ayubi |
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
George Manbiot's Site - Guardian Columnist
Ocean of Books for study and research Go to LUMS Library Internet Public Library Internet Archive - Books and Old Links Some Commentary Sites on 9-11 Thursday, February 20, 2003
NewYork Times Reference Desk
Sarah Zaidi and Roger Normand site Centre for Economic and Social Rights Grist Magazine The American Prospect Monday, February 03, 2003
A Detailed must read-study Site - Third World Traveler
Counter Punch - News Analysis and useful links Defense Tech Blogs Excellent Airforce Details - Research for World Airforces Excellent Resource of Aviation Links Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Monday, January 27, 2003
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Important Links for Study
http://www.raven1.net/welshnlw.htm#References http://www.bilderberg.org/micwaves.htm http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/occppr10.htm http://sunshine-project.org/publications/jnlwdpdf/ http://www.pjproject.org/index.html#links http://www.pjproject.org/quest.html http://www.pjproject.org/documents.html http://www.intelligenceonline.com http://www.blythe.org wwww.unansweredquestions.org xymphora.blogspot.com www.antiwar.com www.9-11.co.uk Friday, January 10, 2003
Hijacking India's History
While some of us lament the repetition of history, the men who run India are busy rewriting it. Their efforts, regrettably, will only be bolstered by the landslide victory earlier this month of the Bharatiya Janata Party in the Western India state of Gujarat. The B.J.P. has led this country's coalition government since 1999. But India's Hindu nationalists have long had a quarrel with history. They are unhappy with the notion that the most ancient texts of Hinduism are associated with the arrival of the Vedic "Aryan" peoples from the Northwest. They don't like the dates of 1500 to 1000 B.C. ascribed by historians to the advent of the Vedic peoples, the forebears of Hinduism, or the idea that the Indus Valley civilization predates Vedic civilization. And they certainly can't stand the implication that Hinduism, like the other religious traditions of India, evolved through a mingling of cultures and peoples from different lands. Last month the National Council of Educational Research and Training, the central government body that sets the national curriculum and oversees education for students up to the 12th grade, released the first of its new school textbooks for social sciences and history. Teachers and academics protested loudly. The schoolbooks are notable for their elision of many awkward facts, like the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a Hindu nationalist in 1948. The authors of the textbook have promised to make revisions to the chapter about Gandhi. But what is more remarkable is how they have added several novel chapters to Indian history. Thus we have a new civilization, the "Indus-Saraswati civilization" in place of the well-known Indus Valley civilization, which is generally agreed to have appeared around 4600 B.C. and to have lasted for about 2,000 years. (The all-important addition of "Saraswati," an ancient river central to Hindu myth, is meant to show that Indus Valley civilization was actually part of Vedic civilization.) We have a chapter on "Vedic civilization" — the earliest recognizable "Hindu culture" in India and generally acknowledged not to have appeared before about 1700 B.C. — that appears without a single date. The council has also promised to test the "S.Q.," or "Spiritual Quotient," of gifted students in addition to their I.Q. Details of this plan are not elaborated upon; the council's National Curriculum Framework for School Education says only that "a suitable mechanism for locating the talented and the gifted will have to be devised." More recent history, of course, is not covered in school textbooks. So we will have to wait to see how such books might treat this month's elections in Gujarat. They were held in the wake of the brutal pogrom of last February and March, in which more than 1,000 Muslims were murdered and at least 100,000 more lost their homes and property. The chief minister of Gujarat, who is among the leading lights of the B.J.P., justified this atrocity as a "natural reaction" to an act of arson on a train in the Gujarati town of Godhra, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims lost their lives. The ruling party's subsequent election campaign was conducted against the rather literal backdrop of the Godhra incident: painted billboards of the burning railway carriage. The murdered Muslims were not accorded the same tragic status, although their pleas for justice created a backlash that played neatly into the campaign theme of Hindu Pride. It was, of course, a great success. The carefully nurtured sense of Hindu grievance has been nursed rather than sated by acts of mob violence: the destruction of the 15th-century mosque in Ayodhya, for instance, or the persecution of Christians in earlier pogroms in Gujarat's Dangs district. The B.J.P., along with its Hindu-supremacist cohorts, the R.S.S. (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and the V.H.P. (Vishwa Hindu Parishad), has a seemingly irresistible will to power. (The R.S.S. and the V.H.P. are not political parties but "social service organizations" that have served as springboards to power for B.J.P. leaders like Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat.) In vanguard states like Gujarat, thousands of students follow the uncompromisingly chauvinistic R.S.S. textbooks. They will learn that "Aryan culture is the nucleus of Indian culture, and the Aryans were an indigenous race . . . and creators of the Vedas" and that "India itself was the original home of the Aryans." They will learn that Indian Christians and Muslims are "foreigners." But they still have much to learn. I once visited the bookshop at the R.S.S. headquarters in Nagpur. On sale were books that show humankind originated in the upper reaches of that mythical Indian river, the Saraswati, and pamphlets that explain the mysterious Indus Valley seals, with their indecipherable Harrapan script: they are of Vedic origin. After I visited the bookshop I stopped to talk to a group of young boys who live together in an R.S.S. hostel. They were a sweet bunch of kids, between 8 and 11 years old. They all wanted to grow up to be either doctors or pilots. Very good, I said. And what did they learn in school? Did they learn about religion? About Hinduism, Christianity? They were silent for a few seconds — until their teacher nodded. A bespectacled kid spoke up. "Christians burst into houses and make converts of Hindus by bribing them or beating them." He said it without malice, just a breathless eagerness, as if it were something he had learned in social science class. Perhaps it was. Thursday, January 09, 2003
