There is a chain of terror that runs from the mountains and towns of Afghanistan to the streets of Britain," he told reporters at the G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. "Having talked to President Obama and the rest of the world leaders, there is a recognition that this is a task the world has got to accept together and this is a task we have got to fulfill."
Michael Clarke, head of London-based military think tank the Royal United Services Institute, said public concern is mounting and urged politicians to be more honest about Britain's initial reasons for joining the 2001 invasion.
"What they won't really say is that it's about the credibility of the NATO alliance, and our military relationship with the United States," Clarke said.
Some critics say that Britain should either withdraw from the mission, or that troops must be provided with better equipment, including more helicopters. Britain, the United States and Canada have long complained that they have engaged in heavy fighting in Afghanistan while some European nations have shied away from combat roles.
Tony Philippson, whose son James was killed in Afghanistan in 2006, said the public remained skeptical about whether foreign troops will ever be able to suppress the Taliban and bring peace to the country.
"I've always felt it was a risky business and I think it's still on a knife edge about whether they can succeed," Philippson told the BBC.
Gen. Charles Guthrie, the head of Britain's military between 1997 and 2001, said he believes British soldiers have died as a direct result of a shortage of helicopters for troops in Afghanistan. British troops are suffering heavy casualties from roadside bombs, and a lack of helicopters mean soldiers must make more journey across Helmand by road.
"If there had been more, it is very likely fewer soldiers would have been killed by roadside bombs," Guthrie — a longtime advocate of higher defense spending — was quoted as telling the Daily Mail newspaper.
Britain's defense ministry declined to disclose how many helicopters Britain has in Afghanistan on security grounds, but said additional aircraft are being sent to support the mission.
The ministry said that the two latest casualties died in separate incidents Thursday. The bloodshed has intensified as Afghans prepare for elections planned for next month.

General Motors has emerged from bankruptcy - just 40 days after the US vehicle manufacturer signed a government-backed rescue deal, the company has announced.
The main assets of the troubled giant, which was once the world's largest corporation, have been transferred to a new company which will be 61 per cent owned by the government.
"Today marks a new beginning for General Motors," Fritz Henderson, the chief executive of GM, said on Friday.
"One that will allow every employee, including me, to get back to the business of designing, building and selling great cars and trucks and serving the needs of our customers.
"We recognise that we've been given a rare second chance at GM, and we are very grateful for that. And we appreciate the fact that we now have the tools to get the job done."
Jobs slashed
GM has slashed its work force, closed 40 per cent of its dealerships and shed a number of brands including Saab, Saturn, Opel and Hummer.
It will cut 6,000 jobs by October in a move that will reduce its white-collar work force by 20 per cent and a 35 per cent reduction in executive posts is also planned.
The US government has provided about $50bn in financing for the company and spearheaded the restructuring plan.
Canada, which provided more than $9bn in loans, also has a stake in the new GM along with a United Auto Workers union retiree healthcare trust fund.
The new firm has also been freed of $173bn of liabilities it had when it entered bankruptcy protection on June 1.
Creditors holding about 54 per cent of GM bonds agreed to a plan that would swap $27bn dollars in debt for a 10 per cent stake and warrants allowing them to buy an additional 15 per cent stake.

FRENCH President Nicolas Sarkozy is not wide of the mark when he says that an Israeli attack on Iran will be ‘an absolute catastrophe’.

How can Benazir or any other Pakistan leader even think of accepting Israel as a State or Friend? Israel can NEVER be Pakistan’s friend; we will never accept this from anyone. Read what the first Israeli Prime Minister had to say about Pakistan:
The words of David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle,9 August 1967, leave nothing to imagination:
"The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan. Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan. It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans."

Israeli media reports on Friday revealed that slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto intended to establish official relations with the Jewish state if elected and was seeking Mossad protection in the interim.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert grieved over Bhutto's assassination following an election rally on Thursday, and said that upon her return to Pakistan in October after years of exile Bhutto conveyed to him via a mutual acquaintance that she wanted close ties between Israel and Pakistan.
The Hebrew daily newspaper Ma'ariv further revealed that Bhutto had asked Israel's Mossad spy agency, along with the CIA and Britain's Scotland Yard, to help protect her in the run-up to Pakistan's January 8 election. Bhutto complained that current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was trying to make her an easy target for assassination by now allowing her to use adequate protective measures.
According to the report, Israel's Foreign Ministry was in favor of aiding Bhutto, though the government ultimately decided against it for fear of angering the Musharraf regime and upsetting relations with neighboring India, a close ally of Israel engaged in an ongoing bitter confrontation with Pakistan.
Israeli leaders lamented that Bhutto, a popular former prime minister who was twice deposed by authoritarian elements, could have served as a bridge between Israel and the Muslim world.

