Who covets the Litani waters?

Yes, who? (via Angry Arab)

The translation of Nasrallah’s latest speech will be posted tomorrow.


14 responses to “Who covets the Litani waters?

  1. The war may be coming to close soon – I know, not soon enough. It is being reported that an agreement has been reached and may be voted on tomorrow at the UN. We will have to keep in touch as the smoke of war lifts and the sifting though the mess and rebuilding of a war-torn nation takes place. I am certain it will its challenges.

  2. I think you should read this article closely. It’s rather scary but true. This is not something that just happened, it’s been planned for a long time by the cabal that is controlling America: the Neocons.


    The neocons’ next war

    By secretly providing NSA intelligence to Israel and undermining the hapless Condi Rice, hardliners in the Bush administration are trying to widen the Middle East conflict to Iran and Syria, not stop it.
    By Sidney Blumenthal

    Aug. 03, 2006 | The National Security Agency is providing signal intelligence to Israel to monitor whether Syria and Iran are supplying new armaments to Hezbollah as it fires hundreds of missiles into northern Israel, according to a national security official with direct knowledge of the operation. President Bush has approved the secret program.

    Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to have been “briefed” and to be “on board,” but she is not a central actor in pushing the covert neoconservative scenario. Her “briefing” appears to be an aspect of an internal struggle to intimidate and marginalize her. Recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry.

    Rice’s diplomacy in the Middle East has erratically veered from initially calling on Israel for “restraint,” to categorically opposing a cease-fire, to proposing terms for a cease-fire guaranteed to conflict with the European proposal, and thus to thwarting diplomacy, prolonging the time available for the Israeli offensive to achieve its stated aim of driving Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon. But the neocon scenario extends far beyond that objective to pushing Israel into a “cleansing war” with Syria and Iran, says the national security official, which somehow will redeem Bush’s beleaguered policy in the entire region.

    In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration — Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney’s chief Middle East aide.

    “A Clean Break” was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide “a new set of ideas” for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading “land for peace,” the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud’s terms, “peace for peace.” Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.” They also advanced a wild scenario to “redefine Iraq.” Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain “control” of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them “wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria.”

    Netanyahu, at first, attempted to follow the “clean break” strategy, but under persistent pressure from the Clinton administration he felt compelled to enter into U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians. In the 1998 Wye River accords, concluded through the personal involvement of President Clinton and a dying King Hussein, the Palestinians agreed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from a portion of the occupied West Bank. Further negotiations, conducted by his successor Ehud Barak, that nearly settled the conflict ended in dramatic failure, but potentially set the stage for new ones.

    At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that “the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians,” Bush snapped, “Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things.” He was making a “clean break” not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father.

    In the current Middle East crisis, once again, the elder Bush’s wise men have stepped forward to offer unsolicited and unheeded advice. (In private they are scathing.) Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Israel and Syria and now the director of the James Baker Institute at Rice University, urged on July 23, on CNN, negotiations with Syria and Iran. “I come from the school of diplomacy that you negotiate conflict resolution and peace with your enemies and adversaries, not with your friends,” he said. “We’ve done it in the past, we can do it again.”

    Charles Freeman, the elder Bush’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, remarked, “The irony now is that the most likely candidate to back Hezbollah in the long term is no longer Iran but the Arab Shiite tyranny of the majority we have installed in Baghdad.” Indeed, when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki came to Washington in the last week of July he preceded his visit with harsh statements against Israel. And in a closed meeting with U.S. senators, when asked to offer criticism of Hezbollah, he steadfastly refused.

    Richard Haass, the Middle East advisor on the elder Bush’s National Security Council and President Bush’s first-term State Department policy planning director, and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, openly scoffed at Bush’s Middle East policy in an interview on July 30 in the Washington Post: “The arrows are all pointing in the wrong direction. The biggest danger in the short run is it just increases frustration and alienation from the United States in the Arab world. Not just the Arab world, but in Europe and around the world. People will get a daily drumbeat of suffering in Lebanon and this will just drive up anti-Americanism to new heights.” When asked about the president’s optimism, he replied, “An opportunity? Lord, spare me. I don’t laugh a lot. That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what’s Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?”