Lies n Lies
John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine and author of "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War," says that considering the number of senior officials shared by both Bush administrations, the American public should bear in mind the lessons of Gulf War propaganda. "These are all the same people who were running it more than 10 years ago," Mr. MacArthur says. "They'll make up just about anything ... to get their way." US Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) of Indiana, a 34-year veteran lawmaker until 1999, who served on numerous foreign affairs and intelligence committees, and is now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington. The Bush team "understands it has not yet carried the burden of persuasion [about an imminent Iraqi threat], so they will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise," Mr. Hamilton says. "I think we have to be sceptical about it." "This administration is capable of any lie ... in order to advance its war goal in Iraq," says a US government source in Washington with some two decades of experience in intelligence, who would not be further identified. "It is one of the reasons it didn't want to have UN weapons inspectors go back in, because they might actually show that the probability of Iraq having [threatening illicit weapons] is much lower than they want us to believe." Propaganda is an effective tool in any war campaign. The US in particular have been responsible for some of the most imposing spin manoeuvres and disinformation campaigns, no more so than that which occurred during the Gulf War in 1991, the lessons of which are especially significant today as the US again gears up to attack the Muslims of Iraq in another attempt to impose its hegemony upon the region. Most notorious was the work of PR giant Hill & Knowlton (H&K) for whom current Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clarke worked, after she was an aide to John McCain and Bush's dad. Subsidized by the Kuwaiti royal family at the tune of $10 million, H&K dedicated 119 executives in 12 offices across the country to the job of drumming up support within the United States for the 1991 war. Tens of thousands of "Free Kuwait" T-shirts and bumper stickers were distributed at colleges across the US and setting up observances such as National Kuwait Day and National Student Information Day. H&K also mailed 200,000 copies of a book titled "The Rape of Kuwait" to American troops stationed in the Middle East. The firm also manipulated reporters, arranging interviews with handpicked Kuwaiti emissaries and dispatching reams of footage of burning wells and oil-slicked birds washed ashore. After convening a number of focus groups in 1990 to try to figure out which buttons to press to make the public respond, H&K determined that presentations involving the mistreatment of infants would be the most effective. As a result they hatched the "baby atrocities" campaign. So on October 10, 1990, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on Capitol Hill at which H&K, in coordination with California Democrat Tom Lantos and Illinois Republican John Porter, introduced a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah. (Purportedly to safeguard against Iraqi reprisals, Nayirah's full name was not disclosed.) Weeping and shaking, the girl described a horrifying scene in Kuwait City. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," she testified. "While I was there I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns and go into the room where babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die." Allegedly, 312 infants were removed. The tale got wide circulation, even winding up on the floor of the United Nations Security Council. Before Congress gave the green light to go to war, seven of the main pro-war senators brought up the baby-incubator allegations as a major component of their argument for passing the resolution to unleash the bombers. Ultimately the motion for war passed by a narrow five-vote margin. Only later was it discovered that the testimony was untrue. H&K had failed to reveal that Nayirah was not only a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, but also that her father, Saud Nasir al-Sabah, was Kuwait's ambassador to the US. H&K had prepped Nayirah in her presentation, according to Harper's publisher John R MacArthur, in his book Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. Of the seven other witnesses who stepped to the podium that day, five had been prepped by H&K and had used false names. When independent organizations investigated later, they could not find that Nayirah had any connection to the hospital. Amnesty International, among those originally duped, eventually issued an embarrassing retraction. Most U.S. news outlets uncritically accepted the story that 300 premature babies died when Iraqi soldiers removed them from incubators, which were sent to Iraq as loot. Alexander Cockburn (The Nation, 2/4/91), an exception, cited Kuwaiti medical personnel who went into exile after the invasion, who said that babies were still in incubators at Kuwait's Maternity Hospital in September, and that empty incubators had not been taken. After the end of Iraqi occupation, the New York Times (2/28/91) offered this two-sentence retraction, buried five-sixths of the way through an article: "Some of the atrocities that had been reported, such as the killing of infants in the main hospitals shortly after the invasion, are untrue or have been exaggerated, Kuwaitis said. Hospital officials, for instance, said that stories circulated about the killing of 300 children were incorrect." Years later, Scowcroft, the national security adviser at the time, concluded that the tale was surely "useful in mobilizing public opinion". Another major example of fabrication used in the propaganda war occurred when the Pentagon flooded the major media outlets with reports of a top-secret satellite image that allegedly showed 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks amassed at the Iraqi-Saudi border. When the US military refused to hand the satellite image over to the press, several investigative journalists opted to purchase