NEW DELHI: Pakistan’s capacity for ‘military and quasi-
military adventurism’ continues to keep New Delhi on its
toes, India’s defence ministry has said in its annual report
released on Thursday.

PESHAWAR: In the narrow lanes of a market in Pakistan's northwest capital Peshawar, dealers squat on carpets and spread out a rainbow of precious gems on the floor for potential buyers.
Chunks of bright blue lapis lazuli, and rough rocks studded with flashes of light and colour clutter window displays, but no one is buying in a city hit by a wave of deadly bombings blamed on Taliban militia.
A treasure trove of precious stones is locked in the rocks of Pakistan's rugged northwest. Violence, legal tussles and state mismanagement have deterred investors but allowed the Taliban to cash in on the bounty, dealers say.
‘God has given us enormous wealth in terms of emeralds from Swat, rubies, pink topaz, beautiful tourmaline,’ said Ilyas Ali Shah, a gemologist with the government-run Pakistan Gems and Jewellery Development Company.
Shah said that if Pakistan properly mines these deposits the impoverished country could reverse its hefty foreign debt: ‘But we need peace.’
In February this year, militants waging a bloody insurgency to expand control opened three shuttered emerald mines in the northwest Swat valley around the main town Mingora and invited villagers to blast away.
The military says it has reclaimed all Swat mines from the Taliban during a fierce offensive, but for at least three months proceeds from emerald sales lined the militants' coffers and helped bankroll their insurgency.
‘They would collect the emeralds and there would be an open tender every Sunday,’ said Azhar ul Islam, a 44-year-old gem trader from Swat. ‘The profits were divided up — two-thirds for the miner and one-third for the Taliban.’
Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan are believed to hold up to 30-40 per cent of the world's emerald deposits, Shah says, with the precious stone fetching up to 2,000 dollars per carat depending on quality.
Azhar told AFP the Taliban earned about four million rupees a week from Mingora's main mine — shuttered since 1995 because of a legal battle — money he said was spent on ‘buying explosives, making weapons.’
‘I was frightened what would happen if the government re-established control, so I didn't buy those emeralds from the mines, but most of my friends bought these emeralds from the Taliban,’ he said.
At the Namak Mandi market in Peshawar, another dealer from Swat who did not want to be named estimated that the militants made between five and six million rupees a week from the stones.
No one in the market would admit buying Swat emeralds from the Taliban, but one dealer said he procures green garnet from a Taliban-owned mine over the border in Afghanistan, where the militants are also waging an insurgency.
‘We don't like the Taliban, we don't buy it because we want to help them, but we want the stones,’ 30-year-old Ali Akbar told AFP.
He says his business has been crushed by spiralling insecurity in Pakistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States thrust the country into the heart of the ‘war on terror’.
‘For five months I had no customers,’ he said.
Shah says Pakistan's gem-industry profits have plunged up to 50 per cent in one year because of the instability, with foreign investors staying away.
Most of the country's gems, including emeralds, garnet, pink topaz, spinel and tourmaline are located underground in North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.
Experts say the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) — a mountainous area largely outside government control along the Afghan border and stronghold of Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud — hides deposits of rare quartz and precious stones.
‘I think we have explored three per cent of the whole of NWFP. We have large areas of Fata that are not under control, so we have a lot of precious material untapped which needs to be explored and exploited,’ Shah said.
Pervez Elahi Malik, former chairman of the main gem exporters' association, blames the local NWFP government for not sorting out legal tussles and getting potentially lucrative mines up and running under state control years ago.
At the moment, local villagers and tribesmen blast away at the rocks and transport their haul to Namak Mandi — a damaging mining process that experts say can destroy 80 per cent of the stones.
‘We are lacking in technical knowledge, we are lacking stability in the country,’ said Shah. ‘Our mining is not technically sound and safe — we are destroying our wealth.’ — AFP