    The same day that Haass’ comments appeared Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush’s national security advisor and still his close friend, published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post written more or less as an open letter to his erstwhile and errant protégé Condoleezza Rice. Undoubtedly, Scowcroft reflects the views of the former President Bush. Adopting the tone of an instructor to a stubborn pupil, Scowcroft detailed a plan for an immediate end to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict and for restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, “the source of the problem.” His program is a last attempt to turn the president back to the ways of his father. If the elder Bush and his team were in power and following the Scowcroft plan, a cease-fire would have been declared. But Scowcroft’s plan resembles that of the Europeans, already rejected by the Bush administration, and Rice is the one offering a counterproposal that has put diplomacy into a stall.

    Despite Rice’s shunning of the advice of the Bush I sages, the neoconservatives have made her a convenient target in their effort to undermine all diplomatic initiatives. “Dump Condi,” read the headline in the right-wing Insight Magazine on July 25. “Conservative national security allies of President Bush are in revolt against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying that she is incompetent and has reversed the administration’s national security and foreign policy agenda,” the article reported. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a member of the Defense Policy Board, was quoted: “We are sending signals today that no matter how much you provoke us, no matter how viciously you describe things in public, no matter how many things you’re doing with missiles and nuclear weapons, the most you’ll get out of us is talk.”

    A month earlier, Perle, in a June 25 Op-Ed in the Washington Post, revived an old trope from the height of the Cold War, accusing those who propose diplomacy of being like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler. “Condoleezza Rice,” wrote Perle, “has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice’s influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of and increasingly represents a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries.”

    Rice, agent of the nefarious State Department, is supposedly the enemy within. “We are in the early stages of World War III,” Gingrich told Insight. “Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don’t have the right attitude.”

    Confused, ineffectual and incapable of filling her office with power, Rice has become the voodoo doll that Powell was in the first term. Even her feeble and counterproductive gestures toward diplomacy leave her open to the harshest attacks from neoconservatives. Scowcroft and the Bush I team are simply ignored. The sustained assault on Rice is a means to an end — restoring the ascendancy of neoconservatism.

    Bush’s rejection of and reluctance to embrace the peace process concluded with the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections. This failure was followed by a refusal to engage Hamas, potentially splitting its new governmental ministers from its more radical leadership in Damascus. Predictably, the most radical elements of Hamas found a way to lash out. And Hezbollah seized the moment by staging its own provocation.

    Having failed in the Middle East, the administration is attempting to salvage its credibility by equating Israel’s predicament with the U.S. quagmire in Iraq. Neoconservatives, for their part, see the latest risk to Israel’s national security as a chance to scuttle U.S. negotiations with Iran, perhaps the last opportunity to realize the fantasies of “A Clean Break.”

    By using NSA intelligence to set an invisible tripwire, the Bush administration is laying the condition for regional conflagration with untold consequences — from Pakistan to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Israel. Secretly devising a scheme that might thrust Israel into a ring of fire cannot be construed as a blunder. It is a deliberate, calculated and methodical plot.

    — By Sidney Blumenthal

  3. I want to link the actual document: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. This is the document read it and see some of the bizarre notions that control the thinking of these peoeple that brought us Iraq..
    Sorry for multiple posts.

  4. Good work Stellaa. I am very grateful for both postings!

  5. Perle, Cheney, Wolfie and the rest are truly the twisted sisters of the 21st century. They’re like Macbeth’s witches, cackling over cauldrons of bubbling trouble. They are the opposite of the Chinese characters, turing ever opportunity into a danger – a horribly costly one.

    There were rumors at the start of this that Israeli overreaction was pushed by Washington and that the Bushies were pissed at Israel for not going after Syria. If true, thank god Olmert was at least too squeamish to go that far – although it a sin he wasn’t strong enough to show restraint from the first.

    Can’t 2008 come fast enough?

  6. I assume 2008 is the US election, not the Euro Cup, which I wish for more than an election at the moment. Personally, I don’t think it will make much difference whether a republican or a democrat wins in 2008. American foreign policy has been bad for the last 60 years… and all regimes have cowtowed to Israeli pressure groups. Moreover, the US is a deeply conservative place. If a dem wins, it will be because of the war in Iraq and I seriously doubt a dem would actually withdraw troops from Iraq once in office. And the ‘war on terror’ will contine to NOT address anything aside from empty rhetoric.

    Now, if the communist party of america could be voted in….

  7. Too facile – and I did mean the US election. The Euro cup will have
    Turkey beating Israel in the final.

    You can call them all the same all you want, but had Al “the wax figure
    that looks like Al Gore” not blown the 2000 election, there would be about 50k Iraqi’s still alive.