commercially available, but equally detailed, satellite images on the open market. Shots of the exact same region, during the same time frame, revealed no Iraqi soldiers, no tanks just desert and a lot of US jet fighters sitting wing-tip to wing-tip at nearby Saudi bases. But this time the damage had already been done. Many other instances occurred of propaganda which the mainstream media were only to happy to report without performing any verification as to the facts. A "Captain Karim," supposedly a former bodyguard of Saddam Hussein, was featured on 60 Minutes (1/20/91), as well as prominent TV outlets in Europe, making sensational charges about Saddam, e.g., "He becomes very happy when he sees anyone in the acid bath." But a subsequent investigation by French intelligence could find no evidence that Karim ever worked for Saddam, and labeled him a "mythomaniac" who had frequent contacts in Paris with Saudi military and intelligence officers. In an absurd example of propaganda The Time's "Grapevine" page (2/11/91) asked "Is Saddam Cracking Up?" The piece claimed that Saddam was blinking very rapidly during his CNN interview the previous week: 40 times a minute, vs. 20-25 during an interview in June. Time consulted John Molloy, who trains salespeople to handle stress, who said, "When salesmen start blinking, they're usually in trouble. The guy looks like he's falling apart." To put Saddam's blinking in perspective, Greenpeace's Peter Dykstra did a little research of his own: George Bush's eyes, he found, flickered at a Saddam-like 34 to 38 blinks per minute, while Michael Dukakis' showed a positively psychotic 74 b.p.m. The New York Times' editorial page (1/14/91) reported that "Baghdad Betty," an Iraqi government propaganda broadcaster, had told U.S. troops: "G.I., you should be home.... While you're away, movie stars are taking your women. Robert Redford is dating your girlfriend. Tom Selleck is kissing your lady.... Bart Simpson is making love to your wife." When George Bush called Iraqi radio "ridiculous," the editorial said, "he couldn't know how right he was." But the joke was on the Times: The story it gleefully reported as fact was actually a joke Johnny Carson told on the Tonight Show (8/22/90). On Jan. 31 1990, Carson said that his joke had been "reported as a fact on CNN, Entertainment Tonight, Garrick Utley's Year-End Wrap-Up [on NBC], and in this issue of Time magazine [1/21/91]." In Carson's original joke, it's dad Homer Simpson instead of Bart -- a slightly more plausible scenario, since Bart is eight years old. The mass media outlets were also responsible for providing little coverage of the violence inflicted on the Iraqi people by the U.S. government but instead concentrated on the violence being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the Iraqi government -- somehow a more appealing subject. Americans are appalled by the spectacle of Iraqi forces slaughtering Kurds and Shiites," wrote New York Times columnist Leslie Gelb (3/31/91). Although it appeared that the greater death toll inflicted by U.S. bombing was less appalling. Reporting on atrocities by Iraq was specific and graphic, whilst accounts of damage caused by the U.S. were vague and misleading. The embargo, which has to date resulted in the death of over a million Iraqis was described by the New York Times (3/22/91) as a policy of "making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people," in order to "encourage them to remove" Saddam from power. A chart titled "Re-examining the Toll" (New York Times, 3/25/91) included detailed breakdowns on Iraqi losses of tanks, artillery and armoured personnel carriers -- but no mention of human life. The Iraqi war casualties (at least 100,000 military deaths alone and a combined total of 250,000 Iraqi human loss ) also disappeared in a Washington Post chart listing U.S. casualties (Americans killed, wounded, missing or taken prisoner) along with "Iraqi losses" (2,085 tanks, 962 armoured vehicles, 1,005 artillery pieces, 103 aircraft destroyed). Thus it is clear that the world was subjected to a significant amount of propaganda in order to support the Gulf War in 1991. It remains to be seen this time after the dusts of war have settled how much of what we are currently reading and hearing is fact or fiction. If any of the above is to go by, rest assured that a considerable amount will be fiction. Wednesday, January 08, 2003
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
The Money Machine
by Ronald Bleier A Review of Ari Ben-Menashe's Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S. - Israeli Arms Network http://desip.igc.org/mebooks.html#ben-menashe1 According to Ari Ben-Menashe, Iran spent $82 billion in its war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988. Where did Iran get its weapons? Who profited and what was done with the profits? These are some of the questions addressed by this very readable kiss-and-tell account of the author's years as a spy for the Israeli intelligence services. Here are some of the other issues Ben-Menashe sheds light on, sometimes in detail, others merely in passing: why and how the Iran/contra scandal broke in the first place; Israeli nuclear weapons development; Israeli "black operations" in support of Palestinian terrorist acts; Israeli involvement in black-on-black violence in South Africa; and the U.S., Israeli and British role in subverting sanctions against South Africa; the reasons behind the exposure of Jonathan Pollard's activities; Robert McFarlane's role as an Israeli mole feeding top secret information to Menachem Begin's office; Oliver North's role in "delivering" to Rudy Guiliani the indictments of arms dealers to Iran; Robert Gates' role in selling arms to the contras and insuring the supply of chemical weapons to Iraq; Israel's illegal resale of American weapons; and more. The author claims that as an operative of the most elite unit of Israel's security services, the External Affairs Department of the IDF/Military Intelligence division, he played a key role in implementing the huge Israeli effort in supplying weapons and war materiel to Iran. According to Ben-Menashe, Israel began selling equipment to Iran for enormous profits, almost from the beginning of the hostage crisis -- even against the wishes of the Carter administration. Ben-Menashe is an advocate of the "October Surprise" theory whereby officials of the Reagan campaign conspired with the Iranians to delay the release of the American hostages in return for American a rms sales. According to Ben-Menashe, William Casey, Robert Gates, Robert Mcfarlane, Donald Gregg and also George Bush were some of the American participants. Ben-Menashe claims that Hojjat El-Islam Mehdi Karrubi was the high Iranian government official who met with Casey, Bush and others. According to Ben-Menashe even the exposure of the Iran/contra scandal in November 1986 provided barely a minor hiccup in the provision of Israeli-brokered U.S. arms to the warring country. Not long after the scandal broke, Robert Gates, a high CIA official at that time, reassured worried Iranian and Israeli officials that the arms would continue to flow despite the scandal. Indeed, according to Ben-Menashe, in February 87, Israel provided, with direct U.S. assistance, one the largest weapons shipments to Iran including thousands of TOW missiles; more than 100 tanks, and hundreds of thousands of Katusha rockets. According to Ben-Menashe the profits from sales to Iran ran into the billions. In one deal in late 1983, Israel realized a $39 million profit for 4,000 TOW missiles. In another, for 19 old and damaged F-5Es from Ethiopia, Israel paid $1.5 million per aircraft (including $1 million to Israel Aircraft Industries for refurbishing) and resold them to the Iranians for $4 million each. According to Ben-Menashe, the huge profits from the arms sales went to covert agencies in the U.S. and Israel. In Israel, the Mossad controlled the money and for the most part it went to three main causes. The first was to finance covert intelligence operations. He claims that some of the money went to AIPAC which funnelled it to American Congresspeople. For this reason, Ben-Menashe charges, the role of Israel was downplayed and obscured in the Iran/contra hearings. He also charges that funds coming from the same source went to the British Jewish Reform Movement, where it helped to influence conservative politicians. Also, in a sensational, (and typically undocumented) charge, Ben-Menashe claims that some of these profits of war were funnelled to Palestinian organizations to stage terrorist attacks. He says that Rafi Eitan, Begin's counter-terrorism advisor, (no relation to Lt. Gen. Rafael Eitan, former chief of general staff of the IDF), decided in 1985 to generate anti-Palestinian sentiment. Accordingly, through the smokescreen of a Jordanian ex-army officer, Eitan, in a "black operation" paid the Abu Nidal Palestinian terrorist group to stage the Achille Lauro hijacking. Also, according to Ben-Menashe, in addition to funding covert operations, profits from the arms deals went to funding the Likud political party and also into settlement building in the occupied territories. He also gives some of the details and the names of the intermediaries who profited from the arms trade to Iran. A "major player" in the network, says Ben-Menashe, was Nick Davies, the Londo n Daily Mirror's foreign editor. In one deal, Ben-Menashe claims Davies made more than $1.5 million. Ben-Menashe also admits that he kept some of the money for himself, as protection against the day when his head too would roll. Iran-Contra According to Ari Ben-Menashe the Iran-contra scandal which broke in November 1986, was a direct result of the unusual, "unity" government in Israel that was formed as a result of the indecisive elect ions in Israel of 1984 which led to the revolving Labor - Likud prime ministership. Thus, when Labor Prime Minister Shimon Peres replaced Shamir, he found that he was cut out of the huge sums coming from the Iran arms trade because Likud intelligence operatives wouldn't cooperate with him. He therefore decided to open a separate second channel. According to Ben-Menashe, the infighting between the two rival Israeli channels led to the scandal becoming public. At a certain moment, Shamir leaked the information about the second channel in order to shut it down. Oliver North's famous trip to Teheran with Robert McFarlane (who Ben-Menashe claims was kicked off the National Security Council because it was discovered that he was a mole for the Israelis) was stymied because of the first Israeli channel's intervention with their "friends" in Teheran. Ben Menashe claims that he himself made a number of efforts to leak the story to Time and others tried to give it to the NYT and to Newsweek but no American publication would touch it. Finally, on behalf of the Israelis, the Iranians leaked the story to a small Lebanese paper, Al-Shiraa. Israel, a Nuclear Power Ben-Menashe writes that at the end of 1987 he was offered a job "at the highest level -- as a special intelligence consultant to the Prime Minister's Office." As a result he was given top secret files on Israel's history and capabilities as a nuclear power to read as background. In this way he learned that by the mid-80s, Israel had over 300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Many nuclear tests were conducted in cooperation with South Africa until 1979 when Israel conducted a number of tests in the Indian Ocean "without South African supervision," including the 1979 test which accidently be came public. He also claims to have learned from the same top-secret files that during the 1973 war, "Moshe Dayan ordered the arming of all thirteen nuclear bombs and put 24 B-52s bombers on standby." In response the Soviets targeted Israeli cities (though not Jerusalem) with nuclear missiles and President Nixon announced an all out military alert. Other writers -- though not Ben-Menashe -- have argued that Israel's nuclear demonstration during the war was a form of nuclear blackmail, a way of demanding U.S. help which Secretary of State Kissinger had been slow in providing. According to Ben-Menashe, it was the Iranians who spurred the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Ben-Menashe claims that Israel used a guided bomb to target the Iraqi nuclear reactor. The bomb was led to its target by a radio homing device that was put in place by a French worker who was bribed by the Mossad. The original plan called for the Israelis to keep secret the fact that they were responsible. However, Prime Minister Begin, correctly judging that the successful raid would boost his re-election campaign, decided to make Israeli responsibility public. The Threat from Iraq In the winter of 1989 Americans reading their morning papers found that the FDA had declared that three grapes from Chile were tainted with cyanide. As a result the whole Chilean export fruit crop to the U.S. worth $850 to $900 million was threatened. According to Ben-Menashe, this "news" had nothing to do with health or agricultural factors but everything to do with politics and with the U.S.