    Afghanistan would still have happened, but there is no way the Gore cabinet would have dreamed of “flipping” Iraq. Even Bush Sr.’s crew were against it from day one.

    It is easy to forget that the US, under Clinton, fought for the
    Bosnian Muslim population – even tho there were Al Qada trained troops
    fighting there as well.

    There is a real difference in the parties (and more importantly, people) that get the chance to lead in various parts of the world. And
    Dick Cheney is the eye of the proverbial Newt.


  8. Created by RoxieAmerica:

    Dear President Bush,

    Thank you for your great support. I was an obscure islamic fundamentalist before you stole that high American office and became my angel.
    You have transformed this insignificant soul into a legend. Those who wish to die for my cause has increased one-hundred fold. While you pursued that devil in Iraq whom I have always despised, young men, willing to die for the cause poured into my training camps.
    Under your foreign policy Hamas became a government in Palestine. Iraq is nearly a Shiite state, and will be so in a short time. Iran has gained the power of the atom.
    I do not have the words to express the joy you have brought to my life.

    Osama Bin Laden

  9. Bush is a f*cking idiot if he wants Iran and Syria involved. We don’t have the capability right now to awge wars in the region and Israel certainly can’t hold everyone back.

    Don’t have to wait till 2008 buddy, if the Democrats take Congress this year they can probably reverse some of this nonsense. Way to do Dubya… you ruined the world.

    Roxie: There’s no peace in sight. Olmert has dismissed the UN resolution and is preparing for the push to the Litani river. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

    The attack on the irrigation system is pure BS. I’m sure destroying the banana crop will devastate Hezbollah and force surrender.

  10. Update – Israel has said newest revisions to UN Plan are good. This is my little creation early this morning as peace hangs in the balance.

    War or Peace – That’s the Option

    As the United Nations works to broker a peace agreement, Israel’s leader prepares to expand the war. It is written, “I set before you life and death, blessing and curse, choose life that you and seed may prosper.” In the case of war, this scripture is significant. War brings death, not life. War is curse to economic growth and to the nations involved. Death ends family trees.

    If peace does not come today, then far-right Islamic fundamentalists, and far-right Israli extremists have polarized and chosen death over live, curse over blessing, and the seed of many to perish. This is the reality of war.

    It is important to remember, these waring parties had a choice set before them. If war is chosen then the consequences of war is chosen. Destruction, famine, disease, civilian deaths, economic destruction and enviromental disaster shall follow because these are the curse of war.

    If war is chosen, Nations of world have also chosen war. The United Nations will have failed. The Arab League will have failed. America will have failed. When all of the Nations on earth can not work to help choose peace over war, then world leaders need to reconsider the rules of international diplomacy.

    posted by RoxieAmerica @ 11:22 AM 0 comments

  11. Neutral Party..
    – Even if the US did have the capability, a war with Iran and Syria would be stupid. It would achieve what exactly?

    – Glad you can find waldo in the blur between the republicans and democrats (I mean in terms of politicians, not voters). I don’t share your optimism.

    – What is your basis for dismissing the attack on the irrigation system?

  12. I never said that war with Iran/Syria would serve a purpose. I merely stated that the US doesn’t have the capability to wage that war right now. It’s obvious Bush as well as Israel want to goad Iran into something.

    I remain optimistic that Democrats will take Congress. Hopefully they won’t screw up too.

    I didn’t dismiss the attack on the irrigation system. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant to say that Israel has no strategic necessity to destroy the system.

  13. I meant to say that Israel has no strategic necessity to destroy the system.
    Yes, but the destruction that Israel has caused in Lebanon has nothing to do with strategic necessity. How was the leveling of 2 residential buildings in Chiah a strategic necessity? How was the drone attack on a civilian refugee convoy that received the green light from Israel to leave (and was led by the UN), which killed 7 civilians, a strategic necessity? Or the daily leveling of 5-6 buildings in the suburbs of Beirut, how is that a strategic necessity? And so on…

  14. Certainly with regard to Iraq, there would not have been an assault had Gore, or even McCain been elected in 2000. There might have been additional pressure, further tightening of the no fly zone and even defacto partitioning (which is what we are going to end up with anyway) of the Kurdish north and “marsh Shia” south – if not the entire country.

    The current neo-con cabal would not have held this kind of sway even with other republicans. Powell would not have been marginalized (not that he is a dove, but he is at least a realistic hawk.)

    The biggest tragedy of the 21st century is the rise of idealogues and dogma on all sides.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s