- Israeli struggle over exports of chemical and unconventional weapons and materials to Iraq. In one of the most exciting sections of his book, Ben-Menashe traces his effort to put a halt to this trade. He writes that he had obtained a promise from Chilean General Matthie who, in a power struggle in the wake of Pinochet's defeat in a plebiscite, was working to stop the chemical trade with Iraq. When the Americans learned of Matthie's plans, Robert Gates implemented the attack on the Chilean fruit industry and in short order General Matthie lost out, the chemical trade continued and the ban on Chilean fruit was reversed. Apparently it was his overzealousness in trying to stop American efforts to promote and maintain Iraq's nuclear and chemical weapons trade that angered Ben-Menashe's Israeli and American masters. He says he threatened to divulge the American involvement in Promis, a computer program which enabled governments to track activists. According to Ben-Menashe, Israeli and American involvement in the sale and promotion and bugging of Promis lead to the torture and deaths of tens of thousands of activists in Central America, South Africa and elsewhere. In a dramatic meeting with Prime Minister Shamir, Ben-Menashe is accused of "exceeding his authority" and of stealing money. He denies neither charge. Ben-Menashe was arrested in late 1989 and imprisoned for 11 months until November 1991 when he was found not guilty of illegal sales of arms to Iran. According to him, he might have been found guilty were it not for an anonymous friendly person in the Mossad who -- against the wishes of the Israeli government, provided the U.S. court with convincing evidence that he had been, indeed, an Israeli agent for many years. (This evidence is reproduced in an appendix to the book.) One of Ben-Menashe's important contributions is to point out that the revelations of the Iran-Contra scandal came from those who were involved in the scandal rather than from Congress, or from regulatory agencies or the media. Even the rare public report is for the most part ignored as was the case, as the author reminds us, with the March 9, 1982 column in the NYT by Leslie Gelb that disclosed that Israel was secretly supplying Iran with American-made arms. The weakest part of the book for this reader was the section towards the end devoted to his claim that Yitzhak Shamir had a secret plan to solve the Palestinian issue: namely by making Jordan a Palestinian state. He claims that a "radical camp" of the PLO actually took this Israeli offer seriously. Ben-Menashe seems equally off target when he makes other comments on the Palestinian issue. One such example is when he writes that Shamir and Rafi Eitan opposed the Camp David accords because they didn't adequately address the Palestinian issue. The more widely received version, consistent wi th Shamir's public statements, is that he opposed the return of Sinai in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. THE END
Last month the National Archives, formerly known as the Public Record Office, released MI5 Security Service files showing that Zionist terror groups planned to set up cells in London and assassinate the post-war Labour government's British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin.
"Present Trends in Palestine", an MI5 briefing paper written in August 1946, reported on the activities of the Stern Gang. This was the terrorist group that had assassinated Lord Moyne, the British military governor in Egypt in 1944. "In recent months it has been reported that they [the Stern Gang] have been training selected members for the purpose of proceeding overseas and assassinating a prominent British personality-special reference having been made several times to Mr. Bevin in this connection," the paper noted. One of the leading lights of the Stern Group, which had by this time renamed itself Lehi, was Yitzhak Shamir who became prime minister in 1983 and whose tenure in the highest office in Israel was second only to Ben Gurion. Another paper, "Threatened Jewish Activity in the United Kingdom, Palestine and Elsewhere", prepared for the Prime Minister Clement Attlee, focused on the activities of the Irgun. It noted that the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin-later to become prime minister of Israel in 1977-who had a £2,000 price on his head, "was responsible in the past for the liquidation of members of the police and the military whose activities have been judged especially worthy of Jewish resentment in Palestine." The paper was written in the aftermath of a terrorist bombing by the Irgun that had in the previous month blown up the British headquarters in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people-Britons, Arabs and Jews-and injured many more. It said, "Our Jerusalem representative has since received information that the Irgun and Stern Group have decided to send 5 'cells' to London to work along IRA [Irish Republican Army] lines. To use their own words, the terrorists intend 'to beat the dog in his own kennel'. If the 18 Sternists are executed [for their part in the King David bombing] the Irgun have agreed to co-operate with the Stern Group." The intelligence forces believed that if the executions were carried out, there would be at least 100 retaliatory terrorist outrages and "indiscriminate shooting of British officers and soldiers on the streets of Palestine must be expected". The files showed that the sentences were in fact reduced to life imprisonment. A briefing note prepared for a meeting between the prime minister and the head of MI5, Peter Sillitoe, also listed precautionary measures to be taken to combat terrorism. Police would monitor Jewish groups in Britain and spy on "Jews known to have expressed sympathy with terrorist activity in Palestine, and who might be a point of contact for any terrorist arriving in this country. All applications for UK visas in the Middle East are scrutinised by local security authorities. Immigration officers at UK ports report to Home Office, Special Branch and MI5 the particulars of all Jews, including seamen, arriving from the Middle East." The fact that MI5 claimed it was keeping a close watch "through its own sources" on UK Zionist groups with sympathy for the terrorists suggests that they had informers working for them inside. Given the British propensity to use such groups for its own purposes to divide and rule, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that MI5 had agents provocateurs working within them. While it has long been known that these Zionist groups carried out or planned to carry out assassinations, bombings and sabotage against British targets, these papers-released so long after the normal 30-year rule-are important for a number of reasons. Firstly, the papers provide a timely reminder that the Zionists of all political colours used terrorist methods to achieve statehood-something that present-day Zionists seem to have forgotten when they talk about refusing to negotiate with the Palestinians whom they routinely refer to as "terrorists" . It is not simply that Ariel Sharon and company are a bunch of hypocrites or political amnesiacs about the past. More importantly, the Irgun, led by Menahem Begin, the Stern Group and Lehi, its successor, went on to form the Herut party, forerunner of the Likud party, and the ultra right-wing Moledet party, which form the main coalition partners of the Sharon's government. The gang of former generals, ultra-nationalists and religious bigots that run Israel today are the political heirs of terrorists who furthermore had close connections with the fascists. In this, they mirrored some of the Arab nationalists in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq who allied themselves with Germany in order to rid themselves of British imperialism. These alliances led to a virtual civil war between the various wings of the Zionist movement during World War II. The political origins of the Zionist terrorist groups The various Zionist terrorist groups emerged out of the far right wing of the Revisionist Zionist movement, an ultra-nationalist Zionist group. While all the Zionist groups sought to stifle the rising tide of class struggle in Palestine in the name of national unity, the Revisionists openly stated at the very beginning of the Palestinian-Zionist conflict, in opposition to the mainstream political Zionist movement, that the establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine was impossible without violence and the forcible transfer of the indigenous population. The Zionist state could only be established "in blood and fire". They opposed the division of Palestine in 1922 whereby Britain had ceded what is now Jordan to its client, the Hashemite emir Abdullah, as a reward for his support during World War I. While the Labour Zionists orientated towards the Western democracies, the Revisionists' political ideology had more in common with the fascist dictators of Europe. By the late 1930s, the British, who ruled Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, began to reverse their previous and somewhat vague support for the establishment for "a homeland for the Jews" in Palestine. Menachem Begin, a leading member of the Betar, a far right Revisionist group, regarded military action against the British as both inevitable and necessary to secure a Jewish state in Palestine and the East Bank of the Jordan. As the situation in Eastern Europe grew ever more desperate for the Jews, and the British sought to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to gain support from the Arabs in the coming war against Germany, Betar joined forces with the Irgun-the National Military Organisation, the Revisionists' military wing. With no prospect of a Jewish state in sight, they argued that armed struggle against the British was the only way forward. The Stern Group In 1939, when war broke out between Britain and Germany, Avraham Stern, one of the leaders of the Irgun, who had studied in Italy and was an admirer of Mussolini, rejected any support for the British against Germany. He argued that the British were the main enemy. There was no difference between the Nazi-fascist states and the Western democracies, between communists and social democrats, between Hitler and Chamberlain, or between Dachau and Buchenwald and closing Palestine off to the Jews. When he failed to persuade the majority of the Irgun to support him, he broke with the Revisionist movement and his faction became known as the Stern Group. While both the mainstream Zionists and the Revisionists supported the British against Germany and joined the British armed forces, the Stern Group opposed conscription of the Jews and went on to carry out armed robberies, murders, and terrorist attacks against both the British and the Arabs. It waged a campaign of terror aimed at driving out the British and establishing a Jewish state on the entire land of biblical Palestine, including Transjordan. With the Jews a minority in Palestine, such a state would necessarily mean expelling the Arab population to ensure its Jewish character. In his support for the enemy of the British, Stern turned a blind eye to the anti-Semitism of the Nazis. The Stern Group's policies and actions were opposed and condemned by the overwhelming majority of Jews in Palestine. In return for help from first the Italians and later the Germans in driving the British out of Palestine, Stern promised that the new Jewish state would become a German client state while Jerusalem, with the exception of the Jewish holy places, would become a province of the Vatican. In other words, the establishment of a Jewish state took precedence over the safety of European Jewry. His group had meetings with the Nazi regime's representatives and tried to recruit 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe to invade Palestine and defeat the British. But the Germans had no more wish to alienate the Arabs and lose the chance of gaining access to the region's oil resources than the British and dismissed the offer. The British shot and killed Stern in February 1942 and imprisoned his immediate coterie, including Yitzhak Shamir, the future prime minister. The Lehi As the war drew to a close, Stern's followers, including Shamir on his release from jail, regrouped as the Lehi with similar aims, including Stern' s "Eighteen Principles of National Renewal" that proclaimed a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates. They adopted the methods of the IRA in its struggles against the British. Shamir even used Michael as his nom de guerre, after Michael Collins. The now embarrassing Nazi-fascist affiliation was dropped in favour of Britain's latest enemy, the Soviet Union, although some advocated an alliance with the Arab national liberation movements that opposed the stooge regimes imposed by British imperialism. Lehi denounced the Labour Zionists and the mainstream Revisionist movement for relying upon negotiations with the British. As far as Lehi was concerned, the British were the Gestapo and the Labour Zionists were akin to Vichy Europe, and Lehi were the resistance. Asked if it was possible to achieve national liberation through terrorism, Lehi's response was, "The answer is no! If the question is, are terrorist activities useful for the progress of revolution and liberation, the answer is yes." Lehi's most notorious action was the assassination of Lord Moyne, the British military commander in Egypt in 1944. According to Shindler, a fellow in Israeli Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and author of The Land Beyond Promise: Israel, Likud and the Zionist Dream, Lehi copied the methods of the IRA. Between September 1942 and July 1946, when Shamir was arrested and exiled to Eritrea, there were seven assassination attempts on the life of the British High Commissioner in Palestine and several more were planned, including Ernest Bevin, the British foreign secretary and members of British intelligence forces. It was Shamir who planned the assassination of Lord Moyne. Lehi also carried out 14 assassination attempts against Jews who worked or were believed to work for British intelligence. It was not averse to killing its own members if the need arose. While Lehi was by far the smallest of the Zionist terrorist groups, the Stern/Lehi group carried out 71 percent of all political assassinations between 1940 and 1948. Nearly half of these were against fellow Jews. Even after the establishment of the Zionist state, Lehi continued its murderous activities. Hazit Ha'Moledet, the Fatherland Front, a Lehi splinter group that later formed the Moledet party, carried out the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, a UN envoy seeking to arrange a peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs. In contrast to the Stern/Lehi group, the Irgun only took up the armed struggle against the British when the defeat of Germany became imminent. At the end of 1942, Menachem Begin returned to Palestine after his release from a Soviet labour camp in Poland. He took over as the military commander of the Irgun and led the armed struggle-the Revolt-to get rid of the British. But the Irgun's activities had nothing in common with a revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism in the region. They were also targeted against the Arabs. One of its pamphlets read, "We must fight the Arabs in order to subjugate them and weaken their demands. We must take them off the arena as a political factor. This struggle against the Arabs will encourage the diaspora and consolidate it. It will draw the attention of the nations of the world, which will be compelled to honour the people which struggles with its arms. And an ally will be found which will support the peoples' army in its struggle." Begin, unlike the Stern group and Lehi, always rejected the label "terrorism", claiming that the Irgun was an army fighting a war against another army. Using the same methods as these two terrorist groups, the Irgun's most well known act against the British was the blowing up of the King David Hotel, the British military headquarters in Jerusalem in July 1946. Lehi's assassination of Lord Moyne in 1944-a close friend of Churchill with whom Weizman and Ben Gurion, the Labour Zionist leaders, had good relations-led them to crack down on both Lehi and the Irgun. "Every organised group must spew them out... refuge and shelter must be stringently denied these wild men... It is our hearts-not the heart of Britain-that the terrorist iron has entered. Our hands then, no others, must pluck it out." [Cited by Colin Shindler in The Land Beyond Promise: Israel, Likud and the Zionist Dream.] The Zionist parties unite It was the election of a Labour government in July 1945 under Clement Attlee, anxious to maintain control over the Middle East's oil resources that was to lead instead to a troubled reconciliation between the Labour Zionists and the terrorist groups. These groups had been for years the bitterest of political rivals. They had not even fought together in the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising. What united them at this time was firstly the reversal by Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin of the Labour party's previous support for the establishment of a Jewish state. He now rejected the notion of two states-one for the Jews and one for the Arabs-and favoured an Arab stooge regime along the lines of those in Transjordan, Egypt and Iraq, where Jews would be guaranteed minority rights. Secondly, and for similar reasons, the Labour government also opposed Jewish immigration to Palestine. Under conditions where neither Britain nor the US were prepared to open their doors to the hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, the Jews would have had to remain in the displaced persons camp and in the countries of their persecution. In November 1945, the Haganah (the Labour Zionists' military wing and by far the largest of the three military groups), the Irgun and Lehi signed an agreement to establish the United Resistance Movement to drive the British out of Palestine. This was to last for less than a year-until the King David Hotel bombing-when Ben Gurion terminated the agreement calling the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people". Despite this, the scale of the terrorist attacks increased tenfold. Faced with increasing hostility and disruption in Palestine and rejection by both Arabs and Jews of a bi-national state, Britain referred the conflict to the United Nations, fully expecting the UN to hand Palestine back to Britain to deal with. But Britain's hopes of resolving the conflict in Palestine on its own terms were to be thwarted. The major powers, including the US and the Soviet Union, actively supported the establishment of a Jewish state for their own purposes: they saw it as a way of blocking Britain's position in the Middle East. This, plus the worldwide sympathy that the catastrophe that had befallen European Jewry evoked, led the UN in November 1947 to vote for the partition of Palestine. In May 1948, the British withdrew from Palestine and the Zionists immediately declared independence and the establishment of Israel. War broke out between Israel and the Palestinians, led by the Arab feudalists, for control of the land. The Revisionist groups used all the training and methods they had developed and used against the British to terrorise and intimidate the Palestinians. The planned terrorist activities, carried out by the Irgun and Lehi, and sanctioned by the Labour Zionists, were to play a major role in driving the Palestinians from their homes. The massacre at Deir Yassin, where more than 200 men, women and children were slaughtered, is only the best-known example. Ben Gurion himself encouraged the Haganah, largely under the control of the Histadrut/Mapai Party and forerunner of the Israeli Defence Forces, to expel the Palestinians from their homes. The expulsion of the Palestinians, who were destined to become refugees in neighbouring countries and dispersed throughout the world, and the takeover of their land were the essential prerequisites for the founding of the state of Israel. From underground terrorist groups to the political mainstream Immediately after the end of the war, Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, transformed the Irgun into a political party, Herut, in opposition to the official Revisionists. Vehemently opposed to any concessions to the Arabs and an agreement with Abdullah that had absorbed the West Bank into his kingdom of Transjordan, now renamed Jordan, Begin glorified the Irgun's underground terrorism and its role in driving out the British. His inflammatory language and style were more than a little reminiscent of the nationalist ethos of Eastern Europe and Pilsudksi's military nationalism in Poland during the 1930s. Committed to the recovery of Palestine, he and the Herut party denounced those who opposed such a perspective as the enemies of the Jewish people. Coming after the sinking of the Altalena, the Irgun arms ship, at the hands of the Labour Zionists and in which several members of the Irgun were killed, it was a virtual declaration of civil war against Ben Gurion. Not a few thought that the Herut might mount a putsch. In the first elections, where nearly all the political parties claimed some affiliation to socialism, Begin's Herut party was the largest non-socialist party, winning 11 percent of the vote and 14 out of the 120-member Knesset. The official Revisionists won no seats at all. Begin assumed the mantle of Revisionism and became the leader of the right-wing opposition to the Labour Zionists. In the early years of the Zionist state, the Herut vote declined and Begin was to spend the next 30 years in the political wilderness, transforming and expanding the Herut party into the Gahal in 1965. He briefly joined the war coalition set up prior to the June 1967 war against the Arabs that took advantage of the situation provoked by the reckless opportunism of Nasser, the Egyptian leader, to significantly expand Israel's borders. The conquest of the West Bank and Gaza breathed new life into the far-right forces, leading to the formation of the Likud party in 1973, which went on to win the largest number of seats in the 1977 elections. The ultra-nationalist right wing political force, which had always been on the fringe, had now become the mainstream, displacing the old political establishment. While the Lehi went on to form the Moledet party, an even more nationalist outfit than Likud, whose noxious policies include ethnic cleansing: the removal of the Palestinians from the territories occupied by Israel. Shamir himself retired from active politics in the 1940s. When Ben Gurion lifted the ban on Lehi members taking up official positions, Isser Harel, the Mossad chief, immediately recruited Shamir and others. It was Shamir who planned the letter-bomb campaign against German scientists working for Nasser's Egypt in the 1960s that brought him into conflict with Shimon Peres, then deputy Minister of Defence. He joined the Herut party as the only party that had not renounced the idea of an Israel that extended "from the Nile to the Euphrates" in 1970. Shamir cultivated the links with the anti-socialist minded Russian Jews that were seeking to leave the Soviet Union and brought them into the Likud party. He became prime minister in 1983 when Begin suddenly resigned-signifying an even further shift to the right in Israeli politics. It is the political heirs of terrorists like Stern, Begin and Shamir that now form Israel's political establishment and the Bush administration's chief ally in the region. They are now able to put into practice the policies that their antecedents could only dream of. Their history also shows why Israeli politics have always been so fractious. The civil war that is never far beneath the surface has long standing basis. While the establishment of the state of Israel was hailed at the time as a new and progressive entity dedicated to building a democratic and egalitarian society for the most cruelly oppressed people of Europe, the history of the origins and development of the Zionist state has shown that that was always a chimera. It is impossible to build a socially progressive society on the basis of a nationalist perspective. The Zionist perspective, be it the Labour Zionists or its ultra-reactionary variant, has played a poisonous role in strengthening imperialism and chauvinism, bolstering the power of the national bourgeoisie on the one hand and dividing the working class and rural poor on the other. It is noteworthy that the publication of the British intelligence files attracted little attention from the press. Apart from reporting the contents, no political commentators sought to draw attention to either the methods used to spawn the Zionist state or the Israeli government's political roots. Within Israel itself, the liberal paper Ha'aretz merely carried a Reuters report under the headline "Document: UK feared influx of Zionist terrorists in post-WWII era", as though Zionist terrorism was some aberration rather than an integral part of their perspective and programme. The article itself focused on the anti-Jewish measures put in place by the British authorities to combat Zionist terrorism. While explaining that the files were written in the aftermath of the bombing of the King David Hotel bombing, the article remained silent on the Irgun and Menachem Begin's role in the bombing-even though it went on to note that Begin received a Nobel Peace Prize for his peace agreement with Egypt. Neither did it mention the plans to assassinate the foreign secretary and leading British political figures. Such professional and political honesty would only have drawn attention to the terrorist origins and role of the Zionist political establishment on whom the political gangsters in the Bush administration use as a pawn to divide and rule the Middle East. Friday, November 01, 2002
Origins of the Halloween Festival
The ancient Celtic (Irish/Scottish/Welsh) festival called Samhain is
By the 19th century, witches' pranks were replaced by children's tricks. The
|
